Warning: some readers may find this thread disturbing

[Yellow_Festiva]

Hey King Nothing,

A lot of thinking behind your post. Just to pick you up on one point, the new car is not a F150, but another car with a 2.4l engine. (thus the 26mpg economy over the F150).

I looked up the 2010 F150..... and guess what.

Economy of... wait for it.... 15mpg (city) and 21mpg (hwy).

http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/f150/

Cheers,

Jason

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

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.

No, it doesn't include the process of removing the dirt from the ground, it starts from receiving the iron ore "at the gates" of the steelmaking plant. So yes, add the removal of iron ore from the ground and associated processing and transportation to a steelworks to the production of the car and plastics.

I will say though, that steelmaking is a very CO2-intensive industry. Without looking at the figures, I still feel that it would offset itself. I would be happy to be proved wrong though.

[santb]

Originally Posted by Dezza!

I know when my Dad was young (eg. late 60s,70s), he had a Customline paddock bomb. He chopped the roof off it and thrashed it around the paddock, not knowing that all these decades later the Customline would become valuable. When you think about it, at that point it was about the same age as an EA is now. I'm not saying the EA is suddenly going to be worth a lot of money, but these cars are still worth preserving.

but is every car a classic just cos it's old??
i miss my xb's and love my el(now 3 years older then the yank effie!!),but we can either have cheap new cars, or cars that will run, efficiently and with minimal maintanence, for 30 years: both pretty much impossible for standard combustion engine technology.
so pick one.. or buy 2 of every car: one to drive and one to save for pristine parts! sticking a gt in the garage for 30 years is one thing, but who can tell what model of what car is gunna be really popular in the future??
put me down for 2 hyundai exels, please!!

[big_landau]

Originally Posted by irish2

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.

what a ridiculous comment,so your now comparing a xm falcon to a ba falcon,this is your quote 'just the same as you could still drive the car if it worked"you should be driving a commodore with comments like that!

[XplosiveR6]

Originally Posted by 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?

Which will then pressure the people to use more credit to make use of these offers, which they cannot afford, end up loosing thier new car, because they diddnt live within their means, then wishing they diddnt crush their old one, which they finally payed off. And now they are back at their original problem - over borrowing.

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Hey King Nothing,

A lot of thinking behind your post. Just to pick you up on one point, the new car is not a F150, but another car with a 2.4l engine. (thus the 26mpg economy over the F150).

I looked up the 2010 F150..... and guess what.

Economy of... wait for it.... 15mpg (city) and 21mpg (hwy).

http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/f150/

Cheers,

Jason

Whoops, fair enough. But in that case, I assume the chevy has less steel, so less emissions involved in its production, so less km for payback.

It's a complex issue, no doubt.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by King Nothing

No, it doesn't include the process of removing the dirt from the ground, it starts from receiving the iron ore "at the gates" of the steelmaking plant. So yes, add the removal of iron ore from the ground and associated processing and transportation to a steelworks to the production of the car and plastics.

I will say though, that steelmaking is a very CO2-intensive industry. Without looking at the figures, I still feel that it would offset itself. I would be happy to be proved wrong though.

A lot of the equation would be reprocessing steel from old cars.

[King Nothing]

Originally Posted by Wally

A lot of the equation would be reprocessing steel from old cars.

Here in Australia, yes it would be more significant. In Australia most recycled steel is put into a BOF, with associated high carbon emissions. If it was melted in Australia in an electric furnace, yes it would also be quite high as most of our electricity is taken from coal.

But in the US, with its higher proportion of nuclear energy, it has a lower emissions factor (Australia is ~0.8 tonnes CO2/MWh, USA is ~ 0.58), so it's remelting cost is lower than processing new steel.

[Falc'man]

Good "emissions intensity" post, King Nothing!

Originally Posted by XplosiveR6

Which will then pressure the people to use more credit to make use of these offers, which they cannot afford, end up loosing thier new car, because they diddnt live within their means, then wishing they diddnt crush their old one, which they finally payed off. And now they are back at their original problem - over borrowing.

As long as the banks are okay, who cares? [sarcasm]

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

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.

