Driving old vehicles worse than junking them and buying new?

[Rehan]

From http://wheels.ca/article/33033 :
Longer-lasting cars hurt climate: Report

THE CANADIAN PRESS

Nov 21, 2007

Vehicles are lasting dramatically longer than even a few years ago, with 43 per cent of passenger cars built 15 years ago still on the road, and this is bad news for the environment, industry analyst Dennis DesRosiers reports.

...

"Older vehicles are the least fuel-efficient and highest-polluting users of the road," he points out. "A current model year vehicle emits 98 per cent less toxins into the air than a vehicle bought 15 years ago."

"I think it rather foolish for any politician to target the already highly fuel-efficient and very environmentally friendly new vehicles. There are currently close to seven million vehicles on the road in Canada that are over 10 years old, or about 40 per cent of all light vehicles registered. But no politician has the backbone to target getting these old smokers off the road." (FYI, DesRosiers' income seems to come from the pockets of car manufacturers, who of course want to sell more new cars.)

Anyway, what he's basically saying is that the 7 million "old" vehicles should be sent to the junk yard. I agree that the emissions from older vehicles are an issue, but is trashing the cars and making even more waste really more environmentally friendly than other options? Just looking for some opinions on this...

[Blunt]

But if 10+ year old cars are passing the emissions test (legitamitely) then what is the problem?

[dark169]

older cars will not pass modern standards, they may pass smog checks and the like but not what a new car has to do. Try to move to California with a car and really see what emission standards are. Its not always about mpg.

Also old cars are less safe, not a green issue but still an argument to their abolishment.

[stealth]

These "studies" never factor in the energy and pollution involved in manufacturing more new vehicles or scrapping the old ones.
I think there's a certain point when it makes sense to phase out vehicles, but the need to do so is greatly exaggerated by special interest groups and the auto industry as a whole.

[gordholio]

A ploy to get people who can keep their cars for years, to buy new ones.
Imagine how much oil and electricity goes into making a new car.

[stealth]

Funny how articles like these come at a time when the auto industry is sufferring. Asking auto manufacturers when to buy new cars is like asking a barber if you need a haircut.

[canabiz]

I am still driving a 1993 Toyota Camry that passed the most recent emissions test and I do not plan to buy new cars (even though it's really popular these days, judging from the Buying cars in the US thread)

There are several reasons for this and it all trumps any environmental concerns that you guys may have for older cars.

- I can't afford a new car at this point

- Owning a new car is possibly one of the worst *investment* you can have, the value of the car depreciates the moment you drive it off the lot

- Your insurance will go up (mind you owning old cars have other issues like maintenance etc)

- Our winter is really bad for cars, old or new.

So no I am not in a hurry to ditch my 93 Camry, it will stay here in the family for the next 3 years at least.

[Bullseye]

I remember reading recently (I'll try to think of where so I can link) that a large portion of total life emissions for a vehicle comes from the manufacturing process. Logically, that seems to make sense, too. I think it would be hard to make a case for junking a good running well kept vehicle to buy a new one with lower tailpipe emissions.

I think it's better to just attempt to reduce your impact by driving less, driving slower on freeways, keeping your vehicle maintained, and avoiding idling or hard accelleration. Perhaps even more impartantly, when choosing your vehicle, don't buy anything bigger or more powerful than you actually need. Very few people need a Denali or Corvette.

[nik003]

older cars will not pass modern standards, they may pass smog checks and the like but not what a new car has to do. Try to move to California with a car and really see what emission standards are. Its not always about mpg.

Also old cars are less safe, not a green issue but still an argument to their abolishment.

You do think that an older let's say Audi (made in germany) or Volvo (since ford owns them) or any other higher-class vehicle is less safe than a new bottom-line model (like a civic or a focus)? I really doubt that. Price-wise, they're probably the same. What you get for the money? Bettwer quality, better safety, and with a good maintenance record, probably the same environmental effect.

[dlander]

My "old" car is a '96 Civic. I can't imagine it's really that bad on the environment. Especially since it's the same car that Honda sold up until the redesign in 2000.

[gman]

My "old" car is a '96 Civic. I can't imagine it's really that bad on the environment. Especially since it's the same car that Honda sold up until the redesign in 2000.

There is a big difference between car made in 2000 and those made in 2007 already.

[brunes]

Just another part of the argument - it is rare that a car is just "junked". If the parts in it are not useable in other cars, then they are recycled for scrap metal - which is worth big $$$ to people. The only part of a car that is not re-claimed when it is EOL is the upholstery.

And it uses less a lot energy to recycle metal from old cars to make other things (like appliances), than it is to mine new metal.

