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 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
My worry is that the Clunker Plan and the bailouts all leave the same people in charge of the automakers. That can't be good.
Seems to me that gravel would actually be better for the environment. It allows water to seep through, rather than having it run off like concrete or asphalt. Plus, you can make the argument that asphalt contributes to global warming! :P
That is exactly why they are outlawing it. Oil, gas and anti-freeze also seep through. In the Arctic oil fields you have to catch all the melting snow and ice from the vehicles and burn it to destroy any contaminants. A friend that is in pest control was just informed that he could not wash his vehicle where the water runs into the gutter. He has to put a sewer drain in his shop and run it down the sewer. I am surprised the East coast has not already implemented these kind of rules. They usual get their regulations from CA.
Is this Clunker incentive a tax credit or just a check to the dealers?
So now it looks like the only thing I have that's still eligible is my '85 Silverado. And by the end of the year, it won't be, either. So, like others have said, it looks like this is an incentive to get people out of their late '90's and early '00 trucks and SUVs and into something smaller.
I can't see too many people junking old Mustang GT's and Camaro SS and Z28s over this. And the types of people who drive something like an old Caprice or Crown Vic, are either doing it because they want to, or because they have to!
Yeah, but what do oil, gas, and antifreeze do when they end up on concrete or asphalt? They stain concrete and deteriorate asphalt, and they also run off of it, and end up seeping into the ground alongside. Or run down a storm drain.
So my question is still out there. Who is going to pay to dispose of these million clunkers? And who is going to watch and see that they are destroyed. I can see Barry starting a whole new agency in the Federal Government. :sick:
Good question about the payout Gary. It sounds like vouchers would go to consumers, so maybe everyone will get a voucher in the mail (you may already be a winner!). Maybe the feds will stick one of those phony car keys on the flyer like the screamer ad car company here did yesterday. More junk for the dump.
[edit] Edmunds just put together a great FAQ: Cash for Clunkers FAQ
That will be the next round of regulations. I remember dumping my oil when I changed it on the weeds along side our driveway. Now that will put you in deep trouble. We still have people using gravel pads to park in the County. Also lots of gravel drive ways. I am waiting for the hammer to fall on those long dirt driveways. That will be a real big expense for the homeowners.
I have to confess that I used to dump old antifreeze on my grandmother's gravel driveway, to kill the weeds growing up in it. As for oil, I've always recycled it. However, back in the day my Granddad used to hang onto it and use it as flea dip for the dogs! :surprise:
"The voucher amount would be credited as all or part of the down payment on a qualifying new car."
This stuff may change as the Senate tweaks the bill.
If they gave me a $4500 voucher and let me keep my old car, that'd be nice. :P
From my experience, German cars are much nicer to drive but significantly less reliable than the American brands. The other catch: the House version caps the price of "eligible vehicles" at $45k, so you can forget about a Cayenne or 5-Series BMW.
Or there needs to be a "modified vehicle" or different engine clause or something. I don't know of ANY bone stock old 4x4 trucks out there any more.
The more I learn about this plan the more I realize just how brilliant it is.
When you take into consideration the combined IQ of our Congress is probably exceeded by the collection of apes at the San Diego Zoo, it should be no surprise. The only requirement to becoming a member of Congress is finding someone with deep pockets and an agenda to pay for your campaign. The rest is simple. You just call your benefactors and ask how you should vote on each bill.
I'm certain there are a bunch of people who hate their Explorers or Jimmys or Broncos or old 4Runners or 1500's or Dodges who'd love to be given $4500 for these pieces of crap.
Nobody else need apply. Next case, move on
There are also a lot of people whose livelihood depends on providing parts and service for these vehicles. These folks will also be hurt.
If nothing else, why didn't we just offer to ship these vehicles to Cuba, or some other country that would welcome them, and doesn't have auto manufacturing plants? Shipping the cars would probably cost less than destroying them, and American companies could have made some money by selling replacement parts to keep these cars running. Did our lawmakers even consider such a possibility?
Probably not.
In my case, a minivan is about as good as a truck.
