Go Green By Driving It 'Til The Wheels Fall Off

fintail

I bet down in southern California there are still some survivors - in suburban areas a lot of the old rigs probably never saw really abusive heavy duty work, and the only real decay is from sun damage. It's kind of that way even up here, but with the slow rust caused from the mild rain.

I like the Dodge Sweptside pickups with the tailfins, but those aren't going to be found easily or cheaply anymore. The 55-63 Chevy/GM (wraparound windshield) are pretty decent too, and the Fords aren't bad either (although IIRC the 61 is prone to rot).

Maybe find an old heap that has been modified anyway so you don't ruin a nice original or a restored unit - take off the wrong bits and sell them, and make the truck look stock, but with a more powerful and efficient engine. Gagrice has money, he can do it :P

gagrice

I do have a guy here in San Diego that would like to install a Cummins 4BT with a 400THM auto transmission in my 99 Ranger. The Ranger is a very clean dent free PU truck with rack and hitch. So it would be about what I need. No prices except he says he can get the engine transmission out a of wrecked delivery truck for $3K. He has installed them before and says it is a great package. He has a VW TDI in his Volvo wagon. Said it was too easy getting it approved at the DMV. Guy came out looked under the hood and changed it from gas to diesel on the VIN.

fintail

There's your solution. The little truck you like with the engine you like. Go for it.

Mr_Shiftright

don't you think that would be a somewhat annoying truck to drive, though? Maybe if he put in lots of soundproofing on the inside firewall, under the hood and under the front floor, it wouldn't be too bad, like they would in a truck that came stock with a Cummins. Those engines are fairly loud as I recall. It's a stone-age engine, best for agriculture I'd guess.

The TDI in the Volvo is a very slick package, though. You get the best part of a VW (the modern and reliable diesel engine) mated to the best part of a Volvo, the chassis and body.

gagrice

I am sure it would be a noisy beast. I mainly need more power to pull my 3500 lb trailer when loaded with topsoil, sand or gravel. I think the problem is the auto transmission in the Ranger is in need of repair. I had it serviced and the guy told me it had gotten overheated. The situation is I can buy a used 1996 or older powerstroke for about $5000 in good condition. I think I can get about that for this Ranger. The Ranger has not gotten over 16 MPG plus it is gutless. It is just nice and small and very clean for 112k miles. I am sure by the time I finished with an engine swap I would wish I never started. They want $2300 to overhaul the transmission. Which would not add a penny to the value. I may just drive it for now. I only use it maybe twice a week. Never go further than Home Depot or Lowes 13 miles from the house.

boaz47

Once you start an engine swap you need to be committed to the vehicle you are putting it in. The vehicle you always wanted can be had even if no one makes it from the factory. If I ever got to the point where I wanted to swap the motor in my Tahoe before I was finished I would have a different read end in it as well. Well because mine is 4WD it would take two sets of gears. If I wanted another gas engine I would go for a 6.0 with a 410 rear and front diff. If I wanted a duramax I would leave the rear end I now have or even consider gears closer to 350. As you can tell hauling means a lot to me and those two combinations would work pretty well. If I had to change to a diesel I might also consider a Allison Transmission.

Isn't the ranger a bit small for a Powerstroke? But if it had a diesel that was the right size you should be able to get great fuel mileage with one. Shoot my old F-250 was good for 20MPG loaded.

gagrice

Isn't the ranger a bit small for a Powerstroke?

MY yes. I meant to sell the Ranger and buy a 1996 or older F250 with a Powerstroke. Just finding a super clean one is not that easy. I don't like the newer F250 trucks. I don't know if I have the patience for all the unforeseen problems in doing an engine swap.

boaz47

Ok, then the older 7.3 had the bugs pretty well worked out by 97. But it only came in 3/4 ton or better. The only trouble I ever had with mine was sometimes the automatic door lock would lock the truck all by itself. If you forgot to take the key out be sure to have an extra key or another fob. You don't have to ask me how I know.

gagrice

It must be a Ford trait. This 99 Ranger will sometimes lock the doors by themselves. Fortunately I had the window down while I was loading blocks in the back. I never leave the key and fob in the ignition anymore.

My neighbor has a 1995 3/4 T Powerstroke with 300k miles and still looks great and runs great. He is picky about maintenance which he does all himself.

