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
The 'Cash for Clunkers' proposal would reward drivers with a $2,500-$4,500 voucher for sending their jalopies to the scrapyard. Since the program is designed to get the vehicles off the road permanently, no credit would be given for selling a rustbucket to another person who intends to keep driving it.
To qualify for the credit, the junker must have had a fuel economy rating of no more than 18 mpg when new, still be in drivable condition, and have been registered in the U.S. for a minimum of the past 120 days. The proposal calls for the program to run for four years, until 2013, with the expectation that it will consign as many as a million cars a year to an early grave.
Participants would be given a voucher good toward the purchase a new or used higher-efficiency car or truck, or for rides on participating public transportation. The proposed amounts for scrapping
* Vehicles from 2002 and later- $4,500 for the purchase of a new vehicle, $3,000 toward a used car/truck or transit fares.
* Vehicles 1999-2001: $3,000 toward a new car/truck, $,2000 for a used one or transit fares.
* Vehicles 1998 and earlier: $2,000 toward a new car/truck, $1,500 for a used one or transit fares.
So you could even trade your car for $3,000 in transit fare credits. SCHWEEET !!
Is that the half ton Prius or the 3/4 ton? I'm sure all the farmers will be rushing to do that deal.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
But now, they are not. They used to be, when you and I were strapping young bucks, but with the SUV craze of the late 1990s, city folks thought they needed a pickup truck to drive to work.
A 1999 F150 in average condition will bring an easy $4500. So why would anyone want $3000 as a voucher or worse $2000 worth of bus tickets?
I'd like to know how 3/4 ton trucks would even be taken into consideration, these days? The EPA doesn't do fuel economy ratings for anything with a GVWR of 8500 pounds and up, and 3/4 ton trucks have been above that threshold for years, now. Even some half-tons aren't tested anymore. For example, only the RWD Expedition gets EPA-rated anymore. They don't have data for the 4WD version.
Now it's a safe bet that no 3/4 ton or larger vehicle gets 18 mpg combined, but it still begs the question of how they're taken into account, if they're not rated?
Similarly, the EPA didn't start putting window stickers on cars until 1978. Now there aren't too many people out there still using 1977 and older cars as daily drivers, but I wonder if they're excluded from this program, as well?
The last thing most people are going to do right now is going into more debt. A real incentive just puts money in your pocket, not force you to spend more money.
What will really happen is that the crafty Toyota dealer will figure out a way to either jack up the cost of that new Prius by $4,500, or cut the trade-in value for the Ford F-150 by the same amount.
I can see the sales manager saying this to the reluctant customer: "But look, you'll be getting $4,500 from the government for this deal. We can't afford to GIVE these cars away." And some people will be dumb enough to buy it...
Sorry, but I don't see this program as making a dent in the long term for the above reason. The market will adjust prices to reflect the government subsidy.
But most truck people go with another truck at new car time, seems to me. Which won't meet that 25% standard. I guess if they were stuck without wheels altogether they might buy a Corolla or something to get the credit, but I doubt that's a million buyers a year...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That got me thinking of something...what is the truck standard for fuel economy, anyway? And is there any full-sized pickup out there that would exceed it by 25%? For instance, if I wanted to dump my '85 Silverado for the $2000 credit, but still wanted a new full-sized pickup, I doubt there's anything that would apply for that credit.
I'd like to see how they arrived at these numbers, and what assumptions they made. As one example, did they take into account all the energy expended to manufacture new replacement vehicles and scrap the old ones that they took out of service prematurely?
Although it's not politically popular in the U.S., I still believe that the best way to achieve the desired goals is by raising the gasoline tax incrementally over a period of time.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Won't work. Tahoe Hybrid starts at $50k. They say up to $45k on the new or used. I still do not see anyone taking a 2002 or newer PU or SUV and scrapping it. Unless it is really thrashed. Even then it would probably be worth more than $4500 in trade. So where is the incentive? We have to remember this is the same bunch of lame brained individuals that gave us ethanol and are spending a trillion dollars to bail out the banks they pushed into bankruptcy.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
4500 is kind or arbitrary. i'm thinking 6000.
Doing the same for a 2002 V-6 Ford Explorer 4WD produced a trade value of $2775, and these are in California, where the trade values tend to be a bit higher than other places.
