Not exactly. Remember, the vehicles turned in must go straight to the junk yard. So unless they are worth less than $3500-4500 it's better to sell or trade them.
I can't imagine a company fleet or rental car company owning vehicles worth so little.
Hint - Tax write-offs as business expenses. Also, a lot of government agencies are running 10+ year old SUVs and vans for their car pools now. When was the last time you saw a park ranger in a brand new truck?
Here is a prime example of your civil East Coast crowds. No thanks.
Beer-sodden fans and rain combined for an ugly finish to a long day of golf yesterday, with Tiger Woods and other golfers subjected to drunken heckling as the action at Bethpage Black came to a close.
At 6:42 p.m., dozens of drunken spectators at Hole 10 taunted Woods as he prepared to start his third round in the rain.
"We're on Long Island, baby, where men are men!" one fan yelled. "Put that umbrella down!"
With a little luck they will head over to your dealership when the tournament ends and trade in a clunker. :P
Just looked up my '99 Sonoma. Trade-in is $3K, PP is 4k, DR is 5.2k. It gets 23 mpg in my combined driving, has no rust, runs great with overpowered V6. It has 70k miles left in it easily and very little to go wrong with it. It is the only one I'd consider using in the C4C program and I'd only get $3500 for it to go from a rated 17 mpg truck to a rated 25 mpg 4 cyl Malibu. I might average 27 mpg in the Malibu, a gain of 4 mpg for someone who maybe drives 8000 miles a year. With my son getting license soon, not having a $4k vehicle to put him on with liability only would add $2k a year to my car insurance premiums, and that assumes he gets no tickets.
Using C4C for it: only a few hundred gain over trading to buy anything I want it gets crushed with 1/3 to 1/2 life left actual mpg only up by 4. (23 vs 27) $2k per year spike in car ins premium bring $15k min to dealer hit reset button on $400 a year excise tax bring $1500 sales tax to dealer save some jobs at GM have to give 16 yr old a supercharged Riv to drive instead of a no 'real' back seat p/u
Want a jobs program? What would be wrong with, instead of scrapping the trade-ins, the government hired unemployed people to recondition the vehicles that really aren't clunkers, and selling them. Some could be used by the government agencies?
The waste involved with scrapping still useful vehicles bothers me.
I'm glad I'm not the only one. There are many good vehicles on the road that get 22-24MPG hwy mileage and 16-18MPG in town that qualify for this program.
I can see people taking the $4,500 for a 2000 Ford Crown Vic with 90,000 miles on the clock! That car might well have another 9 years and 90,000 miles left in it!
We crush it and scrap it! Makes no sense and this program makes little sense other than to prop up the dead with flowers. Let GM die the death it deserves.
Lets see Old clunker=NO CAR PAYMENTS + CHEAP INSURANCE 17MPG @15K miles yr @ $2.50 gallon=$2205 yr in gas
New Car=CAR PAYMENTS 25MPG @15K miles yr @ $2.50 gallon=$1500 yr in gas
$25000 midsize car for about $23K after TTTL & 4500 voucher @4% for 60 months=$423mo=$5076 yr.
So for someone trading in a clunker suv or car getting that mileage will save $700 yr in gas, but will now have $5000 worth of car payments a year. Payments could be lower, but not too many people will trade there big sedan or suv for a Aveo, Versa, or Kia. Even if they did buy a base Cobalt for $15k thats still $2-3000 a year in payments and not including the higher full coverage auto insurance to pay on a new car.
How is this helping those people considering they are probably driving these old cars because they couldnt afford a new one in the 1rst place. 1 million new environmentally friendly car sales dont help the environment much when 20-30 millions gas guzzlers were sold in the 90's. Kinda like patting yourself for making a million jobs, but not seeing the 13 million others that need one.
Only fleet or govt will be the main ones taking advantage of these vouchers, most of the requirements of this voucher wipe out the typical car shopper right now, so i still doubt more than 200k cars be sold.
I know. I was just responding to one arrogant post with another. I am thinking this C4C bill will only help dealers get rid of unsold inventory. Will it put any auto workers back to work? Not much chance of that. The parameters for trading are so narrow it may not even generate the 250K sales the planners hope for.
How many people would trade a 1990s Buick Roadmaster or Crown Vic in on a Civic to get the full $4500 rebate? 10 MPG improvement in comparable cars is not going to happen.
The waste involved with scrapping still useful vehicles bothers me.
It bothers me also. I think it is typical of this Congress. They are grasping at straws to get the economy turned around before next years election. Much like the 1993 recession and Congress.
The cost to the environment to build a new car is in most cases much higher than the pollution the car will emit during its lifetime. To cut that lifetime short with this ill conceived plan, to pander to a few in the auto industry is sad. The pollution to build a hybrid is even higher.
I'm gonna have to stick up for the Prius here (I know, even I'M shocked)--it is not inadequate for the normal passes of the Rocky Mountains, I don't believe, since I recently drove over them in a Prius :P Perfectly okay. The problem with some Prius owners is that they don't put their foot in it when they should--like flooring it was a sin or something. :P
Most Americans were weened on too much horsepower. We are very lazy drivers and many of us could get along very well with more attention to gearing and the road ahead, and fewer ponies under the hood.
Many of these old gas-sucking vehicles are not necessary for the lifestyle of the owner. Maybe the C4C will create some interesting changes in attitude.
What kind of cross winds did you encounter? That has always been the issue with the Prius handling. It is basically a towny car and even I have recommended them for those that have certain types of commutes.
My gripe is being stuck on our long uphill grade behind, trucks and hybrids. Trucks have no choice. I have been in a long line behind both an Escape hybrid and Prius at under 55 MPH. The left lane was bumper to bumper at 75 MPH. So getting out from behind the either underpowered hybrids or unconscious hybrid drivers was both difficult and dangerous. At least with a big truck you can see them from a long ways off and move safely to the left lane of traffic.