Mr_Shiftright

the B4T isn't all that powerful and engine however, if I recall correctly.

gagrice

Looking on the Cummins B4T website I see HP from 73 to 125. Not sure the torque. The fellow here that offered to install one has a 125 HP with 400 GM auto transmission from a wrecked bread truck. I would probably be better off just getting a full sized F250 with the PS. I could not get any worse mileage than this V6 auto Ranger. I also thought about converting to EV. That would have cost about $16k. Hard to justify and I would not think it good for pulling my trailer up our hills.

Mr_Shiftright

Ah thanks now I have a real number I can remember.

hpmctorque

Driving it 'til the wheels fall off, or trade & crush under the cash-for-clunkers?

Since our lawmakers haven't bothered to consider the energy and pollution associated with replacing and scrapping vehicles prematurely, we can only guess. My perception is that driving it 'til the wheels fall off (figuratively speaking, of course, because no reasonable person wants unsafe cars on the road) is more environmentally responsible than the cash-for-clunkers program.

gagrice

HC, SoX & PM produced in the manufacture of a car is far higher than the vehicle will emit throughout its lifecycle. The pollution created by a Hybrid in manufacture is even higher because of the added content, batteries and electric motors. Even if you drive a vehicle for 200k - 300k miles it will not pollute as much as it polluted the day it left the factory. A 25 year old vehicle that passes smog and safety should not be crushed. According to the smog guy I use, our 20 year old Lexus LS400 does not emit anymore smog than similar cars that are much newer. And the newest LS edition only gets ONE MPG better mileage than their first edition. So much for improved mileage at Lexus. And we have never replaced any of the exhaust system.

hpmctorque

Your LS 400 is a quality automobile. There was a time when I was tempted to buy a '90 or '91 LS400, but my wife decided to buy an Acura TL instead. We've been pleased with it, but I'm sure the Lexus would have satisfied us too.

If properly maintained and driven with reasonable care, Lexuses and Acuras last virtually forever. That's the good news. The bad news is that they last forever.

xrunner2

If properly maintained and driven with reasonable care, Lexuses and Acuras last virtually forever. That's the good news. The bad news is that they last forever.

True. Wife had an 01 Acura TL with 70K+ miles and was motivated to buy next gen 04 TL in Fall of 03 because of its new design, style, handling, etc. The 01 TL was perfect, never had a problem and she could have probably driven it to 247K miles like her 86 Accord.

She didn't really need the 04, but "wanted" it. No way, she says, that she will ever again drive a car litterally till the wheels fall off again. Incidentally, easily sold the 86 Accord privately through a newspaper ad.

hpmctorque

The vast majority of people trade their cars before 100,000 miles, for a variety of reasons. That's okay. The next owner(s) may drive the '01 TL to 247,000. Chances are it'll need one or two new transmissions, though.

Mr_Shiftright

After about 175,000 miles, it's all high risk on ANY car IMO.

xrunner2

The next owner(s) may drive the '01 TL to 247,000. Chances are it'll need one or two new transmissions, though.

That could be OK if it was like our 86 Accord that needed an auto trans replacement at 217K miles.

Mr_Shiftright

I think about 150K is a good time to punch out of any car. Probably still good enough to sell to someone but not good enough to rely on 100%.

xrunner2

I think about 150K is a good time to punch out of any car. Probably still good enough to sell to someone but not good enough to rely on 100%.

Depends. I had a 97 Maxima SE that I sold in Sept 07 with 191K relatively trouble free highway miles. Bodywork, paint, interior, engine, trans, ac, etc were all very very good. Exhaust system never touched and needed work. That Max was built in Japan and I believe, after test driving/looking at various later year models, that Nissan cut back on quality, etc after the 94-99 gen Max. We switched to Acura and have had absolutely no problems.

