Lamborghini exploring ways to reduce CO2 without sacrificing the sound and the fury
Both Ferrari and Lamborghini's CO2 emissions right now exceed 400 g/km. The EU has set a goal of 120 g/km for a carmakers' fleet average by 2012. Last week, Ferrari said it planned to at least get down to 280-300 g/km by 2012, which, while still more than double the target, represents a 30% decrease. It said it would do that by exploring more efficient engines and different body panels to make cars lighter.
Lamborghini's response to the same issue, from CEO Stephan Winkelmann, came to a similar conclusion but in a slightly different way. Winkelmann said that the DNA of the brand -- "the design of the car, the sound of the engine, the top speed and the sprint from zero to 100 kilometers per hour" -- cannot be sacrificed, else they aren't really making supercars any more, which means they're not really making Lamborghinis. And that can't happen.
Also echoing Ferrari, Winkelmann said that Lamborghini owners really only drive their cars on the weekends, and they only sell a handful of them, so "If we look at the real impact, it is close to zero." From the sounds of it, Lamborghini has no intention of messing with the sounds or sizes of its engines, suggesting only (so far) that it will look at using lighter construction techniques, such as more carbon fiber. Take that, EU.
[Source: Motor Authority]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jmaes 5:11PM (11/25/2007)
I dont think that super cars should compromise the way they build cars. First off only limited amounts get sold. the technology will be here in couple of years, lambo does not need a green image.
Ten Gears http://www.tengears.com
Reply
Taylor 12:59PM (11/26/2007)
There's going to come a time when we simply HAVE to stop placing so much emphasis on the sound of the engine. A 30% reduction is NOT enough--if anything, it is a direct insult to the people and companies who are putting in serious efforts to reduce emissions.
Just because it is a "super car" should not give the company or the owners an excuse to exceed the industry's goals of reducing CO2 emissions.
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 6:05PM (11/25/2007)
To everyone who says these cars are so limited, they should be able to do anything they want.
First of all, if these companies want to hide behind how few cars they have on the road, then these companies should commit to never putting any more cars on the road. That's essentially what they are being offered. No need to retrofit older cars, just don't put any more high-pollution cars on the road. Oh, wait, that isn't what they meant? They want to sell more cars? Well, do like every other company and clean up your act.
It isn't fair to give short-run producers of cars the ability to undercut their competition on R&D costs. If we do, we'll just have more and more short-run producers until they do make up a significant portion of the market.
Lamborghini, just like Ferrari, can make their cars more efficient, which will leave them just as quick but pollute less.
Reply
MasterCKO 7:20PM (11/25/2007)
what competition are you referring to? Lambo and Ferrari and Veyron, etc all compete with each other, all sell a tiny fraction of what, say, GM sells, and their vehicles each get used significantly less. Every little bit helps, that's true, but come on. Their impact on the environment is actually negligible in comparison to the big brands. That's what Lambo is saying and why they're like, we're not going to compromise our brand. As for R&D. Isn't Lambo in the Audi/VW/etc group? You don't think that the tech that is researched throughout that group gets shared with the Lambo brand when appropriate (and vice versa)?
Also, you're assertion that short-run makers will become a significant part of the market is a bit silly. Economies of scale and the makeup of the auto-buying market pretty much dictate that that won't happen anytime soon.
500 10:14PM (11/25/2007)
If we get to the point where the regulatory burden on automobiles is SO high that it's actually cheaper to buy from short-run, boutique automakers, then the terrorists (or the environmentalists, take your pick) have truly won.
FThorn 6:52AM (11/26/2007)
The ECO terrorists?
Guenther 7:03PM (11/25/2007)
Complete nonsense. In Lamborghini's case, fleet average should be measured across VWAG, where the poor fuel Economy really would be a small impact. If it were GM, no one would expect the Cadillac (or GMC for that matter) brand to get the same econ as Saturn.
Reply
paul34 7:22PM (11/25/2007)
Exactly. SUV-defenders often like the point their "plastic fingers" at supercar owners - "but but but... look at them! they are bad, right?! RIGHT?! yea hate the supercars! booo"
However, not only are most of them driven significantly more responsibly than most SUVs, are much more courteous to other drivers on the road (doesn't block your view and take up so much space on the road and in parking lots), but they aren't driven everyday for no reason.
You have Joe Sixpack soccer dad who drives his Expedition to work everyday with only him in it. Then you have Mr. Miller who enjoys a spirited drive in his Dodge Viper or Ferrari F430 on the weekends, or maybe attends special events.
