Safe Speed Forums

PS: I'm a trained mechanic (4 yr apprenticeship) so I know about that kind of thing.
But a modern car would be destroyed by a timing belt failure, never mind
a road side fix.

...My Cortina snapped it's cam timing belt on the South Circular.
I was dressed in suit, and the only tools I had were an industrial strength fitter's
adjustable spanner, from a steel works, and screwdriver.

I walked to a garage, ordered the part. It came in an hour. I fitted the new cam timing belt
with those two tools I had, set the timing, and got to work before lunch. My suit was still
clean, but I had to wash my hands before meeting clients.

That is how easy it was to fix cars of the late 70's.

Hmmm. Almost makes me want to go out and buy a 70s Cortina!

...almost...

...but not quite!

very tidy.
and nice skinny tyres for the snow too.
tempted.

I was listening to the Today programme (as you do), and I overheard a
proposal that would mean an economic catastrophe for me. Perhaps that's
a bit strong, but I'll lay it out and let you decide.

Anyway, it was from a bloke from the British Association of Motor
Traders, or some group like that. They were wanting a “scrapage
subsidy”, so that people would be rewarded for getting rid of perfectly
good motors, if they would buy a new one. He wanted 2000 pounds a car,
and he was hoping that this would move the backlog of unwanted new
cars.

I'm of the opinion that the best way to move the backlog of unwanted
new cars is to have a sale. That is how merchants sell product that is
on their hands. The idea of a “scrapage subsidy” would affect us in bad
ways:

First, it would replace perfectly good vehicles with new ones. The
factories would continue to spew out CO2 at a time when we should be
doing all we can to reduce it. The traders argue that new cars are more
efficient, but this is very marginal – they are talking of cars that
are only 9 years old, which already have electronic engine management
systems, catalytic converters and which have good fuel efficiency.
Basically, it is better (within reason) to keep the 9 to 15 year old
cars going.

Second, many of us “fenners” need access to affordable vehicles. The
“scrapage subsidy” would remove the supply of ageing but decent cars,
making it dearer for poorer people to get about. The government has
already caused a fiasco with the abolition of the 10p rate, which hit
poor people hard. This “scrapage subsidy” would remove the supply of
affordable cars, making them even more hard up. I recently lost my job
in Cambridge, and I make weekly commutes to a new (but poorer paid) job
in L'pool. I need cheap cars to carry on like this, or it's not worth
it.

Third, a whole industry exists in keeping the older cars maintained.
They need exhausts, brakes, tyres, MOTs, batteries, etc. It would cause
wide scale unemployment among the multitude of small businesses that
depend on a continuous revenue stream from keeping the older cars
going. I call this “bangernomics” (although the cars are far from
“bangers” really). Many people need these older cars.

Fourth, we don't want the government to help out with “planned
obsolescence”. Cars can and should easily last longer than 9 years. I
don't want to contribute to the “throw away society”. The makers need
to be told to make more durable cars, and not told to make them last 9
years, 'coz they'll be scrapped then.

Fifth, it's a bad idea to subsidise industry anyway. Basically, the
taxpayer is maxed out with helping busted banks. If any industry should
be helped, it is the education industry, so that we can teach people to
avoid these pitfalls in the future.

Many thanks considering my views. I hear you're stepping down at the
next election, and I'm moving to L'pool sometime soon. But you've done
a great job as MP, so thanks for that as well.

it appears that not all modern engines are interference engines.

I was listening to the Today programme (as you do), and I overheard a
proposal that would mean an economic catastrophe for me. Perhaps that's
a bit strong, but I'll lay it out and let you decide.

Anyway, it was from a bloke from the British Association of Motor
Traders, or some group like that. They were wanting a “scrapage
subsidy”, so that people would be rewarded for getting rid of perfectly
good motors, if they would buy a new one. He wanted 2000 pounds a car,
and he was hoping that this would move the backlog of unwanted new
cars.

I'm of the opinion that the best way to move the backlog of unwanted
new cars is to have a sale. That is how merchants sell product that is
on their hands. The idea of a “scrapage subsidy” would affect us in bad
ways:

First, it would replace perfectly good vehicles with new ones. The
factories would continue to spew out CO2 at a time when we should be
doing all we can to reduce it. The traders argue that new cars are more
efficient, but this is very marginal – they are talking of cars that
are only 9 years old, which already have electronic engine management
systems, catalytic converters and which have good fuel efficiency.
Basically, it is better (within reason) to keep the 9 to 15 year old
cars going.

Second, many of us “fenners” need access to affordable vehicles. The
“scrapage subsidy” would remove the supply of ageing but decent cars,
making it dearer for poorer people to get about. The government has
already caused a fiasco with the abolition of the 10p rate, which hit
poor people hard. This “scrapage subsidy” would remove the supply of
affordable cars, making them even more hard up. I recently lost my job
in Cambridge, and I make weekly commutes to a new (but poorer paid) job
in L'pool. I need cheap cars to carry on like this, or it's not worth
it.

Third, a whole industry exists in keeping the older cars maintained.
They need exhausts, brakes, tyres, MOTs, batteries, etc. It would cause
wide scale unemployment among the multitude of small businesses that
depend on a continuous revenue stream from keeping the older cars
going. I call this “bangernomics” (although the cars are far from
“bangers” really). Many people need these older cars.

Fourth, we don't want the government to help out with “planned
obsolescence”. Cars can and should easily last longer than 9 years. I
don't want to contribute to the “throw away society”. The makers need
to be told to make more durable cars, and not told to make them last 9
years, 'coz they'll be scrapped then.

Fifth, it's a bad idea to subsidise industry anyway. Basically, the
taxpayer is maxed out with helping busted banks. If any industry should
be helped, it is the education industry, so that we can teach people to
avoid these pitfalls in the future.

Many thanks considering my views. I hear you're stepping down at the
next election, and I'm moving to L'pool sometime soon. But you've done
a great job as MP, so thanks for that as well.

Have you sent the letter yet? If not, I might be able to get you some numbers to put in it. (Not sure that saying you DRIVE an old vehicle from Norfolk to Liverpool was a good idea though)!

Now we can see why the makers are raising their prices. They expect this to go through.
It's a stitch up job.

I fear that I must agree wholeheartedly with you on this occasion!

But cheap though!

To be honest, I've never much liked belt-driven cams. I am gratified to see a number of modern manufacturers reverting to the old chain-driven systems again. I think the belt drives are quieter, cheaper to make, lighter, and have less inertia but on balance, I'd rather pay more for the car initially, knowing that I'd save in the long run by not having to fork out for periodic replacement.

there was a marina in mcd's carpark as i was having coffee waiting for the snow to clear a bit the other day.
very tidy.
and nice skinny tyres for the snow too.
tempted.

I've sent it. But send me the info if you want - I'll send him an update. Or post it here, and I'll give him a URL.

Now we can see why the makers are raising their prices. They expect this to go through.
It's a stitch up job.

That HAS to be complete crap!