Dont underestimate the emissions created in producing fuel. ie the well to wheel emissions. Basically whatever amount of CO2 comes out the tailpipe, this amount is duplicated in getting the fuel to the pump.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by Carby

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.

Mate this is exactly how I feel, I also think climate change (ex-global warming) the rise of crude to dizzying heights the weakening of the US dollar (which is totally dependant on the value of crude) the decay of "mainstream suburban USA", and the total collapse of the value of those homes, and even the GFC itself and of course the on going wars in the middle east are all linked somehow to what maybe the real truth.

I am not a conspiracy theorist (in fact I think sometimes they can be outright bloody dangerous) and I do believe that man walked on the moon, but I believe everything from climate change to cash for clunkers is a polite way for Gov to tell us that there is just not enough oil to go around anymore without actually spreading fear through the camp. If they can get us to change our habits before it is too late by cash for clunkers schemes lower speed limits and carbon trading schemes and goodness what else they can and will through at us in the future, then it will be easier for us (and Governments) to make what maybe a very necessary transition over the next 50-100 years, without the total collapse of modern society.

Sorry for being too off topic.
Bud Bud.

[Carby]

BUD BUD

That s right - they want us to change our habits.

All these blokes writing on here that by getting rid of clunkers it will be worse for the economy as they will waste energy making new cars blah blah whinge whinge, is ill informed. What has happened that these cars are being replaced before their time, but they were none the less going to have to be replaced eventually so all that electricity would be used up anyhow - it just a matter of when.

In the meantime they have cleaner vehicles and are preserving oil stocks by using less of it in the new Non Clunkers!

[BENT_8]

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 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.......

Best post in the thread!

One point though, this is already happening to a degree here although not via a advertised scheme.
Looking through 4sale ads here in Adelaide and the numbers of 80's-90's used cars for sale is steeply on the decline.
Took a mate looking for a 90's Falcon last week and had 2 caryards tell us any cars traded from that era still in reasonably ok cond. are being sent up to NT and sold off for twice their local value, to the indigenous.
These cars very rarely last long.

Drove past another yard and waiting out the back was a banged up VL with a note on the windscreen for the transport mob with delivery details to Alice springs.

They made hundreds of thousands of these era cars, and a hell of a lot of Eastern states cars came over to SA during the late 90's as values were higher here, yet their numbers are in fast decline.
I can see a time soon when the oldest 'daily' will be sub 10yr/250k.

Conveniently this too will stimulate the manufacturing industry

[santb]

Conveniently this too will stimulate the manufacturing industry[/QUOTE]
hence the tradies investment allowance or whatever it is called the govt currently doing on new comercials...50% price rebate on next tax return.. stimulus for economy, car industry(which really is in trouble apparently), green lobby...it is happening here, just a bit quieter..

[irish2]

Originally Posted by big_landau

what a ridiculous comment,so your now comparing a xm falcon to a ba falcon,this is your quote 'just the same as you could still drive the car if it worked"you should be driving a commodore with comments like that!

I never stated they were comparable in function. I said a whitegood is no different to a car in terms of its' life span. Which is as long as someone is willing to own it. I also happen to drive a '65 stang which would fetch a higher value than a BA, yet does not drive like one. Another example is old 50's fridges. Some fetch very high values but have nowhere near the unsulating properties of a new one. So again something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If nobody is willing to pay for it than it is as good as waste.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Best post in the thread!

Took a mate looking for a 90's Falcon last week and had 2 caryards tell us any cars traded from that era still in reasonably ok cond. are being sent up to NT and sold off for twice their local value, to the indigenous.
These cars very rarely last long.

The cars sold to the indigenous are mostly paid for by the Government. Hence the inflated values car dealers can charge, and the short life expectancy of said vehicles. Bush mechanics is a great show too!

[Barry_v]

think if it happained on a large scale though.. for every australian manufacturing job you save there would be several mechanics/parts sales/auto dismantlers effectively out of a job because 'older' cars would no longer be worth fixing.

[Neeek]

Pity they have to go to such lengths to take an older car off the road. Don't really see the point in totally ruining it, but there we go.

One man's rubbish is another man's treasure...