Go Green By Driving It 'Til The Wheels Fall Off

hpmctorque

Automobiles affect the environment in many ways. The impact on the environment begin when a vehicle is manufactured (including the production of all the parts and materials that go into the car), and end with its scrappage in a junkyard (which can recycle many parts but also involves the disposal of many wastes).

The environmental impacts begin with mineral extraction and the production of the raw materials that go into the parts of a car. For example, iron ore is converted into steel. Steel can be recycled, of course. On average,
today's automobiles are about 75 percent reyclable, and using recycled steel helps reduce energy use and pollution. Other metal components, such as aluminum and copper are also largely recycled. The lead and acid in batteries are poisonous and dangerous. But batteries can be recycled, if they are returned to a service station, a parts store, or brought to a municipal hazardous waste facility. Plastics, which are mostly made from petroleum, are more difficult to recycle. In any case, some degree of pollution is associated with all of these components, much of it due to the energy consumption, air pollution, and releases of toxic substances that occur when automobiles are manufactured and distributed.

The bottom line is that the motorist who extends the life of his car, through careful maintenance and usage may be doing more to help the environment than the average prius owner, but the former gets much less visibility and recognition for his contribution than the latter.

The purpose of this topic is to have a introduce a forum for discissing the environmental impact associated with vehicle production. While I'm not as knowledgeable as I'd like to be on this subject, for some time now I've thought about the fact that maybe not enough effort has gone into studying the environmental effects of auto manufacturing, compared with the effects of fuel consumption.

nippononly

that something like 2/3 of all the energy used by a vehicle in its lifetime is used in its manufacture. Once we get these pesky cars and trucks cleaned up, you know what will be by far our biggest single-industry source of both pollution and greenhouse gas emissions: the power industry.

So if your new car uses that much energy before you even drive it off the lot, well, you can see how much good you are doing the environment by just keeping your old car going instead...

gagrice

Keeping a car for a long time is both environmentally sound and good economics. My wife keeps her cars for a long time. Her 1990 Lexus LS400 is in great condition. She has never bought a car on time and keeps them for a long time after. She has only bought Mercedes, Porsche and Lexus. This Lexus is the longest she has owned a vehicle. She worked and saved until she could pay cash. If we were all to do that our country would be in better financial and environmental condition.

hpmctorque

How many miles does your wife's '90 Lexus have? Since I remember that she bought it used, how many miles per year does she drive.

gagrice

She bought it brand new in 1989. It has a little past 91k miles as of today. She has put about 5000 miles a year. She retired from their contracting business in 1993 to take care of her husband that had a stroke. So it spent a lot of time in the garage or short trips to the doctor's office.

hpmctorque

Sorry, I obviously have you confused with another Edmunds reader; someone who bought used luxury cars and drove them for many years.

Sylvia

I have a 1991 Volvo 940 wagon that has 180,000 miles on it. It is well maintained, does better than our newer Honda in the smog check and I plan on keeping it out of the junkyard for a number of years.

Sylvia

Subaru and Saturn come to mind as manufacturers publicly talking about how their process is different, use of recycled materials, etc.

gagrice

I don't see being recyclable as being green. I see a vehicle that lasts for many years (10+) a better alternative than a car that is loaded with materials that can be recycled after 5 years. I think what Subaru, Saturn and Toyota are saying is we build a great disposable car that can be recycled to sell you another POC after 3-5 years. I want a vehicle that after 15 years of regular maintenance is still in good running condition.

Remember it takes more energy to recycle than to use new raw materials. The only advantage is not overloading our landfills with junk cars.

nippononly

Are you sure that ground-to-factory, it takes less energy to extract the ore and produce steel that goes into production than it does to recycle the cars we already have? I don't know the numbers but that sounds counter-intuitive. I mean there's a reason we have been recycling all those cans all these years, eh? ;-)

Have you read something specific or are you speculating?

And what if the fully recyclable car will ALSO last 15 years, like your Lexus? I have certainly owned Toyotas and Subarus that old, so it is by no means an unheard-of phenomenon.

british_rover

Remember it takes more energy to recycle than to use new raw materials. The only advantage is not overloading our landfills with junk cars.

You can't say stuff like that without backing it up with facts. Plenty of materials cost less to recycle then they do to make from raw materials. Aluminum and steel are the first two I can think of but there are others.

here is one

and another

one more should I keep going?

Here is one for steel and Aluminum

Now if you want to talk about glass then you are correct. Glass is so easy to make that it doesn't make sense to recycle it except to save landfill space. Unless you reuse glass bottles whole like they do for beer in most of Canada. They return the bottles intact to store which ships them back to the bottler were they are steam cleaned and refilled.

