Survey: What is Greener, Buying New or Keeping Old?
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 07.19.07
So do you pack in the old Charger for a Prius? Pablo says so- "Continuing to drive an older car with poor fuel economy is less environmentally friendly than getting a new car that gets drastically better fuel economy." However our commenters dissented: "A 1984 Honda Civic gets better mileage than a new one because it is smaller, lighter, and designed in an era when high mileage was king. Sure, it isn't as safe or as fast, but in many ways it is as efficient." UPDATE: Adria Vasil of Ecoholic (interviewed here) agrees with Pablo, in Now Magazine, copied below fold.
Q I have a 17-year-old Corolla. It's still very fuel-efficient and passes all the Drive Clean tests. Is it really that polluting?
A No doubt car manufacturing is a dirty business. Enormous amounts of resources and energy go into extracting metals and refining plastics, then shaping them into a driveable machine. But keeping an old beater around can be even worse.
First, pre-1988 cars make up only 18 per cent of cars on the road but create 50 per cent of car emissions! Old clunkers, no matter how well maintained, are serious air quality offenders. But it still passes emissions tests, you say? You have to keep in mind that a 1990 car is being tested according to 1990 emissions standards, "with an allowance for vehicle deterioration," according to Drive Clean Ontario. Old cars would never pass modern emissions standards.
And while the overall fuel economy of today's cars is, sadly, no better than 1980 models (thanks, Ford), tailpipe emissions have been subject to a massive clean-up op. According to Jim Kliesch, manager of Greenercars.com, this improvement to newer cars makes your 17-year-old set of wheels an extra serious offender.
I understand your reluctance to support new-car culture (not to mention that they cost a hell of a lot!), but you'd be better off buying a five-year-old Corolla than puttering around in a car that remembers MC Hammer pants. Of course, if you're biking or busing most of the time and using the car only occasionally, my finger-wagging will be much gentler than if you're driving that heap every day!
For the record, in terms of greenhouse gases, extracting the metal to make a car and transporting its parts to the plant account for 20 per cent of its lifetime emissions. Building the actual car makes up another 12 per cent, but the stuff coming out of the tailpipe constitutes 68 per cent.
The problem with "Drive it until it drops and squeeze out every joule of embodied energy" is that you are not supporting the new technologies and sending a message to the automakers. If they automakers are spending billions to bring more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly cars to the market - but no one buys them but instead continue to drive their SUV into the ground -- what message do you think they are getting?
I drove my 15mpg Bronco into the ground - but recently dumped it for a new 37mpg Toyota. Message sent -- SUV off the road - I want a small-fuel efficient car.
i've been going back and forth with this for about a year now - thanks for the poll Lloyd!
I think the answer on both these posts is too simplistic.
Unfortunately in the UK CO2 emissions aren't recorded prior to 1997 but some cars have got dirtier, model to model as they've got bigger, heavier and more powerful, so you can't just apply a blanket rule of old=bad, new=good.
For instance a 1990's Mini Cooper (original style with the ancient A Series 1275cc engine designed in the 1940s) emitted 164g/km whereas the replacement BMW MINI abomination emitted 163g/km and is less fuel efficient and consumes an awful lot more material in manufacture than the original as BMW forgot that the 'mini' was both small and minimalist.
Modern cars are also manufactured from plants all over the world with engines made in South America, bodies in the UK, gearboxes in Germany, suspenion from Korea... rather than the old cars which were often made entirely in the country of sale.
See http://www.smmtco2.co.uk/co2search2.asp for more data
You left out an option on the poll i'd like to see - convert your existing car into an electric!
That way you're effectively doing the first four:
1. Buy a new efficient car and get the junker off the road
It'll definitely be more efficient, so your essentially gettin the old engine off the road
2. Drive it until it drops and squeeze out every joule of embodied energy
There may be some embodied energy added to it in the changeover process, but not nearly as much as manufacturing a new car
3. Keep the old car, and don't use it
or keep the old car, and still use it, but without the polluting parts
4. A Charger is cooler than a Prius
A Re-chargeable Charger is even cooler again
Shaun while what you say is true to a certain extent we have to assume for the purposes of this exercise that you're replacing an old inefficient car with a significantly more efficient new car. It's not saying by the latest version of the same car.
While there are examples of models getting worse with time, most are being offered in much cleaner versions and the general trend is towards lower CO2 emissions. Now it's just a question of persuading people that they don't need a powerful car to get around and that the greener options are better for the environment and your wallet (both in capital and operating costs).
Zipcar or Carflex rules!!!
Owning is over. Owning a car is not only pollutant, old or new or electric or hybrid or fuel cell, it is expensive!!! Fuel+Insurance+parking+maintenance+carwash+tuning+etc...
By the way, i do not work for this companies nor affiliate nor investor....just member/user.
