Is it really greener to buy a new car than keeping the old banger?

af_thefragile

A lot has been talked about this lately but I'ld like to know what you guys would like to say about it.

Most of us would like to see an old banger running than getting chomped up in a scrap yard but is it really better for the environment to let go of the tired old banger and get a new green machine instead?

Speaking for the argument the new car uses less fuel, pollutes less and cheaper to run. The old car when chomped up is recycled into useful appliances and products and recycling is good for the environment as well.

Though on the other side it does take a considerable amount of "carbons" (or whatever you would call it) to build a new car and factoring in the cost of buying a new car, it doesn't sound very economical...

So what would do you say? Keep the old banger running or scrap it for a new green machine?...

smitas5

many people will argue with my opinion..
I believe old cars were build a lot a lot better. I mean even 15 years ago....
take any 1.9tdi car (passat golf peugeot 406 citroen xantia plenty others) very economical, still not too many problems with electronics, what is very expensive to repair. new cars are more economical, but marginally shorter lifetime. (30'000km between services).
talking about green.. how big is carbon footprint to change the car every 8-10years? comparing to gigher CO2 diesel, that is still going arround 7l/100km?
Thanks

Matt Simis

Its generally said that a 10year old car is effectively carbon neutral aside from fuel. A new car has a massive carbon footprint from the get go, plus the fueling costs. The answer is obvious, if every car factory shutdown tomorrow, a massive CO2/resource hog would be removed and the minimal ongoing costs of running the existing fleet would remain.

Unless new cars are made out of water and air, they are not greener. One has to imagine that chemical heavy cars (the type with a load of batteries) are even worse (to manufacture).

af_thefragile

I was thinking today I've got a dying Ford Puma which I really like.
But when it dies, I could probably fix it and give it a new life for around €2-3k (new or rebuilt engine, fix paintwork etc.) . Which should keep it running for another 5yrs atleast. So why should I sell it to get eaten up for a few hundred quid and buy a much more expensive new car when I can keep the same one running for much less...

CaraFawn

It is certainly greener for the shareholders of the brand in question and also the tax man...that's for sure

smitas5

CaraFawn wrote: »

It is certainly greener for the shareholders of the brand in question and also the tax man...that's for sure

why don't road user consider that it would be greener to service your car on time, and I mean really on time and not on manufacturers recommended every 30'000km service time, but 15'000km services.. cars would last a lot longer

Fishtits

OP, if your existing car is satisfying your needs then hold on to it would be my advise. Values are whacky at the moment.

JHMEG

Matt Simis wrote: »

Its generally said that a 10year old car is effectively carbon neutral aside from fuel.

More to "green-ness" than CO2 tho. A 10 year old diesel will have been built to such poor emissions standards that it will probably kill 4 to 5 times more people than a modern diesel will.

smitas5

smitas5 wrote: »

many people will argue with my opinion..
I believe old cars were build a lot a lot better.

+1

No arguement from me, "they don't build them like they use to" that's for sure. A lot of ten year old cars out there produce less emissions than new ones, why do you think the car tax system here wasn't changed for all cars no matter the year

squod

NCT and emississions/ fuel consuption etc, around the same for some older cars. Would anyone consider an engine swap if it meant lower road tax per year?

argosy2006

squod wrote: »

NCT and emississions/ fuel consuption etc, around the same for some older cars. Would anyone consider an engine swap if it meant lower road tax per year?

what kinda engine swap, a diesel for a petrol engine? does anyone do that anymore,

JHMEG

hellboy99 wrote: »

A lot of ten year old cars out there produce less emissions than new ones

You should really look up the EU emissions regs before making such an incorrect statement.

JHMEG

JHMEG wrote: »

You should really look up the EU emissions regs before making such an incorrect statement.

Link ?

JHMEG

Here

unkel

Wasn't there a survey a few years ago examining "cradle to grave" emissions on cars, taking absolutely everything into account? According to the survey, a Toyota Prius is one of the most polluting cars on earth. Even dirtier than a Hummer :eek:

If you care about the environment, you reduce, reuse and recycle. Or even a bit of any one of those three

Not buy a brand new car which will have a massive battery disposal issue within 10 years or so...

@ JHMEG

Correct me if I'm wrong:

My car, 2000 1Ltr Toyota Yaris.

For 16ltrs of fuel "Combined driving" I get 310km - 330km, say 320km.

320km/16ltrs = 20km for every 1ltr

Using the Revenues method to calculate CO2 emission:

CO2 emissions = 2320/fuel consumption

2320/20km = 116


So my 2000 1ltr Yaris has a CO2 emission level of 116
A new 2010 1ltr Yaris has a CO2 emission level of 118

http://www.toyota.ie/models/specifications/?model=66A7C4C3-BF01-4980-9438-3AA6E76EBDE8

My ten year old car is greener

squod

argosy2006 wrote: »

what kinda engine swap, a diesel for a petrol engine? does anyone do that anymore,

I just find it strange that road tax wouldn't change on an older car if it had lower emissions etc. (ie putting a 1.4tdi into a mk1 golf). If teh Greens were really a green party, I'd imagine this would be an environmental benefit.

langdang

JHMEG wrote: »

More to "green-ness" than CO2 tho. A 10 year old diesel will have been built to such poor emissions standards that it will probably kill 4 to 5 times more people than a modern diesel will.

