There not scrapping my bike or my car

[Lucky_Lou]

On the radio this morning the government were floating a plan to scrap all veichle over 9 years old so they would be replaced by "greener" vehicles which would help the ailing motor industry???.
It was on the BBC so must have some credible source. I have a 8 year old Honda Accord which has only45k on it and runs like a dream it has to be the most air brained idea ever to come out of whitehall.........unless you know better.
Lou

[Bob_Roller]

There was a similar law being considered here in Arizona about 16 years ago, all vehicles over 20 years old would be taken off of the road, for the same environmental concerns.

Old vehicle collectors clubs rose to the occasion, and the law went away, and stricter emissions testing was implemented as a result.

Maricopa county the county where Phoenix is located, requires motorcycles to be emissions tested every year.

Only county in the US to do so, even the state of California doesn't require motorcycles to be tested, unless this has been changed very recently, and I'm not aware of it.

The Arizona legislature passed a law in 2008, exempting vehicles that have collector license plates ( 25 + years old), and collectible auto insurance, to be exempt for emissions testing, due to the small amount of roadway use these vehicles have.

I have two vehicles that are exempt, the '81 R65, and  '79 Trans Am.

The emissions tests were more costly than the registration was for one year !!!!

[nhmaf]

I had once started an  analysis of just how "green" a new hybrid car would be - considering that it has to be built, using some very electricity intensive processes and materials, whereas the 10+ year old car in my driveway gets around 75-80% of the fuel mileage, but does not consume additional resources to manufacture, etc.   How many miles can I drive the existing car before the increased efficiency of the new car makes up for the difference, factoring into the equation all the new emissions required to produce it are added to the "footprint" of the new green car..  Have to go dig up some of that stuff sometime.

The government can come take my car if they GIVE me a new one for free.  I've got other things to spend my money on - though we will likely have to get a new car sometime this year - delayed by having to send more money to the IRS this month.   Rather than giving any more money to banks, I think the government should just buy new cars from Detroit and GIVE them to all taxpayers who pay in over a certain amount of income taxes each year - how's that for a bailout that at least leaves the taxpayer with SOMETHING tangible!


"Emissions testing" is mandatory on all vehicles in our state, but if the vehicle doesn't have OBD-II diagnostic capabilities or is 15+ years old, the mechanic enters the vehicle info into the computer terminal during the inspection anyway and it tells him that there is no further testing required, but the still enter the vehicle into the database.  I wonder what the distribution of vehicle ages are on a state-by-state basis?

[Bob_Roller]

I can tell you at least in the Phoenix area, 20 year old vehicles used as primary transportation, not collector vehicles are quite common.

Most are in good mechanical shape, but the intense desert sun has had it's way with paint and interiors.

[Ed Miller]

...but they're rust free!   :-)

[Justin B.]

Mike, I remember reading that study.  It turned out that a hybrid actually had a larger "carbon footprint" than a conventional vehicle once all of the factors you pointed out were taken into account.

I just may live long enough to see the carbon nazis proven as frauds when the media and opportunistic pols do a flip-flop jump back onto the "ice-age is coming" band wagon...

This whole green and carbon footprint thing is about to nauseate me...  When pols start hinting that the cow population needs to be reduced doe to their farting contributing to "greenhouse gases" it's time for the populace to loudly proclaim that we're not as retarded as they think we are.  On the other hand...

[Lucky_Lou]

I had once started an  analysis of just how "green" a new hybrid car would be - considering that it has to be built, using some very electricity intensive processes and materials,
I started thinking about this and it made my brain hurt!!!!!!!
I watched a program last week called "who killed the electric car" i think it was GM who built a superb electric car to comply with the proposed californian co2 bill but it was killed off by the petrolium lobby and Bush junior the 100 or so vehicles they made were only availiable on lease and they pulled them back and flattend them even though the owners offered close to 1 million dollars apeice to keep them ....only one remains in a museum and it has been stripped of its drive system...at the same time they gave massive tax breaks to monster trucks like hummers ect. stupid is what stupid does
Lou

[Bob_Roller]

 I routinely saw a GM EV-1 going home from work in the '96-98 time-frame, car was eerily quiet, just tire noise from the road.

Had no problem doing 70 mph, with ample power left for acceleration.

