Eco-friendly scheme that isn't crap
Discussion
Hey guys, had an idea yesterday that I couldn't get out of my head, so I thought the PH forum might be the correct place to confront it to some criticism.
What I had in mind is based on the following scenario that happened to a friend of mine. His 6-year old econo-box (Seat Ibiza 1.something) ate one of the engine bearings. Since the car by now is worth about the same as the repair would have cost, he decided to get rid of it, although the interior and everything else was essentially as good as new. Now I thought this decision might have been a bit different if the friendly mechanic offered him instead the following:
"Ok, here's the deal, either you sell your car for EUR 1500 and have to find yourself a new one for at least EUR 6000, or we'll repair the old engine which costs about EUR3000, OR would sir like to upgrade to a completely new engine that is actually 15hp more powerful, fulfills the latest EURO5 environmental norm so you pay less tax, and of course also eats up less fuel than the old one? We'll take your old engine as your first payment, so that in total it'll cost you around EUR4000 and you'll have a car that is essentially better than new". I know which one I'd have take.
So the idea consists of the following:
- Car manufacturers will have to build their engines (and of course the necessary control systems) modularly enough so that it takes little garage time to swap out a 2010 engine into a 2004 car
- They'll also try to make use of existing parts that come off old engines. If the block or the pistons of a 2004 engine are the same as those on the latest model, why shouldn't they reuse them and make use of broken engines like the one from my friend? There is often little reason why the 2.4l V6 shouldn't use the same pistons, valves, injectors etc. as the 1.6l I4, for an example. And if the garages just took out those old engines and sent them to a central recycling facility, I guess it would be rather economic to take them apart and check wether the individual parts are fit for being reused.
-Another possibility this opens up is to reverse the process and say "I have a brand new engine left over from my old Polo that kissed the wall at 40kph, so I need a new car... Usually I couldn't afford it and would buy another Polo, but why don't you use the engine I have in a new Scirocco and give me a EUR 4000 discount?"
The benefits to the customer are pretty obvious, I think, so let's talk about the benefits to the manufacturer:
a) It's an obvious cost advantage on the market, both in terms of individual customers of the lower-mid section - the numerous people who buy EUR10k-20k cars to "take them from A to B" in a primarily inexpensive fashion and aren't too concerned about driving the latest model actually), and also in terms of corporate customers - if your fleet of 20 company cars will have a fixed price 4-year interval of engine replacements so that they always fulfill the latest enviro-requirements, and if something goes wrong they'll just replace the engine or the car body instead of selling you a complete new car, it'll save a lot of money, and of course it'll tie these customers a lot closer to the manufacturer - once you are in such a scheme, it wouldn't make much sense to throw away the value invested in new engines just because the new VW Passat has a nicer interior than the latest Ford Mondeo, would it?
b) It's certainly more resource-efficient and thus eco-friendly. If the public discussion ever goes away from discussing "CO2 per km" to taking into account the entire CO2 used to run AND make the car, this will possibly reap quite a lot of rewards from the governing body (wether that's the national authorities or the EU). This different calculation would by the way correct the calculation quite a bit for sportscars that typically aren't driven several thousand miles per year. Of course, even if the governmental bean-counters don't take notice, it would still make for rather good marketing campaigns - "More fun without the guilt attached - the new bluetec turbo engines with up to 250hp are waiting for you at your Ford dealership. *fittable to Fiesta, Focus and Mondeo models past 2006"
So what do you thing, does this a) make sense to you as a customer, b) sound like a realistic proposal for the car manufacturers, or do you thing they are way too stuck on their old business model of selling completely new cars every 4 years and not giving a f
k about the old ones?
Chris
What I had in mind is based on the following scenario that happened to a friend of mine. His 6-year old econo-box (Seat Ibiza 1.something) ate one of the engine bearings. Since the car by now is worth about the same as the repair would have cost, he decided to get rid of it, although the interior and everything else was essentially as good as new. Now I thought this decision might have been a bit different if the friendly mechanic offered him instead the following:
"Ok, here's the deal, either you sell your car for EUR 1500 and have to find yourself a new one for at least EUR 6000, or we'll repair the old engine which costs about EUR3000, OR would sir like to upgrade to a completely new engine that is actually 15hp more powerful, fulfills the latest EURO5 environmental norm so you pay less tax, and of course also eats up less fuel than the old one? We'll take your old engine as your first payment, so that in total it'll cost you around EUR4000 and you'll have a car that is essentially better than new". I know which one I'd have take.