[Gormley]BLASPHEMER! CO2 is the key to the gates of heaven.Repent![/Gormley]


But ya - it's amazing how people get sucked in by the idea that less CO2 but more cancer clouds are better for the environment? I don't get the idea of promoting greater use of diesels in urban environments?? As far as I see it CO2 is natural, there's far worse comes out of exhaust pipes - but shur I suppose they have to have something handy to tax

stevenmu

The flip side of the argument is that while it may be worse environmentally to switch to a new car every few years, a lot of peole will do that anyway due to number plate snobbery etc. Given that is the case, it then makes sense to encourage them to buy greener alternatives. In time this will trickle down to the second hand market too, if most new cars being purchased are green, then in a few years most second hand cars will be too.

Also while the prius may be a very 'dirty' car in many ways, it has played an important role. Being the first successful mass market hybrid, it has been an imoprtant test platform genrating lots of data, including the fact that there is a large market for hybrids which means there's now lots of research funding going towards more efficient and cleaner battery technology.

JHMEG

hellboy99 wrote: »

@ JHMEG

Correct me if I'm wrong:

My car, 2000 1Ltr Toyota Yaris.

For 16ltrs of fuel "Combined driving" I get 310km - 330km, say 320km.

320km/16ltrs = 20km for every 1ltr

Using the Revenues method to calculate CO2 emission:

CO2 emissions = 2320/fuel consumption

2320/20km = 116


So my 2000 1ltr Yaris has a CO2 emission level of 116
A new 2010 1ltr Yaris has a CO2 emission level of 118

http://www.toyota.ie/models/specifications/?model=66A7C4C3-BF01-4980-9438-3AA6E76EBDE8

My ten year old car is greener

Doh! Go back and check the emissions of pollutants which are actually harmful and report here. While you're at it check older diesels vs modern diesels.

(A clue to the harmful ones is the EU have set maximum limits - there is no limit on CO2 as it's not harmful)

JHMEG

langdang wrote: »

[Gormley]BLASPHEMER! CO2 is the key to the gates of heaven.Repent![/Gormley]


But ya - it's amazing how people get sucked in by the idea that less CO2 but more cancer clouds are better for the environment? I don't get the idea of promoting greater use of diesels in urban environments?? As far as I see it CO2 is natural, there's far worse comes out of exhaust pipes - but shur I suppose they have to have something handy to tax

The tax really should have been on heavy particulates and other stuff that's actually bad for people, not a harmless gas that's in fizzy drinks, beer, etc.

JHMEG

unkel wrote: »

Wasn't there a survey a few years ago examining "cradle to grave" emissions on cars, taking absolutely everything into account? According to the survey, a Toyota Prius is one of the most polluting cars on earth. Even dirtier than a Hummer :eek:

Have you been under a rock for the last few years, or suffering from selective blindness? Even the oil and motor industries said that report was thrash - as has been discussed here many times.

JHMEG

JHMEG wrote: »

Doh! Go back and check the emissions of pollutants which are actually harmful and report here. While you're at it check older diesels vs modern diesels.

I take it then your on about hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, NOx etc... and want to talk about cars with or without air injection, EGR valves, catalytic convertors etc...

I was only trying to back up a claim on CO2 with my figures as that is what the you tax system works on, if you want to get into the whole pollutant thing then why don't you back it up with some figures

JHMEG

hellboy99 wrote: »

if you want to get into the whole pollutant thing then why don't you back it up with some figures

I said it already: go look up the EU regs on emissions before claiming old cars are "greener" (whatever that means).

johndaman66

squod wrote: »

If teh Greens were really a green party, I'd imagine this would be an environmental benefit.

langdang wrote: »

[Gormley]BLASPHEMER! CO2 is the key to the gates of heaven.Repent![/Gormley]

langdang wrote: »

As far as I see it CO2 is natural, there's far worse comes out of exhaust pipes - but shur I suppose they have to have something handy to tax

The way I see it these guys aren't particularly concerned about saving the environment. The hidden mandate is increasing the tax take through VRT and VAT and also to a lesser extent to prop up the motor industry (although granted certain jobs may be saved here). They want you to believe they are making great strides in saving the environment and it seems to work on many. I mean Gormley cycled to the Dail on the first day of the coalition government and had a limousine driving behind him...whats that all about FFS

JHMEG

JHMEG wrote: »

I said it already: go look up the EU regs on emissions before claiming old cars are "greener" (whatever that means).

Can you take the CO, HC & PM results from an emission test done on a car and compare it to the EU Emission Standards table ?

Eric Cartman

if the green element concerns you when looking at cars id suggest you get back on your bike hippy , our world is not for you

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

if the green element concerns you when looking at cars id suggest you get back on your bike hippy , our world is not for you

The only green that I'm concerned about is the green notes left in my wallet

All this CO2 emission lark is just a money making racket.

Eric Cartman

hellboy99 wrote: »

The only green that I'm concerned about is the green notes left in my wallet

All this CO2 emission lark is just a money making racket.

i wish i had 100s in my wallet

yeah this co2 thing needs to stop , i just keep driving cars in the G band though :P commercial tax, take that gov'ment

I Was VB

On the issue of Diesels why is there no non-turbo engines being built any more??

I have two non-turbo Diesels and they arent the worst.

shedweller

Under acceleration, there is a sudden need for more oxygen in the engine. The turbo takes care of this by pressurising more in. Same for sustained heavy loads. Thats why diesels of yore smoked like there was no tomorrow! But under constant light-ish use i'd say they were fine.

JHMEG

I Was VB wrote: »

On the issue of Diesels why is there no non-turbo engines being built any more??

I have two non-turbo Diesels and they arent the worst.

By modern standards the performance of an NA diesel seriously sucks. Ever drive a Golf SDI?