REPORT: Nissan GT-Rs being purchased under UK Cash-For-Clunkers provisions
When legislators in the United Kingdom decided to introduce its Cash for Clunkers program, it was widely suggested that older, fuel-guzzling vehicles would be removed from the road in favor of the latest crop of clean, green, fuel efficient cars and trucks. As is often the case, reality isn't so cut-and-dry.
According to Auto Trader UK, two of the first new vehicles purchased under the UK's new scrapping scheme were Nissan GT-Rs. Much has been written about Godzilla's ability to navigate the famed Nurburgring in Germany, but those stories never described the giant-killing GT-R as eco-friendly. What gives?
It seems that the rulebook in Merry ole' England doesn't include provisions limiting the scrapping program to vehicles with low carbon emissions. Most other countries with scrapping programs – including the proposed plan in the U.S., in case you were wondering – require the new vehicle to be significantly more fuel efficient than the car that's being scrapped.
In related news, at least one enthusiast's plans to trade in a slightly used '99 Oldsmobile Alero for a shiny new Nissan GT-R have summarily been placed on the back burner. Tip o' the cap to Keith and Demstel!
[Source: Auto Trader UK]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Hernan 11:34AM (5/19/2009)
Then when the transmission falls out it can be sold under the cash for clunkers provision.
Reply
BigMcLargeHuge 11:46AM (5/19/2009)
Or if you weren't a complete buffoon, you would just get the transmission replaced under warranty.
Aki 12:12PM (5/19/2009)
Blah blah blah, when will people drop this retarded line? New GT-Rs get the same exact 0-60 without turning off VDC, with launching at lower revs. If tranny-grenading was an issue before, it's not now.
knightuc1992 12:49PM (5/19/2009)
Or if you weren't a complete buffoon, you would just get the transmission replaced under warranty.
...and this is where the Nissan "We've voided your warranty because we have a reason to believe you have been racing the vehicle" clause comes in...
Jake B 3:13PM (5/19/2009)
Read the manual that came with the car. If doing something voids the warranty, DON'T DO IT!!!
John Johnson 11:37AM (5/19/2009)
The Alero stays put. End of discussion :p
Reply
zamafir 11:37AM (5/19/2009)
I can think of quite a few sports/supercars on sale in the US that would meet the cash for clunkers requirements. Nothing about this is surprising to me. All you need is an 80's GMC high sierra 1 ton. Anything's better than the avg 7.8 mpg I saw with that beast :).
Reply
John R 11:50AM (5/19/2009)
Ha! File this one under "Don't hate the player; hate the game".
Reply
BigMcLargeHuge 11:54AM (5/19/2009)
I don't really have a problem with this.
Some 'clunkers' do get good fuel economy because they had no power. But they still come with rusted out catalysts, clogged injectors/carbs, etc.
Even a modern supercar reduces smog compared to a clunker.
Clarkson called the 997 Turbo a vacuum-cleaner in urban areas because its emissions are cleaner than the surrounding air.
It's all good if you ask me.
Reply
Metar 12:04PM (5/19/2009)
But that logic is flawed. It may produce less pollution than there is already in the air, but air doesn't add pollution - the engine, however, does. The only thing that cleans up pollution is an engine with negative CO2 and MPG figures. :\
BigMcLargeHuge 12:13PM (5/19/2009)
No,
If talking about 'smog-forming' pollutants, CO2 is not one. It won't cause allergies or breathing problems.
NOX, sulfur, particulates are all 100% definitely smog-forming pollutants, and any modern catalyzed engine sold in EU or the USA will have miniscule amounts of them.
In fact, the catalysts on a PZEV or LEV vehicle will, in fact 'clean' these pollutants as they pass through the engine.
The logic is not flawed, if the goal is to reduce smog.
why not the LS2LS7? 12:21PM (5/19/2009)
They don't care about smog pollutants as much in Europe as we do. They care abot CO2 and this is really bad on CO2.
Do yourself a favor, don't quote Clarkson when you're looking to introduce facts into a discussion. Clarkson doesn't know a thing about emissions or clean vehicles, and his stupid (and wildly inaccurate) statement about the 911 is a great example of this.
Beastage 12:40PM (5/19/2009)
In Europe they look at both CO2 and pollutants , that is why European car makers invested so much in diesel engines ,
Diesel engines traditionally produce less CO2 but a lot more pollutants than petrol engines, knowing that car makers improved diesels engines and developed extremely efficient filters that allow the modern diesel engines to be a far better choice in Europe than hybrid scam vehicles.
BigMcLargeHuge 12:55PM (5/19/2009)
LS7,
Do yourself a favor and CALM DOWN!
You just flew off your hinges on that one.
"The 911 Turbo models easily comply with the stringent EU4 exhaust emissions standard as well as LEV II regulations in the United States. Every Porsche currently in production combines high performance with low emissions compared with other cars in their class.
