This is sad, good cars being crushed!

[01alam]

PistonHeads Headlines

"Amongst the causalities include six MX-5s, seven MGFs and a Jaguar XJ-S. German barges haven’t escaped the scrap battle either, with 34 BMWs, 22 Audis and 32 Mercedes all apparently on their way to the heap in the name of the scrappage scheme....However an MG Midget, Nissan 300ZX, MGB GT and (we regret to inform you) a Fiat X1/9 have also been scrapped."

 

[stevesey]

I'm shocked...


... that a Fiat X1/9 made it to 10 years old.

 

[219]

"......although some cars will be dismantled in order to further the life of other classics it does hurt to tell you that a 1968 Morris Minor has also succumbed to the lure of £2k off a new car.

It isn’t, however, the scrappage scheme’s oldest victim, a 1966 Austin 1100 was also handed over."

Wonder if that was Basil Faulty's unfortunate car ? The one that got a d*mn good thrashing !

 

[miro]

PistonHeads Headlines

"Amongst the causalities include six MX-5s, seven MGFs and a Jaguar XJ-S. German barges haven’t escaped the scrap battle either, with 34 BMWs, 22 Audis and 32 Mercedes all apparently on their way to the heap in the name of the scrappage scheme....However an MG Midget, Nissan 300ZX, MGB GT and (we regret to inform you) a Fiat X1/9 have also been scrapped."

I cant help wondering if you are holding out for more money. The less junk on the roads the better.

 

[trapperjohn]

Did'nt know some classics will be dismantled so others can survive. I wonder where and who gets the money from the proceeds. A lot better than each one being crushed without any thought. Dang, why do I get concerned about, say a 190, getting crushed and the owner being 2K richer, at least in trade in value. Probably because they are going to spend the "wooden dollars" on a non Mercedes product. Still think HMG could have limited the deal to UK assembled cars/vans.

 

[popuptoaster]

I cant help wondering if you are holding out for more money. The less junk on the roads the better.

what your calling junk are the classics of tomorrow, my old coupe may not have survived so long had this scheme been in effect years ago, few enough of the 25000 they made have survived as it is.

besides, modern stuff is far more junky than the older stuff and will be laid low at a younger age by electronics failiures than a lot of older cars ever where by rust, and if all the old cars are scrapped, where you gonna get spares at reasonably prices?

The whole scheme is a joke when they are telling everyone to recycle, they start a scheme designed to stop just that.

 

[miro]

what your calling junk are the classics of tomorrow, my old coupe may not have survived so long had this scheme been in effect years ago, few enough of the 25000 they made have survived as it is.

besides, modern stuff is far more junky than the older stuff and will be laid low at a younger age by electronics failiures than a lot of older cars ever where by rust, and if all the old cars are scrapped, where you gonna get spares at reasonably prices?

The whole scheme is a joke when they are telling everyone to recycle, they start a scheme designed to stop just that.

Then you have no hesitation in replacing the engine with an electric motor and batteries. I mean, you want the world to be a better place not just a museum right. 20 years of major development has meant more people have lived through their mistakes and told a story of a near miss. Who cares about rubbish cars with poor technology. If I want to see beauty I will invite a lovely woman to dinner.

The bottom line is that sentiment has nothing to do with utility. Your coupe is no more special than my sedan. It is just a car.

 

[Will]

The only comment that I'll add to this is that in reality, this scheme was not introduced when it was for enviromental reasons, it was for economical reasons. And not in the economical interests of the private motorists - purely for the benefit of the automotive industry.

Everyone has an opinion on the +ves/-ves of the scheme, but I am more sceptical of the timing.

Will

 

[w124coupe]

One area where hugs strides have been made is in survivability in an accident.

NCAP only goes back to about 1999ish but its scary to compare the frontal impact on a Rover 100 or an olf Fiesta with, say, today's cheapy Citroen C1.

Crushing the remaining 100s so no 17/18 year old kids get to experience being maimed at just 40mph is fine by me...

