applied
sciences
Article
Optimization of Car Use Time for Different Maintenance and
Repair Scenarios Based on Life Cycle Assessment
Krzysztof Danilecki 1 , Piotr Smurawski 2 and Kamil Urbanowicz 1, *
Citation: Danilecki, K.; Smurawski,
P.; Urbanowicz, K. Optimization of
Car Use Time for Different
Maintenance and Repair Scenarios
Based on Life Cycle Assessment.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843. https://
doi.org/10.3390/app13179843
Academic Editor: Daniel
Villanueva Torres
Received: 31 July 2023
Revised: 24 August 2023
Accepted: 29 August 2023
Published: 31 August 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13179843
1 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Mechatronics, West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin,
70-310 Szczecin, Poland; kdanilecki@zut.edu.pl
2 Bemo Motors, Ustowo 56, 70-001 Szczecin, Poland; piotr.smurawski@bemo-motors.pl
* Correspondence: kamil.urbanowicz@zut.edu.pl
Abstract: New propulsion technologies and the development of electromobility increase the envi-
ronmental efficiency of the transport sector. However, the current structure of car fleets with a large
number of old cars with worse environmental parameters undermines the benefits of technological
progress in the automotive industry. Older cars may require a more extensive service, involving a
thorough overhaul, repair or even replacement of many parts. The result of using additional resources
is a deterioration of environmental performance. This study considers various maintenance and
repair scenarios and focuses on the use phase using the example of the popular Ford Focus passen-
ger car model. The life cycle optimization model was used for environmental assessment, which
determines the optimal duration of the car use phase, accounting for detailed service information
and the type and environmental efficiency class of the different fuel versions. This model can be an
effective tool for car fleet management and car replacement policy. Detailed life cycle inventories of
40 Ford Focus II diesel and petrol cars that represent all maintenance and repairs are the inputs to
the life cycle optimization model. The inventory data were provided by the Ford Service Center in
Szczecin (Poland), which regularly serviced the cars with a mileage of up to 200,000 km. Inventory
at other stages of the cars’ life cycles was modeled using Ecoinvent data. The results show that by
considering these vehicle servicing aspects on the basis of more detailed data, impact assessments are
better represented compared to other studies. Depending on the replacement policy, the contribution
of vehicle maintenance and repair can account for almost half of the cumulative life cycle burdens.
Keywords: life cycle optimization model; life cycle assessment; vehicle maintenance; vehicle repair
1. Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine disrupted the global supply chain.
The problems with getting raw materials and components resulted in a sudden decrease
in the supply of brand-new cars. According to the International Organization of Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA), between 2019 and 2022 car manufacturing dropped by
25% [1]. The average age of a car in the EU increased to 12 years. Less affluent EU countries
have the oldest car fleets, with average vehicles being almost 17 years old [2]. Statistics
show that even in the richest EU countries, such as Germany, France and Italy, cars older
than 10 years constitute half of the fleet. Consequently, many millions of cars will soon be
scrapped or will be resold to poorer countries, where they will remain in use. In Poland,
the average vehicle age is 14.5, which is higher than the EU average [2]. In 2022 alone, more
than 772,000 second-hand cars were imported and brought to Poland. The number of cars
older than 10 years has increased by 15% over the last years [3]. The fact that the car fleet is
getting older poses a challenge due to the worse fuel efficiency and higher operational costs
of using older cars. Decisions to replace the old fleet are usually made based on economic
criteria. The ultimate goal is to minimize the total fleet cost in a given planning horizon.
This is known as life cycle cost analysis (LCCA). Every owner is interested in choosing such
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 2 of 22

sequences of the best decisions that would guarantee the lowest cumulative cost during
vehicle lifetimes.
One of the biggest costs for every vehicle fleet is maintenance [4]. Older cars require
more extensive service, which involves the thorough overhaul, repair or even replacement
of components that prematurely failed. Vehicles with lower repair costs as they get older
keep their value better than other cars. A proper strategy of preventive maintenance plays
a pivotal role in attempts to maximize vehicle lifespan. More reliable cars can be used for
longer to minimize the total operational costs. However, when one of the main components
that was supposed to last the vehicle’s lifetime fails, the repair cost can exceed the value of
the car. Savings from amortization over a long car lifetime cannot make up for the high
costs of repairs. In these cases, it is better to retire the vehicle and have it scrapped.
It can be concluded that motor vehicle replacement decisions represent a trade-off
between the purchase of a new, more efficient and less polluting motor vehicle versus
continuing to use and maintain an inefficient, higher-polluting old car. However, envi-
ronmental assessments based only on drive efficiency can lead to flawed conclusions and
non-optimal results. The environmental efficiency of vehicles largely depends on the ve-
hicle’s technology. A study conducted by Hawkins et al. [5] showed how important it is
to take into consideration the impact of vehicle production and utilization, particularly
when comparing the different vehicle technologies, in particular electric vehicles (EV) and
internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEV). Half of the cumulative impact of an EV is
linked to production, while for an ICEV most of the impact is linked to driving.
In comparative assessments of vehicle environmental efficiency, the differences of
drive/fuel technologies are best illustrated in an approach based on life cycle assessment.
Apart from production, life cycle also covers the consequences of maintenance and com-
ponent replacement, recovery and utilization of materials in cars that are scrapped. In
the model of sustainable management of vehicular fleets, life cycle assessment has serious
implications for the optimal policy of using, maintaining and replacing fleets. This study
provides a framework for better understanding environmental consequences linked to
decisions made about maintenance/repair and vehicle replacement intervals.
The life cycle assessment (LCA) model was the starting point in modeling vehicle
replacement. To better understand the influence of maintenance and repair, it was necessary
to make a thorough inventory based on documented data, with more detailed informa-
tion than that which can be found in publicly available business inventories, reports or
databases. In this study, the complete and confidential service data of 40 petrol and diesel
Ford Focus II cars regularly serviced in an authorized Ford Service Center in Szczecin
were used. All events and actions linked to servicing were categorized separately for
both fuel versions. They include preventive maintenance according to the producer’s
schedule, current maintenance performed following the customer’s notice and the vehicle’s
diagnostic system readings, premature failures and repair following road accidents. The
inventory data for both fuel versions, which include material and media flow and process
data, were used to develop the functions of models. The obtained functions present the
cumulative burdens of the maintenance phase expressed as eco-indicator points. The
thorough maintenance inventory and the assumptions of the LCA model were presented
elsewhere, in the authors’ previous paper (Danilecki et al.) [6]. The estimated impact of
some maintenance scenarios turned out to be even twice as big as the influence reported in
other studies, mainly due to the effect of customers reporting for maintenance (that effect
was previously considered to be negligible).
In this study, the results of previous LCA maintenance were used to develop a vehicle
replacement optimization model to minimize the cumulative environmental impact based
on the adopted criterion. Simulations were conducted on a set of previously defined
environmental profiles for maintenance and unplanned failures and took into consideration
technological improvements in drive efficiency in new vehicles. The vehicle replacement
optimization problem was solved using a solver that is compatible with a spreadsheet.
Owing to the high level of thoroughness and transparency of the inventory, simulation
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 3 of 22

results very well represent the model of replacing an average European car. They can also
allow one to assess the unfounded environmental costs linked to non-optimal replacement
intervals. The results brought by this study and the implications for vehicle replacement
cycle management constitute the added value of this paper.
The text below is divided into five additional sections. Section 2 reviews previous
vehicle life cycle studies to extract relevant information, such as critical factors influencing
vehicle replacement decisions by individual consumers and business decision-makers,
life cycle impact results with a focus on the potential impact of vehicle maintenance, key
assumptions for assessing total life cycle costs of vehicle ownership and tools used to
optimize operational decisions and replacement intervals. Section 3 formulates the model
for the environmental optimization of vehicle runtime, data sources and maintenance sce-
narios. Section 4 presents and analyzes the results of the simulation and the environmental
consequences of replacing an older car with a newer model. Based on the optimization re-
sults, Section 5 discusses policies that minimize environmental impact by comparing them
to other previous studies’ results. Environmental optimization results were also compared
with economically optimal replacement intervals. Also, the results are considered in terms
of non-justifiable environmental costs associated with non-optimal replacement intervals.
Section 6 summarizes the main findings and provides directions for further research.

