Should Lamborghini get an exemption from emissions standards?
Lamborghini could very well be the antithesis of the green car movement. Their cars burn just about everything they can, including prodigious amounts of fossil fuels and vulcanized rubber, to say nothing of our ear-drums. And the company's CEO says he has no intention of changing that, nor that he should.
In an interview conducted while the newest Gallardo LP560-4 was being demonstrated at the Las Vegas Motor Speedway, Stephan Winkelmann re-opened a big can of proverbial worms. Justifying that because his company sells so few cars (it sold 2,604 vehicles last year, more than any year before) and that those cars accumulate such low mileage (most owners keep them in climate-controlled garages and only take them out on leap years), Winkelmann recognized that his company will "have to see about the social acceptance of super sports cars like ours," but that Lamborghini "will never reach the emissions that are asked for." In tangible terms, Winkelmann makes a point. The question remains whether, in our worsening environmental and geo-economic situation, cars like his can should be banned altogether or whether there is room for exemptions.
[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Chris 1:57PM (5/28/2008)
Most Lamborghini's pollute less then a Ford Focus. Why? Because the owners drive them 500 miles a year rather than the usual 12,000 miles a year. A car resting in the garage is pretty benign.
Hopefully there will always be the ability to own rolling sculpture (as long as it isn't your daily driver).
Reply
Nick 10:42AM (5/27/2008)
How often do I see Lamborghinis? Not often. Don't even think I've seen one in the past year. How often do I see monster polluting SUVs? Everyday.
Will there eventually come a time when all the 'average' polluting vehicles are gone and more focus will be put on these sports cars? Possibly. But by then I imagine they would make electric versions or something..
Reply
chris 10:53AM (5/27/2008)
Exactly - cars that are very rarely driven are not really a huge problem. I'm sure they'd contribute a minute fraction of a percentage of the total emissions for the world.
The other point is that the LP560-4 is actually more efficient than a lot of American V8s, despite having a V10. Hell, it probably uses less fuel than the clunky old GM V6 I'm driving around these days.
Maybe a system could be worked out where Lamborghini and other supercar buyers are charged a special tax that is used for carbon offsets?
Reply
James Bowe 11:01AM (5/27/2008)
How are the rules set up? They don't ban cars over the threshhold, they just fine the company right? If so, that fine gets passed along to the buyers, who don't even notice, and everybody's happy. So where's the need for an exemption?
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 11:04AM (5/27/2008)
Why not give them an exemption, but slap them with a hefty fee. Most Lambo buyers aren't going to even notice an extra $10,000. Use the money collected to promote high mileage and alternate fuel vehicles.
Everyone comes out ahead.
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 11:46AM (5/27/2008)
I don't really understand this article.
Of course Lamborghini shouldn't get any exemption from emission standards. But why write an article about Lamborghini? It was already pointed out that Porsche sell over 10 times as many Ferraris, and that while Ferraris are made one by one with an artisan's approach, Porsche have the same industrial processes in place as any other high volume manufacturer.
Surely you want to knock off Porsche and other high-volume manufacturers before bringing your attention toward the likes of Lamborghini. BMW and Mercedes are also extremely high-volume and at the very bottom of the current European CO2 scale (check out the current Citroen C5 for how low a huge sedan can go in terms of CO2: 149 g CO2/km !)
What really hurts is that Cayennes or Touaregs at 350 g CO2/km are EXTREMELY commonplace nowadays, while Citroen and Fiat are churning out affordable, functional cars (e.g. C1, C2, C3, C4, 500) at very affordable prices.
People should worry first about eliminating the droves of tractors from the streets. I don't think I've ever seen a Lamborghini in my entire life. EVER!
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 12:29PM (5/27/2008)
No, they shouldn't get an exemption.
Every company should have to avail themselves of all possible technology to do the best they can on primary (CO2 and H2O vapor) and secondary (NOx, etc.) emissions.
Lambo is owned by Audi who is owned by VW, the largest car company in Europe. There's no excuse for them slacking off.
Reply
steven 12:32PM (5/27/2008)
I'd suggest skip the exemption and just pass the fines unto the customer as a cost of doing business. But keep one thing in mind.... Will Lambo's' fines get calculated based on the whole VW group under the new system? Under the current system, Jag & Land Rover got away with it for years (fewer/lower fines) because the rest of the Fords & Volvos offset their poor mileage. Tata has found out the hard way as they don't sell any of their tiny cars in the US are are going to be responsible for those Jags and LR fines.
@3: How exactly is 10city/17hwy & a 400 CO-2 score more "efficient" than most America V-8's? Even the "baddest" Escalade comes in at 12/18 & 383 and the Corvette manages a miserable 16/26(!!!) & 310. In fact, there seems to be only 1 current model year American V-8 powered car, truck, or SUV available for sale in the US (2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD 8 cyl, 6.1 L, 5-spd Automatic) that gets worse mileage that this car. Since this is about engines mounted in motor vehicle for the purpose of moving said vehicle, what other means of measuring efficiency were you using for comparison?. Now if you're comparing the Lambo to cargo vans with less than 8500 lbs GVW, then I wholeheartly agree with you.
Reply
armmat 1:12PM (5/27/2008)
RARE or not, that's no excuse for Lamborghini...I should I say VAG...to basically state that we don't have the technology to make fast, green cars...we just can't do it. If he said that, I'd have more respect for the douchebag. But as it stands, all they are doing is making excuses.
And Karl-Uwe Strunzen is absolutely correct...all the wannabe douches who ride around in pen*s cars like the Cayenne and Q7, etc....what about those? I see a freakin Cayenne with a latte suckign yuppie 20 times a day.
ANY car today that doesn't get a minimum of 30MPG is an embarrasment. After 100+ years of automotive development, all we can muster is a 22 MPG average?
Pathetic.
Reply
Joseph 5:54PM (5/27/2008)
It depends what "emmisions" mean.
IF it's CO2 emmisions, and thus fuel economy, then these cars definitely don't need to comply to those standards. Let them be. They're almost never driven anway.
But, if its emissions as in NOx, PM, CO and all that nasty stuff, then they should comply. An engine can have very high output while still having a clean tailpipe. The relatively tiny 2.2 liter engine in the Honda S2000 puts out 237(!) hp while still meeting the LEV emission standards.
Reply
roz 5:57PM (5/27/2008)
Lamborghini are badass - but all these gas powered cars are starting to look like really really fancy 8-track tape players.
Why would anyone want to celebrate something so outdated? What would be awesome if companies like these, including Porsche and Audi would become showcases for green performance vehicles. That would be impressive.
Reply
Kevin Nugent 8:07PM (5/27/2008)
Although their impact on the environment is minimal because these cars are so expensive , they are more like collectors items , i do not think they shoudl be exempt , i think that the rules should be slightly lowered provided that they only sell less than a certain number of cars a year abd are driven under a certain numbers of miles. Essentially what the ceo of this company said is "WELL WE WILL NEVER EVER GET TO THOSE EMISSIONS STANDARD So WHY DON'T YOU JUST GET OFF OUR BACK ABOUT IT" I don't think we shoudl let them run scot free. atleast tell them they need to increase mileage by 100 percent or so or something to that effect
Reply
Murc 1:50AM (5/28/2008)
Karl-Uwe Strunzen - wow, you are the first person whom I have ever heard mention a CO2 per km number. I feel sorry for you. On how much you actually believe Al Gore.
The Earth is the same today as it was hundreds of years ago.
I'm in favor of electric cars and hydrogen cars because then were not the puppet (of which the oil companies control). Both those kind of cars are "greener", which is good and all, but don’t go over board (like what you just typed).
Now, as for the topic.
I don’t think Lamborghini should be fined, and if they have customers that can afford such a car, then fine, let those customers pay those high prices at the pump for their 8mpg sports car.
Reply
Chris M 3:16AM (5/28/2008)
New cars that don't meet minimum emission requirements can't be sold in California. Period. The technology to clean up emissions is well known and readily availabe, and the average Lambo driver can easily afford it, so they DON'T HAVE ANY EXCUSE! And that includes the really lame "limited production and not driven very much" excuse.
If any new car didn't meet minimum safety requirements, they couldn't be sold, either, even if it was only "limited quantities and rarely driven".
Reply
Ben K 11:10AM (5/28/2008)
In response to Chris M: Your argument about safety regulations is false. There are plenty of cars sold today in very low volumes that get around safety regulations one way or another. I thought I read an article that the Tesla was one of them, but I could be wrong on that specific car.
To all the people who say they should not be exempt, can you honestly tell me that you beleive that all the Lamborghinis out there driven as little as they are, will have any measurable impact on the environment. If you answered yes, then I feel sorry for your lack of humility when it comes to how great in scale the earth is. Do we need to do something with the automobile as a whole to improve mileage, emissions, etc? Well of course we do, otherwise I wouldn't be on this site. I drive a hybrid and am truly excited about the next wave of greener cars coming, but extremely low volume high performance cars should not be the target of eco snobs. Armmat, how about instead of comments like that directed to SUV owners, we work on constructively changing perceptions. Driving a Cayenne does not make you a douche if it is the vehicle that best fits your needs, the only thing that makes you a douche is BEING a douche, not what kind of car you drive.
Reply
steven 12:56PM (5/28/2008)
@14: "California CO2 law has gaping loopholes for imports"
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05/22/california-co-sub-2-sub-law-has-gaping-loopholes-for-imports/
Reply
4.7onN20 9:05PM (5/29/2008)
There are barely any sold and the ones that are sold are never driven. These are not cars they are toys like boats and small aircraft. I'm willing to bet that they are actually used on average much less per year than your boat or airplane and pollute much less than either too.
I personally would rather see a million lambos pampered in there garage than a million boats on the lake or planes in the sky.
For those of you people who dont believe me on how little used most of these cars are just do a quick search on ebay. Most of them are only driven a few thousand miles per year or less.
Reply