So people trading in an adequately powered larger vehicle for a hybrid that is used other than city commuting is not a plus in my book.
Most Americans were weened on too much horsepower. We are very lazy drivers and many of us could get along very well with more attention to gearing and the road ahead, and fewer ponies under the hood.
Amen!
I wonder what percentage of drivers "ever" put their foot all the way down.
I believe an egg in my wife's minivan would be safe under the gas pedal.
Of course, once you've lived through the double-kickdown shenanigans of most automatic transmissions under full throttle, you won't want all that fuss, ever again.
"This following list is based on the requirements set forth in the most recent version of the "Cash for Clunkers" bill and was compiled on June 11, 2009."
Question: We have a 1996 Plymouth Grand Voyager SE that will be 13 yrs. old in July. Why is this '96 model not listed in Edmunds's list? It has 1995, skips 1996, 1997, 1998, but includes 1999! Here is the portion of the list for Plymouth Grand Voyagers: 1990 Plymouth Grand Voyager 1990 Plymouth Grand Voyager 1991 Plymouth Grand Voyager 1992 Plymouth Grand Voyager 1993 Plymouth Grand Voyager 1994 Plymouth Grand Voyager 1995 Plymouth Grand Voyager 1999 Plymouth Grand Voyager
They'd have to walk on water for 400 miles to get here. Geography lessons fwiw. But if they have a 97 Explorer or Jimmy or 90 Bronco or 88 1500 that's worth $200 you bet they'd be welcome to come in and trade it beginning in August. Hell yeah, send 'em all over.
The waste involved with scrapping still useful vehicles bothers me.
I'm glad I'm not the only one. There are many good vehicles on the road that get 22-24MPG hwy mileage and 16-18MPG in town that qualify for this program.
I can see people taking the $4,500 for a 2000 Ford Crown Vic with 90,000 miles on the clock! That car might well have another 9 years and 90,000 miles left in it!
We crush it and scrap it! Makes no sense and this program makes little sense other than to prop up the dead with flowers. Let GM die the death it deserves.
OK, OK. But you're both worrying that the Men in Black are going to go through the countryside and take clunkers out of garages and back yards and fields and require that they be crushed.
Nothing of the sort is going to happen. If your two examples of vehicles that have good life in them are valid then the two owners, presumably you two, are NOT going to participate. These two vehicle are NOT go to be taken off the road and these two vehicles are NOT going to be crushed. There is no problem here. The program is voluntary. You both and the rest of the chronic complainers are seeing ghosts and boogymen behind every tree.
The owners who have a real clunker that's worth $200 ( we see at least 50 a month trying to be traded ) will be happy to dump that piece of junk for a $4500 voucher. 97 Explorers with more than 150,000 miles are worthless as transportation in today's world. They're unsafe, they waste fuel and they're likely beaten to death. these deserve to be crushed to death.
How is this helping those people considering they are probably driving these old cars because they couldnt afford a new one in the 1rst place. 1 million new environmentally friendly car sales dont help the environment much when 20-30 millions gas guzzlers were sold in the 90's. Kinda like patting yourself for making a million jobs, but not seeing the 13 million others that need one.
Wrong assumption.. You must not be in the auto business. Do you realize that with 305 million citizens here and nearly 100 million of these BOF trucks and SUVs having been put on the road since 1984 that in total we are discussing 2.5% of the total number of trucks and SUVs.
Order of magnitude. If there are 10,000 such vehicles in your region this program is looking to find 250 vehicles to be turned in....that's two hundred fifty vehicles out of 10,000.
You bring out your favorite whipping boy whenever you want to complain about anything. Congress this, Congress that. Broken records are more interesting.
Helloooo...this was the brainstorm of the auto industry. It was created and written by the auto industry. Congress put the legal stamp on it because the auto industry - the wider auto industry beyond the auto makers themselves - wants this stimulus bill and this powerful force has literally millions of jobs that will benefit from a strengthening economy.
You have NO experience with a Prius except possibly as a test drive. Your entire point of view is therefore suspect since it's based on 2nd and 3rd hand reports at best. This is just another issue that doesn't fit neatly into your little set of stipulations of 'how life should be'.
I know. I was just responding to one arrogant post with another.
Figured as much.
Agree it won't put workers back to work but help clear inventory. This is about the fairest way the government can stimulate the auto industry and get a few gas guzzlers off the road.
Just replaced my car last week. Would have waited but my car didn't qualify anyway. Plus i didn't want to saddle myself with a big loan. Bought a used car instead.
Here's an idea Double the give-away from $3500 to $7000 on gas guzzilin' pickups, suburbans, escalades, etc on the condition they purchase a Hybrid.
Hey truckaholics an AAA survey conducted in 2008 here in the West Coast found that only 27% of 1, 3/4 and 1/2 ton pick-up truck users actually used them more than 50% of the time to haul stuff. Besides helping family and friends move, this means the vast majority of pick-up truch owners haul little to no cargo on a regular basis. (Gun-racks on the back window don't count : )
So why the need for tonnage and gas consumption that's only going to let those that own the fossil fuel hold us hostage to higher gas prices through limited supply? I live in a town here were it seems like 1/2 the guys from 17-37 have their shiny pick ups - LIFTED and tire size doubled as soon as they drive off the lot. Do they think altering suspension will have a positive affect on their rig's fuel consumption? Do you think they really care? No! Guys tts time we all down-size for the sake of mankind. I guarantee you'll still impress the ladies and at the end made a personal contribution to make a smaller footprint on this world.
