vlad01 Compulsive Aussie Vee Dubber
4,270 posts · joined Jun 2010 ·
here is an easier option. A push bike 😂 lol I do.
71 notchback,
Past owner of, 70 NB, 73 SB and 72 FB TLE
Cash for clunkers
71 notchback,
Past owner of, 70 NB, 73 SB and 72 FB TLE
helbus Administrator Mad fabricator, paint and body
7,386 posts · joined Sep 2002 ·
A wrecking yard next door to my work closed down a few weeks ago, and about 600 cars went through the recycling shredder. I saw three beetles and dozens of old 60's and 70's Holdens, Fords and others go in that lot.
waveman1500 Also rides a Honda
1,346 posts · joined Dec 2009 ·
That wasn't the old Lonsdale U-Pull-It was it? Shame about that.helbus wrote:A wrecking yard next door to my work closed down a few weeks ago, and about 600 cars went through the recycling shredder. I saw three beetles and dozens of old 60's and 70's Holdens, Fords and others go in that lot.
1303Steve Scirocco Rare
8,650 posts · joined Aug 2002 ·
Hi
How many people that have the cash or credit to buy a new car drive an old car anyway?
That John Cadogan writes some good stuff, I listen to him on 2ue on the Clive show Sunday afternoons.
Todays clunker would have been tomorrows classic.
Steve
How many people that have the cash or credit to buy a new car drive an old car anyway?
That John Cadogan writes some good stuff, I listen to him on 2ue on the Clive show Sunday afternoons.
Todays clunker would have been tomorrows classic.
Steve
Smiley Veteran Volks Folk
2,125 posts · joined Oct 2008 ·
amazeer wrote:There's a guy in my car club with a ford powered torana. I personally have had no engine problems in either of my falcons. And just as well cos the bloody bonnet release cable breaks off in your hand after 12 months. And the brakes work brilliantly, for 15 minutes after they have been rebuilt, and the central lock remotes break, and the rear end clunks, and the steering rack coming loose, and you have to grow a second wrist joint and cut your hand to peices to change a headlight bulb and ... it sits on 120 km on the freeway as smooth and quite as you'd like. Love/Hate it.
The problem I have with the clunker plan is that it has no detail as is the political way these days, either party. So...
1. if your car is a 94 model and its worth a little more than 2K I reckon you'll be screwed. I cant see you getting a dealer to trade it. You're going to lose money.
2. Its going to be like the Harvey Norman effect. It will entice some people to go out and buy a car they cant afford on credit. These are the people who should be protected from themselves.
3. It will be the end of many classic cars, not just VW's but other makes as well.
4. What effect will it have on insurance write off values?
5. And the big one: Julia says she will recycle my car responsibly. So I go and trade in my 1997 Mitsubishi Lancer (it will take 3 years to get the scheme in place OR there will be a loophole allowing it). I get my $2000 off on a hybrid Camry. Lets pretend it was a Mother Mary style miracle and it landed at the showroom completely carbon neutral. We exchange keys and I drive away still using more fuel than a 97 1500cc lancer. Err no I dont becasue new cars use less and pollute less. Its a VERY frugal Camry this one. The car I leave behind somehow has to make it back to this responsible recycling centre. Lets say they use wind power so carbon neutral. The people working there will all use hand tools without hoists and lighting to pull it all apart so carbon neutral. But here is where it all falls apart. The car is probably 10-15% metal. The rest of it is plastic, rubber, cloth, polystyrene, glass. We could shred this rubber and make stuff out of it... but there is already an over supply of rubber, so its landfill. I doubt very much weather my dash will make it back into a PET drink bottle so its landfill. Who knows what the bumpers will end up as. How are you going to recycle my carpet, headliner, seats, door trims? Pretty sure you cant recycle automotive glass. But lets just for a moment fantasise that this could be done. Now we're going to load up all the differnt bits n bobs onto seperate trucks and cart them all over the country to the re-processing centres. Using solar powered trucks of course. But how are you going to do it for a profit? If you cant profit from it, no company will do it. Of course it cant happen, not even if all the previous ridiculous fantasies were in place. All cars will get crushed in their entirtiy, same as they are now. They'll come down in little cubes to port kembla and get thrown into the blast furnace. All the plastic/paint/rubber/oil fumes will float up into the atmosphere and rain down on the country side.