Chevy Trailblazer 4WD, trade value $2950.
How about the Japanese?
2002 Toyota 4Runner 4WD, trade value $5675. If that thing needs $600 worth of new tires and another $500 in neglected maintenance at this age, you are down to $4500. If it needs any repairs, you are certainly well inside the $4500 window.
These values are all from Kelly Blue Book, and I'm sure I could find much better examples among midsize cars.
And to anticipate your immediate objection, gagrice, yes you COULD sell it yourself. But cars are harder to move right now than at almost any time in the last decade, and you might be sitting on it a long time if you choose that route. Again, I offer you the hypothetical vehicle that needs a repair before it can be driven. In such a case there will be no time to sit around for weeks and weeks waiting to find an interested buyer.
And if you think Kelly is artifically low, just check out NADA Guide some time, or Edmunds itself. Those values will be even lower.
I think there are plenty of people who could potentially find this offer attractive. But of course, they have to be willing to step into a new car loan, or have a bunch of cash saved up, so that will be the factor that limits its ultimate effectiveness.
PS Trade on your Ranger, if it is the 4WD extended cab 4.0L, is $3775. Private party is $5795. So you shouldn't sell t privately for $4500. But if you had a compelling reason to trade it in, say the tranny goes out next week (knock wood it won't), you might quite like $4500 for it in exchange for junking it. Maybe. ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
my nephew works at a heavy truck repair shop that specializes in brakes and suspensions.
business was slow up until a few weeks ago, now he making some big money.
the plow trucks keep coming in for repairs.
isn't this incentive supposed to be separate from the actual vehicle transaction?
Look, you can make work by smashing windows and then repairing them, but in the end you've spent money and end up with the same window. After since 9/11 we've incentivized consumers to purchase more new cars than they really needed or, in many cases, could afford. Now we want to incentivize these same people to have these cars destroyed. Just when there are signs that people are conserving and being more financially responsible, we want them to reduce the nation's already low savings rate.
Yes, I believe so. The presumption is that by selling your old ride, you will have to go out and buy a new one. That, of course, is not true oftentimes. I could see a lot of people selling an old third car to pocket the money, and not buying a new one.
hpmctorque: I don't believe anyone is promoting this as a wise use of resources - it is merely a business incentive with the beneficial side effect of reducing the number of guzzlers on the road. But your point on post-9/11 car loans is well taken: do we need more people jumping into ill-thought-out car loans, with possible increases in defaults in a year or two? I think not.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
However, at this point it seems very unclear what vehicles would actually qualify. As others have mentioned, what does the rated fuel economy have to be 25% greater than? And is it referring to the window sticker (EPA) economy, or the CAFE (NHSTA) economy? They are not the same numbers.
So in any case, I could stand to benefit from this by applying the $1500 credit towards an efficient 2004 model that I was planning on getting anyway. However, that still leaves the other aspect - is it fair to expect my children/grandchildren to subsidize my car purchase now?
Smart idea while gas is well below $2. Institute a $0.05 tax to go toward bridge and road repairs. Suspend it when gas goes over $2.50 or some other number.
Back on topic, I guess I would be SOL. I have a 2000 Intrigue with 171k miles on it. But since it still gets 25 mpg, it would not qualify.
Yeah, I'm in sort of the same boat. 2000 Intrepid, 144K miles, EPA-rated at 20/29, 23 combined. If they'd cut me a check for $3000 to scrap it and get me into something newer and more economical, I'd almost be tempted. I doubt if I'd even get more than $1K for it in trade, because it has some battle scars here and there, a/c quit working over the summer, and one of the back doors won't always unlock. Only problem is, if I was going to get into something newer, it would probably be something like a 4-cyl Aura or Altima...cars that are EPA-rated considerably higher than the Intrepid, but I still doubt if they're 25% higher than the class average, whatever that may be.
Plus, a 2009 anything is EPA-rated differently than my Intrepid was. While my Intrepid has a combined mpg estimate of 23, the Aura and Altima are only 26. Using that newer method, my Intrepid's combined MPG estimate is 21.
It's not often I agree with gagrice on something political but this is one of those times. Barring something I don't see we're just going to have the let the old fleet die out naturally.