The owners who have a real clunker that's worth $200 ( we see at least 50 a month trying to be traded ) will be happy to dump that piece of junk for a $4500 voucher.
I won't comment on your other remarks but I will on this one. So 50 $200 clunkers a month are traded at YOUR dealership? These people will now buy brand new cars? Gimme a break.
You sound like a typical slimeball car salesman. Good luck - I hope this program helps you rip a few more people off.
Try to check your specific engine/transmission combination on fueleconomy.gov. If your particular vehicle is rated at 18 or lower, you should qualify.
EDIT: I checked the site myself, it seems like only the 3.3L and 3.8L V6 models qualify, so if you have a 4-cylinder or 3.0L V6, your van is apparently not enough of a gas guzzler.
The program, as it has been laid out, is poorly focused. The government should be attempting to get older highly polluting cars off the roads. I don't think this money will, in the long run, make any difference vis-a-vis the future viability of the domestic manufacturers. Calling a ten year old minivan a "clunker" just because it gets less than some arbitrary fuel economy is silly.
"..It is hard to imagine any PU truck that runs worth less than $1000..."
You havn't seen my truck. As is, it is worth no more than scrap value. Of course if I junked it for the $4500 I'd probably spend a good chunk of the money finding a replacement. Still. it's tempting.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I didn't say that 50 were actually traded. I said that we see that many every month meaning that buyers come in offering them as trades. There's a HUGE number of owners with vehicles that have little or no value except to be sent to auction for scrap. We're a big store with the largest volume of any store within a 200 mile radius ( and there's 4 other stores in our group as well) so we easily see this many junkers trying to be traded.
Some people do trade them and some choose not to trade them. If the vehicle is so bad that it can't be moved then we'll actually go to the owner's home and pick it up with a wrecker for $100.
I live in a town here were it seems like 1/2 the guys from 17-37 have their shiny pick ups - LIFTED and tire size doubled as soon as they drive off the lot. Do they think altering suspension will have a positive affect on their rig's fuel consumption? Do you think they really care? No!
I do agree that making a gas guzzler an even bigger gas guzzler makes little sense. You have to remember our society preaches that we express our individuality. All the bling bling is just such expression. Your solution is not available in the USA. How do you get a smaller PU that is not a gas guzzler? My Ranger is a gas guzzler that rarely gets 16 MPG. The new ones are no better. We are not given the alternatives most countries have. Our OIL BOUGHT CONGRESS, EPA & CARB have worked together to make sure we use as much oil as possible to keep the oil flowing and the gas tax rolling into the coffers. The C4C bill is pandering pure and simple. Just another $1 billion boondoggle to keep a few select car dealers making money.
The rich people that live in SoCal don't have much appreciation for the way that the rest of the country lives. Here on the edge of the continent a couple of hundred yards off the Atlantic the year round residents drive every imaginable rusted out piece of junk there is.
Many of these rusted junkers are cars but many are trucks and old SUVs also. None of them are worth more than $1000. If these people want to junk their clunkers for a $4500 voucher then good for them. They should have the right to do so and we'll take in every one that we possibly can. In fact I'm certain that we will advertise the hell out of this issue when it becomes final, every store in the country will - if they're smart.
BRING OUT YOUR DEAD!!! BRING OUT YOUR DEAD!!! BRING OUT YOUR DEAD!! Collect $4500 for each body*.
Hahahaha...I'm not a commie, I'm waaay WORSE! :surprise:
But he's right I think---all your taxes go into a big pot. This type of incentive program is about economics, it's not about "values". If you tried to ascribe the assignment of taxes based on your values or sense of fair play, you'd go nuts in about ten minutes.
Look, we all know this program doesn't require anyone to participate. However, just because it's voluntary doesn't mean it's not wasteful and flawed in various ways.
"You both and the rest of the chronic complainers are seeing ghosts and boogymen behind every tree."
You're entitle to your opinion, but it's a stretch to say that disagreement with your views and conclusions equates with paranoia. Come on, the boogyman has no place in this discussion.
"The owners who have a real clunker that's worth $200 (we see at least 50 a month trying to be traded ) will be happy to dump that piece of junk for a $4500 voucher. "
Why sure, but many of us are unhappy about the cost to make these folks happy. We're unhappy with the notion of increasing the deficit to stimulate new vehicle sales. As a beneficiary, you're not. That's how we differ.
"97 Explorers with more than 150,000 miles are worthless as transportation in today's world. They're unsafe, they waste fuel and they're likely beaten to death. these deserve to be crushed to death."
Some may be unsafe, and some may not be. Are you saying that it's not possible for a well maintained '97 Explorer with 150,000 miles to be safe? I believe that individual owners and state inspections are the best arbiters of when it's time to retire a vehicle, and not you or vote seekers in Washington.
There is no way your Chevy Cavalier will be taken in trade. The worst model gets 23 MPG combined. Only vehicles that get 18 MPG or Less will be taken in on this program. I would think the same proof of insurance some states require would be fine.
Well stated. Yes we do disagree on the basic premise of this legislation.
We apparently disagree about whether there should be any stimulation at all in this case. This is an entirely different discussion on a macro-economic level rather than the details of the CfC bill. This I think is the basis of our disagreement.
I am very much in favor of massive stimulation across the entire economy to help us climb out of the economic hole into which we've fallen. The price of higher interest expense on the national debt in the future is well worth while in comparison to the alternate options of sitting a quagmire of gloom and doom for the next 3-5 years or longer.
But admittedly a crisis of this magnitude is something no one has ever faced since the Great Depression. Keynes' theories are being used for the first time in a major battle. But this is the first time that any government has had to resort to these extreme measures. They appear to be working.
The rest of the industrialized world is of the same opinion that massive stimulation across the entire economy is the best way to climb out of the hole.
