"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...

"Doki" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Going rate for an 8 year old Focus looks like £1-2k. I recently picked up
a 5 year old 406 HDI estate for £2.5k. If you avoid the German makes, the
depreciation is pretty vicious and the cars end up damned cheap for what
they are.

The speed of depreciation on cars always surprises me. My Focus 2.0 ESP is
7 years old in June, hasn't gone wrong in the 4 years I've had it, does
everything just as well as a new car but is worth only a tiny fraction of
the price. High depreciation makes more sense with cars that rust badly
but the Focus doesn't do that. If the government really wanted to do
something about the environment they'd make it more financially attractive
to keep running older cars rather than squandering resources building new
ones.

How about no road tax on cars over 10 years old?

Instead most countries are trying to reduce the average age of the vehicle
parc on the grounds that newer cars are less polluting and more fuel
efficient than older ones. I beg to differ. The average mpg of the cars
I've owned has hardly altered in 30 years and we've had compulsory
catalytic converters for over 15 years anyway. What's actually happened is
that cars have got steadily heavier due to all the safety related features
they are required to have so any gains in engine fuel efficiency have been
more than offset by the increase in weight you have to burn fuel to lug
around.

Back in the day an average hatchback weighed about 850 to 900kg. My Focus
weighs nearly half as much again. That doesn't make much difference at
high speed when aero drag is the main resistance but round town it's all
extra weight that has to be accelerated and braked constantly.

In 1983 I bought a Mk 1 Astra GTE. It was the dog's ******** in its day
although it would look a bit basic by today's standards. No ABS, leccy
windows, air bags etc. Over 47000 miles it averaged 31.0 mpg. The Focus
has just hit 47000 miles and has averaged 30.3 mpg.

If we want to save oil then modern cars aren't making a scrap of
difference. The only thing that will is if we all drive very small, light,
low powered cars rather than fat bloated ones packed full of safety
features. To save medical costs the best way would be to leave out the
weight bloating safety features and train drivers to drive better. That
means work though rather than just enacting legislation so it'll never
happen.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines

Well said that man! Totally agree.
Z

"Zimmy" wrote in message
...

"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...

"Doki" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Going rate for an 8 year old Focus looks like £1-2k. I
recently picked up a 5 year old 406 HDI estate for £2.5k. If
you avoid the German makes, the depreciation is pretty
vicious and the cars end up damned cheap for what they are.

The speed of depreciation on cars always surprises me. My
Focus 2.0 ESP is 7 years old in June, hasn't gone wrong in the
4 years I've had it, does everything just as well as a new car
but is worth only a tiny fraction of the price. High
depreciation makes more sense with cars that rust badly but
the Focus doesn't do that. If the government really wanted to
do something about the environment they'd make it more
financially attractive to keep running older cars rather than
squandering resources building new ones.

How about no road tax on cars over 10 years old?

That would put the cat amongst the pigeons as far as the car
manufacturers were concerned.
I think any measures taken to promote the idea of making products
that last longer, and that encourage consumers to have things
repaired
rather than simply replaced if they do go wrong, is far greener
than
advising we use things like fluorescent bulbs, or switch off low
volt adaptors, phone chargers etc, when not actually in use.
Mike.

MichaelS wrote:

What would you buy if that was all you had to spend on a car? I'm
thinking maybe a Ford Focus or old Nissan Primera.

Personally, I'd go with the Primera.

They just refuse to die and have the advantage of not needing cambelt
changes. (although the interval on the Focus is pretty long these days -
it's something I'd almost certainly want doing immediately after
purchase unless there was a recent invoice for it)

--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

MichaelS gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

What would you buy if that was all you had to spend on a car? I'm
thinking maybe a Ford Focus or old Nissan Primera.

points out window to £500 Saab 900 Turbo

Sure, I've had to do a few things to it - but total expenditure is still
less than £2k, and it's running very nicely indeed.

(SteveH) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Personally, I'd go with the Primera.

They just refuse to die

More's the pity.

"Mike G" wrote in message
news:AumdnRfQzPKQDb3VnZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@plusnet...

"Zimmy" wrote in message
...

"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...

"Doki" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Going rate for an 8 year old Focus looks like £1-2k. I
recently picked up a 5 year old 406 HDI estate for £2.5k. If
you avoid the German makes, the depreciation is pretty
vicious and the cars end up damned cheap for what they are.

The speed of depreciation on cars always surprises me. My
Focus 2.0 ESP is 7 years old in June, hasn't gone wrong in the
4 years I've had it, does everything just as well as a new car
but is worth only a tiny fraction of the price. High
depreciation makes more sense with cars that rust badly but
the Focus doesn't do that. If the government really wanted to
do something about the environment they'd make it more
financially attractive to keep running older cars rather than
squandering resources building new ones.

How about no road tax on cars over 10 years old?

That would put the cat amongst the pigeons as far as the car
manufacturers were concerned.
I think any measures taken to promote the idea of making products
that last longer, and that encourage consumers to have things repaired
rather than simply replaced if they do go wrong, is far greener than
advising we use things like fluorescent bulbs, or switch off low
volt adaptors, phone chargers etc, when not actually in use.
Mike.

Whenever governments get involved in things like the environment A) they
cock it up and B) they run into big business interests which generally don't
want things changed. Numerous examples spring to mind.

1) My house has 80 year old single glazed metal framed Crittal windows. They
have the insulation properties of tissue paper and leak like sieves anyway,
but if I want to replace them with double glazed windows I have to pay for
building approval. Now any double glazed windows, however crappy would be a
huge improvement but I can only fit 'approved' double glazed units for which
I have to pay the local council for the privilege. If they want people to
improve their insulation why give grants out on the one hand for some things
but make people pay for approval to do it on the other? No f**ing sense
there at all. The way to do it would be to regulate the window vendors as to
what they could sell rather than make every single house have its new units
checked by the council.

2) When condensing central heating boilers became mandatory the early
versions only lasted a few years because the heat exchangers failed. Even
those which don't rust through have so much electronic crap in them they
break down on a regular basis. My old Potterton might not be as efficient as
new boilers but it's lasted nearly 30 years and has bugger all in it to go
wrong. A new thermocouple every 6 years is about all I have to do. I reckon
the average household has to spend far more on short lived replacement
boilers than the savings on gas used.

3) Cows generate more greenhouse gas than all the cars in the world
combined. They also turn grain into meat at an efficiency of only about 8lbs
per lb. If we really wanted to eliminate both global warming and world
hunger we'd quadruple the tax on meat and remove it on grain sold for human
consumption.

4) Designing a car that can average 100 mpg isn't just easy it's trivially
easy. The two main areas that impact fuel consumption are aero drag and
weight. Reduce the average cars frontal area from 21 sq ft to 14 and the Cd
from 0.35 to 0.28, reduce the weight from 1300 kg to 500 kg, fit a 40 bhp
direct injection diesel engine and you end up with a low, narrow single
seater (maybe a passenger behind the driver) with some luggage capacity that
can do 110 mph and better than 100 mpg at 70 mph. At 40 mph it could achieve
200 mpg. For most single occupant journeys it would reduce fuel consumption
by at least 70%. Big oil would have a fit though.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines

"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...

Whenever governments get involved in things like the environment A) they
cock it up and B) they run into big business interests which generally
don't want things changed. Numerous examples spring to mind.

Without the govt getting involved in the environment, a lot of things would
be for the worse. OTOH a lot of things might be for the better - often
brownfield sites where development is encouraged by planning rules have far
more nature conservation value than farmland where development would be nigh
on unthinkable in many cases.

1) My house has 80 year old single glazed metal framed Crittal windows.
They have the insulation properties of tissue paper and leak like sieves
anyway, but if I want to replace them with double glazed windows I have to
pay for building approval.

Double glazing is a bugbear of mine. If you want to replace them at all,
you'll have to replace them with double glazing. Double glazing has a
payback time of around 100 years last time I checked, and you're lucky if
the windows last 20 years. OTOH a lot of 100 year old houses still have
original wooden windows...

3) Cows generate more greenhouse gas than all the cars in the world
combined. They also turn grain into meat at an efficiency of only about
8lbs per lb. If we really wanted to eliminate both global warming and
world hunger we'd quadruple the tax on meat and remove it on grain sold
for human consumption.

The average house also consumes far more energy for heating than the two
cars sat on the drive. Therefore it produces more CO2. But we don't have
everyone insulating their old houses to hell and back. We just tax people
for driving around.

I think that's one of the strongest arguments against global warming - if
Govts really believed it was real, they'd discourage the things that produce
*big* amounts of CO2. Instead they use it as an excuse to tax cars...

"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...

"Mike G" wrote in message
news:AumdnRfQzPKQDb3VnZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@plusnet...