It looks to me like it has to be car for car or light duty truck/SUV for same. You could probably trade a 4Runner for a RAV4 etc. Of course the bill has a ways to go yet. So who knows how it will end up? Most PU trucks or SUV newer than 1998 would still be worth more than $4500 unless they are totally trashed and rusted out. We don't see those here in CA. I pulled up a 1995 F150 on Craigslist with a salvage title for $3900. It has 194k miles on it. I am pretty sure I could get $4500 for my 1999 Ford Ranger 2WD. I'm sure the bill has you and all car salesmen salivating.
Add an extra clause that ANY vehicle will qualify that gets over 18mpg if the replacement vehicle gets at least 50% better MPG, rounded up.
If you take 18MPG for the original and up it to 28mpg (10mpg increase for the maximum incentive), then calculate the same with 19mpg, you get 9.5 mpg better. Rounded up, that's 29 MPG(higher!) From there it scales upwards quickly. 20=30, 21=32, and so on - quite easy to calculate.
It would set 28mpg as the floor and allow it to rise for slightly more efficient vehicles if you make a 50% or better improvement.
At the bare minimum I would expect people to remove stereos, good tires, and any other easily salable items before trading them in on this. The dealers will surely strip the vehicles before sending them to the crusher.
Even if the vehicle must 'run', there is a lot of trim. glass, airbags, etc. worth removing before turning the vehicle over to the dealer.
I doubt if the dealers are going to strip the cars down, because dealers are not in the business of dismantling cars and selling used parts. It's just too time and space consuming to be profitable for them. They'll probably take these trade-ins and just do with them what they already do with low-value vehicles...wholesale them off. If there's some requirement that these turned-in "clunkers" have to be scrapped, then I'm sure they'll make an agreement with some local junkyards to come pick them up.
Remember, this $3500 or $4500 or whatever isn't coming out of the dealer's pocket. It's coming out of the government's pocket (i.e., "We the People") If you have some clunker worth 50 bucks, chances are that's what the dealer's going to give you, 50 bucks. The $3500-4500 will be in the form of a gov't voucher or tax credit or something along those lines.
The House bill (H.R. 2751) requires that the vehicle be "in driveable condition [. . .] coninuously insured consistent with the applicable State law and registered to the same owner for a period of not less than 1 year immediately prior to such trade-in."
I take "in driveable condition" to mean that the vehicle must be not only operable but street legal. So yanking the windshield would be a no-no, but you could certainly pull the stereo, A/C parts, etc. and sell them before turning in the vehicle for scrap.
No. That is a positive if done tastefully and with long wearing material. Last few cars we bought (Acuras) "only" came with leather. I would pay extra to get fabric.
Fabric is always more comfortable than leather in any temperature or weather.
I'm guessing there are going to be a bunch of scrapyards who are VERY happy when this is done. They'll get the vehicle, part it out, then crush the remainder. There will be an extra million of these through this program. I'm guessing there will be some profiteering going on by dealers if there are no controls. Who gets the title of a traded in clunker? The dealer or the government? If it is the dealer, I guarantee THEY will be parting out the vehicles before crushing, or they will be selling to the highest bidder that 'qualifies' as a crusher. This might be a business opportunity for someone who is unemployed. Bid on the traded in cars, strip them, then transport them to the crusher. The question is, how do you qualify as a 'crusher'?
Obama looking for way to embrace Cuba and its peoples. This would be great plus for his administration. Obama could also divert small part of large $800B stimulus pork to a program for car dealers around the country, both disenfranchised GM/Chrysler and others, to inspect the turned-in vehicles and at least make sure they pass minimum set of conditions - good suspension, working brakes, exhaust ok, etc., and fix up with max threshhold cost of parts/labor.
US State Dept could set up protocol for US parts suppliers to then sell parts to Cuba. Gasoline would not be a problem for any cars/suvs that might have bad mpg in that Cuba has good connection with Venezuela to get petroleum. Also, Cuba supposedly has petroleum reserves close to its shores.
