Warning: some readers may find this thread disturbing

[Bucknaked]

Not sure what is disturbing about the story? I thought they found a dead body. Isn't the story about getting old rust buckets off the street, or did I miss read the story?

[MAD]

What about the other side of the coin? Instant spare parts a plenty for the people that didnt let go of their 'clunker'.
The engine is not available but every single other part is, unlike a lot of the write-offs in the yards which have destroyed radiators and headlights or doors oddly shaped like poles and tress.

This is both good and bad. Good for the owners of said vehicle as spares are now more readily available, but bad for the auto makers as spare parts sales generally make a huge profit.

[MAD]

On a side note, I would love it if the Australian gov would put up the dough to rid our streets of SUV's and other vehicles not needed in the suburbs. Do you really need a body lifted landcruiser to drop your kid off to school in Keysborough?

[XDV800]

Originally Posted by MAD

On a side note, I would love it if the Australian gov would put up the dough to rid our streets of SUV's and other vehicles not needed in the suburbs. Do you really need a body lifted landcruiser to drop your kid off to school in Keysborough?

It's probably a lifestyle choice for the owners of those vehicles.
Have you never modified a vehicle?

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by auxr

That's a pretty sad read - shades of terminator 2 come to mind - as previously stated a quick reaction to the financial crisis.

Ahh yes, but at least now we know what to feed the terminators:-)

[MAD]

Originally Posted by yzfr101

It's probably a lifestyle choice for the owners of those vehicles.
Have you never modified a vehicle?

Yeah, that wasnt a good example, but I stick by my SUV (Toorak tractor) comment.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by yzfr101

It's probably a lifestyle choice for the owners of those vehicles.
Have you never modified a vehicle?

Dennis Ferguson has made a lifestyle choice but seems to be having trouble finding accomodation. Any room at your house?

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by MAD

Yeah, that wasnt a good example, but I stick by my SUV (Toorak tractor) comment.

What about those who's hobby is offroading, but cannot afford to run a second car? If they meet required road laws, there shouldn't be a problem.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by flappist

And that would be a bad thing???? How many Spitfires, Lada Nivas and Stagecoaches do we need in our museums?

This is a car enthusiast site so talking about removing ald cars from the road is about as popular as discussing Kentucky Fried Chicken at a PETA convention.

The difficult thing is perspective. While almost all AFF members think of cars as works or art and an integral part of their being most of the world think of cars as a thing they use go places like the dishwasher is a thing they use to clean dishes and the microwave is a thing they use to heat food. They are all just appliances.

These people are the MAJORITY (which also explains why Toyota et al. outsell the more spirited marques) and the only reason that the majority of older cars are on the road is that the people driving them cannot afford anything better and will dump them as soon as they can possibly get into something that is safer and cheaper to run.

This is emotionally upsetting to some in the same way that the '96 gun buyback or logging or the traveston dam etc was/is upsetting to others.

There is no right or wrong and getting all wound up will achieve nothing other than make the subject obvious to car haters like scruby as another platform to push to keep himself in the limelight.

It will only happen here if some part of the government thinks they will score political brownie points over it so the best thing to do is just sit back, ignore it and wait until it goes away....

I agree that taking junk of the road and putting people into new cars (even if it is via incentives) is a good thing. I have no problem with this sentiment what so ever, but why cant these "clunkers" be recorded as non reparable write offs the same way insurance companies do and at least give them a chance of ending up in wrecking yards or in the hands of enthusiasts via auction before killing them forever in crushes? (this would also help fund the scheme) Or maybe if they were re-birthed, they could only come back across stringent checks across the pits.

These cars if they did come back would be weekenders not regular transport. There will Toyota Camrys and Taragos and Nissan bluebirds etc. that will be caught up in the net (thankfully) but probably will not come back because they have no value, but if they did they would be put through the same tests! Either way "nothing" would be able to come back as junk! The system would look after itself.

