David Massey wrote:
> I had heard this before,many years ago. I believe that this factoid is
> "swept under the carpet" because building cars provides so many jobs and
> cutting back would have detrimental effects to the economy - at least short
> term.
While I think that some of the figures cited probably require the
complete equation and variables to be available to verify the results,
there's no question that all the various manufacturing processes add to
pollution and energy use. But, in this regard, why single out cars, I
would ask? The same can be said for almost anything manufactured, from
clothing to bicycles to armored personnel carriers....
> By the way, this is an unfair comparison. You (or at least the authors of
> the report) are comparing apples and oranges. Producing the car doesn't
> preclude the use or non-use. You would still use a car whether it was a
> recently produced model or an older, refurbished model. The question that
> counts, actually there are two are: How much waste is produced restoring an
> old car vs producing a new car from scratch and how much less polution is
> produced by the new car vs. the older car. Although the newer cars are
> cleaner in terms of HC, CO and NOx they are just as prolific, if not more
> so, as the older cars at producing CO2.
Catalytic chemistry would certainly suggest that much of the CO and
unburned hydrocarbons are, with a good catalyst, being converted to CO2.
> And, if there was enough of a market there would be (and there probably
> are) retrofit engine managment systems that would close the gap.
Aftermarket costs are still fairly high, require considerable labor to
install (if one does not have the tools or expertise), and few people
have the desire to put $3-4K into a $1K clunker to improve emissions. In
the aftermarket, many more people are taking emissions equipment _off_
(often for mistaken reasons of believing they are radically improving
power output), rather than putting it on or improving on it. (!)
And, with our particular hobby, there are still those great many people
who are not encouraged to make such emissions improvements because
they're afraid they'll lose points in concours competitions.
Unfortunately, the two biggest improvements in fuel use, emissions,
power production and engine life are digital fuel injection and
crank-fired ignition systems, and those stick out like a sore thumb.
<smile> Not that I mind, mind you. <smile> Others do, though.
> None the less, it is important to keep in mind that new cars (and any other
> new product) are the result of much industry and don't just fall from the
> heavens.
Huh? They don't? Why, then, do all my cars look as if they have, and
landed kind of hard, too? <g>
Cheers.
--
Michael D. Porter
Roswell, NM
[mailto: mporter@zianet.com]
`70 GT6+ (being refurbished, slowly)
`71 GT6 Mk. III (organ donor)
`72 GT6 Mk. III (daily driver)
`64 TR4 (awaiting intensive care)
`80 TR7 (3.8 liter Buick-powered)
|