Well, my '85 Silverado would qualify for the $2000. It was EPA-rated at 14/16, with a combined of 15, IIRC. My two 1979 New Yorkers have a combined rating of 14. Dunno what the city/highway estimates were, as the EPA website just lists the combined figure for 1979. And everything else I have pre-dates EPA rating. I guess my '76 LeMans, which has a 350-4bbl, might be close to a '78 Catalina with the same engine. But a '78 Catalina is rated 15/22, with a combined of 18, so even it would be too economical to qualify!
So, if I wanted to scrap the Silverado or one of the NYers for $2000, and bought some hyper-economical little thing that I probably wouldn't be comfortable in, it could work. But I'd just rather have the truck and the NYers and no car payment, then to lose one only to get $2000, but then get forced into 4-5 years of car payments, plus increased insurance premiums.
I've read that France, Italy and Spain have similar programs but theirs may be government sponsored.
Compressor and evaporator are the expensive components, but I couldn't imagine having no A/C in my daily driver, especially in a climate with high humidly five months out of the year.
Just guessing here but I suspect someone with a hybrid tahoe with 100K on it makes more than say 40,000 a year. Which case they would not qualify for the clunker plan.
Nor would I who owns a 94 landcruiser that gets 14mpg with a tail wind.
If there is a way to get more than what the value of the vehicle is then the plan is flawed. Everyone posting here saying it would work well for them are walking away with our tax dollars having just made money. Sound fair? This is the same sort of BS and crap our GOV needs to stop doing.
By the way wife and I almost bought a new 08 during the Holidays - but at the last minute decided to keep the old Landcrusher given in the next two years we should be seeing fairly large improvements in milege for mid sized SUV like vehicles - not counting the Hybrid hype. So we figured why waste money on a car that gets so so milege when in two years we can get one that gets pretty good milege.
That and as mentioned above the old landcrusher doesn't cost us much and there is nothing wrong with it so why spend the money on a new car?
There must be a lot of people who are thinking the same way these days.
Question for those of us who oppose the idea of a clunker plan: What would be the most effective way to make our voices heard in the congress and the senate? Is there something better than writing to our representatives?
Write Obama's group.
He has proven that he can change his mind when presented with a good argument.
Though I suspect that unless the junker plan is more tied to some kind of stimulus package for the economy its of little concern right now as it should be.
But I'm getting tired of the GOV handing out my tax money like its freaking free stuff at a trade show.
Maybe Cerberus is anxious enough to seal a deal that they'd contribute some cash, or maybe the $3 billion could be split in some fashion between our government and the Italian government. Or not, since the Italian government's finances are even more precarious than ours.
I agree with this statement completely in spirit. I just have not yet been able to determine if I'm a hypocrite.
On one hand, it's hard to turn down a substantial gain - I could potentially get more for my old truck than I paid for it five years ago, and it has no redeeming "classic" qualities. And this just for doing something I was planning on doing anyway.
On the other hand, there's no such thing as a free lunch. At best I could get my neighbors (or more accurately, my children) to pay for it. That is, simply put, unfair. And the argument that 'everyone else is doing it' (see: bailouts to Wall Street, Detroit, etc.) doesn't make me feel any better.
Hopefully this doesn't go through so I won't have to consider it further.
Just sold my '87 Chev for $700. It got about 14 city 20 hwy. We don't have emissions testing except the county that touches Chicago.
If they want to get me to buy a new car before driving the previous one 20 years, they need to drop the sales tax and get rid of the excise tax.
Then there's the resources, pollution, landfill, and global warming. Screw all that stuff to revive the economy? My estimate is that it is between 60,000 and 100,000 miles to reach a point where it was better for the planet to have the new car, for a 10 mpg jump from the old car to the new car. An F-150 never gets to a break even point. I'd rather have the revived economy but the same legislators proposing car buying incentives are not crying global warming are they?
I haven't worried too much about it since it's wintertime. Plus, my mechanic has my '67 Catalina convertible right now, and I've thrown more $$ into it than I ever imagined I would! But the next time the Intrepid goes in, I'm going to have him look at it.
If it ends up being few hundred dollar repair, I'll get it fixed. But if we're talking $1000 or more, I'd be tempted to just let it stay broken! I know most people couldn't tolerate that in DC's weather, but I'm a bit of a masochist, I guess! Plus, with some of the old heaps I've driven, I think I'm actually more accustomed to NOT having a/c!