This is kind of a sore point for me because my university discontinued their recycling plan because someone on the board had the same view as you. They convinced enough people that it takes more energy to recycle then it does to make new materials. One of my senior year projects was developing a plan to restart the recycling program and I calculated out how much less energy it takes to recycle various materials compared to making brand new items from raw materials.

hpmctorque

Re your '91 Volvo 940 wagon, how has the reliability been? For example, is the A/C original, or have you converted to the newer R-34 refrigerant?

gagrice

Forgive me for my haste and not being more specific.
I was thinking of all the plastic in new cars. The steel, copper and aluminum are good to recycle. Also the electronics that are not really that practical to recycle. Yet they are the parts that cost a fortune to replace.

I find it counter productive to build cars with recycling rather than longevity in mind. I don't gauge a car by miles driven. I gauge by years of light service.

robertsmx

But the assumption that cars built using recyclable parts won’t last as long is flawed. And many of them actually already use recycled pieces.

british_rover

Steel and aluminum are still make up the vast majority of new car construction by weight.

Even the plastic in most cars can be recycled depending on what kind of plastic it is The glass and upholstery in cars are probably the only things that don't really make sense to recycle.

nippononly

And even then, isn't it Ford that's making the seats in one of its models out of some funky, fully biodegradable organic material? So after it has done its 15 years, you just dump it in the landfill and it completely biodegrades....pretty cool! ;-)

british_rover

Thats right ford is making the seat cushions out of a soy bean based material. But it is not fully biodegradable yet since some of the seat is still oil based.

It still saves the company from using oil to make the seats.

http://www.autonews24h.com/Auto-Industry/Ford-News/1905.html

snapcracklepop

My dad had a honda he kept for almost 15 years. It was accord and was extremely durable. He now owns a lexus and has driven it for about seven years and its still in great shape. I think it's a great practice to conserve your vehicle and make it last for a long time.

nippononly

do this with all my cars but alas, I get the itch to trade all too often. :-(

Old or new, I haven't ever sold or scrapped a car because it needed major repairs, except the very first one I ever had.

I am going to try harder in future...

:-)

stever

1982 Tercel - drove into Spring 1999 when a move forced its sale.

1989 Voyager - drove it for a decade. Replaced by a ...

1999 Quest that's doing fine at 120,000 miles although it's overdue for plugs, fluids and hoses.

1997 Outback. Purchased in '03 to replace the void in the garage that the Tercel left (yep, about 8 years in there we did fine sharing one car).

Before '82 we had a couple of beaters that were mostly used up when we got them.

Check out the The Disposable Car? discussion too.

kcflyer

It just slays me every time I see some holly wood [non-permissible content removed] or politico showing the world how environmentally "sensitive" they are by driving a (fill in the blank with the latest prius or hemp mobile" I always wonder how many other vehicles they have gone through in the last few years. If they wanted to show true green cred I would be more impressed if they picked up a used car with lots of life still in it. Also, they never seem to show up at the awards shows in their me too green mobiles, its always a stretch limo, I didn't realize those came in hybrid form. :confuse:
BTW I drive a 7 year old sentra with 95K on it. In the garage is a 73 F250 that my dad bought when I was a kid. I like buying new cars too. But what I really love is finding one I love and making it last. My 87 Mustang GT stayed strong to 147K before temporary insanity made me trade it for a terrible Mitsu 3000. Live an learn.

iluvmysephia1

what was the problem with your Mitsubishi 3000GT?

corvette

I'm not kcflyer, but my memory of the 3000GT and its sibling the Dodge Stealth is that they are not widely regarded as dependable. Also, they are fairly uncommon, so parts availability may be a problem, especially compared to a Mustang.

kcflyer

It was a host of electrical problems. Mine was a 94 GT. Beautiful car, bought on impulse and traded my beloved mustang for it. In the first four months the car was in the shop at least 5 times. (memory fades) Each problem was covered under warranty even though I bought the car used. I guess I was hypersensitive since I had only had one maintenance problem with the Mustang in 9 years and 145K miles. It's been awhile so mainly I remember the frustration of having to drive a loaner while my "new" car sat week after week in the dealers shop. I would pick it up only to discover the problem wasn't fixed or had been replaced by others. Both of the rear side windows had to be replaced. It had something to do with de lamination in the glass. Don't recall the cause. Power antenna would constantly get stuck and the motor would continue to run until I turned off the ignition. Multiple check engine lights. Never caused by the same code twice. Dead battery on several occasions despite the battery and alternator being replaced (the alternator twice)I would chalk it up to the previous owner but my mustang was also second hand, both cars had around 15k miles when I bought them. After six months I had enough and traded a guy who wanted it in exchange for a convertible dodge dakota. By then the car was behaving but I was engaged and needed to eliminate a car payment. Now that was a good trade!

iluvmysephia1

should I just spell that one out and have it hit me with the reality of the situation that it's a Dodge Dakota pickup truck that you can take the top down on?