So the idea consists of the following:
- Car manufacturers will have to build their engines (and of course the necessary control systems) modularly enough so that it takes little garage time to swap out a 2010 engine into a 2004 car
- They'll also try to make use of existing parts that come off old engines. If the block or the pistons of a 2004 engine are the same as those on the latest model, why shouldn't they reuse them and make use of broken engines like the one from my friend? There is often little reason why the 2.4l V6 shouldn't use the same pistons, valves, injectors etc. as the 1.6l I4, for an example. And if the garages just took out those old engines and sent them to a central recycling facility, I guess it would be rather economic to take them apart and check wether the individual parts are fit for being reused.
-Another possibility this opens up is to reverse the process and say "I have a brand new engine left over from my old Polo that kissed the wall at 40kph, so I need a new car... Usually I couldn't afford it and would buy another Polo, but why don't you use the engine I have in a new Scirocco and give me a EUR 4000 discount?"
The benefits to the customer are pretty obvious, I think, so let's talk about the benefits to the manufacturer:
a) It's an obvious cost advantage on the market, both in terms of individual customers of the lower-mid section - the numerous people who buy EUR10k-20k cars to "take them from A to B" in a primarily inexpensive fashion and aren't too concerned about driving the latest model actually), and also in terms of corporate customers - if your fleet of 20 company cars will have a fixed price 4-year interval of engine replacements so that they always fulfill the latest enviro-requirements, and if something goes wrong they'll just replace the engine or the car body instead of selling you a complete new car, it'll save a lot of money, and of course it'll tie these customers a lot closer to the manufacturer - once you are in such a scheme, it wouldn't make much sense to throw away the value invested in new engines just because the new VW Passat has a nicer interior than the latest Ford Mondeo, would it?
b) It's certainly more resource-efficient and thus eco-friendly. If the public discussion ever goes away from discussing "CO2 per km" to taking into account the entire CO2 used to run AND make the car, this will possibly reap quite a lot of rewards from the governing body (wether that's the national authorities or the EU). This different calculation would by the way correct the calculation quite a bit for sportscars that typically aren't driven several thousand miles per year. Of course, even if the governmental bean-counters don't take notice, it would still make for rather good marketing campaigns - "More fun without the guilt attached - the new bluetec turbo engines with up to 250hp are waiting for you at your Ford dealership. *fittable to Fiesta, Focus and Mondeo models past 2006"
So what do you thing, does this a) make sense to you as a customer, b) sound like a realistic proposal for the car manufacturers, or do you thing they are way too stuck on their old business model of selling completely new cars every 4 years and not giving a f
k about the old ones?Chris
Edited by deccer on Wednesday 22 September 13:47
Ho would you propose getting around the fact that most new engines entail new engine mounts, etc?
You'd effectively end up gutting the old car down to a shell to replace all the necessary bits. The reason why we don't already do this very often is that it's not economical to do so - it's cheaper to build a car in a factory than in a garage. There are less liability issues with a car built in a factory (where the QA man isn't the same person who fitted the brakes).
Your idea is nice in theory and horrible in the real world.
Sorry.
C
You'd effectively end up gutting the old car down to a shell to replace all the necessary bits. The reason why we don't already do this very often is that it's not economical to do so - it's cheaper to build a car in a factory than in a garage. There are less liability issues with a car built in a factory (where the QA man isn't the same person who fitted the brakes).
Your idea is nice in theory and horrible in the real world.
Sorry.
C
At the end of the day you will be left with an old car and would potentially have spent more on a new engine than you would on just buying a used car of the same age to replace it.
The engine change would also be classed as a modification by the insurance which would lead to higher premiums.
The engine change would also be classed as a modification by the insurance which would lead to higher premiums.
