Georgia Fiero Club Forum
General Discussion and Announcements => General Discussion => Topic started by: f85gtron on August 16, 2017, 07:57:06 am
-
In doing research for an ethics paper, I ran across this interesting read. So far, my unrelated research supports the generic claims made by this article. Those who know me have heard me make these same claims, albeit in inarticulate terms, but none the less, my thesis is the same.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-used-cars-are-more-ecofriendly/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-used-cars-are-more-ecofriendly/)
-
Ecologically, it makes much more sense for me to keep my old cars. To buy a new one, I'd have to get at least two or three jobs, drive to each workplace every day. Purchase appropriate work clothing and maybe tools that have to be manufactured. Eat a lot more food that requires equipment to cultivate, harvest, process and transport.
As it is, the house that runs all day wouldn't change it's environmental footprint with me laying in bed all day, not driving, eating only one meal a day and wearing the old ragged clothes for a week at a time. :D
Keeping used cars would greatly reduce the waste of energy that goes into manufacturing and disposing of those new vehicles that don't sell.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-16/where-worlds-unsold-cars-go-die
-
That's a great article Charlie. As you've stated, if you add up all the food, extra miles and idle time sleeping in your new car, just to pay for it, the cost doesn't justify the purchase. I was looking at the ethical argument for purchasing a car simply because it's good on gas, but is it? Like the article stated that 28% of its benefits are wasted before it's even delivered to the consumer, not to mention the pollution introduced from forming all the plastics and crap that goes into airbags and stuff to make government happy. Lithium batteries in hybrids kill during production.
Where does the power come from to charge your electric? Coal, and only some atomic.
Ahh, but there's nothing like new car smell and new car warranty, even if they're in the shop as often as my "old" cars, because some little bastard sensor somewhere shut the whole danged system down.
Gotta love it.
-
Seems that they could give some of those cars to people who are really needy and can't afford a vehicle due to extensive medical expenses and the like. People who've had catastrophes in their lives, like losing a home to fire, flood or storm. Reducing production would also help with the excess. 30 cars per hour per line instead of 50.
-
Great articles, both of them. But I must point out FFs is from 2014. No, I don't think anything has changed; however more current info should be available.
My wife's 7 year old Mustang gets 30 highway and 22-23 around town. My Fiero got 32 going from Atlanta to Augusta when I first bought it, 20-23 around town. Look at old Pintos, they made over 30 mpg highway. Some Chevettes made 50 mpg. The Mustang is bigger, heavier, and still has an explosive Takata airbag on the passenger side. It also handles poor weather worse than the Fiero, despite all the electronic gizmos.
Mustang generally performs slightly better from 0-Speed Limit, and I do like its ABS.
Rambling along... Have you considered the environmental impact of all the employees driving to work to build new cars? Just toured Rouge River in Detroit where they make the F150s. Lots of workers. And how about the folks at the power plants who keep the line powered? They don't sleep there.
My point is there are lots of factors and cost in building new cars beyond mpg.
BTW, new base Mustang, ~$25K. Ten year old Mustang, with poorer mpg, under $10K. That's a lotta gas for $15K.
-
Using the Cash for Clunkers program as a snapshot of what a deliberate, mass exchange to newer cars would look like, this article discusses the improvement we bought with our 3 BILLION dollars.
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/cash-for-clunkers (https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/cash-for-clunkers)
-
I cannot express my disdain for the whole Cash For Clunkers program in strong enough terms. It pissed me off (sorry - no other way to describe my feelings about it) about as badly as anything that the government has done, in recent memory.
I think it's immoral to ruin vehicles that someone may have found useful. I wonder, because of that, how many people had to "make do" or just "do without". Ought to be criminal.
-
Worse, it raised the cost of remaining vehicles. Also, many nice cars were crushed. The clunkers are still around.