Scrappage scheme

[blackbird]

Have all the cars been cubed now from the Scrappage scheme

or are they still stored somewhere ?

[RobT]

Not sure if this is related to scrappage, but last week i saw a couple of transporters (on different days) with the cars on the back having their reg plates partly obscured by gaffer tape - 90s chod mainly including a bubble Rover 200 and Primera. Seeing how controversial the scheme was I thought they might be doing it as part of that.

[Lord Sterling]

Isn't that airfield full of scrappage cars still full of cars? Wouldnt mind taking a trip down there and picking a few parts, and yes, I know you are not supposed to

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

You were allowed to strip scrappage cars for parts, as long as the frame/chassis/soul whatever was not returned to the road.

 

AutoExpress considered this a bad thing.

[Lankytim]

There's a large stockpile of scrapped cars at Thurleigh airfield in

Bedfordshire. Scrappage classes them as CAT B write offs, so I guess they could go back on the road. That would piss them off!

[AnthonyG]

Not sure if this is related to scrappage, but last week i saw a couple of transporters (on different days) with the cars on the back having their reg plates partly obscured by gaffer tape - 90s chod mainly including a bubble Rover 200 and Primera. Seeing how controversial the scheme was I thought they might be doing it as part of that.

 

That would just be written off cars, such as lightly damaged cat Ds, dealers scrapping unwanted trade ins, or even just breakers moving cars around. Gaffer tape on salvage/scrapped vehicles is normal, to stop plate cloning.

[flat4alfa]

Thurleigh thread + pics

 

viewtopic.php?p=280182

[504GL]

You were allowed to strip scrappage cars for parts, as long as the frame/chassis/soul whatever was not returned to the road.

 

AutoExpress considered this a bad thing.

 

It would be interesting to see how the sums (in terms of materials and deadly deadly CO2) work out in terms of scrappage.

 

Obviously if cars were stripped for parts then those parts will go towards keeping other cars going (good thing), but of course new cars require a lot of materials (some will be recycled from old cars of course, but not all) and electricity for manufacture. Of course newer cars will have better fuel economy so there will be a saving in terms of fuel over the life of the vehicle.

 

Whilst I'm not a believer in the whole CO2 causes Global Warming and kills little polar bear cubs argument, I've always been of the opinion that we've only got so much in terms of resources and we need to use them as efficiently as possible. Would be very interesting to see if someone's done the sums properly and we see whether buying a new and more economical car is the more environmentally friendly thing to do or whether welding your car up and fixing the problems that arise is more eco friendly.

 

P.S Sometimes on those How do they do it? type shows they show cars being wrecked and they generally look like complete cars. Are most cars which are wrecked actually stripped of components first? Or do they just get all the fluids removed and get chucked straight into the crusher?

[RoadworkUK]

 

P.S Sometimes on those How do they do it? type shows they show cars being wrecked and they generally look like complete cars. Are most cars which are wrecked actually stripped of components first? Or do they just get all the fluids removed and get chucked straight into the crusher?

 

In many cases it's the latter. Unless a breakers have a need for a specific component they often don't bother stripping the car down because of the sheer volume of cars they're processing versus the available space. The bulky engine is pulled out with a mechanical grab then the whole car goes into the baler, seats, lights, CD Players and all. It's not until after the resultant cubed car is fragmented that all the non-ferrous bits are removed. When you send a car over the bridge it's literally only the metal that has value. Virtually everything else is seen as landfill.

 

It pains me every time I think about it.

[504GL]

 

P.S Sometimes on those How do they do it? type shows they show cars being wrecked and they generally look like complete cars. Are most cars which are wrecked actually stripped of components first? Or do they just get all the fluids removed and get chucked straight into the crusher?

