Recycling the whole car by keeping it on the road
 

I'd like to hear other peoples' thoughts on this... (sorry if it's been discussed, I didn't see it)

Ever since I heard it quoted that the average car, counting classics and counting those wrecked during their test drive, stays on the road about 8 years I've figured that every year you keep a car on the road past 8 you're "recycling" the whole car, effectively preventing it from being scrapped and preventing a new one from having to be built and shipped to your local dealer.

I don't know that the figure of 8 years is accurate, a quick google search brought all sorts of answers from "experts" that varied from 6 to 16, and I didn't see any that seemed to be derived from actual DMV registrations. I know there are regional differences too, life's probably harder for the average Kalamazoo car than the average Fresno car. I'm willing to "buy" 8 years or 10 as a good average. The average car on the road might be older, but that's not directly equivalent to the average car's life span because the ones that died young aren't on the road anymore so you don't see them.

So what do you think? Does it make sense that for every 8 years you keep a car running after the first 8 you've effectively recycled the whole car? If we're to assume that a 40mpg 1985 econocar in good running condition pollutes similarly to a 40mpg 2009 econocar, is there a down side to keeping the old ones on the road?

Your assumption would be at least partially incorrect, regarding pollution. Sure, there's the overall level of pollution that's probably similar, but the components of the exhaust will differ greatly from then till now, with newer and "improved" (haha) fuel formulations, etc.

I completely agree that it's almost always better to spend the money on keeping an older car on the road. Afterall, there's only so many things that can go wrong before everything's been replaced. I can often almost entirely rebuild a car for less money than the dealer's price of a new car, not counting fees for delivery, etc.

This is why the only requirements I have for buying a new car are:

The price is no more than 3 digits, preferably (but not necessarily) including the decimal point.
The body isn't inexplicably rusty, or rusty beyond average repair means.
The total cost of repairs doesn't exceed (vehicle cost + title/licensing)*3.

I give in on the last one alot, since I usually find junkers for $100-$200 that people just won't let go to the junk yard.

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

All you need is a really good vacuum/steam cleaning of the interior, and a spray can of "that new car smell" :-)

Plus older cars usually have had the bugs worked out of them, and have cheaper replacement parts. Parts for my Buick are dirt-cheap in comparison for other cars. Yeah, it doesn't do so well on gas. On the other hand, it's cheap to maintain and insure.

With what new cars cost, and some of the "land mines" embedded in them, refurbishing old cars makes enormous economic sense.

I am looking at my 1996 Impala SS. A "like-kind" replacement ( a Camaro SS) costs $45,000 and gets the same MPG, and requires gymnastics to get into (thanks to a lowtop sill) where the Impala requires none.


My Impala is in great shape. For $15,000, I could get a "rotisserie" restoration and would not be ashamed to put it in a Barrett-Jackson auction. I might break even, but that is not the point of my exercise.

For about the same, I could bring it to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and cosmetic standard of a new car. LS3 engine, Tremec 6060, autocross suspension, etc. A bit more for Brembo brakes. Not to "Barrett-Jackson" bodywork and documentation standards, but a car good for another fifteen years of regular road service, and would probably get better MPG than the newer car.

There is a lot of pollution involved in steelmaking for cars. As a rule cars require high-quality steel that cannot be made from scrap, so somebody has to smelt some taconite (a dirty process) to make the new car. The old car already has the high-quality steel, made into the appropriate parts.

shovel -

I agree. As long as the car's emissions are legal for your state, then I think you are doing your part.

Part of the irony of "my old car" is that I've learned a lot about keeping my specific drivetrain alive. If I lost my car tomorrow, I would want to give another used version of the same car a chance because I know how to take care of it. I have a "vested" interest in my drivetrain because it's what I know.

Your equation makes my car 25% recycled, :) .

CarloSW2

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.
:)

If we *all* whole-heartedly engaged in the 'cash for clunkers' and 'scrappage schemes' in current vogue, I think there'd soon be a world shortage of raw materials of all descriptions.

If 8 years is true, as in off the road completely, that is pretty sad. 99% of the vehicles I've ever owned were 8 years old or older when I found them.

My latest purchasing criteria:
1. stick shift
2. electronic fuel injection
3. reasonably small
4. inexpensive

I second DCB's statement, those four criterion are what I look for in future vehicles :thumbup:. My current ride was originally my father's, I got it with 26,000 on the ODO in 2004. It now has somewhere around 145,000, and still runs strong. I have replaced the clutch, and a bunch of other large cost items to keep it road worthy, so I have full intentions of keeping this beast on the road for as long as possible.

Here's another aspect to consider in keeping old cars on the roads. New parts vs. rebuilt parts. New parts are often/always coming from China were emisions controls for the mining and smelting operations are not so good. Remanufactured parts save all that energy that went into those parts orginaly and just replace the parts that are worn or broken. And Reman parts are rebuilt in the USA.

Ha! So it seems we mostly all agree that there are numerous benefits, and few drawbacks to keeping the old ones on the road.

Just so drawbacks are addressed, there's the fact that old machines - no matter how well maintained - do wear out in ways that often aren't obvious.

Long term stress fractures in the frame that could cause a sudden catastrophe with little or no warning, badly worn suspension or steering bushings may not appear to be a significant problem until they get dangerously worn & cause trouble in an emergency maneuver, older cars may not handle as crisply to avoid collisions, may not have the safety equipment or even standard of braking capability to which we've grown accustomed.
Older vehicles, even extremely well kept examples, need more frequent inspection by the user to ensure they continue to be safe to operate - for the occupants and everyone else on the road. As far as I can tell, motorists who actually inspect their vehicle for safety periodically are an extreme minority - let's put it this way, outside of my "automotive forum buddies", none of the people I interact with on a regular basis would have any idea how to check their brake pads or tell if a tire is showing unusual wear from a steering or suspension problem. Buying a whole new car every couple years allows them to continue being blissfully unaware of all things mechanical.

Still, I think the benefits of this type of recycling are numerous and significant enough that it's worth our time to not only practice vehicle maintenance with long term goals, but to defend our decision to do so and even evangelize it to an extent. Humans are far too "smart" a species to get away with using ignorance as an excuse for poor maintenance habits and the wasteful neglect and disposal of otherwise serviceable equipment.

In other words, let's keep our old cars running - that's a better ecomod trick than a kammback and when someone jabs you for driving a 20 year old car, saying "it's paid for" trumps at least half of them. ;)

I'm in the maintenance business. Building maintenance. Billions of dollars are wasted each year due to bad maintenance practices. The same is true of personal vehicles. Unfortunately many people do not know how to reasonably maintain thier vehicle or choose not to because the local mechanic is more painful than the dentist. For those, it's just less painful to just do enough to get by and then blow a big wad on a shiny, cool new vehicle. With very few exceptions, vehicles are not investments they are cost centers.

Fortunately the economy is helping people re-think how useful that old steed really is. Too bad peoples memory is short. When the economy gets better new cars will sell again.

The last car I recycled was a 1994 Honda Civic VX, Bought it with 27,492 original miles (ORIGINAL TIRES) in March of 2008. It was hit in the rear and totaled in 1995. The Insurance company used it to train adjusters for 13 years before I bought it.

Sold it to a long time friend. I has less than 50 k miles on it now.

The first salvage car I rebuilt was A 66 Chevy G10 Van. Bought it in 1973 with 42K miles.

In the years between I have rebuilt probably close to 200 cars. A few had less than 1000miles on the odometer when I bought them.

In my old Z car shop we saved everything off of the cars our customers did not want to keep on the road and reused those parts to keep others on the road.

When I retired from working on cars, I bought a 49 Plymouth businessman's coupe and put the body on an 83 Nissan truck frame, with a 73 240Z engine and transmission.

I built something like 12 Nissan Altimas from 1993 to 1997 models. One parts car was used to build 3 other cars. At one time almost every member of my wife's family was driving one on those Altimas.

Built a 95 200SX that my brother bought. It had 3000 miles on the odo when I bought it. His son drove it until it had 130k miles, then my brother bought it from him and later sold it to a co worker. Probably has about 150 k on it now. Rebuilt in 1996 and still on the road.

My dad drove a 77 Honda Accord I built for 60k miles and averaged 39 MPG, until he traded it in on a Toyota Celica.

Bought a BMW 2002 once for $300, hit in the rear end. It had $1200 in receipts for work done on it within 3 months of being hit.

regards
Mech

I do not have the numbers to hand, but I believe that the average 1989 car, even when in good operating condition, puts out something on the order of 5x to 10x the pollutants that the average 2009 car does. They really have come a long way.

Most 2009 cars are much better for "passive safety" (i.e., after you hit something or something hits you) than most 1989 cars. Crumple zones, airbags galore, high-strength passenger cells, and so on. Most 2009 cars have more room and more convenience features than most 1989 cars do, as well. (Some people have to have them cupholders and A/C!) The newer car almost always stops better, accelerates better, and corners better than the older one.

There are reasons to buy a newer car.

A 1990 model year car is the newest car that I've ever owned, though. Mine does everything I need it to do, and does it in ways that I like.

-soD

I disagree, and will have to dig up & scan my emissions results to back up that disagreement ;) :thumbup: Plus of course, you have to factor in the emissions of the boat/train/truck that delivers the new car to your local dealer, and all the previously discussed pollutants and resources used to make the whole new car - the environmental impact of which could just as well be greater than all the pollutants the car will ever produce in its lifetime of operation.


Newer cars are safer, no disagreement there. People still choose to ride motorcycles, in some states without helmets even. Clearly it's up to the individual to decide what level of safety they want for themselves. A person especially worried about motoring safety might do best to lease volvos and the rest of us folks who managed to survive so far on the cars of any given era through which we lived, we're probably not afraid of those cars either.

As a tangent of this discussion, I've noticed that certain nostalgic cars have become the subject of some specialized restoration companies. I don't have links handy, but have seen restoration shops selling bulk, turnkey examples of relatively "normal" vehicles... jeep J10's, toyota FJ40/60/etc, 80's firebirds, maverick/comet, etc. - clearly there would be no market for a "fully restored" 1985 ford escort, but it seems like auto scrap yards could garner some green press attention by reselling partially restored cars for a couple grand as part of a "keep 'em going" campaign. Green sells these days, right? Or do people not care if it's not fashionable enough?

Like everything else in life, it depends. My '04 Saturn has more front leg room, interior space, trunk space and horsepower than my '90 Accord. It gets better mileage, is cleaner running and far safer. They weigh within 100 pounds of each other.

I'm still driving that Accord (307,000 miles and counting), but it's showing its age, and after having seen the aftermath of several accidents on the side of the freeway over the past couple of days, I'd be better off moving to the Saturn and passing the Accord to somebody who drives in a better traffic situation than I do.

some_other_dave -

That's why I wish there was an aftermarket for *improving* emissions in older cars so that they perform better than new.

CarloSW2

@shovel--

Perhaps your car is better than average. Or perhaps your test results only show one specific set of circumstances, not all of the possible load/RPM/temperature/etc. possibilities. But I still think that the average current 40 MPG car puts out far less emissions per mile than the average 1989 40 MPG car.

@cfg83--it would be nice if that were the case. But there isn't enough $$ in it, and the regulatory hurdles would be immense. For instance, if my 914 were a 1976 model year one (and therefore subject to smog testing here in CA), I could swap out the old weird funky analog electronic fuel injection for a modern digital system which reduced emissions by 80%, and it would be labeled "GROSS POLLUTER" and I would have to put it back to its original more-polluting form to pass emissions testing.

