.
Yes, this thread does tend to wander way off topic, in an effort to rectify this :
. People, the picture of the car linked below will not qualify for the "Cash for Clunkers" program;
. Porsche Long Tail Coupe
.
The thing about aerodynamically efficient cars is that they either offend the average consumer's aesthetic tastes and/or they sacrifice a lot of interior space for their size. A super aerodynamically efficient car will not sell well in the market place. Note the rear end of the Porsche pictured in the link above. Alot of the function of all of that structure behind the rear wheels is to reduce air turbulence at high speed.
.
I was involved in a project in my college days where we determined that putting a small rowboat on top of a car stern forward produced less drag than if you put the boat on the car bow forward. This contradicts common sense, but the fact is that the turbulence behind a vehicle creates alot of drag (think low pressure pockets pulling the vehicle backwards). Smoothing the flow helps reduce that problem. That's why the Porsche in the picture (and the Aerocivic) has such a strange looking rear end.
.
Honda developed the Stratified Charge Engine in the late '70's. They put the CVCC (Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion) badge on their cars to advertise their accomplishment. I remember that other car manufacturers became totally livid about the fact that the CVCC engine could meet gas mileage standards and pollution restrictions without an electronic engine management system or a catalytic converter. The CVCC engine became a thing of history.
.
Did anyone else see this on Paul Kedrosky's blog - Honda Accord, then and now?
I am just eyeballing this, but it looks like over 30 years of the marquee it has gotten 50% heavier, but 2x as powerful with over 2x the torque and 10% better mileage. I had a 1982 Honda Accord. It was as gutless as they came. And that was the car that built Honda's reputation
This is a very misleading chart, which alternates between base and optional engines, and sorta ignores that the car has grown from a compact to a full size sedan over the years.
Also, the giant torque jump in 2003 is flat out wrong - the most torque the Accord has ever seen is 254 and that's the 2008 3.5L V6.
The thing about aerodynamically efficient cars is that they either offend the average consumer's aesthetic tastes and/or they sacrifice a lot of interior space for their size. A super aerodynamically efficient car will not sell well in the market place. Note the rear end of the Porsche pictured in the link above. Alot of the function of all of that structure behind the rear wheels is to reduce air turbulence at high speed.
.
Most cars are significantly more aerodynamic running backwards than they are going forwards. Aerodynamics does not sell cars because it's counter intuitive to how most people think things work.
Things that sell mainstream cars:
- Costs less
- More space
- More power
- More reliable
- Safer
- Good looks
Order varies somewhat depending on who is buying, except for the cost.
Fuel economy rarely plays a part, because the best in class is usually only 1-2 MPG better than the worst.
As for CVCC, it was a pioneering technology but it resulted in a low specific output (meaning you needed a bigger engine to get the same amount of power), and EFI is much better than even the most advanced carburetor technology.
You don't have a clue what over-engineering means do you? Anything that is designed at great cost to outlive its own usefulness is over-engineered.
I can see the stupid is strong with this one.
If I am still driving it, how can it have outlived its usefulness? A gasoline powered car is created for a use, to be driven from point A to point B. If it's being driven from point A to point B, isn't it still being useful?
Cost has NOTHING to do with overengineering in usual terms. If something is built to last, and it lasts, how can it be overengineered?
You are assuming a car's useful life span is 25 years. What are you basing that on?
By your definition all the old cars in Cuba should be on the scrap heap by now correct? After all, their usefulness, by your definition, no longer exists.
Yet, the cars are still on the road, being useful to people.
Or maybe everyone there should just walk to satisfy your engineering requirements.
If I am still driving it, how can it have outlived its usefulness? A gasoline powered car is created for a use, to be driven from point A to point B. If it's being driven from point A to point B, isn't it still being useful?
Cost has NOTHING to do with overengineering in usual terms. If something is built to last, and it lasts, how can it be overengineered?
You are assuming a car's useful life span is 25 years. What are you basing that on?
By your definition all the old cars in Cuba should be on the scrap heap by now correct? After all, their usefulness, by your definition, no longer exists.
