The Green Case for Collector Cars

"and that muscle car of yesteryear can be as pleasant to drive and as affordable to own as any modern car."

It takes far more than updating the motor and transmission to reach that goal.

You have things like brakes and suspension needed to match modern standards.

Harder still, addressing safety is a monumental issue. You might be able to theoretically upgrade the braking system to ABS, but upgrading the chassis to today's safety standard or adding airbags is simply not practical.

None of that addresses just how collectable a collectable car becomes after it has been Frankensteined with updated components. Imagine replacing the drivetrain of a 1966 Jaguar XKE convertible with a modern 6 cylinder engine.

Actually, there are plenty of examples of that kind of conversion and the answer is they have virtually no value at all.

"There are other advantages to this approach that make sense for the environment."

Yes, clearly for the companies supplying the parts for your conversion.

Finally, after you total up the costs of performing the conversion and doing it correctly, just how much gas could you buy with all that money?

Personally, I think it would be sinful to take a historic or antique car, destroy its value, just so you can make it into something that is more daily-driveable.

"Of course, most could use braking or cooling upgrades to improve traffic safety and utility."

Hard to understand how improving the cooling system improves traffic safety. What would you do, hang additional radiators around the car like old tires around a tug boat?

Wow, that's quite a stretch.......lol

I'm doing my part.

But, I'd probably not be driving a 1966 Nova.

And I'm skeptical about the number of older cars that are in really good shape, unless they've never been on a salted road.

The infrastructure expansion required by EV is a real issue as is the battery disposal/recycling issue.

I do like not having a car payment every month though.

Other nations stand out in leading the way on this.

When I sold my old Lotus to a fellow in Denmark I asked what he was going to use it for. He advised that he was going to use it as his 'daily driver' and explained that he had a '67 Mustang as his winter car. He had been steered into this approach by the 100% plus 25% tax charges which he would have had to pay for this years Mustang and this years Caterham 7. The government of Denmark charges modest taxes for the older cars. Ireland has similar policies - the older rides get a preferential tax treatment. However, the cars are not upgraded for efficiencies.

The upgrading of old vehicles to modern powertrains has been in full cry in Cuba for years and used vehicles with Mercedes, Peugeot and Izuzu diesels abound. With the licensing of 'particulars' in recent years, these cars have become a major source of private wealth in what was a dirt-poor country- sometimes trading for figures in the $10,000 plus range.

In fact the conclusions of the article are well reflected in Cuba, as the modern taxi fleets are often Hyundai off-lease retreads - probably from Canada.

The maintainance and keeping in top shape an older collectable in original configuration does not really have that may drawbacks- and will not only increase in value but looks awesome-the road performance of some of my older toys does not seem to suffer or be less safe except perhaps for MPG- so I say keep the oldies running well- have fun and drive reasonably and let the politicoes play electric

I for one and sort of mixed on the concepts given here.

Redoing an actual collector car into a regular daily driver may not sit so well with the purist but then I am not one of them so doing such a thing would not bother me one bit.

Now more realistically there are countless other not so highly sought after makes and models that in many aspects were actually built better than the typical models that became the collectable ones which to me points to there being a lot of good older vehicles that are out there for cheap to be converted.

As safety goes I have reservations on a older car being too inferior to a newer one. There are a lot of older cars that were very well built that exceeded the crash survival requirements of their day which if in a real world crash with many of todays minimal safety requirement vehicles would easily come out ahead!

Anyone want to try and take one my friends late 60's to early 70's Chrysler imperials or Newports on in a head on collision with any average econo box car that represents the majority of vehicles today? Crumple zones can only crumple so far before they guy behind the wheel goes squish.

"Anyone want to try and take one my friends late 60's to early 70's Chrysler imperials or Newports on in a head on collision with any average econo box car that represents the majority of vehicles today?"

Don't kid yourself. There are studies that show that today's cars fare much better than their older counterparts when brought face to face.

