 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / April 2007Is my 500SEL green?
OK... here's a question that's been getting noisy in our office this week. My '88 500SEL (UK) is getting about 20MPG, and I don't drive it much because I can't really afford to. I think that this is a green choice of car for two reasons: 1. So much energy is embodied in the manufacturer of car, it is better to run an old one for as long as possible before scrapping it. 2. I do half the miles (about 15000 at 20MPG) when compared to the A160 i just got rid of (30000 at 35MPG) - therefore less than half the fuel is burned. I'm obviously right on point 2, but point 1 is more controversial. Does anyone know the facts about embodied energy? I'm not arguing that we shouldn't choose economical cars when we buy NEW ones, but when selecting an old banger, I think we're OK. Interested in your comments. Dan > OK... here's a question that's been getting noisy in our office this > week. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Interested in your comments. The government measures it by emmissions and does not take mileage into account when working out if a car is green. I agree with your analysis. My SLK 350 does a few thousand miles a year so it creates less pollution than someone driving an C180 for 15000 miles per year. My feeling is that they have set up the tax system this way to make a charge per mile more acceptable later on. > My feeling is that they have set up the tax system this way to make a charge > per mile more acceptable later on. Petrol tax is the only fair road tax... all this pissing around with company car tax and road tax is just window dressing. Shove 4p on a litre of petrol and be done with it. I drive a thirsty car, and I'd happily pay a bit more, but it would mean that the little old lady who just pops to the shops every six months wouldn't be stiffed for driving whatever she has. Dan >> My feeling is that they have set up the tax system this way to make a >> charge [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Dan I agree. We wouldn't then need some silly in car electronic monitoring system. > Petrol tax is the only fair road tax... all this pissing around with > company car tax and road tax is just window dressing. Shove 4p on a > litre of petrol and be done with it. I drive a thirsty car, and I'd > happily pay a bit more, but it would mean that the little old lady who > just pops to the shops every six months wouldn't be stiffed for > driving whatever she has. Right on. I couldn't agree more. >> Petrol tax is the only fair road tax... all this pissing around with >> company car tax and road tax is just window dressing. Shove 4p on a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Right on. > I couldn't agree more. Same here. robert >>> Petrol tax is the only fair road tax... all this pissing around with >>> company car tax and road tax is just window dressing. Shove 4p on a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Same here. As far as road tax is concerned I'm with you. But company cars are taxed for other reasons. They considered are a part of your income and are taxed for that reason. Ximinez  SignatureOur three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/paulfitz/spanish/t1.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A A 'road tax' is payable in the UK regardless of ownership, and that is related to CO2 emission. Completely daft since CO and nitrous oxides are far more noxious. Altogether our tax system and government monitoring of motorists is wearying. We are being screwed left, right and centre. Where is liberal old Britain going? And Londoners are taxed even more if living in the centre. Since the extension of the zone in February I am paying hundreds of pounds for nothing, so-called 90% residents' discount notwithstanding. Previously we paid only a few pounds a year for occasionally entering the so-called congestion zone during controlled hours. What is particularly galling is that the only place in which the amount of traffic has gone down is in the propaganda rag published by the Mayor of London, who is responsible for this scheme. Every independent report, whether formal or from cab drivers, confirms that the charging system has made little difference to traffic levels. In fact, it is thought that the extension to what are largely residential areas in west London, may result in rising traffic levels in the real centre because those of us now in the zone and paying on an annual basis can now drive into this centre at no extra cost... A bit OT and I herewith end the rant. DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > As far as road tax is concerned I'm with you. But company cars are taxed > for other reasons. They considered are a part of your income and are taxed > for that reason. > > Ximinez > OK... here's a question that's been getting noisy in our office this > week. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Interested in your comments. I'm with you (in my 20 yo 250D), but I have a feeling our respected govs may not agree. OTOH, I've heard that Germany, where they're starting to ban old diesels from entering city centers, they want to make an exception for old-timers. I wonder what the definition of old-timer is going to be. My w124 has only 130.000 km, so there should be another 10 years in it... Ximinez SignatureOur three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/paulfitz/spanish/t1.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A > I've heard that Germany, where they're starting to > ban old diesels from entering city centers, they want to make an > exception for old-timers. I wonder what the definition of old-timer is > going to be. Sure that's good, but they won't slow people down on the highways. At the speeds they drive their earth impact is much higher. IMHO there's a false comparison being made. One cannot compare driving an old car a few miles against driving a contemporary car many miles and then claim the old one is "green" because less fuel is burned. Cars like computers, become obsolete and ought to be replaced. Virtually all cars will become scrap, like it or not. It's a "sunk cost" that will never be recovered. So the replacement decision is annual running cost of old vs. new, over the same annual mileage for each. An old car is hardly "green," under that standard. Ecologically, new manufacturing methods are less polluting vs. the HC, CO2 and oil leaks from an old car. And, new cars are safer as well. Like it or not governments will slowly but surely tax the old dogs off the road via fuel tax, inspections, SMOG surcharges etc. California owners are paid a $500 bounty to scrap their old junks just to get them off the roadways. Signature© 2007 T.G.Lambach. Publication in any form requires prior written permission. > IMHO there's a false comparison being made. One cannot compare driving > an old car a few miles against driving a contemporary car many miles [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > owners are paid a $500 bounty to scrap their old junks just to get > them off the roadways. I disagree with most of this post. The initial manufacture of a car causes more pollution than almost anything you can actually do by driving one - no matter how much oil it leaks over 20 years. Disposing of an old car isn't an environmentally friendly thing to do either, it's only been 10-15 years since VW and others started to mark car parts with recycling codes on stuff like plastics so that's one issue, the fact that a decently serviced 500SEL isn't that environmentally unfriendly either. I had one a couple of years ago and the emissions produced by it weren't that bad at all - certainly not bad enough to warrant the environmental damage caused by scrapping the car. Recently there was a "Whole of life" emissions study done which pretty much comprehensively proved that a vehicle that is built to last for 20-25 years is much less damaging than replacing cars every 5 years or so in order to be the "environmentally friendly". The car that was top of the leage for "whole of life friendliness" was the Jeep Cherokee V8 and this was a UK study. The Jeep is designed to last an easy 20 years, is easy to repair, should do big mileage without lots of replacements and is likely to be broken to keep other Cherokees on the road at the end of its life. The amount of energy / fuel consumed over its life is far less than the amount used to build a replacement vehicle. The only bit of your post I agree with is that the Government, along with the Enviromentals will cause everything to be taxed to death. The whole CO2 issue is, in my opinion, faker than a trannys fanny. SignaturePete M - Using the Scouse Side of the Force - Golf GTi Mk2 (2.0 transplant in progress), Golf GTi Mk1 (For Sale) OMF#9 Currently listening to The White Stripes >> IMHO there's a false comparison being made. One cannot compare driving >> an old car a few miles against driving a contemporary car many miles [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > The whole CO2 issue is, in my opinion, faker than a trannys fanny. While I do agree with your posting there is one gotcha: many (most?) people are unlikely to drive a car for 20 years. I am not sure how many Cherokees reach that age - even if they have many owners. Not really a criticism but the whole life emission calculation obviously depends on the age reached... Kind regards robert Lets face it daniel, if you realy can't tell if your car is green, you shouldn't be driving because you are color blind and that means you can't tell the difference between a red and green light except for the position. Now if you are in England, for example, and you see a stop light with the three lights turned on its side, there is no way you can tell if they put the red on the left or on the right so you are realy a hazard. That does raise a question regarding the English in general and the position of the red and green lights in vertical lights. Much as I strain, I simply can not recall if the red and green are in the same relative positions as in the US. For that matter, one must ask about their relative positions in the South vs the North in the US of America. As best as I recall, they are in the same position in all the states, the red being on top - hmm, or was it on the bottom? Of course you could just have a seriously faded paint job, in which case you can get an answer by going to a reputable body shop and asking them. Then again, perhaps you are old and suffering from a poor memory and are also too lazy to look outside, in which case I suggest calling a neighbor or if you estate is too large for the neighbor to see, call the butler and have him assist you. This is certainly a many faced question, and one that bears our collective attention especialy as the warming of the earth causes this dag nabbed cold snap that is presently moving across the NA continent. Do let us know what you finaly decide, but my guess is that it is likely that your car is some distinctive color. mcbrue under the bridge in the trailer down by the river 06 rice burning LS 430 > Lets face it daniel, if you realy can't tell if your car is green, you > shouldn't be driving because you are color blind and that means you [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > as the warming of the earth causes this dag nabbed cold snap that is > presently moving across the NA continent. Yikes. My annual co2 footprint from the SEL (15000m): 6,762kg My annual co2 footprint from the A160 (15000m): 4,226kg If we take the minimum life-span of the two vehicles of 15 years (my A- Class is shot after 8, but the SEL will last forever!). During those eight years where they're both on the road, the big car will use 40tonnes extra co2. But assuming that the But that doesn't really help, because I need to work out a total life figure for both cars. Does anyone know where i might start to work out how much co2 is generated building a car??!?? > Do let us know what you > finaly decide, but my guess is that it is likely that your car is some > distinctive color. My SEL is black with some big brown patches. Especially on the chrome. :-) Dan The implication is libellous! So how good is life in your Rexus? How is the appropriate NG? Obviously you miss us a bit, since you post here once in a blue (or is that green?) moon? DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] Now if you are in England, for example, and you see a stop > light with the three lights turned on its side, there is no way you > can tell if they put the red on the left or on the right so you are > realy a hazard. [...] >>> IMHO there's a false comparison being made. One cannot compare driving >>> an old car a few miles against driving a contemporary car many miles [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > criticism but the whole life emission calculation obviously depends on > the age reached... Yes, but the reason the point is brought up is that lots of people in this group drive 20+ cars. Anything to make us feel less guilty about the environment helps. ;) I have a 20 yo w124 and a 19 yo w201 and they both look like they'll be fine to drive for at least another 10 years. Ximinez SignatureOur three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/paulfitz/spanish/t1.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A >>>> IMHO there's a false comparison being made. One cannot compare driving >>>> an old car a few miles against driving a contemporary car many miles [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > this group drive 20+ cars. Anything to make us feel less guilty about > the environment helps. ;) LOL Actually, I'm looking for excuses as well to get rid of my Seat Leon and buy me a W210. :-) So far I heard there are only filter kits for CDI engines but the older Diesels are said to be more robust... Sidenote: German Minister of Transportation the other day seriously suggested to relate CO2 emissions to the load a car can carry. Suddenly a Porsche Cayenne is more green than a small car... > I have a 20 yo w124 and a 19 yo w201 and they both look like they'll be > fine to drive for at least another 10 years. That's good to hear! Kind regards robert >>>>> IMHO there's a false comparison being made. One cannot compare driving >>>>> an old car a few miles against driving a contemporary car many miles [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > buy me a W210. :-) So far I heard there are only filter kits for CDI > engines but the older Diesels are said to be more robust... My 250D (w124) has an oxykat fitted (it was imported from Germany two years ago), that makes it a EURO2 car (European emissions class). I heard there will be particle filters available to convert it to EURO3 even. I'm watching this place for news: http://www.oberland-mangold.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=76&Item id=118&lang=de > Sidenote: German Minister of Transportation the other day seriously > suggested to relate CO2 emissions to the load a car can carry. Suddenly > a Porsche Cayenne is more green than a small car... There's some grumbling about old diesels in Holland but so far no concrete measures. Diesel fuel is cheap and 25+ cars are exempted from road-tax (which is high for diesels). >> I have a 20 yo w124 and a 19 yo w201 and they both look like they'll >> be fine to drive for at least another 10 years. > > That's good to hear! They're wonderful cars. Ximinez SignatureOur three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/paulfitz/spanish/t1.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A > Sidenote: German Minister of Transportation the other day seriously > suggested to relate CO2 emissions to the load a car can carry. Suddenly > a Porsche Cayenne is more green than a small car... IMO the German Gov will do and say anything to support their car industry. > 2. I do half the miles (about 15000 at 20MPG) when compared to > the A160 i just got rid of (30000 at 35MPG) - therefore less than half > the fuel is burned. If you do 15k miles each year you aren't a trivial driver and should get a much more efficient and clean car. In the meantime paint it green and you may get away with it for a while longer. >> 2. I do half the miles (about 15000 at 20MPG) when compared to >> the A160 i just got rid of (30000 at 35MPG) - therefore less than half >> the fuel is burned. > If you do 15k miles each year you aren't a trivial driver and should get > a much more efficient and clean car. I drive over 20k a year and my 20 yo car is the best option economically. If it's in tune with today's version of the ecological bible doesn't concern me that much. > In the meantime paint it green and you may get away with it for a while > longer. It's willow green already: http://www.meinbenz.de/farben/ng.htm (the second picture is my car, still at the dealer's) Ximinez SignatureOur three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/paulfitz/spanish/t1.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A >> In the meantime paint it green and you may get away with it for a >> while longer. > > It's willow green already: As long as you don't call it "entropy green" :) I have to say that the clear corners look very good with that colour. > http://www.meinbenz.de/farben/ng.htm > > (the second picture is my car, still at the dealer's) Am I really the first to notice the mistake in #2? If you do half as many km, but consume fuel at a rate of 175% the original, you are still at 87.5% of the fuel used, which IS less, BUT not half the fuel, which is what was claimed. > 2. I do half the miles (about 15000 at 20MPG) when compared to > the A160 i just got rid of (30000 at 35MPG) - therefore less than half > the fuel is burned. I would say that keeping the car out of the waste stream is a good argument, but the argument that it prevents another new car from being made is a false assumption unless you yourself are the one that might be buying the new car. Also, woudl you really scrap it if you replaced it, or would someone else carry the torch? A few new facts to throw into the decision... Remember that the automobile recycling industry is one of the most efficient recycling efforts. Most of the steel is reclaimed, tires are often made into roads(melted into the mixture-they showed this once on dirty jobs, but you can research it more on the internet.), and all in all it wastes little. Emissions have really improved in the last few decades, but 88 is closer to a new car than to a 1960s car. CO2 emmisions-the one that everyone worries about is not any less with a cleaner burning car. it is directly related to the amount of fuel burned. No opinion-just more fodder. Just my two cents. Bill On Apr 13, 8:12 am, "dan...@figuram.com" <dan...@figuram.com> wrote: > OK... here's a question that's been getting noisy in our office this > week. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Dan I consider my 560SEL green. As well as my 240D and 300SD. Those are on a soybean diet...I plan routes so I am not stuck in traffic jams. IMHO, our traffic planners cause the most ungreen activities, not the cars. Its insane, seeing the resources used and the pollution spewed in bumper to bumper traffic. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.