Wife now has an 07 TL and is in habit of buying new cars frequently. But, Acura will have to fix up styling of TL, especially beak, by 2010 or 2011. She will never ever drive a car again till the wheels fall off.

fezo

We're currently 169K into an 00 Accord. My wife drives it these days because she likes the mileage and it's practical for her work. I'm at the point where I'd be happy to move on but there's nothing wrong with it. It's a manual so I'm not anticipating replacing the tranny. We'll see. If I had to shoot it tomorrow I couldn't complain but I'd like to see it go at least 200K whle we're at it.

explorerx4

in my explorer at 90k. thing is, it has been a workhorse just about all it's life.
it wasn't fun to pay for, but it definitely runs better and it only took me a month or so to drop the cost to a dollar per mile.

dtownfb

You are probably right as long as it has been well maintained. My 2000 Olds Intrigue has 178k miles on it. It's getting tired. I still average 25-26 mpg in my daily commute. But the A/C is going out, driver's seat cushion has lost support, front struts probably could be replaced, rust spot under the gas cap, outside trim work is starting to flake off, etc. etc. etc.

Probably only worth about $1000. I just need it to last this month.

corvette

"I just need it to last this month."

Well, don't jinx it like that! :P :lemon:

dtownfb

I don't believe in "jinx". BUT to be on the safe side, I won't mention it again.

hpmctorque

Could the idea of "Driving It 'Til The Wheels Fall Off" be better for the environment than C4C? Some of the messages on this discussion suggest that it might be.

Also, could more domestic jobs have been created by a government program to recondition older cars that still had useful than by C4C? I'm not talking about saving total junkers here, but only the safe ones that have been taken care of. Think about it; maintenance and repair is more labor intensive than building and assembling new vehicles, and young people can be taught new skills with this work. It would also help the parts industry, and, as I alluded earlier, the work would be done within our borders by U.S. workers. This wouldn't violate any free trade laws.

Comments?

gagrice

It seems the number one vehicle traded in is the Ford Explorer. There is nothing wrong with the safety features of those vehicles. The ones from the mid 90s with V6 engine got decent mileage. That same $4500 could rebuild and upgrade the engine to be as clean as a 2009 vehicle. Keeping all $4500 in the USA.

It all has to do with lobby money. I doubt the repair people have much influence in DC.

nippononly

It seems the number one vehicle traded in is the Ford Explorer. There is nothing wrong with the safety features of those vehicles. The ones from the mid 90s with V6 engine got decent mileage.

Depends on your definition of decent. My folks have one, they get about 17 mpg in town, maybe 19 on the highway. To me that is far from decent; I would refer to it as atrocious, as have my folks at various times. And there is nothing you can do to make a car "cleaner" than it was on the date of manufacture, without instituting a massive retrofit program that would cost WELL over $4500 per vehicle.

Plus for the safety mavens, the late 90s Explorer would provide chills: two airbags and ABS were it for safety features, and they were nice and easy to tip over.

However, hpmctorque is not wrong IMO: there is nothing "environmental" about the C4C program, it is just a cash giveaway to the middle class and car dealers/automakers. But hey, the middle class are always complaining about being put upon, well here's something they actually got.

gagrice

I consider 19 MPG ok. Then I am getting 14-15 MPG with our crap CA gas. I did get 17 MPG using AZ gas on one trip. I would much rather be getting 30 MPG on diesel.

My brother in law traded his 96 Explorer on a 2006 Explorer and wished he had kept the old one. He got 22 MPG highway with the 96 model. Never broke 16 MPG with the 2006. Traded it on a 2009 Escape V6 that he loves. Just got back from a long trip and averaged 30 MPG when he kept it under 70 MPH. Still a bit small for my taste.

I am not willing to give up roominess & comfort to save a few shekels on fuel. That is the difference between us.

You are probably right on the retro fit smog crap. Though my 1990 LS400 is still very clean even by today's standard. Well below the average or maximum allowed.

nippononly

Gary the '90 LS is only required to measure up to the 1990 standards it was manufactured to; therefore, even though it is well below those limits, it is far above today's limits for smog-forming emissions. But that's cool, you are acting logically with a car you basically like which is not yet costing you more than a new car would. (a lot less in fact).

You are in fact "keeping it til the wheels fall off", and that will lead to far less energy consumption and GHG emissions in the long run than if you bought a new car (which would require massive energy consumption and consequent GHG emissions in its construction). In general I am all for that.

andre1969

Gary the '90 LS is only required to measure up to the 1990 standards it was manufactured to; therefore, even though it is well below those limits, it is far above today's limits for smog-forming emissions. But that's cool, you are acting logically with a car you basically like which is not yet costing you more than a new car would. (a lot less in fact).