And this is where the eco bit happens. Plants will draw up all that acid rain and become big carbon stores, and all the slag from the blast furnace will be crushed and turned into road base. And there you have your eco fairytale. See Virginia, there really IS a santa claus
This is about the smartest post that has been put forth so far.
And also on what Phil has said, WHY don't we get the Bluemotion series of VWs in Australia? Just why? Large country, massive distances between cities, lots of driving gets done. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Smiley 😎
If you said I was a Volkswagen man, you'd be right.
snowman9 Casual Dubber
38 posts · joined Dec 2009 ·
I feel that I'm in a position to wade into this, as I have the fed. labor party "Cleaner Car Rebate" blurb in my hot little hand.
I am also an ex NSW EPA motor vehicle testing lab tech dude. This NSW testing facility was the LAST non-manufacturer test lab in this country.
It was shut down in 2000 to help fund the Sydney Olympics.
It also didn't help when we ran a pilot program for the environmental viability of 10% ethanol in unleaded fuel, which yielded high evaporative hydrocarbon (HC) results.
It shit the tin.
The exhaust emissions on the dyno for catalyst equipped vehicles yielded NO improvement -- if anything it was slightly worse.
Pre - catalyst cars however, yielded significantly lower carbon monoxide (CO) results due to the 02 molecules in ethanol.
Vested interests and multi-nationals always rule the day in contemporary society. I'm STILL bitter.
What most of the clowns don't care to realise or acknowledge is that when you burn hydrocarbon fuel to turn it into energy (LPG, petrol or diesel), undesirable, nasty stuff comes out the other end. There is a ratio, a balance which is commonly referred to as stoichiometric (approx. 14.7/1 @ sea-level) .
Less CO2 equals more HC and CO for a given amount of fossil fuel.
Less HC and CO equals more CO2.
A rise in combustion temperature due to "lean burn" on highway cycle for improved fuel economy, equals more oxides of nitrogen (nox) which had been linked to respiratory problems in Western Sydney.
No matter the amount of fossil fuel you whack in, that same volume comes out in nasties. CO2 is now the no.1 nasty.
In 1999, myself and a couple of colleagues went to the RTA inspection maintenance (IM) testing facility that the yanks sold them for a princely sum.
Everyone in the Sydney metro was going to have to have their vehicles tested (those which were more than 4yrs old if I remember correctly, but don't hold me to that) for rego renewal ala California style.
We had three vehicles representing new, not so new, and you guessed it, my trusty '66 Beetle. I set it slightly on the fat side (jetting) and drove the cycle myself (IM 240).
Half way through the test, the operator started whingeing that the CO was too far off the scale for him to measure, and was worried that my car would contaminate their system. We aborted.
The C02 was VERY low.
The next year, a stroke of the bureaucratic pen saw an end to IM.
It was not considered to be politically expedient. No prizes for guessing why.
I wonder where the gear is now?
Anyway, back to the matter at hand: Grill-hard's Cleaner Car Rebate. And I quote verbatim ;
"How it will work
Individuals who meet the following criteria will be eligible under the scheme.
The trade in vehicle must:
. Be a passenger vehicle.
. Have been manufactured before 1 january 1995.
. Have been continuously registered and insured by the individual trading in the vehicle for at least 24 months prior to the date of trade in.
. Be petrol or diesel - fuelled.
The new vehicle must:
. Be a passenger vehicle.
. Be purchased by the the individual trading in the older car - businesses and fleet purchases are not eligible.
. Have a minimum Green Vehicle Guide greenhouse rating of six or higher - this is equivalent to 220 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre, which is around the Australian
fleet- wide average.
. Not incur the Luxury Car Tax.
Eligible cars include:
. Toyota Hybrid Camry.
. Holden Cruze.
. Ford Falcon EcoBoost.
. Toyota Corolla.
. Mazda 3.
. Mitsubishi Lancer.
. Hyundai Getz.
What happens to the traded cars ?
Older vehicles will be scrapped under the scheme to ensure that higher - emitting vehicles are not returned to the road, and that the emissions profile of the Australian fleet is being constantly reduced.
This means they will be crushed and sold as scrap metal. The Gillard Labor Government will prescribe the scrapping requirements following consultation with industry, to ensure that they are consistent with the environmental objectives of the program.
This process will be managed by AusIndustry. "
The rest of it, imo is superfluous to you and I, the VW enthusiast. I hope this dispels some of the B.S. which is floating around on this issue.
Speaking personally, the NSW boffins will have to pry my Beetle FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! (sorry, I couldn't resist. This issue is a far cry from any gun debate).
As an aside, WMA editor dude, If you need someone in Sydney, I could well be your man. PM me if you have any interest.
Snowman9
I am also an ex NSW EPA motor vehicle testing lab tech dude. This NSW testing facility was the LAST non-manufacturer test lab in this country.
It was shut down in 2000 to help fund the Sydney Olympics.
It also didn't help when we ran a pilot program for the environmental viability of 10% ethanol in unleaded fuel, which yielded high evaporative hydrocarbon (HC) results.
It shit the tin.
The exhaust emissions on the dyno for catalyst equipped vehicles yielded NO improvement -- if anything it was slightly worse.
Pre - catalyst cars however, yielded significantly lower carbon monoxide (CO) results due to the 02 molecules in ethanol.
Vested interests and multi-nationals always rule the day in contemporary society. I'm STILL bitter.
What most of the clowns don't care to realise or acknowledge is that when you burn hydrocarbon fuel to turn it into energy (LPG, petrol or diesel), undesirable, nasty stuff comes out the other end. There is a ratio, a balance which is commonly referred to as stoichiometric (approx. 14.7/1 @ sea-level) .
Less CO2 equals more HC and CO for a given amount of fossil fuel.
Less HC and CO equals more CO2.
A rise in combustion temperature due to "lean burn" on highway cycle for improved fuel economy, equals more oxides of nitrogen (nox) which had been linked to respiratory problems in Western Sydney.
No matter the amount of fossil fuel you whack in, that same volume comes out in nasties. CO2 is now the no.1 nasty.
In 1999, myself and a couple of colleagues went to the RTA inspection maintenance (IM) testing facility that the yanks sold them for a princely sum.
Everyone in the Sydney metro was going to have to have their vehicles tested (those which were more than 4yrs old if I remember correctly, but don't hold me to that) for rego renewal ala California style.
We had three vehicles representing new, not so new, and you guessed it, my trusty '66 Beetle. I set it slightly on the fat side (jetting) and drove the cycle myself (IM 240).
Half way through the test, the operator started whingeing that the CO was too far off the scale for him to measure, and was worried that my car would contaminate their system. We aborted.
The C02 was VERY low.
The next year, a stroke of the bureaucratic pen saw an end to IM.
It was not considered to be politically expedient. No prizes for guessing why.
I wonder where the gear is now?
Anyway, back to the matter at hand: Grill-hard's Cleaner Car Rebate. And I quote verbatim ;
"How it will work
Individuals who meet the following criteria will be eligible under the scheme.
The trade in vehicle must:
. Be a passenger vehicle.
. Have been manufactured before 1 january 1995.
. Have been continuously registered and insured by the individual trading in the vehicle for at least 24 months prior to the date of trade in.
. Be petrol or diesel - fuelled.
The new vehicle must:
. Be a passenger vehicle.
. Be purchased by the the individual trading in the older car - businesses and fleet purchases are not eligible.
. Have a minimum Green Vehicle Guide greenhouse rating of six or higher - this is equivalent to 220 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre, which is around the Australian
fleet- wide average.
. Not incur the Luxury Car Tax.
Eligible cars include:
. Toyota Hybrid Camry.
. Holden Cruze.
. Ford Falcon EcoBoost.
. Toyota Corolla.
. Mazda 3.
. Mitsubishi Lancer.
. Hyundai Getz.
What happens to the traded cars ?
Older vehicles will be scrapped under the scheme to ensure that higher - emitting vehicles are not returned to the road, and that the emissions profile of the Australian fleet is being constantly reduced.
This means they will be crushed and sold as scrap metal. The Gillard Labor Government will prescribe the scrapping requirements following consultation with industry, to ensure that they are consistent with the environmental objectives of the program.
This process will be managed by AusIndustry. "
The rest of it, imo is superfluous to you and I, the VW enthusiast. I hope this dispels some of the B.S. which is floating around on this issue.
Speaking personally, the NSW boffins will have to pry my Beetle FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! (sorry, I couldn't resist. This issue is a far cry from any gun debate).
As an aside, WMA editor dude, If you need someone in Sydney, I could well be your man. PM me if you have any interest.
Snowman9
1303Steve Scirocco Rare
8,650 posts · joined Aug 2002 ·
Hi
Good post snowman
If the climate change department is anything to go, by the department looking after this will be filled with 100s of bureaucrats to administer the plan, just what we need more public servants.
Steve
Good post snowman
If the climate change department is anything to go, by the department looking after this will be filled with 100s of bureaucrats to administer the plan, just what we need more public servants.
Steve
helbus Administrator Mad fabricator, paint and body
7,386 posts · joined Sep 2002 ·
Nah it was the Pick Pay n Go in Ringwoodwaveman1500 wrote:That wasn't the old Lonsdale U-Pull-It was it? Shame about that.helbus wrote:A wrecking yard next door to my work closed down a few weeks ago, and about 600 cars went through the recycling shredder. I saw three beetles and dozens of old 60's and 70's Holdens, Fords and others go in that lot.
Phil74Camper Head in the Clouds
2,703 posts · joined Aug 2002 ·
Today I did a Defensive Driving course for work, with Murcotts. An interesting and fun day.
Together with the useful safe driving material, they also now teach ways of 'EcoDriving' - ways to reduce your impact on the environment. By getting some good habits - increasing tyre pressures, maintaining your car, planning your trip, driving smoothly, reducing weight, staying back from the car in front, avoiding cruise control and air con, and switching off if stopped in traffic - you can reduce your fuel consumprion (and hence exhaust emissions) by up to 27%!
Common sense, and a lot eaiser, efficient and better than the Cash for Clunkers idea.
Nowadays, surely low HC and low CO is good - as they are harmful to the environment. More CO2 is not. CO2 is not a poison, and it is not pollution. CO2 is plant food. As soon as you hear someone mention 'carbon pollution' you know they are scientifically illiterate.
Together with the useful safe driving material, they also now teach ways of 'EcoDriving' - ways to reduce your impact on the environment. By getting some good habits - increasing tyre pressures, maintaining your car, planning your trip, driving smoothly, reducing weight, staying back from the car in front, avoiding cruise control and air con, and switching off if stopped in traffic - you can reduce your fuel consumprion (and hence exhaust emissions) by up to 27%!
Common sense, and a lot eaiser, efficient and better than the Cash for Clunkers idea.
Nowadays, surely low HC and low CO is good - as they are harmful to the environment. More CO2 is not. CO2 is not a poison, and it is not pollution. CO2 is plant food. As soon as you hear someone mention 'carbon pollution' you know they are scientifically illiterate.