Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
If I own an old rotting F150 that's 20 years old, and is worth maybe $1200, but could crush it for a $3500 credit... why wouldn't the value rise to close to that amount if I was selling it to someone who wanted to buy it for that purpose? Just check Ebay for examples of that. What does a Best Buy gift card go for? Maybe no less than 90% of its printed vale. Certainly not 20-30%.
But mostly it's all of those old vehicles being crushed... In 30 years there will be "classics" from the 50s, 60s, 70s and then an enormous gap from 1976 to 2000 where everything that wasn't worth enough money in 2010 was just thrown out or crushed.(basically leaving a few European makes)
I currently have an older 4x4. I use it off-road and enjoy it. But a lot of keeping these things running is about obtaining donor trucks and re-using parts. If all of the older 1980s era trucks and SUVs dry up, then all you'll be left with is a few rigs that are heavily customized and nothing else.
Ebay Item number: 270375573088 is a perfect example. 1979 Scout 4x4. Sold for $1,375. Old classics like this would either jump up in value or just end up crushed.
Thanks in advance.
Again it is temporary bill and it will have an ownership clause. I think 180 to a year is fair.
So wouldn't the value of these cars drop back down to reality after the bill expires???
BTW, i am not in favor of this bill. i don't think the government should be promoting consumers taking on more debt right now. Plus I think the import companies will make out better than the domestic manufacturers.
No, and I really doubt the values would jump that far anyway. The delta for "bang-for-the-buck" is going to be pretty deep on this deal. I'm not even positive I'll be buying a new vehicle, but I have a bad habit of it so I might as well capitalize on the program if I can. I've been thinking about going back to a VW TDI as an extra vehicle for regular commuting and such, and an extra $4,000 make the economics at least somewhat tolerable.
Please let us know If you can suggest a better way to have our views considered.
I'd get an old clunker as well.
Also, if it's popular, like it is in Germany right now, they'll be begged to keep it for another year or two by the public.
I found this online:
*****
In Germany, the program, known as Umweltprämie (literally, 'environmental rebate'), appears to have produced a 21 percent increase in February car sales compared with the same month in 2008, according to the German Automobile Association. In the midst of what some call the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the 278,000 new passenger cars registered in Germany in February represented the single biggest volume for that month in more than a decade.
Dealers say strong sales demand continued in March, with buyers hoping to get in on the program, which rewards car owners who scrap vehicles that are more than nine years old and subsequently purchase new ones with a payout equal to about $3,388. The program has been so successful that the government has voted for additional funding (beyond the $2 billion already exhausted) to extend it through the end of 2009.
****
But everything I said about used prices and older classic cars being scrapped has come true the times that countries in Europe have tried it. The used prices dropped back down again when the programs ended, naturally, but it's simple economics - if you have an old beater and can get $4K off of a $16K car... Yeah, that old thing is gone.
An interesting comment I read in another discussion here was how the government should run pick-a-part type places have a go at the vehicles before literally being crushed. So that the collectors and such can get their parts and the government can get most of that money back.
One of the drafts did allow for recycling of all parts except the engine block I believe. There's a pretty limited number of vehicles that would be important to collectors from the 80's / 90's so I have doubts many of those being crushed. A '91 Lumina is a no brainer....a '94 Impala is another. I don't see a shortage of collectible parts due to this.
Only reason I still have it is an emotional attachment to it--when I moved to my new place,,I directly went from the airport to the dealership and drove it off the lot with my luggage in it!!
But if it can now be worth 4500 ,then I can trade in and get a new car.Also it`s mileage is rated 20city/28hway ,,So I dont know how much of a factor that will be!! :P
Thanks.
20/28 by the old window sticker is probably around 19/26 by the new ratings, with a combined rating of around 21-22. Well, 21-22 doesn't fall into "under 18 mpg combined", so no voucher for you! :P
Is this car eligible for the rebate trade it?
Hold on now...I'll give you the '91 Lumina. But a '94 Impala?! Them's fightin' words! :P
But if it can now be worth 4500 ,then I can trade in and get a new car.Also it`s mileage is rated 20city/28hway ,,So I dont know how much of a factor that will be!!
