Global warming vs. Ferrari

Global Warming? What's this "Global Warming" thing you speak off?

 

Not in my lifetime, so I dont care.

 

Keep the looks but make the cars 25% lighter (feasible) and use a Honda S2000 level 2.0L 240bhp engine...plenty quick enough. Don't forget the F1 engines are only 2.4L now and I bet they kick out 700BHP+. Major de-tune and could be a reliable (but expensive) 400BHP.

I heard from somewhere that the "next Enzo" will be more powerful/better than previous etc but the replacement for that will have its power and CO2 EU capped so the "Ultimate" tag will then switch to weight and handling...

But all of this is 10-15yrs down the road, and by then we will all be driving RF tagged (road tolling, congestion management, insurance costing, speed checking, anti-terrorist!!!) silent electric stuff with full auto-pilot anyway.

Enjoy it while it lasts, in fact - Sun shining, I'm off for a drive now...

 

That sounds like a plan.

 

I think if you are going to make a serious dent in CO2 emissions, you need to make a serious dent in the population & leave engine displacement right where it is. 'Fraid that's the only solution to most of the environmental problems folks fret about.

 

No one has really,unquestionably proved yet that humans have any significant contribution to so called "global warming".
Cows flatulence,volcano emissions are both on their own,much bigger contributors to CO production.
If we switch to horse buggies,the number of horses required to move the current population will create even more harmful flatulence.
Can you imagine being stuck in a stop and go traffic in rush hour on a typical LA freeway,with all the horses farting constantly?

 

Maybe Ferrari should buy Tesla:

See: http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

I think this is the same car that outran a 360 on a video on youtube.

As I mentioned in the "Dino Revised" thread, it would be interesting to see Ferrari build an electric HIGH PERFORMANCE car, badge it Dino, and there you go, a "Green" Ferrari.

James in denver

 

I am so happy the glacial age is over.






12 cylinders and burn gasoline

 

I have an even better idea, lets just turn back the clock on human advancement!

Ferrari does not make enough cars and should receive exempt status while the guilt-ridden polluters of this world stick with their batterymobiles.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself!

 

The way you would have to "detune" an F1 engine would involve a much, much lower redline. How do you think an F1 engine would perform if it could only rev to, say, 9000?

 

Eh, I say ban suv's. Most people don't really NEED them. By that, I mean they don't need anything with any sort of off-road capability. That'd make a bigger dent thant Ferrari's which only make up a few thousand of the automobiles produced year round and aren't usually daily drivers.

I can't say I wouldn't be interested if Ferrari produced a green performance car, though. It'd be interesting.

 

Enough with the Ostrich-mobiles!

Electric cars just mean that the pollution is at the (coal fired) electric power plant!! Because greenies don't like nuke power either.

But if you can't see it, you don't worry about it.

So let's make the greenies happy: Sell cars that pump their exhaust out a hidden pipe. If they can't see it, it's "green".

(And let's not even start about the environmental impact of used batteries.)

Ever notice that most greenies sit in urban apartments, importing their electricity and exporting their garbage?

Ignorance is not only an excuse, it's a way of life. Sheesh.


Want to "clean up" the environment? FIX THE ROADS! I burn more gas commuting six miles in "green" Arlingrad county than it took to drive four times the distance at twice the speed limit in MA. And it takes longer. 75-80% of my commute is spent sitting at traffic lights, idling.

But "fast is bad!". Some "information age". This has to be the most ill-informed generation in US history. Gah.

The worst air pollution in the world is political speaches.

 

P&R has its own section, so please keep comments directed at what implications this could potentially have for Ferrari instead of debating the actual issue of global warming.

 

Sin City: "Once you get people agreeing to what they know in their hearts ain't so, then you got them by the ....s".

Most people already think that all Ferraris cost over a million dollars, and are only playthings for the rich. See the thread about the comedian on the P4/P5. Funny? Or more "doublethink"?

Ferrari is being set up to be banned as being "not usual".

Seen any "Carver One" machines in the US?