The logic of old heavy cars being safer is simply not the case, although any crash is a complex set of events.

Older cars are more vulnerable in side impacts compared to their modern counterparts, as their technology lacks the energy absorbing structures in their doors and the lack of side airbags (as well as frontal air bags). Incidentally, side impacts are the deadliest accidents due to the lower side protection of doors and shear forces on the body.

Airbags go a long way to protecting occupants. Crumple zones may seem ridiculous when you see a crashed car all mangled up, but just like an F1 car, they are cleverly designed to dissipate energy into the vehicle instead of transferring that energy into the passengers where it will split organs.

New cars have one more ace up their sleeve - control. These cars generally steer better, brake better, and more safety aids are finding their way into vehicles to help prevent the accident in the first place.

Lastly, small cars are already designed to take on bigger and heavier vehicles. 50% of vehicles on the road are SUVs and trucks.

"Lastly, small cars are already designed to take on bigger and heavier vehicles. 50% of vehicles on the road are SUVs and trucks."

Yes they take them on but they generally don't drive away from the scene under their own power afterwards to later be repaired and live again like many of the bigger pickups and SUV's do.

Where I live large vehicles new and old are king and low to medium speed winter time accidents are common. I see very few larger or older vehicles that were in a typical intown collisions severely damaged to to the point of being totaled let alone undrivable. Small cars however rarely walk away and their occupants tend to be the people who are still going off in the ambulance.

A number of years ago I had rear end collision between my 1952 International L110 and an at the time brand new 1996 GMC Yukon when leaving Grand Forks during the big flood they had in the spring of 1997. His disk brakes were better wet than my old drum brakes were so I rear ended him hard.

I and my girlfriend at the time plus the two people in the box hit going about 20 - 25 MPH. None of us had seatbelts. I tore his class 4 or 5 receiver hitch right through the rear frame of his GMC crushed his back end in about 3 inches doing major damage and shoving him about 20 feet before we stopped.

My old International wrinkled its bumper got a few creases in the grill and lost a headlight but was totally drivable afterwards. None of the four of us had a single injury either.

Yes at highway speeds things would have been different but in lower speeds the heavy frame and solid metal body of my old truck excelled. His crushed like a pop can.

I have countless other stories of people I know who have been in low to medium speed in town type accidents and so far not one has said their old beaters failed to leave them in better shape than the other persons newer vehicles did for them.

To be honest I only know of a few of their accidents where they were not able to drive their old beaters home afterwards and those accounts were for damages done by the other person's vehicle tearing up and puncturing their radiators or tires.

I'd sooner sacrifice my car instead of loss of life or even injury. Cars can be replaced (that's why we have insurance), people can not. Well, we do have life insurance, but it never benefits the dead.

My point is that the old cars do not get wrecked like the newer cars because the older cars act like a steel brick and ultimately transfers most of the impact shock wave to the occupants. It's simple physics.

You may be able to have someone limp that old car home while you and your passengers are careflighted to the hospital.

There would be no reasons for shoulder belts, airbags, padded dashes, collapsable steering columns, ABS, stability control, crush zones, etc., if it was true that older cars were really a more survivable vehicle in an accident.

But I am not talking about minor fender benders.

"But I am not talking about minor fender benders."

Well that's just it. I am talking about the majority of accident that happen which tend to be fender benders which is the largest part of the what and where of the experiences I and most people have with vehicle accidents.

Those are also the accidents I am referring to where the guys with the old beaters ripped a new vehicle to shreds and drive away with only minor vehicular damage to themselves.

Yes I to like crumple zones! I however like them more when its the other guys vehicle that acts as my crumple zone saving me and my vehicle from serious bodily damage.

If I am going to get into an accident at highway speeds I want to be in a newer vehicle. However if I am going to be in one of the 90% or more level of accidents that happens at lower speeds due to idiots not paying attention while driving in heavy city traffic I want a heavy built vehicle that tears their safe little car to bits and laughs it off.

GA

Lots of good sense in your post, thanks from me personally.