I wonder how many other advanced vehicles have been quietly 'killed' by big business !!!

[nhmaf]

Yes, the "who killed the electric car" is a classic example of a wonderful idea and great opportunity squandered and cast aside in favor of politics and greed.   Good thing that we've learned that lesson in this country now, right?!?!?  

[Darwin_R65]

I guess it's not a new ploy by the big manufacturers. Ever watch the movie "Tucker"

Great movie and interesting facts.

John

[ambrose78]

who killed the electric car was really interesting.

It does highlight the fundamental flaw in any governement that they really are swayed by who is paying them. Not hard to guess who would be behind this movement , though the goverment may well cave in to 'stimulate' the 'economy'. (who named the economy anyway?)

I would be pretty upset if they scrapped my vehicles purely on a an unrelated criteria such as age. Age has no reflection on how roadworthy a vehicle is, nor infact how efficient it is. Its ironic that there are many older vehicles that are way more fuel efficient than the new ones because they were simpler and lighter.

[Bob_Roller]

I've got a '91 Honda CRX Si, and when the national speed limit on the rural highway system was 55 mph, and there wasn't ethanol in the fuel, I could routinely get 52-55 mpg on level ground.

Now with 10% ethanol in the fuel, and 75 mph speed limit, it's around 46 mpg.

[ambrose78]

Ethanol fuel - What a complete half ass measure. Not only does it mean fuel is competting for land space with food but it has a worse energy per litre rating than mineral fuel.

In NSW it is 3C per litre cheaper - which is about 1.5-2% cheaper than normal fuel depending on the fuel price at the time. My car on the other hand seems to be rather partial to alcohol in a true aussie manner - it loves the stuff. Goes from 7.5-8l/100 to around 10l per 100kms. Around 20-25% more fuel for the same difference. It seems to completely destroy the $100 O2 sensors in my car which in turn means the computer runs way to rich. The first time I put down the age of the car. The second time however when the replacement sensor was a month old makes me wonder.... It certainly doesn't save any money. Now I exclusively avoid the ethanol fuels - but for how long?

Fact is oil is running out. Fact is the Oil industry isn't really good for the enviroment either in extraction or the emmisions from burning. Not to mention as a resource we should probably save what is left for making plastics.

Hybrids IMO are also half ass measure. Its a total compromise - they still use oil based fuel, have expensive and environmentally toxic batteries they are heavier, more complicated than conventional vehicles, and more costly. They are really no more efficient than modern Diesels. At least the car companies are having a go but really the commitment to the next technology is needed, whether it be electricity, compressed air, hydrogen or some other method. I guess the main problem comes back to economics. No company wants to invest the money to develop the next industry when they can keep on making money doing what they are.

Problem is people with the vision rarely have access to the required funds. As Darwin_R65 mentioned - The Tucker movie. A classic case of a little guy coming out with a revolutionary vehicle,
only to be taken down by expensive law cases made by exisitng companies.

[Ed Miller]

I've got a '91 Honda CRX Si, and when the national speed limit on the rural highway system was 55 mph, and there wasn't ethanol in the fuel, I could routinely get 52-55 mpg on level ground.

Now with 10% ethanol in the fuel, and 75 mph speed limit, it's around 46 mpg.

You actually paid attention to the speed limit?  It's always the same on my nearly empty back roads.

Are you sure that's not an HF you have?  I've never heard of an SI doing that well; my dx only gets about 40.  They're suggesting a program here in Oregon to give big cash incentives to people who trade in their old gas guzzlers (17 mpg or less) for new slightly more efficient cars, but my CRX won't qualify even though it's old and has 255,000 miles.  Besides, they don't make many cars today that I would want.  Tesla Roadster ($$$$$$), S2000, maybe an NSX if Acura still makes them.  Why can they, even Honda, no longer make a little sports car that can get over 40 mpg?  I'm disgusted.

[Bob_Roller]

No Ed, I've got the 1.6 liter, 4 valve per cylinder engine, it's always gotten great fuel mileage, but throw in a few mountain grade climbs, and the fuel mileage goes down drastically.

The few long distance drives that I routinely make, is to San Diego,and I can make the 390 miles without stopping for fuel, and that is including about a 20 mile section of almost full throttle going up a mountain range about 90 miles east of San Diego.