It is not so critical in the US I know because most parts are remanufactured to a high standard (you can build a 60's mustang from scratch as you would know, if you have enough money) but in Australia we do not have this luxury.


Also I am not talking about museum pieces either. I am talking about all those XY's in people's garages now that are people's pride and joy that would not be here today if all these were scrapped for cash thirty years ago. Remember many were traded for scrap back then anyway and that was without Gov incentives!

I also agree that this is a car enthusiasts forum and as a consequence, there would be a lot more emotion involved.

Originally Posted by flappist

I suspect the yanks are slowly waking up to YES WE CAN = OOPS and that just when they thought they had escaped the sharks they notice crocodiles all around them.......

Now this is so true!

[MAD]

Originally Posted by King Nothing

What about those who's hobby is offroading, but cannot afford to run a second car? If they meet required road laws, there shouldn't be a problem.

The SUVs I refer to, the 'Toorak tractor', are not capable off-road vehicles.
Examples: BMW X5, Subaru liberty/outback, Nissan Murano, etc, etc... The softroaders.

Anyway this is going off topic.

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by MAD

The SUVs I refer to, the 'Toorak tractor', are not capable off-road vehicles.
Examples: BMW X5, Subaru liberty/outback, Nissan Murano, etc, etc... The softroaders.

Anyway this is going off topic.

Sorry, should of quoted this one.

Originally Posted by MAD

Do you really need a body lifted landcruiser to drop your kid off to school in Keysborough?

Agree, it's off-topic so I'll leave it alone now

[LTDterri]

I still do not understand how a 2001 F150 with 175,000 miles is considered a clunker. Trade it for the newer car ok, Im sure someone will be real happy with their new second hand F150, not all can afford a new car, so when you get rid of these what does the second hand market do? Narrow minded Yanks

[burnz]

Originally Posted by LTDterri

I still do not understand how a 2001 F150 with 175,000 miles is considered a clunker. Trade it for the newer car ok, Im sure someone will be real happy with their new second hand F150, not all can afford a new car, so when you get rid of these what does the second hand market do? Narrow minded Yanks

so how much would you pay for it with 280,000ks

[flappist]

Originally Posted by LTDterri

I still do not understand how a 2001 F150 with 175,000 miles is considered a clunker. Trade it for the newer car ok, Im sure someone will be real happy with their new second hand F150, not all can afford a new car, so when you get rid of these what does the second hand market do? Narrow minded Yanks

Would you use a 5 year old 2G phone, a pentium 3 computer on a dialup, a black and white television, an Atari 2600 console....

Some people in some parts of the world would think that all of these would be wonderful and would not understand why in Australia we would just chuck them out as they are even too crap for ebay.

If a new FG was $14,000 instead of $30,000, $6000 for a BF or $3000 for a BA how much would you pay for an AU with 280,000 km on it?
You must ensure it is roadworthy at all times, is registered and fully insured.

Nothing? or less than nothing??

USA is not Australia, their society has a completely different set of values.

[BIGJB]

**wiping the tears out of my eyes**
What a waste. No other word for it. Well there is but the filter would be working overtime.

[XD 351 Ute]

Originally Posted by flappist

If a new FG was $14,000 instead of $30,000,

I under stand what you mean about hoiking old stuff into the tip etc, but I don't understand how by getting rid of lots of old cars would make the price cheaper. Not in the immediate term anyway, could you please explain?

The things still cost 'x' amount of money etc to make, the manufacturers will still be looking for their profit for themselves, and their shareholders, so how will the price be cheaper?

Maybe the raw materials cost would come down if they had to buy more to make more cars, but then the old planet is just getting a bigger hole ripped in its guts as we keep mining the ring out of it.

Recycling or reselling secondhand cars makes a mode of transport more affordable to a lot of people, and the vehicles are used to a greater amount.

I'll be the first to chuck my hand up and say get rid of the clunkers, smokers, and unroadworthy crapboxes that are doing the rounds.
These are the cars that should be removed from service, and their useful components reused, whilst the remaining materials are melted into toasters or whatever.