Yet, the cars are still on the road, being useful to people.
Or maybe everyone there should just walk to satisfy your engineering requirements.
I said the average lifespan. Of course some cars last longer than the average, that's the definition of the average. If you are still driving a model of cars for which 99% of all instances are non-functional, then your car has outlived the usefulness of the model. It's great you have the one car still running, but anything done to the model in general to keep your car running is over engineering.
I'll be specific. If Ford anticipates that 90% of all 2010 mustangs will be out of commission by 2040, and if they know that a 2" drive-shaft lasts 60 years on average while a 1'1/2" one lasts 30 years, then it's over-engineering to build in the bigger shaft. Sure, that would make it possible for a fraction of the cars to run significantly longer, but it adds extra cost to every other car for literally no benefit.
I'll be specific. If Ford anticipates that 90% of all 2010 mustangs will be out of commission by 2040, and if they know that a 2" drive-shaft lasts 60 years on average while a 1'1/2" one lasts 30 years, then it's over-engineering to build in the bigger shaft. Sure, that would make it possible for a fraction of the cars to run significantly longer, but it adds extra cost to every other car for literally no benefit.
Ahh, but now we are talking about planned obsolescence. How many cars would still be on the road if the entire car was engineered to last 60 years? And give me a reason why it shouldn't be designed to last that long. It's the whole idea of consumable goods. You believe every item has a limited lifespan and I don't.
Attrition rates are valid for cars that end up smashed in accidents, but how many cars end up on the junkheap simply because they weren't designed/engineered well to begin with?
Subtract out the poor engineering and design and then you have a useful figure to plan for.
Simply stating that Ford believes 90% will be gone through attrition just gives them the ability to plan in the obsolescence.
If they were engineered so that only 25% end up gone in 30 years (through accidents) then would you still consider it overengineering?
The thing with cars is, they design them to break so you will be forced to buy a new one. Remember the Tucker?
By your definition all the old cars in Cuba should be on the scrap heap by now correct? After all, their usefulness, by your definition, no longer exists.
Well the amount of time effort and labor that goes into them it wouldn't make good economic (here in the usa) sense to keep them running. Most of them are frakencars with Russian diesel engines running them anyways.
"The average fuel efficiency of the US vehicle fleet has risen by just 3 miles per gallon since the days of the Ford Model T, and has barely shifted at all since 1991."
That's because people take the efficiency improvements and spend it on a more enjoyable experience.
Driving around in a 20-60 year old car is going to appeal only to a very small fragment of the market, so it would be over-engineering to build them to last that long.
Driving around in a 20-60 year old car is going to appeal only to a very small fragment of the market, so it would be over-engineering to build them to last that long.
Please cite the source for this claim.
The only reason cars are replaced, as you point out, is the options and the planned obsolescence. If we did away with both of those and made cars that lasted and served their basic purpose (point A to point , how many fewer cars would be sold? Only enough to replace those that have been in accidents.
If only a small fragment of the market is interested in older cars then why do they command higher prices than new cars in so many instances?
If only a small fragment of the market is interested in older cars then why do they command higher prices than new cars in so many instances?
Because the supply is small for cars that have some nostalgia appeal for the people who want those models.
Put a car with 1970s style and performance on the market and see how well it sells. The basic function of transportation is only one part of why people buy cars.
Even apart from the evolution of style, safety improvements, and improved features, there is the problem of money spent that will not have a benefit until some decades in the future in only that fraction of the cars that survive accidents. That money could be spent in alternative investments that would return better yield.
If only a small fragment of the market is interested in older cars then why do they command higher prices than new cars in so many instances?
Ah, the crux of your issue, the cars you love cost too much.
First, old cars rarely cost more than new cars. Compare a 1982 accord to a 2009. Only for a few particularly popular models cost more. Second, those that do command a high price are because almost all copies of that model have fallen apart. Do you seriously not understand that materials fatigue, they rust, and they fall apart. You can't build a car that runs forever with no replacement parts!!!