Yes, I thought about that, and it of course rules out a lot of existing engine swaps. However, I see no reason why a 2010 1.6l engine shouldn't use the same engine mounts, basic wires etc. as the 2012 or 2014 model from the same manufacturer. Most of the time, they already use the same engine block for those incremental changes, so the mounts are in fact at the same position. If the engines would be designed from the ground up for that kind of service, I see no reason why they couldn't have the engine mounts at the same place, and also they could easily develop some engine conversion mounts ready for use, in case you want a V6 in your Fiesta or something like that (within reasonable limits, of course) 
.
Also, the actual swapping doesn't need to take place at every small dealership, I'd guess it would be very feasible to have the cars transported over to a regional or even national center specialized on engine replacements to make sure every customer gets served within a week or two, which is typically what it takes to repair an internally damaged engine in your local dealership. In such a facility, it would be pretty much the same situation as within the factory, with no customers walking around and distracting the employees, and dedicated QA people checking what the mechanics are doing, and so on. Logically, this would also be the same place where they would dismantle the older engines to reuse the working parts, so you can expect those things to easily afford expensive specialized equipment such as X-rays for testing crankshafts for cracks and so on.
I mean, sure, it would be a major investment for the manufacturers, but one that could easily pay off. I still see no definitive reason why this can't be done.
Chris
. Also, the actual swapping doesn't need to take place at every small dealership, I'd guess it would be very feasible to have the cars transported over to a regional or even national center specialized on engine replacements to make sure every customer gets served within a week or two, which is typically what it takes to repair an internally damaged engine in your local dealership. In such a facility, it would be pretty much the same situation as within the factory, with no customers walking around and distracting the employees, and dedicated QA people checking what the mechanics are doing, and so on. Logically, this would also be the same place where they would dismantle the older engines to reuse the working parts, so you can expect those things to easily afford expensive specialized equipment such as X-rays for testing crankshafts for cracks and so on.
I mean, sure, it would be a major investment for the manufacturers, but one that could easily pay off. I still see no definitive reason why this can't be done.
Chris
About the "left with an old car" issue: Sure, in many cases it wouldn't make much sense to install a new engine in an old car with worn out suspension, crap interior and so on. And I guess that even with the mentioned specialization, recycling of the usable bits of the old engine and so on, it would be still more expensive to have a new engine than it would be to buy a used car of similar milage with a working engine. However, in that case you're just as left with an old car whose faults you don't even know, with an old, uneconomic and less powerful engine, aren't you?
As I said, if someone offered me to have a completely new, more powerful and cheaper-to-run factory guaranteed engine in my own car which I KNOW to run alright, this would be worth a significant bonus over buying another used car, and it would probably increase the resale value quite a bit as well - especially if it was a known fact that you could use that new engine in your old car as a significantly valued payment for a new car of the same brand.
So if you think on it in bigger scale, this would raise used-car prices quite a bit as well. People would thus probably not get rid of their badly-maintained clonkers for another three-year old so-so used car every other year, but stick to one that is good and buy a new car or another well maintained used car every, say, 5 or 7 years. Since these cars would keep up their resale value better, it would make more sense to maintain them, generating more business for the car dealerships. Win for everyone, I guess.
The problem of insurance for a modified car is of course a very individual problem of the insurance companies in each country, but I guess a reasonable arrangement could be found quite easily, as it would be basically a factory installed and guaranteed modification. And sometimes, it might even open up some loopholes, such as having more power while paying less taxes AND the same insurance, since you're still running the basic model 1.6l NA engine, just the newer version with direct injection or something like that.
Chris
As I said, if someone offered me to have a completely new, more powerful and cheaper-to-run factory guaranteed engine in my own car which I KNOW to run alright, this would be worth a significant bonus over buying another used car, and it would probably increase the resale value quite a bit as well - especially if it was a known fact that you could use that new engine in your old car as a significantly valued payment for a new car of the same brand.
So if you think on it in bigger scale, this would raise used-car prices quite a bit as well. People would thus probably not get rid of their badly-maintained clonkers for another three-year old so-so used car every other year, but stick to one that is good and buy a new car or another well maintained used car every, say, 5 or 7 years. Since these cars would keep up their resale value better, it would make more sense to maintain them, generating more business for the car dealerships. Win for everyone, I guess.