[Topher]

Offer me a financial incentive to junk my old car that is running perfectly well and costs less than $1000/yr in assorted maintenance and repiars, and we can talk. Otherwise, don't tell me what to do. :D

[patrob]

Very few people need a Denali or Corvette.

:D Sure they don't need it, but they just want to have it:twisted: Especially the Corvette...:lol:

[Bullseye]

:D Sure they don't need it, but they just want to have it:twisted: Especially the Corvette...:lol:

Sure, but it certainly wouldn't qualify you as Green/eco-friendly, the name of this forum. For those who actually care about reducing their pollution impact, it would not be very sensible or example-setting to do such a thing...even if you just reallyreallyreally wanted it, as good of a reason as that is. :lol:

[eelfliw]

What about the energy and material used in the manufacturing of a vehicle? Surely, the amount of energy and material required to make a new car is far far greater than the energy efficiency of a newer vehicle over a 10 year old vehicle.

There's no question older cars are less efficient and burn more gas to carry the same load and travel the same distance as a brand new hybrid vehicle. But how much more before it becomes equivalent to the energy used in manufacturing a new vehicle?

I'm hanging on to my clunker for now.

[MrBurns]

I drive a 1996 Geo Metro 1.3 liter. At 47 miles per gallon they'd have to give me a new Prius or similar for FREE before I junk this one. I paid 400$ for it and it runs great.

[fiscal-rick]

if your driving an older car, is a brand new hybrid really an economically feasable option? I dont think so

[wetnose]

I read somewhere that recent innovations in car frame design have made recent cars a LOT safer than cars made from 10 years ago. Anybody care to elaborate?

[gordholio]

There is a big difference between car made in 2000 and those made in 2007 already.

There's a difference, but not enough to buy new cars all the time.
I wouldn't say it 's a big difference. The main thing is to drive defensively and not think that all the new "safety" features are going to save you from driving too close or too fast.

[instanoodles]

if they wanted me to get another car, it would have to be more fuel efficient then my current car, same size as my current car and cheap enough that I WOULD want to afford it, I dont want to pay 400 dollars a month for a 2008 vw jetta tdi cause right now I get about 50mpg in my 96 vw jetta. although I am getting kinda tired of maintaining it, at 300,000km things start to fall apart.

[pengu]

My 1997 Honda Civic passed emissions tests with flying colours. The guy who did it for me told me that it was lower than some new cars. What constitutes as old?

An older, well-maintained, and fuel efficient car like mine, I couldn't imagine being better for the environment to scrap and get a new one.

[jayk]

I remember reading recently (I'll try to think of where so I can link) that a large portion of total life emissions for a vehicle comes from the manufacturing process. Logically, that seems to make sense, too. I think it would be hard to make a case for junking a good running well kept vehicle to buy a new one with lower tailpipe emissions.

I think it's better to just attempt to reduce your impact by driving less, driving slower on freeways, keeping your vehicle maintained, and avoiding idling or hard accelleration. Perhaps even more impartantly, when choosing your vehicle, don't buy anything bigger or more powerful than you actually need. Very few people need a Denali or Corvette.

I agree. I hear it on the news the other day.
Considering that emissions controls can be installed into a car (I would personally do that myself being a responsible citizen :D), I find it hard to believe that getting a new vehicle is better for the environment considering all the energy and materials going into a new car.

You could think of it as new ways or thinking, or you could suspect the auto industry paying the media and trying to make people buy more of their cars.

[notanexpert]

The cheaper the item, the easier it is to convince people that getting a new one is the best thing they can do for the environment. This marketing angle is very popular these days, works reasonably well with appliances, super well with CFL's but I notice from the above posts, not so well with cars. This is because if people can't afford the new car, they want to rationalize why it is bad for the environment to get a new one. If they can afford that new fridge and want one, they can rationalize why it is good for the environment to get one. But in the end, nobody really knows, most of this environmental stuff is marketing hype anyway, I can't find any studies that would be in-depth enough to give a clar-cut answer. I have tried to get answers for CFL's and I get no definitive evidence, even from a very high-profile Canadian environmental foundation. They can't show me any studies that show CFL's are actually good for the environment. I just have to take their word for it, and I suspect they get a handsome contribution from Phillips and others for spreading that word.

[brunes]

... I can't find any studies that would be in-depth enough to give a clar-cut answer. I have tried to get answers for CFL's and I get no definitive evidence, even from a very high-profile Canadian environmental foundation. They can't show me any studies that show CFL's are actually good for the environment. I just have to take their word for it, and I suspect they get a handsome contribution from Phillips and others for spreading that word.

David Suzuki's research is enough for me in this area

"Naturally, we have to consider the entire life cycle of a product before we make a wholesale switch. But the stats on CFLs are pretty compelling. According to Environment Canada, replacing even one 60-watt standard bulb with a 15-watt CFL in each of Canada's 12 million households would save up to $73 million a year in energy costs and reduce greenhouse emissions by nearly 400,000 tonnes."

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_David_Suzuki/Article_Archives/weekly06220701.asp

[notanexpert]

David Suzuki's research is enough for me in this area

"Naturally, we have to consider the entire life cycle of a product before we make a wholesale switch. But the stats on CFLs are pretty compelling. According to Environment Canada, replacing even one 60-watt standard bulb with a 15-watt CFL in each of Canada's 12 million households would save up to $73 million a year in energy costs and reduce greenhouse emissions by nearly 400,000 tonnes."

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_David_Suzuki/Article_Archives/weekly06220701.asp

That's great.
Except that the Suzuki foundation did not do any research on this issue, I've asked.
And, the research that they quote is based on such flawed assumptions, that I don't even know where to start the list.
Using the same set of assumptions, I can say that if everyone bought a new Prius, we would save XXXX millions of litres of fuel and greenhouse gas emissions (I haven't done the actual math, but I know its a lot). So what??? Nobody did any kind of study to say if this is good for the environment overall, exactly the same as the CFL issue, just a different price point - everyone can afford a CFL, so people have a lot fewer questions about the validity of the supposed environmental benefits.

[gordholio]

David Suzuki's research is enough for me in this area

"Naturally, we have to consider the entire life cycle of a product before we make a wholesale switch. But the stats on CFLs are pretty compelling. According to Environment Canada, replacing even one 60-watt standard bulb with a 15-watt CFL in each of Canada's 12 million households would save up to $73 million a year in energy costs and reduce greenhouse emissions by nearly 400,000 tonnes."

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_David_Suzuki/Article_Archives/weekly06220701.asp

Oh please, David Suzuki?

[nik003]

For me, the cut-off point is probably somewhere between 5k and 10k. That is to say, I would probably go for something just because it is more efficient and good for the environment, in that price bracket. Above that, I really want what I like, to make my money worth. That is the reason why CFL's are very acceptable, even without any studies, and that is why appliances are also acceptable. When it comes to a car, where I am expected to shed out of my pocket 20+k (a cheap car), I'm sorry, it's got to be more than energy efficient and green. It's got to rub me the right way to want it.

my 2c.

[Dexion]

oh gimme a break!

Since when did the car industry or analysts cared so much about the environment? Was being green ever an issue like 10 years ago when the Electric/hybrid car was invented? It's more like the automotive industry is hitting an all-time low as their biggest competitors are themselves(10-15 years) ago with cars made to last. If they really cared about the environment so much, why not make the hybrid electric car more affordable? The best selling Prius's is priced like a mid-luxury sedan, but what your getting is some budget compact car with room of a sedan. It gets worst if your looking up in the higher end, like Lexus RX330h. This to me is some marketing propaganda so that to change the mindset of users to "buy or lease" their vehicles every 3-5 years so that we keep their wallets nicely filled. Most of the daily drivers nowadays are 4-6 cylinders and are very easy to maintain and won't be severe polluters to our environment. Even if there was, an easy modification and tune up would bring these older cars to susceptible levels. Besides there are other environmental issues far more important than just old cars.

Trashing these cars pollute way more than keeping them on the road..Have you been to junk yards? Absolutely filthy with the oil and other chemicals contaminating water sources, and the amount of oil and energy to break down these cars to simpler forms of reusable resources far exceed the amount of pollutants to keep these cars on the road.

[camber]

From http://wheels.ca/article/33033 :
(FYI, DesRosiers' income seems to come from the pockets of car manufacturers, who of course want to sell more new cars.)

Anyway, what he's basically saying is that the 7 million "old" vehicles should be sent to the junk yard. I agree that the emissions from older vehicles are an issue, but is trashing the cars and making even more waste really more environmentally friendly than other options? Just looking for some opinions on this...

Cars are one of the most recycled items that we produce.

[weedb0y]

But if 10+ year old cars are passing the emissions test (legitamitely) then what is the problem?

Agree, I just had my Acura Integra emission tested and behold, it passed with better results than most newer cars.

Where the limit was 200, I was at 16!! 0.06 vs 1.00 limit.

[blainehamilton]

I'm all for an incentive program for thousands of dollars offered off the price of new vehicles. I still drive my 1995 dodge stratus. It still has a fair bit of life left in it.

However, if the new vehicles can be had for $3000 to $10000 less, than 2 to 3 year old used prices will drop accordingly. I'd love to get a nice 2006 with low kms for a quarter of the new price...