I don't think Triple Pundit took into account that buying a hybrid with better gas mileage allows the manufacturer to sell other cars with lower gas mileage because the CAFE standard is fleet-wide. In other words, buying a Ford Hybrid allows Ford to sell some other gas guzzler and still keep it's average up.

Perhaps this is why Prius owners drive their cars more to make a statement than an actual change.

my neighbour is trying to convince me my 1968 lawn tractor is poluting and that I should get the newer low-emmisions garden tractor....

ya right...

this one lasted 40 years and still going strong.

ask yourself if the life expentency of new stuff worth the price/efficiency.

(like the new front loader cloth washers that use less water but takes twice the time to wash your cloths... and don't last more than 5 years unless you're single. don't expect parts to be affordable; that fancy electronic controler is not a standard washer part)

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.

Unless you junk the old car, it will be driven by someone else.
The answer is obvious: wear out your old car and then buy an efficient car.

Pablo's comments aren't really applicable to Archaeo's question, since he/she said that the vehicle gets the same fuel economy as its modern counterpart and is driven sparingly.

Also, Pablo's analysis is strictly limited to energy balance questions and doesn't address total lifecycle environmental impact, which includes all sorts of other waste besides CO2.

Unless you junk the old car, it will be driven by someone else.

Not if you send it to the crusher.

I'm not sure I get your comment Bryan #1. Are you saying that buying a clean car is pointless because of CAFE? I don't agree with that.

It's good to see their numbers broadly tally with the manufactuer's claims of 10% - 20% of lifecycle energy being in manufacture (and at the same time yet again discrediting that ridiculous CNW Market Research report). It also clearly shows that keeping old inefficient cars running is not good for the environment. But once you've finished with your car, chances are someone else will carry on using it. Still, better to have the vehicle parc moving in a fuel efficient direction as soon as possible.

Keep the old car, and don't use it :)

Luc Plouffe, I'm not sure what you mean about the front loaders. Mine takes half the time as my old top loader (as well as using half the power and water) and has been cleaning clothes for a family of three for seven years with no problems.

Yes, but your old car probably gets better mileage and has better emission standards than THEIR old car which they're replacing with yours. Go downline far enough, and SOME old noisy polluting junker is finally getting turned into scrap.

In fact, the sooner you buy a new high-efficiency vehicle is the sooner that, a few years from now, someone will be buying yours used.

We may be at that point in history where the majority of "old" cars being considered for retirement actually get better mileage than the new ones that would replace them.
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.
Of course, if you're replacing a 1976 Cadillac ElDorado or something like that, that's another matter entirely...

"Luc Plouffe, I'm not sure what you mean about the front loaders. Mine takes half the time as my old top loader (as well as using half the power and water) and has been cleaning clothes for a family of three for seven years with no problems."

our 5 years old Whirlpool top loader take 35 minutes for a large load. My parents new front loader high priced BOSCH stuff take 45 minutes to clean a small load and much more for a load as big as what we put in the older top loader. My parents changed the 35 years old Maytag thinking they made a good move.... now they regret they spend 3000$ in the name of so called efficiency (knowing the maytag was still good)

(and the front loader will surely not last as long as the 1973 maytag)

so yup, I think that the 400 000km 1987 1.8L VW jetta is better for the planet than the new 2.5L 2008 jetta that will start peeling it's paint after 2 years.

so far, buying a new efficient car is the worst investment I made in my whole life. I have to work a lot more to pay it when I could use this time to boost energy conservation at home.

if it was all to be done again, I would get an old fuel efficient 4 cylinder Toyota pick-up; work less and spent more time in the garden or remodeling the house in a way to make it warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer; saving a lot more energy for a lot less money.

also not having to work as much to pay the new car means less KM/Miles on the road... meaning less emmisions out of the older more fuel efficient truck (but a bit less "green" when running)

"Unless you junk the old car, it will be driven by someone else.

Not if you send it to the crusher."

Unfortunately, some of us are poor and need to sell our old vehicle before we can buy a newer one.
Now, what I'd really like is to convert my much loved '88 4wd STX Ford Ranger to electric. I want those PML Flightlink in wheel motors and at least 150 miles of range.
But, like I said, some of us are poor. Our only solution is to drive less, bicycle more.

As Drivin98 noted, poverty is the 500 lb gorilla in the room that no one is acknowledging. The poor will still need to have transportation, and they have fewer options than others, most often saddled with the worst vehicles both in reliability, mialge and polluting capacity. Until these are gone, we will not make significnat strides toward reducing the problems. It seems reasonable that if we want to put some socially conscious money where our mouth is, we should assist the poor to replace their old, polluting cars, or even convert them to more efficient proceses and fuels such as bio-diesel or hybridization. ANY car can be hybridized after market with significant savings in fuel efficiency and cleaner emmissions. Require their old equipment that is replaced to go to the crusher -- end of problem. There is a similar program already in existance in CA where cars that don't pass smog are surrendered (and "recycled" -- crushed)for $1,000. It doesn't quite work, as it doesn't require more efficient replacement, just puts a chunk of cash into an impoverished person's hands who may spend it foolishly. But the basic idea is sound.

-------
Author's comment
Car clubs may offer a partial solution in some dense urban neighborhoods. In the UK they are being effectively utilised to provide low income family's with the chance to use efficient, clean and reliable transport when they need it, without being saddled with the upfront expense, or unexpected financial wammy of sudden break downs etc. Obviously this is only really an option where car travel is not an every day necessity.

A problem with so many of these opinions is that the issue of personal choice is being sacrificed. Any rule that requires destruction of one's personal property due to passing an external test is inherently flawed. And what of the millions of people that simply cannot drive "less". I am referring to the vast majority that do not live in the polluted urban areas and must commute from the green outlying areas. I carpool as much as possible, but there is NO alternative to driving my truck at least a few days every week. And yes, it's an old truck that I use for commuting and work. It doesn't run as cleanly or as efficiently as a new Prius, but honestly, I don't care. I like it the way it is. I like that it is a simple machine and that I can maintain it without a specialized degree. And I do not want someone trying to force their beliefs on me. Would everyone here like it if I attempted to force all of them to go to a certain church on Sunday mornings. I think not. My suggestion to everyone is to do yourself what you believe is best, but don't force your views on others unless you're prepared to accept other's views yourself.

Kevin, your rights end where mine begin. The climate is not your personal property, nor is the air.

>>Unless you junk the old car, it will be driven by someone else.

If you're upgrading yours, the person buying your old car off you is probably upgrading theirs, the last person in the chain is sending something onto the scrapheap. So everyone's car is upgraded and the net improvement is the newest one entering the chain over the the one that's hit the scrapeap.

So upgrading makes sense. Assuming of course the car your buying is pumpoing out less and using less than what you sold, upgrading your old Honda Civic to a clever new BMW that emits the same but uses more fuel isn't really gaining anything.

When I was a child, we used to learn all about the process of keeping our neighborhood clean and not littering. In school, they would show us ways of creating birdhouses out of milk cartons and other art projects from something that would have been trash. We called it recycling. So when someone drives your old car after you get rid of it, why are you upset about it? They are saving it from the trash heap and milking every single mile left in it. We're so worried about polluting the earth but then we are just creating more trash.