2. Literature Review
The optimal lifetime of a car can be dictated by different economic, social and environ-
mental factors, which are the basic criteria for the life cycle sustainability assessment [7,8].
To effectively manage a sustainable life cycle, it is necessary to determine the appropriate
time to replace the car based on the most significant impact indicators. For this purpose,
based on the opinion of drivers, Vesovic et al. [9] defined indicators such as average vehicle
age, brand loyalty, estimated emissions, maintenance cost in relation to operating costs,
recycling potential and external costs. Then, they defined the conditions under which the
driver makes a decision to replace the vehicle based on these indicators. Among other
things, it was found that besides the age and mileage of a car, the greatest impact on retire-
ment is the deterioration of the vehicle, which is linked to an increase in maintenance costs.
The assessment of the economic vehicle’s useful life in a given planning horizon is the
most frequently discussed criterion in the literature for optimizing vehicle replacement.
The approach to finding the optimal solution for the replacement problem depends on fleet
size, vehicle age and diversity. These factors directly influence the number of variables
considered during the decision-making process [10].
Spitzlei et al. [11] studied the costs of owning a passenger car, including maintenance,
insurance, loan interest and depreciation. They applied their findings to analyze the eco-
nomic impact of replacing a typical North American sedan under various usage scenarios.
They recommend long replacement intervals despite high maintenance costs and high fixed
financial costs. In studies of heterogeneous fleets, which contain cars of different ages, types
and functions, replacement decisions can be heavily influenced by budget constraints [12,13].
The problem of cost limit is particularly significant in large fleets with high vehicle use. A
study performed by Boudart et al. [14] demonstrated that for a limited budget of a large
bus fleet, maintenance costs can have a significant influence on the optimal replacement
age. Similar conclusions follow from a study performed by Inegbedion and Aghedo [15]
on truck fleet operation costs. Overloading significantly accelerates the deterioration of
vehicles and significantly increases maintenance and total costs. It also speeds up the deci-
sion to replace vehicles. Stasko and Gao [16] introduced a model that supports decisions
made about the purchase, resell, repair and modernization of vehicles. It also takes into
consideration uncertainty linked to future failures and potential regulatory requirements
regarding environmental protection, which may influence the resell value of vehicles.
Bajpai [17] and Vanderseypen [18] studied vehicles’ useful life related to the environ-
ment and technology. The results of their research show that motor vehicles in use are
being replaced faster with the rise of models using new technologies. Economic break-even
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 4 of 22

thresholds play a key role. Higher initial investment costs and limitations resulting from
the specific features of electric vehicles [19] indicate that the competitiveness of EVs can
be ensured only in scenarios that rely on high annual use [20] and thanks to government
purchase subsidies [21]. Incentives are supposed to provide motivation to buy new and
scrap old vehicles. Zaman and Zaccour [22] analyzed the decision patterns of individual
consumers and came to the conclusion that the effectiveness of incentives depends on
customer readiness to replace their vehicles. Customers with low income and low readiness
to replace can be persuaded to speed up their replacement decisions. More affluent con-
sumers may put off their replacement decisions because of economic calculations involving
costs and advantages. Tamor and Milačić [23] analyzed car use patterns in typical US
households. The purchase of a brand-new EV does not motivate the owner to scrap the old
ICEV, which remains an alternative that can be used for longer trips. Bauer [24] analyzed
the Norwegian system of incentives and local consumer habits and came to the conclusion
that the introduction of EVs increased the number of cars in households and the number
of driven kilometers. These findings suggest that the environmental advantages can be
smaller than those expected in LCA. A study conducted by Kontou et al. [25] showed that
it is not possible to speed up a decision to replace a conventional ICEV when fuel prices
increase and the price of electricity and battery packs decrease.
Hofmann et al. [26] study the shift part of the vehicle fleet from fuel to electricity (with
electric vehicles) in China, which is the largest global emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG).
Karlewski et al. [27] analyze life cycle-oriented social aspects regarding the example of the
steel and aluminum components used in a car.
The expected acceleration of transport development, together with its implications for
the climate and natural environment, need a wider LCA perspective in the context of fleet re-
placement. There are many studies that have assessed vehicles from an LCA perspective to
improve projects and to minimize environmental impacts [28–30]. Petrauskiene et al. [31]
combine LCA (life cycle assessment) with LCC (life cycle cost) analysis to compare dif-
ferent propulsion technologies under Lithuanian conditions. Assuming the use of re-
newable energy sources, diesel vehicles and electric cars are the most effective options.
Hawkins et al. [5] presented one of the most transparent LCAs that rated the potential
of reducing the environmental impact of an EV compared to a traditional ICEV. Many
similar studies focused on the operation phase when they compared different drive options.
However, to improve the environmental competitiveness of EVs, one needs to reduce the
carbon footprint during vehicle production, improve battery reliability, improve utilization
processes and promote clean sources of electricity. Hawkins et al. analyzed the charac-
teristics of both technologies and their potential environmental implications. The team,
however, did not give any recommendations and consequences of replacing cars in a given
planning horizon.
A limited number of studies have considered the impact of maintenance on vehicle
lifespan. Usually, LCA studies compare repair and replacement options for different com-
ponents [32]. Kim et al. [33,34] presented a pioneering study, based on LCA methodology,
about the environmental effects of replacing a vehicle with a more efficient model. The
model was used to optimize car replacement time in a given planning horizon. Dynamic
software was used to determine the dynamic environmental parameters of operation costs
for each year of the given planning period. The authors took into consideration one-year
environmental profiles for five phases of the product life cycle: production of materials,
manufacturing, use, maintenance and pull-out from operation. While making a deci-
sion to replace based on calculated parameters, the authors also took into consideration
technical improvements in successive versions of a model, including a share of recycled
materials, material consumption, energy consumption, fuel efficiency, emission coefficients
and component reliability for a generic 1995 mid-sized car used in the US. The cost of
car maintenance represents the reliability of components. The introduced model made it
possible to determine optimal replacement schedules on the condition that only one car
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 5 of 22

is always replaced by another one and that the annual mileage is constant. The results of
these studies indicate long optimal replacement intervals.
Usón et al. [35] in a study on a sustainable mobility model developed from the LCA
perspective discussed the period of energy payback when a car is replaced with a more
modern one with better fuel efficiency. The model took into consideration the main phases
of life cycle, including energy present in materials and energy consumed in production and
recycling. Material and process data were taken from a public database and the car unit
was based on Volkswagen A4, whose inventory was a point of reference in many other
studies. Energy savings during replacement were assessed based on differences of fuel
efficiency between the old and new cars using predicted value decrease for new cars and
were modeled with a regression equation. The replacement decision was made by putting
together the energy saving regression curve with the energy cost of producing a new car.
The assessment results confirm the general trend of extending the optimal use period, which
is consistent with other studies. The modeling result does not take into consideration the
effect of maintenance and the uncertainty level is linked to a great uncertainty of the fuel
consumption reduction prognosis over a long time horizon, which in the study was 20 years.
Detailed research on car fleet replacement dynamics is crucial for implementing climate
policy goals in countries with a high influx of used car imports [36]. Barjoveanu et al. [37]
used LCA to assess the effect of a growing number of cars in Romania for different scenarios
of car use, such driving on the highway and driving in town at peak and off-peak hours.
The study was limited to the use phase and was used to update emission data specific to an
older passenger car fleet. The assessment results have a general character and can be used as
recommendations for fleet management decisions, which can be useful in softening or even
reversing the negative effects on the climate and environment. The results demonstrate
that the replacement of older cars with new ICEVs is not enough to reduce the negative
impact and suggest that older fleets should be replaced by EVs and hybrid vehicles.
Kagawa et al. [38] introduced a model of life cycle optimization and applied it to
assess the efficiency of a governmental program of car exchanges to reduce CO2 emissions.
The assessment of impact, apart from road emissions, took into consideration the manufac-
turing of brand-new cars. The results are partially consistent with a study conducted by
Barjoveanu et al. [37]. They determine the minimum age of new ICEVs while at the same
time pointing out that the potential of CO2 reduction is many-fold higher when older cars
are replaced with more efficient hybrid vehicles.
The few studies that, with the support of LCA, analyze the environmental effects of
fleet changes and optimize replacement schedules indicate a large diversity of optimal
vehicle replacement intervals depending on the analyzed environmental problem. At the
same time, they do not explain what factors prevail when making a decision to replace a
vehicle, as the cumulative impacts of the entire decision-making process before a vehicle
replacing are assessed. In many research studies that use LCA to analyze the environmental
impacts of changes happening in vehicle fleets and optimize replacement schedules, the
effect of maintenance is often neglected or assessed with unreliable, too-general data
which do not reflect the changing technology. This study seems to have filled the gap.
It has introduced a new level of data accuracy of a generic ICEV. It also has assessed
the consequences of realistic scenarios of repair and maintenance consistent with the
requirements of modern technology.

3. Vehicle Replacement Optimization Model

3.1. Assumptions
The study by Vesovic et al. [9] challenges the age of the vehicle as a key factor in
the decision on vehicle replacement. On the other hand, some other research indicates
the potential environmental advantage of extending vehicle lifespan as a way of saving
resources, energy and pollution that would otherwise have to be spent on manufactur-
ing new cars [34,35]. The environmental consequences, including more frequent service
and failure, can undermine the advantage of extending the lifespan of older vehicles. A
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 6 of 22

