Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Rupert Murdoch and Al Gore have something more than being BS'ers in common. Both have sons that drive a Prius. Although Murdoch's son is gainfully employed.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-08-19-small-cars_N.htm
The article mentions that not only are larger vehicles safer in multi-vehicle accidents, but also in single vehicle accidents. How much safety are you willing to give up to reduce CO2 a little?
People taking the threat of Global Warming seriously is a GOOD thing also.
Whether the earth is warming due to human intervention or not is UNRELATED to the FACT that cars pollute and that pollution is NOT GOOD and should be reduced or eliminated as soon as alternatives can be found.
That 4th grader who is scared (or scarred) by "Inconvenient Truth" might be the person to someday invent the alternative fuel source technology that will allow us to eliminate fossil fuel vehicles forever.
Or he may be the kid that shoots his parents in their sleep because they refuse to get rid of their SUV. The frenzy I see generated by this GW hysteria is not healthy. Anyone questioning the PUSHERS of GW are castigated.
What is taught in our Schools is rarely fair & balanced. Too many theories & opinions are being expounded as FACTS. Little minds want to believe what the teacher says. I never did and got the bad grades to prove it. I will continue to question crazy theories till I die.
Are you saying that Global Warming can cause Mental Defects, now?
I bet that hasn't been studied yet. (OMG!!!)
There is no "frenzy caused by GE hysteria" going on, anywhere, that I have seen. And I have been looking.
Really, now Gary.......Let's not go off the deep end.....LOL
If you feel like "questioning crazy theories 'till you die" then go ahead.
And school has ALWAYS been a sounding board for theories, opinions, and facts. Life is a constant learning experience.
I learned a lot of things in school that turned out to be wrong. College is where you mostly sort the fact from the fiction.
In High School and below, the more information the brain receives, the better. Get all those neurons working and creating brain power.
Telling kids that pollution is bad for the Earf and is bad for human health is factual.
Pollution is a known science. Who or what is causing GW is a question with a lot of far out theories and not a lot of known scientific proof. I know you would like to twist this thread into one on pollution. That is also up for debate. Just because the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has jurisdiction over CO2 does not make it a pollutant. It is a vitally needed gas. Trees and plants need lots of CO2 to survive.
Just because no one has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that human pollutants are causing the current warming trend the Earth has been seeing does not eliminate human-caused pollution as the cause.
As long as it's a POSSIBILITY, and no one has successfully proven that it's NOT, then we need to take actions to curb our wasteful pollution.
Gary, if not for our political system that puts the Oil and Big Three cartel with so much power in Washington, pollution would have been cut a long time ago. It's the POLITICS holding us up.
Have you heard anything about Urban Heat Island? What is it? Do you consider it to be a myth or "known" science?
PEDRO MOURA COSTA, co-founder of Oxford-based EcoSecurities, 44, made 4.8 million pounds ($10 million) when he sold some shares in the firm which helps convert emission cuts into tradable carbon credits. His remaining shares are worth about 37 million pounds ($73 million).
Want more read the Reuters report...
Get rich on GW
What do you think we can buy an acre for in Greenlamd? $50? We'll sell it to some Gorite for $5,000/acre?
Researchers in Norway claim a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of methane a year, equivalent to the amount of CO2 caused by an 8,077-mile car trip, der Spiegel reported.
Norway’s national animal releases methane through burping and flatulence, as do cows, considered more harmful to the environment than carbon dioxide.
There are estimated to be more than 100,000 moose in Norway.
Moos Gas
And, amazingly enough, despite the all-powerful cartels of Big Oil and the Big Three (who are so powerful they can't even get the government to provide them with relief from their health-care costs), the air is cleaner in this country than at any time since the late 19th century, when the Industrial Revolution began accelerating in the wake of the Civil War.
Most air pollution from vehicles comes from old, out-of-tune vehicles. I recall reading that 50 percent of vehicular pollution comes from 10 percent of all vehicles. New vehicles are so clean that, if everyone drove a 2000 or newer vehicle, vehicular air pollution would essentially vanish in America.
