The forerunner to the Mini , the Morris Minor 1000, produces half the carbon emissions as the modern Mini in it's lifetime .
Just saying .
Just saying .
'ere,s a funny thing !!!
- Thread starter Evans Electric
- Start date
Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:
Sharpend
"It Just Is"
Is that because the Morris Minor’s life span was only half that of the modern Mini?
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 14,616
- Reaction score
- 1,163
Well they were only Minor emissions
eeeeeeyy. Thankkkkkk. Yowwwwwwwwwww
eeeeeeyy. Thankkkkkk. Yowwwwwwwwwww
I never thought of that . !
:redcard
It was on Youtube so it must be true ! Theres a company that specializes in them .
I would take some convincing.
How can an old, naturally aspirated engine, capable of perhaps 35 to 40 mpg, and fitted with no exhaust emission control equipment possibly be "cleaner" than a modern electronically controlled engine of similar size and offering greater mileage?
If it is true our motor industry must be going down the wrong path with all the expense and complexity we now have.
How can an old, naturally aspirated engine, capable of perhaps 35 to 40 mpg, and fitted with no exhaust emission control equipment possibly be "cleaner" than a modern electronically controlled engine of similar size and offering greater mileage?
If it is true our motor industry must be going down the wrong path with all the expense and complexity we now have.
There was no explanation TBH , just a comment . I wondered if it meant the carbon footprint to build each vehicle . There would be a load more equipment stuck in a modern Mini .... much plastic etc . I used to drive a Moggie van , they're very basic , quite rugged , draughty and make sure you keep the front steering joints greased or they collapse when you turn a corner .
If you take into account the whole life carbon footprint I could clearly see how the Minor comes out on top and given the fact they were so much easier and cheaper to repair than today's vehicles
Yes, OK, I had missed the "lifetime" aspect, which will make a huge difference.
And I'm someone who has argued for a long time that keeping an old car is more environmentally friendly than continually updating to the ones advertised as more efficient.
And I'm someone who has argued for a long time that keeping an old car is more environmentally friendly than continually updating to the ones advertised as more efficient.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 14,734
- Reaction score
- 913
The Moggy is pretty much self recycling. Park it in a field and most of it will just rust away and self recycle.
The modern car has far too many plastic bits and electronic bits that will never degrade and will just sit there leaching heavy metals into the environment.
The modern car has far too many plastic bits and electronic bits that will never degrade and will just sit there leaching heavy metals into the environment.
I would have thought that a series 1, 2 or 3 Landrover would score extremely well against the new "version" - longevity, ease of maintenance, readily available spare parts, good for home maintenance
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 14,734
- Reaction score
- 913
Yes they do. That's why I have one as an "easy to own" classic car. (you never know I could be persuaded to sell if if pushed)
We walked past the LR main dealer in Inverness yesterday. I was shocked to see what must have been one of the very last Defenders made on their forcourt for £40,000
ruston
Well-known member
To be fair the old moggie was capable of 40+ mpg , and the Mini even more. And they were not scrapped like the modern all singing all dancing new stuff are scrapped because they are beyond economic repair when their fancy electronics and overpriced parts fail.
phil d
Well-known member
Speaking of Landrovers, I had an interesting problem with mine, it's a Freelander 1 facelift with a TD4 engine in it. It ran ok when I bought it just under two years ago however when servicing it I noticed the MAF sensor was disconnected. I plugged it back in and it ran really rough, if it was a petrol you'd say it was running on two cylinders! Above 2500 rpm though it was fine, I replaced the MAF, no change, I read the codes, there were none, I spent almost a year trying to work out what it was, plenty of people had the problem, but nobody had managed to fix it, it was a mystery.
Anyway one day I was playing about and worked out that the solenoid that controls the EGR valve, which in some way is supposed to be variable, actually was only either staying closed, or opening fully. This meant that even at low revs the egr was opening fully, in effect choking the engine. I blanked off the vacuum pipe, reconnected the MAF sensor and it ran sweet as a nut, It is now returning about 45mpg, whereas before it was about 30mpg, and it is one hell of a lot quicker. I posted my findings on a couple of the Landrover forums and a few others tried it and it worked, the beauty of it is you still keep the EGR although it doesn't actually do anything, which is important as they have to see one is fitted for the MOT test.
That is exactly what a local expert, (known as Diesel Dave) did to my little Ford van! I was concerned it would affect the emissions test at next MoT, but he assured me it would be OK, and it was.
phil d
Well-known member
Most people do away with them to be honest, but since the diesel engine isn't subjected to the 'sniffer' test like a petrol is, they only look for heavy smoke on a diesel, you can get away with it. However if you don't have an EGR fitted and one was fitted at manufacture, then it will fail the test, so the trick, as both you and I know, is to block the vacuum pipe. to all intents and purposes, the EGR is still there, they don't know it isn't working.
And the added bonus of there only being about a dozen moving parts on the whole vehicle
modern vehicles are laiden down with things like side impact bars, emmission control systems, and are genrally fatter! I remember Clarkson on Top Gear making the comment that the new shape BMW 3 series was 20 bags of cement heavier than the old square shape 3 series - that's a lot of extra weight to be dragging around, and this applies to all cars. I once clocked a Metro and modern Mini in a queue of traffic, in short the Mini is a fat Metro, the internal cabin space is identical. The other point about modern vehicles is choking the engines with quiter exhausts etc etc, which apart from adding weight wrecks fuel consumption. Hence we now have smaller highly tuned engines to avoid some of these issues. So progress isn't always a good thing! We need a ''sea change' on vehicles, hence the move to electric, but I think all these electric bikes and scooters is a far better move - why ride around in a huge car when you don't really need to? You can probably make a 100 of those things with the materials used in 1 car.
Sharpend
"It Just Is"
Next you’ll be campaigning for the flying skateboard that was around in the 80’s, it was cos I saw it in a film. 
msl1:
or townies could have a small electric vehicle, no we had that in the 80’s too and nobody took it up then. -Sinclair C5 :C
msl1: or townies could have a small electric vehicle, no we had that in the 80’s too and nobody took it up then. -Sinclair C5 :C
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Knowing the difference between imperial cable and metric?- Latest: HappyHippyDad
-
Serious question Electricians vs People who do electrics- Latest: SPECIAL LOCATION
-
-
-
-
-