I do not believe that is correct, based on my reading of the bill - but then, I'm no legal scholar. The only trade-in requirement for the credit towards cars/minivans or light trucks/SUVs is that the trade get 18 mpg or less per the current EPA rating system. The language of the bill doesn't indicate any other requirements, except for "work trucks", which I believe are those trucks with a gvwr greater than the cut off for EPA testing.
So, under this reading, if I take my 15 mpg truck in as a trade, I can get $3500 towards any car that gets 22-24 mpg and $4500 towards any car that gets 25+ mpg. Or, I could get $3500 towards any truck/SUV that gets 18-19 mpg and $4500 towards any truck/SUV that gets 20+ mpg.
What I'm not sure on is how some vehicles get classified. Under CAFE, minivans and certain wagon variants of cars are classified as light trucks, but Edmunds lists minivans in the same group as cars - but other than the Mazda5, I'm not aware of another minivan that gets 22+ mpg to qualify. Depending on whether the goal of the legislation is to move trucks/SUVs or to improve fuel economy, this could be a significant issue.
So if I take in my 1984 Ford F250HD that gets a average of 16MPG, the dealer might give me $100, then the goverment might let me take $3500-$4500 off this years taxes or might give me a check for that amount. Well $3600 or $4600 means nothing in todays car market. Thats a low number for a down payment and will not pay the monthy payments that I can not afford. And I do not make enuff or have enuff to take it off my taxes, I just do short form and have for decades !
In the end this program might work to the better for just a few people and even then its using MY tax money for them to get a new vehicle......NO THANK YOU.....I can't afford a new vehicle myself and I do not want to chip in so you can get a new vehicle !
That's also a REAL worktruck, and not just some froo-froo poser thing that only has the load capacity of a 1970's compact (seriously, a 70's Dodge Dart slant six had a bigger spread between GVWR and curb weight than many 1/2 ton trucks today!) So that truck probably has plenty of value to you, since you can use it to do some pretty serious hauling, towing, etc.
I think pickups that can do real work, like the 3/4 and 1-ton models, are always going to have a market, and some value, unless they're completely ratted out.
Can you really get 16 mpg out of it? That sounds really good for something that heavy-duty. I have a 1985 Silverado, just a half-ton truck with a 305/automatic, and the only way it'll get 16 mpg is to get out on the highway and keep it around 60-65.
In the end this program might work to the better for just a few people and even then its using MY tax money for them to get a new vehicle......NO THANK YOU.....I can't afford a new vehicle myself and I do not want to chip in so you can get a new vehicle !
I guess in theory, if this program gets people into newer, more efficient vehicles, then the auto industry benefits from selling vehicles, and the US benefits from reducing, ever so slightly, its dependence on foreign oil...nevermind the fact that I think most of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico. And if this gets people to start buying new vehicles, it can help jump start the economy by getting that money back into the economy. In theory, that is. The reality, however, is that in the end, we'll probably just get stuck with a bigger tax bill. And if we ever DID cut fuel consumption any appreciable amount, then you know the gov't is going to whine about decreased revenue from gasoline taxes!
That said, this proposed legislation, if enacted, does in fact put me in the market for a new automobile immediately (doing my part to stimulate the ol' economy). I will be trading in an old friend who happens to drink gas like it was 99 cents a gallon back in the day (1987 F-150 pick-em-up-truck...retail value about $50 but worth a whole lot more to me but that's another issue). Probably looking to snatch a decent commuter with real good gas mileage (again, doing my part for the Save the Planet crowd) AND I might even consider a domestic brand if the deal becomes delicious enough (Third leg of the stool, the UAW crowd, now smiling in addition to the previously mentioned crowds.).
Ahhhhh what a country! Forty five hundred bucks for a truck I paid about $10k for 22 years ago. Hard to believe. Must be dreaming. Gotta go pinch myself.
I think it goes back to the same justification for bailing out the automakers. The taxpayers are on the hook either way, and giving tax money to encourage new car sales should keep people working longer. Otherwise taxpayers wind up paying for increased unemployment and food stamp benefits.
Pay now or pay later (and we may wind up paying both).