This particular bill has been in the making for months. It is particularly well crafted since it serves a lot of purposes at the same time.
I am very much in favor of massive stimulation across the entire economy to help us climb out of the economic hole into which we've fallen. The price of higher interest expense on the national debt in the future is well worth while in comparison to the alternate options of sitting a quagmire of gloom and doom for the next 3-5 years or longer.
I apologize for the "slimeball" comment. I was a little cranky earlier.
Your comment above states the fundamental difference between those who want a hands off approach to our current situation (generally Republican) and those who favor government intervention on a large scale (generally Democrat) to assist in resolving this major recession.
Clearly we're well on our way to socialism and by next year there may be no turning back. I sincerely hope the path we're on resolves the crisis within 1 year but past history demonstrates these type of actions tend to prolong the agony and it will likely be 3-4 years before we return to a healthy economy.
President Obama has quite an agenda on his plate and his success will be our success just as his failure will mean our failure at least in the near term. Because of that I do support this administration and hopefully many of you will too.
I hate to break this to you, but the American Socialist Party said quite boldly that Obama is not in any size shape or fashion a socialist, by their definition.
Really all he is doing by bail-outs and incentives is nationalizing and re-vitalizing them for a time and then privatizing back again. Peugeot of France was once government owned then privatized again, just as one example. As for health care reform, the vast majority of Americans are in favor--solidly. I don't think they think of themselves as socialist, by any stretch.
This is all pro-active stuff. To paraphrase an old saying "It may be a bad idea, but it's better than any other idea".
If letting the entire American Auto Industry crash into a smoldering heap of useless rubble to be pillaged for a penny on the dollar by vultures overseas is the GOPs idea of "capitalism", sign me up for the socialist party. :P
Whether it is good or bad, it was the Republican George W. Bush that started us on this path. Just as it was suggested that "next time an auto exec uses the phrase 'creeping socialism' when applied to health care or education, we can all laugh at them", I think we can all laugh when Republicans claim to be the party of free markets or fiscal responsibility.
"We apparently disagree about whether there should be any stimulation at all in this case. This is an entirely different discussion on a macro-economic level rather than the details of the CfC bill. This I think is the basis of our disagreement."
True, with qualifications. I distinguish between the aid given to our financial institutions to prevent a meltdown, and aid to the auto industry. Given the historically rapid and massive contraction in the liquidity of our financial system, a laissez faire approach would most likely have resulted in a 1930s type debacle. What was done, even with the negatives associated with it, was clearly much preferable to that.
I also favor investing in our nation's deteriorating infrastructure, training and retraining, since, in addition to providing a lot of jobs, that's clearly needed for us to remain competitive in this age of globalism. However, I'm not in favor of the government pandering to a particular manufacturing industry, such as autos, which happens to have a strong lobby. While this is relatively easy to justify politically, I think that whatever beneficial effects this yields will be short lived.
"This particular bill ...is particularly well crafted since it serves a lot of purposes at the same time."
I and others disagree with this conclusion, as evidenced by the majority of the messages in this discussion. For each of the multiple benefits to which you allude, we see flaws, inequities and distortions.
Both parties over several administrations contributed to the housing bubble, which was the main contributor to the financial and economic crisis. It's wrong to assign blame to only one administration and one party. The genisis to this crisis goes back decades, so it's irrelevant to argue who started it.
People trade to lower cost/emmission 4cyl economy cars. There is more than just saving gas involved here. Less emmissions is another to consider.
I believe Japan has a system that as your car gets older it get more expensive to keep because of government fees/taxes/inspections. This is a way to get the population into safer/newer/more effecient vehicles.
I vote yes for this program. But the person must purchase a vehicle that gets much better MPG than the one they are trading in!
No way is a new Civic is as safe as a 20 year old Buick Roadmaster or Lincoln Town Car. That is going to be the option for those looking for a $4500 trade in. No non hybrid mid size gets 10 MPG better than 18 MPG. Even the Explorer's that some like to denigrate are mostly rated 17-18 MPG. That means No non hybrid midsize trade up for $4500. I think there will be some real disgusted consumers when they find out just how limited this bill is. I am still waiting to see the wording on trading a light duty SUV (Explorer) on a car. Maybe someone has the interpretation by the NHTSA they can share with US.
I and others disagree with this conclusion, as evidenced by the majority of the messages in this discussion. For each of the multiple benefits to which you allude, we see flaws, inequities and distortions.
I don't think that there are any conclusions that can be drawn from such a small set of participants. Several herein are professional 'nay-sayers' especially in the case of political issues. Several herein have been asking questions about the applicability of this to their individual situations, they seem to be neutral to positive on this issue. Some such as you and I disagree on theory. Many simply don't understand the bill, it's goals and it's benefits, they seem to be here to gain knowledge of it.
As crafted it will accomplish what it is intended to do. 1) spur sales 2) get the American public out and shopping for vehicles 3) be limited in scope 4) generate... ...extra state tax revenue; ...extra revenue at dealerships; ...extra revenue for railroads, truckers and distribution sites ...extra revenue for parts suppliers ...extra revenue for raw material suppliers ...extra revenue for utilities, workers, suppliers, staff and managers 5) take a specific number of less fuel efficient vehicle off the road and replace them with more fuel efficient vehicles 6) decrease the amount of money spent on fuel for a large segment of the population for 3 to 6 years into the future.
If the one million units is subscribed and I think that it will be over-subscribed then every one of the above goals above will be met. THAT is a well-crafted piece of legislation.
As for health care reform, the vast majority of Americans are in favor--solidly.
Do you have any data to back that statement up. Latest poll I see is only 41% of Americans are concerned. I see it going the same direction it did in 1993 with Hillary trying to push it. Down the drain.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she wasn't certain there are enough votes in the president's own party to support the proposal.
