• Aug 2, 2009

2008 Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG – Click above for high-res gallery

It looks as if some manufacturers could be getting at least a partial "Get Out Of Jail Free" card for the new national greenhouse gas regulations announced by the Obama administration back in May. The EPA and NHTSA won't issue final rules until later in the fall, but it seems as though automakers that sell fewer than 400,000 cars a year could get a break. Apparently, up to one-quarter of a qualifying automaker's fleet would receive a four-year exemption, which would allow companies such as BMW, Audi and Mercedes-Benz to sell high-powered M, RS and AMG models without those sales affecting their fleet CO2 emissions numbers.

If passed, this set of proposed rules would give the automakers less of a respite than the California regs that would have exempted their entire fleets for seven years. Nonetheless, these foreign automakers would still have an advantage over a company like General Motors, which competes directly against them with some cars such as the of the Corvette ZR1 and Cadillac CTS-V.



Photos Copyright ©2008 Sam Abuelsamid / Weblogs, Inc.

[Source: The Wall Street Journal]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 49 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      Nobody wants to hear your fuc|
      • 5 Years Ago
      Brian - keep it up, you could be the next Glenn Beck.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Glenn Beck...

        Isn't that the smart Fella on Fox News that wants our government to protect the country, abide by the Constitution, and not spend every last dollar we have chasing insane energy policies?

        Sounding like Glenn Beck is a compliment.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Why is it that when you liberals argue, all you ever do is mock Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, or just reference Bush in conjunction with whatever you've been fed by MSNBC? Do you guys have your own opinions or have you lost any capacity to reason?

        The government control is a logical conclusion to which rational folk have come without the aid of Beck, Rush, or any other radio host, thank you very much.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Glen Beck is a damn fraud. He's a talking head no different to the ones that oppose his viewpoints. He's paid to say what he says. The idiot was crying on television when the TEA parties happened and the damn fool had no part in it, he was just riding on others ideals. Funny how the Republicans were no different than the current crop of Democrats just five years ago and now they are preaching the very same things that those who have believed what they now claim to have been doing so for the past thirty years. They've lost their political power and are trying whatever they can to gain it back. Glen Beck is just the mouthpiece the common man can see, no different than Rush, or Coulter or Hannity. All paid talking heads. True conservatives have been shouting as loud as they could about the very things they are claiming to believe in for years.

        These standards have applied for years for different models. Trucks were exempted, and anything that car makers could pass off as a 'light truck' were exempted as well. I am a free market supporter and I think if you sell a relatively small number of cars, no matter what the manufacturer, you can get an exemption. I don't see the problem with doing that if another car maker can exempt trucks and SUVs. They sell far more trucks than just 400k. I do wish that the diesel regs would be relaxed more though. Some diesels can get better than 50 MPG if you drive them right. Hell, that's way more fuel efficient than that POS Prius without the dangers of a big honking battery that will eventually end up in landfill or get into an accident and leak crap everywhere. I know that hasn't been a big problem, but digging all that material up and shipping it around the world to be manufactured vastly outweighs the benefits. Diesels are the future, I just wish this country would get on board.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Now we know that carguy is a closet GB listener. :D

        How else would you know how to accurately identify a similar viewpoint.

        Most avid Glenn Beck conservative listeners have said what Beck says before Beck says it himself.

        I, and others like Brian and Matt, have called out bad policy, and then I've heard Glenn say the same things I've already said.

        There is one reason for that....

        It is the apparent truth, and anyone with their eyes open, and their brain in gear can see it, without the need for a media personality. The media personality just reminds us that not everyone else out there is reduced to pathetically insult us, like Hector000's post just below...
        • 5 Years Ago
        And for the record, I'm not Republican either, so save that for someone else.
        • 5 Years Ago
        "Isn't that the smart Fella on Fox News that wants our government to protect the country, abide by the Constitution, and not spend every last dollar we have chasing insane energy policies?"

        No. He's the guy who just said a couple days ago that said if you go to the Cash4Clunkers site the government will take ownership of your computer. He is a con-artist who has been repeatedly exposed for spreading sensational (and easily disproven) lies that only gullible fools would take seriously. He's also dangerous since their have been more than a couple shootings this year in which his viewers shot and killed police thinking Obama had sent them to take their guns away (I'm serious). You might as well get your news from the cartoon section of the newspaper.

        http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/02/beck-cash-for-clunkers-website-will-take-over-of-your-computer/
        • 5 Years Ago
        Got any facts or sources to back that up polo? I see you haven't even attempted to dispute the facts I presented in the cash for clunkers story. Maybe it's you who's hateful. You seem to call conservatives all kinds of nasty names, I do notice liberals are called names on here too, but that doesn't make it right. The truth is that Democrats have tried for many many years to restrict gun ownership to a level that would make obtaining and owning a gun damn near impossible. Look at D.C. Restriction on owning guns did nothing there but increase violence at the point of a gun tremendously. While in Kennesaw Georgia, where there is a REQUIREMENT for the head of household to own some sort of firearm, there gas been a massive downturn in crimes committed using a gun. Care to explain that? And may I ask you a question polo? If government officials and their families are protected with guns, and fully automatic ones at that, then why can I not protect mine with a fully automatic weapon? Is their family more important than mine? Is their life more important than mine? How can they make it law that I'm not allowed to protect my home with an automatic rifle, while they sleep at night under that very protection? Talk about class warfare! Somehow they think that their lives are important and worth protecting, while mine and that of my family is not worth protecting, and should I choose to do so it should be severely restricted or against the law. Now, I have no need for an automatic weapon, but the choice should not be taken away from me. Why, Obama's own Rahm Emanuel states that anyone 'on the list as maybe a possible terrorist' pertaining to flying on airplanes should immediately and without fair trial not be allowed to own a gun. What if it's a simple mistake that they were put on that list? It's happened before. What he's proposing it that it's okay to violate their 2nd and 6th amendment rights at will. Don't you think that someone accused of possible 'terrorist' plans should be given a fair trial? What other rights of yours will they violate? Weren't the majority of both the Republicans and Democrats in favor of that horrible legislation call the Patriot Act? Which violates so many Constitutional rights it's criminal? But they both deem it quite alright to violate your rights at the drop if a hat.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJBZZKlvrP4
      • 5 Years Ago
      So much for keeping a fair playground
        • 5 Years Ago
        "I think that went out the window when we started giving our carmakers buckets full of tax dollars. Nothing's fair. "

        Except if we didn't allow this type of stuff, they wouldn't have needed a bailout.
        • 5 Years Ago
        jpm100 6:34AM (8/03/2009)

        "I think that went out the window when we started giving our carmakers buckets full of tax dollars. Nothing's fair. "

        Except if we didn't allow this type of stuff, they wouldn't have needed a bailout.


        Absolutely jpm, the only reason this is being done is so the utra rich can have their land yachts, when it comes to the wealthy nothing is off the table. This should chap the ass of every man and woman in this country that has lost a job to imports, or is being forced to pay more for all the environmental add-ons(which I agree we need). When it comes to kissing the asses of the rich our congressmen and women are damn pros. It is time for all the sorry bandits without masks to be rode out of town on a rail, there is zero respect for the real engine of this country, it's workers.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Some people may think this is big news because they've begun paying attention to such things, but it's really not. The playing field has never been level regarding these kinds of regs. Low-volume automakers have been granted exemptions from various requirements, cars and trucks that run on E85 get a bonus in their CAFE calculations, Hummers and Excursions were exempt from CAFE outright, and--one of my favorites--the PT Cruiser was allowed to be classified as a "light truck" to boost truck CAFE numbers, because it had a flat load floor.

        Regarding the original post...

        "...these foreign automakers would still have an advantage over a company like General Motors, which competes directly against them with some cars such as the of the Corvette ZR1 and Cadillac CTS-V."

        But... the government *owns* 60% of General Motors. Why would they be plotting to hasten its failure? In any case, the ZR1 and CTS-V are miniscule sellers themselves, and contribute minimally to the company's CAFE numbers.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I think that went out the window when we started giving our carmakers buckets full of tax dollars. Nothing's fair.

