Yes you do talk total bollocks, all modern engines have to have cats' and their emissions are governed by law and not just if they are making smoke, why do you think I said 1975 ?...
So a 1975 car should pay more because it pollutes more (for the same mileage), is that what you are saying ?!...
Sorry but it might have escaped you comprehension but the 1975 car still had to be built, even back then, and (some of) the pollution from that period of car manufacturing is still around and having to be dealt with. So if you take that into account the 1975 vehicle has an ever greater pollutant account, factories and manufacturing are far more environmentally friendly now that they were back in the 1970's.
whereas the SUV is being
But the modern engine is far more eco friendly than a 1970's engine, the pollutant levels are far higher from a '70's engine than a modern one.
I repeat, the 1975 car already exists. We can't alter the fact that it has been built. It would normally have been scrapped by the late eighties, disappearing from the equation and releasing more pollution in the process. By keeping it going, we are saving the environmental cost of building another one. Environmentally speaking, we are getting the car for free.
Sure, if we were comparing a 1975 car built today and used over the same annual mileage as an SUV built today, your argument might stand. But we're not.
Depends what you mean by pollution. Everyone seems worried about global warming, and the main cause of this is said to be CO2 output. And CO2 output depends entirely on the amount of petrol burnt - catalytic convertors if anything increase the CO2 output of an engine.
I agree. But since the government don't seem to like taxing via the amount of fuel used, assuming that old cars do fewer miles, as per the current system is less unfair than full road tax for all cars.
Let's get this straight, we're comparing two vehicles in 2004. There's nothing we can do about any accumulated pollution from thirty years ago, that's happened whether the car is used today or scrapped. We're comparing a brand new SUV, used for 10,000-15,000 miles a year (typical mileage for a modern car?), scrapped after ten years and replaced with a new one, against a 1975 car used for 3,000-6,000 miles (typical mileage for a classic?) and kept indefinitely. Emissions are a factor, but they're not the only way in which vehicles pollute.
Sorry but we are talking about the merits of running a 1975 car (that some say should be in the 'Historic taxation class) and a modern vehicle (the SUV example), both are taxed at the standard PLG class, some say that the 1975 car (the argument) is what is more eco friendly because it already exists. Or that is what I thought the discussion was about, if the 1975 car was built (as designed) today it would not be on the road due to the emissions legislation that is in force now.
Rubbish and what about the pollutants it will put out over your 10 tear period, this will be far more than those released by the modern SUV, otherwise the 30 year old engine design would still be in use - think about it...
Who says it will be scraped after 10 years, people assumed (in 1975) that a car built then would be scraped within 10 years but some have not been, why do you assume that this SUV will be.
and
But if we are talking about a 1975 designed car built now (the hypothetical case), that car would also get scraped at 10 years old, you are not comparing like for like.
Quite, and as I said, the 1975 costs more in pollutants from manufacture to scrap than a modern car has, even if both were built (as designed) today.
The only thing that has been saved by someone using an old car rather than a newly build car is that no pollutants have been released by the manufacturing of the new car or any from the scrapping of an old car - but the pollutants released by the old car now (and in some cases in the past) are still around - so if taxation was to be on pollutant levels the old car would cost more due to it higher over all pollutant levels.
Only a small percentage of the total pollution produced by a car is from exhaust emissions and service waste. Most of the pollution is caused by building and scrapping the car...
A car's life span is intended to be, 10 years. My Mini is over 40 years old... so in effect keeping the 1962 car running has "saved" the production and destruction of THREE other cars.
So what causes more pollution? A 1962 Mini driving as a daily car for
40 years, or building 4 cars and scrapping 3?
It's much more economical and better for the environment to drive "recycled" classics, like we all do!
-- Howard Rose
1966 VW Beetle 1300 Deluxe
1962 Austin Mini Deluxe
1964 Austin Mini Super Deluxe
In message , on Thu, 2 Sep 2004, ":::Jerry::::" writes
I'm "No traffic calming work shall be constructed or maintained in a carriageway so as to prevent the passage of any vehicle unless the passage of that vehicle is otherwise lawfully prohibited."
I can afford it, but for the amount that I use the car, it galls me that I have to, particularly as I was looking forward to claiming the exemption just before the rolling period was stopped :(
Whether I could afford to take every local authority to court who prevents my passage as at regulation 9 above, is another matter!
t's only proper that people who preserve our heritage in the form of old motor cars should receive a subsidy. Hell, we should really be getting an extra annual grant from the EU as guardians of european culture.
Willy Eckerslyke (oss108no snipped-for-privacy@bangor.ac.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
I don't believe it anyway.
How can a 30mpg sub-one-ton car emit less "pollution" than a 15mpg 2.5 ton one? It can't. It just physically can't. Cats don't *remove* pollution, they chance it from the specific pollutants measured to the ones that aren't. It's - as usual - a con.
:::Jerry:::: ( snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they :::were saying :
1970 Citroen GS. 1.0. 55bhp.
2004 Toyota Yaris 1.0 65bhp. With 16v, variable valve timing, fully mapped ignition and injection etc. etc.
Wow. A lot of progress in 35 years.
Not that that answered the question.
Besides, in the real world, engines AREN'T getting smaller. 1970, a Ford Escort 1.1 was the "standard" family car. 2004 equivalent is a 1.8 Focus. It weighs 70% more. You want environment-friendly? That's NOT the way to do it.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.