AutoblogGreen

I always get a bit perturbed when it is implied that purchasing a new car is better for the environment than buying used. I would agree that generally, a newer vehicle would emit fewer pollutants out of the tailpipe, but, have any studies been conducted about the total resources used/pollutants emitted to produce and operate a new vs. used vehicles? There is a tremendous amount of environment resources used to produce a new vehicle in the name of "buying green".

Reply

HALF of a vehicle's environmental footprint is from the production of the vehicle itself.

This means that buying used cars IS actually green. While fewer people buying newer green cars does hurt the green car market, in general, buying less new things means less things having to be produced.

Reply

I think that generally used cars are better for the environment than new cars - new cars aren't necessarily more efficient (look at the 80's) and even if they are, it seems obvious that paying for a new car to be built every 2-5 years is much less efficient than just driving one car for 10-15 years.

Buying my used '02 civic was probably better for the environment than if I had gotten a brand new prius.

The more I see, the more it seems that environmentally beneficial things are typically economically beneficial too.

Reply

Each year improvements are made in fuel economy, safety and recycle-ability. As automobiles age they become less efficient (engines wear and develop blow-by etc). Many old cars are still running with air conditioning refrigerant long sense abandoned due to ozone damage. At the same time manufacturing plants are becoming more efficient and reducing pollution.

Reply

R-12 has not been allowed in cars since 1994. Few people are willing to buy used cars that are 15 years old, or even 10 years old. I have 2 hobby cars that had R-12 refrigerant, but it had long since leaked out before I bought them, as I suspect is the case with most cars that old.

Also, a 5-year-old Camry, even with a lot of miles, is going to be less harmful to the environment than a new F-150 for the same miles traveled.

Put simply? You put it way too simply.

Reply

You may be missing the point. Urban air quality is a completely different problem from the resource consumption and pollution from the supply chain that builds your automobile. If you live in a metro area with bad smog, you should strongly consider getting a newer car with cleaner exhaust, as opposed to someone who lives in the sticks where there's less of an air pollution problem.

Reply

Retrofitting USED cars with Green technology would be the solution.
And way more exciting!

Reply

And a 5 year old Camry can haul exactly how many 4 X 8 sheets of plywood? Not a good comparison. A 5 year old F150 is no more economical than a new F150 but the new one has added safety features. Is a new Camry better than a 5 year old one? You tell me, I don't drive rice burners.

I replaced the engine in my '92 Silverado a year before I sold it an bought the 2008 I drive now. The '92 ac still worked and the old 350 had 276K miles when I pulled it. Down here in Dixie they must last longer.

Reply

I'm sure we will see much more of this as cars become smaller and more expensive due to CAFE. If I can only afford or qualify for a $200 a month payment, hybrids are not an option.
My concern if used car demand is higher than new will we begin to import used cars from Canada and Mexico to meet the demand?

Reply

hey, that's why I bought a $2000 10 y. old Protege. Good mileage, cheap, reliable. And only a fraction of my monthly income.
Being green is actually much cheaper.

Reply