2nd Feb 2011, 14:41

"But even IF your interpretation of classes of vehicles is accepted, it must be acknowledged that 20% is not "10 times" the pollutants, as was being claimed."

Not sure who said that older cars pollute 10 times more so than new cars, but 20% is extremely significant. That represents millions upon millions of metric tons of pollutants that aren't going into the air. If we're talking about cars before 1975, then there's absolutely no argument to be made because those cars did not have catalytic converters. Those catalytic converters can convert over 90% of the oxides coming out of your exhaust into less harmful gases. On top of that, there have been advancement in converters. In 1981, two-way converters were swapped for three-way converters. There have been further improvements since then - particularly in 1996 when cars went from using the OBD1 system to the OBD11 system. The advancement in emission, ignition, and overall improved engine design has ultimately led to better fuel economy (the new Fiesta and Chevy Cruze both get over 40MPG) and cleaner overall emissions.

On top of that, electric cars are now becoming a realistic product. GM, Ford, Nissan, and Toyota all have electric vehicles either in production or in the pipeline. These vehicles will basically be producing zero emissions. Sure - there seems to be a tired old argument about how that they are bad for the environment because of the batteries and coal powered electric plants. But in reality, those batteries are recyclable, and the coal plants in most cases have numerous scrubbers. I grew up near a huge coal plant, and the only time we saw anything come out of the stack was in the winter when it was mostly condensation. The thing is that what do you think is cleaner? Millions of questionably maintained cars of varied ages or a few centrally located, heavily regulated modern coal plants? On my daily commute, I can't tell you how many cars I get behind that are either burning oil or running very poorly.

"All the hype about new cars being cleaner, greener and more fuel efficient is total marketing BS.

As shown in the figures above, newer cars have made very minor improvement in emissions, not even worth noticing.

Juts a great ploy to justify consumerism as an environmentally sustainable action.

I prefer to drive my older cars which get the same fuel mileage, as well they are better quality, safer, and more comfortable."

It isn't hype, and personally I'm glad that changes have been made. Otherwise we would still be driving cars running on leaded gasoline and be on freeways choked with toxic fumes. Was it really better back in the good old days? I've also owned numerous old and new cars. I fail to see how anything made 20-30 years ago is better than whats typically driven today. That, and given that most cars - particularly American cars - had that awful, marshmallow floaty ride, I also don't see how they're necessarily more comfortable, unless you're 70 and that's the only ride you've ever known.

3rd Feb 2011, 08:47

"...it must be acknowledged that 20% is not "10 times" the pollutants, as was being claimed. The FACT remains that not all new cars are more efficient than all old cars."

Exactly! The roughly 10x factor applies to non catalytic cars vs, those with catalytic converters. That means we need to go back to the early 70's to find the real stinkers. After the introduction of catalytic converters, it was matter of optimizing the systems, which resulted in much smaller gains in cleaning the exhaust from pollutants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter