Crown
Board: Porsche
Sprache: English
Region: Weltweit
Schließen
SchließenForum - Thema
17.02.2005 20:27:52
- teflon
- Co-Pilot
-
- Loc: US , Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
- Beiträge: 216, Gallery
- Registriert: 13.03.2003
- Antwort auf: doncapecod
Re: CGT & '006 U.S. Federal Regulations
I believe the problem is the requirement for advanced airbags.
The Enzo has already finished production.
Manufacturers receive credits for early phase-in of the requirements and Ford and Mercedes make enough vehicles that it shouldn't matter if the GT & SLR don't comply.
This is info off the top of my head. Please take it w/a grain of salt.
You can read about the issue here: http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm?CFID=7932530&CFTOKEN=81537406
Do a keyword search for "Porsche". Then click "Reverse Order" in the results and read through the dockets from 2003.
Greg A
The Enzo has already finished production.
Manufacturers receive credits for early phase-in of the requirements and Ford and Mercedes make enough vehicles that it shouldn't matter if the GT & SLR don't comply.
This is info off the top of my head. Please take it w/a grain of salt.
You can read about the issue here: http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm?CFID=7932530&CFTOKEN=81537406
Do a keyword search for "Porsche". Then click "Reverse Order" in the results and read through the dockets from 2003.
Greg A
Re: CGT & '006 U.S. Federal Regulations
Thanks for the research method, teflon 
This is the document in question (click me).
Notice the cryptic language about "500 cars of Porsche niche models". Seems like they might mean all of MY 2006 Carrera GT planned production if one were to assume that all of them were headed to the USA.
This issue was mentioned on this board a few years ago, IIRC.
This is the document in question (click me).
Notice the cryptic language about "500 cars of Porsche niche models". Seems like they might mean all of MY 2006 Carrera GT planned production if one were to assume that all of them were headed to the USA.
This issue was mentioned on this board a few years ago, IIRC.
Re: CGT & '006 U.S. Federal Regulations
Mike,
You're welcome.
I think I originally heard about it here but then no one ever came forward w/more info (here, Rennlist or 6speed) so I researched it myself. I had always hoped that the info I found would cause someone with more intimate knowledge of the issue to come forward, but that never happened.
I think the airbag requirement is part of the reason more CGTs are showing up here earlier than expected, but the lack of fulfilling their 1500 sales goal has probably also effected delivery.
Greg A
You're welcome.
I think I originally heard about it here but then no one ever came forward w/more info (here, Rennlist or 6speed) so I researched it myself. I had always hoped that the info I found would cause someone with more intimate knowledge of the issue to come forward, but that never happened.
I think the airbag requirement is part of the reason more CGTs are showing up here earlier than expected, but the lack of fulfilling their 1500 sales goal has probably also effected delivery.
Greg A
Re: CGT & '006 U.S. Federal Regulations
Here's a .pdf of a document nearly the same as above as an attachment.
Click on the "Attachment" notation above to see it.
Click on the "Attachment" notation above to see it.
Re: CGT & '006 U.S. Federal Regulations
Greg,
I just cruised through the search function you provided by entering "15067" as a docket number. I found something sort of cryptic as a final decision regarding Porsche's complaint and request for reconsideration:
"Need for Correction
As published, the May 2003 final rule
contained an error that needs correction.
The May 2003 final rule expanded the
definition of limited line manufacturer
in FMVSS No. 208 for the first stage of
the advanced air bag phase-in, but the
final rule failed to amend the definition
of limited line manufacturer contained
in 49 CFR part 585. Part 585 establishes
the reporting requirements for the
advanced air bag phase-ins. Under the
May 2000 and May 2003 final rules,
Paragraph 585.4(g) defines limited line
manufacturer as a ''manufacturer that
sells two or fewer carlines, as that term
is defined in 49 CFR 583.4, in the
United States during a production
year.''
