If GM had listened a little harder to the green weenies they wouldn't be a lifeless cadaver right now. Behind the curve, as usual, that's Detroit for ya'.
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.
The city of Santee has that covered. No parking over night on the street. No parking on anything but paved or concrete drives. NO GRAVEL PADS allowed for parking vehicles. And just try to get a permit to build a bigger garage. I wasted 3 years and several $1000 before giving up and moving to the county. I hate city life and will never return.
That reminds me, I need to order some more gravel to expand my driveway. I guess I'd better get off my butt and hurry up and do it, before they start changing zoning in my neighborhood!
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
GM has never been responsive to the market, red & yellow, black and white or Green. They have operated from an ivory tower with the mindset that they are kings of the auto universe and no one dare shoot them down. I don't expect that GM will get much of the clunker money. Only a fool would take a chance that Obama will fix your broken car under warranty. If I were to take advantage of the clunker plan it would be a German vehicle of some sort. Unless I traded my 99 Ranger on another small PU. It would NOT be a GM or Chrysler product.
Seems to me that gravel would actually be better for the environment. It allows water to seep through,
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?
An 85 Tempo is rated 34 MPG diesel and 23 MPG gas. Not even eligible. Only vehicles rated 18 MPG or less. Eliminates all but the big gas guzzler cars, SUVs and PU trucks.
Heck, my friend had an old beater with a non-working radio, so he put a boom box in the back seat and seat-belted it so it wouldn't go flying when he stopped. This same creative guy rigged up a keg in the trunk and had the tap and its hose snaked between the rear seat cushions.
I was surfing on the web trying to find what the requirements on this bill are for pickup trucks, when on CNN's website, I discovered a blurb that to be eligible, cars have to have been insured for at least the past year, and they won't take cars over 25 years of age.
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!
That is exactly why they are outlawing it. Oil, gas and anti-freeze also seep through.
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 4703 cars will net 2900 tons of steel. Crushed car bodies are bring $78 per ton today. That is about $48 per car the insurance company gets. That does not include the cost to crush and eliminate the fluff. I imagine it is more than the $48 worth of scrap steel. http://www.scrapspot.com/03-0115.html
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:
They make water permeable asphalt now too. Rain landing on the neighbor's driveway runs downhill; the stuff hitting my driveway soaks in. Except last weekend, when a microburst rutted it pretty good. The county had to get a front end loader out to clean up similar blowouts on a collector street that parallels the start of the foothills. There was a layer of dirt and gravel all over the road for about 4 miles.
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.
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.
Didn't they used old motor oil to keep the dust down on those old dirt roads back in the day? The eco-weenies would be apoplectic if they still did that today!
I remember dumping my oil when I changed it on the weeds along side our driveway. Now that will put you in deep trouble.
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:
It might depend on which GM product you buy. I don't see Cadillac or Chevrolet disappearing. If anything, someone else will buy those brands--maybe thin them out, but I don't see them evaporating. But no, I probably wouldn't buy a Buick or Pontiac of even a Saturn. I think Penske, as smart as he is, is going to crash and burn on Saturn.
They could require US to email a request for a voucher. That way getting US all into their big database. Why not send everyone a check for $4500 good at any car dealer on selected models that are fuel efficient. Save all the hassle with the clunker crap. Too simple for their complex minds.
You'll see a lot of 1980s era domestic cars biting the dust here. Even the wrecking yards don't want these cars--they don't part out very fast and take up too much space.
If they gave me a $4500 voucher and let me keep my old car, that'd be nice. :P
Only a fool would take a chance that Obama will fix your broken car under warranty. If I were to take advantage of the clunker plan it would be a German vehicle of some sort.
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.
yeah I think that's a good idea. It would be sort of a political disaster if the first voucher cashed showed up in a TV spot with an unemployed guy smiling as it steps into his new 7 Series BMW and the $4500 is his first two car payments---oh, lord!
Yup. Besides, $45k is roughly 1.5x the average transaction price for a new vehicle. People who can pay more than that don't need financial assistance from the rest of us.
Is that $45,000 list price or transcaction price? If the latter, maybe you could squeeze a 2010 3-Series diesel out of this. On second though, maybe not, since the diesel might probably won't be discounted much.
I looked up my old 4Runner on the EPA site and it is claims it gets 19mpg combined. It won't even get 18mpg highway with a new engine in it. There has to be some method to protest when the ratings are really off by that much, especially since certain models came with different rear end ratios and other changes that greatly affects the actual MPG that you get.
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.
You raise an interesting question; namely, what if you own a vehicle that misses the requirements, but as a result of modifications that would be expensive to reverse, such as installation of a bigger engine or different transmission, it now qualifies, but it's unofficial? Or, how about the reverse, a once gas guzzler that, due to modifications, say swapping the automatic for a manual, now gets more than 18 mpg? Maybe the Supreme Court would have to rule on these, case by case.
The more I learn about this plan the more I realize just how brilliant it is.
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.
The sole purpose of this legislation is to get people out of their late 90's and early 2000's SUV and trucks - nothing else....if they want to get out. In the 10 yrs from 1991 to 2001 there were approximately 50-60 million of these vehicles sold. This legislation looks to get 1 million of these vehicles off the road....if the owners want to ditch them.
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.
I understand your point, and it's one way to look at his matter. however, there are also a bunch of people who need or want the very vehicles you mentioned. Many of these folks will either have to pay more to buy one, because of reduced supply due to scrappage, or do without,
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.
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.
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.
I thought about this and I figured out a perfect addition that we really need to write our Senators about:
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.
What is to stop me from parting out my "clunker" and dragging the chassis down to trade in on this deal? Is there a requirement that the vehicle be intact?
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 know the car has to have been insured and tagged for at least the past year. And I'm presuming it has to at least be street-legal.
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.
What is to stop me from parting out my "clunker" and dragging the chassis down to trade in on this deal? Is there a requirement that the vehicle be intact?
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.
Small consolation...my front seats are....are.....FABRIC....I am so humiliated to confess this publicly.
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.
There is a requirement that the car be scrapped. It can't be wholesaled out.
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'?
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?
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.
It looks to me like it has to be car for car or light duty truck/SUV for same.
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.
This is no deal at all ! First off why should you and I and that late middle aged grocery store bagger pay you to get a new vehicle ? When you use tax money for anything you are taking money from all tax payers to spend ......think about it ! 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 !
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.
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!
Well, our wonderful group of lawmakers down on the Potomac reeeeeally don't care much what you or I think folks. They are going to do what they are going to do. At present as I understand it, there's a war going on between the Save the Planet group and the Save the Auto Industry group with the current Administration hanging out somewhere on the side hoping to "revive the worst economy since the Great Depression". Something is going to give and I would venture a guess it will be soon.
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.
The best part is.....they already need to raise the gas tax because.....drumroll....people have been buying TOO many small fuel efficient cars. So now they're going to subsidize us to buy MORE fuel efficient cars thereby lowering gas tax collections even further.
why should you and I and that late middle aged grocery store bagger pay you to get a new vehicle
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).
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).