WSJ and the future of Ferrari et. al.

I believe every Ferrari sold already has these CAFE fines as well as a hefty gas guzzler tax rolled into the MSRP. Ultimately, gas is going to continue to increase in price, and you're going to have to pay and pay and pay to drive a performance car.

Still, might be time to stick some Fiat Pandas and 500s in the showroom next to the 612 Scaglietti.

 

Every Ferrari made has been subject to the gas guzzler tax since the late 1980's, maybe even well before that. It's been around since the late 1970's.

 

Hmm. Interesting idea. They're owned by a company that sells econo boxes--why not bring the manufacturer a little closer under the wing and make it a "part" of the company? Don't think it'd do too much to hurt the brand. A Ferrari is a Ferrari is a Ferrari.

 

This is a good article about different strategies for meeting CAFE standards:

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2007/03/cafe_standards.html

Overall, CAFE standards are a dumb idea, IMO. A higher gas tax is a much better idea, simpler, and would accomplish the same economic goals (but not the political goals-- CAFE allows politicians to avoid voting for a "tax increase" while still "doing something" about energy).

 

I mostly agree with you. NYT columnist Thomas Friedman has also written on this.

The proof is in the data: right now, small cars are racking up their best sales in years, and SUVs are in the toilet -- i.e., the real goal is being achieved.

The inherent problem with CAFE is that the real goal is the overall fuel economy of all vehicles on the road. Who cares whether Porsche gets worse fuel economy than Honda? The Porsche owner is paying thousands of dollars extra in fuel costs, and Porsche will have to sell cars in a world where gas is increasingly expensive. Result: fewer Porsches sold to casual shoppers, but Porsches remain available to the hardcore sports car guys who ante up at the pump.

CAFE isn't a bad idea -- racing cars are also on a constant quest for better fuel economy/efficiency, so it's not at cross purposes with Ferrari et al. And, no one will raise the gas tax, so we need something.

But raising the tax on gas is the right answer.

 

This is just another BS proposal that targets the middle class. It isn't only about hi-performance cars. Virtually no car on the road today would pass such standards. Not really.

This is a move to appease the Global Warming zealots who want everyone to drive electric cars as forced upon the public by the government without any such line of cars available for actual purchase.... and for petroleum companies to justify raising prices even higher (if you get better mileage, best to raise the gallon of gas higher to keep it in check ...those with efficient cars won't hurt as much... those who choose to keep their gas guzzling Ferrari ---well, F@ck them, they are rich anyway and will happily pay). So both camps can get what they want.

 

There is NO WAY Porsche only averages 1 mile per gallon. F1 cars can better than that.

Why was Subaru named in the same breath as Porsche, Lotus, Ferrari? Because this guy owns a Subaru.

QUOTE:
"That means a lot fewer cars like my WRX."

This guy is pounding his fist into a cup and we have to read about it?

Are the rest of his numbers accurate? I doubt it.

 

I wonder which uses more fuel and pollutes more in real terms. A Ferrari driven 2,000 miles per year or a huge pickup driven 20,000 miles per year getting barely 15 mpg at 75mph everyday.

Less is more in any case. The water company is raising rates owing to conservation, The electric company said it would be raising rates owing to reduced demand. Jurisdictions are raising tax rates because of the increases. Use less fuel and the price at the pump will rise even further. Why? They are monoplies and will make their profit regardless of demand. Supply and demand works only where there is competition in the marketplace. Utilities, fuel, government have no competition. You either pay more or do without.

 

Why does that really scare me?

 

I don't give a crap about global warming, could be true, might not be, cutting our gas consumption will have little effect regardless. However I am in favor of cutting our energy dependence when we can for national and global security reason. If this helps that out, I have no problem with you guys who can afford your Ferraris new to pay a little bit more. I don't think it will effect the very secondary market where I reside.

 

With each Scag you also have to buy 3 Fiat econoboxes at $10k each (which they buy from Tata for $3k) so that the sale of the Ferrari remains "CAFE neutral". The dealership will even arrange to store these three cars for you on Fiat's lot in outer Montana. All you do is pay for tags and minimal insurance each year on the cars. When it comes time to have your Ferrari's major service, you trade one of the no miles, "new" pre-owned cars back to the dealership which they then resell on Ebay for $3k.

 

I was under the impression the regulation was 35mpg by 2020, not 2015. Has there been an update?

And I agree, not sure why they mentioned the WRX, and I even own one. It won't be nearly as hard to make 4-bangers reach that target.

 

It says 1 MPG under the national standard of 27.5.

 

And they're fined for 1/ mpg? Why not tweek the car to fit the bill?

 

That would mean paring the car's weight to the bone, something modern drivers can't tolerate.

How would you, as a performance-oriented driver in a brand new Porsche, feel without a vibrating armrest, contrast-stitched spare tire cover, sueded tow hook, glove box fridge or moon-phase gauge on the dash?

 

+1 on Tom Freidman. His biggest gripe is not the price of gas/oil but where the money we spend on it goes and what it finances.
The biggest change in the proposed legislation is that there will be "no loop holes" I don't think anyone knows, at this point, what that means but it could mean no exceptions via "Gas Guzzler" taxes.

 

See what happens when you elect liberals to run congress! Just think what will happen if one gets in the White House as well. It took over 20 years to repeal the 55 mph speed limit these self rightous nuts imposed on the country.

Remember a Liberal with a cause is more dangerous than a Bible Thumper with bad hair.

 

doesn't sound like the manufacturer fines the article is talking about is the gas guzzler tax (which is paid by the consumer, not the manufacturer).

 

Not sure the old blanket "liberal" label really explains much here. I think the 55 mph speed limit was a farce behind only prohibition or 'abstinence' sex education for teens. I also believe that anyone willing to pay up should have the right to drive whatever he/she wants.

I definitely agree with Friedman that a gas tax is appropriate, even though I'd be paying it, as long as the money goes to fund something useful like solar energy, maybe in conjunction with some kind of recharging network to gradually replace gas stations. We taxed cigarettes into oblivion, which has been a huge benefit. Even as a sports car fanatic, I can see that 11 mpg cars/trucks and traffic jams are bad.

I also think it's disgusting that Detroit is still fighting mileage standards in California, begging for protectionism, when it's clear their market in China will dry up if they are successful in defeating innovation. As a businessman, I suppose you can compete or you can whine. I'd like to see GM/Ford/Chrysler do more of the former.

So, am I a "liberal"?