Autoblog

amen to that. unfortunately this stupid baseless legislation will effect the cars we can afford :(

at least there's always used V8 vehicles

↓↑report

sense? the only reason lambo can make these sort of decisions is that they are owned by VW and vw's sales of 50 state legal TDIs and limited sales of lambos will permit Lamborghini to escape emissions legislation.

We've all been over this before as Porsche's prime motivation for purchasing VW. Were Lamborghini alone, they'd have their tail between their legs.

Having listened to a LP640 sing from idle to 4,000 RPM this weekend, I'm glad their not changing, but I'm not going to ignore the fact that vw's ownership of the brand allows them to appear this ballsy.

↓↑report

Unfortunately, the only reason that Lambo is making this decision is because we CAN'T afford their vehicles. If we all could, then they would make too many of them and they would be driven too many miles so the company would have to make the choice to produce more environmentally responsible vehicles.

Oh, how I wish I was born rich...

↓↑report

You DO realize that Ferrari is owned by Fiat, and they are making some ridiculously small cars, like the 500, panda, the upcoming topolino, Punto, and whatnot. True, none of them are sold in the US, so they cannot add it to their CAFE average, but in a few years fiat should return to america. So Ferrari swirching to smaller engines and downsizing (if it actually happens) is a result of their concern about their enviromental image. It seems lamborghini doesn`t care about that.

↓↑report

hopefully the vette will never go to a V6, which means we *should* be able to get a V8 camaro...

whether or not dodge will puss out and get rid of the hemi is what i want to know.

but cudos to you Lamborghini for not compramising your values. your customers will certainly appreciate it.

↓↑report

Don't look at it so competitively - it's not a class warfare thing. The Lamborghini people have a good point; there is no way that Lamborghinis, regardless of emissions, are causing any effect on the environment.

I'm all for changes to protect the environment, but the changes that need to be made are far bigger than requiring rare supercars that see a couple hundred miles a year get more environmentally friendly.
-N

↓↑report

Well this system works for the hypocrites like a certain failed Presidential candidate who buys Carbon credits for his flying and multiple homes, why not just put a carbon credit payment on a Lambo?

After all its all Bs anyway, drive what you want. The people buying these are already paying more in registration, sales, and fuel taxes.

↓↑report

Why would ir end te V8's???????????

Fuel economy is calculated based on ALL cars sold, so GM makes how many thousands of Malibus that come with 4 and 6 c engines? and only very very few V8's.


MEANING, selling V8's will not be a problem because they make up such a tiny margin of the market.


It would be great to see the ration of all engines sold to all V8's sold, i bet it is 40 to 1 if not more.

↓↑report

If GM could make a compact car that didn't completely suck, and was able to sell it in competitive numbers, this wouldn't be an issue. But they haven't and, if the Aveo's "facelift" is any indication, they won't anytime soon.

The F in CAFE is "Fleet", meaning that the economy of the whole fleet determines this. If GM's fleet wasn't so skewed against fuel-efficient vehicles, this wouldn't be an issue. But it is, and they don't have anything in the pipe (and by "anything" I mean fuel-efficient cars that can sell in Corolla-like numbers, not low-volume specials like the Volt) to remedy that fact. Toyota, by comparison, sells enough Yarises, Priuses and Corollas to more than make up for the Land Cruiser, Sequoia, Tundra and--to your point--performance toys like the IS-F, LF-A and any future Supra.

Lamborghini has a different problem: they don't sell anything with less than ten cylinders and better than ~15mpg. Of course, Lamborghinis are already expensive, so a heavy CAFE fine won't really affect them (or Ferrari, or to a lesser degree, Porsche) as it does a mainstream make. Considering the number of Murcielagos and Gallardos sold versus Yukabubansladehoes that GM moves, the environmental impact of this regulation works out. In that sense, CAFE is doing a good job: discouraging high-mpg cars from being sold in large numbers.

Yes, this keeps V8s out of the hands of the common man. There's a lot of things that people can't realistically afford any longer (like, say, houses) and CAFE is designed to reduce our fuel usage as a whole, over time, so that a gas crisis when (not if, _when_) we have one doesn't completely crush the economy. Some guy in a LP-560 won't care, but you and I would probably rather not have to deal with fuel shortages and skyrocketing prices. The newer CAFE standards (ie, the ones without the light truck boondoggle) are designed to put us in that position.

↓↑report

@psar

Its not a question of affordability. The 5.3L V8 small block truck engine is MUCH cheaper to build than the 3.6L cammer V6. Its a question on artificial restriction of choice, something I will never agree with. It'd be a shame to have to buy a new truck and immediately rip whatever worthless DOHC 6-banger lump GM decided to put in it and install a crate engine to give it the engine it deserves to have.

The reasons GM's fleet is so "skewed" is that unlike Toyota, they can actually sell trucks. GM does sell small cars. Cobalt doesn't sell as high as Corolla, but its a lot closer than you think. HHR bests the Matrix in sales. I'm sure if you added Cobalt platform sales against Corolla platform sales the Cobalt platform would win.

The idea that forcing the V8 out will help economy is ridiculous too. The Pontiac G8 is a great example. A 260hp DOHC lump gets 17/25, where as the L76 V8 gets 15/24. I'm sure if you put the 5.3L V8 in the G8 it would return at least 16/26, while still being more powerful and reliable than the 3.6L.

I'm one of those Suburban owners and there's simply nothing that can compare to or replace it (unless GM decides to bring the B-body wagon back) and it would infuriate my if my choice was artificially removed.

To your housing analogy it's like saying that everybody has to live in 2 bedroom homes, any more than that is reserved for wealthy folks only despite the fact that the rest of us can afford more than 2 bedrooms as well. Its an artificial restriction.

↓↑report

"GM makes how many thousands of Malibus that come with 4 and 6 c engines? and only very very few V8's." That's not the impression i had, but seriously, how many V8s do you think GM sells a year, including all the trucks and large SUVs accross its brands? Cause I think its A LOT. And GM saying they are killing the V8 because of CAFE is a dumb move to get people on their side against the legislation (which seems to be working out nicely), they know very well that cylinder count has nothing to do with it. If they can make a V16 engine getting 35 mpg, would it still be cafe's fault if they cancel it? If their V8s get the same economy as a V6, then it is their own choice to reuce the number of larger engines to look greener. Blame them for the limitations of your choice.

↓↑report

My Boss drives his Lambo to work every day....but only abut 4k....

↓↑report

i hate those systems. i feel like you are losing the balance of the crankcase when you turn them on.

↓↑report

I dare anyone to even SENSE the cylinder deactivation in the Chryslers.

↓↑report