 

In many cases it's the latter. Unless a breakers have a need for a specific component they often don't bother stripping the car down because of the sheer volume of cars they're processing versus the available space. The bulky engine is pulled out with a mechanical grab then the whole car goes into the baler, seats, lights, CD Players and all. It's not until after the resultant cubed car is fragmented that all the non-ferrous bits are removed. When you send a car over the bridge it's literally only the metal that has value. Virtually everything else is seen as landfill.

 

It pains me every time I think about it.

 

Yes, it strikes me as a very inefficient and wasteful process. Recycling a car into new cars is all well and good, but it's not as efficient as using the components from the old car to keep other old cars going. I guess one of the problems today is ignorance, a lot of people today will get a fail on their MOT and if it's not something small like a balljoint or a new headlight lens or something small, they'll probably scrap the car if it's over a certain age as there's that perception that it's "past it". One wonders whether the government doesn't feel that it's better for themselves for people just to buy new cars rather than repair otherwise perfectly serviceable ones?

[garethj]

Would be very interesting to see if someone's done the sums properly and we see whether buying a new and more economical car is the more environmentally friendly thing to do or whether welding your car up and fixing the problems that arise is more eco friendly.

 

That would rely on the car manufacturers releasing data, and it might not be in their favour.

 

Back in the 1960s, a Volkswagen Beetle had 5000 components in the whole car. Nowadays, the bare mechanical parts are probably double that, plus all the ECUs which must be at least 300 components each and they're everywhere. Look at a car mirror now, it's made from 7 pieces, years ago it was 3.

 

All those parts need to be made, all the people making them need to drive to work, the parts need to be transported which means the drivers, administrators, forklift drivers etc need to drive to their work too. That's a lot of people driving around to make a car happen.

 

I'm not against progress, some things in modern cars are brilliant, but claiming all those extra people are having a net decrease on emissions because the end product does 5 mpg more is a bit far fetched IMHO.

 

One wonders whether the government doesn't feel that it's better for themselves for people just to buy new cars rather than repair otherwise perfectly serviceable ones?

As above, the whole industry, manufacturing and logistics is huge. If the car industry disappeared overnight there would be a lot of unemployed people, and that makes the government sad.

 

If we were after a green solution, cars should have fewer parts, use less energy in manufacturing (for example fibreglass takes less energy to produce than steel once you've bashed it into shape) and have a simpler supply chain. But nobody would buy it and there'd be loads of unemployed people around, which is the real important issue.

[504GL]

Would be very interesting to see if someone's done the sums properly and we see whether buying a new and more economical car is the more environmentally friendly thing to do or whether welding your car up and fixing the problems that arise is more eco friendly.

 

That would rely on the car manufacturers releasing data, and it might not be in their favour.

 

Back in the 1960s, a Volkswagen Beetle had 5000 components in the whole car. Nowadays, the bare mechanical parts are probably double that, plus all the ECUs which must be at least 300 components each and they're everywhere. Look at a car mirror now, it's made from 7 pieces, years ago it was 3.

 

All those parts need to be made, all the people making them need to drive to work, the parts need to be transported which means the drivers, administrators, forklift drivers etc need to drive to their work too. That's a lot of people driving around to make a car happen.

 

I'm not against progress, some things in modern cars are brilliant, but claiming all those extra people are having a net decrease on emissions because the end product does 5 mpg more is a bit far fetched IMHO.

 

One wonders whether the government doesn't feel that it's better for themselves for people just to buy new cars rather than repair otherwise perfectly serviceable ones?

As above, the whole industry, manufacturing and logistics is huge. If the car industry disappeared overnight there would be a lot of unemployed people, and that makes the government sad.

 

If we were after a green solution, cars should have fewer parts, use less energy in manufacturing (for example fibreglass takes less energy to produce than steel once you've bashed it into shape) and have a simpler supply chain. But nobody would buy it and there'd be loads of unemployed people around, which is the real important issue.

 

I'm not sure though, my 406 did a good job of keeping mechanics employed with all of its faults

 

The big problem I have with new cars is that compared to the cars old lets say the 70's, they're quite poorly built. One problem on Panda's/500's is suspension parts. The dampers have been known to fail the first MOT if you're not on the best roads, balljoints fail quite often and are integral to the wishbone so you have to replace the whole frigging wishbone, droplinks appear to be made out of cheese and the rear suspension on some models has such a small amount of travel that they spend a lot of time on the bump stops and the bump stops break oh and the top mounts on the struts on the front aren't the best either! I shudder to think what the bill for all that work will come to if someone is going to a main dealer and putting crappy genuine parts on.

 

These bits don't have to be made to only last 3-5 years, but because of penny pinching and bad design they have.

[fiatdaft]

I'd rather replace a suspension arm than weld a pair of sills on to a 'well built 70's car'.

[504GL]

I'd rather replace a suspension arm than weld a pair of sills on to a 'well built 70's car'.

 

True I doubt neither my 131 or 504 would have survived as long as they did (2001 and 2006 respectively) if they'd lived in the UK, but in honesty, they required sod all work doing to them!

[garethj]

I'd rather replace a suspension arm than weld a pair of sills on to a 'well built 70's car'.

True, but many manufacturers know how to build a car that doesn't rust. If they put the same effort into a car with 1980s levels of technology, it would probably last forever.

 

I know that's not what they want, but I'm a bit bored with the industry dressing it up in environmental credentials, when their policy hasn't changed since 1885 - punt out as many cars as possible.

[RoadworkUK]

True, but many manufacturers know how to build a car that doesn't rust.

 

That almost makes it worse! In the past you could throw your ten year old car in the bin because it was all rusty. Nowadays you can't even do that! Of all the cars I took in on scrappage, only one (a mk5 Escort) had any rot on it whatsoever.

[CIH]

True, but many manufacturers know how to build a car that doesn't rust.

 

That almost makes it worse! In the past you could throw your ten year old car in the bin because it was all rusty. Nowadays you can't even do that! Of all the cars I took in on scrappage, only one (a mk5 Escort) had any rot on it whatsoever.

 

I see penty of rusty moderns. Mk3 MX5s look just as bad if not worse than MK2s double their age.

[chaseracer]

In the past you could throw your ten year old car in the bin because it was all rusty. Nowadays you can't even do that!

Eh?

 

Renault Scenic? 90s Vauxhalls and Rovers? W210 Merc just about everywhere? Ferric oxide is alive and well, chomping away at a car near you...

[barefoot]

If we were after a green solution, cars should have fewer parts, use less energy in manufacturing (for example fibreglass takes less energy to produce than steel once you've bashed it into shape) and have a simpler supply chain. But nobody would buy it and there'd be loads of unemployed people around, which is the real important issue.

 

I'm going back to 2004/5, but there was a really interesting article in the Telegraph about the Renault Megane & the Dacia Logan.

Two cars which look ostensibly the same, but apparently the Logan was infinately more simple.

Things like one piece bumpers as compared to 5 piece, dashboard similarly cheapened car cost a fraction to produce & eas planned at the time to sell for about £3000.

[Mr Lobster]

I'd rather replace a suspension arm than weld a pair of sills on to a 'well built 70's car'.

True, but many manufacturers know how to build a car that doesn't rust. If they put the same effort into a car with 1980s levels of technology, it would probably last forever.

 

 

Surely the Dacia Logan qualifies in that respect? I reckon if you bought one and looked after it then 30+ years wouldn't be a problem.

[504GL]

In the past you could throw your ten year old car in the bin because it was all rusty. Nowadays you can't even do that!

Eh?

 

Renault Scenic? 90s Vauxhalls and Rovers? W210 Merc just about everywhere? Ferric oxide is alive and well, chomping away at a car near you...

 

Ford's seem to like to do it too. When my p-reg 406 went away in 2009 it was rust free despite lots of scratches, a few big dents and a lot of small ones that the previous owners had obtained by braille parking. The 500 is galvanised so fingers crossed it'll be fine as long as I keep it nice and clean.......

[504GL]

I've got a galvanised Audi and despite £2k of rust repairs (at audi's expense) its still not rust free.

 

*puts fingers in ears* lalalalalalalalalalala I can't hear you!

[Des]

There was a time when a Merc would usually make it's second decade without rusting, while a Datsun would be getting crusty by its 5th birthday, many manufacturers early attempts at rustproofing were flawed, although lessons were learned times have changed, I think the biggest reason for what we see as prematurely scrapped cars is the digit on the number plate that declares its age. It's a lucrative game, and not just cars, everything from undercrackers to buildings are consigned to landfill as the masses engage in this deluded ritual of banishing anything seen as old, unfashionable or lacking an 'i' prefix. I'd be delighted with the situation did it not entail such a sickeningly massive scale of spunking finite energy resources.

[retrogeezer]

True, but many manufacturers know how to build a car that doesn't rust. If they put the same effort into a car with 1980s levels of technology, it would probably last forever.

 

Buy a late 80's Bluebird!!

 

 

[Guest]

I'd rather replace a suspension arm than weld a pair of sills on to a 'well built 70's car'.

 

I'd rather have a new car warranty that that actually looked after the customer rather than refuse to help outright. But hey, everyone's a winner once the finance agreement's signed, innit? Conclusion? BITTERNESS.

[theorganist]

Must admit our Renault Megane Scenic has some rusty bits. It seems from my (not too close) observations that body panels seem to fare better on most modern cars than they used as a lot may have the odd rust spot but no more. Our Sierra by 1990 was getting very rusty and was only seven years old. And our Renault 14 at eight years old, well it barely had a non-rotten panel on it, strangely IIRC the underside wasn't too bad!!

 

It seems to be underneath where problems lurk more on modern cars, the amount of modern cars I have seen which have had new sills seems to be at least as frequent as it was in the old days.

[chaseracer]

The old giffer & I were de-rusting the front of the Avenger (mentioned recently in another part of this electronic parish) some considerable time before its fifth birthday...

 

In other news, was it the Golf 3 estate that rotted like a bastard because it was, in essence, a poorly-executed cut-and-shut of a hatchback shell...?

[RoadworkUK]

In the past you could throw your ten year old car in the bin because it was all rusty. Nowadays you can't even do that!

Eh?

 

Renault Scenic? 90s Vauxhalls and Rovers? W210 Merc just about everywhere? Ferric oxide is alive and well, chomping away at a car near you...

 

I was referring to garethj's assessment that some manufacturers have learnt to build cars that don't rust. I'm sure most people could trot out an endless list of ten year old cars that become ghastly rotboxes, but what I'm saying is that, if garethj is right, it means that the scrapyards will be full of rust-free cars fifteen years hence.

 

You certainly don't have to tell me about 210's, especially when I have to explain to customers that the 320 Elegance they payed forty grand for ten years ago is now worth basically scrap value, because when you walk past it in the car park you can hear the metalwork fizzing and bits dropping off.

[Cavcraft]

To be honest I can't remember a time Merc's didn't rust. From the heady days of such stuff as 450SEL/SL models, quite a few before them and plenty (all) after I do sometimes wonder if Merc's 'well built' reputation is actually a myth.

They do seem to have that 'Rover' reputation as well where anyone who owns a Merc will tell you it's the last properly built one.

[504GL]

To be honest I can't remember a time Merc's didn't rust. From the heady days of such stuff as 450SEL/SL models, quite a few before them and plenty (all) after I do sometimes wonder if Merc's 'well built' reputation is actually a myth.

They do seem to have that 'Rover' reputation as well where anyone who owns a Merc will tell you it's the last properly built one.

 

It's all about perceived quality. How many people will close the door to their Merc with a reassuring thud and tell you how it's built like a tank just because of the sound the door makes when it closes.