Put a car with 1970s style and performance on the market and see how well it sells. The basic function of transportation is only one part of why people buy cars.
This statement completely shows your lack of knowledge of automotive styling and design in the 1970's. Contrary to popular belief, not all cars from the 1970's were filled with side cladding and squared design. I would imagine you have never heard of the BMW CS (Sport Coupe)? How about the Jaguar XKE?
Ah, the crux of your issue, the cars you love cost too much.
Umm... wanna bet? I can send you oodles of pictures of cars that I have owned or still own. But, when you can't attack the argument, attempt to deflect the argument onto the person. Nice tactic, but you're just plain wrong and I would be happy to prove that the cars I want, I own.
First, old cars rarely cost more than new cars. Compare a 1982 accord to a 2009. Only for a few particularly popular models cost more. Second, those that do command a high price are because almost all copies of that model have fallen apart. Do you seriously not understand that materials fatigue, they rust, and they fall apart. You can't build a car that runs forever with no replacement parts!!!
Now your youth must be showing. I don't consider a 1982 Accord to be either well built or old. I never claimed that the Accord was an old car worth owning.
I can give you MANY examples of cars that are out there, still on the road, that have yet to rust out. I have OWNED many examples and driven them many miles without having things break.
Again, please take the time to read up on planned obsolescence in the auto industry if you want to know why I believe old cars are a better value long term and why I think today's plastic cars should have been crushed before they hit the road.
The E-type is definitely a stylish car even to this day, but consider this:
It cost the equivalent of about $45000 in today's money, took 7 seconds to go from 0-60, got 17 mpg, and has no emissions controls
A Chevy Corvette is about the same price, goes 0-60 in 4 seconds, gets 26 mpg, produces a fraction of the emissions of the e-type... and is more reliable, safer, and has more amenities.
The E-type has sentimental value and its scarcity drives it value; the Corvette is a better car.
The E-type has sentimental value and its scarcity drives it value; the Corvette is a better car.
That is a subjective statement. Better by whose measure? Certainly not mine. I don't think the Corvette is a better car and if I won one, I would sell it. Why? Because I prefer the looks and styling of the E-type and I could care less about the emissions, the safety features and the options.
What this comes down to is that, for some, a safer, greener, more options car is better, while for others, we would rather take the risk in what some would consider to be a less safe car that is more aesthetically pleasing to us, that we feel is a higher quality product, etc. and aren't as concerned with options, emissions, and speed.
Why is that such a bad thing to prefer? Should I not be allowed to believe that an older car is better for the reasons stated above?
Additionally, just how much energy is consumed mining the iron ore for the new car, drilling the oil for the plastic parts, mining the copper for the wiring, using a machine to stamp out the parts, etc.?
The amount of pollution and energy wastage a new car produces before it even hits the road needs to be factored into the total pollution equation, doesn't it?
A car made 50 years ago doesn't use nearly as many natural resources to keep on the road as a brand new car did just during it's creation.
If I only own old cars and only drive them on weekends, and work from home during the week, do I cause more or less pollution than someone who buys a new car and drives it 7 days a week?
If I only own old cars and only drive them on weekends, and work from home during the week, do I cause more or less pollution than someone who buys a new car and drives it 7 days a week?
You've got the worst analogies. If I only ride a 1920s bicycle, and eat one steak a week do I pollute more or less than someone who uses a canoe to go fishing and wears heavy clothes in the summer?
Here's the real comparison: your really old car - vs - an average brand new car in the same class. Drive them both 200,000 miles. Which has used more total energy (production of car, burned fuel, refinement of fuel)? Which has put out more air pollution (non-CO2)? Which has released more CO2? Which has (on average) taken more lives? Which has (on average) permanently disabled more people? Which has cost more to maintain (you must charge your own time in the price of repairs)? Add up all these (and maybe others), and you'd get the better car.
The thing is, deaths and injuries are so expensive, that the older car will lose every time in an objective comparison. It only wins in your subjective world.