It still might pass by more modern standards, though. Maybe not 2009 standards, but then you never know. My 2000 Intrepid went on the treadmill test once, back in 2002 I think. I actually got a printout from that test showing the state standards, and what my car was putting out in comparison. Ever since then (2004, 2006, 2008), they just did the OBD-II test on the car, where they plug in and check for error codes, but don't actually take a reading of tailpipe emissions.

Well, that same year, I had to put my grandmother's '85 LeSabre through, and at the beginning of 2003, I had to put my '85 Silverado through. Both of them were old enough to still go on the treadmill test, same test that they put my Intrepid through that one year. Well, the state standards for 1985 cars were more lax than 2000, obviously. However, both the truck and the LeSabre were clean enough, that they would have passed by the stricter 2000 standards!

To use one example, for carbon monoxide, my 2000 Intrepid scored something like 0.03 gpm. The Buick scored 1.5471 gpm. The state standard was 30 gpm for 1985 vehicles, and 20 for 2000 vehicles.

Actually, this shows you how they use statistics to scare people. You can twist those figures I just posted around, and say that a 1985 Buick puts out 58X more CO than a 2000 Intrepid! But the simple truth is that both of those are probably negligible numbers compared to what cars were putting out back in the "good old days"

nippononly

Yeah, supposedly 1970's cars are 1000 times more polluting than today's cars, or something like that. And the big baddie on the smog report is the oxides of nitrogen, the smog-formers (and the HC is the bad one for GHG emissions). I bet the '85 was 58 times as bad as the 2000 on that score too, and the '00 is twice as bad as a typical '09, and it all adds up.....what seems like a tiny number on the report has to be multiplied by 15K miles per year times 100 million cars on the road.....

andre1969

I'll have to find my old emissions test papers, to see what the other results are. I just remember the Carbon Monoxide figure (or rather, had mentioned it on Edmunds years ago and was able to search for it :P ).

I have the one for the Intrepid, a couple for the Silverado, one for the LeSabre, and somehow I ended up with one for a late 80's Grand Marquis! :confuse:

It's kind of a shame that Maryland just does the OBD-II test now on newer cars, rather than take actual tailpipe emissions. One one hand, it IS easier and quicker, but I'd be curious to see how the car compares now, with 149,000 miles on it, compared to how it was when it was newer. And also, since they just do the OBD-II scan, there's no way to really know how the newer cars are doing compared to the older ones.

And yeah, it is good that they keep improving the emissions on cars, but it's getting to be like fuel economy and extra gears on transmissions...you get to a point of diminishing returns, to the point that it might just not be worth the financial cost to push it further. For instance, if your car already has a 6-speed automatic, is any improvement from going to a 7 or 8 speed going to be worth the extra cost? If you have a car that gets 40 mpg, how much would the technology cost to boost that to 50? And if your car is already putting out less pollutants than a family of four after Taco Night, is there really much more that can feasibly be done?

gagrice

We reached that point of diminishing returns a long time ago. The difference between LEV, ULEV, SULEV II and PZEV are there for bragging rights only. In fact a Camry sold in most states is 4 points below the one sold in CA. Same exact vehicle. It is the gas that takes it from LEV to PZEV.

nippononly

Well again, you have to think in terms of the TOTAL emissions from the American fleet, not the seemingly insignificantly tiny amount of emissions from each car per mile.

So yes, if cars are lasting longer (they are) and the fleet is growing in size a few percent every year, then if we don't reduce emissions by a few percent every year we will be increasing annual emissions. And from 100 million cars (200 million? I don't know the exact number) that is a lot.

gagrice: it's partly the gas, but it is also extra emissions equipment (which creates additional back pressure and is the reason that PZEV models in California always make a few less horsepower than their 49-state counterparts).

Mr_Shiftright

Fuel economy has become a marketing tool, much like electronic gadgetry. Both add complexity for small returns.

Also, replacing the aging fleet with cleaner cars keeps the air quality at least stabilized. We have really made some impressive improvements in air quality over our major cities.

210delray

We passed 200 million cars and light trucks a few years ago. I think we're now closing in on 250 million. So I agree that getting the emissions down is still important just due the shear volume of vehicles on the road. Of course, Shifty is right too that replacing older vehicles with newer ones will help also.

andre1969

Also, replacing the aging fleet with cleaner cars keeps the air quality at least stabilized. We have really made some impressive improvements in air quality over our major cities.

