A Better 'Green' Car

There is a lot of talk about “greenness”. This increasingly includes cars, although I have to stop there for a minute. I want to remember that my Dad bought a Toyota Tercel back in 1981 which got well into the mid-30mpg range. It is now 2011 and the car companies get all excited about cars that get high 20’s. Am I missing something here?

Anyway, the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf have been getting a lot of press lately. I don’t have all the facts at fingertip, but I believe that each sells for $35,000 to $40,000 and goes from point A to B as long as that distance isn’t greater than about 40 miles (yes, I know the Volt has a gas engine that kicks in at that point, but, at that point it’s just another car).

I have no problem with either car and I love technology. I think it is important to support and encourage new ideas and innovations. However, the hillbilly in me wants to make a proposal for a green car more practical, more efficient, and more green than either of these.

I present you the Volvo 240. In one form or another, this car was made from the early ‘70s through ’93. You can find it in 2 door, 4 door, or wagon versions. As a family sedan it fits the same basic needs as either the Volt or the Leaf. It gets about 25 miles to the gallon. That mileage seems to shoot my argument that it can compete with these other two, but there are a number of reasons it is actually better.

First, by buying a used car you are not only keeping that car out of the landfill but also limiting the carbon footprint of producing a new car. Production pollution is rarely calculated into our consumption, but it is a hugely important concept.

Second, given that it will likely need some more regular maintenance than a brand new car, you are supporting either an existing supply chain for a diverse group of workers from factory workers to supply truck drivers, but you also may be contributing direct dollars into your community if you hire someone to do the work. In addition, since many of these parts are available as rebuilds, you are keeping more items from landfills and supporting yet another level of (typically) small business enterprise. The money spent on new cars tends to be much more focused in its recipients and is not as broadly beneficial.

Third, the initial investment is a fraction of the cost. Cars like this can frequently be purchased for around $1,500. Even if you bought two so that you could swap them out for any maintenance, you would still have less than 10% invested. The remaining 90% can be used for maintenance, or used for supporting local interests like the arts or business, or could be given or donated for others who need it more. Again, your money spent under this proposal has a much more direct impact on your community.

Fourth, there is terrific internet support for these goofy cars. With a modest selection of tools,  some research skills, and the time to make a few mistakes, you can do your own work. There is an increasing dearth of practical knowledge when it comes to being able to do basic maintenance on the blessings we’ve been given. I would argue that this type of knowledge is part of basic stewardship even if you subsequently hire someone else to do the actual work.

Finally, these are actually very safe, solid, dependable cars. I’ve had a number of them and, at this time, Hannah is driving one with over 300,000 miles on it. We bought it for $900, have done a few repairs to the tune of $380 dollars, have completed basic maintenance to keep it running well (oil and filter changes, washing, tire pressure, etc …) and that’s about it. This matches well with the other 6 that we have owned. In addition, once I decided to sell, the most I “lost” at the time of sale was $400. On a number of them I actually sold for more than I paid. On average, by the time I include all costs except gas and I subtract any selling value, I pay about 8/10ths of a cent per mile in transportation costs. Given that the federal allowance is 51 cents per mile, that’s pretty economical.

So, in balance, I find their increased versatility and opportunity to learn how to care for your own car more practical than either the Volt or the Leaf. I find the 240’s decent mpg and incredibly low cost to operate more efficient per dollar invested, and the nature of re-using versus new production makes them far greener. Add to that the ability to use your additional money for your community or for care of others, and the total environmental impact (in which the environment includes the people in the environment) is significantly in favor of the Volvo.

As far as I can tell, the primary reason people don’t already follow the pattern I am suggesting is our society’s infatuation of new. We are delightfully spoiled in the array of choices we can make. Our culture’s insistence on bigger and newer is not something I will address at this time, but it can have unintended consequences. I believe our economic models that don’t address the true cost of “green” technology is one of them. I encourage people to buy these new cars; just make sure you are buying them for the right reasons. Total “greenness” is not one of them. Long live the Swedish Brick!

p.s. I use the Volvo 240 as an example, but there are many similar cars. Look for a fundamentally simple car, one which was manufactured for at least 7 years, one that has a bit of a following, and one that was manufactured in the ‘80s or early 90’s (these tended to be decent quality with out all the computerization) and you should have the part support, the technical support, and the quality to justify your purchase.