It just seems to be a waste to me otherwise...........

Ed

[500SEC]

The E word is now regarded more highly than the C word.

That is, for the sake of Environmentalism (which is now just a political bandwagon), short-term thinkers no longer talk about Conservation.

Sadly, conversation won't create jobs (as if that should ever be an objective in itself) or "stimulate" economies. But it does encourage frugality which (surely?) is an honourable objective, no? And isn't it true that governments got us into this mess because they printed too much cheap money for us to spluge with?? Now they want us to spend spend spend more more more... on shiny new cars?

It seems to me that there is something intrinsically wrong about destroying a workable asset especially when it leads to the creation of another one (presumably with a Kia badge and destined for the chopper in another 7 years).

If you're a member of this forum, and believe that it's a good thing to pour distructive fluid into the oil filler of a 5.4 V8 (or any engine), then you need your head examined.

To the E-people, F150 haters, 4x4 haters, and Prius lovers... check this link

http://www.lifewhile.com/cars/17312400/detail.html

[Carby]

America isn't the only country doing this sort of thing. It's an inglorious end to a fine vehicle but it's a different world - soon V8's and the like will be taxed to buggery - oil is a finite resource and we have to start using less of it.

Our dopey government is going to aid the environment by increasing our electricity bills by 20% pa and encouraging us to use green energy sources - I think I like the US approach better.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Carby

America isn't the only country doing this sort of thing. It's an inglorious end to a fine vehicle but it's a different world - soon V8's and the like will be taxed to buggery - oil is a finite resource and we have to start using less of it.

Our dopey government is going to aid the environment by increasing our electricity bills by 20% pa and encouraging us to use green energy sources - I think I like the US approach better.

How does this system provide for conservation of oil resources when the production of more new vehicles will more than offset the consumption savings the new vehicles have over the old?

Think of all the fossil fuels required to melt and cast all the metals, make all the plastics and power the plants etc. A saving of 10mpg is not going to offset that.

Make no mistake, although they put an environmental spin on it by quoting the difference in fuel consumption, this is not what it is about. It is about the US government propping up the car industry that they have used taxpayer funds to buy into (oops, I mean support). The environment is their distant secondary concern.

[Burnout]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

How does this system provide for conservation of oil resources when the production of more new vehicles will more than offset the consumption savings the new vehicles have over the old?

Think of all the fossil fuels required to melt and cast all the metals, make all the plastics and power the plants etc. A saving of 10mpg is not going to offset that.

Make no mistake, although they put an environmental spin on it by quoting the difference in fuel consumption, this is not what it is about. It is about the US government propping up the car industry that they have used taxpayer funds to buy into (oops, I mean support). The environment is their distant secondary concern.

Exactly!

The Prius and similar vehicles are actually environmental disasters.
This policy is just a short term political tool.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Think of all the fossil fuels required to melt and cast all the metals, make all the plastics and power the plants etc. A saving of 10mpg is not going to offset that.

.

You are most likely right, but are there any figures for this that have been put together by anyone?

[snappy]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

You are most likely right, but are there any figures for this that have been put together by anyone?

Yes , Some figures were done you could build a new hummer run it for 3 years and generate the same amount of polution as building a new prius How that for a green car .

[flappist]

Which country, once a world leader in automotive manufacture has recently had to bail out all its major players to retain their jobs?

Could this country by removing old cars to stimulate purchases of new ones and therefore strengthen their economy?

[Yellow_Festiva]

What each country perceives as outdated is different.

Most 3rd world countries will re-use, repair, then repair again ANYTHING of value. Perhaps this should still be looked into? But that is not a money making solution.

Singapore and Japan change over cars at an alarming rate, but they are sold off at a greatly discounted price to other countries with relaxed rules regarding the 'used by' date of cars.

I think the car in question should not have been scrapped. They used a lower specced replacement vehicle as the example of 'how much better off' the owner is.