new, more energy efficient and more reliable car can be a better solution. To assess the
compromise between extending the car use time and money spent on replacing an old
vehicle, it is necessary to have a detailed life cycle inventory (LCI). LCI covers production,
use, maintenance and environmental burden linked to vehicle utilization. The negative
effect of maintenance is due to emissions, used resources, additional manufacturing pro-
cesses, distribution of components and service procedures. There are many research studies
that provide well-documented life cycle inventories, but they also differ in terms of data
details [5]. Schweimer’s and Levin’s [39] inventory of the VW Golf A4 is probably the
most fundamental and thorough LCI of a passenger car. The materials covered by the
maintenance schedule include engine oil, coolant, brake fluid, window liquid, tires, filters,
battery, wiper blades and spark plugs. The service interval was set at each 15,000 km. The
inventory also covers 180 car wash stations and the replacement of a bumper. Data based
on the Golf A4 LCI reflect the service actions recorded in Ecoinvent [40], which is the basis
of many LCA studies. In most research, maintenance accounts for 2–3% of the total life
cycle assessment, while in others it is thought to be negligible.
The certified Ford Service Center in Szczecin (Poland) suggests that actually the range
of maintenance operations is much wider than in the present public inventories. Realistic
maintenance scenarios cover preventive maintenance, planned repairs and difficult-to-
predict failures and damage sustained as a result of road accidents. They are also more
adjusted to more advanced technology and higher EURO emission standards than those of
the Golf A4. All cases of maintenance operations performed on Ford Focus cars (EURO
5) that were regularly serviced in the station were analyzed in terms of technological
improvements and environmental efficiency. For example, it was confirmed that diesel
cars intensively used in urban environment required oil exchanges every 4–6 thousand
kilometers, whereas the producer recommends an interval of 15,000 km. Diesel cars must
regularly regenerate diesel particulate filters (DPF) in a special procedure. It requires the
driver to maintain an appropriate driving style, best outside the city, preferably on the
highway. If the procedure is disrupted in city traffic when cars cover short distances, oil is
diluted with the fuel that has not burned. The message telling the driver to change the oil
is supposed to protect the engine from failure. It is clear that this kind of real-life scenario
multiplies the negative effect of maintenance on the environment. Unplanned repairs and
failures had similar adverse effects.
This study used LCA to optimize the life cycle of a vehicle to minimize the effect on
the environment. The optimization model the study introduced is a compromise between
extending the life of an old car and replacing it with a new, more efficient and more reliable
model in a given planning horizon. LCA results of environmental profiles, modes of
operation, maintenance and utilization were used as input data. Our model is based on a
very thorough service documentation of a large vehicle sample compared to other studies.
The impact assessment was performed using the ecoindicator EI 99 characterization method
for end-point indicators: human health, ecological quality and resource quality. The values
of the end points were weighed, aggregated and calculated as the total ecoindicator score
(EI-Pt). The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) was calculated with Simapro v.9.0 [41].
The life cycle optimization model was applied for the generic Ford Focus passenger cars
produced between 2004 and 2011. The optimization of vehicle replacement was conducted
to minimize the cumulated LCIA, expressed as the total ecoindicator score (EI-Pt).

3.2. Model Structure

In the optimization model, car replacement decisions are made based on the cumulated
life cycle impact. This approach, for example, allows the assessment of the environmental
benefit of vehicle technological improvements in a given decision-making horizon. This
concept is illustrated in the schematic example shown in Figure 1.
The y-axis presents the cumulated environmental impact, e.g., a total ecoindicator
score (EI-Pt). The x-axis represents service lifetime or the vehicle kilometers traveled (vkm).

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843
3.2. Model Structure
In the optimization model, car replacement decisions are made based on the cumu-
lated life cycle impact. This approach, for example, allows the assessment of the environ-
mental benefit of vehicle technological improvements in a given decision-making horizon. 7 of 22
This concept is illustrated in the schematic example shown in Figure 1.

Environmental impact

Total ecoindicator score (EI-Pt)

new car impact Time

old car impact

Figure
Figure 1. A A schematic
1. schematic example
example of how
of how environmental
environmental impact
impact changes
changes when when
vehiclevehicle fuel efficiency
fuel efficiency
increases.
increases.

For
The example,
y-axis presents thethebetter fuel efficiency
cumulated of a new
environmental car gives
impact, e.g., atangible environmental
total ecoindicator
benefits
score compared
(EI-Pt). The x-axis to the base carservice
represents (dotted line). or
lifetime Benefits for thekilometers
the vehicle environment or carbon
traveled
(vkm).
credits (hatched area) will accumulate over time. This means that the time a vehicle remains
For example,
in use should bethe better
taken fuelaccount
into efficiency in of
thea assessment
new car gives oftangible environmental
environmental impactben- of vehicle
efits compared toimprovements.
technological the base car (dotted line). Benefits for the environment or carbon credits
(hatched area) 2will
Figure showsaccumulate
a schematicoverexample
time. This ofmeans that applied
the model the time to a vehicle
assessingremains in
the benefits of
use should be taken into account in the assessment of environmental
replacing cars. It is assumed that a baseline vehicle is produced and introduced at time impact of vehicle
technological improvements.
t0 . The environmental burdens associated with the production of the baseline/old vehicle
Figure 2 shows
are represented by a schematic
the vertical example
segment of the model
of the applied
blue to assessing
line. The the benefits
introduction of
and operation
replacing cars. It is assumed that a baseline vehicle is produced and
of the vehicle will accumulate environmental impacts (blue line) that will be minimized introduced at time t0.
The environmental burdens associated with the production of the
throughout the time horizon tN . The slope of the line of accumulated burden tends tobaseline/old vehicle are
represented
increase withby thetimevertical segment
as a result of the
of the blue line.
vehicle The introduction
deterioration expected andforoperation
older cars.of the
Based on
vehicle will accumulate environmental impacts (blue line) that will
the older cars’ deterioration data, at the time tA a decision is made to either keep the old carbe minimized
throughout
or buy a new the time
one.horizon tN. The
The vertical slope ofofthe
segment theline
redofline
accumulated burdenthe
at tA represents tends to in-
environmental
crease with time as a result of the vehicle deterioration expected for older cars. Based on
burdens associated with the production of the new vehicle. Better performance of a new car
the older cars’ deterioration data, at the time tA a decision is made to either keep the old
(red line) will accumulate environmental benefits or emission credits over time. However,
car or buy a new one. The vertical segment of the red line at tA represents the environmen-
making a decision about replacing it requires determining when to retire the old vehicle
tal burdens associated with the production of the new vehicle. Better performance of a
and how long a new car should be kept to minimize the environmental impact. At t , the
new car (red line) will accumulate environmental benefits or emission credits over time. A
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEWsmaller impact of producing a new car introduces environmental credit (blue8arrow 24 with
ofthe
However, making a decision about replacing it requires determining when to retire
dash line), and the difference in the slope of the cumulative impact of the old and new car
old vehicle and how long a new car should be kept to minimize the environmental impact.
accumulates the benefits of using a new car, as explained in Figure 1.
At tA, the smaller impact of producing a new car introduces environmental credit (blue
arrow with dash line), and the difference in the slope of the cumulative impact of the old
and new car accumulates Environmental
the benefits impact
of using a new car, as explained in Figure 1.
Total ecoindicator score (EI-Pt)

t0 tA tB tN
Time
new car impact
old car impact
environmental benefis/credit

Figure 2. Schematic
Figure example
2. Schematic of the
example of model applied
the model to assessing
applied the benefits
to assessing of replacing
the benefits cars. cars.
of replacing

Optimization of car service lifetime which minimizes the environmental impact

needs a balance between the benefits of introducing a new car and its production environ-
mental costs. At time tB, the cumulative benefits from using a new car plus the environ-
mental credit at tA balance the burden of the manufacturing of a new car. The optimization
 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 8 of 22

Optimization of car service lifetime which minimizes the environmental impact needs
a balance between the benefits of introducing a new car and its production environmental
costs. At time tB , the cumulative benefits from using a new car plus the environmental
credit at tA balance the burden of the manufacturing of a new car. The optimization to
minimize the cumulative environmental impact of both cars requires a longer payback
period for the new car. With this hypothetical example shown in Figure 2, the minimum
lifetime of a new car is tN –tA .
Figure 3 is a schematic example of the optimization model applied to three exchange
policies over the given time horizon tN . At time tA , the environmental credit from the
replacement of the vehicle (point A) was marked, which, according to Figure 2, is equal to the
difference between the cumulative emissions from using an old car and producing the new
car. The higher efficiency of the new car will accumulate environmental benefits over time.
This is represented by the blue lines coming out of point A. In the first scenario (constant
performance decrease rate over time for a new and an old car), cumulated benefits plus the
credit in tA counterbalance production costs (red solid line) over time tB (point B). But in the
longer term tN (point N), the proceeds from greater efficiency also pay off the credit (dashed
red line) from the introduction of a new car in tA . In this scenario, tN −tA is the minimum
vehicle lifetime. Based on their knowledge about vehicle reliability, a decision maker can
consider a more realistic scenario in which the performance of older cars decreases more
quickly. This scenario increases the benefits a new car and counterbalances its introduction
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 24
costs over a shorter time (point N1 ). In the third scenario, probable failures over time tD
further increase the benefits of the new car and reduce the minimum lifetime (point N2 ).

Environmental impact
N2 N1 N
Total ecoindicator score (EI-Pt)

B2 B1
B

tA tD tB tN
environmental benefits of a new car Time
production of a new car
environmental credit
production + credit

Figure 3. 3.
Figure Schematic example
Schematic of of
example thethe
optimization model
optimization forfor
model three carcar
three replacement policies.
replacement policies.

The
Thepresented
presented model
model describes
describes a one-for-one
a one-for-one carcar
replacement
replacement scenario
scenarioinin
which
whichone
one
vehicle is is
vehicle replaced
replaced bybyanother
another vehicle.
vehicle.In In
this paper,
this paper,more
more complicated
complicated scenarios,
scenarios,such
suchasas
replacing
replacing oneone vehicle
vehicle with
with multiple
multiple vehicles,
vehicles, areare not
not discussed.
discussed. This
This model
model provides
provides anan
optimal
optimal replacement
replacement policyinina agiven
policy giventime
timehorizon
horizontNtN −t−
A tfor
A for a new
a new vehicle
vehicle and
and constant
constant
mileage
mileage per per year,
year, regardless
regardless ofof age.
age.
In the hypothetical example,
In the hypothetical example, where wherea avehicle
vehicleisisreplaced
replacedover overtime,
time,the
thevehicle’s
vehicle’sen-
envi-
ronmental
vironmental profiles for the optimization model must be a known function
for the optimization model must be a known function of age/mileage. of age/mileage.
This
This model
model structure
structure provides
provides a more
a more efficient
efficient algorithm
algorithm forfor finding
finding the
the optimum
optimum vehicle
vehicle
replacement
replacement policy.
policy. Section
Section 3.33.3 presents
presents environmental
environmental profiles
profiles obtained
obtained with
with LCA
LCA that
that
take into consideration vehicle deterioration with age and stochastic failures modeled in
the function of car mileage.

