Question of the Day: Should Old Cars Be Euthanized?
We learned today that State governments are increasingly turning their attentions to the issue of older cars that are still on the road. As new cars become increasingly more fuel efficient (fingers crossed), and pollute less, should an effort be made to remove older models from active use? Is the preservation of history too important to get rid of them all together? How many cars can we afford to posses as a nation? Shed some light, in comments.
Comments
chartguy
The easy answer is to replace the patchwork of registration fees with an annual tax on pollutants (not carbon dioxide, but pollutants). CO percent times some constant, NOX percent times another constant, etc. Keep it linear.
If we do that, then there's a market incentive to fix or replace an old smoker. Here in Colorado (as in much of the nation), you have to have your car's emissions tested. The problem is that if it costs too much to fix, you don't have to fix it.
Before emissions testing, the vast majority of pollution was generated by a tiny fraction of vehicles.Emissions testing actually increases those proportions.
If you want to reduce pollution, this would work. There should probably be some kind of exception for cars that are rarely driven. If you drive it 3,000 miles a year or less, maybe you could get a break. That would help collectors, but not add to overall pollution.
KAH3
The public will do this automatically, as cars get older and require more and more work the average person is going to junk it or sell it depending on quality. Eventually either they become popular as a classic and are rebuilt or they sit in a junkyard till all the parts are striped. the amount of pollution is minimal compared to cars that are 15 to 25 years old and not of a classic nature. the mid 1980 honda civics on the road are going to pollute more than the same # of 32 ford hot rods because the people with the hot rods are on the road less and are constantly working to make them better (in most cases) and the guys with the hondas are just trying to get by, they are there main mode of transportation and are likely to go with out a repair due to cost. Leave the old cars alone!
gene lucy
Removing old cars off the roads would be like removing seniors,like putting them out of site,,,we know they exsist but we don't want to see them
james austin
So.... how much energy is expended, and how much oil is used in the creation of one nice, shiny, new, fuel efficient car? Is it really worth pulling older, less efficient, cars and trucks off the road?
They pretty much remove themselves from the road after a time.
corco
If the government really wants to give people the cash to go buy a brand new car so they don't have to drive their 1988 Tempo around, well that's what we call communism and that's just more inflation
Nice pipe dream, never gonna happen
Jdickson87
I don't think they should necessarily be actively pulled from the road, but cars become cost ineffective after a time, and this is sort of a natural thing that retires old cars. Otherwise, why not keep them out there? My 944 is over 20 years old, but it's still a blast, only occasionally kicks me in the balls in terms of repair costs, and gets looks even today. I don't think age should be the judge of when a car is killed, at least not beyond how much it already is. Just my 2 cents.
miata 90
Agreed.
As long as there are old cars there will be a dedicated few who will look after and show classics such as the Pinto and K Car that played a significant role in N. Americas social fabric. Falcons, and Valiants are few and far between but to the younger generations they are interesting and perhaps more relevant than Ferrari Maserati and Rolls Royce of the same era which were few a wealthy few
My 1990 Miata is almost a collector and like the 944 is still a blast to drive
Here's to restorers and collectors
Ducati Minor
I don't about the Miata or the 944...
I think the state should ban sh*tty hot rod jobs. That would save a lot of the screwed Studebaker Starliners you see on eBay.
CO77VETTE@MSN.COM
I am in the restoration business and it really bothers me to see old cars crushed. This is destroying history. If they must be taken off the road, they should not be destroyed. So this brings up the question of what do we do with these cars or, where do you draw the line as to what is kept and what is destroyed? Classic is a relative term that is in the eyes of the beholder. In my business, it is amazing the requests we get for parts for Mavericks, Falcons, Ramblers, Vegas along with Hupmobiles, Essexes, Oldsmobiles. What is considered junk now may turn into a collector 50 years from now and where do you get replacement parts? Just because I have, say, a 1974 K5 Blazer, would that be considered a junker or a parts donor or a collector? It seems to me that if a vehicle becomes ineffecient or uneconomical to continue to drive, most people will stop driving them. These then become a parts source for others. In the case of all the current restored cars, how many are driven more than a few hundred miles a year? This is a very small amount of pollution added to the air. Also, I find an old rusted vehicle sitting in a field to be an intriguing source of parts or a project to bring back to life. Thanks for letting me ramble.
Dane
If the car is in good shape and drivable.... They should stay on the road, the car is loved....
if the car is going 75 mph with Indiana plates with a mini-spare wobbling on the axle... yes they should be junked....
a 25 year old GTI that has been kept up with is still a good car.... a 25 chevy celebrity rusted to the wind screen is not a good car...
Paul In Jersey
Old cars should not be put to sleep or crushed. You whippersnappers need to see what Car Hell was like so when "geezers" like me prattle on about riding from Illinois to Lake Tahoe in a '75 Buick with brocade interior, then you know why we're all messed up. Or a college road trip in a Vega. Or meeting an attractive woman with an automatic Pinto.