 

[st4]

The bottom line is that sentiment has nothing to do with utility. Your coupe is no more special than my sedan. It is just a car.

SACRILEGE

 

[219]

Your coupe is no more special than my sedan.

Yes , it is .

 

[kth286]

One area where hugs strides have been made is in survivability in an accident.

NCAP only goes back to about 1999ish but its scary to compare the frontal impact on a Rover 100 or an olf Fiesta with, say, today's cheapy Citroen C1.

Crushing the remaining 100s so no 17/18 year old kids get to experience being maimed at just 40mph is fine by me...

Is NCAP testing a comprehensive test of a car's survival and also the occupants inside it ?

Probably NO !!!!!!!!!

Do NCAP tests cars have all the fluids inside them that a normal car would ?

Are the cars at running temperature ?

Do you know how many cars are burnt out in accidents ?

Perhaps the Citroen catches fire more readily than a Rover 100.

Which would you prefer - extensive facial burns or a broken leg ?

Why is it the public cannot have this information ????????

 

[w124coupe]

From the NCAP results, the Rover 100 doesn't leave you with a face to be burned (or any knees or feet) so flames would be the least of your worries.

A tiny number of modern cars burn in an accident - did you see the TV documentary where they tried (unsuccessfully) to make one "do a Hollywood"?

I enjoy both my S211 and my W124 and would never contemplate scrapping the coupe (its worth more than £2k as parts anyway).

I'm also fully aware of the differences if I ever get hit from the side in the older car - head through the window aperture instead of into an airbag.

 

[st4]

Is NCAP testing a comprehensive test of a car's survival and also the occupants inside it ?

Probably NO !!!!!!!!!

?

Its an indication but IMHO, like all tests/legastlative things that come from the EU its a very biased and misrepresentative that favours the sort of car the EU wants us to buy (low CO2 french made cr4ppers). Like for like NCAP is useful and I used to put a lot of weight on it, but not so sure now. Look at a 202 vs 204 and you can see how modern cars have progressed but a 4* Q7 or a 5* Fiat 500. Q7 atomises the 500 so the test is flawed.

I think this because

1) The test is only carried out at 40mph. This is far to slow. A small hatchback can now complete with a large saloon with a frontal impact in this regard and I admit thats a credit to the makers of small cars, but I'd like to see a test for a higher speed (120kmph-75mph) impact too and lets separate the men from the boys.

2) I think rear collisions are important and how are these measured. Smaller cars put the rear passangers perilously close to the rear of the car making them very vulnerable. In an E class (211) not so. In Pontoneers 126 not so, in an Toyota Iq inches so.

3) Roll over test, would be nice to have one and would favour better made cars but probably not SUVs due to the greater mass being exerted on the A and B posts but a useful test.

4) Points are awarded for padestrian safety. Soon NCAP will do an overall score which includes this. A padestrian friendly car may not be so safe for those who are in it, but it could outscore a occupant safer car with crap padestrian safety. Don't know about the rest of the members on here but padestrian safety is not a consideration when I buy I car. I trust myself not to ram into people and would rather be safer when someone rams into me. Small eco boxes with sloping bonnets fare well, Audis Q7 not so well.

5) points are awarded for frivalrous things like seat belt reminders, air bag stickers. Good for racking up NCAP points, but doubt the sticker will save you if you stick it into a barrier at 100mph.

 

[popuptoaster]

Then you have no hesitation in replacing the engine with an electric motor and batteries. I mean, you want the world to be a better place not just a museum right. 20 years of major development has meant more people have lived through their mistakes and told a story of a near miss. Who cares about rubbish cars with poor technology. If I want to see beauty I will invite a lovely woman to dinner.

The bottom line is that sentiment has nothing to do with utility. Your coupe is no more special than my sedan. It is just a car.

So you want to manufacture an electric motor, some batteries all the wiring and associated bits that go with it deliver it all, and then remove and safely dispose of the running gear from my car, how long is it gonna take to earn back the energy deficit you just incurred making and delivering all that lot compared to the energy my car uses in fuel minus the energy needed to charge the batteries i have to fit???? it dont even cut emisions by an awful lot as we dont get much of our power from clean sources so your just moving the pollution.

