Keeping older cars on the road

Markcheese

We dont make any cars in ireland, and not a lot of components either..
Should we have policies to encourage keeping older cars on the road for longer... is a car maintenence industry more value to the state than a new car sales industry..
Maybe change in motor tax when cars start to be nct'd ...
Maybe a subsidized nct lite every 6months for older cars ( rather than having a big bill once a year/every 2 years) encourage regular maintence/repairs on cars..
Some class of scheme to stop dealers/ importers gouging on spare parts, and encouraging garages to keep labour costs to the customer down...

Or has car design gone too far down the disposable design route..
(My 10 year old ,low (ish) milage van died 6months ago .. electrical fault ,had 3 mechanics tell me it wasnt worth fixing ...

Sh1tbag OToole

It would make sense but the dealers are all part of the well-to-do influential crowd who drink in the Shelbourne with politicians and hardly anyone in this country wants to get their hands dirty doing actual work on actual cars so instead the politicians milk the VAT+VRT, the dealer crowd are happy out wearing suits and shaking hands and we end up treating cars as disposable items

The 1-year nct is already doing wonders for making people run to the Dealer for a brand new Tuscan Curdy on PCP so I wouldn't be a fan of the 6 month NCT plan at all, twould do more harm than good

savagethegoat

There was a time when I would have said encourage drivers to maintain there own cars and keep them running as long as possible, but they are so complicated now, it's near impossible to be a home mechanic.

I think the Insurance Companies should be made to back off from their attitude on older cars, that would help. It's going to be the case in a few years where there are no older cars left to become classics and many perfectly good cars will be scrapped simply because they can't be insured.

It's hardly Green is it.

Del2005

Politicians have been hoodwinked into thinking that it's better for the environment to produce a new vehicle that does 4l/100km rather than keep a vehicle which does 10l/100km on the road. In theory it reduces our energy consumption, but it doesn't decrease as the new vehicle consumes energy in another country.

Of course it would be better to keep vehicles going as long as possible but the "green" lobby think it's better to scrap perfectly good vehicles and replace with costly alternatives, which the EU rush to diesel has proven to be a complete environmental disaster.

Thesoupdragon

My car a 2004 and luckily have a mechanic in the family, insurance is a worry as never be able afford a new car .

You'd think if a car passes NCT, insurance would have to be offered regardless of age ?
Old Betsy is no longer a candiate for f1 ! so excessive speed not a problem

Mint Sauce

NCT Crowd, Insurance Companies, Motor Tax, The Dealers. They are all in it together.

My 10 year old car costs 385 a year to tax. My quotes this year varied between about 460, and 1400! Some companies told me there was a loading because she was 10 years old, and that if 12 years old, they wouldn't even quote. All this despite her flying every NCT to date, and low millage. Unfortunately within a few years, there seems there will be no incentive to hold on to her. Already need to start saving for a new one.

Atlantic Dawn

Mint Sauce wrote: »

NCT Crowd, Insurance Companies, Motor Tax, The Dealers. They are all in it together.

My 10 year old car costs 385 a year to tax. My quotes this year varied between about 460, and 1400! Some companies told me there was a loading because she was 10 years old, and that if 12 years old, they wouldn't even quote. All this despite her flying every NCT to date, and low millage. Unfortunately within a few years, there seems there will be no incentive to hold on to her. Already need to start saving for a new one.

I agree with Insurance Companies, Motor Tax and The Dealers wanting newer cars purchased but surely the NCT would have a preference for older cars so people would be going back more often with fails?

kirving

NCT don't really care I wouldn't say. They'll lobby the government all they need to in order to keep themselves in business. When LED headlights are standardized and re-tests for lighting fall off the charts, they'll move on to testing some other aspect, or further increase the testing frequency for older cars.

Actually, on that - I would LOVE to see the data that was used to justify yearly testing for 10 year old cars. I'd bet my bottom dollar that it doesn't exist, never did exist, and was introduced after some heavy lobbying, or on a whim by the RSA who had a slow day. 10 is just too perfect a figure for my liking.