Better by whose measure? Certainly not mine. I don't think the Corvette is a better car and if I won one, I would sell it. Why? Because I prefer the looks and styling of the E-type
Ah, that's better. A real subjective statement. Did you just confuse your sentence order? Meant to put the first sentence after your own rant?
A Chevy Corvette is about the same price, goes 0-60 in 4 seconds, gets 26 mpg, produces a fraction of the emissions of the e-type... and is more reliable, safer, and has more amenities.
The E-type has sentimental value and its scarcity drives it value; the Corvette is a better car
In the first place, his final statement is a subjective one, showing a clear PERSONAL OPINION, which cannot be objective. He maintains the Corvette is "better" yet doesn't provide the slightest bit of objective data to back up his assertions. Statements without supporting data and worthless.
Show me the objective data to back up his assertion.
He has shown NO proof whatsoever. All he has told me is that he values certain items in a car differently than I do. It's his SUBJECTIVE opinion that the Corvette is "better" for these reasons.
I maintain that I think the E-Type is a "better" car for other reasons.
Both are subjective opinions based upon objective qualities of the car that each of us values at a different level.
Frankly, I really could care less if a newer car spews less emissions than an older one. It doesn't matter to me. The same goes for heated seats iPod jacks. Therefore, why should I consider any of them when making a subjective statement that I think the E-Type is "better"?
But then you really stuck your neck out with this one:
Here's the real comparison: your really old car - vs - an average brand new car in the same class. Drive them both 200,000 miles. Which has used more total energy (production of car, burned fuel, refinement of fuel)? Which has put out more air pollution (non-CO2)? Which has released more CO2? Which has (on average) taken more lives? Which has (on average) permanently disabled more people? Which has cost more to maintain (you must charge your own time in the price of repairs)? Add up all these (and maybe others), and you'd get the better car.
Do you know the answer to this one?
If you cannot give me a solid economic cost analysis on both of these cars, then neither of you can prove your assertion that the newer car is "better".
Go ahead, give me the cost analysis.
I'll be waiting for it.
The point is (and something you are too obtuse to even understand) is that "better" is a subjective statement because it's impossible to compare the two completely objectively and the data you will need to "prove" that one is "better" than the other would be almost impossible to collect, but go ahead, I will be waiting.
In any case, it doesn't matter because you certainly aren't going to change my mind anyway.
WASHINGON, DC (WUSA) -- The "Cash for Clunkers" program begins Friday, July 24. It's aimed at getting more buyers into dealer showrooms and gas-guzzlers off the road. But it could have one unintended consequence; hurting the charities that depend on vehicle donations such as Melwood based in Upper Marlboro.
The non-profit worries that the new program to get old cars off the road will swallow up the supply of used vehicles it depends on. "Cash for Clunkers targets the sort of vehicles that are usually donated to Melwood," according to Janice Frey-Angel, president and CEO of Melwood. The tend to be older, high-energy, gas-guzzlers, larger vehicles, sometime the third vehicle in the family.
At Melwood, a donated car gives the former owner a tax deduction of at least $500 up the actual sale price at auction. That 's typically much less than the $3,500 or $4,500 that clunker owners will now get from a dealer under the new federal program.
Melwood isn't alone with their concerns. Frey-Angel says Melwood is in touch with other charities around the country. "We partner with other agencies and they use our call centers to have vehicles donated. They are all going to be impacted by this. It's not just a Melwood issue."
Clunker Congressional sponsors restricted the program to vehicle that get 18 miles or less a gallon to help limit the impact on charity donations.
But Melwood is already struggling with a drop in donations even before the new program due to the recession and a tax law change that lowered the tax donation value of car surrenders. In 2005 car donations brought in $12 million for Melwood. This year they are projected at $4 million. Because of that budget crunch, Melwood just laid-off 103 workers and has been forced cut back on services for those with developmental disabilities. And the organization worries that cuts may have to go even deeper.
You don't have a clue what over-engineering means do you? Anything that is designed at great cost to outlive its own usefulness is over-engineered. A freeway that we constantly need to repave is not over-engineered. But a fifty lane highway that is two hundred feet deep (into the ground) built for a one-time event is over-engineering.