As for my coupe not being more special than your sedan, thats your opinion, i guess you would prefer an Athena poster to the Mona lisa but thats your opinion and your allowed it, i guess your sedan is a nice non polluting economy vehicle? or is it a large overweight modern car full of energy using things like electric windows and air con?

My coupe is my daily driver and does less than 5000 miles a year, as are many of these older cars that are getting chopped in for scrap so even if they ARE more polluting and less safe, they are on the roads less than the people with more money and bigger more modern, more expensive cars anyway.

All this scheme is doing is either persuading the sort of people who have to drive an old car to go buy a new one on credit they probably cant really afford, or those who have an older car hanging around not doing an awfull lot anyway, and those are the cars that would end up being found under a shett in 20 years ideal for restoration.

personally i'm happier to collect my beautifull woman in my beautifull coupe and go out for dinner getting admiring glances from all the guys in there modern and anonymous sedans.

 

[Roger Jones]

Here's a candidate for scrappage, my 1996 320 Coupé. But hold on a minute, because it's just been through its MOT:

Fast idle
CO max. 0.200, actual 0.012
HC max. 200, actual 2

Natural idle
CO max. 0.300, actual 0.011.

What a heap of old junk, not.

I've just had the pleasure of a drive in my 1984 Capri 2.8i, windows down and sunroof open, a pleasure spoilt only by the clouds of exhaust smoke pouring from a newish BMW X5 in front of me as it overtook someone..

 

[Oli]

One area where hugs strides have been made is in survivability in an accident.

NCAP only goes back to about 1999ish but its scary to compare the frontal impact on a Rover 100 or an olf Fiesta with, say, today's cheapy Citroen C1.

Crushing the remaining 100s so no 17/18 year old kids get to experience being maimed at just 40mph is fine by me...

I believe NCAP is done not only on damage to the car and passenger impact but on pedestrian saftey as well?.
For instance the Megane has a 5 star rating, the current shape Range Rover is only 4 stars but in honesty I know if I had a choice which I would rather have an accident in, by the same standard an older stronger heavier car surely has the potential to be safer than a new super mini?.

 

[nick mercedes]

I know someone who gets many of the scrappage cars, they can break them for spares, or export them, but they can't go again here as cars.

So not all will be shredded.

Still a waste of good cars though.

 

[wemorgan]

I believe NCAP is done not only on damage to the car and passenger impact but on pedestrian saftey as well?.
For instance the Megane has a 5 star rating, the current shape Range Rover is only 4 stars but in honesty I know if I had a choice which I would rather have an accident in, by the same standard an older stronger heavier car surely has the potential to be safer than a new super mini?.

The mass and stiffness is only really an advantage in a head-on car to car impacts. In side impacts with trees and rear impacts, the mass is a disadvantage.

 

[w124coupe]

I believe NCAP is done not only on damage to the car and passenger impact but on pedestrian saftey as well?.
For instance the Megane has a 5 star rating, the current shape Range Rover is only 4 stars but in honesty I know if I had a choice which I would rather have an accident in, by the same standard an older stronger heavier car surely has the potential to be safer than a new super mini?.

Three separate ratings - front impact, side impact and pedestrian impact.

That's why a visit to the site is worthwhile rather than just taking the "average" from adverts.

And the answer is no - many of the older heavy cars burst at the door frame, have pedals and steering columns that move back in a shunt and have little or no padding where your knees hit the dash (still a weakness in the current RangeRover).

NCAP doesn't rate the car's survival - just the driver and passenger (and pedestrian).



Design and testing beats big and heavy every time...its all about limiting the driver's deceleration (so his organs don't burst), limiting intrusion by pedals and steering and making sure if he does hit something, its softer than him (padded dash designed to deform rather than plastic coated metal - key/ignition lock is a good example that shreds knees in old cars).

There was a TV example - fat Volvo versus Renault modus - here on youTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I