Quote:
Originally Posted by tim3058
shovel, I agree. Why scrap a good car to replace it with something similar. The 40mpg 1985 vs the 40mpg 2009 comparison, sure the old car may not have the OBDII and later computer, emissions controls, etc, but think of the replacement cost in pollution. The junkyard equipment and steel/aluminum mills to recycle scrap metal and process ore into new metal, the various chemical plants to process plastics, factories making the new car parts, trucking the pieces to the auto plant, assembly at the auto plant, painting, transporting by railcar to various cities, transport to the dealers by car carrier... think of how many workers along the way drove their car to work to build that new car also. No way can the total energy/pollution cost pay off to junk a roadworthy old car. Keeping it running beyond 8 years also lessens the cost of transportation (few hundred bucks in repairs vs a $25,000 car loan). So yes, the longer a car is kept on the road, thats one less new car that needs to be built... reduce, reuse, recycle all at once.
And consider the fuel used for most of the equipment/trucking/railroads for that new car... diesel. Pretty bad pollution tradeoff to get a new "green" car
|
good points. i forget what it is to drive a trochoid oil pumped (100psi) 3 main boxer...
they have not, and may never again return real integrity. todays cars are not integrity, they are an evil tugging at us all.
you could go back to a 283 with thick bores super stoiching its way to 75 years...
or the beetles, vanagons,
and I did not and never will mention a long running inline four.
It is not for the sake of being cheap, as my reasoning for ecomod. I found a "best" and it aint changing.