The problem of insurance for a modified car is of course a very individual problem of the insurance companies in each country, but I guess a reasonable arrangement could be found quite easily, as it would be basically a factory installed and guaranteed modification. And sometimes, it might even open up some loopholes, such as having more power while paying less taxes AND the same insurance, since you're still running the basic model 1.6l NA engine, just the newer version with direct injection or something like that.
Chris
Edited by deccer on Wednesday 22 September 15:11
Fine in theory, but I think that it would constrain the manufacturer too much. New engines would have to be designed to fit old platforms which would mean keeping elements of the old platform in new designs. This could hamper new innovations in crash worthiness. A similar story with the electronics, keeping the same ECU plugs would mean that wiring systems won't be free to change.
The manufacturers aren't interested in the environment, however, they are interested in making money. Old designs don't sell, having lots of parts which are interchangeable will mean that used parts will be plentiful and no need to buy them from the manufacturer. They have been working towards retaining their parts market for years with electronic units that lock themselves to a particular car.
The manufacturers aren't interested in the environment, however, they are interested in making money. Old designs don't sell, having lots of parts which are interchangeable will mean that used parts will be plentiful and no need to buy them from the manufacturer. They have been working towards retaining their parts market for years with electronic units that lock themselves to a particular car.
Yes, I guess that's reasonable criticism. Big industries like car manufacturing are often very inert when it comes to changing their basic business model. I guess if your business model generates a billion Euros a year, you might become a bit skeptical about throwing it over board. However, I see a chance for this: If one such attempt was made and actually succeeded, the whole inducstry would be under big pressure to do the same. This pressure could very well be political, since in my opinion this would a) make money and generate marketing advantages for the domestic industry over foreign competitors, b) create a number of well-qualified technical jobs (it wouldn't be some third-world mechanic disassembling the 5 year old engine after the whole car had been shipped to Africa anymore), c) be instantaneously recognizable as resource-efficient and eco-friendly.
All of these things are right now primary concerns of politicians in the entire developed world, so I'd be a bit surprised if they would jump on the train of praising this concept. Unless some old-industry lobbyists convinced them that it was all the devil's work, as it so happens.
Plus, I don't think this would make cars any more boring than they already are. I mean, it's not like they are all experimenting with crazy engine layouts or other very interesting ideas in the lower market segment that we're talking about... They pretty much all have their 0.6l-1l 3-cylinder and their 1.2l-2.0l I4, sometimes turbocharged. The electrics are all running via OBD2/eOBD and standardized buses (CAN). Many modules are interchangeable between different brands of the same head company, such as VW/Audi/Seat/Skoda. It's not like they're not already trying to standardize and reuse existing designs whereever they can - it's just that they aren't very consequent with it.
Chris
However, I see a chance for this: If one such attempt was made and actually succeeded, the whole inducstry would be under big pressure to do the same. This pressure could very well be political, since in my opinion this would a) make money and generate marketing advantages for the domestic industry over foreign competitors, b) create a number of well-qualified technical jobs (it wouldn't be some third-world mechanic disassembling the 5 year old engine after the whole car had been shipped to Africa anymore), c) be instantaneously recognizable as resource-efficient and eco-friendly. All of these things are right now primary concerns of politicians in the entire developed world, so I'd be a bit surprised if they would jump on the train of praising this concept. Unless some old-industry lobbyists convinced them that it was all the devil's work, as it so happens.
Plus, I don't think this would make cars any more boring than they already are. I mean, it's not like they are all experimenting with crazy engine layouts or other very interesting ideas in the lower market segment that we're talking about... They pretty much all have their 0.6l-1l 3-cylinder and their 1.2l-2.0l I4, sometimes turbocharged. The electrics are all running via OBD2/eOBD and standardized buses (CAN). Many modules are interchangeable between different brands of the same head company, such as VW/Audi/Seat/Skoda. It's not like they're not already trying to standardize and reuse existing designs whereever they can - it's just that they aren't very consequent with it.
Chris
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff