Changes at DVLA - tell them what you think

Yup. Just to be clear though, we're not assuming that both vehicles are doing the same mileages. We're comparing the average SUV with the average 1975 car, which is unlikely to cover anything like the same mileage each year.

I'm not disputing that.

You're ignoring all the pollutants caused by building and scrapping the SUV, which will be significant compared with anything put out by the

Because in ten years time people will be complaining about how much pollution the ten year old SUV is churning out compared with new cars...

I'm not. I'm weighing up the benefits of keeping an old car going against the environmental costs of building a new one.

I'm not convinced about this.

But you're overlooking rather a fundamental point. The SUV was most probably bought to replace a previous vehicle. To compare like with like, you need to look at the entire thirty year period, starting with two 1975 cars. One was kept going, the other was scrapped and replaced twice. Both have a similar history of pollution up until 1985 (say) after which, there's a sharp spike as a new car is built, followed by a slight downward slope as emissions have improved. The same thing happens again in 1995 (say) and again today. Add all that up today and both vehicles have significant histories of polluting, even, and most expecially the SUV!

:::Jerry:::: ( snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they :::were saying :

I can (and have) remove a G lump from the car by hand, with the assistance of one other person. I can move it around on my own, out of the car.

Not that that's got anything to do with anything. They're both 1.0 four pots.

Why? What's incorrect about that? The Focus is the *direct* replacement for the Mk1 Scrote in the range, and in the market.

Are you *really* claiming that using nearly twice as much raw material, including far more highly refined plastics, and a lot of highly toxic and difficult to dispose of metals in the electronics, not to mention a large lump of platinum in the exhaust is greener? Not to mention the extra load of shoving nearly twice as much weight about?

Of *course* there's been big advances in engine efficiency. That 1.0 Yaris will go twice as far on a gallon as a GS. It's also a lot smaller inside. You can't use a Yaris as a comfortable car for four adults. Now think about how much better it *could* be, if a bit of thought were applied to designs.

Family cars would still weigh around a ton, and still be powered by

Nothing left to vomment on, other than to say, get a frigging clue as to how car were made back then and how they are made now days, not to mention the technical advances made.

LOL, Oops, comment on I mean !...

Average fuel consumption depends on traffic etc and that has increased enormously.

I'll give you a real world(ish) comparison. I used to have a 3.4 Mk11 Jaguar - manual with overdrive. On a London to Aberdeen run, I'd expect around 25 MPG. My current BMW 528 auto - a similar sort of car - does around 35mpg on the same journey. It's perfectly possible with a light foot to push the BMW over 40 mpg on the open road. Not a chance with the Jaguar.

The Jag was also incredibly heavy on petrol on short town journeys - due to the automatic 'choke'. I'd guess the BMW does about 3 times the MPG under those conditions.

Oh yes. As are power stations, industry and your gas central heating.

But they do. The more fuel you buy the more tax you pay.

But surely in those days your Jag was something quite special, standing out from the average cars on the road and using more fuel than the majority. You can hardly say that of a 528 nowadays, when larger cars and 4x4s are so much more commonplace. Perhaps I worded it badly above. Fuel consumption for similar classes of vehicles may have improved, but the effects of that improvement are undermined by the greater numbers of larger cars and 4x4 being bought.

My what?

That has no bearing on the matter though, pollution is pollution, and by definition a 1950 / 60's Jag is far less economical and thus produces more pollutants than a modern BMW does.

Not if they are only using the same amount of fuel as a 1960's small saloon car, compared with comparable modern cars (class for class) even an Austin A60 is a gas guzzler.

And as we all know, there are lies, damn lies, and the words of politicians...

I know of one hump near me that used to ground the towbar stabiliser bracket on my LandCruiser!

True, though my point was more that people who would once have chosen a Viva or something to cart the kids around are now as likely to buy a people carrier.

Or something.

I think it's time I gave everyone a rest and bowed out of this thread!

The relativ size in this case is the engine displacement.

Well, I'm selling a 2 litre turbo (1984) car that was just outside=20 current emission standard (really so close that the MOT inspector looked=20 for a CAT on the exhaust while on the ramps) at it's last test, does 29-

Why does it need to be smaller and more powerful if it can do what it=20 does so well, even if it is in a slightly dated styling package.

--=20 The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.

No - there was a time when they were simply bangers. I paid 50 quid for mine.

I was using them for a comparison. They're extremely similar cars in many ways.

No it is not, it is it's physical size to weight ratio, as both units under discussion are 1.0 litre, or should be (otherwise the discussion is rather pointless).

:::Jerry:::: ( snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they :::were saying :

One unit is 35-years old, 1015cc, 55bhp, four-cylinder with a single carb. It powers a car just over 1000kg in weight, carrying four adults in comfort, with substantial luggage space, to around 90mph top speed.

The other is a bang-up-to-date, 998cc, four-cylinder, with 16 valves, computerised variable valve timing, fully computerised ignition and multi- point injection. It powers a car just under 1000kg in weight, carrying two adults in comfort and two kids in a cramped rear, with no boot, to around

Sorry - progress?

Sure, the Yaris is more economical. But there's a lot more resources gone into it's production than into the maintenance of the GS for 30 years. And I'll bet I know which'll last longer, if properly looked after.

As well as a lot more fun.

Yes. it's not POLLUTING as much.

Oh, so the GS came like magic out of thin air ?...

I recon I could have a more intelligent conversation with a short thick plank....

:::Jerry:::: ( snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they :::were saying :

It's polluting differently.

But the point remains - you were incorrect when you said that cars/engines were smaller and more powerful.

Cars are larger, market segment for market segment, and if you look at specific displacement they are not that much more powerful, especially at the lower end of the market.

No, of course not.

What you don't seem to get your head around is the fact (or are refusing to acknowledge, like the ostrich/troll that you are) that it's long since been built, and that pollution and use of resources remains, whether a new Yaris is built to replace it or whether that GS was scrapped 25 years ago.

Maintaining that GS in use means that one less Yaris will be built - which can be no bad thing at all, on several levels.

Given that average mileage for a Yaris is unlikely to be over 5,000 miles per year, the difference between 30 and 50mpg is 66 gallons of petrol per year. Small, compared to the environmental cost of manufacture of that Yaris.

Sure, there's more energy used in the fuel than the manufacture, but that's based on a 1400kg Ford Taurus with an estimated life of 14 years and 21mpg. Adjust that to 40mpg and 1000kg, and that gap closes, even with American gallons being smaller. The toxic emission gap widens, especially when you include the much higher proportion of electronics and plastics in a modern car at the expense of recyclable but high-energy steel.

Talking to yourself again?

No, it is polluting LESS.

If you say so Mr Stevie Wonder.....

But they are MORE EFFICIENT, they do more MPG, cause less pollution, use less raw materials in their manufacturing etc. etc. etc.

So what was your point then ?!...

It has cause pollution and THAT POLLUTION HAS NOT GONE AWAY, IF IT HAD WE WOULD NOT BE CONCERNED ABOUT POLLUTION LEVELS KNOW. POLLUTION STAYS AROUND FOR YEARS, THE POLLUTION CAUSED BUY CARS BUILT AND RUN IN THE 1970 / 80's IS STILL CAUSING PROBLEMS.

Sorry for the caps-shift

But it also means that 1970 emmision levels....