210delray

Yes, if you can believe it, this was a factory option for a few years (early 90s I believe).

nippononly

What, seriously?

british_rover

You have never seen a Dakota Convertible?

1989 saw the unusual Dakota convertible. The first American convertible pickup since the Ford Model T, it featured a fixed roll bar and an uncomplicated manual top. Roughly 2,482 were sold that first year. Another important addition that year was Carroll Shelby's V8-powered Shelby Dakota, his first rear-wheel drive vehicle in two decades.

Wiki

I have worked on two different ones over the years.

andre1969

Here's more than you probably want to know about the Dakota convertible.

Oh, as for driving it till the wheels fall off, I'm sort of at a turning point with my 2000 Intrepid, which is around 137,000 miles. I put it in the shop this evening to have the mechanic check out the front suspension (getting a bit loose) and the a/c (getting a bit weak). If he can find a few thousand $ worth of repairs there, I might just be tempted to bite the bullet and put it out of its misery!

210delray

It's amazing how fast those 7 years went by; I managed to get 135K miles over 10 years out of my '90 Sable before selling it. I had a lot more problems than you did over the years, but everything was fixed when I sold it -- for a whopping $1800!

andre1969

It's amazing how fast those 7 years went by

Heck, it'll be EIGHT years on November 6! It's downright scary how fast that time has gone by! And as long as the suspension problems aren't too scary, I'll go ahead and get it fixed, and just drive it until something major fails on it. I figure if the a/c repair is too catastrophic, I can just live without it, as long as the windows still roll down! Nothing worse than having a car with broken power windows AND a busted a/c!

nippononly

Thanks for the link with pics! What a sight to see. I must have missed it because it was sold for such a short time and in such small numbers.

I wonder how we are all defining "til the wheels fall off"...I have had cars whose powertrains were still going strong 15-20 years after they were new, and over 250K miles. Of course, other stuff was beginning to need replacement that wouldn't be considered a maintenance item, like springs and bushings, oil seals that were beginning to leak onto the pavement, stuff like that. To me, this begs two questions:

1. if it is leaking oil and fluids everywhere and perhaps belching smoke into the air, even though it still runs reliably, is it really still the green machine, or should the replacement for it have come earlier? And if so, how do you know when is the right moment to replace an old vehicle, relative to environmental concerns?

2. Presuming it is doing none of that, but instead leaking/burning nothing, getting gas mileage as good as when it was new, and passing every smog check with flying colors (which would still only ensure that it was compliant by decades-old standards, of course), how much is too much to pay for repairs to keep it on the road? I mean, we all know the wheels never REALLY fall off (although I am open to hearing amusing anecdotes of old cars off which the wheels really DID fall!).

nippononly

How funny you should say that! I have a co-worker whose second car is exactly as you describe: it is a 14-year-old Pontiac 6000 (I believe that's the model name?) whose A/C and power windows quit years ago. She never bothered to fix either, because by the time that happened it was already a short-trip second car, and she lives in San Francisco, where it's cool most of the time. Then one day recently she got stuck driving the car on a day that turned out to be the surprise start of a mini heat wave, and she said she just about cooked driving that car the 30 minutes between the office and home! :-P

andre1969

A similar thing happened with my '85 Silverado. My Granddad bought the thing new and damn him, he bought it with power windows!

My driver's side window finally failed completely this past spring. The a/c has never worked as long as I've had the truck (since around Sept 2002), but between opening the vent window, rolling down the passenger side window, and opening the sliding rear window, I can usually tolerate the heat. I'm usually never in the thing for more than 10-20 minutes at a time, so it really doesn't bother me. As soon as I get the ambition though, I'm going to fix the power window. Now that cold weather is setting in though (I noticed frost the first time this morning), I can put that little project off for awhile.

nippononly

and looked up some old cars, and my co-worker's Pontiac is just a Grand Prix 2-door. I have seen her car and it matches some pics I pulled up.

andre: how much would you have to spend to repair the Intrepid, seriously, before you would probably just replace it instead?

andre1969

1. if it is leaking oil and fluids everywhere and perhaps belching smoke into the air, even though it still runs reliably, is it really still the green machine, or should the replacement for it have come earlier? And if so, how do you know when is the right moment to replace an old vehicle, relative to environmental concerns?