We are spending all the stimulus keeping car companies that should be out of business afloat. That and goofy bills like this Clunker bill that has all the car salesmen in the country salivating. Including those that hang around Edmund's.
f the one million units is subscribed and I think that it will be over-subscribed then every one of the above goals above will be met. THAT is a well-crafted piece of legislation.
Sorry Charlie, you lost 750,000 on the way to the President's desk. It is only $1 billion which will be 222k units at $4500 each or 285k if you get enough to give up their clunker for $3500. That does not take into account administration fees which could be a sizable chunk of change. I am sure the NHTSA time will be charged to that $billion spent.
If a Tahoe T-bones a Civic or Camry or Malibu with side and curtain airbags the occupants of the hit vehicle walk away with bruises. If a Tahoe T-bones a 20 yo Town Car the occupant on the side hit receives massive head and torso injuries which are life-threatening.
If a Fusion begins to lose traction and starts going sideways in slick roads the stability control slows the vehicle down and brakes it before it gets too far out of control. If this occurs in the RWD Town Car with no TC or SC the back end whips around and the vehicle goes out of control off the road or into traffic.
Pure speculation from someone with a vested interest in selling new cars. I say it is bunk. I just witnessed a man killed near our shop when he was hit broadside by a Mustang in a Saturn. All the airbags deployed and he still died on the way to the hospital. There was no drivers side left on the Saturn. Big car hits little car and occupants are toast. The Insurance Institute will back up what I am saying. You just want to sell little cars. That is the bottom line. Your opinion is noted.
If they are so slick, why did they have to squeeze it into the War bill to get it passed? If it puts massive UAW workers back in the factories you may see another bill like this one. Otherwise Biden will go to the press and say we thought it would work and it did not.
The bottom line is HonToy will be the major recipients and the backlash will be on Obama.
If letting the entire American Auto Industry crash into a smoldering heap of useless rubble to be pillaged for a penny on the dollar by vultures overseas is the GOPs idea of "capitalism", sign me up for the socialist party
GM deserves to crash. I worked with GM and the UAW in the 90's and it was an incredible experience. I had never seen so much waste on so large a scale and never will again unless unless I get a Federal Gov't job.
Chrysler has a buyer, Fiat, that makes the rescue package realistic and viable. GM, or what remains of it this fall, will not have a buyer for at least 2 years. They will need another $25 billion just to survive 2010 and MIGHT break even in 2011 with a lot of luck.
This was a political move for a company with no viable future, a company the size of the Titantic. With Hummer, Saab & Saturn sold and Pontiac gone we'll still have too many companies vieing for too few sales. The cars from China and India will be here by the time the economy has recovered and we COULD be looking at another Amtrak with cars instead of trains.
I agree we had to act in 2008 to avoid an economic collapse. Overreacting now will likely stretch this recession through 2011. I hope I'm wrong and have been many times but we are walking in the footsteps of Japan in the 90's and headed for a 3 year recession if we don't practice some restraint in the 2nd half of '09.
Comments
I can't imagine a company fleet or rental car company owning vehicles worth so little.
Hint - Tax write-offs as business expenses. Also, a lot of government agencies are running 10+ year old SUVs and vans for their car pools now. When was the last time you saw a park ranger in a brand new truck?
Beer-sodden fans and rain combined for an ugly finish to a long day of golf yesterday, with Tiger Woods and other golfers subjected to drunken heckling as the action at Bethpage Black came to a close.
At 6:42 p.m., dozens of drunken spectators at Hole 10 taunted Woods as he prepared to start his third round in the rain.
"We're on Long Island, baby, where men are men!" one fan yelled. "Put that umbrella down!"
With a little luck they will head over to your dealership when the tournament ends and trade in a clunker. :P
Using C4C for it:
only a few hundred gain over trading to buy anything I want
it gets crushed with 1/3 to 1/2 life left
actual mpg only up by 4. (23 vs 27)
$2k per year spike in car ins premium
bring $15k min to dealer
hit reset button on $400 a year excise tax
bring $1500 sales tax to dealer
save some jobs at GM
have to give 16 yr old a supercharged Riv to drive instead of a no 'real' back seat p/u
The waste involved with scrapping still useful vehicles bothers me.
/////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
I'm glad I'm not the only one. There are many good vehicles on the road that get 22-24MPG hwy mileage and 16-18MPG in town that qualify for this program.
I can see people taking the $4,500 for a 2000 Ford Crown Vic with 90,000 miles on the clock! That car might well have another 9 years and 90,000 miles left in it!
We crush it and scrap it! Makes no sense and this program makes little sense other than to prop up the dead with flowers. Let GM die the death it deserves.
Old clunker=NO CAR PAYMENTS + CHEAP INSURANCE
17MPG @15K miles yr @ $2.50 gallon=$2205 yr in gas
New Car=CAR PAYMENTS
25MPG @15K miles yr @ $2.50 gallon=$1500 yr in gas
$25000 midsize car for about $23K after TTTL & 4500 voucher @4% for 60 months=$423mo=$5076 yr.
So for someone trading in a clunker suv or car getting that mileage will save $700 yr in gas, but will now have $5000 worth of car payments a year. Payments could be lower, but not too many people will trade there big sedan or suv for a Aveo, Versa, or Kia. Even if they did buy a base Cobalt for $15k thats still $2-3000 a year in payments and not including the higher full coverage auto insurance to pay on a new car.
How is this helping those people considering they are probably driving these old cars because they couldnt afford a new one in the 1rst place. 1 million new environmentally friendly car sales dont help the environment much when 20-30 millions gas guzzlers were sold in the 90's. Kinda like patting yourself for making a million jobs, but not seeing the 13 million others that need one.