For the vast majority of cars, their lifetime is less than twenty years. It doesn't matter how much steel you put in the chassis, 90%+ of the cars from a given year will be junk in 20 years. Sure, a few Model Ts still run (at great cost to their owners), but the vast majority have been totaled or rusted apart in the meantime and Ford is not providing any new replacement parts for such old cars. Given this, any materials put into a new car to make it last (on average) longer than about 25 years are generally wasted - the victims of over-engineering.
Here's the problem I have with this argument, which is that if you argue that things shouldn't be over-engineered, so they should only last 20 years, then you get some kind of distribution of breakage of the components over the whole car. That results in various different components failing year-to-year. The first major failure might come at 5 years, but then you start to see that accelerating, until sometime around the 20 year point it all starts falling apart and you need to buy a new car.
Now, consider the total time budget for dealing with things that break. Each one of those events starting at the 5 year mark wastes my time. Now consider not only my car, but my TV, my stereo, my cellphone, all my household appliances and everything else in my life that breaks. The end result is that I sometimes feel like everything is just falling apart and that I'm pissing into the endless wind of entropy.
.
In an attempt to steer this thread back to something vaguely related to the "Economy" and the original topic..........
.
A CBS news broadcast video is linked below. It's about the difficulty of qualifying for the "Cash for Clunkers" program.
. Cash for Clunkers
.
I'd also like to point out that while I'm no "greenie," the "cash for clunkers" program is quite obviously not an environmental program. If it were, there would be greater cash incentives (instead of zero) for trading in your old gas guzzler car for:
A lightly used but more fuel efficient car
A bicycle
Nothing
The program is a blatant attempt at pumping up the auto industry, and as such, a complete non-starter for me. It's not the government's damn job to go around attempting to incentivize people to patronize certain industries.
The automakers are failing for a reason. They should have let them fail, so we could go through the inevitable pain and come out the other side with a better business that works without nonsense government intervention like this worthless CARS program.
The automakers are failing for a reason. They should have let them fail, so we could go through the inevitable pain and come out the other side with a better business that works without nonsense government intervention like this worthless CARS program.
I would at least like to see the upper management replaced. GM's head of product development is an obvious has-been who no longer knows what the market wants (or doesn't care; he's rich).
Doesn't this CARS program apply to Toyotas too? I'm renting a Camry now. Superb vehicle for the price.
Comments
What is sickening is the Google ad that came up on that web page:
Yes, this thread does tend to wander way off topic, in an effort to rectify this :
.
People, the picture of the car linked below will not qualify for the "Cash for Clunkers" program;
.
Porsche Long Tail Coupe
.
The thing about aerodynamically efficient cars is that they either offend the average consumer's aesthetic tastes and/or they sacrifice a lot of interior space for their size. A super aerodynamically efficient car will not sell well in the market place. Note the rear end of the Porsche pictured in the link above. Alot of the function of all of that structure behind the rear wheels is to reduce air turbulence at high speed.
.
I was involved in a project in my college days where we determined that putting a small rowboat on top of a car stern forward produced less drag than if you put the boat on the car bow forward. This contradicts common sense, but the fact is that the turbulence behind a vehicle creates alot of drag (think low pressure pockets pulling the vehicle backwards). Smoothing the flow helps reduce that problem. That's why the Porsche in the picture (and the Aerocivic) has such a strange looking rear end.
.
Honda developed the Stratified Charge Engine in the late '70's. They put the CVCC (Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion) badge on their cars to advertise their accomplishment. I remember that other car manufacturers became totally livid about the fact that the CVCC engine could meet gas mileage standards and pollution restrictions without an electronic engine management system or a catalytic converter. The CVCC engine became a thing of history.
.
This is a very misleading chart, which alternates between base and optional engines, and sorta ignores that the car has grown from a compact to a full size sedan over the years.