So, if your teachers really want to improve air quality, instead of resorting to hysteria or cliches, they should learn the facts and tell Junior and Buffy to encourage the parents to spring for a new car.
Well, that's a general statement and partially true.
Most air pollution which is damaging to human health comes from dirty diesel fuel exhaust.
But even brand spanking new vehicles can be filthy polluters.
Air Pollution's "Meanest Vehicles" of 2006:
1. Dodge Ram SRT-10
2. Lamborghini Murcielago
3. Bentley Arnage
4. Dodge Durango 4.7 V8 4WD
5. Dodge Ram 1500 4.7 V8 4WD
6. Maybach 57S
7. Hummer H2
8. Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano
9. Ford F-250 Super Duty 5.4 V8 4WD
10. GMC Yukon XL 2500 4WD
11. Volkswagen Touareg V8
12. Chevrolet Suburban 2500 4WD
So, no one here is resorting to either hysteria or cliches. Cars pollute - old cars, new cars, red cars, blue cars. To help reduce air pollution, drive a cleaner car or drive less.
Motors contribute the following to the cocktail entering Londoners' lungs:
* 75 per cent of nitrogen oxides
* 83 per cent of benzene
* 77 per cent of particulates
* 53 per cent of volatile organic compounds
* 29 per cent of carbon dioxide
* 97 per cent of carbon monoxide.
I'm sure some of those are "out of tune" cars.
Air Pollution's "Meanest Vehicles" of 2006:
1. Dodge Ram SRT-10
2. Lamborghini Murcielago
3. Bentley Arnage
4. Dodge Durango 4.7 V8 4WD
5. Dodge Ram 1500 4.7 V8 4WD
6. Maybach 57S
7. Hummer H2
8. Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano
9. Ford F-250 Super Duty 5.4 V8 4WD
10. GMC Yukon XL 2500 4WD
11. Volkswagen Touareg V8
12. Chevrolet Suburban 2500 4WD
So, no one here is resorting to either hysteria or cliches. Cars pollute - old cars, new cars, red cars, blue cars. To help reduce air pollution, drive a cleaner car or drive less.
A little historical perspective, please.
The vehicles you listed are so clean by historical standards that they are hardly "filthy," and branding them as such does constitute hysteria.
A 2000 Ford Explorer emitted fewer pollutants running than a 1969 Ford Galaxie emitted with the engine turned off (through leakage from gasoline lines, etc.).
And a 2006 Explorer is even cleaner yet. Which is why today's air is clean by historical standards, and is getting cleaner (as old vehicles are retired).
Not one of the vehicles you listed is "filthy" by any reasonable standard.
You want "filthy"? Come with me to the big Antique Automobile Club of America (AACA) fall meet in Hershey, and we'll stand on the showfield when all of those vintage cars (which are generally in top tune, by the way), start up and prepare to leave the showfield (all cars must be driven both to and from the showfield, as per AACA rules).
THAT's filthy.
What do you think is the main reason you or I cannot just import any old car straight from Europe? Because it won't meet U.S. emission standards, that's why.
Calling a particular brand-new vehicle "filthy" is like calling a woman a fat pig because she weighs five pounds more than a supermodel.
Did you read my last post? I said relative to the cleanest cars today.
Relative to a Honda Civic GX, the Dodge SRT-10 is, comparatively, FILTHY.
Of course it's not 1985's definition of "filthy." But it is 2007's version, if you have a scale that goes from "pristine" to the obvious opposite end - filthy.
Maybe you would prefer having a scale which goes from "very clean" to "kinda not so clean." ???
taking them off the road altogether would not make a single dent in the pollution problem.
The problem is in all the older cars that are still on the road that were never engineered to meet todays tougher standards.
An early 90's honda probably emits more pollutants than a Bentley.
Esp if you factor in miles driven.
A Ferrari or Lambo may only be driven a couple thousand miles a year.
A car with a "greener" profile may be driven 15-20,000 miles in a year. emitting far more pollutants than one of those "filthy" cars.
A Dodge SRT-10 is a very clean automobile (it must meet all federal standards applicable to that class of automobile as contained in the Clean Air Act), and one can drive it without feeling guilty.