3.3. Environmental Profiles of Life Cycle Phases

LCA aims to assess the environmental burdens of a total life cycle and to determine
how they are distributed over successive life cycle stages. The assessment is made based
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 9 of 22

take into consideration vehicle deterioration with age and stochastic failures modeled in
the function of car mileage.

3.3. Environmental Profiles of Life Cycle Phases

LCA aims to assess the environmental burdens of a total life cycle and to determine
how they are distributed over successive life cycle stages. The assessment is made based on
a thorough inventory of flows important for the environment and all processes at all phases
of the life cycle. These flows include used resources, emissions and pollution released to
the environment in each elementary process/activity over the whole life cycle. The sizes
of such flows are calculated as functional units. In LCA, the functional unit is usually the
number of driven kilometers for an average car age and the annual average mileage, data
published in public reports [2]. Owing to that, LCA gives a cumulative assessment score
in a total given time horizon, which for example can cover the whole phase of car use
determined in a study. This result does not give any idea of how burdens are distributed
over smaller intervals of life cycles. The application of LCA for environmental optimization
replacement models, which provide a long-term prognosis in a long planning horizon
given changes of the initial state, requires a different arrangement of life cycle inventory
(LCI) that defines production, use, maintenance and disposal. This applies in particular
to modifications of car design which affect vehicle environmental performance in terms
of material content and wear, energy efficiency and emission class. Reliability and the
gradual car condition getting worse over time are important parameters. The effect of the
maintenance stage is dependent on the former and the latter.
The above presented description of why oil exchange intervals in diesel cars become
shortened by a factor of several times demonstrates that some technical improvements
which are supposed to improve exhaust gas emission control may at the same time signif-
icantly increase the impact of the maintenance phase. The arrangement of time variable
parameters should allow an assessment of impact over small time intervals, with resolution
necessary in research and available, for example, for every age or car mileage.
The replacement optimization used LCA data from an earlier project from Danilecki et al. [6].
That paper presents the procedures of data collection and impact assessment at succes-
sive stages of the life cycle. A thorough inventory was appended for publication. LCA
calculations were made for the Ford Focus passenger car, which is representative of the
medium-sized European ICEV. The car was modeled in two fuel versions (petrol and diesel)
to be able to assess the environmental performance of different car technologies. The LCA
results cover 151,200 km driven in typical European conditions. This is mostly consistent
with the average annual mileage and average age of cars in the EU.
This study focuses on the assessment of the impact maintenance has and its conse-
quences for vehicle replacement policy. Therefore, previous study maintenance scenarios,
modeled based on confidential data, will be discussed at a higher level of detail. A pub-
licly available inventory from Ecoinvent version v3.5 [40] was used to model the other
stages of the life cycle. The main modeling assumptions and results are presented below
and discussed.

3.3.1. Production Stage

Ecoinvent data were used to calculate the impact of Ford Focus production. LCI data
are based on a detailed materialization of the Golf A4 and are representative of a generic
European car. A set of data can be scaled to the mass of other vehicles on the assumption
that larger mass means larger impact. Best fit data scaled to Ford Focus mass were selected
for each fuel version. Ecoinvent contains data about raw materials, the energy input of
the production stage and production infrastructure. It can be used to calculate production
cost and the initial scrap fraction from the production process. It covers the disassembly
and disposal of a car once it has been pulled out from use (EOL). We modified the original
Ecoinvent data set to exclude all the records of car disposal which had been included at
the end-of-life stage (EOL). Additionally, Ecoinvent data were validated to make sure Golf
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 10 of 22

A4 materialization is consistent with the analyzed Ford Focus cars. To this end, the study
used detailed data of Ford Focus materialization from a previous study on a dismantling
facility in Szczecin (Danilecki et al.) [42] and data of cars repaired in the Ford service center
in Szczecin.

3.3.2. Vehicle Operation

The operation-related impact was modeled with Ecoinvent data of direct fuel combus-
tion emissions, which are consistent with EURO standards of Ford Focus cars. Additionally,
the study took into consideration emissions from tire and brake wear, fuel production,
construction, maintenance and utilization of road infrastructure. Since the mass of a pas-
senger car affects its fuel consumption and exhaust gas emissions, the original data set was
modified to adjust fuel consumption to the specifications of the analyzed cars. The fuel
consumption data for Ford Focus vehicles in the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC)
can be found in Table S1 of the Supplementary Materials. Additionally, production and
maintenance data were removed from the original sets to avoid double counting.

3.3.3. Maintenance and Repairs

Maintenance and repair LCIA was calculated based on detailed service documentation
of 40 Ford Focus II cars, including 20 petrol and 20 diesel vehicles. All cars were heavy
duty fleet vehicles, with annual mileages over 30,000 km. The cars were regularly serviced
as part of a business contract in the licensed Ford service center in Szczecin (Poland).
LCI data included:
• Preventive maintenance;
• Irregular maintenance;
• Preventive maintenance with a shorter engine oil exchange interval;
• Repair following failure;
• Accident repair.
Preventive maintenance covers regular procedures according to the producer’s service
schedule, including exchange of liquids, filters, belts, etc. The range of service operations
was the same for both fuel versions and was conducted at equal intervals, each 15,000 km.
The content of parts replaced in each interval equals the average result of all cars.
Irregular maintenance includes those exchange operations that are due to normal
wear and tear of components, including parts that do not last the lifespan of a vehicle,
such as brakes, clutch, shock absorbers, suspension, etc. However, in this option such
components are replaced only when they are in limit wear condition. Because the lifespan
of these components depends on the driver’s behavior and road conditions (season, city,
highway), the range of exchanged parts is different in different cars. Exchange intervals
are also different. Data about material content during each exchange and about exchange
intervals were collected for each individual car.
The shorter engine oil exchange interval model is specific for diesel cars with DPF. It
covers a problem discussed in Section 3.1. In this maintenance model, oil was exchanged
according to indications every 4000 km. It increased the number of exchanges from 10 to
approximately 37 for the car lifespan defined in the study. The model used data about the
number and frequency of oil exchanges that were accompanied by the replacement of a
filter, an oil screw and a carter joint.
Failure repair covered those components which failed prematurely, such as alternators,
turbochargers, engines, gear boxes, computer control systems, steering wheels, etc., which
were expected to last the whole car use period. Breakdown notifications were analyzed
separately for each fuel version. Most cases were about failure of suspension, steering and
brake systems. Failure cases linked to engine, electrical and electronic systems were on the
same level. Breakdown cases of the drive system were the least frequent. Material data
gathered on an irregular maintenance basis were collected for each notification.
This study did not cover accident repair cases. The consequences of road accidents
are difficult to estimate. The environmental impact of accident repairs can only be ap-
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 11 of 22

proximated with acceptable probability based on statistical analysis of a large sample of

cars. Since this kind of data is not available, the assessment of accident repair impact
was conducted for three real-life scenarios differing in range and complexity. The list of
replaced elements is presented in Table S2 of the Supplementary Materials. The material
content of exchanged parts was determined for each scenario. LCI includes processing data
of spare part production. Production requirements for each component were determined
based on expert knowledge. Data of waste produced, energy and heat consumption were
collected for each operation of component replacement. The average energy consumption
of each operation was estimated based on monthly energy consumption in the service
center, the number of man-hours at each work station and time standards for exchange pro-
cedures defined by the manufacturer. Additionally, the transport of spare parts and waste
removal were also taken into account. Ultimately, all processes (component transformation,
transport and energy sources) were represented by best fit data from Ecoinvent.
LCIA calculations based on inventory results provided environmental profiles for
different scenarios of maintenance and repair. Environmental profiles are presented as
a function of vehicle kilometers (vkm). The Supplementary Materials present the cu-
mulative environmental impact of irregular maintenance on petrol and diesel cars in
Figures S1 and S2, respectively. The scores for the impact assessment were calculated using
ecoindicator points. Individual points in the figures represent the cumulative score of
the impact assessment (EI-Pt) for each car in any mileage interval up to 200,000 km. The
spread of points is caused by the differences of part replacement cases in each car and
secondly by replacement irregularity, as exchanges were performed when necessary, taking
into consideration the real worsening condition of the inspected components. The point
distribution in Figures S1 and S2 was modeled with second order multiple regression.
The regression model for the petrol Ford Focus was obtained [6]:

BPm = −0.885 + 0.372(VKT ) + 0.0051(VKT )2 (1)

In the case of the diesel Ford Focus, the regression model is [6]:

BDm = −4.237 + 0.3991(VKT ) + 0.0059(VKT )2 (2)

where:
BPm, BDm—total ecoindicator score results (EI-Pt) of Ford Focus petrol and diesel
irregular maintenance, respectively.
VKT—vehicle kilometers traveled (thousand vkm).
The resulting model describes the changes of the cumulative impact of maintenance in
the function of mileage. It is easy to correlate mileage with the age of a vehicle. This form
of the model provides maintenance environmental profiles for any mileage/age. Therefore,
the model is easy to use for the optimization of life cycles.
Figures S3 and S4 in the Supplementary Materials display the cumulative impact
assessment (EI-Pt) for petrol and diesel cars, respectively. One can find a relatively small
number of failures and a wide spread of assessment scores. Given this distribution, it is
impossible to model with second grade polynomial regression. That is why first grade
regression was used to model failure. The conditional average was calculated for three
mileage intervals. Interval boundaries were selected to ensure the most balanced distribu-
tion of the event sample (Table S3 in the Supplementary Materials). Conditional average
results of impact assessments for each interval were plotted on the graphs.
The score results of impact assessments for accident repair scenarios are shown in
Figure S5 of the Supplementary Materials. It was assumed that accident repair can happen
at any time during the car use stage. These assessment results were accounted for in the
optimization scenario of a car lifetime.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 12 of 22

3.3.4. End of Life

The end of a vehicle life (EOL) was modeled by extending the boundaries of the
vehicle system to take into account recycling and waste removal. The EOL model assumes
that owing to recycling, one avoids producing new materials. Therefore, the calculated
recycling result that represents useful materials is subtracted from the impact of virgin
material. Recycling and waste disposal were modeled with the best fitting sets of data
from Ecoinvent.

3.3.5. LCIA Results

The results of the life cycle impact assessment based on LCI data for different scenarios
of maintenance and repair for two fuel versions of Ford Focus are compared in Figure S6
of the Supplementary Materials. The compared scenarios of different requirements of
component replacement (regular maintenance, regular maintenance with additional oil
exchange, irregular maintenance, repair following failure, accident repair) are explained in
Table S4 of the Supplementary Materials. Additionally, the comparison includes a reference
scenario based on Ecoinvent LCI data.
The life cycle impact was compared with the calculated impact of maintenance and
repair scenarios of Ford Focus cars with reference Ecoinvent scenarios. It shows that in the
worst scenario of Diesel Extended 2 Ford Focus, which takes into consideration regular
maintenance with additional oil exchange, irregular maintenance, failure and accident
repair, the assessment score increased by 6%. A larger impact of the scenarios discussed in
this study modifies the share of each life cycle stage in the total assessment of the life cycle.
The total assessment of the life cycle for Diesel Extended 2 is almost 8% of the total score
compared to 3% of the baseline diesel Ecoinvent scenario. The larger share of calculated
scenarios is the main motivation for starting research on the effect of realistic scenarios of
maintenance and stochastic repair on vehicle replacement optimization. To date, the effect
has not been well documented. The results of this analysis are presented in Section 4.

4. Model Application
4.1. Inputs of the Optimization Model
The LCA results provided environmental profiles of vehicles from different model
years across life cycle stages. Environmental profiles were modeled to the actual data from
the average Ford Focus passenger vehicle. The data concerned two Ford Focus models with
EURO 3 and EURO 5 standards in two fuel versions: diesel and petrol. Vehicle production
was modeled using the Ecoinvent dataset. Ecoinvent datasets parametrize the impact of
car production in correlation with vehicle mass. The production impact can therefore be
scaled directly to the vehicle weight inserted by the Ecoinvent user.
Driving on European roads was also modeled using Ecoinvent data. In this study,
based on optimization assumptions, fuel consumption (FC) and driving emissions were
scaled to the mass of Ford Focus cars and EURO standards based on FC and emission factors
determined for a reference 1600 kg medium car. In the Ecoinvent data sets, the scaling
factor determining the increase in fuel consumption of an “average” car weighing 1600 kg
per kg of weight increase and per 1 km is estimated at 2.93 × 10−5 (kg/(kg × km)) [40].
The scaling factor of a “medium” passenger car with a mass of 1600 kg is calculated as:
((Ford Focus weight − 1600) × 2.93 × 10−5 + average FC of reference vehicle). The FC
of petrol vehicles in the “medium” category with a mass of 1600 kg in a EURO 3 class is
0.0695 (kg/km) and in a EURO 5–0.0621 (kg/km). FC for diesel vehicles is estimated to be
0.0607 (kg/km) and 0.0546 (kg/km), respectively.
The resulting fuel consumption values in kg/1 km or l/100 km and emission factors
in EI-Pt, scaled to Ford Focus vehicles’ weight, are given in Table S5 of the Supplemen-
tary Materials.
Maintenance and repair were modeled using the environmental profiles discussed
in Section 3.3.3. A set of maintenance and repair scenarios for the life cycle optimization
model are given in Table S6 of the Supplementary Materials.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 13 of 22

4.2. Model Optimization

As part of the demonstration, a life cycle optimization model was used to study the
vehicle replacement cycle to find the pattern that minimizes environmental impact for the
short and long-run replacement policies. One of the more important objectives was to
investigate how the optimal replacement pattern would be affected by the differences in
maintenance and repair environmental profiles and adjust the replacement policies accord-
ingly. The short and long-run replacement policies may represent a different approach to
the problem of vehicle replacement by two different groups of individual consumers that
use different replacement cycles. A large group of individual vehicle owners uses long
replacement cycles, which is consistent with the economically ideal replacement policy for
a vehicle. However, a portion of vehicle owners are willing to pay a substantial premium
to own a new vehicle. The average age of passenger cars in Luxembourg is 6.7 years, while,
for example, in Poland it is 14.5 years. To what extent do the different vehicle replacement
cycles meet the Sustainable Development Goals?
In this study, the potential environmental effects of replacing a EURO 3 class Ford
Focus car with a newer model in a EURO 5 standard are studied. According to the
assumptions of the model, retiring the vehicle and introducing the new vehicle occur
simultaneously. The vehicle ownership limit is equal to the average lifetime of a car in
the EU, which is currently 11.5 years. Optimization to minimize the cumulative value of
the ecoindicator (EI-Pt) is considered in the give time horizon. Assuming that the average
annual transport distance of passenger vehicles in the EU is 14,000 vkm, the results can
easily be scaled to the mileage of the car. The impacts of replacing two fuel versions of
vehicles are assessed: diesel and petrol. The study takes into account the higher fuel
efficiency and lower emission factors of the new car and the service scenarios presented in
Table S6 of the Supplementary Materials.

4.3. Results
4.3.1. Higher Fuel Efficiency Scenario
In this scenario, the impact of higher fuel efficiency of the new vehicle is assessed,
which, in conjunction with the EURO emission standard, is the basis for assessing the
driving burdens. The impact of driving expressed in ecoindicator (EI-Pt) values per 1 km
of distance traveled (Table S5 in the Supplementary Materials) is the basis for assessing the
benefits of higher fuel and environmental efficiency of a new EURO 5 vehicle that replaces
an old EURO 3-compliant vehicle.
In Figure 4, the solid line shows the cumulative benefits of the increased efficiency
of a new vehicle as a function of the number of kilometers driven. According to the
optimization scheme (Figure 3), the introduction of a new vehicle with a mileage of 0 km
gives an environmental advantage compared to the old car in use. The accumulation of
benefits over a period not longer than the car usage limit should balance outlays on the
production of a new car, which is represented by the horizontal dashed line.
In the considered diesel Ford Focus replacement scenario, at the time of the replace-
ment decision the use of the old car must not be less than 57,650 vkm, which corresponds to
4.1 years of operation. The burdens from the old car accumulated in this period, minus the
expenditure on the production of a new model, determine the amount of the environmental
credit for a new car at point 0 vkm. In comparison, the minimum use of an old petrol
vehicle is longer at 4.5 years (62,800 vkm).
However, due to the marginal difference in fuel efficiency of the replaced cars, the
given car use limit of 11.5 years (161,000 vkm) is too short for the benefits of driving a new
car to pay off the environmental credit from its introduction at 0 vkm.

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843
to 4.1 years of operation. The burdens from the old car accumulated in this period, minus
the expenditure on the production of a new model, determine the amount of the environ-
mental credit for a new car at point 0 vkm. In comparison, the minimum use of an old
petrol vehicle is longer at 4.5 years (62,800 vkm).
However, due to the marginal difference in fuel efficiency of the replaced cars, the
given car use limit of 11.5 years (161,000 vkm) is too short for the benefits of driving a new
14 of 22
car to pay off the environmental credit from its introduction at 0 vkm.

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 24

Figure
Figure4.4.Replacement
Replacementoptimization
optimizationmodel
modelbased on on
based drive efficiency.
drive efficiency.
4.3.2.
4.3.2.Impact
ImpactofofMaintenance
MaintenanceScenario
Scenario
Figures
Figures55andand6 6show
showoptimization
optimization models where
models the impact
where of drive
the impact performance
of drive is
performance
extended to include maintenance environmental profiles (Figures S1
is extended to include maintenance environmental profiles (Figures S1 and S2 in theand S2 in the Sup-
plementary
Supplementary Materials). Changes
Materials). in thein
Changes environmental maintenance
the environmental profile profile
maintenance over timeoverin-time
crease the benefits of a new car that does not require such extensive servicing
increase the benefits of a new car that does not require such extensive servicing combined combined
with
with thethe replacement
replacementofofmanymanyparts.
parts.The
Theenvironmental
environmental benefits increasing
benefits increasingoverover
timetime
changes the periods of use of the replaced cars (solid blue line) compared
changes the periods of use of the replaced cars (solid blue line) compared to the to the fuel effi-fuel
ciency
efficiency scenario (solid red line). In the Ford Focus diesel scenario, the useful lifeold
scenario (solid red line). In the Ford Focus diesel scenario, the useful life of the of the
car
oldiscar
reduced to 52,100
is reduced vkm,vkm,
to 52,100 which corresponds
which to 3.7to
corresponds years. For the
3.7 years. petrol
For Ford Focus,
the petrol it
Ford Focus,
is reduced up to 53,600 vkm and 3.8 years, respectively. However, the analyzed scenario
it is reduced up to 53,600 vkm and 3.8 years, respectively. However, the analyzed scenario
does not balance the cumulative impact of both cars and does not meet the Sustainable
does not balance the cumulative impact of both cars and does not meet the Sustainable
Development Goals.
Development Goals.

Replacementoptimization
Figure5.5.Replacement
Figure optimization model
model based
based onon drive
drive efficiency
efficiency andand maintenance
maintenance of diesel
of diesel FordFord
Focus
Focusvehicle.
vehicle.
 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 24
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 15 of 22

Replacementoptimization
Figure6.6.Replacement
Figure optimization model
model based
based onon drive
drive efficiency
efficiency andand maintenance
maintenance of petrol
of petrol FordFord
Focus
Focus vehicle.
vehicle.

4.3.3. Impact
4.3.3. Impactof ofMaintenance
Maintenanceand andRepair
Repair Scenario
Scenario
Comparedtotothe
Compared thescenario
scenariodiscussed
discussed inin Section
Section 4.3.2,
4.3.2, thethe assessment
assessment of the
of the effects
effects of of
failure and
failure and post-collision
post-collisionrepair
repairhashasbeen
beenadded
added to to
thethe replacement
replacement optimization
optimization modelmodel
presentedininFigures
presented Figures7 and
7 and 8. The
8. The environmental
environmental profile
profile of failure
of failure repairsrepairs
is shown is in
shown
Fig- in
Figures
ures S3 and
S3 and S4 ofS4 the
of the Supplementary
Supplementary Materials,
Materials, andand various
various scenarios
scenarios of post-collision
of post-collision
repair are
repair are in
in Figure
FigureS5 S5(Supplementary
(SupplementaryMaterials).
Materials). TheThe post-collision
post-collision repair
repair profile
profile withwith
the greatest environmental impact was used for the assessment. It was assumed thatthat
the greatest environmental impact was used for the assessment. It was assumed the the
post-collisionrepair
post-collision repairforecast
forecastapplies
appliestotoanan old
old carcar
andand oneone event.
event. Optimization
Optimization results
results of of
such aa model
such
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW modelindicate
indicatean anacceleration
acceleration ofof the
the decision
decision to to replace
replace thethe
car.car.
TheTheuseuse ofold
of an
17 an24old
of
Ford Focus with aa diesel dieselengine
engineshould
shouldnot notbe
beless
lessthan
than47,500
47,500vkmvkm oror
3.43.4
years
yearsandanda petrol
a
petrol
modelmodel
shouldshould
not benot
lessbethan
less 48,900
than 48,900
vkm vkmor 3.5oryears.
3.5 years.
The results of the comparison show that in the short period of use, maintenance and
repairs have little effect on changing the car replacement cycle.

Figure 7. Replacement
Replacementoptimization
optimizationmodel
modelbased
basedonondrive
driveefficiency and
efficiency Ford
and Focus
Ford diesel
Focus vehicle
diesel vehicle
maintenance and
maintenance and repair.
repair.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 Figure 7. Replacement optimization model based on drive efficiency and Ford Focus diesel vehicle
16 of 22
maintenance and repair.

Figure 8.
Figure Replacementoptimization
8. Replacement optimizationmodel
modelbased
basedonondrive
drive efficiency
efficiency and
and Ford
Ford Focus
Focus petrol
petrol vehicle
vehicle
maintenance
maintenance and
andrepair.
repair.

4.3.4.The results of the

Optimization comparisonDependencies
for Long-Term show that in the short period of use, maintenance and
repairs have little effect on changing
Figures 9 and 10 show examples of the car replacement
a replacement cycle.
policy that balances the cumulative
impact of both cars over the long term, including the production of an old car.
4.3.4. Optimization for Long-Term Dependencies
Figures 9 and 10 show examples of a replacement policy that balances the cumulative
impact of both cars over the long term, including the production of an old car.
The environmental benefits of a new vehicle use/mileage fully offset the production
burden of the new car and repay the credit from its introduction at 0 vkm. This necessitates
a significant extension of the useful life of the new car over the set limit of 11.5 years
(161,000 vkm). For the diesel Ford Focus, it will be 338,000 vkm, and the old vehicle
is retired at 180,000 vkm. In comparison, for the same decision to retire an old car, the
minimum use of the petrol Ford Focus is 376,000 vkm and is due to poorer environmental
performance. Noteworthy is the large contribution of maintenance and repair to the overall
environmental benefits score at the balance points. However, due to the limitations of
the data used in the models, estimates of the environmental profiles of maintenance and
repair at equilibrium points can be highly uncertain. However, they indicate an increasing
contribution of maintenance and repairs along with the use/mileage of the vehicle.
The performed simulations show that the time of making the decision to exchange
affects the location of the balance point. The impact of retiring the old vehicle over time on
the optimal use of the new Ford Focus diesel vehicle is shown in Figure 11. The results of
the estimation are compared with the reference replacement time of 3.4 years (47,500 vkm)
calculated for the policy shown in Figure 7. For this replacement time, the optimal use of a
new vehicle would be 432 vkm, which is equivalent to 38.9 years. The reference times for
replacement and the optimal use lifetime of the new vehicle are set to 100% and replacement
cycles for four other policies are calculated as a percentage of the reference scenario results.
In addition, Figure 10 shows the estimated contribution of maintenance and repair to the
results of life cycle optimization. When comparing the replacement policies to a reference
policy, it was found that using an old car for five times longer results in a one-third shorter
optimal use time for a new vehicle. Additionally, maintenance and repairs contribute twice
as much to the benefits of introducing a new car.
 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 24
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 17 of 22

Figure 9. Optimal replacement with minimizing the cumulative impact based on driving efficiency
and Ford Focus diesel car maintenance and repair.

The environmental benefits of a new vehicle use/mileage fully offset the production
burden of the new car and repay the credit from its introduction at 0 vkm. This necessi-
tates a significant extension of the useful life of the new car over the set limit of 11.5 years
(161,000 vkm). For the diesel Ford Focus, it will be 338,000 vkm, and the old vehicle is
retired at 180,000 vkm. In comparison, for the same decision to retire an old car, the min-
imum use of the petrol Ford Focus is 376,000 vkm and is due to poorer environmental
performance. Noteworthy is the large contribution of maintenance and repair to the over-
all environmental benefits score at the balance points. However, due to the limitations of
the data used in the models, estimates of the environmental profiles of maintenance and
repair at equilibrium points can be highly uncertain. However, they indicate an increasing
Figure
Figure9.9.Optimal
Optimalreplacement with
replacement minimizing
with the cumulative
minimizing impactimpact
the cumulative based on driving
based efficiencyefficiency
on driving
contribution of maintenance and repairs along with the use/mileage of the vehicle.
and
andFord
FordFocus diesel
Focus carcar
diesel maintenance andand
maintenance repair.
repair.

The environmental benefits of a new vehicle use/mileage fully offset the production
burden of the new car and repay the credit from its introduction at 0 vkm. This necessi-
tates a significant extension of the useful life of the new car over the set limit of 11.5 years
(161,000 vkm). For the diesel Ford Focus, it will be 338,000 vkm, and the old vehicle is
retired at 180,000 vkm. In comparison, for the same decision to retire an old car, the min-
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
imum use of the petrol Ford Focus is 376,000 vkm and is due to poorer environmental 19 of 24

performance. Noteworthy is the large contribution of maintenance and repair to the over-
all environmental benefits score at the balance points. However, due to the limitations of
thethe
on data used in
optimal usetheof models,
the new estimates
Ford Focus of diesel
the environmental
vehicle is shownprofiles of maintenance
in Figure and
11. The results
repair
of at equilibrium
the estimation points can be
are compared withhighly uncertain.replacement
the reference However, theytimeindicate an increasing
of 3.4 years (47,500
contribution
vkm) of maintenance
calculated for the policyand repairs
shown along with
in Figure 7. Forthe use/mileage
this replacement of the
time,vehicle.
the optimal
use of a new vehicle would be 432 vkm, which is equivalent to 38.9 years. The reference
times for replacement and the optimal use lifetime of the new vehicle are set to 100% and
replacement cycles for four other policies are calculated as a percentage of the reference
scenario results. In addition, Figure 10 shows the estimated contribution of maintenance
and repair to the results of life cycle optimization. When comparing the replacement pol-
icies to a reference policy, it was found that using an old car for five times longer results
in a one-third
Figure
Figure shorter
Optimal
10.Optimal
10. optimalwith
replacement
replacement use time
with for a new
minimizing
minimizing vehicle.
the Additionally,
cumulative
the cumulative impactimpact maintenance
based
based on andefficiency
on driving
driving efficiency
repairs
and
andFordcontribute
Ford Focus twice
Focuspetrol
petrol as maintenance
carcar much to the
maintenance andbenefits
repair.
and of introducing a new car.
repair.

The performed simulations show that the time of making the decision to exchange
affects the location of the balance point. The impact of retiring the old vehicle over time

Figure 10. Optimal replacement with minimizing the cumulative impact based on driving efficiency
and Ford Focus petrol car maintenance and repair.

