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
I think I'd go for something really low price, to get a bigger percentage off. Maybe a Subaru Impreza. You could always drive it a year or 2 and sell it for what you paid. But many of the higher mpg vehicles are going to be foreign-made or at least foreign owned aren't they?
Joe
After I figure that out I could use help with qualifying replacements. 6 person family (multiple soccer players & frequent help with partial team transport), would like 6-8 passenger capability, minimum 6. Full voucher $4500. Would consider hybrid but total vehicle cost is a consideration(tax incentives still available for certain hybrids?). Any help on appropriate CUV/SUV models to consider? Husband would prefer CUV/SUV rather than minivan.
And there may be a net loss of money to our economy, as the Legend you have now is requiring more service than a new vehicle would, so the amount of money being spent in the service dept. will go way down. Overall your transaction will result in less money going recirculating our economy? (Not blaming you at all, just the idea of this ill thought-out proposal).
Anyone understand why a '98 GMC AWD Safari with 14 city & 18 hwy would come up w/16 mpg combined, while a '99 with 14 city & 18 hwy comes in with 15 mpg combined? Even 1 mpg could make a difference here.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Certainly if it were me I would try first to sell a car privately, but I can sympathize with the great many people that would be put off by those news stories and would just trade in as a result.
For a great many these days, the attitude is "what price safety?".
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I repeat. Publishing your address for a garage sale seems much riskier to me than meeting someone to sell a vehicle.
Looking at Craigslist this morning, I think I can get more for my 1999 Ford Ranger than the $4500 offered by Congress. Hard to say with this economy.
Are they seriously pulling that kind of money?! Heck, I'd be hard-pressed to give $4500 for a NEW Ranger! :P
In the end we sold it to CarMax for $500 more than our store's trade in and $1000 higher than any of the thieves on Craigslist. Good thing too. The market crashed 3 weeks later. My wife would have nothing to do at all with meeting any buyer at anytime anywhere.
I see this same pov 10-20 times a month when I suggest to a prospective buyer that she or he sell their vehicle themselves for $2000 - $4000 more than we're offering in trade. At least 3/4s of the buyers look as if I proposed that they walk thru hell in barefeet. This is another area where emotional responses trump all rational reasonings.
Gee, maybe I should go into business.
AFRAID OF BEING KILLED ON CRAIGSLIST??!!
"Let Shiftright & our skillled experts from the Edmunds Forums sell your car for you. We take all the risks, and you get a check in the mail!"
Whaddya think? Does this business model have legs? :P
We'll guarantee to "Beat Your Voucher Value".
No word on the clunker bill, other than warnings from the feds that it'll take a month to implement. Votes are scheduled this week.
Cash For Clunkers Up for Votes This Week
(AutoObserver)
Just curious, but is this as opposed to meeting in a dark alley? or as opposed to having them come to your house?
This may not relate to you, but it brought up a regular thought of mine: I'm not sure why some folks are fearful of giving someone their address to come to their house to check out a car. I mean, OK, if you are a single woman or something, I can understand, I suppose. But its not like you are SAFE at all other times. If someone wants to come do you harm, they don't need your invitation. Is there some sect of serial killers out there who only come to take you out if you are selling a car and they get your address? And how does meeting them publicly change anything? So you meet the killer publicly, they put on a good act, THEN get your address (you are selling a car, which is tied to your address, after all), THEN come kill you later. Is that somehow preferable?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The only minivan that meets the 22 mpg (combined) requirement is the Mazda5, and the Mazda gets 23 or 24 mpg (auto or manual, respectively), so that would qualify for $3500 with a 16 mpg trade in. All this is, of course, based on minivans being considered "cars" rather than "trucks".
Which brings us to the real question - what defines a "Passenger automobile" vs. a "Category 1 Truck"?