-soD

Dave -

I'm sure there are permits and exemption authorities that would allow you to get CARB approval for such a modification... legal loopholes, as it were.

I believe that even in California, upgrading emissions is legal, when done through the proper channels. EPA and CARB both have regulations which allow engine switching, given that the new engine is from/complies to the same emissions standards as the vehicle that it's being swapped into, or is from a newer MY of the same chassis type, and the same manufacturer. There is a caveat, though, in that you can only swap in setups that create a vehicle that is currently considered an EPA approved OEM configuration. IOW, the engine/transmission/drive gear options that came in your vehicle are allowed to be swapped, from the same manufacturer, and in the same chassis type. If a newer model of your same vehicle had updated emissions equipment, there is a chance you could get CARB approval to upgrade your emissions equipment.

Christ -

I was also thinking that there would be allowances, but I could not have stated it as succinctly.

The whole drivetrain makes sense from an emissions standpoint, because the emissions test is narrow and works on the assumption that the car is otherwise what drove out of the factory. A singular emissions mod could be tuned to just pass the test.

CarloSW2

I've been told both ways about emissions tests in Cali - that you both can and can't change gearing.

From what I've been told, you can, as long as it's something that comes with your vehicle during the same production run. I've been told that if the engine speed doesn't match the dyno speed for your VIN, you fail.

It's been both ways verbally. Without being there, or looking up the laws (which don't apply to me, so you know how far that's going to go... ;) ) I can't say one way or the other for sure.

I do know that there is very little that is legal according to the EPA when it comes to engine swapping. I posted a PDF of the abstract somewhere, either here or on CustomTacos.com.

Regarding counting the emissions from shipping of new cars -

You also have to count the [substantially higher] emissions from producing and shipping the old car back in the day.

The caveat with new vs. old is that the old car has to be disposed of, versus the new car.

Often, it is more "green" to keep a car with similar ratings on the ground, as long as it passes current emissions standards, than to have all those emissions happen again to make a new car.

If you weren't counting the already placed emissions versus the new car's potential creation of emissions, the new car wins, hands down.

I still prefer older cars because it's more fiscally responsible and feasible to put a few thousand into fixing up an older car "good as new" than to spend $20-$40k on a new one. Frankly, I don't know too many people (in the current economy, especially) that can comfortably "swing" that.

Christ -

Hmmmm, I guess I was lucky because they never used the 5th gear that I swapped. In 2007 when I passed, I didn't have the 5th gear, but they only went as high as 3rd gear in their test. In 2009, they only went as high as 2nd gear.

But even if they had an issue, my gear swap would have complied with your statement. But it's a good thing I didn't swap the whole tranny, because I didn't have to deal with it.

CarloSW2

Again, I don't know for sure exactly how that would work, I'm only postulating based on what I've been told... And postulation is usually on the same field as flatulence, is it not?

(Opinions are like a**holes... everyone's got one, etc... etc.. )

Not if you did it right. Go get a newer model year package (engine along w/ emissions systems, the state ref won't care about gearing although its "technically" illegal), install it as per factory spec, make an appointment w/ your local ref, and if everything's installed right and working, they'll give you a nice new MY designation for your much cleaner car after it passes a modestly priced smog check and inspection.

There's no dyno speed for smog, just engine speed. If that was true all those lifted trucks w/ huge swampers would fail every year because doubling the tire diameter can radically change gearing.

I've had a state referee tell me point blank that even though it's technically illegal to change gearing, as long as it passes smog they'll let it slide because they do not want to disassemble a gear box or axle and count the teeth in order to prove it isn't the OEM gearing, which is what they would have to do.

The dyno speed is correlated to an applied vehicle speed, based on the OEM gearing. The dyno test is designed to check emissions at specific vehicle speeds, not engine speeds, AFAIK. It's kind of retarded, either way, because emissions laws in this country should be performance based, rather than "you're a stupid car owner, don't touch it".