Yup. That's what it was like. Now to tell you the truth, anytime y'all want to see some of these cars, I know where there is a Mercury Bobcat that's used daily and looks brand new. I've got a photo of it in my cellphone, along with an '84 Chevette and a '72 Aston-Martin that for the life of me, looks awfully darn like a '71 Maverick two-door.
Crap, I'm not even that old. But I know where we've been. Did you enthusiast-types know that a 1975 Honda Civic, which seats four weighs almost to the ounce the same as a 2008 Smart, and it gets the same gas mileage? So are we making progress, or not?
Trinks
No, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is:
Cars only comprise a small portion of greenhouse gases and other emissions in this country. Take the small portion of the total vehicle fleet that is a "gross polluter" and you're talking about fractions of fractions. Instead of throwing money at this type of nonsense, let's look into retiring or refurbishing some of those old smokey power plants, eh?
Russ Bellinis
The government needs to quit meddling! Old cars take themselves off the road. The poor get rid of the 20 year old clunker in favor of a 10 year old car. The old car is either a source of parts or is consigned to thew crusher to make scrap metal to go to Asia to build more Hondas, Toyotas, Nissans, Kias, etc. The old cars that are restored are seldom driven, so the amount of pollution that they account for is negligible. There is no problem with old cars, just a perception on the part of politicians to look like your are doing something useful, when everyone knows politicians are a cancer on society.
Troy Cardenas
I own a 72 Chevy PU. I drive it to the Home Depot and to the dump. I can't see Uncle Sam giving me money to take it off the street. Even at 10 mpg it is cheap for occational use. But, hey if the commies (Obama and the left wing nuts) want to pay for it with out my paying more taxes, then more power to them.
Mark in Maine
I agree with everyone here - old restored cars that aren't driven all that much should not be singled out because of age, or how much pollution they emit - they should be treated as what they represent - history, and not as part of the problem. The thing that frightens me is when 'state governments turn their attention' to anything at all - Here in Maine,we'll probably see a gross overreaction, red-faced legislators frothing at the mouth to 'get these clunkers off the road', and other foolishness of that sort. Then, crusher bills get passed, our used parts supply dries up, and our wonderful state representatives congratulate themselves on a job well done. I just want to continue to be able to drive my old cars a few hundred miles each Summer. . .
Anonymous
How about old collectors stop worrying about the ENGINE being authentic so much, and put modern engines in, or even electric motors. Most of the thrill now is in the design of the exterior, not the goofy old engine technology.
Secondly, lots of jurisdictions already pay people to remove older cars.
Thirdly, in comparison to new low emission vehicles that are manufactured today, vehicles manufactured prior to 1988 generate at least 35 more volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 44 times more nitrogen oxides (NOx) than vehicles of similar size that were manufactured. In fact, one 1987 model year vehicle generates the same amount of smog-forming emissions as twenty-two 2001 model year vehicles. That's 22 TIMES AS MUCH!
The difference is even greater for 2008 vehicles.
Anonymous
As much as an old vehicle carries with it it's own history..it can also carry it's owner(s) heart-felt emotion...do not send an old car to it's end...seeing them going down the road always sends a thrill of the "way-back" and the sweetness of old memories ...irreplaceable !
The Auto Buzz
Oh well, based from my opinion older cars should be into preservation. I guess it won't harm big enough to make the State government turned their attentions into it. Just let the older cars in their own garage.
junk yard dog
in the peoples republic of california, cars newer than '76, must be smogged. these cars( up to about '80's) dont usually pass. then there junked. cars earlier than '76, are valued more as cllectors. these cars are kept up, or updated, with newer running gear. their impact on pollution is so minor, that one would hope the govt. has more important ways to spend their time. leave the old car hobby alone. remember, all those old cars are recycled, thus taking up much less of our resources. DON"T CRUSH "EM, RESTORE 'EM !!!! *plus their really KOOL!
bRad
Why are they even attempting to DESTROY part of OUR HISTORY?????
Why aren't we destroying other older things in this country that are more obsolete than our old cars like the CONSTITUTION?????
To blanket arbitrarily old cars above a certain age as polluting and/or uneconomical shows how little knowledge there is out there apparently (despite my horrible spelling) concerning older cars. There was a fantastic and well written article years ago in Hemmings Motor News that said it takes enough fuel and material to make a car that it would take it having to be driven for over 10 years to be as ecologicaly and economicaly efficent as driving an older well tuned car (comparable sized cars)
And economy is not a new thing, I have an old car that gets over 50mpg (well, more than one) and it was built befoe 1971! I had a heck of a laugh when the first Honda hybrid came out claiming 50mpg, I know of cars as far back as 1948 that could get that and better!
And this doesn't even address the destruction of our Automotive History!
However I've ranted enough for now and must stop before I get unhealthy.
Post new comment