You tell me who has more of an environmental impact.
Reply
testa di cazzo 7:33PM (11/25/2007)
agreed
fm 9:33PM (11/25/2007)
I agree with almost all of what you said but the fact that they take less parking space.
I've only seen one Ferrari spider (don't remember exactly which model it was though... maybe a 360) in a store parking lot and the guy was parked on SIX spots. lol
BUT going "green" could be a performance inhancement. Fact is electric engines are much faster accelerators. These cars are genetically light and aerodynamic. Look at Opel's EcoSpeedster concept. Not that it's zero emissions cause it's a diesel but it reaches 155+mph with a 1.3l diesel and electric motor and something like 110hp. Just sayin it's doable. Plus even with the emissions of diesel I'm sure it's better then the 400g/km.
paul34 10:08PM (11/25/2007)
LOL @ fm! haha, very true my friend. Didn't think about the multi-spot guys =D
That's true about electric motors. The biggest thing is that unlike an internal combustion engine, it has access to its peak torque at basically any time. Unlike an ICE that has to be geared and has powerbands, peak torque at a certain RPM, etc... electric motors can torque ya all you want! =D
However, I doubt the "romance" people have with the sound of a 12 cylinder Lambo engine screaming through the hillside as it goes through the gears won't ever die.
That is, until you die a silent death once you get run over by a totally silent all-electric car =p
bob d 8:26PM (11/25/2007)
Let's do some math. Ferrari makes about 4K cars a year. The average Ferrari is driven 3K miles per year.
The average SUV is driving 15K per year.
If you to the math, then you see that if ALL Ferrari's were at ZERO emissions (or worse yet, force to go out of business), it would be the equivalent of removing 800 SUV's from the road a year. That's what... about one dealership?
I'm all for cleaning the enviroment and reducing the world's dependancy on oil. But, lets invest in something that makes a real difference, not just some window dressing for political reasons.
These cars are art, not transportation vehicles... and art should have no restrictions.
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 1:06AM (11/26/2007)
Given the average privately-owned vehicle does about 12K miles a year, where do you get the idea the average SUV does 15K?
Anyway, this is all absurd. If us average people have to give a little for the environment, the rich should have to also. No one is talking about putting Lamborghini out of business here.
If Chevy can make their car do 26mpg highway and still perform very very well, then Ferrari and Lamborghini can worm their way up to 21.
paul34 10:10PM (11/25/2007)
Just for the record, though, I'm not totally against them reducing emissions whatsoever - in fact, it's just yet another challenge that these engineering powerhouses can tackle.
IF they achieve their goal, then they just made themselves *THAT* much greater and it would be a true statement of their engineering prowess. I suppose we can think of it as a self-imposed (self being these companies) test of sorts!
(well, sort of self-imposed, if we ignore the impending legislation heh).
Reply
HotRodzNKustoms 2:59AM (11/26/2007)
Forget that.
I'll take a 20 liter quad turbo V-18 Hummer and laugh while man made global warming is debunked.
But don't get me wrong I am all for reducing smog, conservation, and such like I was taught as a child but I do not believe in this apocalyptic man made global warming scam. One day we will run out of gas. The economy will temporarily screech to a stop we will finally build some nuclear power stations and have normal cars that run off of hydrogen and petrol heads like us will be driving cars fueled by some form of E-100 or otherwise. And all will be well until the next alarmist decides the world is freezing over.
Reply
Furion 6:31AM (11/26/2007)
A cars emissions are miles * emissions/mile. Why do people only look at the second term 'emissions/mile'? A car that is driven less, pollutes less. Ferraris and Lambos are driven less than most cars, on average. Hence they pollute less.
Example: a Toyota Prius driven 20,000 miles a year pollutes _more_ than a Ferrari driven 2000 miles. How is the Prius better for the environment?
What is so difficult to understand?
And, a rich person might also have a yacht or a big motorboat. Those can suck down 40 gallons per hour, for a travel of 40 miles - equivalent to 1 mpg. Should we ban powerboats, too? Howabout private jets? Why aren't those compared to Priuses like the Ferraris are?
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 11:36AM (11/26/2007)
Every bit helps. Are you saying because we can't fix one thing we shouldn't fix another? Two wrongs aren't better than one wrong.
And yes, yachts and such should improve their emissions and raise their efficiency also, absolutely.
Chad 9:00AM (11/26/2007)
People that buy a Lambo don't give a squat about it's Co2. There's hardly enough of them on the road to add a measurable amount.
Reply