NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/autos/27192

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!olivea!news.bbn.com!noc.near.net!gateway!miki!harling
From: [e-mail] (Dan Harling)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Hot rods & clunkers  (Was: Eth Bl Gas ... )
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:10:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: Dan Harling
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Lines: 62

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moritz) writes:
>[e-mail] (Dan Harling) wrote:
>> [e-mail] (Greg Moritz) writes:
>> >Famous argument; 'Takes energy to make a new car
>> >I have never seen a definitive comparison
>
>> Nor have I, but I suspect that the pollution created in scrapping an
>> old car and manufacturing a new one would equal that generated by a
>> well-maintained older car for a significant number of years.  Even
>> apart from the pollution due to material usage, consider the amount of
>> energy expended in manufacturing and machining.
>
>What's significant?  One?  Ten?  It's just a guess until someone runs
>the numbers.

Yup.  Like I said, though, I doubt people will even agree on *which*
numbers to use, because there are so many ways to define "pollution",
and so many ways to weight the individual types once they are
selected.  One bunch of people will come out with one set of numbers
that "proves" that all pre-'80 cars must be scrapped by the end of the
year, and another bunch will come out with figures that "prove" that it
is *never* better to replace an old car with a new one.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?  That's why I don't think that coming out
with "real numbers" will make much of a difference in the grand design,
although it might convince people one way or another on an individual
basis.


>> >...a new Crown Vic.  It's a gas-hog next to a Saturn, but it is
>> >a fuel-misor next to a smoke-belching mid-seventies piece of V8 iron.
>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> This is obviously a stereotype; at least, "smoke-belching mid-seventies
>> piece of V8 iron" sounds more like a prejudice to me than a
>> qualification.
>
>It might be a stereotype to some people, but my usage here was deliberate.
>I'm not interested in seeing all older cars removed.  Only
> "smoke-belching mid-seventies piece of V8 iron.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm glad you cleared that up.  It was hard to tell whether you were
referring to only those examples that *do* belch smoke, or whether you
were implying that they *all* do.  I suspect that I am not the only one
who read your wording that way, because it's just the kind of sentiment
people expect to hear.

If cars are distinguished by degree of pollution on an individual
basis, this standard can be used as a legitimate attempt to reduce
pollution.  If distinguished by age, make, engine size, or anything
*other* than pollution on an individual basis, I am more inclined to
believe it is an attempt to sell more cars, under the guise of
environmental concerns.

Auto manufacturers in the late '20s (and early '30s?) made an attempt
to legislate old cars off the road, but they were not so sophisticated
as to justify it in terms of environmental concern.  They just said
flat out, "if we destroy old cars, we will sell more new ones."
____________________________________________________________________________
Daniel A. Harling                        ([e-mail])
PictureTel Corp.             Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
Peabody, MA  01960                 PictureTel, but they ought to be!