Only fleet or govt will be the main ones taking advantage of these vouchers, most of the requirements of this voucher wipe out the typical car shopper right now, so i still doubt more than 200k cars be sold.
How many people would trade a 1990s Buick Roadmaster or Crown Vic in on a Civic to get the full $4500 rebate? 10 MPG improvement in comparable cars is not going to happen.
It bothers me also. I think it is typical of this Congress. They are grasping at straws to get the economy turned around before next years election. Much like the 1993 recession and Congress.
The cost to the environment to build a new car is in most cases much higher than the pollution the car will emit during its lifetime. To cut that lifetime short with this ill conceived plan, to pander to a few in the auto industry is sad. The pollution to build a hybrid is even higher.
Most Americans were weened on too much horsepower. We are very lazy drivers and many of us could get along very well with more attention to gearing and the road ahead, and fewer ponies under the hood.
Many of these old gas-sucking vehicles are not necessary for the lifestyle of the owner. Maybe the C4C will create some interesting changes in attitude.
My gripe is being stuck on our long uphill grade behind, trucks and hybrids. Trucks have no choice. I have been in a long line behind both an Escape hybrid and Prius at under 55 MPH. The left lane was bumper to bumper at 75 MPH. So getting out from behind the either underpowered hybrids or unconscious hybrid drivers was both difficult and dangerous. At least with a big truck you can see them from a long ways off and move safely to the left lane of traffic.
So people trading in an adequately powered larger vehicle for a hybrid that is used other than city commuting is not a plus in my book.
Amen!
I wonder what percentage of drivers "ever" put their foot all the way down.
I believe an egg in my wife's minivan would be safe under the gas pedal.
Of course, once you've lived through the double-kickdown shenanigans of most automatic transmissions under full throttle, you won't want all that fuss, ever again.
-Mathias
"This following list is based on the requirements set forth in the most recent version of the "Cash for Clunkers" bill and was compiled on June 11, 2009."
Question: We have a 1996 Plymouth Grand Voyager SE that will be 13 yrs. old
in July. Why is this '96 model not listed in Edmunds's list? It has 1995, skips 1996, 1997, 1998, but includes 1999!
Here is the portion of the list for Plymouth Grand Voyagers:
1990
Plymouth Grand Voyager
1990
Plymouth Grand Voyager
1991
Plymouth Grand Voyager
1992
Plymouth Grand Voyager
1993
Plymouth Grand Voyager
1994
Plymouth Grand Voyager
1995
Plymouth Grand Voyager
1999
Plymouth Grand Voyager
But if they have a 97 Explorer or Jimmy or 90 Bronco or 88 1500 that's worth $200 you bet they'd be welcome to come in and trade it beginning in August. Hell yeah, send 'em all over.
I'm glad I'm not the only one. There are many good vehicles on the road that get 22-24MPG hwy mileage and 16-18MPG in town that qualify for this program.
I can see people taking the $4,500 for a 2000 Ford Crown Vic with 90,000 miles on the clock! That car might well have another 9 years and 90,000 miles left in it!
We crush it and scrap it! Makes no sense and this program makes little sense other than to prop up the dead with flowers. Let GM die the death it deserves.
OK, OK. But you're both worrying that the Men in Black are going to go through the countryside and take clunkers out of garages and back yards and fields and require that they be crushed.
Nothing of the sort is going to happen. If your two examples of vehicles that have good life in them are valid then the two owners, presumably you two, are NOT going to participate. These two vehicle are NOT go to be taken off the road and these two vehicles are NOT going to be crushed. There is no problem here. The program is voluntary. You both and the rest of the chronic complainers are seeing ghosts and boogymen behind every tree.
The owners who have a real clunker that's worth $200 ( we see at least 50 a month trying to be traded ) will be happy to dump that piece of junk for a $4500 voucher.
97 Explorers with more than 150,000 miles are worthless as transportation in today's world. They're unsafe, they waste fuel and they're likely beaten to death. these deserve to be crushed to death.
Wrong assumption.. You must not be in the auto business. Do you realize that with 305 million citizens here and nearly 100 million of these BOF trucks and SUVs having been put on the road since 1984 that in total we are discussing 2.5% of the total number of trucks and SUVs.
Order of magnitude. If there are 10,000 such vehicles in your region this program is looking to find 250 vehicles to be turned in....that's two hundred fifty vehicles out of 10,000.
Helloooo...this was the brainstorm of the auto industry. It was created and written by the auto industry. Congress put the legal stamp on it because the auto industry - the wider auto industry beyond the auto makers themselves - wants this stimulus bill and this powerful force has literally millions of jobs that will benefit from a strengthening economy.
Figured as much.
Agree it won't put workers back to work but help clear inventory. This is about the fairest way the government can stimulate the auto industry and get a few gas guzzlers off the road.
Just replaced my car last week. Would have waited but my car didn't qualify anyway. Plus i didn't want to saddle myself with a big loan. Bought a used car instead.
Hey truckaholics an AAA survey conducted in 2008 here in the West Coast found that only 27% of 1, 3/4 and 1/2 ton pick-up truck users actually used them more than 50% of the time to haul stuff. Besides helping family and friends move, this means the vast majority of pick-up truch owners haul little to no cargo on a regular basis. (Gun-racks on the back window don't count : )
So why the need for tonnage and gas consumption that's only going to let those that own the fossil fuel hold us hostage to higher gas prices through limited supply? I live in a town here were it seems like 1/2 the guys from 17-37 have their shiny pick ups - LIFTED and tire size doubled as soon as they drive off the lot. Do they think altering suspension will have a positive affect on their rig's fuel consumption? Do you think they really care? No! Guys tts time we all down-size for the sake of mankind. I guarantee you'll still impress the ladies and at the end made a personal contribution to make a smaller footprint on this world.