The key to clean vehicles is light weight. But cars that meet US standards are heavy. Fix the standards, or spin doctor public perceptions?

Heck, Ferraris already get better gas mileage than a machine with the aerodynamics of a brick. But the Ferrari is the "gas guzzler", right?

 

Ask the good people of Buffalo about "Global Warming"!

 

the larger the displacement and the more cylinders the better in my book.

a few of the motors I own:

1968 7 liter (428) V-8 7 MPG
03 twin turbo v-12 mercedes 11mpg
347 with 200 hp shot of nitrous 8mpg
5.7 liter v-8 12mpg
1968 390 v-8 10mpg
and the 360


small engines are just not for me.

 

Just like mine...
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

That would actually be great for us vintage fans. My Lotus is 1600 CC and a whole lot more fun to drive in everyday situations than any 400+ HP Ferrari. How much fun is a 430 at 45 MPH? Tiny engined cars are a blast at low speeds. Not that I wouldn't want a new Ferrai....but I think outside of the snob appeal, unless you're in an area you can really wind it out (and that must be a REAL blast!), it would be a bit of a bore in suburban traffic...while a 1600 cc car with a high RPM redline is even fun red light to red light.

Ken

 

These are market and regulation questions, not technology ones.

The "gas guzzler" tax, as it gets applied, is a tax against the perception of luxury. My 328, when imported, got slapped with a gas guzzler tax -- despite having better mileage than many domestic vehicles of the day. So a light, fuel efficient Ferrari would likely still get tagged with a "gas guzzler" (sic) tax.

Would a small, light car be desirable today?

There are any number of lightweight vehicles in production in the world. From the 1600cc toyota powered Lotus Elise sports machine to lightweight commuter boxes to the "Carver One" three wheel machine. Almost none of them are on sale in the US.

Because the US has accepted that incompetence is "normal". When was the last time you saw someone pulled over "failure to maintain lane" (other than an obvious drunk)? Last night, the EVO stood out glaringly in the market parking lot -- it was the only vehicle parked between the lines.

Despite excuses that "I might have to haul something some day", most SUVs are bought because people think that "bigger is better" in a collision. (Most of the ones you see are empty except for a driver.)

They're trying to tower over each other in traffic, to win the "I can see over your car" space race. A while back, I parked next to a '70s or early '80s Sedan de Ville, and was appalled to find that my EVO was taller than an old Cadillac. The EVO is *huge*, compared to the '88 Celica it replaced.

People want to feel *dis*connected from the road, so they can gab on the cell phone and drink their Starbucks without having to worry about driving around accidents.

This isn't entirely new. When I was young, the decision to drive around accidents rather than out-weigh a semi wasn't popular with parents. When I sold my old '63 Imperial back in '73 (first oil crisis), nearly *every* person that called was a parent sending their kid off to college, looking for a Sherman tank to protect them.

And it's self-reinforcing. Would you feel comfortable driving a shifter kart to work, given all the badly-driven SUVs loose on the roads?

US regulations have accepted this view -- requiring that cars absorb massive impacts while cocooning the nut behind the wheel from his own mistakes.

In '99, the Subaru Impreza available in the US didn't have a turbo, but weighed 800 lb more than the Japan market version, due to structural reinforcing for US crash requirements (and DOT approved glass).

A lightweight, fuel efficient performance vehicle would have a very tough time passing US regulations. But would it sell?

How many Exiges sold in the US this year?

Personally, I'd love to see a lightweight new "Dino" that you could drive con gusto without a corral full of horses under the cowling. And not because it's fuel efficient. But because lighter vehicles can change direction quickly without parsec-wide tires on all four corners. Less mass, less unsprung weight, fewer broken rims from too much width ...

But without a massive shift in perceptions, it would be a very "niche" vehicle.

And, given the costs of getting a vehicle past US regulation testing, you just can't break even selling vehicles in small quantities.

Example: When Alfa introduced the original GTV-6 in '81, they stopped importing the 4cyl version. Because the Feds decided that the two different engines made them two different vehicles, and required separate crash testing on *both*. So Alfa only imported the big engine.

