Re: Keeping older vehicles on the road - was Re: [Biofuel] good reading
Hi, I would just like everyone to consider what happens to their car after they trade it in on a new vehicle. More than likely it will be sold to someone else and still spend years on the road, then it will be taken to a salvage yard where parts will be taken from it. I know alot of times these parts will be put onto newer vehicles if the parts will interchange. The vehicle is crushed, and hauled to another location, where it is either recrushed smaller or melted down. Of course, all the plastic, rubber, and glass burns away. Then what is left may be shipped overseas to make another car. The iron and steel are melted to become different parts of a new car. These parts are then painted and assembled. Then, of course, the car is loaded on a ship to come back the to US, and trucked to a car lot. So, at this point, a new car has tons of embedded energies and emissions. With that being said, I don't know how, even with the new cars having better emissions, there could possibly be a savings in emissions. Sure, it is great for the car company for you to buy a new car, but for the environment, I don't see how it could be. Now, if you were to put the 2004 computer controlled induction and ignition system and catalytic converter on the old car (this may require you to change the engine). Also, if you are able to use the old engine, then consider freshening it up a bit. Then you should have new car emissions without the heavy price to the environment of building a new car. I have often thought about why someone doesn't offer a kit to upgrade the emissions of cars (obviously, it is not in the best interest of the car companies, they are too busy convincing everyone that their new cars will save the world), and in fact some states even have laws against it. I guess that it would make too much sense to recycle what we have instead of always building new. Anyway, that is my 2 cents, I hope that I didn't make anyone too mad with this. -Al On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Donald Allwright wrote: > There is a point that's worth repeating here regarding older vehicles: > > Most cars use more energy in the manufacture than they do in fuel > consumption over their entire lives - so as a rule the best way to > reduce the energy balance of vehicles is to make them last as long as > you can. If your concern is just the energy use, then try and keep the > older vehicles working as long as possible. They are not quite as > efficient, but the excess energy use is far less than that used to > manufacture a new car you might replace it with. Also, keeping an older > vehicle on the road is a great way of providing local employment - much > better than just buying a new vehicle and using loads of primary > resources. > > OK, the same may not be true for some of the exhaust pipe pollutants, > as older cars are often a lot more polluting (due to lack of catalytic > converters, a less optimised combustion process etc). So while in rural > areas these pollutants may not be seen to be a major problem, in urban > areas they certainly will be. > > Donald > > > --- Erik Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- tommy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Here is a good reading piece if your wondering about > > > why it's pretty much a waste to try to get those > > > "Cheap" running junkers working and focus on new > > > tech > > > engines. > > > > Thank you for posting that link. I enjoyed reading it. > > But I disagree with your conclusions. As nice as a new > > diesel is I am still going to keep my 23 year old audi > > diesel. Once you consider that I only have about $500 > > into it not counting fuel or oil changes and that it > > gets 50 mpg I don't see how the new ones are any > > better. But of course they're much fancier, with all > > the electronics and latest options. The new ones will > > also blow mine off the road for speed and power. But > > those don't concern me. I know that for a lot of > > people they are very important, and those are the ones > > that I would try to talk into getting a newer one. > > > > The old ones also use very simple technology, which > > for me means that I can fix it all myself without > > taking it in. Not including the injection pump, of > > course. (Though I do have the computer scanners to be > > able to do everything on the newer ones as well, but > > that's cause it's what I do. Just saying that most > > people can work on the older ones and the newer ones > > become harder and more complicated.) > > > > I'm all for diesels. I love them. And the new ones > > have a lot of nice advantages. I really wish that with > > 20+ years of technology advancements it would have > > that much better fuel mileage than mine, but they just > > don't. I just don't see all that as a reason to > > abandon the old ones. If I can at all I will drive > > these old tech ones for many years more. The only > > thing I see stopping me is them getting wrecked. > > > > Just my opinion, of course. > > > > Erik > > > > > > >
RE: Keeping older vehicles on the road - was Re: [Biofuel] good reading
Interesting argument. This is actually the reason why I drive a 20 year old Land Rover. My argument is that because the chassis and about 90% of the body work is aluminium, the car, as a structure, not a machine, will probably go on forever. The engine is a big dirty thing: 3.5 V8 petrol. But as Erik says, there is virtually no maintenance on it, as it so de tuned and so basic to fix. (A hammer normally does it.) Can one really say that if I am doing 6000 kms per year in this big dirty thing, (using about 1 litre of fuel for 6kms!) that I am causing less damage to the environment than buying a new car every five years? Makes me feel a lot better if it's true! I'd be really interested to see some actual statistics to shut my girlfirend up. She maintains I'm just a gas guzzler lover! Phil Rendel English Department Kingswood College, Burton Street, Grahamstown tel. 046 603 6600 fax. 046 622 3084 cell: 084 448 1052 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Donald Allwright Sent: 20 September 2004 12:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Keeping older vehicles on the road - was Re: [Biofuel] good reading There is a point that's worth repeating here regarding older vehicles: Most cars use more energy in the manufacture than they do in fuel consumption over their entire lives - so as a rule the best way to reduce the energy balance of vehicles is to make them last as long as you can. If your concern is just the energy use, then try and keep the older vehicles working as long as possible. They are not quite as efficient, but the excess energy use is far less than that used to manufacture a new car you might replace it with. Also, keeping an older vehicle on the road is a great way of providing local employment - much better than just buying a new vehicle and using loads of primary resources. OK, the same may not be true for some of the exhaust pipe pollutants, as older cars are often a lot more polluting (due to lack of catalytic converters, a less optimised combustion process etc). So while in rural areas these pollutants may not be seen to be a major problem, in urban areas they certainly will be. Donald --- Erik Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- tommy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Here is a good reading piece if your wondering about > > why it's pretty much a waste to try to get those > > "Cheap" running junkers working and focus on new > > tech > > engines. > > Thank you for posting that link. I enjoyed reading it. > But I disagree with your conclusions. As nice as a new > diesel is I am still going to keep my 23 year old audi > diesel. Once you consider that I only have about $500 > into it not counting fuel or oil changes and that it > gets 50 mpg I don't see how the new ones are any > better. But of course they're much fancier, with all > the electronics and latest options. The new ones will > also blow mine off the road for speed and power. But > those don't concern me. I know that for a lot of > people they are very important, and those are the ones > that I would try to talk into getting a newer one. > > The old ones also use very simple technology, which > for me means that I can fix it all myself without > taking it in. Not including the injection pump, of > course. (Though I do have the computer scanners to be > able to do everything on the newer ones as well, but > that's cause it's what I do. Just saying that most > people can work on the older ones and the newer ones > become harder and more complicated.) > > I'm all for diesels. I love them. And the new ones > have a lot of nice advantages. I really wish that with > 20+ years of technology advancements it would have > that much better fuel mileage than mine, but they just > don't. I just don't see all that as a reason to > abandon the old ones. If I can at all I will drive > these old tech ones for many years more. The only > thing I see stopping me is them getting wrecked. > > Just my opinion, of course. > > Erik > > > > > > This tech is what the "Big fuel" petro industrial > > fuel > > suppliers will get the gov to back instead of > > bio-fuel, keeping themselves in the loop > > > > http://www.boschusa.com/dieselvoice.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > htt
Keeping older vehicles on the road - was Re: [Biofuel] good reading
There is a point that's worth repeating here regarding older vehicles: Most cars use more energy in the manufacture than they do in fuel consumption over their entire lives - so as a rule the best way to reduce the energy balance of vehicles is to make them last as long as you can. If your concern is just the energy use, then try and keep the older vehicles working as long as possible. They are not quite as efficient, but the excess energy use is far less than that used to manufacture a new car you might replace it with. Also, keeping an older vehicle on the road is a great way of providing local employment - much better than just buying a new vehicle and using loads of primary resources. OK, the same may not be true for some of the exhaust pipe pollutants, as older cars are often a lot more polluting (due to lack of catalytic converters, a less optimised combustion process etc). So while in rural areas these pollutants may not be seen to be a major problem, in urban areas they certainly will be. Donald --- Erik Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- tommy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Here is a good reading piece if your wondering about > > why it's pretty much a waste to try to get those > > "Cheap" running junkers working and focus on new > > tech > > engines. > > Thank you for posting that link. I enjoyed reading it. > But I disagree with your conclusions. As nice as a new > diesel is I am still going to keep my 23 year old audi > diesel. Once you consider that I only have about $500 > into it not counting fuel or oil changes and that it > gets 50 mpg I don't see how the new ones are any > better. But of course they're much fancier, with all > the electronics and latest options. The new ones will > also blow mine off the road for speed and power. But > those don't concern me. I know that for a lot of > people they are very important, and those are the ones > that I would try to talk into getting a newer one. > > The old ones also use very simple technology, which > for me means that I can fix it all myself without > taking it in. Not including the injection pump, of > course. (Though I do have the computer scanners to be > able to do everything on the newer ones as well, but > that's cause it's what I do. Just saying that most > people can work on the older ones and the newer ones > become harder and more complicated.) > > I'm all for diesels. I love them. And the new ones > have a lot of nice advantages. I really wish that with > 20+ years of technology advancements it would have > that much better fuel mileage than mine, but they just > don't. I just don't see all that as a reason to > abandon the old ones. If I can at all I will drive > these old tech ones for many years more. The only > thing I see stopping me is them getting wrecked. > > Just my opinion, of course. > > Erik > > > > > > This tech is what the "Big fuel" petro industrial > > fuel > > suppliers will get the gov to back instead of > > bio-fuel, keeping themselves in the loop > > > > http://www.boschusa.com/dieselvoice.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): > http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > = -- 43 - slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything. ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] good reading
