Endangered Species: Europe's sportscar makers worried about the future
With the European Union tightening restrictions on carbon emissions, danger has been spelled out in big bright letters for the sportscar-makers we know and love. The bulk of the world's best supercar manufacturers – including Ferrari, Lamborghini, Lotus, Aston Martin and Porsche – reside in Europe, but while industry executives continue to campaign for exception and protection, things don't look good. There are, however, a few solutions that could keep the exotic automakers in business and unmolested.
Firstly, both automakers and lawmakers agree on the need to reduce weight, which helps neither emissions nor performance. However, weight reduction itself won't bring the supercars below the 120g/km target touted by the EU. One possible solution would be to give niche automakers an exemption, noting that the few cars they produce are rarely driven anyway. According to Lamborghini CEO Stephan Winkelmann, exotic automakers like his "are representing Europe to the world" and "are a species to protect", much like an art form. That's something we car lovers can appreciate, and if it strikes a cord with the lawmakers it could help some of the smaller independent automakers like Aston Martin and Lotus, but it won't help the likes of Ferrari and Lamborghini, which are part of bigger auto groups Fiat and Volkswagen, respectively. Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne has argued that it would be unreasonable to force low-polluting little Fiats like the Panda and the 500 to bear the burden of their more polluting cousins from Ferrari and Maserati simply because they happen to be under common management.
At the end of the day, these exotic sportscars are not the big problem, though they do make easy targets. If European Union bureaucrats ignore the former and focus on the latter, Europe's most famous automakers could be legislated right out of business.
[Source: Reuters]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
JAG 7:47PM (8/05/2008)
Ah, remember the late 80's when everybody was coming out with supercars and then the stock market went bust? Well same story, same ending. Lets hope 2020 will be the next boom decade.
Reply
Vintage 9:23AM (8/06/2008)
I remember that fuel costs were high in the 70s and 80s, and automakers complained about catalytic convertors and other crap to make cars run cleaner. This is the same thing. They'll get over it, and make 'clean' sports cars.
Yar 7:54PM (8/05/2008)
Automakers should have the option to choose to exempt one vehicle model in their lineup from heavy emissions standards for every vehicle model in their lineup that gets zero emissions. Win-Win, eh?
Reply
eb110americana 9:17PM (8/05/2008)
I was thinking the same thing. If they invest heavily in things like electric powertrains, batteries, clean alternative fuels like hydrogen, etc. then they should get a pass on the other half of the cars they sell. Eventually the new technology will be "the thing to have," and they won't need those "dirty old internal combustion engines" anymore.
After all, why should the rich get a pass on preserving the environment just because there aren't as many of them. They can afford to do so more than anyone else, so why should the masses have to carry the burden driving an econo-box on minimum wage?
Yar 9:27PM (8/05/2008)
"They can afford to do so more than anyone else"
Uh oh, the old "They can afford it" argument.
My attempt to reach out for the middle ground has spawned a hippie monster. Screw my previous statement, I want a carburated Enzo successor by the end of the decade. 12 Single Barrels? Oh heck yes...
hydrogenvodka 1:28AM (8/06/2008)
Rather than a matter of models, as an economist, I think it should be a matter of units sold. Say, you sell a hydrogen powered model (no emissions), and Suburbans (a chunky low-tech V8 one, say 400 g/km). It would be still stupid if you sold 1 or 2 hydrogen cars (maybe at 1 million dollars apiece), versus 1'000,000 suburbans, right?
They should make a trade-off with low emission cars based on sales. Say, if their target is 120 g/km, they should allow to sell ONE 500 g/km car for each set of 500 cars giving 119 g/km (a unit under the desired average). THAT, or some scheme with a similar principle, I think makes much more sense.
Brad 10:12AM (8/06/2008)
That could work for Mercedes and BMW because their lineups are fairly diversified as it is.
But it wouldn't work for Lamborghini, Ferrari, etc. because who, of those that can afford those types of vehicles, is going to want to buy a electric Ferrari or a hybrid Lamborghini?
D-GOD 7:56PM (8/05/2008)
Take a hint from Tesla, or Fischer, otherwise, stop being a victim, and utilize modern engineering techniques, and stop suing the consumers.