Alfa pulled out of the US completely when sales dropped below 1000 units a year.

Ferrari, Lotus, Jaguar, etc., were all small, low volume car makers when they started. But you see no such companies getting anywhere today.

Would anyone remember DeLorean without "Back to the Future"?

It's ironic that you can't really sell a small number of light, fuel efficient, affordable vehicles in the US, in part because of the cost of all the tests required to *prove* that it's "fuel efficient".

So where do we go from here?

Step one would be to *completely* remove the exemption that SUVs and light trucks get from CAFE and safety standards. The market is pushing the (often bogus) "benefits" of SUVs because they make more profit than cars. Put a stop to that. When cars and SUVs have to complete on a level playing field, SUVs will lose.

But how do we revive the "niche" market?

---
Geez, I'm opinionated, ain't I?
That's it: I'm officially a "curmudgeon".

 

I totally disagree with the first argument.

I grew up with huge 1960's American cars. And paying attention and listening to my Dad, and others, those cars actually were getting decent fuel economy, all things considered. I drove my Dads '73 440 NewYorker all year after getting my permit at 15, even pulled a heavily loaded pop up camping trailer to California and back with it. Worst mpg for that entire trip was 17 mpg. Generally the car would average 18-19, and hit just over 20 on solo trips, never worse than 16 or 17 in town. Fast forward to today, I have a '97 Ford Expedition and a 94 Jeep Cherokee in the driveway. The Jeep cant hardly make 17, the Exp. gets barely 13.

Lets compare:

73 440 Chrysler, 440 cubic inch engine, about 4200 punds, about as aerodynamic as a brick, no lock up torque converter, no overdrive. Ave. mpg 20 hwy, 16+ city, 17+ hwy pulling camping trailer out west.

94 Jeep Cherokee, 258 cubic inch engine, about 3400 pounds, much more aerodynamic, overdrive transmission with lock up torque converter. Ave. mpg 16-17 hwy, 12-14 mpg cityy. 13+mpg hwy pulling light boat.

97 Ford Expedition, 330 cubic inch, about 4000 pounds, very aerodynamic, overdrive with lockup. Ave. mpg 15+ hwy, 11-12 city, under 10 mpg pulling almost ANY trailer. I realise its a large vehicle, but its light years more "aero" than an old GMC Travelall from the 60's, and its certainly no larger. The old GMC was a lot heavier, would pull a house by way of lower gearing, ran bias ply tires, and would still get better mileage.

IMO, engineers, and the EPA, have totally strangled modern engines from even thinking of trying to save fuel. Camshaft/valve timing is very very different today than on any car built before 1980 or so. Modern cars have no overlap, or almost none. Secondly, to have catalytic convertors work efficiently, todays engines must run much richer, so more unburned fuel reaches the cat so that it will burn. I feel the EPA have gone way to far with "emissions". as they have focused so strongly on total compliance, to the point of making cars "pass" on startup cold, idling, passing, coasting, etc,. So my feeling is that most cars could run much more efficiently by simply making some "allowances".

Electric cars are so unbelievably filthy to the environment, it really shows great ignorance of anyone who would support that technology. And Hybrids as well, are a very inefficient way to propel a vehicle, IMHO. I would bet $100 bill, that a Honda Insight would get far far better economy with a small 1 liter engine ran directly through a 5 speed gearbox, and dump all the batteries, electic motor, generator, and electronics. In fact, without a lot of "goofy" emission compliance I bet it could get close to 100 mpg. Imagine the Insight with a 3 cylinder Geo drivetrain.

If car makers and the EPA could find a happy medium between clean engines, and engines that are efficient, coupled with more people driving lighter, smaller, and more aerodynamic cars, we could do a lot better. But instead of governments forcing people, the car makers need to make cars people want.

As to your second argument, probably. Outside of the F-50, and the Enzo, Ferrari hasnt built anything that fired my passion very much in the last 20 years. Like you say, bigger and heavier. Not exactly the way anyone would build a race car.