1996 993 911 Carrera Coupe 26k Miles, Original Paint, All Factory Manuals & Docs on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Dealers mobilize to protect their margins from automaker subscription services

Six individual auto brands — Lincoln, Cadillac, Porsche, Mercedes, BMW and Volvo — have established or are trialing a vehicle subscription service in the U.S. Three third-party companies — Flexdrive, Clutch and Carma — run brand-agnostic subscription services. And three automakers — Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and General Motors — have also launched short-term rental services. Dealers, afraid of how these trends might affect their margins, are building political and lawmaking campaigns to protect their revenue streams. So far, three states are investigating automaker subscriptions, and Indiana has banned any such service until next year. It's certain that those three states are the first fronts in a long political and legal battle. Powerful dealer franchise laws mandate the existence of dealers and restrict how automakers are allowed to interact with customers to sell a vehicle. On top of that, Bob Reisner, CEO of Nassau Business Funding & Services, said, "Dealers and their associations are among the strongest political operators in many states. They as a group are difficult for state politicians to vote against." In California earlier this year, the state Assembly debated a bill with wide-ranging provisions to protect against what the California New Car Dealers Association called "inappropriate treatment of dealers by manufacturers." One of those provisions stipulated that subscription services need to go through dealers, but that item got stripped out when dealers and manufacturers agreed to discuss the matter further. In Indiana, Gov. Eric Holcomb signed a moratorium on all subscription programs by dealers or manufacturers until May 1, 2019, to give legislators more time to investigate. Dealers in New Jersey have taken their campaign to the state capitol, asking that the cars in subscription programs get a different classification for registration purposes. Automakers run the current subscription services and own the vehicles. Sign-ups and financial transactions happen online or through apps, leaving dealers to do little more than act as fulfillment centers to various degrees, with little legal recourse as to compensation amounts when they're called on to deliver or service a car. That's a bad base to build on for business owners who've sunk millions of dollars into their operations.

Porsche Panamera Turbo S vs Ariel Atom Supercharged in unlikely drag battle

David versus Goliath battles are always an enticing proposition, because they offer the chance to watch scrappy underdogs take on their bigger rivals. Evo has set up just such a battle with its latest drag race between the minimalist Ariel Atom 3.5 Supercharged (Ariel Atom 3 pictured below) and the plush Porsche Panamera Turbo S.
The two cars couldn't be more different. The Atom personifies Lotus founder Colin Chapman's well-known axiom: "Simplify, then add lightness." Most of the car doesn't even have a body; it's just an exposed frame with a 310 horsepower supercharged Honda four-cylinder mounted behind the driver. On the other side, there's the Panamera Turbo S. In the latest version, it packs 570 hp and 553 pound-feet from its 4.8-liter twin-turbo V8 and it features all-wheel drive. Of course, all of that comes with a significant weight penalty.
Off the line, the differences are even more apparent. The Atom doesn't have any of the Porsche's technological wizardry, so launching it challenges the driver to build the revs and let out the clutch just right. The car screams like a banshee as it goes, though. The Porsche is the exact opposite. Its launch control system lets the driver hold down the brake, get on the throttle and accelerate away in just the right way.

Porsche again staring down another $1.8B in hedge fund lawsuits

The sequence of events from 2007 that began with Porsche's secret attempt to take over Volkswagen, and instead lead to Porsche being taken over by VW, continues to instigate lawsuits against the Stuttgart sports car manufacturer. A group of hedge funds that suffered over $1 billion in losses sued the car company in New York. Porsche had publicly stated it wasn't trying to buy VW, the hedge funds in question were shorting VW stock, and when Porsche's actual intentions were revealed, the stock shot up and the hedge funds took a beating.
The case was thrown out over the issue of jurisdiction, then appealed, only to see another suit filed on top of that. After that, most of the hedge funds withdrew their claims in New York and Porsche offered a 90-day window to refile in Germany where it is already fighting a number of other suits over the same issue. The hedge funds accepted the offer, refiling in Stuttgart for $1.8 billion in damages. According to Bloomberg, Porsche hasn't commented on the refiling, but as the same plaintiffs are involved, it's safe to assume that the carmaker still feels the case is "unsubstantiated and without merit." It has fared alright so far even in German courts, with two lesser cases against it thrown out last year.