Also, the giant torque jump in 2003 is flat out wrong - the most torque the Accord has ever seen is 254 and that's the 2008 3.5L V6.
Most cars are significantly more aerodynamic running backwards than they are going forwards. Aerodynamics does not sell cars because it's counter intuitive to how most people think things work.
Things that sell mainstream cars:
- Costs less
- More space
- More power
- More reliable
- Safer
- Good looks
Order varies somewhat depending on who is buying, except for the cost.
Fuel economy rarely plays a part, because the best in class is usually only 1-2 MPG better than the worst.
As for CVCC, it was a pioneering technology but it resulted in a low specific output (meaning you needed a bigger engine to get the same amount of power), and EFI is much better than even the most advanced carburetor technology.
I can see the stupid is strong with this one.
If I am still driving it, how can it have outlived its usefulness? A gasoline powered car is created for a use, to be driven from point A to point B. If it's being driven from point A to point B, isn't it still being useful?
Cost has NOTHING to do with overengineering in usual terms. If something is built to last, and it lasts, how can it be overengineered?
You are assuming a car's useful life span is 25 years. What are you basing that on?
By your definition all the old cars in Cuba should be on the scrap heap by now correct? After all, their usefulness, by your definition, no longer exists.
Yet, the cars are still on the road, being useful to people.
Or maybe everyone there should just walk to satisfy your engineering requirements.
Just noticed your title. Congratulations Reductio ad Absurdum Champion
I said the average lifespan. Of course some cars last longer than the average, that's the definition of the average. If you are still driving a model of cars for which 99% of all instances are non-functional, then your car has outlived the usefulness of the model. It's great you have the one car still running, but anything done to the model in general to keep your car running is over engineering.
I'll be specific. If Ford anticipates that 90% of all 2010 mustangs will be out of commission by 2040, and if they know that a 2" drive-shaft lasts 60 years on average while a 1'1/2" one lasts 30 years, then it's over-engineering to build in the bigger shaft. Sure, that would make it possible for a fraction of the cars to run significantly longer, but it adds extra cost to every other car for literally no benefit.
Ahh, but now we are talking about planned obsolescence. How many cars would still be on the road if the entire car was engineered to last 60 years? And give me a reason why it shouldn't be designed to last that long. It's the whole idea of consumable goods. You believe every item has a limited lifespan and I don't.
Attrition rates are valid for cars that end up smashed in accidents, but how many cars end up on the junkheap simply because they weren't designed/engineered well to begin with?
Subtract out the poor engineering and design and then you have a useful figure to plan for.
Simply stating that Ford believes 90% will be gone through attrition just gives them the ability to plan in the obsolescence.
If they were engineered so that only 25% end up gone in 30 years (through accidents) then would you still consider it overengineering?
The thing with cars is, they design them to break so you will be forced to buy a new one. Remember the Tucker?
Well the amount of time effort and labor that goes into them it wouldn't make good economic (here in the usa) sense to keep them running. Most of them are frakencars with Russian diesel engines running them anyways.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... del-t.html
That's because people take the efficiency improvements and spend it on a more enjoyable experience.
Driving around in a 20-60 year old car is going to appeal only to a very small fragment of the market, so it would be over-engineering to build them to last that long.
Please cite the source for this claim.
The only reason cars are replaced, as you point out, is the options and the planned obsolescence. If we did away with both of those and made cars that lasted and served their basic purpose (point A to point
If only a small fragment of the market is interested in older cars then why do they command higher prices than new cars in so many instances?
Because the supply is small for cars that have some nostalgia appeal for the people who want those models.
Put a car with 1970s style and performance on the market and see how well it sells. The basic function of transportation is only one part of why people buy cars.
Even apart from the evolution of style, safety improvements, and improved features, there is the problem of money spent that will not have a benefit until some decades in the future in only that fraction of the cars that survive accidents. That money could be spent in alternative investments that would return better yield.
No, we aren't. Only you are. I'm talking about the fact that things wear out no matter how you engineer them.
That's called delusion. Even the pyramids are falling apart slowly.