//////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
I won't comment on your other remarks but I will on this one. So 50 $200 clunkers a month are traded at YOUR dealership? These people will now buy brand new cars? Gimme a break.
You sound like a typical slimeball car salesman. Good luck - I hope this program helps you rip a few more people off.
EDIT: I checked the site myself, it seems like only the 3.3L and 3.8L V6 models qualify, so if you have a 4-cylinder or 3.0L V6, your van is apparently not enough of a gas guzzler.
You havn't seen my truck. As is, it is worth no more than scrap value. Of course if I junked it for the $4500 I'd probably spend a good chunk of the money finding a replacement. Still. it's tempting.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Gee, I had Shifty figured for a Commie, but you too?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I didn't say that 50 were actually traded. I said that we see that many every month meaning that buyers come in offering them as trades. There's a HUGE number of owners with vehicles that have little or no value except to be sent to auction for scrap. We're a big store with the largest volume of any store within a 200 mile radius ( and there's 4 other stores in our group as well) so we easily see this many junkers trying to be traded.
Some people do trade them and some choose not to trade them. If the vehicle is so bad that it can't be moved then we'll actually go to the owner's home and pick it up with a wrecker for $100.
I do agree that making a gas guzzler an even bigger gas guzzler makes little sense. You have to remember our society preaches that we express our individuality. All the bling bling is just such expression. Your solution is not available in the USA. How do you get a smaller PU that is not a gas guzzler? My Ranger is a gas guzzler that rarely gets 16 MPG. The new ones are no better. We are not given the alternatives most countries have. Our OIL BOUGHT CONGRESS, EPA & CARB have worked together to make sure we use as much oil as possible to keep the oil flowing and the gas tax rolling into the coffers. The C4C bill is pandering pure and simple. Just another $1 billion boondoggle to keep a few select car dealers making money.
Many of these rusted junkers are cars but many are trucks and old SUVs also. None of them are worth more than $1000. If these people want to junk their clunkers for a $4500 voucher then good for them. They should have the right to do so and we'll take in every one that we possibly can. In fact I'm certain that we will advertise the hell out of this issue when it becomes final, every store in the country will - if they're smart.
BRING OUT YOUR DEAD!!! BRING OUT YOUR DEAD!!! BRING OUT YOUR DEAD!! Collect $4500 for each body*.
*(Restrictions apply)
But he's right I think---all your taxes go into a big pot. This type of incentive program is about economics, it's not about "values". If you tried to ascribe the assignment of taxes based on your values or sense of fair play, you'd go nuts in about ten minutes.
Look, we all know this program doesn't require anyone to participate. However, just because it's voluntary doesn't mean it's not wasteful and flawed in various ways.
"You both and the rest of the chronic complainers are seeing ghosts and boogymen behind every tree."
You're entitle to your opinion, but it's a stretch to say that disagreement with your views and conclusions equates with paranoia. Come on, the boogyman has no place in this discussion.
"The owners who have a real clunker that's worth $200 (we see at least 50 a month trying to be traded ) will be happy to dump that piece of junk for a $4500 voucher. "
Why sure, but many of us are unhappy about the cost to make these folks happy.
We're unhappy with the notion of increasing the deficit to stimulate new vehicle sales. As a beneficiary, you're not. That's how we differ.
"97 Explorers with more than 150,000 miles are worthless as transportation in today's world. They're unsafe, they waste fuel and they're likely beaten to death. these deserve to be crushed to death."
Some may be unsafe, and some may not be. Are you saying that it's not possible for a well maintained '97 Explorer with 150,000 miles to be safe? I believe that individual owners and state inspections are the best arbiters of when it's time to retire a vehicle, and not you or vote seekers in Washington.
We apparently disagree about whether there should be any stimulation at all in this case. This is an entirely different discussion on a macro-economic level rather than the details of the CfC bill. This I think is the basis of our disagreement.
I am very much in favor of massive stimulation across the entire economy to help us climb out of the economic hole into which we've fallen. The price of higher interest expense on the national debt in the future is well worth while in comparison to the alternate options of sitting a quagmire of gloom and doom for the next 3-5 years or longer.
But admittedly a crisis of this magnitude is something no one has ever faced since the Great Depression. Keynes' theories are being used for the first time in a major battle. But this is the first time that any government has had to resort to these extreme measures. They appear to be working.
The rest of the industrialized world is of the same opinion that massive stimulation across the entire economy is the best way to climb out of the hole.
This particular bill has been in the making for months. It is particularly well crafted since it serves a lot of purposes at the same time.
///////////////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\
I apologize for the "slimeball" comment. I was a little cranky earlier.
Your comment above states the fundamental difference between those who want a hands off approach to our current situation (generally Republican) and those who favor government intervention on a large scale (generally Democrat) to assist in resolving this major recession.
Clearly we're well on our way to socialism and by next year there may be no turning back. I sincerely hope the path we're on resolves the crisis within 1 year but past history demonstrates these type of actions tend to prolong the agony and it will likely be 3-4 years before we return to a healthy economy.
President Obama has quite an agenda on his plate and his success will be our success just as his failure will mean our failure at least in the near term. Because of that I do support this administration and hopefully many of you will too.
Really all he is doing by bail-outs and incentives is nationalizing and re-vitalizing them for a time and then privatizing back again. Peugeot of France was once government owned then privatized again, just as one example. As for health care reform, the vast majority of Americans are in favor--solidly. I don't think they think of themselves as socialist, by any stretch.
This is all pro-active stuff. To paraphrase an old saying "It may be a bad idea, but it's better than any other idea".
