Recycled engines blow to Scrappage

Trouble is... the scrappage scheme is harming the second hand car market for new drivers... didn't the government or these eco-nuts ever think about that?

By 1deano1 on 18 January, 2010, 10:59am

Ah.....the pic shown are not of ANY Engines, they are all Gearboxes...WRONG Yet again AE..

By rx88888888 on 19 January, 2010, 7:56am

Thinly masked attempt to kick-start the failing car industry

It annoys me how all the eco campaigners, especially the quoted organisation in the article, Friends of the Earth, think that trashing the planet to build new plants and facilities to make all these new cars is better than recycling an old vehicle and keeping another one on the road. Overall, these older vehicles have a far lower carbon footprint, simply because they're out-living their expectancy.

It drives me mad!

The government have very thinly masked their attempts to kick-start the failing car industry. This has nothing to do with the environment. If anything, it's doing more harm! But, some fat cats, who got greedy, are getting all the help in the world to reline their pockets.

Open your eyes, people. Recycling old engines is a good thing. How often do we have it rammed down our throats that recycling is vital? Now, we're meant to ignore all that and just throw perfectly good things away!

By b16col on 19 January, 2010, 8:21am

Scrappage Joke

How many good non polluting cars and classic cars have been scrapped for no reason apart from the money.

Surely it causes more damage and pollution in the production of these so called "green" energy saving vehicles than the pollution of most of the scrapped vehicles.

The complaint about recycling parts is nonsense. As stated abovethe car scrappage scheme was to reboot the failing car industry which is not the fault of anyone else but the greedy manufacturers.

By donnaca on 19 January, 2010, 8:30am

..I agree, a big joke..

We currently have a 1400 Corsa Automatic, 1994, 13,200 miles from new, and immaculate condition, full Vauxhall history, a 1995 Honda Civic, 44,000 miles again one owner, perfect condition and yet both on Scrappage deals! Makes me very angry to see perfectly good cars, taken off the road and scrapped. They would both be great second hand cars if sold on, but worth more for scrap now traded in for Mercedes A Class's...hmmm I know which I prefer have! The used car market has taken a battering of some perfectly good cars are coming out of the market place for scrappage deals, the real sheds are still out there because their owners can't afford the 4 or 5 grand on top for a basic new car! Everyday I see absolutly shot Escorts and Fiestas, held together with a hope and a prayer, trundling up and down the A27! I believe in Bangernomics, I have a 1995 Astra, supported by ebay and breakers yards, but it passes it's MOT every year without major work, is as economical as my girlfriends new Picanto (and yes that was a scrappage deal) and is easy and cheap to maintain...

By tombstone on 19 January, 2010, 9:00am

So, Autoexpress thinks that not only should perfectly good 10 year old cars, many in near mint condition with low miles be scrapped, but all there parts should be destroyed as well.
How environmental is that!!

By GRIFFINB1 on 19 January, 2010, 9:06am

I totally agree that the scrappage scheme was terrible for the environment and the classic car industry. At least by saving the engines, some good can come of it. I think it is high time mags like ae should come off of their eco high horse and publish the truth about this scheme.

By ginettafan on 19 January, 2010, 9:31am

Carbon

As far as carbon footprint is concerned, longer vehicle lifespan equates to a smaller total footprint for the industry.

It would make more sense for car manufacturers to be taxed, on a reducing basis, for how long each vehicle remains in use & it's fuel efficiency. They would then build them more durable, with & cheaper spares, thus giving manufacturers an incentive not to prematurely replace vehicles. Swap out high efficiency power plants would become available!

By Ralph on 19 January, 2010, 11:17am

"Reduce, Reuse, Recycle"

It's in that order for a reason. Scrapping cars and replacing them with new ones doesn't reduce global warming because building new cars and shipping them releases so much CO2. So the scrappage scheme failed there. What it might have achieved is reducing pollution in our cities by replacing old cars with ones which meet much tighter emissions limits.

At least the parts are being recycled. There is nothing more environmentally friendly then repairing your car with recycled parts.

In reality it doesn't matter how many cars are on our roads (old or new) we need to reduce the mileage they do if we're going to cut congestion and pollution in the cities. I wonder how many people traded their old banger for a small, fuel-efficient model and now do a higher mileage without worrying about the cost or the chances of their car breaking down?

