Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Toys The Almighty Buck United States

Microsoft Money Leads To Street-Legal Porsche 959s 585

Posted by timothy
from the worthy-cause dept.
Ken Greenebaum writes "Soon there will be a 'new' Porsche 959 racing down highway 520 in Redmond. This article in autoweek describes how Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Ralph Lauren teamed up with Bruce Canepa to make the 959 street legal. Best quote: Gates 'suggested to Canepa that perhaps they could federalize the car by buying a number of sacrificial 959s to "crash and test."' They modernized and increased the performance of the already super car to: 575HP making the 15 year old cars race to 60 in 3.3 seconds with a top speed of 215MPH."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Money Leads To Street-Legal Porsche 959s

Comments Filter:
  • by zeoslap (190553) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @02:35AM (#6972889) Homepage
    The thing that struck me about this article was how screwed up the US political system is whereby bills are all bundled together, I won't even get into the fact that with enough cash you can get your own laws considered. This particular law was denied twice (which in of itself should see it permanently denied) but on the third try it was ushered through because the bill it was riding on was a sure fire winner, lame.

    All that being said it's cool that they finally got the cars into the US, only wish I could afford one :)
    • It's also pretty screwy that someone went to the bother of trying to get a bill passed, with all the inherent costs so that a few multimillionaires can drive ludicrously fast cars.

      Still, I suppose some senators won't have to worry about where to get their designer suits and computer games from now on.

      • While they are at it, I'd like McLaren F1 please.
        • FINALLY...something positive and useful out of Redmond!!!

          :-)

          I'll never be able to afford one of these...but, now I at least have hope of seeing one up close someday. Wow...always dreamed of this car....Porsche...there is no substitute!!

      • by King_TJ (85913) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @01:23PM (#6977799) Journal
        Actually, I thought it was a great story of one person's tenacity winning out over government red tape!

        From your comment, I'm assuming you're not really that interested in high-performance automobiles - but please keep in mind that many folks are.

        This was a case where the barrier to entry was so high, only the richest people could afford to be bothered with it - but similar situations happen all the time with foreign cars desired by American citizens.

        I thnk the law that they finally got pushed through is a sensible one, and should help out many more people than just Bill Gates and his friends. Most of us might not be buying street legal, rare Porsches any time soon - but this same law would help make it possible to obtain a number of more inexpensive collector cars.
    • by commodoresloat (172735) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @02:51AM (#6972954)
      Once they heard Ford was switching to Linux they figured they had to do something to compete in the auto market.
    • by FJ (18034) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @03:06AM (#6973015)
      Bundeling unrelated things together in congress is nothing new. It is a favorite way to get pet projects and a way to manuver things in your way. Both parties do it and all presidents hate it.

      They tried to change this a few years back by giving the presedent a line item veto. It was declared unconstitutional because it gave the executive branch too much power over the legislative branch. The only way to change it legally is for a constitutional amendment.

      The funny thing is that most state governments allow for a line item veto.
    • by JimBobJoe (2758) <swiftheart&gmail,com> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:13AM (#6973267)
      The thing that struck me about this article was how screwed up the US political system is whereby bills are all bundled together

      This is a peculiarity of Congress. States usually have constitional requirements for single subject bills (with names that identify what the bill does, none of this "Save the babies and orphaned Hamsters act of 2003" shit) as well as line item veto.

      I happen to know that several states, like my Ohio, and Illinois, get pretty mean on enforcement...courts have no problems throwing out laws simply because they were codified under a bill that had multiple subjects.

      • by rpjs (126615)
        In the UK our bills have a short title, which is what they'll be known as if passed, and a long title which sets out what the law is for. The bill may not contain anything that is not consistent with the long title. To allow enough flexibility to get around nit-picking, a bill's long title will usually end with "and for conected purposes."

        Seems to work quite well. "Pork" is simply not a concept in British politics.
        • by Scratch-O-Matic (245992) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @08:00AM (#6974258)
          In the UK our bills have a short title...

