[dazzapb]

Sign up to register your support. If you want to of course

http://www.porschejudicialreview.co....t_our_case.htm

[M3-FAST]

Originally Posted by dazzapb

Sign up to register your support. If you want to of course

http://www.porschejudicialreview.co....t_our_case.htm

signed

[CrimsonRedE93]

Signed

[NFS]

Originally Posted by dazzapb

Sign up to register your support. If you want to of course

http://www.porschejudicialreview.co....t_our_case.htm

Signed on the basis that the new higher charge 'has no meaningful benefit for the environment'.

For a start under 225g of CO2/km can't be OK and 226g 'Evil'. It's ridiculous to penalise people with a 300% price uplift as a result of a 1% increase in CO2 emissions.

Further, any comparison is meaningless without regard to a persons annual mileage. I could drive 2000 miles a year in a 911 and emit less CO2 then someone who drove 40,000 miles a year in a prius.

Ken has gone loopy.

[Serjames]

signed

[Gibbo]

This shows the concern Porsche has regarding sales with only 2 models in their current range not in the top bracket. The 2.7 Boxster and Cayman.

They are concerned with the London market being a large proportion of sales and people being put off by large charges. Porsche have wrote to me twice lately to ask why I traded my car in and test drive offers to get me back into another one.

They have had fantastic success with a strong model line up over the last few years with the 997 range building through all variants, the 987 Boxster and incremental sales from Cayman and the ugly 4*4 thingy which they cannot sell now. The dealers are set-up to sell 300 new and 500 used a year with overheads/sales targets to match and with a weaker economy they are feeling the pinch. Also you look at the range and the Cayman should not cost more than a boxster and a 911 is not worth £30,000 ish more than a boxster.

Seems to me they need to get the 2.7 into band F and the 3.4 & 3.6 engines into emissions band G.

Also need a diesel in the 4*4 and bite the bullet that this or a hybrid is the future.

I like Porsche but they have got to move with the times as they are upper mainstream and no longer exclusive.

[DaveC]

Scared aren't they...

[NFS]

Originally Posted by Gibbo

Also need a diesel in the 4*4 and bite the bullet that this or a hybrid is the future.

A diesel Porsche just seems wrong to me.

But then so does the Cayenne.

[dxb335d]

I liked the cayenne turbo when it first came out.

I was following one in my work van and didnt know what the fuck it was.. Just said Cayenne turbo? i was like WTF

anyhow i was behind him and went overtake on a B road, he mashed the throttle and FOOKED OFF...

I was like WOW.. rang my father and said ''dad WTF is a cayenne turbo. On just took off... he said its ''its a Porsche'' I was like ''NO WAY''


He said he was going buy one and to go out with a test drive later with him!!

He didnt get one tho. He got a BM!

[NFS]

Originally Posted by dxb335d

I was like WOW.. rang my father and said ''dad WTF is a cayenne turbo. On just took off... he said its ''its a Porsche'' I was like ''NO WAY''

It's a really impressive car, because porsche have made it quick despite also having made it very large and heavy.

I just find it 'wrong' though because in my mind Porsche are about making fast cars that handle properly. That's the starting point of their brand, but with the Cayenne, they made a bloody great big bus, then tried to make it handle properly and go fast.

[Steve A]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

I just find it 'wrong' though because in my mind Porsche are about making fast cars that handle properly. That's the starting point of their brand, but with the Cayenne, they made a bloody great big bus, then tried to make it handle properly and go fast.

Yes but the cayenne turbo and the new GTS handle as well if not better than other supposed 'sports cars'

[NFS]

Originally Posted by Steve A

Yes but the cayenne turbo and the new GTS handle as well if not better than other supposed 'sports cars'

But .. imagine how much better the Cayenne would handle if it wasn't so enormous ..

So .. if you have the money to buy a fast porsche .. why buy one that's an actual porker?

[Bumps]

Will sign later. This is all such utter BS. Ken is a thieving git, pure and simple; none of this is about the environment. Is this really going to bother someone who owns a 50-100K Porsche? I think not. They'll either live with it or buy a new car (putting another vehicle on the road - great.... More on this later!) THERE IS NO VIABLE PUBLIC TRANSPORT ALTERNATIVE. Has public transport capacity been increased by the same number of people that should now avoid bringing their vehicles into the Congestion zone? Has it buggery.

And it smacks of 'not in my back yard'. Does he think that the Porsche won't be driven elsewhere? And didn't he just postpone the lowering/scrapping of CC for low emissions cars, as loads have bought them and he'd lose money? We are increasingly being treated like imbeciles by people we put in place to serve us.

This is just like speed cameras - a means of revenue raising, and the quicker they admit it the better. And as for Priuses, don't get me started. Do these do gooder f**kwits who buy them really think they are saving the environment by emitting less CO2 when driving??? God give me strength. Do they know that Priuses have a 24K mile carbon footprint before they have turned a wheel in their owners' hands, or that they cause huge issues making the batteries (which then have to be changed at about the 5 year point, at huge cost and, ergo, small likelihood versus buying a new car?) I saw a piece in the press a couple of years back that purported that a Rangey V8 petrol has a smaller carbon footprint than a Prius over a 10yr lifespan with the same mileage, when you take the carbon produced in manufacture into account. I can believe it. ALL of the current 'environmental' initiatives fail to do that. Hybrids, in terms of being environmentally sound, are flawed technology, full stop.

An economical diesel is lighter than the equivalent hybrid (it doesn't have a couple of hundered kilos of batteries to lug around so has a head start in economy and therefore lowere emissions), particulate traps (typically), and is made using less intensive to produce (ie lower carbon emmissions in manufacture) materials. They have a longer useful life too, as they won't need the most polluting materials replacing after 5 years (the NiCd or Li-Ion batteries). And as for increasing the charge to include older cars with 3litre or larger engines - WTF? Putting a new car on the road (the real option for many I suspect in this bracket) is more environmentally sound? Course it bloody isn't. And the same goes for scrapping the charge for lower emissions cars; many will go out and buy one, which actually adds to the problem, long term. Maybe this was Ken's logic for delaying the scrapping of the CC for lower emissions cars.... Yeah right - nothiong to do with the cash flow problems.

I think Oxford Uni have done some research into what cars have the lowest overall environmental impact based on manufacture aswell as running CO2 figures. And the Lotus Elise is one of the best. Until people like Ken Livingstone and his short-sighted ilk take a more holistic view of environmental issues, then we'll get absolutely nowhere. But they won't do that; it will lose them money.

[dazzapb]

excellent post Bumps. my feelings exactly.

NFS and I have agreed that just measuring CO2 out of the exhaust pipe is very shortsighted, you need to take account of the whole lifespan of the car, before some marketing victim drives away in one, a shed load of co2 has already been produced, the 5000 ship miles from Japan doesn't help either.

The carbon footprint doesn't just extend to the car, a prius owner may jump on a plane and sit there feeling smug - bunny rabbits smile at them etc etc, and yet a ton of co2 is about to be emitted!

[dazzapb]

Originally Posted by RR

signed, someone should distribute flyers across the capital city with this link

indeed! i have sent to all my mates (not many then )

I got the link from pistonheads. Spread the word, this is a democracy (apparantly!) we need to stand together against this dictator!

[dazzapb]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

For a start under 225g of CO2/km can't be OK and 226g 'Evil'. It's ridiculous to penalise people with a 300% price uplift as a result of a 1% increase in CO2 emissions.

Further, any comparison is meaningless without regard to a persons annual mileage. I could drive 2000 miles a year in a 911 and emit less CO2 then someone who drove 40,000 miles a year in a prius.

Ken has gone loopy.

post of the year! so so true and unfair to those just over the band g bracket!

[NFS]

The Kyoto Accord requires all member countries to reduce emissions and in the UK the government has made this a statutory obligation for polluting industries.

This has created a carbon economy. Where the those who have reduced their emissions can sell carbon credits and the worst polluters can buy what is effectively a 'permit to pollute'.

The carbon credits are bought and sold on carbon exchanges throughout the world which operate exactly like stock exchanges. Dr Richard Sandor, the multi-billionaire who invented the derivatives market is slowly buying all these carbon exchanges.

Cutting a long story short, at present the current price for one tonne of CO2 'credit' is £8

A porsche 997 turbo emits 307g/km and a Mini Cooper D (which is exempt from the congestion charge emits) 104g/km. So the difference between the 2 cars is 203g/km.

The £25 additional cost for taking the porsche into central london would pay for 3.125 metric tonnes of CO2, which equates to 3,125,000 grams.

This would offset the 'difference' in CO2 emissions between the 2 vehicles for 15,394 km or 9,565 miles.

If this charge was put into carbon reduction then a porsche driven into London on a regular basis would probably be the 'greenest' vehicle on the planet.

Further, if the government simply dropped all the CO2 based taxation and added a rolling carbon offset tax to the price of all new vehicles the effect on carbon emissions would be immense.

If (say) £400 was added to the cost of the Porsche it would buy 50 tonnes of CO2, which would offset it's emissions for 162,866 km or 101,140 miles.

[Bumps]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

The Kyoto Accord requires all member countries to reduce emissions and in the UK the government has made this a statutory obligation for polluting industries.

This has created a carbon economy. Where the those who have reduced their emissions can sell carbon credits and the worst polluters can buy what is effectively a 'permit to pollute'.

The carbon credits are bought and sold on carbon exchanges throughout the world which operate exactly like stock exchanges. Dr Richard Sandor, the multi-billionaire who invented the derivatives market is slowly buying all these carbon exchanges.

Cutting a long story short, at present the current price for one tonne of CO2 'credit' is £8

A porsche 997 turbo emits 307g/km and a Mini Cooper D (which is exempt from the congestion charge emits) 104g/km. So the difference between the 2 cars is 203g/km.

The £25 additional cost for taking the porsche into central london would pay for 3.125 metric tonnes of CO2, which equates to 3,125,000 grams.

This would offset the 'difference' in CO2 emissions between the 2 vehicles for 15,394 km or 9,565 miles.

If this charge was put into carbon reduction then a porsche driven into London on a regular basis would probably be the 'greenest' vehicle on the planet.

Further, if the government simply dropped all the CO2 based taxation and added a rolling carbon offset tax to the price of all new vehicles the effect on carbon emissions would be immense.

If (say) £400 was added to the cost of the Porsche it would buy 50 tonnes of CO2, which would offset it's emissions for 162,866 km or 101,140 miles.

Good point, very well made. Just proves further that this really isn't about saving the planet; it's just shortsighted bandwagon jumping, enabling us to be fleeced for more. It's a con, pure and simple, sadly in the name of a serious issue that needs a lot more than cynical money grabbing to solve it.