Los Angeles - running 1993 850 going to the dismantler?

[abscate]

Tailpipe wise Are cars are almost as good as anything else getting 25 mpg, but I agree we should be honest and say we drive them because we like them , first.

From a CO2 emissions-per-mile standpoint I agree, but other tailpipe emissions are pretty strictly regulated in the USA and they've gotten progressively tighter over the last 20 years. Too, the most appropriate modern comparison for an 850 is a compact sedan (Corolla / Civic class), and those will do much better than 25 mpg these days.

Is that true? I though three way cats, closed loop fuel injection pretty much took HC, CO, and Nox to the flat part of the diminishing returns curve...

What I found quickly was NOX evolved but the rest see, flat

I bet all the improvement was VVT And start up mitigation , too.

[LOB]

as lob pointed out; mining, paint dry ing and plastics being formed and transport from Asia negate all emissions benefits.

I'm pretty particular about refuting this when I hear it: there are environmental costs to building, transporting, and scrapping a car, but the vast majority of a car's environmental impact over its lifetime comes from its tailpipe emissions. This remains true for gasoline-electric hybrids.

If you drive more than a few thousand miles a year, the planet is better off if you scrap your old car and buy a more efficient one. I'm not necessarily advocating that anyone do this, but there are countless cradle-to-grave energy and pollution studies out there that can corroborate. If you prioritize environmental health over your pocketbook and driving cars you like, then you should buy a newer car than an 850.

It's okay to not want that. I own two older cars myself, and I drive them on the order of a combined 10,000 miles a year. I recognize the value of clean living, but cars are important to me, so I am knowingly exceeding my "quota" and imposing a cost on the rest of the planet. It's important for me to be explicit with myself about that.

I have argued about this on MVS before and don't want to get back into it, but I don't want to let the statement go unrefuted. At the very least, let the record show that there is contention surrounding the point.

Regarding electrics, an EV converts its stored energy to kinetic energy at about three times the efficiency of a gasoline internal combustion engine, and it benefits from regenerative braking, where a conventional car does not. Of course that wall power may have come from an unclean source, and there are efficiency losses in power lines and conversions, but so are there costs to transporting gasoline. On the whole an electric car makes much less environmental impact per mile traveled than does a gasoline car. Yes, there are costs to manufacturing and disposing of batteries, and the long-term impact is not yet clear. Let's not forget the tremendous impacts of gasoline cars (smog, carbon emissions, gas stations everywhere, oil dependence, manufacturing and maintenance, the list goes on). I'd roll the dice on batteries to cut those other huge problems by two-thirds.

A few thousand miles? According to the study I've cited you need to drive 150K miles to break even (co2 vise) buying a new car which consumes 30% less fuel than my 850.

Citing myself;

According to this article the manufacturing of a Ford Mondeo generates
17 000 kg co2.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nt-new-car

The "mpg" of my 850 is approximately 1 liter per 10 km (23.5 mpg). Buying a new car that consumes 30% less I would need to drive
240 000 km (150 K miles) to compensate for the emissions from manufacturing the new car.
1 l petrol is 2.32kg co2.
17000/2.32=7327 liter. The emissions from manufacturing is the equivalent of 7327,59 liter petrol burnt. 7327.59/0.3= 24 4250 km.

[abscate]

OP - I searched online for an actual smog report for a P80 Volvo but couldn't find one

It will be interesting to see what the actual emissions are on these cars.

I pulled a couple of sheets from the web. It looks like in 1997, the AVE car that passed smog was running about 10x under spec - IE, the new spec that came in 2004 probably just reflected the fact that well maintained cars were more than meeting the old spec, so it was tightened. I appreciate that doesn't play into the BIG BROTHER government conspiracy playbook, but dems' de fax.

[j-dawg]

A few thousand miles? According to the study I've cited you need to drive 150K miles to break even (co2 vise) buying a new car which consumes 30% less fuel than my 850.

Citing myself;

According to this article the manufacturing of a Ford Mondeo generates
17 000 kg co2.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nt-new-car

The "mpg" of my 850 is approximately 1 liter per 10 km (23.5 mpg). Buying a new car that consumes 30% less I would need to drive
240 000 km (150 K miles) to compensate for the emissions from manufacturing the new car.

Sure, but when are you going to replace your 850? What will you replace it with? Nobody is asking you to make up the build cost all in a year, but the older car makes more emissions and, at a minimum of nearly 20 years, we've amortized the build cost of an 850 / x70 out very far. Not to mention that these are not the most efficient cars, being pointy and having relatively large engines compared to their Japanese contemporaries, which are equally long-lived.

I was a little cavalier with the "a few thousand miles" remark, for sure. But the point remains that simply driving an older car doesn't make me Captain Planet.

I pulled a couple of sheets from the web. It looks like in 1997, the AVE car that passed smog was running about 10x under spec - IE, the new spec that came in 2004 probably just reflected the fact that well maintained cars were more than meeting the old spec, so it was tightened. I appreciate that doesn't play into the BIG BROTHER government conspiracy playbook, but dems' de fax.

That is a very valid point - most cars exceed requirements by huge margins so long as they have a cat and are running right. My argument about other tailpipe emissions seems significant on paper but may not be meaningful in real life.

[abscate]

We get a solid Lieutenant Planet, but not Captain



You LA guys forget that up here the Aisan cars die on body cancer. Nothing holds up like Volvo here in salt land. 20 year old Volvos are all over the place, the Honda’s are 80% bondo

Cavaliraty to make a point is a perfectly valid marketing strategy.

[tardcart]

I never thought of that, maybe the salt ny and nj dump so freely on the road is a back-door no compensation plan to retire old cars. 100 dollars of salt saved 1500 of buyback money. however California may not really be trying to remove old cars, it could be a stealth plan to give tax money to the poor with out calling it welfare.

[abscate]

If they don’t salt it’s a gold mine for the collision repair companies.

[Rattnalle]

We get a solid Lieutenant Planet, but not Captain



You LA guys forget that up here the Aisan cars die on body cancer. Nothing holds up like Volvo here in salt land. 20 year old Volvos are all over the place, the Honda’s are 80% bondo

Cavaliraty to make a point is a perfectly valid marketing strategy.

We have the salt issue here as well. Cars from certain brands completely disappear from the roads as they near ten years of age or so.. Plus a new cheap-ish Japanese car isn't all that nice to actually drive.. cargo wise a you almost need an SUV to replace a P80 wagon though.

Also the whole efficiency argument is based on the assumption that the new car actually used less fuel in real world driving. Beating an automatic P80 won't be that hard since the AT is pretty useless but the manuals are quite efficient and for example a new Volvo wagon doesn't use that much less fuel if any depending on how you drive since it's so much heavier and larger.

[abscate]

Using that Ford Mondeo number above

Manufacturing CO2 load, approx 20,000 kg, so say 1000 kg per year over 20 year life assigned
Average driver in NA 20,000 km per year
Average time per year in car 250 hours swag

So we put out 4 kg per hour of actual use of our cars over its whole life, just from building, for a 20 year use, and 8 kg per hour over a 10 year life

The gasoline contributionis about 30 kg per hour driving per the EPA

So extending the life of a car from the average of 10 to 20 years is taking a good bite out of the carbon footprint.

Of course, if you want green stickers, use public shared transportation

[Paul-93-850]

Since the car will be crushed immediately, I was wondering is there are some accessories that people would want to buy on eBay.
I was thinking maybe the front grill, the OEM radio w power antenna, sun visors, the Volvo name that's on the trunk.
What do you think?

The car has to be drive-able and must meet the following.
-All doors are present.
-The hood lid is present.
-The dashboard is present.
-The windshield is present.
-At least one side window glass is present.
-The driver's seat is present.
-At least one bumper is present.
-The exhaust system is present.
-All side and/or quarter panels are present.
-At least one headlight, one taillight, and one brake light are present.