        That said, this is odd. It's not like VAG or BMW or Merc sell heaps of these cars. well maybe the M series of cars. Actually... yeah. Let's equalize those standards and see how BMW copes. :)
      • 5 Years Ago
      "..which would allow companies such as BMW, Audi and Mercedes-Benz to sell high-powered M, RS and AMG models without those sales affecting their fleet CO2 emissions numbers."

      I thought this would be good news for the Autoblog crowd.
        • 5 Years Ago
        we bitch about everything obama hear sorry
        • 5 Years Ago
        Most enthusiasts will be stuck getting CO2 strangled crap...

        The oligarchs will get their exemptions for their luxury cars, since they are the ones making the rules, not abiding by them.

        Why should anyone be happy about such deception and blatant double-standards?
      • 5 Years Ago
      /thread
      • 5 Years Ago
      Dumb move. 400k/year is a lot of cars per company. Maybe each manufacturer gets 50k, that's it. Even then, all companies are currently working to meet the goals, so just let the standards stand and let the chips fall where they may. No company should get special treatment. A loophole like this just hurts other companies besides GM, Ford and Toyota - it also hurts Tesla. Dumb Dumb Dumb.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I suppose you could say that this hurts Telsa because it helps its competitors. But, in reality, Telsa doesn't have any competitors. I mean does anyone really think the Telsa Roadster makes environmental and economic sense compared to the Lotus Elise from which it is derived?

        BTW, this blatant double standard simply proves that almost all politicians are the same, including President Obama. Republican, Democrat, or independent, they are all for change as long as it's everyone else that has to pay for it. Actually, that seems to apply to the vast majority of Americans in general.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Brian you the biggest troll in the history of autoblog.

      shouldn't you be mumbling on a street corner?
      • 5 Years Ago
      Once again Brian, you nailed it.

      I think all automobiles should be exempt from the CO rules.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Screw it all. My next car purchase is going to be a Fox body Mustang.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Make it a 5.0L with NOS, take it to the drag strip, then send pictures and your time slip (which should be in the high 10s) to Al Gore. I'd pay you to do that.
      • 5 Years Ago
      More proof that the Chicago mafioso crowd that is running this country doesn't want to be subject to the same rules they are ramming down the throats of this country on the way to turning it into a 3rd rate economy. Thanks POSident Obolshevik.
      • 5 Years Ago
      I agree that performance cars should be exempted (or have more lenient rules) after all if they sell less cars that make more CO2 doesn't it balance out?

      Though I'd still rather see the luxury car makers attempt to make cars with better MPG... if they can, why not?
      • 5 Years Ago
      Imagine that. The rich who come up with these dumb rules to take away our money, freedoms, and civil liberities left a loophole in so they can continue to drive there stupid luxury cars.

      Wow! Whodathuckit!

      At least now we know who the stupid people are - they voted for Obama. Let's start rounding them up!

      There is no global warming, C02 doesn't need to be regulated and your all stupid.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I'm not sure I follow some of the comments in this thread...

        CAFE rules already have different standards for cars and trucks...
        So why should Ferrari's lineup be held to the same fuel economy standards as Kia's? To me this IS about leveling the playing field, not about rich people keeping their Benzes. Give me a break.

        Furthermore, I don't consider myself Republican or Democrat, but I've lived in many different countries, and nowhere else in the world has the existence of a scientifically proven phenomenon become so politicized. Read a science book, please.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Yes, everyone please read a science book. I'd like to recommend "State of Fear," by Michael Crichton. There is no "smoking gun" pointing to a global warming phenomenon, much less any definitive indication that said warming, if it were to materialize, is inextricably linked to human activities.

        The illusion of man-made global warming has been fabricated to incite fear and empower governments. If that were not the case, the governments of the world would be working on effective solutions to the problem, and not just drumming up press time. Cars are targeted because of their ubiquity—it is an easy way for governments to drive home the “threat” of global warming on a personal level. However, just the 15 largest ships produce as much CO2 pollution as the entire world’s car fleet. Wouldn’t further investment into/regulation of the commercial shipping industry be a better way to reduce emissions?

        I know…when I read that, it seems a pretty far out there. But the truth is, there is nothing black and white about the relationship between automobiles and the highly dynamic, rolling decade average global temperature. So yeah, read several science books, and then think. It’s better than just blindly following the pseudoscience du jour.
    • Load More Comments