No new cars are truly filthy, any more than any woman is fat because she weighs 5-10 pounds more than a supermodel.
No doubt all of those Ferraris would have brightened up the streets and byways of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, but if they are really that filthy, we'd just feel so guilty!
I guess we'll have to stick with our Accord and Focus...
If you can call that truck "very clean" then let's just disband the EPA and say, "OK EPA, cars are as clean as they need to be and should never be cleaner - don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out !!!"
There are clean cars, relative to other cars, and there must be a category for "dirty" cars too.
I'm sorry if you disagree with that, but it's a fact nonetheless.
By the way something has to be the least clean no matter how little it pollutes.
From the EPA charts the dirtiest car on their current list is cleaner than most of the CamCords currently on our roads. So if that is filthy to you too bad. They are going to last for another 10 years at least.
Saying any of these cars are dirty is like debating which Victoria's Secret model is the ugliest.
ALL new cars are lightyears ahead of where cars were 5,10,15 yrs ago.
If you really must feel smug and self righteous,may I suggest belittling someone who owns a 10 yr old anything?
I always enjoy a good chat with the guy who runs IM shack near me (he's got a Subbie with 245k miles or so on it, but usually drives a BMW Bavaria). Anyway, I asked him today what the usual failing cars were, and he said diesels. So, how many diesels fail there?
He said most of them! Around 60% have to come back for a retest, usually failing the smoke opacity part of the test.
The reported failure rate for all vehicles here is ~8% so I think he was exaggerating a little.
Those 8% failing their emissions tests are responsible for over 44% of air pollution emissions here. (link)
The remainsing 56% of air pollution emissions coming from the millions of vehicles going to and from the test centers... idleing 30-45 minutes waiting for their turn to test. :sick:
Required emissions test makes a few politicians look good, their cronies get rich running the test centers. Emissions testing does little to nothing in improving air quality.(link) We(Louisville) got rid of emissions testing 5 years ago. Our air is just as clean or cleaner.(link) :shades:
Answer me this then, if you think the SRT-10 is not dirty:
If we have a scale of cleanliness based on exhaust emissions, and at one end we have the Honda Civic GX, which has the cleanest internal combustion engine ever tested, and we call that the "cleanest" car, what do you propose to call the car at the other end of the scale?
CA has NO tests for diesel cars or PU trucks. Even though diesel cars were sold new up till 2004. I think the only ones were VW TDI models.
From your article It looks like your IM guy may be blowing smoke. It seems that old cars 1960s-1970s are the majority of the emissions failures. Diesel emissions is only mentioned as a problem from agricultural, off-road and school buses.
Less clean. As you can see from posts in many of the forums. Engine light failures are a major source of problems in many new cars including the one you are driving. I would bet that 99% of those engine light failures are emission sensor problems. We did not have those issues a few years back. Smog control devices have passed the point of diminishing returns. Our Ford diesel trucks spent more time in the shop than on the road because of engine light failures. A poster in the Camry hybrid thread says his new TCH has been at the Toyota dealers for 3 days with them trying to figure out what is wrong that causes the "ENGINE LIGHT" to stay on. IT is all due to trying to clean every last bit of pollution from our cars. And it costs more than it is worth. If we would offer incentives as CA does to get old beaters off the road it would be much more cost effective than trying to get a V8 engine as clean as a 4 cylinder engine. Just so impractical.
Enough is enough. SULEV or PZEV is not the end all. Adding thousands of dollars to the price of a car to get rid of the most minute particle of pollution is just SILLY.
I'd like to hear a mechanic's take on that statistic. Saying something is 99% of anything is usually an exaggeration.
I'm going to do an extensive Google search on "check engine light" problems and see if anyone has reported the cause as being primarily pollution-related.
Here is the first page I found:
Read This
The Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL), is not only for the vehicles emission system as some techs would have you believe. This light informs the operator when there is a problem anywhere in the vehicles Electronic Engine Control System. This system basically includes all sensors, solenoids, valves, actuators etc. that your vehicle needs to operate correctly. As I'm sure you’ve concluded, this system is huge, and can include both engine and transmission concerns.
More to come........
Another page says:
One of the most common problems with check engine lights on today's cars is a LOOSE or uninstalled gas cap! Yes, that's right your gas cap. Today I take the car to an auto parts store like Auto Zone or Advance Auto Parts and tell the guy at the counter that my check engine light is on. He plugs a handheld electronic device into my car, and tells me why it is lit. Several times, it said “emissions problem” – translated - A LOOSE GAS CAP! We tightened the gas cap, reset the light, and it didn’t light again for months. Other times it was a plug misfire, which can be a complete aberration. Again, we reset the light and it didn’t light again for months. A couple times, repairs were required, but at least I walked into the dealership with knowledge, which helped me keep the cost down. With knowledge of the problem, they couldn’t B.S. me.
More to come.......
Another site said, "one of the MANY functions of a car's onboard computer system is to monitor emissions."
I did idle a bit at the IM Jip (one car was in front of me finishing up). The card from the city says you'll have a better chance of passing if your car is warmed up and since the IM station is only 2 miles away and was our first stop, I let the motor run in line for a couple of minutes (something I'd never do ordinarily).
Twenty-two air quality alerts were issued last month here in Boise. One recommendation floating around to clear the air is to expand emissions testing from this county to the whole region (~4 counties). That recommendation is #2 on the priority list (after public education), so apparently some people think cars and trucks share lots of the blame.
Our 1990 Mazda 626 failed a smog check once because we live less than a mile from the smog check place. I was first in that morning and it failed. Took it to a repair facility and they said it was fine. Had it rechecked and all was well. Cost me an extra $100 to learn that you do not take a cold engine to be tested. I blame it on the smog station for not warming the car up. It is such a joke anyway. As they have proved you can go to 10 stations and get 10 different results.
Taking the lead & sulfur out of gas has done more to clean our air than all the gadgets we are sold on our cars.
Really,the scale is entirely irrelevant.
The scale is an arbitrary measurement.
Take that same SRT10 and measure it on the scale from 10 or 15 yrs ago,and I bet its on the top of that scale.
What does that prove?
Nothing.
10 yrs from now,that Honda won't be on top of the scale.
Fact is,there are NO dirty cars for sale in the US.
ALL cars meet the Federal guidelines for emmissions.
Some emit less than others.
There haven't been any dirty cars for sale since the catalytic converter became mandatory.
The level of pollution allowed is an entirely political act.
There are far worse sources of pollution in everyday use than a Ferrari or Dodge SRT10.
Your lawnmower pollutes far more than either.
Same w/ heavy trucks,jet planes,coal fired power plants.
I think a little perspective is better than simply condemning a vehicle because it meets the federal guidelines.
We should keep track of the cars which produce more pollution in order to put pressure (political or otherwise) on the manufacturers so they produce even CLEANER cars.
Status Quo is not good enough. Give me a revolutionarily different engine or fuel system. Give me cleaner biofuel-capable cars and trucks. Give me a usable electric car. Give me the Volt. Give me a car which hooks to solar panels at my home. Give me options. Don't just keep giving me SRT-10s.
PS. Yes I know lawnmowers pollute. I have been an advocate of electric mowers since I first saw one many years ago. I know that Nascar uses leaded fuel and I am against that. I know that planes and trains and cargo ships are huge polluters and I oppose that too. But this is a CAR FORUM and we talk about car problems and issues here.
Interesting. There was such an outcry over the mandatory testing here in Louisville, a politician made it the focal point of his campaign. Come election time he won handily. Took awhile to get this law stricken. Most voters viewed mandatory emissions testing as something where the benefits did not outweigh the costs.
People don't want to do anything to modify their precious little lives in order to help clean the air.
Sad. Just sad.
And what pickle might that be? Maybe in AZ that has no emission laws to speak of. In CA the emissions testing has become a scam to make money and little else.
I will repeat as you missed it last time. The pollution was caused by the fuel. A car burning CA mandated gas and a Catalytic convertor is more than CLEAN ENOUGH. Your attitude of keep throwing good money after bad is a serious problem. It has pushed cars beyond the true value of transportation. Many, many families cannot buy these over complicated cars and continue to drive 20 year old cars that are not as clean as a 10 year old car. Of the people I spend most of my time with, family and friends, not 1 in 10 can afford a new car. They all go for a 5-8 year old car and keep it till it dies big time. Those in high society have no idea what it is like to drive a 15 year old vehicle around.