My guess is that anything that qualifies as a "Light Truck" for current CAFE standards would be a "Truck" (this would include minivans, car-based SUVs, the Subaru Outback, etc.), but there are so many loopholes in US Code that I really can't figure it out myself. I think we'll have to wait for the bill to become law before we know for sure.
The Edmunds Clunker FAQ is still saying the new converted EPA combined numbers will be the ones used (at least for pre-2008 vehicles).
That's an understatement :confuse:
I've attempted to read not only the text of the bill, but also the sections of the US Code that it references - and I really can't say I'm any better informed now than when I started. :sick:
To bill4me: From my attempts to make sense of the bill, there are no restrictions that would prevent an 18 mpg (or less) vehicle from being eligible for any 22 mpg (or more) vehicle). So a truck or SUV could be traded for a small car, provided the above conditions were met. But of course, this is just my reading of it, and I don't trust myself enough to bank on that
New cars to stimulate the economy, fewer gas guzzlers on the road, fewer cars with marginal emissions on the roads vs delayed buying now (waiting for the legislation), poor people losing a pool of cheap rides and the likely sales slump when the program ends. Pick your poison.
I've also heard of other situations where a home gets abandoned, and then thieves come in and gut it for the wiring, pipes, and whatever else they can strip out. In doing so, they cause more damage than the house is worth, so the house just gets torn, and the lot once again becomes empty, waiting for the economy to turn around.
But some as you say might be desensitized 'torque but not me. I'm all over this plan to give back to me almost half of what I paid new 22 years ago on a trade.
Without this plan, you would decide when the benefits of trading or disposing of your faithful '87 F-150 exceeds the benefits of keeping it. You're the best arbiter of that decision, not the government. What's wrong with that?
As sad as it is to see houses bulldozed, I don't object to that because it's being done by the marketplace.
With the way the gov't seems to be doling out handouts, I wouldn't be surprised to see a bill in the works, to subsidize the razing of vacant homes! But even here, I guess there is still some greater good that comes of it, as vacant homes, once they fall into disrepair, can bring down property values, create an eyesore, become a den for drug dealing, prostitution, and other things you don't necessarily want going on next door, etc.
In Youngstown Ohio, for years now, the city gov't has been paying to have abandoned houses torn down. There's so much desertion in that city that they'll wait until there are only a few houses left on a given block, then buy those owners out to have them moved, and then close off the street so they don't have to maintain it anymore. And in cases where they can do it, they'll shut off utilities to a given area once it's vacant.
I always thought these vacant areas of Youngstown would be a good place to shoot movies. Great for movies where you have to portray a desolate, abandoned landscape, as well as movies where you have to blow things up. Heck, it might even breathe some new life into movies and television, as you'd see new locations, and not the same old exterior lots getting recycled time and time again.
As for incentives to buy cars, I wonder how well-received a bill would be that would just give people vouchers to buy a new car, regardless of whether they trade an old one in or not? Just have provisions that the new vehicle has to get at least so many MPG. I know the basic idea is to get guzzlers off the street. However, if someone has a guzzler, but buys a new car and keeps the guzzler, that still means the guzzler will most likely get driven less. This also provides a benefit as it increases revenues for insurance companies (insuring an extra vehicle), plus registration fees.
Speaking of registration fees, here's one thing that's been overlooked. In Maryland at least, the few cars that actually qualify for the clunker bill pay more in registration fees. In MD there's a 2-tier system for cars: $128 every two years for under 3700 lb, $189.50 for 3700 and up. Of course, the system is flawed...I used to have a '69 Bonneville that, for some reason, they thought weighed less than 3700 lb. I chose not to correct that mistake. :P And with some cars, they might actually weigh less than 3700 lb in one configuration, but more in another, so I don't know if they just make them all one price or another.
For pickups, I know the bigger ones are $154.50 every two years, but forget what the small ones are. I imagine most "small" pickups are heavy enough these days that they pay the higher rate. I think SUVs and minivans are taxed the same as cars. Instead of calling them trucks, MD calls them "Multi Purpose Vehicles" and the license plate usually begins with an "M".