So, will that 2010 mode car with the 2.4 be able to tow the 8000 pounds the F150 could?? What if that was a requirement of the vehicle needed?

How much DIFFERENT is an 01 F150 compared to a 2010 F150. Forget the styling, safety etc... after all this being done in the name of the 'environment'. Lets stick to the environmental impact of these 2 cars.

So.. this is my guess. It will prob cost the same (but be better equipped), it may emmit 10-20% less greenhouse gasses, it may prob have the same family of engine but have different add on bits and a better EFI system.

It may also use 1-4MPG less than its older brother.

Sounds good so far? But hang on. Will all these positives outweigh the environmental impact of building the 2010 model F150?? I doubt it.

This is just me thinking out aloud. My figures may be close, they may be totally off.

Rather than making a blanket rule based on age, how about updating hardware and software in these cars to bring them nearer to modern day standards, this small 'environmental cost' will be minuscule compared to the cost of a replacement vehicle.

This idea is not new. A local council here in Sydney ran a drive a few years ago, offering a free tune up to older cars.

http://www.fairfieldcity.nsw.gov.au/...Background.pdf

http://www.fairfieldcity.nsw.gov.au/...ge_blueSky.pdf

A sample of the results:

Summary of results
A total of 460 vehicles were tuned in the project, including 59 that were put through the Emissions
Testing Campaign. Results of the Testing Campaign have been documented in “Attachment C”.
Hydrocarbons (HC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) are the emissions of most concern as they contribute
to the formation of ground level ozone. The tests carried out confirmed that tuning did have an impact
on overall emission levels; however, the greatest effect was on CO emissions.
The overall net benefit of tuning pre 1993 vehicles on the environment was calculated from the
difference in the emissions and the fuel consumption before and after tuning, and the average distance
travelled on a yearly basis.
Within the sample of 59 cars, there was a reduction of up to 25.4% in carbon monoxide and 8.0% in
hydrocarbon emissions. In addition, a 1.5% reduction in fuel consumption was also achieved.
Projected over a year, and for an average travel of 12,500km/vehicle, this represented a reduction of
2,219 kg of carbon monoxide, 65 kg of hydrocarbons and a saving of 995 litres of fuel.
As tuning returns an engine to near optimum efficiency, emissions of NOx and CO2 generally increase
and in this case resulted in a net increase of 37kg and 1,362kg respectively.

Each tune up was done at a cost of about $200, which included parts and testing. Not a bad result for the outcome.

Most people know of the environmental impact a Prius makes (I remember reading a site that actually states over the life of a Hummer and a Prius, the Hummer causes less environmental damage)...

I think this mentality is a bit like people who drive 4-6km out of their way to get 4c/L off their petrol... They know the trip there negates the saving, but when it comes time to pay, seeing that receipt show a $1.45c discount makes it all worth while.

Cheers,

Jason

[burnz]

i think ppl are forgetting the owner was paid $4500 for a vehicle with 280,000ks
what it's private resale worth??
as a dealer wont touch it.

[reece1]

what a waste

[big_landau]

Originally Posted by flappist

Would you use a 5 year old 2G phone, a pentium 3 computer on a dialup, a black and white television, an Atari 2600 console....

Some people in some parts of the world would think that all of these would be wonderful and would not understand why in Australia we would just chuck them out as they are even too crap for ebay.

If a new FG was $14,000 instead of $30,000, $6000 for a BF or $3000 for a BA how much would you pay for an AU with 280,000 km on it?
You must ensure it is roadworthy at all times, is registered and fully insured.

Nothing? or less than nothing??

USA is not Australia, their society has a completely different set of values.

how you can compare a black and white tv to a 2001 f150 is mind boggling.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by big_landau

how you can compare a black and white tv to a 2001 f150 is mind boggling.

Where is the difference? You can still watch the TV if it works, just the same as you could still drive the car if it worked. His point is very valid, an object is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

You are most likely right, but are there any figures for this that have been put together by anyone?