That 1980 Mercedes we converted this weekend was one of the nicest examples of "an old car" that I have seen in a while. No rust, not a lot of clutter, easy to work on. Only 26 mpg, but it's a wagon, and heavy. With free veggie, the mpg isn't as critical. - Original Message - From: "Erik Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] good reading > > --- tommy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Here is a good reading piece if your wondering about > > why it's pretty much a waste to try to get those > > "Cheap" running junkers working and focus on new > > tech > > engines. > > Thank you for posting that link. I enjoyed reading it. > But I disagree with your conclusions. As nice as a new > diesel is I am still going to keep my 23 year old audi > diesel. Once you consider that I only have about $500 > into it not counting fuel or oil changes and that it > gets 50 mpg I don't see how the new ones are any > better. But of course they're much fancier, with all > the electronics and latest options. The new ones will > also blow mine off the road for speed and power. But > those don't concern me. I know that for a lot of > people they are very important, and those are the ones > that I would try to talk into getting a newer one. > > The old ones also use very simple technology, which > for me means that I can fix it all myself without > taking it in. Not including the injection pump, of > course. (Though I do have the computer scanners to be > able to do everything on the newer ones as well, but > that's cause it's what I do. Just saying that most > people can work on the older ones and the newer ones > become harder and more complicated.) > > I'm all for diesels. I love them. And the new ones > have a lot of nice advantages. I really wish that with > 20+ years of technology advancements it would have > that much better fuel mileage than mine, but they just > don't. I just don't see all that as a reason to > abandon the old ones. If I can at all I will drive > these old tech ones for many years more. The only > thing I see stopping me is them getting wrecked. > > Just my opinion, of course. > > Erik > > > > > > This tech is what the "Big fuel" petro industrial > > fuel > > suppliers will get the gov to back instead of > > bio-fuel, keeping themselves in the loop > > > > http://www.boschusa.com/dieselvoice.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): > http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] good reading
> > Thank you for posting that link. I enjoyed reading it. > But I disagree with your conclusions. As nice as a new > diesel is I am still going to keep my 23 year old audi > diesel. Once you consider that I only have about $500 > into it not counting fuel or oil changes and that it > gets 50 mpg I don't see how the new ones are any > better. In jest: Erik, it may be an exciting challenge to drive a 'classic' European diesel car, but when someone is stuck behind one smelling the exhaust, driving 10-15 mph below the traffic speed or having to slow down (and swerve) because the 'classic' junker broke down on the edge of the road...I beg to differ. Do what many so-called middleclass Americans do nowadays...buy a 3-4 yr old auto and you get the best of both worlds-> reasonable price with the newer technology. Ron B. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] good reading
--- tommy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is a good reading piece if your wondering about > why it's pretty much a waste to try to get those > "Cheap" running junkers working and focus on new > tech > engines. Thank you for posting that link. I enjoyed reading it. But I disagree with your conclusions. As nice as a new diesel is I am still going to keep my 23 year old audi diesel. Once you consider that I only have about $500 into it not counting fuel or oil changes and that it gets 50 mpg I don't see how the new ones are any better. But of course they're much fancier, with all the electronics and latest options. The new ones will also blow mine off the road for speed and power. But those don't concern me. I know that for a lot of people they are very important, and those are the ones that I would try to talk into getting a newer one. The old ones also use very simple technology, which for me means that I can fix it all myself without taking it in. Not including the injection pump, of course. (Though I do have the computer scanners to be able to do everything on the newer ones as well, but that's cause it's what I do. Just saying that most people can work on the older ones and the newer ones become harder and more complicated.) I'm all for diesels. I love them. And the new ones have a lot of nice advantages. I really wish that with 20+ years of technology advancements it would have that much better fuel mileage than mine, but they just don't. I just don't see all that as a reason to abandon the old ones. If I can at all I will drive these old tech ones for many years more. The only thing I see stopping me is them getting wrecked. Just my opinion, of course. Erik > > This tech is what the "Big fuel" petro industrial > fuel > suppliers will get the gov to back instead of > bio-fuel, keeping themselves in the loop > > http://www.boschusa.com/dieselvoice.pdf > > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