If you can make it better, even if it's not OEM or a "registered" configuration, it should be legal, period. Too bad the idiocracy on capitol hill would never let that happen, right?

I've never heard of that, do you have a source? All they do is attach a sensor to the spark plug wires, and get it up to whatever engine speed to smog computer tells 'em to, then hold it there give or take. Doesn't matter if my truck has little 12" tires or big old mudders, they'll get it to whatever engine speed the computer says to.

That must be the case, then. Like I said, I'm going on what other (potentially less than credible) people are telling me. I assumed that the dyno test was an actual chassis dyno test, that would be testing vehicle speed. I know that there are emissions tests which are supposed to test emissions at speed (under load) because emissions change under load compared to just being at speed with no load.

Also, Carlos' post suggests [they used 2nd and 3rd gears, but not 5th] that they did require a vehicle speed/RPM test.

I think dyno load is constant for all LDVs. Emissions limits are determined by vehicle weight and age, not gearing AFAIK. In order to compensate for heavier vehicles having to move around more weight, their pass/fail limit is lower than a lighter vehicle's would be, so that all vehicles on the road stay under whatever level of emissions per mile. I'm thinking it's a lot easier to just change the emissions limits than it would be to have an adjustable dyno.

Seems proper, I'll go with it.

I bought My 1989 last spring, I plan to keep it ten years or so.

Why buy new junk?

I look around for yet another old sube, or the exotic synchro AWD (we can day dream)

I learned as my license is as old as my 87 sube

• oil has improved
• gas has improved
• filters have improved
• even car batteries..(my original sube battery leaked like all the others from that generation)
• I finally have a t-rated tread worth a nickel..20 years ago, and t-rated, anybody remember? they simply sucked.
• an old car was simply old stuff, today it does not have to be that way, with the same engine and gears...it can be a newer car.

The warmer climate areas have it made in the shade, the bodies hanging onto modern changes easily...and even then, I could add a mig welder to my list of changes that help old stuff (I have a 115v that does .25 inch thickness..20 years ago? no go)

There is no such animal for a 914. The last application of the VW Type IV motor in a car (the Microbus is a "truck", and you cannot smog a truck engine in a car!) was in 1976, in a 914 (and a 912E) and had funky analog electronic fuel injection on it.

Like I said... GROSS POLLUTER for making something that cuts down emissions by 80%.

Other engines could be swapped in, but those have their own complications.

-soD

Huh... Thought the Micro was a "wagon" designation?


I have to second guess my thought about recycling the whole car by keeping it on the road, honestly.

Imagine what happens if you part it out? A bunch of other similar model cars get to stay on the road, and it's THAT MUCH LESS pollution, plus you get to make a buck!

You'll have to pry the keys from my cold dead hands. I'm keeping that car on the road until I can't physically get myself in and out of the driver's seat.

I was initially illustrating that emissions testing in most areas is quite arbitrary, and generally of the "DON'T TOUCH IT YOU DUMMY" variety. And then someone tried to "correct" me on a point I've done a fair bit of research into...

-soD

By "part it out", I meant any car, not necessarily yours. There were two separate points in that post... one about the Micro being a wagon, the other being about my second guessing myself in how I feel about keeping cars on the road.

I'm partially biased, though, I make part of my living by parting out cars so that others can keep theirs on the road longer and cheaper.

Unless the Microbus was a MDV or HDV (And is the same year or newer than the vehicle getting it's drivetrain) you can drop everything right in, provided it comes w/ all the fixins (emissions/fuel/etc). You can't just swap over pieces, the entire rig top to bottom has to be EPA approved. Call up the BAR if you don't believe me. If I can make it fit, I could take a 6.5L diesel engine from a light duty Chevy pickup and drop it in a Civic of the same year or earlier. Otoh, I can't drop a diesel from an Isuzu NPR, a MDV IIRC, in my pickup, even if it's a lot cleaner than the stock engine.

Here's a good write up, a bit easier on the eyes than state regs.