I was concerned about the belching smoke thing the last time I took my '85 Silverado in for the emissions test. It smokes pretty nicely when it first starts up in the morning, and also under hard acceleration. But it passed its last emissions test with flying colors. So, I'm guessing that the stuff you can't see is worse than the stuff you can!

As for emissions standards, in Maryland at least, they actually tighten them a bit every year. I noticed this in 2002 when I had to take my '79 New Yorker in for its test. I had a 1979 Newport for a couple years, and I had to get it tested in 1997. The standards in 2002 were stricter than they had been in 1997. I got historic tags for it in 2004 though, which exempted it from testing, so I dunno if they got more stringent since then or not.

I had my truck tested in Jan 2005 and Dec 2006. I'll have to dig up the sheets and see if they tightened up the standards any. The Intrepid went on the treadmill back in 2002, but in 2004 and 2006 they just did the quickie OBD-II scan. I do remember the truck passed by a pretty wide margin, despite that grayish smoke it tends to blow.

nippononly

"So, I'm guessing that the stuff you can't see is worse than the stuff you can!"

Welllll, we know what is in the stuff you CAN see: it's either coolant (let's hope not) or more likely burning oil or unburned gas. No matter which of them it is, we know it's not GOOD for the environment, right? But neither are the ones we can't see, and so it's good to know that you are still passing the smog check easily.

That's what I meant by my question: how do we tell when it's doing more harm than good to the environment to keep an old vehicle?

And if we decide the good still outweighs the harm, how much would we spend to keep the beater rolling?

andre1969

how much would you have to spend to repair the Intrepid, seriously, before you would probably just replace it instead?

Honestly, I dunno. I have thought about that, but never really came up with an answer. Now if its little 2.7 engine were to blow, I'd drop it like a hot rock. Maybe I'd park it at the mall, then whack it with one of my other cars that could take the hit, claim hit and run, and get it totaled out! :surprise: Nah, seriously, I could never bring myself to do something like that.

If the tranny went out on it, that might be the tipping point. Last time I checked, out of morbid curiousity, the mechanic told me a replacement tranny would be aound $2200. Now if I knew, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that $2200 would get me years of service out of the car, I'd do it. But with my luck, I'd blow that money on a tranny and THEN the engine would go. Or the car would get hit.

I did put about $1050 into the car back in April, but that was for alot of work. New front brake pads (Mopar parts), new hoses, coolant flush, right front bearing hub, transmission cooling lines, and some other stuff I'm probably forgettting. I've been using a rough rule of thmub where if I get a month out of that car for every $300 I sink into it, I'm doing okay.

One thing that makes it such a hard call is how well the Intrepid has held up. I remember my first car, my Mom's 1980 Malibu that she gave me when I got my license in Jan 1987. When that car was 8 years old, its paint was faded, the dash was cracked, the shift indicator was eternally stuck somewhere slightly to the left of park, the headliner was falling down, carpeting pulling loose from the door sill area, etc. And by 1988, a 1980 Malibu was looking pretty ancient. In contrast though, the Intrepid is still nice and shiny, and the only real flaws with the interior are where my dumb-#$# roommate put some cigarette burns when he's borrowed it! :mad: And with all those retro/angular/chiseled trends going on these days, IMO, an Intrepid doesn't look so dated. Not that I'd really care about dated, considering my unhealthy attraction to 70's cars. :P

hpmctorque

I'd spend the money to fix the tranny, when and if it needed it, but wouldn't overhaul or replace the engine, which probably has years of life left. It wouldn't bother me to spend something more than the retail value of the car for repairs, for an original owner car I know and trust, and like, but I'd draw the line if the engine went. I think the odds are good that your 2.7 will go >200,000, and maybe >250,000.

Would I overhaul the tranny if the car had 250,000 miles? Probably not, but anything <200,000, just to pick a number, I'd probably go for it, assuming I still liked the car.

One thing that would be a "must have" for me is A/C. It's not that I couldn't live without it, but that I wouldn't want to. Of course, you won't need A/C for the next several months, which buys some time.

My 2 cents.

lemko

Well, by the time I got my Dad's old 1981 T-Bird from my brother as part of the deal when I sold him my 1985 Chrysler Fifth Avenue, the driver's power window didn't work. My brother was using a suction cup on the glass to raise and lower the window. If the window fell into the channel, there was just enough of the edge sticking up to pull it back up. That car went through my Dad, my sister, (who once got mad at her boyfriend and put her fist through the plastic center of the steering wheel...ouch!), and my brother. All are my polar opposite when it comes to car care. The car was a real mess by the time I got it. My co-workers were telling me they heard a rumor that I came into work in this old junker, but they said they didn't believe it.

lemko

...I'll keep it until something major fails. Something like a blown transmission would be the coup de grace. My problem is I'll keep fixing all the little things because even a burned-out interior bulb drives me nuts. All it really needs is a decent paint job. I'm constantly tempted to get it done.

andre1969

My brother was using a suction cup on the glass to raise and lower the window. If the window fell into the channel, there was just enough of the edge sticking up to pull it back up.