Ah, the crux of your issue, the cars you love cost too much.
First, old cars rarely cost more than new cars. Compare a 1982 accord to a 2009. Only for a few particularly popular models cost more. Second, those that do command a high price are because almost all copies of that model have fallen apart. Do you seriously not understand that materials fatigue, they rust, and they fall apart. You can't build a car that runs forever with no replacement parts!!!
This statement completely shows your lack of knowledge of automotive styling and design in the 1970's. Contrary to popular belief, not all cars from the 1970's were filled with side cladding and squared design. I would imagine you have never heard of the BMW CS (Sport Coupe)? How about the Jaguar XKE?
Your ignorance is, quite simply, laughable.
Umm... wanna bet? I can send you oodles of pictures of cars that I have owned or still own. But, when you can't attack the argument, attempt to deflect the argument onto the person. Nice tactic, but you're just plain wrong and I would be happy to prove that the cars I want, I own.
Now your youth must be showing. I don't consider a 1982 Accord to be either well built or old. I never claimed that the Accord was an old car worth owning.
I can give you MANY examples of cars that are out there, still on the road, that have yet to rust out. I have OWNED many examples and driven them many miles without having things break.
Again, please take the time to read up on planned obsolescence in the auto industry if you want to know why I believe old cars are a better value long term and why I think today's plastic cars should have been crushed before they hit the road.
People who voted for Obama?
The E-type is definitely a stylish car even to this day, but consider this:
It cost the equivalent of about $45000 in today's money, took 7 seconds to go from 0-60, got 17 mpg, and has no emissions controls
A Chevy Corvette is about the same price, goes 0-60 in 4 seconds, gets 26 mpg, produces a fraction of the emissions of the e-type... and is more reliable, safer, and has more amenities.
The E-type has sentimental value and its scarcity drives it value; the Corvette is a better car.
That is a subjective statement. Better by whose measure? Certainly not mine. I don't think the Corvette is a better car and if I won one, I would sell it. Why? Because I prefer the looks and styling of the E-type and I could care less about the emissions, the safety features and the options.
What this comes down to is that, for some, a safer, greener, more options car is better, while for others, we would rather take the risk in what some would consider to be a less safe car that is more aesthetically pleasing to us, that we feel is a higher quality product, etc. and aren't as concerned with options, emissions, and speed.
Why is that such a bad thing to prefer? Should I not be allowed to believe that an older car is better for the reasons stated above?
The amount of pollution and energy wastage a new car produces before it even hits the road needs to be factored into the total pollution equation, doesn't it?
A car made 50 years ago doesn't use nearly as many natural resources to keep on the road as a brand new car did just during it's creation.
If I only own old cars and only drive them on weekends, and work from home during the week, do I cause more or less pollution than someone who buys a new car and drives it 7 days a week?
Which is more environmentally friendly?
You've got the worst analogies. If I only ride a 1920s bicycle, and eat one steak a week do I pollute more or less than someone who uses a canoe to go fishing and wears heavy clothes in the summer?
Here's the real comparison: your really old car - vs - an average brand new car in the same class. Drive them both 200,000 miles. Which has used more total energy (production of car, burned fuel, refinement of fuel)? Which has put out more air pollution (non-CO2)? Which has released more CO2? Which has (on average) taken more lives? Which has (on average) permanently disabled more people? Which has cost more to maintain (you must charge your own time in the price of repairs)? Add up all these (and maybe others), and you'd get the better car.
The thing is, deaths and injuries are so expensive, that the older car will lose every time in an objective comparison. It only wins in your subjective world.
Here is what he said:
In the first place, his final statement is a subjective one, showing a clear PERSONAL OPINION, which cannot be objective. He maintains the Corvette is "better" yet doesn't provide the slightest bit of objective data to back up his assertions. Statements without supporting data and worthless.
Show me the objective data to back up his assertion.
He has shown NO proof whatsoever. All he has told me is that he values certain items in a car differently than I do. It's his SUBJECTIVE opinion that the Corvette is "better" for these reasons.
