Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ftb_fml

"Ford announces £2,000 scrappage scheme for pre-2010 cars"

Recommended Posts

On the BBC, if you can bring yourself to look.

Quote

Consumers will be given £2,000 off new Ford models ranging in price from about £12,000 to more than £20,000.

Ford said that by combining the scrappage incentive with other standard offers, customers could receive up to £4,000 off a car or £7,000 off the cost of a van.

 

As usual the implied driver is hand-wringing concern for the environment and air pollution, with only two lines of the whole article devoted to touching on their real motivation:

Quote

And let's be frank, it is also an attempt to boost sales which have been flagging across the industry for the past four months.

It's hard to see it making a big dent in the dirty air problem.

 

I find abhorrent this thinly-veiled attempt to peddle more of their wares and maintain unsustainable levels of consumer consumption off the back of an embarrassingly transparent environmental argument.

I'm happy to be corrected but I believe your average car consumes the majority of its lifetime's energy usage during manufacture, with the energy consumed from fossil fuels during use making up a modest fraction of the vehicle's total energy cost.. so in energy terms scrapping old cars simply doesn't make sense.

In addition you also have all the pollution caused both by the disposal of these perfectly good but vilified older vehicles and the manufacture of their replacements.. while I'd question how much less polluting in use a new car is in reality compared to one that's say 10yrs old. One could argue that for years air pollution standards have been ever-more-unattainable goals with tests that are fudged by the manufacturers and whose key purpose is to perpetuate economic activity by providing a justification for owners of older vehicles to be priced off the road / into new vehicles.

In another life it was always drummed into me how good-a-deal a new car is for the consumer as profit margins are so slim. As such I'd expect that under this incentive and others Ford are making a fat loss on the ticket price and probably relying on finance deals to make any money at all.

Another increasingly desperate and clinical effort to keep the plates spinning IMO - it's about bloody time they came crashing down and finally woke up the sleeping, anaesthetised masses :(

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ftb_fml said:

On the BBC, if you can bring yourself to look.

.

I'm happy to be corrected but I believe your average car consumes the majority of its lifetime's energy usage during manufacture, with the energy consumed from fossil fuels during use making up a modest fraction of the vehicle's total energy cost.. so in energy terms scrapping old cars simply doesn't make sense.

 

I don't know that (1) is correct do you have a reference for that?

I doubt Ford is making a loss on it.  There's probably some behind the scenes eco-subsidy or tax break.  I remember receiving a box of free low-energy light bulbs from EON once, because they could claim they'd met some kind of eco target.

On the other hand, today once again I was behind a VW 2.0 TDCi in the queue, blowing out black smoke every time it set off.  I don't think Fords are the worst offenders in the black smoker league table, it's usually Peugots, VW's and Audis.  I always wonder how they got an MoT -what is going on.

Even so, cars are not the main source of air pollution these days.  It's buses, taxis and even heating systems in buildings where 89% of the particulates and NOx comes from.

With cars, a few road side checks on the odd smoking vehicle would clear up 99% of the remaining 11%.  Never see them anymore.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, kzb said:

Even so, cars are not the main source of air pollution these days.  It's buses, taxis and even heating systems in buildings where 89% of the particulates and NOx comes from.

With cars, a few road side checks on the odd smoking vehicle would clear up 99% of the remaining 11%.  Never see them anymore.

Certainly true when it comes to local air pollution. Let's put the global one aside for now, I doubt anyone disagrees that some places have an issue with local air pollution. And the answer to that isn't new cars, it's the use of electricity, and much more so than making a fecking mess of railways with godawful electric schemes. Electric isn't so great for domestic heating though, but sort out the buses and taxis and you've probably got air quality to an acceptable level anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, ftb_fml said:

On the BBC, if you can bring yourself to look.

 

As usual the implied driver is hand-wringing concern for the environment and air pollution, with only two lines of the whole article devoted to touching on their real motivation:

 

I find abhorrent this thinly-veiled attempt to peddle more of their wares and maintain unsustainable levels of consumer consumption off the back of an embarrassingly transparent environmental argument.

I'm happy to be corrected but I believe your average car consumes the majority of its lifetime's energy usage during manufacture, with the energy consumed from fossil fuels during use making up a modest fraction of the vehicle's total energy cost.. so in energy terms scrapping old cars simply doesn't make sense.

In addition you also have all the pollution caused both by the disposal of these perfectly good but vilified older vehicles and the manufacture of their replacements.. while I'd question how much less polluting in use a new car is in reality compared to one that's say 10yrs old. One could argue that for years air pollution standards have been ever-more-unattainable goals with tests that are fudged by the manufacturers and whose key purpose is to perpetuate economic activity by providing a justification for owners of older vehicles to be priced off the road / into new vehicles.

In another life it was always drummed into me how good-a-deal a new car is for the consumer as profit margins are so slim. As such I'd expect that under this incentive and others Ford are making a fat loss on the ticket price and probably relying on finance deals to make any money at all.

Another increasingly desperate and clinical effort to keep the plates spinning IMO - it's about bloody time they came crashing down and finally woke up the sleeping, anaesthetised masses :(

 

 

cars which run on liquefied dinosaur bones and no one questions it. are we living in a comic book? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, kzb said:

I don't know that (1) is correct do you have a reference for that?

I doubt Ford is making a loss on it.  There's probably some behind the scenes eco-subsidy or tax break.  I remember receiving a box of free low-energy light bulbs from EON once, because they could claim they'd met some kind of eco target.

On the other hand, today once again I was behind a VW 2.0 TDCi in the queue, blowing out black smoke every time it set off.  I don't think Fords are the worst offenders in the black smoker league table, it's usually Peugots, VW's and Audis.  I always wonder how they got an MoT -what is going on.

Even so, cars are not the main source of air pollution these days.  It's buses, taxis and even heating systems in buildings where 89% of the particulates and NOx comes from.

With cars, a few road side checks on the odd smoking vehicle would clear up 99% of the remaining 11%.  Never see them anymore.

 

 

Ford does losses.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/as-auto-lending-risks-grow-ford-credit-looks-more-stable-than-gm-financial-2017-06-26

' Ford Credit and General Motors Financial, the lending arms of their respective auto makers, are both laboring under falling vehicle values and elevated loan losses, but Ford Credit is healthier than its rival, Moody’s said Monday.

Both Ford Credit and GMF have below-average profitability compared with their historical performance, as shown in the following chart. That’s due to elevated losses in recent periods and declining vehicle values. '

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, thewig said:

cars which run on liquefied dinosaur bones and no one questions it. are we living in a comic book? :lol:

Even ones that don't run on it use a lot of materials derived from that source, as does just about everything these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Riedquat said:

Even ones that don't run on it use a lot of materials derived from that source, as does just about everything these days.

I know its mental when you stop to think about it - get your liquefied dinosaurs before they run out! we could be told anything whatsoever as children and as long as we're all told the same thing no one will ever question it! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ftb_fml said:

I'd question how much less polluting in use a new car is in reality compared to one that's say 10yrs old.

If you believe the testing (!) then in terms of NOx a new diesel will be more than twice as clean as one from 10 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, thewig said:

I know its mental when you stop to think about it - get your liquefied dinosaurs before they run out! we could be told anything whatsoever as children and as long as we're all told the same thing no one will ever question it! 

Problem is you could say the same about metals too, so unless we all want to end up with Fred Flintstone cars we'll be digging finite resources out of the ground for the foreseable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Errol said:

And why would we?

If the testing now and the testing ten years ago were both rigged in the same way then the relative difference might be accurate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, thewig said:

I know its mental when you stop to think about it - get your liquefied dinosaurs before they run out! we could be told anything whatsoever as children and as long as we're all told the same thing no one will ever question it! 

Do I take it that you subscribe to an alternative theory on the origin of oil? I seem to recall reading that some people believe that the planet produces it and it will never run out... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LC1 said:

Do I take it that you subscribe to an alternative theory on the origin of oil? I seem to recall reading that some people believe that the planet produces it and it will never run out... 

I don't subscribe, but I reckon I could come up with a better one to programme children with than liquefied dinosaurs :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not liquefied dinosaurs.  Yes there is a fringe theory that hydrocarbons were part of the planets make up from formation.  Not unreasonable when you think that a certain percentage of asteroids are of the so-called "carbonaceous" type.  The moon Titan has massive abiological hydrocarbon content.  The idea is this primordial hydrocarbon bubbles up from deep in the Earth and replenishes oil supplies.  I don't think this idea has many mainstream supporters.

Whatever the source, most fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground.  There is no shortage of fossil fuels, what there is, is a shortage of atmosphere in which to dump the combustion products.

By removing the diesel engine as an option, CO2 production will increase as petrol or LPG engines replace them.  A diesel engine is about 40% more efficient than a petrol or LPG engine.

Electric vehicles are only as good as the carbon cost of their electricity source.  In many countries (but apparently not the UK) they will have a higher carbon output than an ICE vehicle.

Edited by kzb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK needs some kind of hybrid vehicle that runs on sebaceous fat cells have a liposuction type device fitted to a car and you have a near perpetual motion fueled cars.  Running out of fuel head to the nearest maccyd drive through:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kzb said:

It's not liquefied dinosaurs.  Yes there is a fringe theory that hydrocarbons were part of the planets make up from formation.  Not unreasonable when you think that a certain percentage of asteroids are of the so-called "carbonaceous" type.  The moon Titan has massive abiological hydrocarbon content.  The idea is this primordial hydrocarbon bubbles up from deep in the Earth and replenishes oil supplies.  I don't think this idea has many mainstream supporters.

Whatever the source, most fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground.  There is no shortage of fossil fuels, what there is, is a shortage of atmosphere in which to dump the combustion products.

By removing the diesel engine as an option, CO2 production will increase as petrol or LPG engines replace them.  A diesel engine is about 40% more efficient than a petrol or LPG engine.

Electric vehicles are only as good as the carbon cost of their electricity source.  In many countries (but apparently not the UK) they will have a higher carbon output than an ICE vehicle.

I'm not saying it is, I'm saying that's what we are all told it is :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thewig said:

I'm not saying it is, I'm saying that's what we are all told it is :lol:

We're told it's liquefied plant material I think.  A powerful argument against the primordial hydrocarbons theory is crude oil contains a chemical related to chlorophyll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is nothing to do with 'saving the environment' - it's just an attempt to boost new car sales using 'eco friendliness' as a cover to disguise the fact that sales are now falling off, despite ultra cheap credit.  Expect lots of others to use the same wheeze as they need to compete and if the car industry has enough lobbying power, the government will likely throw in some taxpayer money too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

This is nothing to do with 'saving the environment' - it's just an attempt to boost new car sales using 'eco friendliness' as a cover to disguise the fact that sales are now falling off, despite ultra cheap credit.  Expect lots of others to use the same wheeze as they need to compete and if the car industry has enough lobbying power, the government will likely throw in some taxpayer money too.

It's the motor industry's equivalent of "pump and dump"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, longgone said:

The UK needs some kind of hybrid vehicle that runs on sebaceous fat cells have a liposuction type device fitted to a car and you have a near perpetual motion fueled cars.  Running out of fuel head to the nearest maccyd drive through:lol:

Congratulations..you've just invented the bicycle.  Probably the most efficient urban transport there is.  Pollution free, efficient space user, simple enough to be operated by a child of 8 and it makes the user healthier saving the taxpayer billions.

 Bicycles are the real future of urban transport.

Edited by WSG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, WSG said:

Congratulations..you've just invented the bicycle.  Probably the most efficient urban transport there is.  Pollution free, efficient space user, simple enough to be operated by a child of 8 and it makes the user healthier saving the taxpayer billions.

 Bicycles are the real future of urban transport.

Go long Halfords in a market correction?.Have you been sneaking in my house? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, thewig said:

I'm not saying it is, I'm saying that's what we are all told it is :lol:

I took the "liquified dinosaurs" comment as slightly tongue in cheek referring to fossil fuels in general, rather than literally meaning dinosaurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ftb_fml said:

On the BBC, if you can bring yourself to look.

 

As usual the implied driver is hand-wringing concern for the environment and air pollution, with only two lines of the whole article devoted to touching on their real motivation:

 

I find abhorrent this thinly-veiled attempt to peddle more of their wares and maintain unsustainable levels of consumer consumption off the back of an embarrassingly transparent environmental argument.

.

Another increasingly desperate and clinical effort to keep the plates spinning IMO - it's about bloody time they came crashing down and finally woke up the sleeping, anaesthetised masses :(

 

I would save your ire for more important stuff. This has been going on since Henry Ford started flogging the Model T. It is far from clinical it is from a playbook written in the era of Mad Man.

In fact far from being abhorrent it is quite nostalgic and lets face it at least Ford employ a lot of people and many with decent careers unlike Airbnb, Facebook, Google etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 292 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.