Playing devil's advocate....why not just buy a vehicle that has a $3000 or $4000 rebate on the hood from the manufacturer? Chrysler is offering $4000 rebate plus $1000 loyalty rebate plus $1000 credit union rebate. I don't see folks rushing to buy cars.
Totally unfair!!!What do u folks say?? :shades:
All cars before 2001--that must be the sole criteria!!
Well if they're really trying to revitalize the auto industry, while at the same time improve fuel economy, what they should do is throw out that minimum requirement altogether, and just have the stipulation be that your new vehicle has to get better fuel economy than the one you're replacing. And just make it so that the bigger the improvement in fuel efficiency, the bigger the incentive.
That way, the only people who would probably be screwed would be those who had old Jetta Diesels or Honda CRX HFs to trade in.
With the way Chrysler is headed, I'd imagine there are a few of their models that could now be had for under $16K...regardless of what the window sticker says.
Then, even if you drive a gas guzzler with less than 18mpg, if its market value is over 4500, and you want to trade it in for a new car, you are out of luck??!? That sucks, there should be some kind of help for everyone who wants to get a more fuel efficient vehicle or none to anybody!
I think the only way I'd want to depart with one of my C-words would be if I hit hard financial times. And then if that was the case, a new car would be the last thing on my mind...$4500 voucher or not!
There are at least two different demographics that drive so called clunkers. Those that have to and those as yourself that want to. Neither is likely to buy a new car. Then guys like me that just like to play the system for every advantage. I don't think I would give up either of my qualified vehicles for $4500. It needs to get more toward $10K to really push me into taking advantage. Unless I buy one of the old junkers my neighbor has.
Very confusing to say the least. Can I trade an 18mpg truck for a 30mpg car and get the $4,500 voucher? Why would we only encourage trading truck for truck, which is how this reads to me. There's also clearly a disconnect between the chart and the dialogue above. One says a car must get less than 18mpg to qualify...the chart only addresses the improvement. My granddaughter (the best 7 year old attorney I've met) could have done a better job than this.
Hmmmmm....
Well, in my case, I didn't buy my C-words as daily point-A to point-B transportation to get me by until I had the opportunity to buy something better. I basically bought them as toys. For whatever irrational reason, these big 70's brutes appeal to me and I have sentimental attachment to them...
Now if the clunker voucher was revised to where I could get $4500 for my 2000 Intrepid, I might be tempted. The car has 145,000 miles on it, mis-matched tires, a back door lock that acts up from time to time, and a little battle damage here and there. I'd probably be lucky to get $1500-2000 for it in trade. So getting $4500 for it instead of $1500-2000 would be an incentive. However, there's still the tradeoff between having a car that's paid off, versus getting back into car payments, higher insurance premiums, etc. Sure, the Intrepid won't last forever, but I figure that every month I hang onto it, that's probably $300 saved on a new car payment. Well, figure maybe more like $200 or so, since I still have to budget for maintenance/repairs on the existing car. If I truly believed the Intrepid was on its last legs, then a $4500 voucher would definitely tempt me into getting a new car. But I guess it's a moot point anyway, since the Intrepid is too fuel efficient to qualify.
The biggest enemy of this economy is Congress.
Just as people with poor-mileage cars could improve their fuel efficiency, people with already-efficient cars could move up to more efficient models. And the traded already-efficient cars would become available to other buyers at a lower market point, no need to dispose of them at all! They too would contribute to an overall increase in efficiency, especially if the program covered them as well (again, base eligibility & benefits primarily on mileage increase, from old to new model).
Noting that miles-per-gallon is a non-linear measure (gallons-per-mile is linear and makes more sense), the program benefits could be proportional to the true fuel consumption reduction. Moving from 20 mpg to 30 mpg would yield a larger benefit than moving from 30 mpg to 40 mpg. This scaling would match the monetary benefit to the fuel-efficiency benefit.
That should result in better decision-making by the public. Those decisions in turn drive the automaker's production decisions. If we buy it, they will build it.
But alas, our government will make this unnecessarily complex, and in the end it will reward those would made fuel-inefficient decisions in the past. It's like moving the first graders to second grade, while keeping the second graders in place. But undoubtedly it will stimulate new auto sales, which I suppose is the true intention.
I wouldn't mind at all giving up our 00 Accord on something like a Prius but the Accord doesn't qualify. Of course it not only does better than 20 mpg but it is also ULEV so they'd just as soon leave that one on the road.
I'm still waiting to see how the final plan works out. Buying a $400 beater might be worth the while.
If they really want to help the environment it should be that your are required to buy a new car of at least 30 mpg combined. As it stands you can get 3.5K for buying a new ride that gets only 2 mpg greater than before. That's just sick.
hence the question.
Whichever version of the English language you choose you can translate it into "Play into the poor old manufacturers hands and create an Environmental Disaster".
Talk about naive politicians blindly going where no fool has gone before.
I have just watched a documentary, here in the UK about Motoring in the US and one part focused on the number of accidents in California every year, Wow! Nearly the same number as in little old England in a year!
There is a common factor, even though our drivers travel down different sides of the road. It is the area of impact on the vehicles, "Mainly Front Damaged"
Now I may be 60 years old and am not some highly paid politician, mathematician or even an accountant but even I worked out years ago that about 80% of a vehicles value "Engine, Gearbox, Radiator etc sits between the driver and the front bumper"
There must be a "Logical, Sensible, Cost Saving or Environmental Reason" for this? Mustn't there?
If there isn't what is the gain "Unless you are someone who gains financially from so many Components being in the most likely place to get damaged" "In an accident" and "Need Replacement"
Could those same people be the sellers of the New Parts you "Or your Insurer" would need to buy if you ended up in an accident? A jaundiced view maybe, but one that fits the facts!
Anyway just a bit of observation to US President Barack Obama, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, any other counties leaders now introducing or thinking of introducing Scrapage schemes or whoever is advising them about how to run these schemes.
There were Seven “Advertising Commercials or Messages” during the one hour documentary all about “Wonderful Scrapage Bonuses” to be had if you brought a “New Environmentally Friendly Vehicle”
Hold up a minute, thought I, didn’t the News just before the documentary state that only 600 people had inquired about the governments “Soon to be introduced Scrapage Scheme”? Have I missed something?
Technology sometimes gives great benefits so rewinding to the start of my evenings viewing I decided to check to see if the “Old Mind had been dreaming” but found I was not loosing that many brain cells. It became clear then what ingenious slant to save themselves bundles of money the little old hard done by Manufacturers had come up with for “Scrapage / Clunker schemes”!
“Was it only last month that every manufacturer was offering huge discounts on their new vehicle prices because they could not sell them due to the recession”?
“Was it only last month my mind went into meltdown when the line of noughts on the end of various Government subsidies to Motor Manufacturers seemed to disappear into infinity?
“Where had these discounts gone? Because none of the New Advertising Mentioned a Discount!
Silly me there they were “Re-badged, Reworded and rehashed as wonderful offers to help you “Go Green” and get “Scrapage money for your old vehicle”.
Notably as well there was no mention of how old an Old Vehicle Had to be, you would get this windfall as long as your “Old Vehicle” if it met “The Advertising Manufacturers Scrapage criteria”.
A Ha here were the “Re-packaged Discounts” all dressed up in their “New Green Suits” parading themselves on the screen and implanting the message that “We are a manufacturer of environmentally friendly Vehicles”
There is an old saying that “[non-permissible content removed] baffles Brains” and the smell emanating from my TV Set made me think it had caught alight.
No mention of “The Billions of Dollars or Pounds of Tax Payers Money” already provided to these Manufacturers.
No Mention of “What government tax pot the Scrapage money was coming from”
No Mention of “Where the previous discounts had disappeared to.
No Mention of “How much CO2 is created in the actual building and production of The New Green vehicle” you are buying.
No Mention of “Alternative Fuels such as Brown’s Gas, Methane, Bio Fuels or how many miles you would have to drive your New Green Car to compensate for the CO2 in the manufacture of the new Green Car for you to be on the Green side of the CO2 Scale”.
There was not even the mention of having to bring back an old vehicle of the same manufacturer type and suffice to say the advertising Car Makers were not selling British built Vehicles!
I like to think I am as environmentally aware as most ordinary people, but when the leader of My Government “That’s Mr Brown” and his advisors can firstly stand, chests puffed out and proudly announce “Our Scrapage Scheme will make the world Greener” and then, again meekly pass over my tax money to manufacturers I have a simple question.