Typically, steel has an emissions intensity of around 2.1 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of steel produced (Hot Rolled Coil).

A 2009 Dual Cab F-150 weighs 2434 kg. Assume, say, 80% of that mass is steel, that's 1.9 tonnes of steel. Multiply 2.1 x 2.434 gives 4.09 tonnes of CO2, just in making the steel itself. Not including actually forming that steel into panels, or plastic, or assembly. Just the steel.

The old F-150 had an economy of 15MPG. That's 15.7 L/100km. New F-150 runs 26 MPG, or 9L/100km. So that's a saving of 11MPG or 6.7 L/100km.

From the Australian Government 2006 AGO Factors and Methods workbook, automotive petrol has an emissions factor of 2.6 tonnes CO2 per kL or 0.0026 t CO2 per L.

So the old F-150 emits 0.000408 tonnes CO2 per km. 15.68 L/100km is 0.1568 L/km of fuel. 0.1568 L/km x 0.0026 tCO2/L = 0.000408.

New F-150 emits 0.000234 tonnes CO2 per km. That's a saving of 0.000174 tonnes CO2 per km. So to save 4.09 tonnes CO2, 4.09 t CO2 / (0.000174 t CO2/km ) = 23,544 km.

23,544km for the new F-150 to travel to save 4.09 tonnes of CO2 to offset the production of the steel that goes into the truck. Less than I thought actually, but not that suprising. I can't say how much more is added due to plastics manufacture, the energy required to press panels, assemble the car, etc.

At an educated guess, I'd say that over the lifespan of the truck (if it does the same km as the 2001 F-150), it would offset the carbon emissions from manufacturing via fuel savings.

There you go then, not the answer I was hoping for, but an interesting exercise.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by King Nothing

Typically, steel has an emissions intensity of around 2.1 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of steel produced (Hot Rolled Coil).

A 2009 Dual Cab F-150 weighs 2434 kg. Assume, say, 80% of that mass is steel, that's 1.9 tonnes of steel. Multiply 2.1 x 2.434 gives 4.09 tonnes of CO2, just in making the steel itself. Not including actually forming that steel into panels, or plastic, or assembly. Just the steel.

The old F-150 had an economy of 15MPG. That's 15.7 L/100km. New F-150 runs 26 MPG, or 9L/100km. So that's a saving of 11MPG or 6.7 L/100km.

From the Australian Government 2006 AGO Factors and Methods workbook, automotive petrol has an emissions factor of 2.6 tonnes CO2 per kL or 0.0026 t CO2 per L.

So the old F-150 emits 0.000408 tonnes CO2 per km. 15.68 L/100km is 0.1568 L/km of fuel. 0.1568 L/km x 0.0026 tCO2/L = 0.000408.

New F-150 emits 0.000234 tonnes CO2 per km. That's a saving of 0.000174 tonnes CO2 per km. So to save 4.09 tonnes CO2, 4.09 t CO2 / (0.000174 t CO2/km ) = 23,544 km.

23,544km for the new F-150 to travel to save 4.09 tonnes of CO2 to offset the production of the steel that goes into the truck. Less than I thought actually, but not that suprising. I can't say how much more is added due to plastics manufacture, the energy required to press panels, assemble the car, etc.

At an educated guess, I'd say that over the lifespan of the truck (if it does the same km as the 2001 F-150), it would offset the carbon emissions from manufacturing via fuel savings.

There you go then, not the answer I was hoping for, but an interesting exercise.

When you look at it from that level, maybe. But does that fgure for CO2 production start with the iron ore in the ground or is that purely the production of steel from raw iron? If not, getting all that iron ore out of the ground, transporting it, powering that process. Then there is the emissions pulling all that extra oil and gas out of the ground plus powering that process, the list goes on.

I don't think it could offset all that before it is bought by the government and destroyed, before the negative balance begins again.