Anyway, start getting too many people to dump these bigger vehicles that pay higher registration fees, and then the DMV's will start whining about lost revenues, and use that as an excuse to jack up fees for everyone. :sick:
Your example of what Youngstown is doing with run down and abandoned homes is a local decision, paid by the city government. I'm okay with that. It's democracy at work, and presumably it isn't coupled with some other, totally different legislation, as the cash-for-still-useful-vehicles is. It's a stretch to argue that it's rational to bundle funding for Afganistan and Iraq with the federally funded old car destruction program.
While I don't favor "a bill that would just give people vouchers to buy a new car, regardless of whether they trade an old one in or not," it would eliminate a key objection I have to this plan. That wouldn't make it a good plan, in my view, because I think the marketplace does a better job of picking winning and losing industries than the feds, but it would be an improvement over what's being proposed.
If this program is to stimulate car sales and help the environment by taking gas guzzlers off the road, how is taking 1 million gas guzzlers off the road a big help to the environment when probably 20-30 million ones were sold between 1990-2001.
Basically a $4500 gift would cover the down payment for most cars sold. That would mean the buyer has no vested interest. I think that would further impact our societies over burden of debt. Maybe a matching amount where we the tax payers would match the individuals dollar down payment. Also make the loans shorter term, like 3 years. Sort of like the 0% loans offered by many auto makers.
I'm with you the plan has too many holes and is not environmentally sound at all. If the automakers are so much for this plan. The Feds could mandate they refurbish any trade that is newer than 1990. I would not trade in our 1990 Lexus as it still has at least 10 good years left.
If the car no longer qualifies, I guess I could still have it fixed and then turn around and trade it in and get up to $4,500. But that seems stupid - why spend $1,000 to fix an engine that is destined to get crushed as soon as I turn it in?
It would seem that the requirement that the car is insured and registered for at least a year is enough of a requirement. Why do they also require that the car is currently running? I understand that they don't want people turning in cars that have been sitting up on blocks in someone's front yard for years, but those cars wouldn't pass the insured/registered tests to begin with.
Is there any chance my car still qualifies?
Your car should be a prime candidate. Knowing the ignorance that abounds in this Congress, I would not hold my breath. Also if you are in need of a car NOW, it may be months before they get all the Pork worked out on the bill that includes the clunker plan. You could get some one to push you onto the lot and claim it was running up till then.
You may just fall between the cracks. You could tell the dealer you want a good price on whatever you plan to buy. I would work the dealers via email. Tell them you are trading in a clunker and want the best deal. Or you will wait for the clunker plan. I would imagine they are in a dealing mood about now. If I could not beat a dealer down by $4500 I would hang up my negotiation hat for good.
For instance, if I could prove to you that it is cheaper to buy a college education for a certain teenager rather than to put him/her in prison for 20 years (and that's true, it would be cheaper) would people consent to giving free education to this child? I rather doubt it. There would be great deal of resistance, a cry of "unfair!".
This Cash for Clunker plan strikes me as similarly treading on this dangerous ground.
Why is it dangerous? Because while you can prove statistically that a college education is cheaper than 20 years in jail, you cannot prove that the teenager would have gone to jail. In the same way, you cannot prove that these incentives are preventing a disaster of some kind. Nor could you prove that you'd only be making a smarter criminal out of the teenager.
The Clunker Bill is just another auto industry bailout. Shoot, farmers have been subsidized forever, why not some manufacturers and dealers? Around here, driving is almost as important as eating. :shades:
GM weighs in on the bill:
"Our best estimate would be a 10-percent lift in retail sales based on the program under consideration today," Henderson said, adding that in Germany, GM's Opel has benefited from that country's clunker program. He said GM "would expect to participate proportionally" to the company's market share for a U.S. cash-for-clunkers program."
GM CEO Henderson on Dealers, Clunkers, Exec Compensation and More (AutoObserver)
Still, spending $1000 to get $3500-4500 isn't a bad option.
Running your car is probably only worth a couple grand anyway. So you would still be ahead with this program.
For instance, GM has gotten what? $13.4 billion so far, and is crying for another $17B? So, say $30B total? Well, instead of giving them that money to squander, how about this...if you buy a new GM car, get $5,000 back from the gov't? Well, if GM sells 6 million cars, there's your $30B. And I imagine GM would be happy if they could sell 6 million vehicles. Aren't they running around 4.2 million at the current rate? Anyway, it would get people into a new car, it would help GM move their merchandise, and it would keep people employed...factory workers, suppliers, dealerships, etc.
Alas, this is riddled with problems too. For one thing, it's not fair to the other automakers. Maybe a similar plan could have been worked out for Chrysler? But even then, it's still not fair for the manufacturers who didn't need bailing out. And, even if it helped GM short-term, what would happen the following year? GM needs to trim some fat to meet the new reality, and this might just force them to put it off for another year, without really fixing anything.
That's good. Kind of just like getting a tv a/d converter box voucher plastic card.
Also offer a sales tax incentive alternative to have Feds pick up all State and local taxes on purchase of new car that has certain MPG. This would be in line with new DC Admin inclination to redistriburte wealth. Places like Chicago (Pres home town) and surrounding Cook County charge 10+ percent sales tax. $30K car has a $3000 tax bill. Maybe have an overall cap of $4500 either way - plastic voucher card or get sales tax rebate.
Anyway, start getting too many people to dump these bigger vehicles that pay higher registration fees, and then the DMV's will start whining about lost revenues, and use that as an excuse to jack up fees for everyone.
Always thought that yearly fee in Illinois was unfair in recent decades. This was glaring to me when I had both a smallish 84 Honda Prelude and a monster Suburban and fee for both was the same. License fees should be based in part on overall weight of vehicle.
You've forgotten the $600 we got under Bush and the other handout under Obama? (I don't have a handle on that number since it came off withholding). There's plenty of money to keep spreading around.
Now here's a situation that will really make ya fall outta your chair. What were to happen if I didn't really need a new vehicle but rather just wanted the free gift anyway to boost my checking account? Consider this:
As the aforementioned truck is in fact a third vehicle occasionally used no more for a run to the nursery to get a load of mulch or to the Lowes for some home improvement supplies, I now decide I'll help the cute honey next door who has voiced to me recently her need to obtain a brand new set of wheels? Now I'm getting the reduced price that she can't get of course trading in my ol' buddy and getting $4500 FOR NOTHING on a trade! We go out, I make the purchase for her, she hands over the bucks to me right there in the dealership. We do the paperwork transfer, agee to split the difference (60% for me, 40% for her of course, hee, hee, hee...) and then we all go out that evening for a fine steak dinner courtesy of the gool ol' boys on Capitol Hill who are intent on driving our country right into financial ruin. Whadduh ya think of that? What in the proposed legislation will prevent the above from actually occuring in a neighborhood near you? Hmmm? It's a hypothetical that could happen enmasse. Sick, huh?
Oh yeah, now I remember that $600. It sort of got lost in the excitement of the 6-figure hit my portfolio took last year. :P
And whatever tweaking Obama did was so minor that I can't even tell the difference in my paycheck. Between varying amounts of OT per pay period, plus tweaking my 401k contribution rate, my hourly takehome pay is never the same, so I can't tell if Obama really did me any good or not!
So what are people thinking is the best case scenario for when this program might go into effect? I can hang onto the car for a month or two if necessary.
I wonder who is going to be making the decision about whether the car is in a "drivable" condition. If this is at the dealer's discretion, then I imagine that they'd be willing to have a loose interpretation of the rules just so they could get a sale.