This killed me. NPR ran something yesterday complaining that pre 1984 cars, the "dirtiest cars", were still on the road because Cash For Clunkers doesn't accept them. They actually used the example of a 1981 Datsun (they didn't specify the model, I presume the host couldn't even recognize 1981 Datsun if you showed her one to begin with) as a car that would still be polluting and can't be traded in, and made the comment of "I would argue a 1981 Datsun is not exactly a classic car." :rolleyes:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... 11&sc=emaf

Listen to the piece, it's only about 3 minutes long. Or, I see now that they have a transcript of it.

I need to stop listening to NPR at work, hearing this really T'd me off. I probably shouldn't worry at all, but... it really ticked me off.

Diversity.
Idealistic public definition: Accepting of all ideas and beliefs from all peoples.
Operational definition: You must accept and respect my ideas and beliefs, but if you disagree with me, I can disrespect and reject your ideas and beliefs by simply defining you as a narrow minded bigot.

NPR is a good example of this. Car enthusiasts are not to be respected. They are not part of the nation and not part of the public, and certainly will not be catered to on their radio station.

But what is more astounding is the lack of research and fact checking in the comments by the NPR broadcaster's comments:

Formaldehyde is a byproduct of catalytic converters. Cars without catalytic converters do not produce formaldehyde from the tailpipe, the produce water, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and NOX. Formaldehyde is a major carcinogen, a primary ingredient in smog, and smog increased in LA after implementation of catalytic converters on cars. A well tuned car will pass a tailpipe test without a catalytic converter. The use of these devices on fuel injected cars is only as a redundancy to compensate for the expectation that the owner will not properly maintain the vehicle.

4.8 million 1984 cars with active registrations? We already covered peak US sales of 17 million cars in 2007. If US News is correct on 17 million in 2007, how could the number be half that in 1984? And what an amazing survival rate for cars from 1984? But more importantly, what is the percentage of 1984 cars remaining on the road, compared to the total number of 1985-2009 cars?

Now, if they want to cover something important, why not tell us what the fuel consumption and pollution rate is on a Honda Prius, with an NPR bumper sticker, being driven by a 350 pound woman, in the far left or fast lane, at a rate of 85 MPH. My understanding was that conservation and environmentalism only works if the vehicle is operated in a slow manner without hauling an excessive amount of weight.

It just goes to show that the average person has no clue what a classic car can be. I should write to them and plug JNC at the same time

_________________

God, reading the comments to that story there's at least one self-proclaimed classic car hobbyists that say there are no cars built after 1972 that can be considered a classic.

_________________

So my 1981 B310 is a classic now? SWEEEET!!!

Strange that my "dirty" old car runs visibly cleaner than a lot of the more modern cars on the road here while also using less fuel. I see cars about 15 years younger than mine belching white or black smoke out the exhaust quite regularly. But hey my classic must be "dirtier" than those cars.

Man, I just made some comment some other "clunkers" thread that this stuff doesn't affect me. Now I need to choke someone.

You wanna take away my Starlet that gets nearly 50 mpg huh?
(don't really have one; hypothetical)

I wish they never came up with that cash for clunkers bill....

_________________
- '71 Datsun 240z.....L28ET here we come

Or tell us that it takes 18-20 months of ownership of a Prius just to offset the pollution generated by the production of the car itself? Or that the extra money you pay for a Prius over a Corolla takes over 3 years to recoup in gas costs? Or that a TDI Golf/Jetta gets much better mileage than a Prius and is cheaper? Not so much...

...My honest truth?

I've been leary of/avoiding posting on, or even reading up on car forums in general, because I know that I'm in the minority of the classic car enthusiast population in general, and that reading the typical classic car enthusiast's stance on all of this will just make me mad, and want to argue.

...IMO, as long as cash for clunkers kills at least as many ridiculous trucks and SUVs as it does cars which can even remotely be defined as "cool", it's worth it

While at a local dealer today I looked at the CFC cars on the back lot and it was 98% early 90s SUVs.

I was okay with it.

Somebody pointed out the obvious flaw with hybrids and electrics:
"What are they going to do with all those batteries?"

Before the most recent gas price situation and economic collapse, the big environmentalist cause was recycling cell phone batteries. Somebody figured out that no one kept a cell phone more than two years without buying a new model with more features, and that the land fills were filling up with toxic batteries.

Now they are using the same battery technology in cars. And they say that Nicad batteries are good for only 500 recharges (Rumorpedia: "Built in obsolescence; How camcorder manufacturers force you to buy a new camcorder by discontinuing the batteries).
A lead-acid battery just running the ignition and lights, lasts four or five years. A gel-cell doing the same lasts seven or eight years. Now, use the battery to run a high amp motor for moving the car itself. Toyota is supposedly eating the replacement costs for Prius batteries under warranty, for the purpose of maintaining it's position as the leader in the technology.
But where are all those dead batteries going? And why isn't anyone calculating the cost and damage to the environment into the benefit of the car?

The flaw I found was less dramatic, but just as serious. A starter motor in a gasoline powered car lasts eight or ten years. You get in, turn the key, drive, and don't shut the car off until you get where you are going. You don't have to restart the car unless you kill the engine on accident.
Hybrid cars stop the engine whenever you stop at a traffic light. And restart the engine when you pull away. Dozens or maybe hundreds of times per trip, depending on where you are driving. How much quicker are the starter motors in these Hybrids going to fail and need rebuilding?

And what about rebuilding the electric drive motors? How much more often will they need rebuilding compared to a four cylinder engine? And I don't recall any warning labels on engines saying that they were produced with hazardous chemicals, like those found on a new electric motor.

Future clunkers are being built and sold with no prayer of lasting out a ten year warranty, and they will need a new rebate program before the 2016 election to get all the dead electric and hybrid clunkers off the road.

While I'm alright with SUVs being taken off the road, I'm seeing far too many perfectly good useable vans and cars being destroyed as well, and enthusiast cars (Someone turned in a Marauder at another local dealer- I'm pretty sure that's worth more than $4500 too, I would love to have one eventually), and a lot of those SUVs that I can't stand DO have motors I'd love to put into a smaller, lighter car, like the Trailblazer's inline all aluminum DOHC six, older Explorers with the strongest 5.0 cores, etc. I've got a bit of a van fetish, and so watching perfectly good Econolines get scrapped just pisses me off.

And most of the cars people are buying aren't even the most fuel efficient ones anyways. People can still buy SUVs and Trucks in this program as well.

My anger is more, in the end, rooted in the total disrespect the average person has for any vintage car, and it's parts. They allowed this much to go through, they're gonna try to get more.

this is why i just hangout with oldskool japanese car guys. not alot people get why we still own these cars. its just plain and simple our brains are wired differently. ill like to keep it that way

_________________

I heard it was even worse - 5 years. For a work truck trade-in it could be up 10 years! (driving habit dependent, of course)

_________________

They don't just send spent batteries straight to the landfill. Most batteries are recycled or reused as high capacity electric storage units. Tesla Motors (makers of the all electric Tesla Roadster) for example, are able to recycle roughly 87% of the spent batteries that their roadsters use and in some cases, they send their batteries to wind-turbine farms so they can store excess energy. So it really isn't as bad as some may believe.

Sales in 1986 were 11.5 Million cars in the U.S., a new record at the time. So '84 was less then that by a few hundred thousand. To say that almost 1/2 of them are still registered is impossible. Maybe 5-10% are still alive in SoCal or other hospitable places, but more like 1-2% in the rustbelt. And most of those cars do not see daily driving. I drive either my '86 CRX vert or my '81 Maxima every day in Kansas City and I might meet/pass 1 car per week as old as mine. And those are usually fair weather cars that only go out when conditions are right. All others are a few beater work trucks or the little-old-lady boring sedan.

My understanding is that the 4.8 million is ALL 1984 and older cars still registered, which, quite frankly, isn't much at all in comparison to cars 1985 and newer registered, and I imagine most of those 4.8 million are rarely driven anyways.

I know they did a study here about 5-6 years ago and came to the conclusion that cars over 25 years old comprise less than 2% of the cars on the road.

Which is nice, because thanks to that they dropped the smog check for cars over 24 years old.