Seasick Steve.

[martin]

A quote from Seasick Steve on Top Gear, add the Texas accent.
" My boy tells me I can drive my '53 chevy wagon for the rest of my life, and most of the next one, and still make less polution than it takes to make a new 'un " I love it ! ! ! Martin.

[nojackshaft]

Like It!! I wonder how much truth is in that statement? Has any mathematical genius, or historic car authority ever done a calculation on the energy require to scrap an old car, melt it down, roll it into sheet steel, press out body panels and rebuild another car? Then compare that with the difference in mpg between our 25mpg "gas-guzzlers" and modern 45mpg "boxes"? Then relate that to years. It would be very nice to have that accurate info at hand to immediately snap back at environmental moaners!! Any geniusses out there? (or should it be genii??)

[StagnJag]

I just tried google to find out. I didn't find what I was looking for, but this makes interesting reading.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article2195538.ece

Rgds

Dave

[martin]

25 mpg gas guzzlers ? have a look at today's equivelant and say that !
I think it's already been done, that's the basis of the attack on the loss of the rolling tax exemption. I reckon my 37 year old car has paid off its carbon footprint (God I hate that phrase) many times over. Martin.

[martin]

I just tried google to find out. I didn't find what I was looking for, but this makes interesting reading.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article2195538.ece

Rgds

Dave

That's wonderful Dave, I hope everybody reads it Martin.

[StagnJag]

...just found this as well. Haven't read it thoroughly, but I have got the jist of it. Pretty much says drive your existing car for as long as possible :-). 200,000 miles is suggested. I have got at least 100,000 miles to go in the Stag then

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car

Rgds

Dave

[Guest]

So does that mean we can cut road tax and fuel prices? 25p per litre would be nice!!!!! But I've more chance of winning the Euro lotto!

Jason

[Kevin Garrod]

I just tried google to find out. I didn't find what I was looking for, but this makes interesting reading.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article2195538.ece

Rgds

Dave

So walking is worse than driving, especially if you eat beef, so should I walk to McDonalds or use the drive thru?

[whitev8stag]

So walking is worse than driving, especially if you eat beef, so should I walk to McDonalds or use the drive thru?

does it matter? i didnt know there was any beef in a McDonalds?

[martin]

does it matter? i didnt know there was any beef in a McDonalds?

Sorry mate, but I like an occasional burger, and they're very nice - with lots of beef - which admittedly they've been forced to use Martin.

[Ian Durrant]

...just found this as well. Haven't read it thoroughly, but I have got the jist of it. Pretty much says drive your existing car for as long as possible :-). 200,000 miles is suggested. I have got at least 100,000 miles to go in the Stag then

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car

Rgds

Dave

Well that's not only interesting reading but it does give us a rough guide of 17 tonnes of CO2 being used to build a car the size of the stag/the size of the car you would buy to replace the stag.

Now if we have a figure for the CO2 emissions of the stag we could compare it to various moderns and work out which ultimately produces the most CO2.

Though I have to say I am firmly in the "rubbish science" camp on global warming. 1) I don't believe its proven the earth is warming and 2) even if it was proven I don't think its proven that global warming is caused by CO2 produced by humans and their activities. The trouble now being of course that a whole industry has grown around all this "science" and it would actually be economically damaging to admit it's actually not fact.

[Ian Durrant]

this following article suggests that the CO2 emission for a modern that does similar MPG to the stag will be roughly the same.

http://www.thevintagecar.co.uk/greenmachinesvintagemoderncars.html

That make sense since the amount of fuel burned is directly proportional to the CO2 produced.

[Guest]

We all know global warming is bo**ocks don't we? Wasn't the earth in an ice age and is just naturally warming up? But then, you can't charge the motorist for natural warming!!!

Jason (cynic)

[Ian Durrant]

I did a bit of maths for fun. There are obviously some fairly big assumptions in here but with that in mind I thought doing the maths might be interesting.

Cars that do around 25 MPG tend to emit 225g/km and the average modern petrol car of a similar size and power output to the stag is around 150g/KM.

Assuming 17 tonnes of CO2 is required to build the new car and assuming a life of 15 years at an average 20,000 KM / year the total carbon emission of the modern over its life would be 62 tonnes

Now our stags have already been around well over 15 years so we can simply ignore the build cost on CO2 so with all the other parameters the same over a 15 year period doing the same mileage our stags emit roughly 67.5 tonnes.

so if we were to use it as a daily driver it's total "carbon footprint" would seem to be hardly any higher. At lower average kilometers per year the trend actually switches to be in favour of classics.

Obviously hybrid cars do even better than 150g/km but then I would have thought the carbon use to build one is probably higher as well and anyway they are only more efficient in the urban cycle, on long motorway journeys they aren't any more efficient than any other modern petrol car.

it would seem therefore that anyone arguing our cars are more damaging to the environment than their modern would be on dodgy ground.

[flying farmer]

I recall reading an article about the total carbon footprint of vehicles that included the dismantling and recycling footprint at the end of the vehicles life. It probably came from the USA, as it turned out the least polluting over the vehicles life cycle was a basic Jeep Cherokee, despite its fuel consumption, and the most polluting was the Toyota Prius, it being the so called eco friendly batteries that gave it a catastrophic carbon footprint. I will stick to driving good old fashioned V8s in the knowledge that I am far greener than battery powered brigade!
Neil