          Here in the U.S., our bills are required to have titles involving children, widows, or sick veterans.
        • by Zeinfeld (263942) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:01AM (#6974821) Homepage
          In the UK our bills have a short title, which is what they'll be known as if passed, and a long title which sets out what the law is for. The bill may not contain anything that is not consistent with the long title.

          That is not the reason for the difference. In the UK the government controls time in both houses of parliament and introduces almost every bill (except for private members bills and 5 minute rule bills). The government has such a tight control on the legislature that there is nothing to be gained by adding an ammendment to an unrelated bill. If the government does not like the ammendment they can either strip it out in the Lords or gut it on the floor of the House.

          There are cases of ammendments of this particular type making it into law but they would have to be attached to a relevant bill, in this case it would probably be a transport bill. What you do not get is ammendments to bills that direct money to particular interests such as a tax break for Haliburton or (Bob Dole's favorite) Archer Daniels Midland.

          In effect the situation is much closer to what you would have in the US if there was a line item veto provision.

          It is also possible for a private bill to get passed. This is a major undertaking but occasionally happens, usually for something like the channel tunnel, building of a railway line or such.

      • I happen to know that several states, like my Ohio, and Illinois, get pretty mean on enforcement...

        Um, sort of. The latest Ohio budget bill passed with more than 100 [statenews.org] riders attached that had next-to-nothing to do with the actual budget. And Ohio lawmakers defended their actions by claiming that most of the riders were such little (but necessary) things that they would have otherwise been unable to bring them up for consideration independently.

        In order for a court to "get pretty mean on enforcement", so

  • well (Score:5, Funny)

    by toddhunter (659837) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @02:35AM (#6972892)
    suggested to Canepa that perhaps they could federalize the car by buying a number of sacrificial 959s to "crash and test."
    How about spending that crashing and testing time on windows instead???
  • OH MY GOD! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Krach42 (227798)
    OH MY GOD! They did WHAT to those poor Porsches?
  • by tarquin_fim_bim (649994) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @02:36AM (#6972894)
    they'd have been crash testing Fords.
  • by Dancin_Santa (265275) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @02:37AM (#6972896) Journal
    Microsoft Money doesn't help me buy anything. It does tell me that I'm way over budget and will be bankrupt within 3 months of the start of the fiscal year.
    • It does tell me that I'm way over budget...

      There's a reason for that...you bought Microsoft Money...either that or you didn't and it's sending info to the BSA right now.

  • Get a 914, you pansy.
  • by vought (160908) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @02:40AM (#6972910)
    The article comes right out and says that Gates' money paid for a high-priced attorney to work directly with NHTSA, EPA and lawmakers to fashion legislation that would permit their nice little rich guys' plaything. It's a cool car, but I have trouble working up sympathy after reading this story. Why does anyone have trouble believing Gates and Co. wouldn't do the same thing when it comes to matters involving billions of dollars? That antitrust case sure went out with a whimper, didn't it?
    • by Wyatt Earp (1029) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @02:44AM (#6972921)
      What has always struck me as idiotic is that the 959 wasn't street legal in the US while other, non-crash-worthy super cars like the Ferrari F40 and F50, Pantera and Shelby Cobra have been.
      • by WalterSobchak (193686) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @03:01AM (#6972988) Homepage Journal
        Would you have a list of the various legal and non-legal "non-crash" cars? What are the requirements.

        And if I please may rant a little bit: The 959 is good enough for the Autobahn, it is good enough for you. Crash data for the car exists, the Kraftfahrtbundesamt has strict specs for giving the "street legal" verdict.

        Alex
      • by abmurray (599514) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @03:21AM (#6973088)
        What has always struck me as idiotic is that the 959 wasn't street legal in the US while other, non-crash-worthy super cars like the Ferrari F40 and F50, Pantera and Shelby Cobra have been.

