Tina Andersen ( email@example.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :
Not many, I'd expect.
There was an electric Berlingo on eBay a year or so ago.
Five years old, 50,000 miles, good nick, clean, unbattered.
A diesel van like that would be worth a couple of grand.
Nobody bid on this, starting at a few hundred quid.
Why? Because it needed new batteries. They'd just come to the end of their
So why not replace 'em?
Because the Citroen parts price for a battery set for an Electric Berlingo
is... Fifteen Thousand Pounds - yes, nearly twice a new diesel Berlingo.
But we're all supposed to be willing to throw away thousands of pounds to
reduce our carbon footprint (generating our own electricity, throwing out
our old cars/boilers/fridges etc...), even at the cost of vastly
increasing our lead/steel/plastics footprint. The ultimate expression of
this can be seen in Japanese scrapyards. They have very high maintenance
costs for cars - parts, mechanics and so on, and have very strict
emmissions rules - the result? Whole cars only a couple of years old are
scrapped - too much CO(2) etc...
I currently run a 17 year old car. It's well maintained, so performs the
best it can for fuel consumption etc... It's still well behind a new
Fiesta for emissions etc... but two Fiestas would have been dead and gone
in that time. Do I get any credit for the energy and materials I've saved
in the manufacture of two new cars or for the energy used to dispose of
them (no to mention the toxic waste)? Nope.
Why wouldn't a 17 year old, well maintained, Fiesta not have
survived? I think the basses of what you say above is very true but
it applies to any car - with the possible exception of real 'gas
guzzlers' such as the Mk1 XJ6, older Citroens and Merc's etc.
I don't think that was the point that Dave was making - we are all supposed
to be good consumers and scrap the old cars and all have new ones to the
latest specs. The 17 year old Fiestas should not exist, they should be
scrapped after say five years to make sure we _all_ have the
newer 'greener' ones.
But you do usually need something a bit meatier than a fiesta to last the
course. Let's face it, they didn't build 1.1 or even 1.4 litre engines in
the eighties to go much further than 70-100k. You need a 2.0 engine at
least to be sure of breezing through the 100k mile mark - There are
exceptions, of course - we had a 20 year old 1.0 polo recently for
driving practice, and it was well battered, but still going! If there is
a reliable exception to needing a decent sized engine, it's usually VW.
Jerry ( snipped-for-privacy@INVALID.INVALID) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :
It'd be rotten. Far more so than a 17yo AX.
Ford have been very slow in stopping their small cars rotting - it's only
the current shape Fester that they seem to have got it right on, and the Ka
is still bad.
Your 17 year old is but a youngster :-) How many Fiesta's would have
been made to replace my 1970 Land Rover, I wonder? Plus, considering the
Landie was hand crafted rather than mass produced it's carbon footprint
was very low indeed when manufactured. The old girl is far more
eco-friendly than your modern euro-box.
But not until we have carbon a neutral (or at least friendly)
electricity generation network and 'clean' batteries, until then all
that is happening is that people are moving the pollution location.
Fine if you want to reduce smog but it does nothing to the over all
pollution levels - well not much anyway.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.