Reply
Mark 1:54AM (8/06/2008)
I respect the electric car, I really do, but don't be ignorant. These exotic cars are "exotic" for a reason. Low production numbers, high cost, and like the article says few are even driven. And if you think that propelling a car to these amazing speeds, while keeping it controlled isn't modern engineering techniques, please brush up. Serious production of both ICE's and E-motors started in the span of about 50 years.
Geeky1 9:39PM (8/05/2008)
To add my own $0.02 to what Mark said, not everybody WANTS an electric car.
I, for one, expect my car to sound like a car. Not a vacuum cleaner.
D-GOD 11:49PM (8/05/2008)
Fischer isn't purely electric, however, these "exotic" car companies progressed the technology, they could have 5 minute charges, and electric drive is already faster than combustion engines, who wouldn't want clean, fast cars that gramps didn't get to drive?
Noz 1:08AM (8/06/2008)
GEEKY...
It's not what you want...it's what's required. Change is required. Let's not piss away the world and the environment because YOU want your car to sound like a car....boohoo.
Noz 1:11AM (8/06/2008)
"Fischer isn't purely electric, however, these "exotic" car companies progressed the technology, they could have 5 minute charges, and electric drive is already faster than combustion engines, who wouldn't want clean, fast cars that gramps didn't get to drive?"
D-GOD...right on. I don't understand this mentality of people not embracing the positive changes coming forth. I'd love to have a fast car that is quiet, light, and clean. I think one has to really be retarded not to want something like that.
Geeky1 2:19AM (8/06/2008)
Noz: You can not piss away the environment all you like. Enjoy your wheeled blender.
Personally, I'm hoping to see hydrogen powered internal combustion engines, but we don't have the infrastructure to support that (or hydrogen fuel cells, for that matter). And in the meantime, I'll continue to piss away the environment in cars that I enjoy driving.
D-GOD 3:02AM (8/06/2008)
Geeky - see: Tool
Internal Combustion = Low performance.
Do you think Aliens use internal combustions to come and visit?
haha, kind of a joke, but the reality is its archaic technology, and we haven't really progressed since the 80's, in this fast moving technological age, that is not acceptable. All because of corporate socialism.
So yeah, embrace new technology, the battery should have been perfected 50 years ago.
We be moving on.
We lost so much technology because of fascism, you would think consumers wouldn't settle for anything less than progress.
So bring it on EU regulations, and drive technology forward if consumers wont.
Noz 2:32AM (8/07/2008)
GEEKY:
Well..while your at it...shove a pipe from your exhaust back into your cars interior and enjoy. Otherwise, let me bust out the violin for you poor thing.
davido 8:04PM (8/05/2008)
They aren't likely to go out of business but they may have to reinvent themselves with lighter weight cars that are also less powerful. And while I know that's anathema to Autoblog readers it worth pointing out that back in the day these automakers made highly desirable cars that had far less power then they do now.
The first Porsche 911's came with a 130bhp flat six in 1963. The Jaguar E-Type topped 150mph with 260 bhp the same year. At the top of the sports car food chain, the Ferrari GTO designed for class wins (and capable of competing for overall wins) at LeMans had a 300bhp V-12. Find a good one on the market today and be prepared to spend 10 Veyron's worth of cash for it even though it has less than a third of the Veyron's power.
There is no reason that Ferrari, Porsche, Aston et al can't create cars with smaller, less fuel hungry, forced induction engines with great power to weight ratios and great, but perhaps less than race-car acceleration.They may not be able to do that and reach 200mph but frankly, so what?
After all Chevy already gets 430bhp and 26mph highway from the base Vette. Certainly Porsche, Ferrari etc, selling at much higher price points that allow the use of exotic materials should be able to cover that.
Reply
Michael 8:11PM (8/05/2008)
I agree. I would say more, but I don't have to.
Big Rocket 8:14PM (8/05/2008)
Rather than give these highly expensive sports cars and their wealthy clientele a free pass, I would prefer to see a scenario in which car companies can buy and sell emissions credits, fuel mileage credits, etc.
Reply
bob d 8:17PM (8/05/2008)
You said it right when you said they are not the big problem but make easy targets. It's purely political with zero impact on anything.
If you're going to make a difference, then make a difference.
Reply