Cienciano

I have a 2003 car, one of the things that annoyed me when looking for insurance is that companies just flat out refused to quote me based on the year. A few ask you the year of the car before anything else. Before your name and dob to see if you're on file even. Once they hear the year, it's "sorry, too old, try somewhere else"

biko

All of the people that have influence drive brand new cars.
For them old cars are just an eyesore that needs to get rid of.

If politicians faced the same car issues as a single mother of two on her salary, then insurance and the rest would change overnight.

s15r330

10 years isn't old, come back to me when you hit 22!

newcar2016

I just wish more people would actually service their cars and if they do keep a service history!

It's a head wreck trying to find a well maintained used car or at least one with evidence of being maintained!

savagethegoat

ironic given your name.....

newcar2016

savagethegoat wrote: »

ironic given your name.....

I was looking for a "new" old car. Moving from a 2003 to a 2008 is like getting a new car for me okay!

dr.fuzzenstein

newcar2016 wrote: »

I just wish more people would actually service their cars and if they do keep a service history!

It's a head wreck trying to find a well maintained used car or at least one with evidence of being maintained!

Service history, ok, lemme see...
Buy car new, keep for 3 years and for HEAVEN's sake, don't open the bonnet. Light damages engines, everyone knows that. OK, maybe check the oil every year, or rather buy any half liter bottle of any oil from petrol station and pour in, no need to actually check the oil. Servicing is a scam from the manufacturer and the dealers anyway. Sell car as "mint", "one woman owner" and ask well above list price.
Second owner will buy car and because it's been "well cared for" sure there is no need to do a service again on it. At time of first NCT bring it to any of the bargain outfits that offer "free" NCT pre-checks. Complain loudly and bitterly about the scam and ripoff that is car servicing (and in this case you'd even be right) and "sure isn't any oil OK?". Repeat for every NCT. By the time car is 10 years old it's knackered anyway, trade old death trap in for shiny new car and the circle begins anew.
There is your service history for 90% of Irish cars. Without the NCT most cars would simply never get any kind of service. Then they would just eventually die and the owner would loudly complain to anyone who would listen how shy*t modern cars are and "I had an Escort back in the 80's, never took a spanner to her in 10 years, sure cars were great back then!"

Sam Kade

newcar2016 wrote: »

I just wish more people would actually service their cars and if they do keep a service history!

It's a head wreck trying to find a well maintained used car or at least one with evidence of being maintained!

Service history isn't worth jack Schitt.

newcar2016

Sam Kade wrote: »

Service history isn't worth jack Schitt.

Please elaborate on this sweeping statement?

dr.fuzzenstein

Sam Kade wrote: »

Service history isn't worth jack Schitt.

Maybe in Ireland, as opposed to countries were people actually do service their cars. And why isn't it? What's wrong with getting a stamp or even keeping a log yourself? The GF's MX5 was serviced by me, I kept a log of everything I did to it, that way I knew exactly when brakes or timing belt were done, which is always handy to know. And if you buy a car with the infamous 1.6 Citroen/Peugeot diesel engine, it's invaluable, because if serviced right it will last and if not, it won't. Which is why this engine has a worse reputation in Ireland than anywhere else (Shure I topped it up with only the best 15w40 money could buy and every 2 years right on the dot, modern cars are such a ripoff!)
Of course if the attitude is "If I just put some stamps in this book, that is a service history", yes, then it's worth nada. Since it's supposed to be an accurate reflection of what was done to the car. it's not there to look pretty.