I maintain that I think the E-Type is a "better" car for other reasons.
Both are subjective opinions based upon objective qualities of the car that each of us values at a different level.
Frankly, I really could care less if a newer car spews less emissions than an older one. It doesn't matter to me. The same goes for heated seats iPod jacks. Therefore, why should I consider any of them when making a subjective statement that I think the E-Type is "better"?
But then you really stuck your neck out with this one:
Do you know the answer to this one?
If you cannot give me a solid economic cost analysis on both of these cars, then neither of you can prove your assertion that the newer car is "better".
Go ahead, give me the cost analysis.
I'll be waiting for it.
The point is (and something you are too obtuse to even understand) is that "better" is a subjective statement because it's impossible to compare the two completely objectively and the data you will need to "prove" that one is "better" than the other would be almost impossible to collect, but go ahead, I will be waiting.
In any case, it doesn't matter because you certainly aren't going to change my mind anyway.
http://www.wusa9.com/money/story.aspx?s ... 5&catid=37
Cash For Clunkers Could Hurt Charities
WASHINGON, DC (WUSA) -- The "Cash for Clunkers" program begins Friday, July 24. It's aimed at getting more buyers into dealer showrooms and gas-guzzlers off the road. But it could have one unintended consequence; hurting the charities that depend on vehicle donations such as Melwood based in Upper Marlboro.
The non-profit worries that the new program to get old cars off the road will swallow up the supply of used vehicles it depends on. "Cash for Clunkers targets the sort of vehicles that are usually donated to Melwood," according to Janice Frey-Angel, president and CEO of Melwood. The tend to be older, high-energy, gas-guzzlers, larger vehicles, sometime the third vehicle in the family.
At Melwood, a donated car gives the former owner a tax deduction of at least $500 up the actual sale price at auction. That 's typically much less than the $3,500 or $4,500 that clunker owners will now get from a dealer under the new federal program.
Melwood isn't alone with their concerns. Frey-Angel says Melwood is in touch with other charities around the country. "We partner with other agencies and they use our call centers to have vehicles donated. They are all going to be impacted by this. It's not just a Melwood issue."
Clunker Congressional sponsors restricted the program to vehicle that get 18 miles or less a gallon to help limit the impact on charity donations.
But Melwood is already struggling with a drop in donations even before the new program due to the recession and a tax law change that lowered the tax donation value of car surrenders. In 2005 car donations brought in $12 million for Melwood. This year they are projected at $4 million. Because of that budget crunch, Melwood just laid-off 103 workers and has been forced cut back on services for those with developmental disabilities. And the organization worries that cuts may have to go even deeper.
In your case, that's clearly a herculean feat, regardless of what issue is being discussed.
Here's the problem I have with this argument, which is that if you argue that things shouldn't be over-engineered, so they should only last 20 years, then you get some kind of distribution of breakage of the components over the whole car. That results in various different components failing year-to-year. The first major failure might come at 5 years, but then you start to see that accelerating, until sometime around the 20 year point it all starts falling apart and you need to buy a new car.
Now, consider the total time budget for dealing with things that break. Each one of those events starting at the 5 year mark wastes my time. Now consider not only my car, but my TV, my stereo, my cellphone, all my household appliances and everything else in my life that breaks. The end result is that I sometimes feel like everything is just falling apart and that I'm pissing into the endless wind of entropy.
In an attempt to steer this thread back to something vaguely related to the "Economy" and the original topic..........
.
A CBS news broadcast video is linked below. It's about the difficulty of qualifying for the "Cash for Clunkers" program.
.
Cash for Clunkers
.
The program is a blatant attempt at pumping up the auto industry, and as such, a complete non-starter for me. It's not the government's damn job to go around attempting to incentivize people to patronize certain industries.
The automakers are failing for a reason. They should have let them fail, so we could go through the inevitable pain and come out the other side with a better business that works without nonsense government intervention like this worthless CARS program.
</rant>
Doesn't this CARS program apply to Toyotas too? I'm renting a Camry now. Superb vehicle for the price.