        Whether or not a car is 'street legal' in the US is entirely up to the manufacturer. The car must adhere to emissions and safety regulations. The car must also be crash-tested and all relevant information throughly documented. There's a host of hoops the manufacturer must jump through that can add significantly to the cost of the car.

        It's not the government that was keeping the 959 from being street legal, but Porsche itself.

        --
        a.b. murray
        • Amen to that. For years, people aware of the Nissan Skyline have wanted it in the US. Nissan never brought it here because it would require a left hand drive conversion as well as crash testing and other 'street legal' documentation. So what happened? Some rich dudes got fed up and bought some extra Skylines, crash tested them, presented the data to the proper authorities, and BAM, legal Skylines. There are limited trim levels and models that are legal, rather than the full range, but that's not really an i
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @02:42AM (#6972915)
    Bill Gates in a Vin Diesel like role? The influence, the respect, the mystery...

    Robert Love as the guy undercover as the Porshe employee investigating Microsoft's under-the-table dealings with Porshe, to see if more than "Microsoft Money" is involved...

    Natalie "Hot Grits" Portman as his love interest who is also a Porshe racer...

    Steve Ballmer, who screams "On your mark, get set, go" over and over like the crazed monkey he is...

    Darl McBride running around, making sure the cars are using street-legal parts else pay him a special fee to make sure their cars don't "have problems" before a big race?

    Who knows... It wouldn't be any worse than if Hollywood tried to make this!
  • nonononono..... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by E1v!$ (267945) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @02:44AM (#6972920) Homepage
    this is just stupid. why bother with that when you can have THIS [porsche.com].
    • Re:nonononono..... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by toopc (32927)
      this is just stupid. why bother with that when you can have [a Porsche Carrera GT].

      Because a 959 has history associated with it. If you don't understand that, you're either a kid, or someone who doesn't appreciate cars.

      Just because something newer and faster comes along, doesn't mean older cars no longer matter. The 959 is one of the most significant Porsche's ever made. Maybe one day the Carrera GT will be too, but I doubt it. 20 years from now I bet a 959 is worth much more than GT.

  • by mcpkaaos (449561) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @02:44AM (#6972923)
    John Carmack is seen hastily building a new rocket, loaded with weapons-grade plutonium, mumbling something about being "one-upped" about his Ferrari and some reference to a "last laugh".

    Easy, Ashcroft, I was kidding about the plut++++NO CARRIER
  • Seems to me... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fruey (563914) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @02:47AM (#6972935) Homepage Journal
    ... like more time, thought and money went into getting a car street legalised than my poor little principles can handle. Add to that getting a law passed specifically for it, and really you're showing just how enough money can get you almost anything in the US.

    Cool cars maybe, but this is obscene. Nobody gets anything out of this except a few rich kids fans of 80s porsches, and indeed the cars aren't really anything like what they were before (as classics) because the turbos, ignition system, and fuel injectors are all completely changed in the process.

    Another case where the lawyers make more money than the rest of us.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @02:53AM (#6972960)
    If Gates drives his Porche like his software drives my computer, get your children inside and stay of the roads...
  • Suddenly... (Score:3, Funny)

    by fruity1983 (561851) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @02:54AM (#6972967)
    Suddenly all those jokes about gas guzzling speed cars making up for an inadequate penis seem so much more obvious.
  • Fast Post! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    OK, so I'm not a subscriber and had to wait for it to appear on the non-subscriber edition :-) And I took the time to read the article before posting. It's still 0:23 postings in 16 minutes...