Tommyboy40

The whole idea is that we should keep buying new greener cars and scrapping anything old. My newest car is a 1998 Mercedes CL500 and I would argue that keeping it on the road is greener than buying a Prius every 3 years. The greatest environmental impact of a car is in it's manufacture. We pander to the SIMI, introducing plates which date every vehicle and creates that idea that we always need the latest reg. When I bought my SL first and it had it's UK plates, the only comments I heard were "nice car". On it's irish plates it gets "shure it's 20 years old"

Charles Babbage

Del2005 wrote: »

Politicians have been hoodwinked into thinking that it's better for the environment to produce a new vehicle that does 4l/100km rather than keep a vehicle which does 10l/100km on the road. In theory it reduces our energy consumption, but it doesn't decrease as the new vehicle consumes energy in another country.

Of course it would be better to keep vehicles going as long as possible but the "green" lobby think it's better to scrap perfectly good vehicles and replace with costly alternatives, which the EU rush to diesel has proven to be a complete environmental disaster.

The idea that new cars produce greenhouse emissions in another country is all very fine, but Irish politicians are concerned with the Irish emissions, for which Ireland will be fined.

RandomAccess

This falacy should be more apparent with electric cars. The efficiency is not going to be much better in 10 or 20 years, just the range.

Corrosion has also taken many cars to an early grave. I expect we should see that decrease as well with increased use of non ferrous metals in external structures for weight savings purposes.

_Kaiser_

As regulars will know, I have a 05 A6 that I'm probably going to have to get rid of in the next few months as she hits 12 years old in January and the broker was already having bother getting quotes this year for it - partly because of the engine size (3L), the mileage involved (1500km per week and 340,000-odd km already on the clock), but yes also because of the age. He told me next year it'll be harder again.

This is despite the car being regularly serviced, passing every NCT, and still in great condition overall.. but as it stands I'm going to have to downgrade to something newer to reduce the costs (admittedly also influenced by other personal-life factors) - currently deciding between a CC and an E-class

kirving

From the RSA:

Older vehicles are also more likely to be involved in a collision. The Road Traffic Collisions
2012 statistics show that 52.4% of fatal collisions that occurred in 2012 involved vehicles that
were 10 years old or more. 46.7% of serious injury collisions that occurred in 2012 involved
vehicles that were 10 years old or more.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/NCT/FAQS%20-%20Annual%20Testing%20of%20cars%20at%20NCT.pdf

What kind of rubbish statistic is that anyway?!

However, from Cartell.ie....

During 2012, average age of car in Ireland varied between 8.04 and 8.43 years old.

http://www.cartell.ie/2015/02/average-age-of-a-car-almost-11-years-in-the-united-states/

As we all know, younger drivers tend to driver cheaper and hence older cars. The same drivers who have to put up N plates since they're categorised as higher risk.

1.
Correcting for the assumption that higher risk drivers drive older cars, it could be contested that this is the reason more people die in older cars - not due to condition of the car.

2.
Unless the opposite is true, and the reason more younger people die is that they driver older cars - because that's what the RSA are telling us when it comes to the NCT frequency for older cars.

So which is it RSA? Seems to me as though they release different sets of information to suit themselves.

jimgoose

Kevin Irving wrote: »

...1.
Correcting for the assumption that higher risk drivers drive older cars, it could be contested that this is the reason more people die in older cars - not due to condition of the car.

2.
Unless the opposite is true, and the reason more younger people die is that they driver older cars - because that's what the RSA are telling us when it comes to the NCT frequency for older cars....

Well isn't that just a textbook "post hoc ergo propter hoc"! :pac:

jimgoose

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

As regulars will know, I have a 05 A6 that I'm probably going to have to get rid of in the next few months as she hits 12 years old in January and the broker was already having bother getting quotes this year for it...

That's a solid disgrace. Did you try AXA and BoI?

jimgoose

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

..."I had an Escort back in the 80's, never took a spanner to her in 10 years, sure cars were great back then!"

Anyone who had a CVH back in the '80s was changing the oil every 5,000 miles or else they were paperweighted pretty quick! :pac:

kirving

jimgoose wrote: »

Well isn't that just a textbook "post hoc ergo propter hoc"! :pac:

Ah I know that, but they spout out red-herring statistics weekly and noone questions them when there's a bit of cash to be made from the public.