If letting the entire American Auto Industry crash into a smoldering heap of useless rubble to be pillaged for a penny on the dollar by vultures overseas is the GOPs idea of "capitalism", sign me up for the socialist party. :P
True, with qualifications. I distinguish between the aid given to our financial institutions to prevent a meltdown, and aid to the auto industry. Given the historically rapid and massive contraction in the liquidity of our financial system, a laissez faire approach would most likely have resulted in a 1930s type debacle. What was done, even with the negatives associated with it, was clearly much preferable to that.
I also favor investing in our nation's deteriorating infrastructure, training and retraining, since, in addition to providing a lot of jobs, that's clearly needed for us to remain competitive in this age of globalism. However, I'm not in favor of the government pandering to a particular manufacturing industry, such as autos, which happens to have a strong lobby. While this is relatively easy to justify politically, I think that whatever beneficial effects this yields will be short lived.
"This particular bill ...is particularly well crafted since it serves a lot of purposes at the same time."
I and others disagree with this conclusion, as evidenced by the majority of the messages in this discussion. For each of the multiple benefits to which you allude, we see flaws, inequities and distortions.
People trade to lower cost/emmission 4cyl economy cars. There is more than just saving gas involved here. Less emmissions is another to consider.
I believe Japan has a system that as your car gets older it get more expensive to keep because of government fees/taxes/inspections. This is a way to get the population into safer/newer/more effecient vehicles.
I vote yes for this program. But the person must purchase a vehicle that gets much better MPG than the one they are trading in!
Newer and better mileage yes, safer NO!
No way is a new Civic is as safe as a 20 year old Buick Roadmaster or Lincoln Town Car. That is going to be the option for those looking for a $4500 trade in. No non hybrid mid size gets 10 MPG better than 18 MPG. Even the Explorer's that some like to denigrate are mostly rated 17-18 MPG. That means No non hybrid midsize trade up for $4500. I think there will be some real disgusted consumers when they find out just how limited this bill is. I am still waiting to see the wording on trading a light duty SUV (Explorer) on a car. Maybe someone has the interpretation by the NHTSA they can share with US.
I don't think that there are any conclusions that can be drawn from such a small set of participants. Several herein are professional 'nay-sayers' especially in the case of political issues. Several herein have been asking questions about the applicability of this to their individual situations, they seem to be neutral to positive on this issue. Some such as you and I disagree on theory. Many simply don't understand the bill, it's goals and it's benefits, they seem to be here to gain knowledge of it.
As crafted it will accomplish what it is intended to do.
1) spur sales
2) get the American public out and shopping for vehicles
3) be limited in scope
4) generate...
...extra state tax revenue;
...extra revenue at dealerships;
...extra revenue for railroads, truckers and distribution sites
...extra revenue for parts suppliers
...extra revenue for raw material suppliers
...extra revenue for utilities, workers, suppliers, staff and managers
5) take a specific number of less fuel efficient vehicle off the road and replace them with more fuel efficient vehicles
6) decrease the amount of money spent on fuel for a large segment of the population for 3 to 6 years into the future.
If the one million units is subscribed and I think that it will be over-subscribed then every one of the above goals above will be met. THAT is a well-crafted piece of legislation.
Do you have any data to back that statement up. Latest poll I see is only 41% of Americans are concerned. I see it going the same direction it did in 1993 with Hillary trying to push it. Down the drain.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she wasn't certain there are enough votes in the president's own party to support the proposal.
We are spending all the stimulus keeping car companies that should be out of business afloat. That and goofy bills like this Clunker bill that has all the car salesmen in the country salivating. Including those that hang around Edmund's.
Sorry Charlie, you lost 750,000 on the way to the President's desk. It is only $1 billion which will be 222k units at $4500 each or 285k if you get enough to give up their clunker for $3500. That does not take into account administration fees which could be a sizable chunk of change. I am sure the NHTSA time will be charged to that $billion spent.
If a Tahoe T-bones a Civic or Camry or Malibu with side and curtain airbags the occupants of the hit vehicle walk away with bruises.
If a Tahoe T-bones a 20 yo Town Car the occupant on the side hit receives massive head and torso injuries which are life-threatening.
If a Fusion begins to lose traction and starts going sideways in slick roads the stability control slows the vehicle down and brakes it before it gets too far out of control.
If this occurs in the RWD Town Car with no TC or SC the back end whips around and the vehicle goes out of control off the road or into traffic.
This is 250,000 units in three months, but then it will be extended for another 3 months and another 250,000 vehicles and then again and then again.
It will be 1 million units over 12 months as originally planned. Why? Overwhelming consumer demand. Oooooo slick.
The bottom line is HonToy will be the major recipients and the backlash will be on Obama.
///////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\- \\\\\\
GM deserves to crash. I worked with GM and the UAW in the 90's and it was an incredible experience. I had never seen so much waste on so large a scale and never will again unless unless I get a Federal Gov't job.
Chrysler has a buyer, Fiat, that makes the rescue package realistic and viable. GM, or what remains of it this fall, will not have a buyer for at least 2 years. They will need another $25 billion just to survive 2010 and MIGHT break even in 2011 with a lot of luck.
This was a political move for a company with no viable future, a company the size of the Titantic. With Hummer, Saab & Saturn sold and Pontiac gone we'll still have too many companies vieing for too few sales. The cars from China and India will be here by the time the economy has recovered and we COULD be looking at another Amtrak with cars instead of trains.
I agree we had to act in 2008 to avoid an economic collapse. Overreacting now will likely stretch this recession through 2011. I hope I'm wrong and have been many times but we are walking in the footsteps of Japan in the 90's and headed for a 3 year recession if we don't practice some restraint in the 2nd half of '09.