    And yes, Gates and friends used money and influence to buy their way around the laws they wanted, but other than the pollution laws, which they got the cars upgraded to meet, the other laws are basically "consumer protection" laws, and if you're a consumer who doesn't *want* to be protected, nobody's forcing you to

  • by Powercntrl (458442) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @03:01AM (#6972990)
    I'd rather get a Honda Civic and cover it in Type-R stickers... With each one adding 5 extra horsepower, I'd surely end up with a faster car!
  • Is it me, or does is there something really wrong when a company that is world famous for CRASHING gets involved in the automotive industry?
  • by avidday (671814) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @03:05AM (#6973009)
    The 959 was always street legal, expcept in the US, because of Porsche's refusal to supply the required vehicles (up to four if memory serves correctly) for the mandatory crash test. People have been happily and safely driving their road specification 959's (Porsche had to build 200 road going examples for FIA Group B homologation purposes) in many other places since deliveries began in late 1987.
  • Gates 'suggested to Canepa that perhaps they could federalize the car by buying a number of sacrificial 959s to "crash and test.

    i nominate billy to sit behind the wheel when this goes down.

  • by Qrlx (258924) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @03:06AM (#6973014) Homepage Journal
    This story should be made into a movie. Perhaps a documentary.

    "...We formulated a law--that if 500 or fewer cars were produced, if they weren't currently produced, if they were never U.S.-legal, and if they were rare--you could import them without having to pass DOT standards. As long as they met EPA standards and were driven no more than 2500 miles per year, they'd be legal."

    ...The supercar proviso became law when President Clinton signed off on it. After eight years of struggle, the real hassles were about to begin for the 959 project. "The next step was to reduce the bill to writing so DOT could administer it. At first they weren't happy about it. Their attitude was 'We're short-staffed as it is, so how are we going to deal with this?' But the government worked diligently to help our cars pass inspection."

    There's so many things wrong here. For starters, Federal tax dollars (aka "your money") are being spent to push the paperwork on a car that only the super-wealthy will ever drive. Then, there's the fact that someone(s) in Congress (aka "your representative") felt s/he was acting appropriately when the attached this rider to the transportation bill. Finally, we've got the lawyers, who dreamed up this scheme where we have to pay (see "your money" above) so the super-wealthy chase their small-penised dreams.

    This whole damn situation is so friggin' complex that I am really having a hard time determining who I should be pissed off at.

    Personally, if I were that rich, I would just find a way to bring the car in illegally. How hard can that really be? On the other hand, I know Bill Gates gets his most intense satisfaction every time his lawyer-monkeys find a way to make legal something that really isn't.

    • by JimBobJoe (2758) <swiftheart&gmail,com> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:29AM (#6973307)
      There's so many things wrong here. For starters, Federal tax dollars (aka "your money") are being spent to push the paperwork on a car that only the super-wealthy will ever drive.

      While this law was drawn for them...it's entirely possible that a far smaller car collector would benefit. They may want a rare european car whose value is no where near the value of a 959, and import it into the US...they would be able to under this law. It's not just for the super rich.

      What you should be pissed off (and that you left out of your rant) is the fact that the article noted that the DOT had a major bug up its ass about the 959, and wanted to set some type of example with it. When an institution makes those types of decisions, they have to deal with the consequences, in this case, a bunch of people trying to override them (and the simple pleasure of busting a federal bureaucracy's balls is worth the law to me.) On the other hand, DOT nursed its wounds and then wrote out a huge amount of time and money wasting bureaucratic regulations to enforce a law that's fairly straightforward, simply because it's ego was hurt.

      Echoing what another reply said to your post, why they don't allow you to sign a waiver form in the first place is beyond comprehension.

    • by alpha (8839) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:56AM (#6973388)

      Is it because Bill Gates is involved, or did (almost) everybody here
      decide to trade in their aspiration for freedom and pursuit of happiness
      for this pitiful whining about how there ought to be some law to stop
      these "rich bastards" from buying faster cars than most of us here can
      afford. It reeks of ill masked jealousy and outright socialism.

      There IS an outrage in this story, and it's the fact that there already
      WAS a law like that, and that it took these people 10 YEARS and hundreds
      of thousands of dollars to obtain PERMISSION from their own government
      (the government "by the people", charged with protecting "our rights") to
      import a few rare cars! It's an outrage that customs considers these cars
      contraband because of some ill advised regulations that clearly shouldn't
      apply in a situation like this.

      Would the same laws make anyone who builds a custom vehicle a
      criminal? Saying that it's for private use off public roads clearly wasn't
      a defense, since the cars that were imported under "race" classification
      were impounded as well!

      It would make a lot more sense for crash-test/emission laws to impose an
      additional tax on non-compliant cars. That way mass producers would make
      sure their cars comply, but enthusiasts willing to pay the fee wouldn't be
      turned into criminals for possessing "illegal" cars. Based on the
      principles of freedom that are supposed to govern this country, that's
      what i (apparently wrongly) assumed must already be the case!

      This article shed some light on a very disturbing example of how our
      government appears to have lost its appreciation for who are the servants
      and who are the masters, the government or the people that elect and
      employ them?

      • Is it because Bill Gates is involved, or did (almost) everybody here
        decide to trade in their aspiration for freedom and pursuit of happiness
        for this pitiful whining about how there ought to be some law to stop
        these "rich bastards" from buying faster cars than most of us here can
        afford.


        No, what pisses many of us off is that BECAUSE they were rich a few folks were able to get their own personal law passed. The flip side is that (as you suggested) it shouldn't TAKE millions of dollars to get a perfectly re
    • Personally, if I were that rich, I would just find a way to bring the car in illegally.

      It certainly is possible to do it legally. I live in the Detroit area and I see a lot of "wierd" stuff. Back when the 959 was released, I saw one on the street by my high school. I ended up following the guy home in order to find out if the car was real only to watch the maneuvering required to get the car into his driveway (it is so low to the ground that he had to back it in at a large angle).

      In any event, the car
  • ...increased the performance of the already super car to: 575HP making the 15 year old cars race to 60 in 3.3 seconds with a top speed of 215MPH

    Jesus died for us, and all I got is this lousy car? Worse yet, I'm not even allowed to go pass 65MPH?

    Poor Jesus, died for nothing!
  • Lets see a couple chubby out of touch computer monopolists trying to handle a 500+ HP car? Something tells me Apple and Linux are going to have a bright future after a certain firey crash.
    • Yeah, I'm sure these BILLIONAIRES can't afford high-performance driving lessons or anything like that. Also, Bill Gates' history would lead me to believe that he's been driving these kind of cars for quite some time (his famous mugshot is from when he was pulled over for going 100+ in a Porsche).
  • ...that the new Porsche Carrera GT [porsche.com] will be out, with 612 HP. That will make them look like a bunch of losers.

    But seriously, can anyone tell me what you want with such a car on North American roads? Even on the German autobahn you really seldom have traffic conditions that allow going more than 125mph.
    • by toopc (32927)

      Too bad for them?

      I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if Bill Gates or any of those other billionaires want a Carerra GT, they can buy one, or ten. And they won't have to sell the 959 either.

      These guys aren't like you or me, they don't have to sell the Corolla to step up the Camry.

      • But no matter how much money you have, you can only drive one car at a time. So if I once happen to have the money I will buy a GT and wait in front of Bill Gate's house until he enters his 959. Then I will drive by, with my "959 sucks" bumper sticker prominently showing. I guess that's as close to world domination as you can get :-)
      • by BJH (11355) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @03:55AM (#6973211)
        Let's see exactly how much a Porsche Carerra GT would cost Bill Gates (relatively speaking).

        His net worth is currently $US34,234,884,352.40 (according to the Bill gates Net Worth Page [quuxuum.org]).
        A brand-new Porsche Carerra GT costs an estimated $US400,000.
        That means that the cost to Bill Gates is approximately 0.0012% of his total worth.
        According to the US Census Bureau [census.gov], the median net worth of a US household in 1995 was $US40,200. Let's adjust that upward by, say, 10% to take into account the past eight years - the amount is now $US44220.
        0.0012% of 44220 is 53 cents.

        Conclusion: A Porsche Carerra GT for Bill Gates is equivalent to a couple of cans of Coke for the average American.
    • by mcpkaaos (449561) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @03:24AM (#6973100)
      ...what you want with such a car on North American roads?


      Well, we could have a Cannonball Run 3. We even have a modern day Dom DeLuise. Sorry Balmer, you brought it on yourself. I guess Gates could be Burt Reynolds, but I doubt he can grow a mustache.
  • but one which remains: being driven around Le Mans (without the chicanes on the Mulsanne) in the passenger seat of a 962C at race speed for a coupla laps. Nothing like going 240 mph on the ground.

    Failing that, gimme the 962C for a weekend. There's this road in Montana that goes straight mile after mile. . .

  • The 959 goes from a standstill to 60 mph in 3.3 seconds and reaches 100 mph in 11.4 seconds.

    My Subaru reaches 100 mph in about 20 seconds ... that works for me.

  • by teamhasnoi (554944) * <teamhasnoi@COFFE ... m minus caffeine> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @03:25AM (#6973106) Homepage Journal
    Sure, Bill, the brakes look great! Drive faster!
  • by Dausha (546002) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @03:26AM (#6973108) Homepage

    So, will Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Bruce Canepa or Ralph Lauren also volunteer to be crash test dummies? I don't think we should accept all four of them a couple will suffice. After all, you can't have a accurate crash test without end-user testing.

    This should be a slashdot poll questions: Who should be the first CTD?

  • by Knunov (158076)
    If Microsoft wasn't attached to this story, you would either be happy or indifferent. If you knew the dumbass reasons the 959 was kept off American roads in the first place you'd be more sympathetic.

    I bought a poster of the 959 when it first came out - it hung over my first computer.

    Now I own a Viper, but I would *love* to own a 959. AMAZING vehicle.

    Car lovers everywhere will be happy about this. I hope I pull up next to one in my Viper - so I can race it :D

    Knunov
    • If "we" had enough money to all have Vipers like you do, you lucky S.O.B., "we" would probably either be happy or indifferent. :)
  • by Excen (686416) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @03:31AM (#6973130) Homepage Journal
    Currently, it costs $90,000 to import a USED Nissan Skyline GT-R R34 to the U.S. and to make it street legal. For those of you who don't know, it's the silver and blue car that Paul Walker drives in 2 Fast 2 Furious. (Yeah, it's the one with the steering wheel on the wrong side. . . ) Mind you, it costs a third of that in Japan BRAND SPANKING NEW! You can buy a 2-year-old Toyota Corolla equivalent for 6 thousand in Japan, however, due to the asinine import laws governing foreign trade, it costs two times the cost of the car to get the tests done to prove that the car was street legal and emmisions compliant in the first place, and to pay the import duties. To get the car released from customs to do the emissions testing, a bond of 250 PERCENT OF THE PRICE OF THE CAR must be put up to ensure that you will get the emissions done. You get that money back, but who has the cash to pony up like that when you are buying a car?

    Anyways, that's my rant on Stupid American Laws.

    "No beer until you finish your tequila!"
    -Leela's Dad
  • Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by wetson (27135) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @03:41AM (#6973164)
    Gates 'suggested to Canepa that perhaps they could federalize the car by buying a number of sacrificial 959s to "crash and test."'

    ...so I assume they'll be installing Windows on them?
  • by bastard42 (575318) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:30AM (#6973310)
    I had no idea MS Money [microsoft.com] was that good. Is anyone going to patch gnucach [gnucash.org] for this? Will I have to wait for Quicken to do it first?

    I mean, just think how useful it would be if I could have bills introduced into the Senate from my OSS program anytime I couldn't legally use (or afford) something. Hell, maybe they could implement it for the EU as well. That would be kick ass.
  • by MonkeyPaw (8286) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:30AM (#6973312) Homepage
    "Soon there will be a 'new' Porsche 959 racing down highway 520 in Redmond."

