The Backroom is full of threads extolling the virtues of Bangers - the current "Old Banger sailed through MOT" thread being an example.
There can be little doubt that modern cars brake and hold the road better, produce less emissions, use less fuel and are in most ways safer for both occupants and other road users.
Japan applies such stringent tests on cars that it is not viable to keep them when they are more than 4 or 5 years old. Which is why many finish up scrapped or, sadly, exported to Britain.
Should we not be trying to follow Japan's example?
|
|
Our bangers (a 5-cylinder Audi and a 140hp Mazda 323) have a combined age of 27, but can still hold their own in much younger company. The important bits (tyres, brake pads, suspension bushes) are just as new, in fact. Why throw away a perfectly decent car after 4 or 5 years?
|
And what about the pollution caused in the production of the vehicle? I understand that this far exceeds the pollutants issued in the life of an average vehicle.
As for the point about Japanese legislation; have you seen the smoke belching from many imported 4x4s? If that was legal just before it was shipped to the UK, I think I prefer our system!
|
|
|
JBJ,
I am sure you and all other members of the Backroom keep the 'safety critical' parts of your cars in pristine condition. However I venture to suggest that such diligence is not widespread amongst those running old bangers.
I am not advocating scrapping perfectly good cars after 4 or 5 years. However I believe that our current MOT system is flawed and not strictly enforced. There is a reasoned argument that we should move toward the German TUV or Japanese system. The effect of these control systems is that it effectively becomes uneconomic to keep older cars on the road.
C
|
"our current MOT system is flawed and not strictly enforced"
Hmm - is that two issues or one? I use a garage whose owner I know well, and he is completely unapologetic about performing his MOT's to the letter. I don't mind, as it keeps our cars in good fettle, but I appreciate that not all testers are as thorough.
Perhaps if there was more of a post-mortem on vehicles after accidents and penalties for obvious contributory factors, such as rust or inefficient brakes? Of course, it would cost money, and the government has so little nowadays...
|
|
|
Even as a fan of most things Japanese, I am afraid the introducton of the sha-ken in the UK would have me protesting in the streets! It meant some product life cycles for Japanese cars were four years and it was quite possible to buy a car that was inferior or pointless when compared to the previous model - the variations of the Toyota Celica stand out in my mind.
On top of that, I'm pretty certain the average Japanese motorist only does a small percentage of the miles a UK motorist would, so to get the same effect here the replacement period would have to be even shorter.
I'm for choice when it comes to cars and that includes the right to keep using them if they are roadworthy.
|
|
|
You are involved with the car industry...
I have run Bangers all my life and i refuse to buy a new car as you loose so much money on the first year. i can insure my banger for next to nothing third party (fire and theft i wish i could leave ouy as it would be even cheaper)and my current one is a Granada 2 ltr automatic with full options and runs like a dream.i bought it for 650 quid 3 three years ago and apart from petrol and the ocasional service its fine. So if you want to inflict more tolls on the poor old motoring public stick to your guns.
Victor
|
VM,
"You are involved with the car industry..."
Not I!
C
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tried to post a reply but I think I did something wrong. Apologies if this appears twice.
Are you arguing from a safety or environmental viewpoint?
Safety: I can't afford a new car every five years. While safety does improve over that time, it's not by nearly enough for that to be a consideration for me. That's a personal opinion.
Environmental: Life cycle. There's more to it than newer cars being more fuel efficient and having cleaner emissions. If cars last five years, you only have clean cars on the road, but you pay the environmental cost of manufacture and disposal every five years.
If cars last 20 years, you have older cars with less clean emissions around, but you pay a quarter of the environmental cost of manufacture/disposal (because each car lasts four times as long).
Somewhere is the ideal where the combination of emissions and manufacture and disposal is at its least. Finding that ideal takes careful and complex analysis.
GJD
|
|
There is also the economic and social aspect. If you legislate old cars off the road the poor will have no means of transport.
|
It's reaching the time of year for multiple pile ups in fog. Older cars give you very audible clues as to how fast you are travelling. In a new, near noiseless car, often the only clue (apart from the speedo!) are visual. When fog reduces those visual clues, I'm sure that contributes and I have read advice somewhere about driving with the windows open. At least you stand a greater chance of hearing the crunch of metal on metal...