We have, but I've always heard that, at worst, road-based transportation only accounted for something like 20% of all pollution. So, that doesn't take into account other transport methods like boats, trains, and airplanes...plus everything else that comprises that other 80%. Now I'm sure strides have been made in the components that comprise that other 80%, but I'm sure there's still plenty more to be done there, too.

I imagine that most of the progress has been made with cars. More good would probably come from people keeping their tires properly inflated, keeping their cars in tune, and getting the gross polluters fixed or off the road, than trying to get the manufacturers to stamp out that last remaining .03 GPM of carbon monoxide.

Mr_Shiftright

Well part of what you are seeing is automakers and buyers having to bear the cost not just of making or buying the product, but the environmental degradation caused by the product. For instance, with heavy trucks, they are taxed to pay for the damage they do to roads, right?

xrunner2

For instance, with heavy trucks, they are taxed to pay for the damage they do to roads, right?

Just yesterday, following a loaded gravel truck, could see the rear axles hopping up and down. Actually, crashing down. Was on ashphalt paved 55mph rural road with tar strips sealing cracks that seemed relatively smooth to me in car. Got to wonder how much of a factor that semis and gravel trucks damage roads compared to 3000-4000 pound cars. Any research going on anywhere for breakthrough technology for large truck/trailer suspension/tire systems that would smooth out the ride and cut down on road damage.

british_rover

I remember reading a couple of newspaper articles about 10 years back when the Truck traffic on I-81 was up 50 something percent compared to a few years ago.

Fully loaded semis do something like 20 times the damage of a regular sized passenger car. Even with all the extra tires the weight isn't spread out enough.

gagrice

How many cars built today will reach that milestone? Don't hold your breath. They don't build as durable today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZlAdfgzPoc

Mr_Shiftright

As evidenced by all the Comets on the road today? :P

I guess if you want to perform the fanatical level of maintenance that ol' Rachel does, you could take any car to that mileage. More power to her.

What probably got her to 540,000 miles is not durability but simplicity. Today, if a car's ECU burns up, or if a dohc, 16-valve engine bites the dust, you just scrap the car.

Rachel can fix her car with parts from Home Depot.

More parts = more systems = more things to go wrong.

andre1969

I couldn't access the youtube file, but what year Comet was it? And what engine/tranny? I guess if it was one of those old 144/170/200 CID straight sixes, weren't they pretty durable?

For the most part though, I think Comets were dirt-simple. The early ones were just stretched-out Falcons, and the later ones were glammed-up Mavericks. The late 60's ones though, based on a Fairlane, might have had some level of complexity...well for the era at least!

gagrice

It is a 1964 Comet Caliente. Not sure I would want to face the same car each day for that long. It proves simple lasts longer than complex. Plus much cheaper to maintain. It is a nice reminder of days gone by. Should have popped up if you can get to Utube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZlAdfgzPoc

210delray

I'm supposed to be working , but it's a 1964 Caliente 4-door sedan with a V8 and automatic (some underhood shots were shown). The 89-year-old owner said it had a/c, auto, and cruise control; likely power steering also judging by how she seemed to turn the wheel with ease.

andre1969

Wow, sounds like it was a pretty nice one if it had the V-8, a/c and cruise control! I'd imagine that air conditioning was still around a $350-400 option in 1964, so it was probably still pretty rare on lower-level cars by that time. I wonder if the cruise control was a factory option or installed sometime later? I'm sure that was definitely a luxury-car item in 1964. The oldest car I had with cruise was a 1969 Bonneville...but it was broken by the time I had it.

It's kinda cool that she's held onto the same car for so many years and so many miles, but I think I'm with Gagrice on this one. If I had to drive the same car, day in and day out, I'd get sick of it eventually, no matter how nice or reliable it is. Now, I'm going on 19 years with the DeSoto, and my '85 Silverado has been in the family 24 years now, but with the say I alternate driving cars, it helps keep me from getting too bored with any one..

But, whatever floats your boat...more power to her!

gagrice

I would not take off on a 3000 mile trip as she did with our 20 year old Lexus. Too many things to go wrong out on the highway. I rarely go far in any vehicle over 5 years old. I like having a warranty when I am in a strange place.

lemko

Guess I'm more daring than you. I took my 1988 Buick Park Avenue to Canada and back 3 years ago.