Car Advice

Used engine sales plague UK’s scrappage scheme success

By Matt Brogan |

A report published in Auto Express today says that engines from cars scrapped under the UK’s popular new-for-old scheme are being re-sold to the public via a technical loophole, defeating the objective of the government’s green initiative.

Vehicle recyclers have been selling powerplants salvaged from models destined for the scrap yard, effectively putting the old polluting units back on the road. What’s more, small print means they’re technically doing nothing wrong!

When these cars are part-exchanged at a dealer, they’re sent to an Authorised Treatment Facility (ATF) for disposal. But once a Certificate of Destruction (CoD) is issued – confirming the vehicle is permanently off the road – and all the fluids and pollutants have been removed, the ATF is free to dismantle and sell parts for spares.

Not surprisingly, the practice has also been condemned by eco campaigners.

“The initiative should encourage drivers to replace older models with cleaner cars,” said Friends of the Earth’s Mr Richard Dyer. “This is keeping polluting vehicles on the road.”

Industry data suggests engine recycling isn’t helping cut national CO2 emissions either with the average figure of older vehicles scrapped* being 169g/km, or 16g/km more than the average of new vehicles sold.

More than 280,000 new cars were sold through the UK’s scrappage scheme last year – more than 10 per cent of the two million UK total.

*The average age of vehicles scrapped under the UK scheme was 13 years.


 
  • Gazza

    I thought they destroyed the engines, or is that just in the US?

  • mmmmmmmmmm

    so now the greenies say its bad to recycle.
    the alternative is to manufacture new parts to keep the existing cars on the road for people who can’t afford a new greener car.

  • Mitch

    I cant imagine that many people are replacing engines anyway. so its not really a big deal.

    most probably people with classic cars that are rarely driven.

    • Trump

      Agree, would only be the classics, that are really worth salvaging parts from.

  • Mark G

    That photo is hilarious. Probably taken 25 years ago, at least.

  • Boganhead

    Did i read that correctly? old vehicles are only 16g/km worse than new ones that’s only 10%. compare that with the evironmental impact of making an entire brand new car and i think you will find that the people who are in fact ruining the planet are politicains and ignorant hippes(so called friends of the earth).

  • David T

    So now the scrappage scheme was a green initiative? I thought that was just a plaesant consequence of this scheme that was to tackle the financial crisis.

    Anyway, I can’t see any of these recycled engines replacing anything less poluting, so it’s a moot point. If you want people to keep buying new then you keep offering incentives (or draconian dissincentives to keep your old car like Japan).

  • Tinman

    Friends of The Earth Oppose Recycling.Bloody Hypocrites!
    It takes more than 10% of the energy a car consumes in it’s 13 year life cycle just to manufacture it.That equates to more than 10% of the emissions it produces.
    (The figure is closer to 13%).(Source:Automobiles;Manufacture Versus Use).
    The new vehicles must have a much greater than 10% reduction in CO2 output over the old vehicles, before this could be labeled a green scheme.
    Mr Richard Dyer, you should stick to doing what you do best and go hug a tree.
    Leave the science to people who made the effort to learn it!

  • Neo Utopia

    Some good information there Tinman! No I’m not being sarcastic like a small minority of other people on this site.

    I’ll just add my bit. Common sense prevailing here. If people, or car brands for that matter, are using decisions based on that a car should be totally replaced by 13 years then there is no hope for a sustainable (environmentally and not financially of course) car industry, unless the new cars reduces it’s emission level by more than 25% compared to the previous generation, and its entirely possible. It’s just that for car brands to design a car which has a lifespan of more than 20 years is uneconomical for them.

    So all these lower carbon emitting cars (both ultra efficient diesels and hybrids) you see at the recent motor shows might be your next lower carbon replacement cars which will be cheaper to register in Australia when the Emission Trading Scheme or Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme finally come into play, and it’s inevitable that it will. Just think, without new safety laws new cars may still be relatively unsafe or without emission laws new cars may still be chocking up our cities. With new legislation follows innovation, and thats healthy for an industry which prides itself on technological achievements for whom the bulk of people living in countries which were almost entirely designed/planned for affordable vehicle transportation can enjoy.

  • IronOreBananabender

    It’s pretty funny that it is the Japanese cars you would expect to last 13 to 20+ years and give the better efficiency compared to replacing them (according to Tinman’s stats), but the Japanese government goes out of it’s way to make registering the cars for more than 5 years more expensive than getting a new car! So they have a huge turnover of cars, good for the Japanese car manufacturers, bad for motorists pockets and the environment.

    Of course with three Toyotas ex-Japan better than anything Toyota ever has offered here in Australia I can’t complain. It would be most environmentally friendly to just stop making any cars here and just ship boatloads of as-new used cars from Japan here. I’ve seen some mitsubishi’s blowing smoke almost every day though, maybe they should be forced to get repairs or be scrapped. Is it something to do with substandard piston rings in mitsubishis?

  • odeh alawadat

    we are delaing with used engine and parts for japaness car and we are interested on new supplier of this would you please help us and send us full formation bout thsi