As a result, the 911 Turbo is not only one of the most exciting cars on the road, it is also one of the cleanest. This is achieved using a range of technologies, including twin catalytic converters and stereo Lambda or oxygen sensor circuits. One pair of sensors is used to measure the oxygen levels in each of the twin exhaust tracts.
An additional pair of sensors – again, one in each tract – enables the engine management system to monitor the efficiency of the catalytic converters. "
http://www.porsche.com/microsite/technology/default.aspx?pool=uk&ShowSingleTechterm=PTAbgasR&Category=&Model=&SearchedString=&SelectedVariant=PMT911TurboAll
I do NOT subscribe to the whole CO2 being the only pollutant worth
mentioning, and neither does the EU.
In this case, Clarkson was actually not being stupid or innaccurate, in that Porsche has several models that are LEVII-certified.
I QUALIFIED my statement, the first one, with "SMOG".
So you're kinda... wrong.
speedball3 1:46PM (5/19/2009)
The whole CO2 argument is garbage. Did you know that CO2 levels increase as average temperatures rise? Did you know the earth was previously on a cooling trend? And that scientists thought the earth was doomed to a second ice age in the 70s? All this global warming worry is a sham. Yes we should conserve our limited natural resources, but it's so arrogant to think that someone in the UK or EU trading in their old clunker is going to make any impact on the CO2 or pollutant levels of the earth. Especially when ppl in the rest of the world (less developed cars) are buying cars & motorcycles with no pollutant controls at all.
BigMcLargeHuge 2:09PM (5/19/2009)
I disagree that we don't have at least some impact,
But I totally agree with you that the US and EU aren't going to solve crap by mandating CO2 standards for passenger cars.
There is still a rainforest being wiped out in South America, Africa, and Asia as we speak.
We can run our countries bankrupt and wonder why the earth is still warming, unless we can have an influence on sovereign nations' citizens (which we can't)
All this green passenger-car legislation is like trying to halt an avalanche with a teaspoon. We should be focusing on preparation, because prevention is beyond our control.
So buy your favorite sports car and enjoy the heat, because whether the will of man or nature, the earth WILL be hotter sooner.
why not the LS2LS7? 3:07PM (5/19/2009)
BigMcLargeHuge:
LEVII is the DIRTIEST car certification allowed on US roads right now. There literally is not a new car allowed to be sold that is dirtier than the car you quoted.
And that's before we talk about his nonsense that it actually cleans the air. This is complete hogwash.
Quoting Clarkson on environmental issues is a really great way to look really stupid.
BigMcLargeHuge 3:43PM (5/19/2009)
LS7,
Are you saying that there are no cars that can clean the air around them? That it is all hogwash?
BigMcLargeHuge 4:53PM (5/19/2009)
Just because Clarkson says something that is regurgitated from counteless automakers doesn't mean you get to dismiss it.
Nor does it mean that anyone quoting it looks stupid, since it is directly from the automakers themselves.
You can keep pretending to be the CARB statistic expert, but you really aren't fully grasping the concept of smog.
Ozone, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are converted inside ANY current OBD-II certified engine to water, oxygen and carbon dioxide. None of these are smog-forming.
The air out of the 911 Turbo can theoretically be 'cleaner' than the air going in, if you are talking smog-forming chemicals.
And the air out of ANY modern OBD-II compliant vehicle is FAR cleaner than anything that is a true 'clunker'. So quitcher bitchin. Even the dirtiest current vehicle is a huge improvement.
It isn't hogwash.
http://www.drive.subaru.com/Fall08/Fall08_whatmakes.htm
Volvo even takes it a step further. Air that TOUCHES the Volvo radiator gets cleaned. It doesn't even have to enter the engine.
http://www.catalysts.basf.com/Main/indoor_air_quality/indoor_air_quality_ozone_abatement/volvo_smogeating_cars_feature_basf_technology.be
You're still... uh... yeah, wrong.
why not the LS2LS7? 11:28PM (5/19/2009)
I'm not the guy who tried to brag how clean a car is on trace emissions by stating it is in the dirtiest class allowed for sale. So don't turn up the high side on me.
If you hooked the tailpipe of a car in front to one of these cars' intakes, it might reduce trace emissions. But in reality, the emissions of the car in front have already mixed enough with the surrounding air before entering any other car that it isn't possible that the air coming out is cleaner than at going on. Well, not unless the air in the city in question is so dirty already so as to be unsafe.
So yes, there are no cars that clean the air in trace emissions (what you suggest). In addition, even if there were, trace emissions are just that, trace emissions. Even a car that reduced those would still be reducing the quality of our air through primary emissions (CO2, H2O vapor), so saying it cleans the air would be misleading.
Short version:
You believed Clarkson when he said the 911 was a very clean car when it was in the dirtiest class of car allowed to be sold. You managed to look a little foolish and by continuing to argue that you did not, you just look like a person more concerned with smoothing over his past mistakes than learning not to make mistakes in the future.
I do agree with you that trying to control our greenhouse emissions is not going to make a huge difference given what other companies are doing. However, turning around and saying "I might as well make it worse too" is not going to help either, and in fact is the root of the problem in the first place.