When will you realise that you have started a ball rolling which will result in every Tax Payer in the world being “Bent over and Triple shafted by Motor Manufacturers”
I got reminded by my friend and Business Partner Phil, that I should somewhere in this point readers to the purported Environment savings of these wonderful new vehicles.
As he stated in no uncertain terms, all vehicles now being made in Europe are supposed to be up to Euro 4 Engine Emission Standards and that as far back as 1998 a voluntary agreement between the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) and the European Commission to limit the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by passenger cars sold in Europe was signed.
Phil is pretty knowledgeable on these matters and say’s the agreement sought to achieve an average of 140 g/km of CO2 by 2008 for new passenger vehicles sold by the ACEA associations Members cars in Europe.
Phil say’s the ultimate target was to reach an average CO2 emission of 120 g/km for all new passenger cars by 2012 but that the average achieved by 2005 was only 160 g/km and in 2007, the failure of the voluntary agreement was recognised.
Now I have to acknowledge that Phil knows his stuff on motors and if he says an
Audi A6 Saloon 2.0 TDIe Diesel emits 139 grams of CO2 per kilometre as opposed to the A6 Saloon 2.0 TFSI Petrol at 174 grams of CO2 per kilometre; I know best not to question his figures.
I can’t possibly repeat his actual wording but one of his statements translates to “I could understand if this silly Government gave people a thousand pound voucher to trade in a petrol model for a Diesel Model” and to a great extent that on the CO2 emission figures for all comparable vehicles makes sense.
Phil had to agree though that there was still the matter of the large amount of CO2 emissions of vehicle production which no one can estimate how long it will take to balance out because no figures for this are available.
Both of however, with a combined “Motor trade knowledge of about 100 years”, are in agreement on one prediction “Scrapage or Clunker Schemes will, if they continue in their current formats, lead to a shortage of Legally Recycled Auto Components”
Is there a way to temper and balance the requirements of our planets survival with the needs
Break your message up into distinct paragraphs
For lengthy posts, in addition to paragraphs, break your post into two separate posts.
Your post is nearly impossible to read and most members will just glance over it.
Visiting Host
What's taking them so long? Car sales is off 40 to 50 % because everyone is waiting to see how the bill comes out. What qualifies,what doesn't. I know I'm waiting to trade in my clunker.
The biggest enemy of this economy is Congress.
Car sales are off because of the massive losses in the stock market over the past year; massive job losses over the past 15 months and a credit crisis that is just finally leveling off.
But if you feel better blaming Congress for the poor car sales, go right ahead.
But yes, it is a matter of taxpayer's money versus car manufacturers money.
If both answers are YES, then it's a good decision. Otherwise, more likely "no"--although when you're out of work, it's hard to hear that.
Despite Stimulus Funds, States to Cut More Jobs
Budget Shortfalls Prompt Mass Layoffs
By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Eleven weeks after Congress settled on a stimulus package that provided $135 billion to limit layoffs in state governments, many states are finding that the funds are not enough and are moving to lay off thousands of public employees.
The state of Washington settled on a budget two weeks ago that will mean 1,000 layoffs at public colleges and several times that many in elementary and high schools.
The governor of Massachusetts, who cut 1,000 positions late last year, just announced 250 layoffs, with more likely to come soon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051103062_- pf.html
Heck, I just heard that they may have to close the Harley Davidson plant in York. It is not cost effective long term. The union screwed themselves the last negotiations. That will be a few thousands jobs lost in my town.
I don't agree with the loans either. They should have loaned the money to the dealerships and suppliers to keep them in business while GM and Chrysler got their act together.
Unfortunately, Chrysler is being dropped at the door step of our government by Cerberus after being mugged by Daimler. GM...well GM is just a perfect example of mismanagement at all levels. They will make a great case study for a business or management class in the near future.
I don't see this program helping GM or Chrysler. Ford? maybe. I think Honda, Nissan and Toyota will benefit more esp. with as inching up and they have the fuel efficient cars.
Eight, hell. Try 30. Brock Yates' book The Decline and Fall of the American Automobile Industry came out in the early 1980s, didn't it?