"Zimmy" wrote in message
...

"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...

"Doki" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Going rate for an 8 year old Focus looks like £1-2k. I
recently picked up a 5 year old 406 HDI estate for £2.5k.
If
you avoid the German makes, the depreciation is pretty
vicious and the cars end up damned cheap for what they are.

The speed of depreciation on cars always surprises me. My
Focus 2.0 ESP is 7 years old in June, hasn't gone wrong in
the
4 years I've had it, does everything just as well as a new
car
but is worth only a tiny fraction of the price. High
depreciation makes more sense with cars that rust badly but
the Focus doesn't do that. If the government really wanted
to
do something about the environment they'd make it more
financially attractive to keep running older cars rather
than
squandering resources building new ones.

How about no road tax on cars over 10 years old?

That would put the cat amongst the pigeons as far as the car
manufacturers were concerned.
I think any measures taken to promote the idea of making
products
that last longer, and that encourage consumers to have things
repaired
rather than simply replaced if they do go wrong, is far
greener than
advising we use things like fluorescent bulbs, or switch off
low
volt adaptors, phone chargers etc, when not actually in use.
Mike.

Whenever governments get involved in things like the
environment A) they cock it up and B) they run into big
business interests which generally don't want things changed.
Numerous examples spring to mind.

Whatever the richer western countries do to reduce environmental
pollution is going to be more than offset by the polution
produced by the emerging economies of countries like China,
India, Brazil, and even Russia.
The poor of those countries are not going to be satisfied with
anything less than a comparable living stds to the one we enjoy
now, and with a market runnng into billions of potential
consumers, any green efforts we make will be like a drop in the
ocean.

Personally though, I think the climate can take care of itself.
There seems little proof that any global warming is not due to
natural fluctuations.
Historically global temperatures have gone through periodic
colder or warmer cycles ever since records began. The present
rise in temperature is nothing unusual, something that hasn't
occured in the past, and those in the past were not caused by CO2
emissions, industry, or any human activity at all.
Mike.

On Tue, 06 May 2008 23:40:50 +0100, Dave Baker wrote:


"Mike G" wrote in message
news:AumdnRfQzPKQDb3VnZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@plusnet...

"Zimmy" wrote in message
...

"Dave Baker" wrote in message
...

"Doki" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Going rate for an 8 year old Focus looks like £1-2k. I
recently picked up a 5 year old 406 HDI estate for £2.5k. If
you avoid the German makes, the depreciation is pretty
vicious and the cars end up damned cheap for what they are.

The speed of depreciation on cars always surprises me. My
Focus 2.0 ESP is 7 years old in June, hasn't gone wrong in the
4 years I've had it, does everything just as well as a new car
but is worth only a tiny fraction of the price. High
depreciation makes more sense with cars that rust badly but
the Focus doesn't do that. If the government really wanted to
do something about the environment they'd make it more
financially attractive to keep running older cars rather than
squandering resources building new ones.

How about no road tax on cars over 10 years old?

That would put the cat amongst the pigeons as far as the car
manufacturers were concerned.
I think any measures taken to promote the idea of making products
that last longer, and that encourage consumers to have things repaired
rather than simply replaced if they do go wrong, is far greener than
advising we use things like fluorescent bulbs, or switch off low
volt adaptors, phone chargers etc, when not actually in use.
Mike.

Whenever governments get involved in things like the environment A) they
cock it up and B) they run into big business interests which generally
don't
want things changed. Numerous examples spring to mind.

1) My house has 80 year old single glazed metal framed Crittal windows.
They
have the insulation properties of tissue paper and leak like sieves
anyway,
but if I want to replace them with double glazed windows I have to pay
for
building approval. Now any double glazed windows, however crappy would
be a
huge improvement but I can only fit 'approved' double glazed units for
which
I have to pay the local council for the privilege. If they want people to
improve their insulation why give grants out on the one hand for some
things
but make people pay for approval to do it on the other? No f**ing sense
there at all. The way to do it would be to regulate the window vendors
as to
what they could sell rather than make every single house have its new
units
checked by the council.



We could call it something like FENSA

MichaelS wrote:
What would you buy if that was all you had to spend on a car? I'm
thinking maybe a Ford Focus or old Nissan Primera.

Pug 306 1.9 DTurbo, Citroen Xsara 1.9 DTurbo. Bosch fuel pumps...

--
Abo