You are simply attempting to portray something as being different from what it is.
It is this uselss posturing that prevents any real work from being done on the problem.
You want to track cars that emit more pollution?
Fine, start w/ all cars over 10 yrs old.
Get them off the road. Oh wait a minute,you can't.
Why?
Because according to a completely arbitrary standard they are ok.
Status Quo is not good enough. Give me a revolutionarily different engine or fuel system. Give me cleaner biofuel-capable cars and trucks. Give me a usable electric car. Give me the Volt. Give me a car which hooks to solar panels at my home. Give me options. Don't just keep giving me SRT-10s.
The problem is two fold,cost and customer desire.
GM threw $1 BILLION down the drain trying to make the EV-1 work.
electric cars don't work for the vast majority of drivers,and they may never work.
Bio-fuels are not cleaner than their fossil equivalents,and because they store less energy,esp ethanol and natural gas,you have to burn MORE to achieve the same performance.
Finally, cars like the Ferrari or Bentley,or the SRT10 are built because of customer demand for such vehicles.
they are not built to meet a CAFE or EPA goal like the Prius or the Honda Fit.
But even those high performance cars are lightyears ahead of where their ancestors were in terms pollutants emitted.
Technology has made a difference,and will continue to do so,but it won't happen overnight.
We do have emissions testing in AZ,and it is a joke.
Our skies are no cleaner.
The desert environment preserves older cars very well here,so we have many older cars that emit more pollutants per mile that their modern equivalent.
Because of the costs of modern cars,costs largely do to regulatory expenses,these older cars stay on the road.
The average price of a new car is not going up SOLELY because of emissions requirements !! Safety advances have a big say also. And advanced engine technology. And frill items such as spinners and large tires and 480 watt 50-CD-changer stereos.
There are not any general rules which apply to everyone, but generally this is true: anyone with a steady job who is working in their college major can afford and finance a new car, as long as they have an average credit rating. It's how finance companies get rich, after all !! LOL
And buying a used car 5-8 years old and keeping it for a long time has always been and will always be a "smart money" move.
And lastly - people in "high society" don't drive cars. They have hired drivers to take care of that menial task.
"Comparatively speaking, versus other new cars on the road for sale in 2006, the Dodge SRT-10 was the most polluting gasoline-powered automobile you could buy."
That is an absolute fact, not my opinion. I'm not portraying something different than it really is.
The Arizona emissions testing fails cars and disallows them from being registered. Does this literally "take them off the road?" Sometimes it does - if the owner is a law-abiding citizen. For those not taken off the road, they are sometimes repaired back to cleaner emissions.
And the EV-1's likely would have worked just fine. We leased one and loved every minute of driving it. GM threw in the towel due to fear of the cost.
Veggie oil conversion diesel cars are cleaner than ULSD diesel cars, are they not?
And yes, obviously technology will help, and it will get better. Cars 5 years from now will be cleaner, but you know why? ARBITRARY STANDARDS imposed by the EPA and others, that's why. Arbitrary is not always bad.
The categories are "clean, very clean and super clean." This should help you. It's also a much more accurate classification system.
Now was that hard?
larsb: If you can call that truck "very clean" then let's just disband the EPA and say, "OK EPA, cars are as clean as they need to be and should never be cleaner - don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out !!!"
Considering that the truck meets the Clean Air Act standards, which are administered by the EPA, one wonders why:
a. you would consider a truck dirty that meets the federal standards;
b. if you are so concerned about air quality, that you would even suggest disbanding the federal agency in charge of implementing and enforcing the Clean Air Act standards.
larsb: There are clean cars, relative to other cars, and there must be a category for "dirty" cars too.
That would be true, if there were brand-new vehicles sold that are actually dirty. But, there aren't, no matter how often you say so, so there is no need for this category.
As I said before, branding any new car as "filthy" or even "dirty" is simply designed to whip up hysteria among the uniformed.
And that's a fact.