    Speeding down 520? When? With all the traffic on that highway I think top speed is 15mph.

  • by (eternal_software) (233207) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @06:37AM (#6973759)
    Ok, so Microsoft is involved (sorta) but this isn't really news ... this has been going on for a while:

    "According to Dick Merritt at the Department of Transportation, these are the other labs capable of federalizing Porsche's 959 ubercar:

    JK Technologies LLC, Baltimore. Jonathan Weisheit of JK says they charge $25,000 to $50,000 to do the job. It takes 90 to 120 days and involves adding air injection, catalyst, changing the evaporative system and reprogramming the computer.

    G&K Automotive Conversions, Los Angeles. George Gemayel of G&K says they charge $37,500 to federalize the 959 and $45,000 to legalize it for California use. The process takes three to four months and does not include a horsepower test. He "can't remember" exactly how many they've done. Phone (714) 545-9503.

    Wallace Laboratories, Houston. Bill Wallace charges $30,000 for the process from "start to finish." This price includes all federal taxes, duties, U.S. Customs clearances, tuneup and conversion costs, plus test and certificate charges.
  • by bigmouth_strikes (224629) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @07:02AM (#6973852) Journal
    Maybe I should know better than to ask this, but shouldn't /. draw the line for what is posted just a tad higher than this ?

    Exactly what is newsworthy here.... oh yeah it's something that can be used to possibly discredit Bill Gates. Tabloid material.

    Sheesh! I thought it was a good thing that they made the cool 959s street legal, so at first I didn't understand the angle at all.
  • by The-Perl-CD-Bookshel (631252) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @08:15AM (#6974415) Homepage Journal
    All you need is someone who is a german citizen to apply to bring his car to the United States. The "permit" that the car recieves expires in one year from the date issued. To renew? Simply drive out of the country (Canada, Mexico) and get your update from customs. There are a handful of rich guys here in NJ driving Lamborghini Diablo VT Roadsters and Lotus Elises that are sporting foreign plates and never have a problem.
  • This is geeky. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Richthofen80 (412488) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:12AM (#6974913) Homepage
    Fast cars are sexy. They're an engineering marvel. The government should have no say in the car we buy or import.

    Everyone hates Bill Gates for buying legislation, but is it any surprise? When you build a system that restricts the freedoms of individuals, the only people who win are 'special interests'. The government shouldn't have any control over the regulation of private industry. That way, the government could never be corrupted by rich folks, since money can't buy that which the government doesn't control.
  • by britt (50456) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @10:12AM (#6975519) Homepage
    [6speedonline.com]
    http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/showthread.ph p? threadid=1594

    Here is some info from the guy who did the work for
    Gates, and wrote the 959 portion of the Show & Display law.

    Canepa Design really has had nothing to do with this

    B
  • by greysky (136732) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @11:15AM (#6976345)
    making the 15 year old cars race to 60 in 3.3 seconds

    A Kawasaki Z1000 will do 0-60 in 3.15, costs only $8500, and comes street legal. Once again there's a faster, cheaper alternative to the Microsoft Solution...
    • by Lord_Dweomer (648696) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @12:01PM (#6976901) Homepage
      "A Kawasaki Z1000 will do 0-60 in 3.15, costs only $8500, and comes street legal."

      Yes, yes it does. I could beat one too. In my '86 Jeep Wagoneer Ltd. for that matter. Know how? Its very simple.

      Race starts.....I jerk my wheel to the left (or right depending on what side the bike is on) and accelerate.

      Game. Set. Squish.

  • Old Joke (Score:3, Funny)

    by rocketflyboy (707826) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @11:52AM (#6976806)

    Q: What's the difference between Porsches and porcupines?

    A: Porcupines carry their pricks on the outside!

  • by Mooncaller (669824) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @01:56PM (#6978113)
    or MS Innovations or ... Why go on, at 500+ posts, no one will ever read it. I would'nt.

OS/2 must die!

Working...