Luxury automakers could get partial exemption from CO2 rules
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.
Gallery: Review: 2008 Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG
Photos Copyright ©2008 Sam Abuelsamid / Weblogs, Inc.
[Source: The Wall Street Journal]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Illankid 5:19PM (8/02/2009)
So much for keeping a fair playground
Reply
zamafir 5:35PM (8/02/2009)
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. :)
PJ 7:45PM (8/02/2009)
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.
Quantumphysics 2:06AM (8/03/2009)
As far as fairness goes, I doubt many people are thinking about buying a $100,000+ German uberyacht right now, and even if they were, Ford/Gm and Chrysler have absolutely nothing to compete with.
There ain't a damn car America makes that holds a candle to a S550 or a 750li.
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.
MoonRover 8:18AM (8/03/2009)
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.
waiownsyou 5:26PM (8/02/2009)
Bawwww. I was waiting for a super light M3 with a turbo'd 4-cylinder or even go back to the good ole I6 days of the E46 as the next gen. :/
Reply
phewop118 5:28PM (8/02/2009)
Why not just allow each automaker to have a certain percentage of sales for high-performance vehicles that do not need to meet CO2 regulation standards? Perhaps the gas-guzzler tax can cover the "carbon offset" crap that they make up.
Reply
Chet 10:11PM (8/02/2009)
Amen. To allow some manufacturers but not others to sell exclusive performance automobiles is maddeningly unfair. The American and Japanese manufacturers should raise a massive stink -- file suit against the government if necessary.
Tax fuel consumption / CO2 production, don't forbid some manufacturers but not others from building larger vehicles with more powerful engines.
polo 12:13AM (8/03/2009)
So you want a regressive tax on all drivers to offset exceptions for luxury car buyers?? When you rethuglicans go to war on the middle and lower class you really take no prisoners!
carguy 5:43PM (8/02/2009)
Brian - keep it up, you could be the next Glenn Beck.
Reply
Protzenegger 5:50PM (8/02/2009)
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.
Protzenegger 5:51PM (8/02/2009)
And for the record, I'm not Republican either, so save that for someone else.
Matt 5:54PM (8/02/2009)
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.
BoxerFanatic 7:41PM (8/02/2009)
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...
Ray 8:06PM (8/02/2009)
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.
polo 1:06AM (8/03/2009)
"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/
Ray 2:41AM (8/03/2009)
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
Protzenegger 5:43PM (8/02/2009)
/thread
Reply
hector000 5:47PM (8/02/2009)
Brian you the biggest troll in the history of autoblog.
shouldn't you be mumbling on a street corner?
Reply