One major problem with comparing a 1984 car with a 2007-8 car is that the EPA changed its fuel economy rating methods after 1984 and again this year. There was a hatchback version of the Civic which was rated at 67 mpg highway in 1984, but if you transllate that into current EPA numbers, and use the CA emissions version numbers, it drops to 46 mpg highway and a combined rating of 41 mpg -- which is good -- but is easily surpassed by its modern-day counterpary, the Honda Insight, which is rated at 58 highway, 52 combined. This is a 27% improvement.
The difference is much more extreme comparing Civic sedans from 1984 to Civic sedans from 2007 -- particularly the hybrid, which has 55% higher fuel economy than an '85 sedan.
The more accurate comparison would be between the Accord of that era and modern-day Civics, as their dimensions are almost the same, with the Civic being several hundred pounds heavier with almost twice the horsepower. The Civic Hybrid essentially doubles the fuel economy of a comparable '84 Accord.
Tailpipe emissions, safety, comfort, and performance aren't even really comparable. A new Civic is vastly superior to an '84 Accord in all those areas -- particularly emissions.
I love old cars but want to be green too. So just you guys wait when I change my 1970 Hemi from a gas burning 13 mpg vehicle to 100% hydrogen and I'm hoping you won't even notice it by looking at the engine bay. It can be done and here's how:
buy a H2O hydride tank good for 50 miles per refil, hydrogen generator, rework heads, pistons and install titanium valves, replace exhaust and lines with stainless steel, modify/install ECM computer, hydrogen direct port fuel injection and a number of other things. approx $20,000..ouch. I can go 86,666 miles with $20,000 in gas but it would be fun to tell Pruis owners that my Hemi is greener than theirs.
The point I was making is that some old cars ARE more efficient and ARE less polluting than some new cars, even from the same manufacturer and model.
For instance a 1998 Ford Focus Zetec 1.8 emits exactly the same as the 2005 model. Both of them still emit MORE than a 1991 Mini and more than a 1990's Rover 25 or Honda Civic which are about the same size car!
A 1998 VW Golf 1.4S emits less than a 2004 1.4S.
To answer the Corolla question, a 1997 Corolla GS emits 198g/km (that's as old as the data goes back). The 2007 T2, 159g/km. 49g/km.
Cars have got heavier cancelling out the advantages newer engine technology has brought.
Yes, if you're going from a 4x4 to a Prius you're going to make a big difference, (like someone would actually do that???), but if you're going from an old small car to a a new small car you're not actually going to make much difference at all and might actually be doing MORE damage.
The Prius emits 104g/km btw which is only 8g/km less than an Audi A2 and that's a much more practical car which also in diesel form gets more mpg than the Prius too.
It's not a black and white argument. There's too many variables.
Why do you ignore criteria pollutants from the tailpipe, Shaun? Shouldn't treehuggers care about air quality?
And if you're going to compare A2 diesels with the Prius, you might as well start comparing Hummers with bicycles. One gains nothing from making illogical comparisons.
I agree there are a lot of variables, but you have to ask yourself a really important question:
Is it more or less likely that the person buying the car from me will drive it more than I would for the remainder of its useful life?
People who don't drive a lot in the first place don't necessarily need to get new cars. To use myself as an example, I bought a new hybrid civic in 2004, primarily to "vote" for the technology. In the time I've had the car (3 years, 3 months), I've driven it 26,000 miles, or about 8,000 miles a year. Had I owned a car directly prior to the hybrid, it is highly likely it would've wound up being owned by someone who would drive it far more than I would, because I ride my bicycle to work, and ride my motorcycle as much as possible when I don't ride my bicycle.
So it might be greener to keep the more polluting, less efficient car for myself. I hadn't owned a car for three years prior to buying the hybrid, though.
The flip side consideration, as has also been pointed out, is that most environmentalists complain about a lack of green products, but then complain that green products themselves and the consumption that goes along with them isn't green. And in any case, they're often cost prohibitive for many people who consider themselves to be environmentalists.
So there's no demand for green products, no one makes them, and the businesses that try struggle.
What a condundrum. But like with many things, the solution lies somewhere in the middle.
What about the possibility of improving emissions on an older car? I drive a 1992 Ford Festiva (perhaps once a week), and it gets 35 MPG. It passes emissions tests, but is there a modification that enables an existing car to reduce emissions?
You did not show the option of retrofitting a newer engine.The comment below i found at someone else's post.But found interesting.I also have done this with an old car.
I can not speak for all.But my old bronco gets a new drive train about every 4 years.In 1979 it had a 400 modified ( gasoline ) with a four speed manual.
Now in 2007 it has 7.3 turbo diesel and five speed manual transmission.The Bronco has changed some since my dads time.It got new axles 3/4-1 ton type.The last time tailpipe emissions.And compared.It burns as clean as current diesels.
Now if you mean metal.I use much less.I do not buy new.I think it is a big waste of money and resources.
Besides that i think new has a lack of class and style.Beyond that the bronco has been in the family since it was new.I have an old photo of me,dad,and grandpa from when i was 3.It is not going anywhere soon.I will just keep the drive train up to date.