I'd like to answer some of the OP's claims, if you will consider my experience converting a couple of dozen old cars to electric power relevant.

Our first problem is finding suitable candidates. To achieve any acceptable range we need enough space to house at least 30 cubic feet of batteries and attendant electronics. Batteries are heavy, usually resulting in a car that is heavier than when it was powered by an internal combustion engine. So not only do we need a reasonably corrosion-free car, it also has to be rated to handle that additional weight in addition to normal loading. Or it must be reasonably modifiable (space to add material to strengthen suspension mounts, stronger springs available, etc.). Potential pollutants created by manufacturing or modifying these parts (as well as the electrical parts) eat into the OP's idea that using an existing car bypasses the pollutants created by manufacturing a new car.

Sticking with petroleum fuel, I have been restoring / upgrading a 1967 Pontiac with a 326 c.i. V-8 engine. Although more economical than converting to electric power, adding electronic fuel injection plus its attendant computer and sensor system will cost thousands of dollars. Adding modern emissions adds hundreds more. If completed I wouldn't expect to improve from about 12 mpg to the OP's 30 mpg on such a heavy aerodynamic brick. But it is an interesting challenge.

"Considering the average trade-in cycle of two to three years, a 1966 Chevy Nova is a greener car than a brand new Chevy Volt, simply because it has eliminated the need to manufacture over 20 cars in the time it has been in service." I can't follow the logic of this statement. First, Edmunds says the average trade-in period has fallen to five years (from 5.8 years) - about double the OP's claim - so most traders wouldn't have purchased 20 cars. Second, many people trade cars because their needs change. The OP assumes that a 1966 Nova would always meet the needs of a growing family. Mini-vans and SUVs would never have become popular if a mid-size sedan was always adequate. Third, the OP assumes that replacement parts are always available for cars over almost fifty years. That may be somewhat true for parts that a manufacturer changes little over many years, such as brake shoes. But I struggle to find replacement electric switches of the original size and shape for my 1967 Pontiac; new replacement taillight assemblies are rare and not reproduced. The OP champions using an old car that one has become fond of, but only a few most popular cars enjoy enough aftermarket support to be considered for daily driving. Those "…millions of well-built, long-lasting vehicles from the postwar period right through the mid-1980s…" weren't designed to last fifty years or more - they were designed to slightly outlive the car payments. Have you searched for strong examples of thirty year old (or older) cars? They're not so plentiful, and they're not cheap.

I love old cars and I enjoy conversions. But in the end you get a car that drives more like a dump truck, unless you spend what would purchase a new Tesla. Even hardcore conversion enthusiasts struggle to stick with converted cars as their main transportation. We've got a bunch of conversions that mostly sit around, but who knows, maybe we don't realize we're sitting on a gold mine?

I liked your post, but the end results would make few people happy I feel, certainly not me.

I m of the opinion that unless there is a MAJOR break thru with regard to lighter, more powerful cheaper batteries, with a life at least as long as the average car, they will remain a niche product.

The modern electric car may need a battery bank replacement, costing as much as the car did new after only 5 years or so = DISASTER for someone!!

Where I am seeing "light" are with hybrid cars, some actually having more than reasonable performance, but with seriously reduced emissions and good economy. Especially the ones that allow the car to be run daily on short runs, only on electricity and recharging at home, not by the engine. Reserving the IC engine for longer distances and emergencies.

I am also that these are not for most DIYers either though!!! Now if a company offered a package, that was small enough to fit most cars and could be fitted by a good DIYer, we may have something interesting!!!!

That calls for a GA.

Thank you kind Sir!

There are retrofit kits available on the market. The problem is they are going to be expensive and it requires a lot of labor to make the conversion.

If you are not a mechanic (amateur or professional), then you left with paying someone else to do that conversion.

When you consider the total cost (parts and labor) for the conversion and the net savings for the life of the car it simply does not make economical sense.

Then, if you decide that this is not for you, who would you sell the converted car to? The cash for clunkers program is long gone and no matter how well you did the job you will never recoup your investment.

It's like antique car restoration. Many people buy an old car thinking they can fix it and flip it for a profit. After they get done the true cost of the restoration almost always far exceeds the market value for a restored antique. Now, there is a market for antique cars, but no market for someone else's DIY conversions.

Adding insult to injury, most conversions are really a compromise of design, so you will have to be satisfied with a vehicle that is not as polished and functional as it would be if it were designed from the ground up to be an EV or a hybrid.

EV conversions are simply another hobby activity. You do it for love and fun, not economics.

The problem we've found with most retrofit kits is that they do not mention beefing up the vehicle to handle the added weight. Plus their instructions often leave a lot of holes. If you are not already handy with cars and high power electrical systems then you may be in over your head.

All of our conversions have been hobby based. I know a few people who tried to make a business out of it, but they didn't last long. The costs are too high for the realized performance and the batteries don't live very long, so the resale market is almost nonexistent. That's why we have several conversions sitting unused in the parking lot. They could be revived, but at a cost that causes their owners to say "I don't want to do that again".

If batteries make a leap forward then the game could change. I like electric cars and I am optimistic for the technology, but I'm not a hyper-environmentalist willing to shout down reality. If you want to experiment with conversions then please first do your research so you know what you're getting into. Today you will spend about $7000 to $20,000 (plus the cost of your vehicle) depending upon how high-tech you want to go and how resourceful you are. You will end up with a vehicle with fewer amenities than you may be used to, with a range of 25 to 60 miles per charge. That range will decrease over time and with weather conditions, and you will need new batteries after three to five years. That's okay for us enthusiastic hobbyists, but not for the general public.

If batteries make a leap forward then the game could change. I like electric cars and I am optimistic for the technology, but I'm not a hyper-environmentalist

All I can say is that I have been involved doing this for the past six years, and this is experience talking. You are correct that we need much better batteries. The motors and controllers could stand improvement, and the battery monitoring systems and chargers need serious improvement. However I am not so pessimistic about battery bank replacement costs (for professionally produced cars like Tesla or Nissan). Although these cars have not been out in the real world very long their manufacturers are willing to provide long warranties. Depending on where you live you can get 8 to 10 years and up to 100,000 miles. Hybrid cars have been in the real world just long enough to generate some real data. Their battery packs are surviving very well. I know several owners with over five years / close to 100,000 miles who are having no problems. One has an early Honda Civic Hybrid that did have battery problems at just under 10 years old but Honda replaced them for no charge. Another has a 2008 Prius that did die (at over 300,000 miles) but its engine blew up - the batteries were still working fine. These results make me optimistic about battery life and reliability. But we really need at least five more years of real world experience before we can make this call. Meanwhile there are some really good deals on used hybrids out there if you are willing to take some risk.

We also modify hybrid cars, mostly by adding batteries. Hybrids are complicated and you're correct that it's not as easy as it sounds. Because of that we're finding that modifying hybrids is not the most reliable thing to do. But we're willing to accept that as part of our hobby. Although a few people are trying it, I don't think these modifications are ready for the business world. There are retrofits available for DIYers, and it is not as hard as doing a complete conversion. But you should be handy with cars and have some electrical background before you tackle them.

Basically, exactly what I was expecting....

Are there any hobby cars/delivery vans using large (Gyro type) spinning wheels as some buses use in certain towns around the world? ....and have done for at least the last 20 years or so...

This article suggests that the gyro-buses did not 'prove-out' for a variety of reasons, including the factors such as high weight of vehicle, high fuel (electricity) costs per km. and frequency of chargings required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrobus

Perhaps the future of flywheel-power is just as an 'augmenter' to the primary drive system -as with this Volvo implementation;

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/154405-volvo-hybrid-drive-60000-rpm-flywheel-25-boost-to-mpg

Ever heard of Wrecking yards or recyclers as they now call themselves