The performed simulations show that the time of making the decision to exchange
affects the location of the balance point. The impact of retiring the old vehicle over time

Figure 11. Optimization of the diesel Ford Focus life cycle for various replacement policies in the long term.
Figure 11. Optimization of the diesel Ford Focus life cycle for various replacement policies in the
long term.

5. Discussion
The presented car replacement optimization model is based on reliable maintenance
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 18 of 22

5. Discussion
The presented car replacement optimization model is based on reliable maintenance
and repair environmental profiles calculated from very detailed LCI data. Environmental
profile models modeled as a function of mileage are easily correlated with the age of
the vehicle and are easy to use for life cycle optimization. The impact of maintenance
and repair varies greatly depending on the replacement policy being used. This paper
presents the results of a comparative study to assess the impact of different maintenance
and repair scenarios on the results of life cycle optimization. The results of this research
are summarized in Table 1. The data contained in the table show the optimal sets of
periods of use of replaced cars with different environmental performances in different
replacement scenarios.

Table 1. Results of optimizing the use time of Ford Focus cars for different replacement scenarios.

Ford Focus EURO 3 Ford Focus EURO 5 Ford Focus EURO 3 Ford Focus EURO 5
(Petrol) (Petrol) (Diesel) (Diesel)
Scenario Service life minimizing environmental impact in short vehicle replacement cycles (vkm)
Fuel efficiency 62,800 161,000 57,650 161,000
Maintenance 53,600 161,000 52,100 161,000
Maintenance + failures
48,900 161,000 47,500 161,000
+ crash
Optimal use minimizing cumulative impact (vkm) (1)
47,500 432,000
180,000 338,000
Maintenance + failures
180,000 376,000 200,000 322,000
+ crash
230,000 300,000
250,000 284,000
(1) The optimal vehicle use lifetime depends on the time horizon of the planning.

Based on the data collected in Table 1, one can determine when to withdraw the
old vehicle (columns 1 and 3) and how long to keep the new vehicle (columns 2 and 4).
The result of the assessment is influenced by the available information/forecasts regard-
ing the emission factors of the replaced vehicles and the distribution of the cumulative
environmental burdens in a given planning horizon.
The main limitation of these studies is the uncertainty of the results of optimizing long-
term replacement policies due to the limitations of the data used in models of environmental
maintenance and repair profiles. Uncertainties related to the results also result from the
difficult-to-estimate forecasts of vehicle failure rates and the effects of post-collision repairs.
An additional limitation is the applicability of models of environmental maintenance and
repair profiles, which are representative of medium-sized passenger cars representing a
certain level of technological improvement of the drive system and exhaust gas regulation
to the EURO 6 standard.
Based on the optimization results, it has been determined that the environmental
effects of maintenance and repair are influenced by two attributes: the retirement time of
the previous vehicle and the lifespan of the new vehicle. This has major implications for
car replacement policies.
In policies with short replacement cycles and a fixed average car use limit, the higher
environmental performance of a new car that does not require extensive maintenance can
speed up the decision to retire the old car. However, the average lifetime of a new car in
the EU is too short to strike a balance of benefits and production burdens that need to be
optimized in the much longer term. Therefore, short replacement cycles would require
a significant increase in the environmental performance of new cars. And as the impact
of maintenance, which is a function of car mileage, is reduced, the focus should be on
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 19 of 22

improving the environmental performance of new car propulsion, where much greater
benefits can be achieved. This is now the main driving force behind the government’s old
ICEV scrapping schemes, which are replacing more efficient EVs. However, research by
Kagawa et al. [43] shows that incentives to shorten the life cycle of cars may undermine the
goals of sustainable development due to the increase in the number of new cars and the
increase in emissions related to their production.
The results of optimizing the long-term replacement policy show that extending the
life of the new car shortens the use of the old car and results in lower cumulative fees
for the replacement of both cars. According to the data in Table 1, such optimization
minimizing the environmental impact can result in extending the life of a new car by up
to 30 years. A car’s 30-year useful life is not acceptable, and the potential environmental
benefits are uncertain and related to projections of future car technology improvements.
In the real world, very strong regulations and technological developments can result in
shorter optimal lifetimes, which may result in a lower cumulative impact score. Despite the
uncertainties, the optimal use periods set are significantly longer than the average car use
limit in the EU. These results are consistent with previous findings by other authors. The
research of Uson et al. [35] shows that the replacement of a vehicle is in no way justified by
energy and environmental considerations before the age of 20. Similarly, Kim et al. [33],
due to energy and CO2 , set the optimum replacement period at 18 years.
For long-term replacement policies, a relationship was determined to optimize the
use of the old and new car. This relationship shows that by keeping the old diesel car
five times longer from 47,500 to 250,000 vkm, the period of use of the new car can be
shortened by approx. one-third, from 432,000 to 284,000 vkm. Such a policy increases the
benefits of maintaining a new car. Here, the maintenance contribution accounts for about
50% of the total environmental performance of a new car. In the forecast, as the old car’s
performance deteriorates more rapidly over time and the new car’s performance improves
due to technology improvements, the optimal lifespan of the replacement cars would be
even shorter.
The environmental optimization results presented also show compliance with econom-
ically ideal replacement intervals. Spitzley et al. [11], studying life cycle costs, found that in
American conditions, the ideal replacement intervals are 17–19 years, despite differences in
repair costs, purchase price and vehicle class. Further research is needed from an environ-
mental and economic perspective to better understand all the benefits that improvements
in vehicle technology can bring and to carry out a life cycle assessment analysis.

6. Conclusions
In this study, a life cycle optimization model was used to solve the problem of replacing
an old car, taking into account maintenance environmental profiles developed on the
basis of detailed inventory data from a Ford service center in Poland. While decisions to
retire a vehicle are most often driven by economic considerations, optimal vehicle life is
also a complex resource and environmental management issue. In both decision-making
situations, there is always a trade-off between the costs and benefits of investing in a new,
more efficient, reliable and less polluting car, and continuing to use the old car, which is less
efficient, more polluting and requires more maintenance and repair. Life cycle assessment
(LCA) offers a comprehensive method of assessing the effects of car replacement in order
to minimize the environmental impact over a fixed planning horizon.
The study analyzed two vehicle replacement policies: short-term and long-term, which
represent different approaches to the problem of replacement by two different groups of
individual consumers. The study was conducted using the example of replacing an average
car with a newer model that differs in fuel efficiency, emission factors and the distribution
of loads and impacts of maintenance and repairs.
Model studies have shown a significant impact of maintenance on optimal periods
of replacement. In particular, it was found that short replacement cycles over a period
no longer than the average EU car use limit do not provide a balance of benefits and
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 20 of 22

production burdens that need to be optimized over a much longer period of use. In a
long-term replacement policy that minimizes the environmental impact of replacement, the
optimal lifespan of a new car may be 20–30 years and depends on the lifetime of the old car
and the environmental performance of the new car.
The results of such an assessment indicate the need for the continuous improvement
of inventory data to keep up with changes in vehicle technology. This is of particular
importance for optimizing ICEV replacement policies with EVs that are more efficient but
require more resources to produce. Also, the use of EVs raises concerns about the life
of batteries and other components with a critical environmental impact. Therefore, the
collection of comprehensive LCI data and the assessment of the maintenance and end-of-life
effects of the listed EV components will be another challenge for further research.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app13179843/s1, Figure S1: Total ecoindicator score results (EI-
Pt) of petrol Ford Focus irregular maintenance [6]; Figure S2: Total ecoindicator score results (EI-Pt) of
Ford Focus diesel irregular maintenance [6]; Figure S3: Total ecoindicator score results (EI-Pt) of petrol
Ford Focus repair [6]; Figure S4: Total ecoindicator score results (EI-Pt) of Ford Focus diesel repair [6];
Figure S5: Total ecoindicator score results (EI-Pt) of Ford Focus crash repair; Figure S6: Impacts
of different vehicle scenarios [6]; Table S1: Ford Focus fuel consumption for the operation phase;
Table S2: Components replaced for different repair scenarios; Table S3: Ford Focus fuel consumption
for the operation phase [6]; Table S4: Overview of Ford Focus vehicle scenarios; Table S5: Fuel
consumption and emission factors of Ford Focus cars as inputs to the life cycle optimization model;
Table S6: Overview of Ford Focus scenarios as inputs to the life cycle optimization model.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.D. and P.S.; methodology, K.D.; software, K.U. and P.S.;
validation, K.D., P.S. and K.U.; formal analysis, K.D.; investigation, K.D.; resources, P.S.; data curation,
K.D.; writing—original draft preparation, K.D., P.S. and K.U.; writing—review and editing, K.D. and
K.U.; visualization, K.D.; supervision, K.D.; project administration, K.D.; funding acquisition, K.U.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. OICA. International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, World Motor Vehicle Production by Country/Region and
Type. Available online: https://www.oica.net/wp-content/uploads/By-country-region-2022.pdf (accessed on 4 July 2023).
2. ACEA. Vehicles in Use Europe 2023. Available online: https://www.acea.auto/files/ACEA-report-vehicles-in-use-europe-2023
.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2023).
3. SAMAR. Instytut Badań Rynku Motoryzacyjnego, Rynek Samochodów Używanych—Samochody Osobowe Po Raz Pierwszy
Rejestrowane i Przerejestrowywane w Kraju. Available online: https://www.samar.pl/__/1001/1001.rep/20/10{-}{-}Rynek-
samochod%C3%B3w-u%C5%BCywanych{-}{-}-Samochody-osobowe-po-raz-pierwszy-rejestrowane-i-przerejestrowywane-w-
kraju.html?locale=pl_PL (accessed on 11 July 2023).
4. Burnham, A.; Gohlke, D.; Rush, L.; Stephens, T.; Zhou, Y.; Delucchi, M.A.; Birky, A.; Hunter, C.; Lin, Z.; Ou, S.; et al. Comprehensive
Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for Vehicles with Different Size Classes and Powertrains; Argonne National Laboratory Study:
Chicago, IL, USA, 2021. Available online: https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2021/05/167399.pdf (accessed on 17 August 2023).
5. Hawkins, T.R.; Singh, B.; Majeau-Bettez, G.; Strømman, A.H. Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional
and electric vehicles. J. Ind. Ecol. 2012, 17, 53–64. [CrossRef]
6. Danilecki, K.; Eliasz, J.; Smurawski, P.; Stanek, W.; Szl˛ek, A. Modeling inventory and environmental impacts of car maintenance
and repair: A case study of Ford Focus passenger car. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 315, 128085. [CrossRef]
7. Visentin, C.; Trentin, A.W.; Braun, A.B.; Thomé, A. Life cycle sustainability assessment: A systematic literature review through
the application perspective, indicators, and methodologies. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 270, 122509. [CrossRef]
8. Costa, D.; Quinteiro, P.; Dias, A.C. A systematic review of life cycle sustainability assessment: Current state, methodological
challenges, and implementation issues. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 686, 774–787. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 21 of 22

9. Vesovic, V.; Jovanovic, D.; Arsic, M.; Avramovic, Z.; Sofijanic, S.; Djorovic, B.; Gospic, N.; Tomovic, N.; Miloszević, D.; Dobric,
M.; et al. Identification of the Right Moment for Motor Vehicle Replacement—Life-Cycle Analysis in Serbia and Montenegro.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2744. [CrossRef]
10. Kim, D.S.; Porter, D.J.; Kriett, P.; Mbugua, W.; Wagner, T. Fleet Replacement Modeling. Oregon State University, FHWA-OR-RD-
10-01, 2009. Available online: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Programs/ResearchDocuments/Fleet_Model.pdf (accessed on 15
July 2023).
11. Spitzley, D.V.; Grande, D.E.; Gruhl, T.; Keoleian, G.A.; Bean, J.C. Automotive Life Cycle Economics and Replacement Intervals;
University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2004; pp. 1–46.
12. Redmer, A. Strategic vehicle fleet management–a joint solution of make-or-buy, composition and replacement problems. J. Qual.
Maint. Eng. 2022, 28, 327–349. [CrossRef]
13. Redmer, A. Strategic vehicle fleet management—The replacement problem. Logforum 2016, 12, 17–24. [CrossRef]
14. Boudart, J.; Figliozzi, M. Key Variables Affecting Decisions of Bus Replacement Age and Total Costs. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp.
Res. Board 2012, 2274, 109–113. [CrossRef]
15. Inegbedion, H.; Aghedo, M. A model of vehicle replacement time with overloading cost constraint. J. Manag. Anal. 2018, 5,
350–370. [CrossRef]
16. Stasko, T.H.; Gao, H.O. Developing green fleet management strategies: Repair/retrofit/replacement decisions under environmen-
tal regulation. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2012, 46, 1216–1226. [CrossRef]
17. Bajpai, J.N. Emerging vehicle technologies and the search for urban mobility solutions. Urban Plan. Transp. Res. 2016, 4, 83–100.
[CrossRef]
18. Vanderseypen, E. Current and Future Situation of Obsolescence in the Automotive Industry. Master’s Thesis, University
de Louvain, Bruxelles, Belgium, 2018. Available online: https://dial.uclouvain.be/memoire/ucl/fr/object/thesis%3A14403
/datastream/PDF_01/view (accessed on 20 August 2023).
19. He, H.; Fan, J.; Li, Y.; Li, J. When to switch to a hybrid electric vehicle: A replacement optimisation decision. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,
148, 295–303. [CrossRef]
20. Feng, W.; Figliozzi, M. An economic and technological analysis of the key factors affecting the competitiveness of electric
commercial vehicles: A case study from the USA market. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2013, 26, 135–145. [CrossRef]
21. Feng, W.; Figliozzi, M. Vehicle technologies and bus fleet replacement optimization: Problem properties and sensitivity analysis
utilizing real-world data. Public Transp. 2014, 6, 137–157. [CrossRef]
22. Zaman, H.; Zaccour, G. Vehicle scrappage incentives to accelerate the replacement decision of heterogeneous consumers. Omega
2020, 91, 102016. [CrossRef]
23. Tamor, M.A.; Milačić, M. Electric vehicles in multi-vehicle households. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2015, 56, 52–60.
[CrossRef]
24. Bauer, G. The impact of battery electric vehicles on vehicle purchase and driving behavior in Norway. Transp. Res. Part D Transp.
Environ. 2018, 58, 239–258. [CrossRef]
25. Kontou, E.; Yin, Y.; Lin, Z.; He, F. Socially optimal replacement of conventional with electric vehicles for the US household fleet.
Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2017, 11, 749–763. [CrossRef]
26. Hofmann, J.; Guan, D.; Chalvatzis, K.; Huo, H. Assessment of electrical vehicles as a successful driver for reducing CO2 emissions
in China. Appl. Energy 2016, 184, 995–1003. [CrossRef]
27. Karlewski, H.; Lehmann, A.; Ruhland, K.; Finkbeiner, M. A Practical Approach for Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive
Industry. Resources 2019, 8, 146. [CrossRef]
28. Buberger, J.; Kersten, A.; Kuder, M.; Eckerle, R.; Weyh, T.; Thiringer, T. Total CO2 -Equivalent Life-Cycle Emissions from
Commercially Available Passenger Cars. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 159, 112158. [CrossRef]
29. Xiong, S.; Ji, J.; Ma, X. Comparative Life Cycle Energy and GHG Emission Analysis for BEVs and PhEVs: A Case Study in China.
Energies 2019, 12, 834. [CrossRef]
30. Leduc, G.; Mongelli, I.; Uihlein, A.; Nemry, F. How can our cars become lesspolluting? An assessment of the environmental
improvement potential of cars. Transp. Policy 2010, 17, 409–419. [CrossRef]
31. Petrauskienė, K.; Galinis, A.; Kliaugaitė, D.; Dvarionienė, J. Comparative Environmental Life Cycle and Cost Assessment of
Electric, Hybrid, and Conventional Vehicles in Lithuania. Sustainability 2021, 13, 957. [CrossRef]
32. Wursthorn, S.; Feifel, S.; Walk, W.; Patyk, A. An environmental comparison of repair versus replacement in vehicle maintenance.
Transportation Research Part D Transport and Environment. 2010, 15, 356–361. [CrossRef]
33. Kim, H.C.; Hyung, C.; Keoleian, G.A.; Grande, D.E.; Bean, J.C. Life Cycle Optimization of Automobile Replacement: Model and
Application. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 5407–5413. [CrossRef]
34. Kim, H.; Keoleian, G.; Spatari, S.; Bulkley, J. Optimizing Vehicle Life Using Life Cycle Energy Analysis and Dynamic Replacement
Modeling. Presented at SAE Total Life-Cycle Conference, Detroit, MI, USA, 26–28 April 2000. SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-1499.
[CrossRef]
35. Usón, A.A.; Capilla, A.; Bribián, I.; Scarpellini, S.; Sastresa, E.L. Energy efficiency in transport and mobility from an eco-efficiency
viewpoint. Energy 2011, 36, 1916–1923. [CrossRef]
36. Held, M.; Rosat, N.; Georges, G.; Pengg, H.; Boulouchos, K. Lifespans of passenger cars in Europe: Empirical modelling of fleet
turnover dynamics. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2021, 13, 9. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9843 22 of 22

37. Barjoveanu, G.; Dinita, F.; Teodosiu, C. Aging Passenger Car Fleet Structure, Dynamics, and Environmental Performance
Evaluation at the Regional Level by Life Cycle Assessment. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8443. [CrossRef]
38. Kagawa, S.; Hubacek, K.; Nansai, K.; Kataoka, M.; Managi, S.; Suh, S.; Kudoh, Y. Better cars or older cars?: Assessing CO2
emission reduction potential of passenger vehicle replacement programs. Glob. Environ. Change 2013, 23, 1807–1818. [CrossRef]
39. Schweimer, G.W.; Levin, M. Life Cycle Inventory of the Golf A4. In Research Environment and Transport; Volkswagen AG: Berlin,
Germany; Wolfsburg and Center of Environmental System Research, University of Kassel: Kassel, Germany, 2000.
40. Ecoinvent, 2023. The Ecoinvent Database. Available online: https://ecoinvent.org/the-ecoinvent-database/ (accessed on 14 July 2023).
41. Database & Support Team at PRé Sustainability. SimaPro Database Manual, Methods Library, 2022. Available online: https:
//simapro.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/DatabaseManualMethods.pdf (accessed on 13 July 2023).
42. Danilecki, K.; Mrozik, M.; Smurawski, P. Changes in the environmental profile of a popular passenger car over the last 30 years
—Results of a simplified LCA study. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 208–218. [CrossRef]
43. Kagawa, S.; Nansai, K.; Kondo, Y.; Hubacek, K.; Suh, S.; Minx, J.; Kudoh, Y.; Tasaki, T.; Nakamura, S. Role of Motor Vehicle
Lifetime Extension in Climate Change Policy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 1184–1191. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.