This correction amends the definition
of limited line manufacture in Paragraph 585.4 to
include manufacturers of three or fewer
carlines for the first stage of the phasein."
This sounds like Porsche might have been able to get what they wanted by falling within a new definition of "limited line manufacturer".
What's your take?
P.S. The .pdf of the Federal Register is attached.
I just cruised through the search function you provided by entering "15067" as a docket number. I found something sort of cryptic as a final decision regarding Porsche's complaint and request for reconsideration:
"Need for Correction
As published, the May 2003 final rule
contained an error that needs correction.
The May 2003 final rule expanded the
definition of limited line manufacturer
in FMVSS No. 208 for the first stage of
the advanced air bag phase-in, but the
final rule failed to amend the definition
of limited line manufacturer contained
in 49 CFR part 585. Part 585 establishes
the reporting requirements for the
advanced air bag phase-ins. Under the
May 2000 and May 2003 final rules,
Paragraph 585.4(g) defines limited line
manufacturer as a ''manufacturer that
sells two or fewer carlines, as that term
is defined in 49 CFR 583.4, in the
United States during a production
year.''
This correction amends the definition
of limited line manufacture in Paragraph 585.4 to
include manufacturers of three or fewer
carlines for the first stage of the phasein."
This sounds like Porsche might have been able to get what they wanted by falling within a new definition of "limited line manufacturer".
What's your take?
P.S. The .pdf of the Federal Register is attached.
Re: CGT & '006 U.S. Federal Regulations
Does anyone know the status of this issue? Has Porsche managed to get exemption for 2006 as well?
I heard from some sources that Porsche is speeding production to meet all US allocation. So that is why there are cars showing up in the US early that hasn't been spoken for. And indeed there will be no CGTs heading to the US after Jan 06, although this hasn't been made official yet.
Does anyone know if Porsche can still meet all the orginally intented allocation, or will that have to be cut short? It seems difficult from a production point of view for Porsche to suddenly increase production for an entire year's of CGTs to meet all US allocations.
Thanks,
Baron
I heard from some sources that Porsche is speeding production to meet all US allocation. So that is why there are cars showing up in the US early that hasn't been spoken for. And indeed there will be no CGTs heading to the US after Jan 06, although this hasn't been made official yet.
Does anyone know if Porsche can still meet all the orginally intented allocation, or will that have to be cut short? It seems difficult from a production point of view for Porsche to suddenly increase production for an entire year's of CGTs to meet all US allocations.
Thanks,
Baron
Re: CGT & '006 U.S. Federal Regulations
Quote:
baron said:
Does anyone know the status of this issue? Has Porsche managed to get exemption for 2006 as well?
I heard from some sources that Porsche is speeding production to meet all US allocation. So that is why there are cars showing up in the US early that hasn't been spoken for. And indeed there will be no CGTs heading to the US after Jan 06, although this hasn't been made official yet.
Does anyone know if Porsche can still meet all the orginally intented allocation, or will that have to be cut short? It seems difficult from a production point of view for Porsche to suddenly increase production for an entire year's of CGTs to meet all US allocations.
Thanks,
Baron
Yep, I'm just not sure. I've heard 7/05 is the last production date for US CGTs and that they are sending Euro allocations here to meet the 750 cars originally planned for 3 years in 2 years instead. If that's the case and Porsche dumps 3 years worth of production on the US in two years, you can rest assured the Europeans with the dough necessary to buy one, will start buying slightly used ones in the US for $350 to $375k USD (or less if Porsche dumps 750 in 2 years here) with a 4 year warranty with dollars which will equate to a MUCH lower Euro price they'd pay in Europe. I'd originally hoped Porsche would voluntarily stop production 7/05 given how poor the CGT market has been, but I think the market will stop worldwide production for them.
Re: CGT & '006 U.S. Federal Regulations
Mike,
First of all, I forgot to congratulate you on finally receiving your CGT! I had hoped to be making the trip to Mid-OH for the OVR region DE this year, and maybe getting to meet you there, but I have other commitments that weekend.
I saw the amendment while I was looking around too. I only half read it because my eyes glaze over and I start to drool whenever I see something that resembles legalese.
It took me a while to re-read the amendment and look around for any additional info, but unfortunately, I still couldn't find a definitive answer.
The rule states that a limited line manufacturer sells 3 or fewer carlines in the U.S. during a production year. My reading of that definition indicates that Porsche still wouldn't qualify because for the period of 2004-2005 they are producing the following: 1.911 2.Boxster 3.Cayenne and 4.CGT.
Also, as I'm sure you saw on the site, Porsche's petition for reconsideration was stamped June 18, 2003. It is my understanding that even with the rule clarification, this petition was denied, but I can't find a NHTSA response.
Greg A
First of all, I forgot to congratulate you on finally receiving your CGT! I had hoped to be making the trip to Mid-OH for the OVR region DE this year, and maybe getting to meet you there, but I have other commitments that weekend.
I saw the amendment while I was looking around too. I only half read it because my eyes glaze over and I start to drool whenever I see something that resembles legalese.
It took me a while to re-read the amendment and look around for any additional info, but unfortunately, I still couldn't find a definitive answer.
The rule states that a limited line manufacturer sells 3 or fewer carlines in the U.S. during a production year. My reading of that definition indicates that Porsche still wouldn't qualify because for the period of 2004-2005 they are producing the following: 1.911 2.Boxster 3.Cayenne and 4.CGT.
Also, as I'm sure you saw on the site, Porsche's petition for reconsideration was stamped June 18, 2003. It is my understanding that even with the rule clarification, this petition was denied, but I can't find a NHTSA response.
Greg A
Re: CGT & '006 U.S. Federal Regulations
Quote:
teflon said:
I believe the problem is the requirement for advanced airbags.
Teflon,
Are advanced airbags those that sense 1) the weight of the front passenger and 2) whether the front passenger seat belt is in use?
Is this the only requirement with which the CGT fails to comply?
Re: CGT & '006 U.S. Federal Regulations
The advanced airbag requirements technology-wise isn't a problem for Porsche, they knew back in 2000 what the regulations were going to be. I think the real issue is they now have to crash a whole bunch of cars (i think its 5 minimum, possibly times two?) for each class of dummy. You can no longer get away with only one crash using a 50th percentile male dummy. You now have to take women and children into account when testing airbags and that means a bunch more CGTs would need to be crash tested.
Re: CGT & '006 U.S. Federal Regulations
Maverick,
I hope the following will help answer your question. This info came from a Delphi pdf(CLICK HERE).
AFAIK, this is the only requirement that the CGT fails, but it was enough to be a problem for Porsche.
Greg A
EDIT: I copied the wrong link. It should be fixed now.
I hope the following will help answer your question. This info came from a Delphi pdf(CLICK HERE).
Quote:
Delphi's STAR Airbag will help vehicle manufacturers meet or exceed the current U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard(FMVSS 208), which requires advanced airbag systems for all models by the 2007 model year. Specifically, the regulation calls for enhanced protection of the vehicle occupants regardless of their size or whether they are wearing seat belts. Initial implementation of the requirement begins with 2004 model year vehicles sold in the United States
AFAIK, this is the only requirement that the CGT fails, but it was enough to be a problem for Porsche.
Greg A
EDIT: I copied the wrong link. It should be fixed now.
23.02.2005 08:51:35
-
MAVERICK
- Veteran
-
- Loc: Cincinnati, OH (USA) , Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
- Beiträge: 1145, Gallery
- Registriert: 31.05.2004
- Antwort auf: doncapecod
Forum
Über Rennteam | Hilfe | Nutzungsbedingungen | Datenschutz | Support | Kontakt | Impressum | Archiv
Powered by
Community
and