Hmmm, that's a good idea, Lemko, I'll have to remember that suction cup thing! :P When my truck's window was starting to get weak, it would go down with little strain, but would need help getting back up. I had to make sure not to put it all the way down, so I'd have something to grab ahold of to help pull it back up.

In the case of your Park Ave, Lemko, I think the transmissions for those are actually pretty cheap, at least by today's standards. For some reason the figure $1200 is sticking in my mind. So that's not *too* bad. It's when trannies start getting up into the $2-3+K range that I start getting scared.

kcflyer

That truck was soooo much fun. Unfortunately it only had two seats so it had to go when the family started growing. I had people calling from all across the country to buy it. Sold, sight unseen in 24 hours. 4 x 4 , ragtop, what a combo!

bristol2

You guys sound way more patient than I am.

When repairs are >$200 per month, it's time for that car to go for me. I figure that anything over that amount is just going to lose too much money for me over time. I have only once driven domestic and maybe with cheaper repairs that would be more bearable (the domestic I had was so unreliable that I couldn't trust it to get me to work- now that would be 'expensive').

It sounds like most of you guys have more than one car to depend on. I guess that if you don't have all your eggs in one basket you can take more gambles with one not starting.

bumpy

I'm going to cut the Accent loose next year after I get the fortwo, then pick up a nice R32 Skyline in 2014, and I'll be set for life. :shades:

andre1969

When repairs are >$200 per month, it's time for that car to go for me. I figure that anything over that amount is just going to lose too much money for me over time.

That got me thinking, and curious as to how much my Intrepid has cost me since I paid it off. So for kicks, I looked up my records. Looks like I made the last payment in late November, 2004, when the car had around 99,200 miles on it. It's now a bit over 35 months later, and the car has around 137,100 miles on it.

Looks like it's cost me about $2430 since then, plus gas and insurance. Once I factor out registration renewals, emissions tests, oil/filter changes, I figure it's at around $2050. Some of the highlights in there are: new rear brakes, new battery, fix oil pan leak/new drain plug (my fault, I stripped it), "new" wheel/tire/hubcap from junkyard (one wheel got stolen in a parking garage), another new tire (hopped a curb), then two more new tires (finally rounding out the set), a transmission service, and a fairly major repair this past April, which included new front brakes, turning the rotors, new transmissions lines, front bearing hub, new coolant/hoses.

So, I figure that since the car's been paid off, it's cost me about $69 per month. Or ~$59, when I factor out oil changes, emissions tests, registration renewals, etc...stuff any car would need, new or old.

I have a feeling that if I ever did get to the point that the car was averaging $200 per month in repairs, I would dump it. Especially if it started doing stuff like breaking down regularly, leaving me stranded, etc.

lemko

When I met my girlfriend, she had a 1991 Mercury Tracer with a paint job so bad it made my '88 Park Ave look like a Pebble Beach Concours classic. It broke down twice behind my house and had to be towed. She was spending several hundred at least every other month for some kind of repair or another. That's when I finally convinced her she should get a new car and she bought the Impala.

andre1969

and it looks like my Intrepid got a stay of execution. It has about $500 worth of suspension/steering work. As for the a/c, everything's working, but it's just low on Freon. So I guess that's just a matter of whatever is leaking. He hasn't tracked that down yet.

Anyway, I guess if I had let that bearing/hub go for too long, I might just have driven that car until the wheels fell off! :surprise:

lemko

I want to keep my Park Ave just to see how long it will go. I guess your Intrepid takes the R-134a. They actually found some R-12 for my Park Ave when I had it done. I'm not so picky about the Park Ave's authenticity that they had to go through that much trouble, but maybe they thought I am.

bumpy

It's probably less hassle to find some R-12 (it is available for commercial users) than to convert that old tank to R-134a.

andre1969

What all is involved in converting an older R-12 system to R134a? I've talked to mechanics who have said it's not worth it or "it's very, very expensive" (translation: I don't want to mess with that). However, my stepdad said he converted my '85 Silverado to R134a, when he and my Mom had it. He said it wasn't that had. However, I remain convinced to this day that this is the reason my a/c doesn't work! :sick: