Comments for Is Keeping your Old Car Better than a Hybrid? at http://ecogeek.org , comment 1 to 86 out of 20 comments http://ecogeek.org Thu, 20 Jun 2013 03:07:19 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-39479 In my view old car is better than new car. so, i would like to purchase old car. - old car purchase Fri, 04 Jun 2010 03:36:24 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-38909 It's just dawned on me that the stated 20,000 miles before the prius is more efficient is not true. The 20,000 miles of the regualar car is to offset the carbon emmissions for the Prius' creation. During those 20,000 miles of the older car still driving, the Prius is also using fuel. By comparing the 25mpg of the regular car to the 45mpg of the prius, that's a ratio of 1.8. If 20,000 miles at 25mpg is 1000 BTU's, then 36,000 miles at 45mpg will also = 1000 BTU. Assuming that both cars are doing the same milage, in the 20,000 miles that the regular car produced 1000 BTUs the Prius produced around 555 BTUs. So you can see that the catch-up isn't so cut and dry or as quick as made out. There is also the impact of scrapping the older car to take into consideration. - Darren Lines Mon, 03 May 2010 15:29:31 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-20484 :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) :P :-\ :-* gosh, peoples CHINA isnt that bad. they r trying to be more eco-friendly. yea u people all weird, discussing about things that u dont even make a move about. HAHA for u all. I bet im more eco-fiendly than u all. i dont have a car and dont plan on it for a few years. i was reading this for project but 1 piticular caomment annoyed me sooooooooooooo much. so fuck up already. - Rin Uchiha Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:50:30 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-17383 Let's see. I have 2 cars; car 1 gets 25 mpg and car 2 gets 45 mpg. I want to know at what mileage point does car 1(25 mpg) use 1000 moregallons than car 2(45 mpg). Assume I drive 15000 miles per year. Sorta high for national average but it will work. The amount of gas that car 1(25 mpg) requires for this yearly mileage is 15000/25 which works out to be 600 gallons. The amount of gas that car 2(45 mpg) requires is 15000/45 which comes to 333 gallons of gas. Car 1 uses a total of 267 more gallons of gas(600-333) per year than car 2. At this rate it would take approximately 4 years or close to 60000 miles to use 1000 gallons more than car 2 (Prius et al). At this mileage point the batteries within the Prius are probably close to 60-70% spent. Figure in the energy, say greenhouse gases, needed to make the new battery and to replace and recycle the old battery and you might can stretch it out another half a year or more. I can see the point that it might be wiser to hang onto your old car. Also for a car to use 1000 more gallons than the Prius(45mpg)within the span of 20000 miles then it would have to average 13.8 mpg. - databank3 Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:05:28 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-15312 Anthropogenic Global Warming = propaganda fed to weak minds deluded by "white guilt", and perpetuated by those seeking political control of the world on multiple levels. Period. Lenin had it pegged - "Useful Idiots" - EH Stravinsky Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:33:18 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-14798 I know this is off-topic, but some of you may find it interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml - Gregg Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:42:35 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-14777 CHINA AND INDIA ARE BUILDING 2600 COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS AS WE SPEAK. They will be adding hundreds of millions of cars, less regulated than ours, hundreds of millions of pounds of meat to feed newly rich consumers moving way from Agrarian diets, not to mention the untold numbers or new products, infrastructure, housing, etc... for all of these people. Last time I checked they are Sovereign nuclear armed nation states who have 1/3 of humanity within their borders aka mouths to feed. If global warming is really true, than you worrying about buying a Prius vs. your old suburban is the proverbial needle in the haystack. Except this haystack is 100 miles long. Lets talk about ACTUAL solutions to our problems such as new energy technologies, clean nuclear reactor designs, Solar/wind/tidal and efficiency gains... and GASP not buying something new, you dont need a new car, just drive where you need and air up your tires, dont glare at the suburban and turn people off by looking down your nose like a lear jet liberal. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY CAR. The amount of hypocrisy in saying eco friendly car is just ridiculous when even owning a car puts you in the ELITE of this world. I do think we should all ride bikes more and maybe that will solve the weight problem we have in this country too and lower the food prices. AKA less food being stuffed in newly biking/walking/running people equals less demand equals lower prices. ;) - Jeff Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:17:28 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-14771 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm is just not feasible - Xtinction Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:58:39 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-14338 All other points and arguments aside, I want to mention something which crosses my mind often. Take it as you will. It seems to me, our environment is a system which is designed to balance itself when changes occur. IMHO, the effect man has on our planet is causing changes to occur more rapidly. In response, the earth has to compensate more rapidly (or more suddenly and extremely) to the changes we have made, hence some of the more extreme weather conditions and weather systems. I don't remember seeing high and low pressure systems extending from the Arctic Circle all the way down to Florida, when I was a child. That may be why we now see New York at 100 degrees one day and Florida at 85 degrees the same day and then New York at 70 degrees the next day with Florida at 90, along with other more extreme forces of nature as time goes on. Just something to consider. Another point to consider. I have been a moderator of discussion websites in the past and there is a phenomenon I have observed which I cannot understand. If we are one of the most advanced and most civilized nations (and supposedly the most advanced and intelligent species) on the planet, why can't each of us express our opinions for others to consider without someone feeling the compulsion to negate each point, insult the person making the point and have the last word no matter what is said. I think we all have taken a point someone has made, even if we disagreed with most of what he/she said and how he/she presented their point of view and altered our opinion which ultimately changes our knowledge base for the future. I respect those who are objective and can, point by point consider what someone says and decide what they agree with and what they don't and not just dismiss someone because they don't agree with one point the other person has made. In addition, insulting someone has never taught anyone anything. It only makes people tense and defensive - not the best state of mind for absorbing knowledge. I would imagine each of us has valid points to make. If only we could work together to produce a comprehensive and factual picture of the problem at hand, we might actually uncover the truth and therefore be able to develop a true solution with which most people would agree. Yes, I realize how difficult or even impossible that is, but in a perfect world that would be very productive and produce benefits for each of us. It is the ultimate test of a person or group's leadership abilities to make that happen. - Gregg Sat, 07 Jun 2008 08:11:03 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-14162 This was a great post, I never thought about the issue in this light. I will definitely be thinking about these issues before I go out and buy a new hybrid. I actually expounded upon this topic in my blog, as seen here: http://friendshipunit.blogspot.com/ Check it out--Thanks! - Alexander Yerpat Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:51:11 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-14153 This is an interesting take, however the approach you'd take for people I think would be different as most people aren't going to make a decision based on the amount of pollution they emit. Rather, they'll make a decision on 'value' which includes that but also other things. Here's another take on the subject that I found.. http://vlane.com/blogs_article/80/ditch-your-guzzler-for-compact-car - ripev1 Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:37:45 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-14124 This is what I've been trying to tell my friends for years!! We don't need to fill up landfills with old cars (I know parts of them can be recycled, but not everything) when we can just replace a part or two and keep on driving. Besides recycling takes alot of energy. By the way...yay for old Sentras! - Krista Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:47:15 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-14121 Diogenes - is an idiot- just getting that out of the way. global warming is real, dont know what monkey told you otherwise. before people started using industrial machines the CO2 in the atmosphere was at a normal .... level...after that point we dumped CO2 into the atmosphere at a ridiculous rate. and the CO2 level increase PRECEEDS the temperature increase. the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would have eventually reached this level but tousands of years from now. to who ever said ice is thining and thickening in some places. yes it gets thicker because winter happens but when it melts again more of it melts then it did previously. - PINA Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:20:22 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-14114 I guess becuase of my 71 Ford Pickup, I tend to think of my two other vehicles as new. But, one is a 2000 Dodge 12 passenger van, although it won't hold 12 because of the wheelchair lift for one of my kids. The other is a 1999 Ford Crown Victoria, which holds my family of six with the wheelchair in the trunk. No lift on the Crown Victoria. These are not high mileage vehicles, but I have owned them for 7 and 6 years, respectively, and have no plans to replace either anytime soon. They are now 8 and 9 years old respectively. Still, they run well and are paid for. My family will not fit in a Prius. I still would like to see an objective evaluation of keeping the same vehicle for what most would consider several vehicle lifetimes (my truck for 18 years) and how that would affect carbon footprint impact vs replacing with a new vehicle or vehicles. Anyone know a good objective website? - JES Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:37:40 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-14107 Ryan, My thought is if you are driving any GTOs, Malibus, Shelbys, or any of those breeds of cars.......cool man! - Reality, please..... Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:40:32 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-14104 I drive cars from the sixties that get less than 10 miles per gallon. Anybody else ever thought of the what the "environmental impact" of keeping a 40-year old car on the road is? I think a "normal" person would go through about ten cars in that period of time. What are your thought on that? - Ryan Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:24:01 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-14099 It's funny how some try to push their views on others (ie if you don't drive a Prius you must hate the planet) Rather than be dictated to like people such as Farmer, it is best to be given a consumer choice. Through technology producing more fuel efficient cars that the people really want (ie can fit into their lifestyles of families, trips to Home Depot, Costco, trips to the mountains, beach and games for the kids)the market forces will fill this need. Currently, the Prius is best suited for the single commuter - it is not family friendly. Down the road we will have SUV hybrids, thanks to innovation, and NOT nuts like Farmer. - Reality, please..... Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:37:19 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-14098 Hi Farmer! Not sure what Republicans, God, Darwin, "Limbaughist" (is that an adjective for a pronoun?), Satan, or Darwin have to do with driving a nice, big family car live an SUV. I take comfort in knowing that my babies are safer in the backseat than they would be in the back seat of your "speck". When you lose control of your speck while convulsing during the Rush Limbaugh, please be sure to give me a waive before you smash your speck into my SUV!!! My family will be safe and maybe I can do something for the environment like scrap your speck of my car and have it recycled with by soda cans. It's a simple matter of physics... It's mass x velocity, stupid! - Reality, please..... Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:29:33 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-14094 Disturbing thing about these people who justify larger cars becase it's "safer" for their kids. Here's a novel idea, TEACH THEM TO DRIVE!!! Being able to get a car from point A to point B is not the same as being a competent driver! Plus, that extra safety comes at the expense of the poor innocent person they ram running a red light or doing some other foolish or inattentive thing. - Jim Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:49:54 +0100 http://ecogeek.org/automobiles/1699#comment-14093 ooppss, meant SATAN. Tho Satan in Satin would be a nice touch! Maybe Really Please is also a Limbaughist ??? - farmer Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:49:27 +0100