Hacker News Reader

Comment by koolkat | Hacker News Reader

What i allways ask myself is for example if someone has an old car which polutes more than a new one, what would polute more to buy a new one or to continue to use the old one. Because producing the new car releases a lot of polutants as well. I have never investigated this.

View on HN

I would rather see a massive uptick in retrofitting newer engines into older cars; I've done it a couple of times on older Volvos (240-940 vintage) and other makes, after the engines got really tired. I'd imagine it's cheaper/easier to just manufacture better engines and ECMs than it is to manufacture new cars, and you get to keep cool old cars on the road.

surprisingly (or not) , this is rather difficult to do in California. There is a referee that has to validate that the engine swap was completed successfully and without compromising the emissions equipment of the swapped engine. Though not every ref judges on the same scale. There have been reports of some requiring that the gas tank from the donor car be swapped as well (very difficult since the tank usually fills a space in original car that is unlikely to match with the recipient).

I'd like to see a more thorough emissions test be implemented (i.e. more than testing at two speeds, enough to gauge all operating conditions) so that it could be more objective in its process. This would also have the benefit of allowing a way to bypass the restrictive modification exception system.

The percentage of emissions associated with the manufacture of a vehicle is at least equal to driving it for its normal lifetime [1].

1: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/201...

Well you have to assume that if a car is serviceable it will be sold second hand so the pollution isn't really removed. But perhaps that person will be able to scrap an even worse car and the total pollution will go down.

In principle it should be much easier to clean a factory than distributed city air. But in practice it may be a lost cause either way.

That's a sad reflection on out throwaway economy. Obviously repairs are often a much cheaper option. Further cars limited lifespan so 1 new car could mean replacing 15 cars 1 year sooner.

You’re not counting labor costs, tracking down an issue with an older car can be seriously time consuming, and that time costs something like $75-100/hr.

For instance, my fun car had a persistent miss that made it basically undrivable. It took me something like 20-30 hours to find the issues and fix them. I have OBD2 scanners (the real deal, not the toys), all the tools needed, and the ability to read the service manuals and follow the dianostic proceedures.

Someone driving an old pile, isn’t likely to have the time, know how, or funds to fix the old car. So instead of spending $5k to fix the thing, they spend $300/mo on a new (or new to them) car.

Most states limit the max outlay required before they give someone a pass. In some cases, a vehicle requiring repair expenditures over $450 may get a waiver from the state exempting it from further repairs regardless of test outcome.

You can see a lot of details here. http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-99-23-REV.pdf Also, repairs often increase fuel economy so not only do city's become far more livable again the net cost is fairly low.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com