Tim{P}
|
|
|
There is also the economic and social aspect. If you legislate old cars off the road the poor will have no means of transport.
The bus?
|
Ever heard of the phrase 'social exclusion' clariman? Why on earth should someone be forced to use the bus just because somebody else has decreed that he (or she) cannot buy a £500 banger?
I have only ever owned one car which cost me more than £500 - my last three cars have cost, respectively, £250, £400 and £100. All of them have not fouled the environment excessively and more importantly have been repaired properly and competently the moment anything has gone wrong with them. Indeed, I am being environmentally aware as I am not contributing to the massive emissions that car factories spew into the atmosphere.
It is most abhorrent to me to be told what I can and can't drive. If I find a minter of a (for example) 1988 Toyota Supra for £300 then I will blimmin' well buy it, run it and enjoy it. No one has the right to dictate to me what I can drve simply because my choices offend others.
Cheers
Rob
Rob
|
Rob,
"No one has the right to dictate to me what I can drive simply because my choices offend others."
With respect the Government do have the right, and a duty, to ensure that what you drive meets certain standards - mainly concerning safety related issues.
The discussion is whether those standards are sufficiently stringent and if the present MOT system ensures current regulations are adequately enforced.
C
|
Rob, "No one has the right to dictate to me what I can drive simply because my choices offend others." With respect the Government do have the right, and a duty, to ensure that what you drive meets certain standards - mainly concerning safety related issues. The discussion is whether those standards are sufficiently stringent and if the present MOT system ensures current regulations are adequately enforced. C
I agree that the Government has a right to ensure that the vehicle I use on the public road meets the standards to which you allude. But I do not agree that this (or any future) Government has a right to tell me that because my perfectly serviceable and well maintained car is five years old it has to be scrapped.
Apologies if I missed the point of the discussion. Talking of which, of course the current MoT system is totally inadequate. It even states on the back of the test certificate that it only guaranteed the condition of the vehicle on the day it was tested and should not taken as evidence of its roadworthiness. Sadly, I have no idea as to a viable alternative. And no, scrapping cars after five years is definitely not it!
Cheers
Rob
|
|
|
|
Rob.
you have my vote...
Victor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The stringent tests imposed on Japanese cars are not done for safety reasons, they are done for political ones. A looked after Toyota will go on for donkey's years but imposing such stringent and almost impossible tests on cars once they reach a certain age certainly keeps a lot of people employed to build the new ones...
|
|
What sort of tests are imposed that render a car fit for the scrappy at 5 years old???
|
What sort of tests are imposed that render a car fit for the scrappy at 5 years old???
But that isn't what happens. The Japanese buy them new and run them for three years, they then trade the car in for a new one. All the traded in cars get shipped to RHD markets which love to buy them - New Zealand, to a lesser extent Australia, Ireland is a popular destination for them too.
|
|
Dont forget India,Pakistan,afghanistan....
|
|
|
|
Forget any legislation, the biggest problem is that the manufacturers are flooding the new car market with their yields of ever increasing manufacturing efficiency to maximise profits.
The environmental cost of building a car, as No Dosh says, far outweighs the cost of keeping it on the road for 10 or 20years.
However, manufacturers' practice of peddling cars well in excess of market demands pushes prices down to the extent that running some cars over say 8 years old can become economically unviable.
This problem is exasserbated by the new complexities that are built into newer vehicles, such as ECUS etc. I'm not against technology, but the after sales service doesn't have to be so damned expensive an inaccesable now does it.
If the manufacturers made ECUs available for £100 to £150 a throw for cars over 5 years old and made similar adjustments to other high cost components then the motoring public would be able to protect the environment much better by keeping older cars on the road for longer.
Well there's my opinion.
Hugo
|
|
Hugo - you've said it all. The situation is just what the makers want - cars are worth less than a replacement ECU after about 8 years, and that is after long years of pressure forcing them to build bodies that will last 20 or more. Silly, isn't it?
|
|
|
However, manufacturers' practice of peddling cars well in excess of market demands pushes prices down to the extent that running some cars over say 8 years old can become economically unviable.
It can't and won't continue. Most of the large European manufacturers are struggling to do anything other than make a loss. You can only go for so long making masses of cars that people simply are no longer buying in the numbers they once were.
|
|
|
|
The stringent tests imposed on Japanese cars are not done for safety reasons, they are done for political ones. A looked after Toyota will go on for donkey's years but imposing such stringent and almost impossible tests on cars once they reach a certain age certainly keeps a lot of people employed to build the new ones...
It could be argued that governments have a duty to manage the economy so that as many of their country's citizens as possible are able to earn a living. It's certainly cheaper than paying them to do nothing. Rob is right about the environmental benefits of older cars though. We tend to equate new and shiny with being cleaner, but it ain't necessarily the case.
|
|
|
|
I run a 1987 BMW E30 M3 and a 1968 Triumph 1300, the latter of which I use as my everyday car. Both of these cars I keep in excellent condition - frankly better than some 1-2 year old cars I see at work each day.
I could afford to get a modern new car if I wanted but I choose not to. Why? Well with very few exceptions modern cars are dull as ditchwater and I want something this is interesting and involving to drive. Your average modern is neither of these and I do not want to know. I'm quite happy as I am thank you. Why is it in this country there are lots of people who seem to argue that if I don't like it lets ban it?
|
|
I'm still driving an '89 Sunny. Hardly an interesting car but it doe's the job for zilch depreciation. I am aware that in an accident it will not perform well, as most older cars had no real protection in the cabin (or what's left of it) in that sense older car are bad news.
|
Replying to A_Dent, having an older car with not much crash protection might mean that you drive around with a very real sense of your own mortality and are appropriately observant too? Sounds like another good thing to me!
Gareth
|
|
|
A Dent
i am jealous. I wish that i had kept my '90 Corolla, i've lost £4,000 in depreciation over the last 3 years with the replacements.
|
Before the Civic i drove a 1986 honda ballade which was a family hand me down. Negative street cred, but it cost close to nothing to run and it never let me down. How I loved that car.
I certainly didn't *feel* unsafe in it, but i guess compared to modern equivalents it was positively prehistoric in safety terms.
Ed.
|
|
|
Jelous of my old banger, that's another first. It can be yours for...well lets see noww.
Replying to Garethj
True, but not a virtuous selling point.
Imagine the brochure for old bangers:
With this car you can save the environment for other people to mess up
Fill you car with petrol and watch it?s value appreciate.
No safety aids to go wrong.
In the event of an accident, just watch the Fireperson (PC) cut you out of your already worthless car, and remember don?t run over lollypop sticks in future.
For real, unsafe, connected to the world, I?m not immortal travelling get a motorcycle.
(Been there too. X7,RD350LC,SR500)
I replace it with a much newer model soon and join the depreciation brigade
|
Mental note to me:
In future reed wot u rite! Doh
|
|
|
|
|
"I am aware that in an accident it will not perform well"
That's a safety feature in itself. Personally, I'm for replacing air bags with spikes - you wouldn't need speed cameras then...
:-)
|
|
Well - we gave this some thought a couple of years ago. The need was identified for a "pool" vehicle in the practice. One faction was after a basic spec new car probably a Focus or an Astra. My argument held sway for buying a £500.00 banger and the economics have proved themselves. Both bangers bought have been unleaded beasts one with a cat. Minor dings/scratches have not been fixed - which they would have been with any leased vehicle we had bought (and we would probably be on car two by now). Both cars will be recycled at the end of their lives with us (The original has gone to a good home and is still on the road). There was a firm offer on the Cav for use as parts if it had failed its recent MoT. On the whole the cars are as enviromentally sound as they were when they were new. I think there is a good argument for bangers.
|
Pugugly,
It is not in dispute that Bangers make economic sense under current rules; but that wasn't the exam question!
Should the rules be changed?
C
|
No simple answer. If its yes it would mean that a growing number of cars would be taken from the bottom of the pile. They would have to be scrapped or as is more likely there would be a huge export trade in 4-5 year old cars from the UK to some other market. Consequently the more cars you take out of the bottom end of the more cars would have to made or sold new to fill the gap from the top. These seems to be happening anyway, you see far fewer older cars on the roads these days as MoT and uneconomical repairs take them off the road. As cars get more complicated (aka costly) to repair the sooner they will fall off the edge.
A small roadside commercial garage has taken my notice over the last few weeks on the way to work. A Rover metro is in there it has been stripped down, rubbed down to bear metal and then respsprayed, the cost must have outweihed the car's value..why do we do it ?
|
"..rubbed down to bear metal.."
I've often wondered what they made Metros out of... :-)
|
|
bear = bare a case of spellcheckities I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
I'm still driving an '89 Sunny. Hardly an interesting car but it doe's the job for zilch depreciation. I am aware that in an accident it will not perform well, as most older cars had no real protection in the cabin (or what's left of it) in that sense older car are bad news.
You'd be surprised.
After a hard 40MPH rear end shunt my Pug 309 at 14 years old was 6 inches shorter after an accident and 1 inch wider (made obvious by the fact that the rear parcel shelf wouldn't stay in its position without falling through into the boot). And you couldn't open the rear passenger doors.
No only was I not seriously injured, but I still drove it home - Just!
Hugo
|
Hello again. It's been a long time. I'm glad I've not been scrapped.
I agree with just about all of the above, the environmental impact of new cars and the fact that the nut behind the wheel is the major factor in accidents, not the cars cornering or braking ability.
As well as this I think I'd be bored, watching the same kind of cars trundle around. No classics and virtually no exotica (the cost would be even more prohibitive if owners had to sell after 5 years).
I love seeing old cars driving around. It gives you a good idea of what's been well put together, which is invaluable when it comes to buying.
|
|
|
|
|
Triumph 1300? The front wheel drive one? Respect!
Hawkeye
-----------------------------
Stranger in a strange land
|
"The front wheel drive one? Respect!"
I was thinking that.
|
|
|
Triumph 1300? The front wheel drive one? Respect! Hawkeye ----------------------------- Stranger in a strange land
Yep the front wheel drive one. Very nice comfortable car. Cruises at 50 all day quite happily.
Nice to see some people here with some taste ....
|
|
|
|
|
The Backroom is full of threads extolling the virtues of Bangers - the current "Old Banger sailed through MOT" thread being an example. There can be little doubt that modern cars brake and hold the road better, produce less emissions, use less fuel and are in most ways safer for both occupants and other road users. Japan applies such stringent tests on cars that it is not viable to keep them when they are more than 4 or 5 years old. Which is why many finish up scrapped or, sadly, exported to Britain. Should we not be trying to follow Japan's example?
Ok, since it's my thread that's mentioned at the beginning I'd thought I'd stick my oar in :)
Firstly are you a car dealer by any chance Cardew? LOL
Seriously though, are ALL modern cars safer to drive, use and more environmentally friendly? I don't think so. Not ALL of them. I lost £2000 on a 6 year old Volvo 440 that was absolutely knackered and completely unroadworthy. I got a (then) 13 year old car that has been fabulous (the Corolla). I'd bought a newer car at great expense and lost out seriously, perhaps however others can really afford to do that easily?
The only thing rarer than an honest politian out where I live is a bus. I'm so far out in the country I don't even live in a village or even on a public highway so if you took away my car, I'd have no transport since I'd be unable to raise the mortgage required for that rare elusive vehicle - a taxi.
And to add to it, I'm disabled too. So if you took my car away I'd be housebound too. Interesting scenario that one. I have found that modern(ish) cars (of about 6 -8 years age) of the medium safer size are too heavy for me to drive. PAS means nothing with those extras added on now.
Cars regardless of age should be safe and fit for the road, safe and fit for the driver and safe and fit for other road users. People with cars of all ages skimp on servicing, (once the warrantee runs out) yet others look after their car like its a lover!
|
|
|
If you want to follow Japans example fine,try living there and see what the situation is.I can not realy think that there are people out there who wish to impose more regulations on the motoring public than there already are.
SAD...
|
|
|