The scrappage scheme was never a well though out incentive to replace polluting cars with more eco-friendly models (I'd be the first to applaud such a scheme, whenever I've bought a car I always start with a shortlist which only includes fuel-efficient models) it was designed to give a boost to flagging car makers and (mainly) flagging retailers.

I'd like to see eco-labelling on new cars which shows not just the CO2 per mile to drive it but the CO2 to build it and ship it to the showroom. That would favour European-built cars from efficient, modern factories rather than small cars from the Far East.

By inicholson on 19 January, 2010, 11:27am

Car?Bon!

This is what happens when you vote for a government that is lacking in any intellectual ability at all and loves nothing more than passing legislation that is not scrutinised properly but looks lovely and shiny on the outside.

By justinhunt1 on 19 January, 2010, 11:40am

Blow to Scrappage Scheme??

Along with the above article, AE have an article "11,000bhp mph Mega Test" - where they have a large number of over-powered 170mph+ vehicles that probably can't achieve mroe than high teens mpg at best. How much damage to the environment does this type of test do I wonder? Top Gear & other similar programmes/magazines are also guilty of this type of behaviour.
I enjoy watching motorsport so cannot justify slagging off older cars (just got rid of a 15 yr old Ford Mondeo, but not on scrappage scheme).

By pritcha on 19 January, 2010, 3:25pm

the scrappage scheme was never green. It was purely and soley to support the car industry.

By dilbert1969 on 19 January, 2010, 3:42pm

"the scrappage scheme was never green. It was purely and soley to support the car industry. "

The majority of cars passing through the scheme are being replaced by small, fuel efficient cars. Whilst that's highly praisworthy, a significant majority of the new cars that are replacing them are built in the Far East or Eastern Europe. How does this help British Industry?
The Government just didn't think this trough did they!

There's also a critical shortage of old cars for colleges to use as part of their motor and engineering courses. The supply has dried up, as the cars traded in under the scrappage scheme must be scrapped, they cannot be used for the Government's own education system. Joined up thinking? I dont think so!

By j_harden on 19 January, 2010, 5:35pm

Car?Bon!

Couldn't agree more. The government can barely do joined up writing, let alone joined up thinking. Very few of them have any experience of business and certainly no experience of the motoring world. With the average age of MPs and ministers falling to around 16, it's no wonder that we have this sort of ill conceived legislation.

By justinhunt1 on 19 January, 2010, 6:47pm

Compensation

Climate change is simply an ongoing natural process. Whatever is the real reason behind the scrappage scheme, it was counterproductive. In a bid to compensate for the government's vandalism, I have just aquired a 1974 Rover 3500s which has been sat in a barn for 22 years. It shall be resurrected, and possibly upgraded to 3.9 litres.

By stevepilk on 19 January, 2010, 11:05pm

But is it true?

Can any of the people on here claiming that new cars cause far more CO2 by being built than old cars cause by being driven point me at any reserach that backs this up? It's an argument I've often heard but never managed to find any hard evidence for. I've seen motor industry figures (which I'm equally reluctant to believe!) that (I think) suggest about 6 years is the break-even point (i.e. if your car is more than about 6 years old and you replace it like-for-like in terms of power, performance and annual mileage, there will be a net BENEFIT to the environment - even taking the CO2 produced when the car was made into account.)

I'd like to get to the bottom of this....

As for the scrappage scheme being for environmental reasons, I'd be a lot more willing to belive this if it stipulated that you had to buy a car with equal or lower CO2 output to qualify! As it is, there's nothing to stop anyone trading in a 10 year old Micra for a brand new Bentley Arnage or Range Rover - which somewhat linits it's credibility in my view!

By molebag on 19 January, 2010, 11:31pm

Old uneconomical car better for the environment?

My wifes car is a '99 BMW convertable, probably does less than 3,000 miles a year, should we scrap this and buy a new car? which would be best for the environment? a new car in terms of running, but add in production and distribution, and the old car wins habds down, maybe if it was doing 20-30,000 miles a year it would make sense.

So I think it makes sense to keep it, so what if say the gearbox went? scrap it or get a good used one, again the used one has to make sense, both from an environmental viewpoint, and cost. So if scrappers are keeping older low use vehicles on the road, good for them, us, and the environment.

By wh05apk on 4 February, 2010, 7:04am