By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
If he got a Focus at invoice of about $16,000, I think there is about a $2500 rebate, so with $4500 for the SHO, he'd only pay $9000. Then he saves $2000 in immediate repairs and probably another $2-3000 in the next few years...so the new car only costs him a net of maybe $4-5000 during the next few years.
From the Clunker FAQ here:
Passenger cars: The old car you would like to trade in must have been manufactured in 1984 or later, and must get 18 mpg or less city/highway combined. If the mileage of the new car is at least 4 mpg higher than the old vehicle, the voucher will be worth $3,500. If the mileage of the new car is at least 10 mpg higher than the old vehicle, the voucher will be worth $4,500.
With the provisions of the bill, the government has encouraged someone to trade in their old gas guzzler with a new gas guzzler. Why the H*** should my tax money go to someone to drive a house on wheels that puts my life in danger?
There are so many arguments for your "Why the H*** should my tax money go to" that it would be hard to list them all. The biggest "WHY" to my way of thinking is sending the money to Japan or Germany. Yet if I take advantage of the C4C plan I have little choice but sending the $4500 to Germany. None of the Domestic vehicles I would consider have improved enough in MPG to be acceptable for the law. Your example is probably the only real movement we will see in the Domestic auto industry with this bill. Guy has a 20 year old F250 with 200k miles and not a spot left without rust that he can get $4500 for a new F250 or an Expedition for his wife to haul kids to the soccer games.
The fact that you bought an econobox that is no match in a crash with the millions of huge SUVs, is kind of irrelevant to what this stimulus is about. That is the main reason I would not head out on the highway in a small car. My life is more important than a few cents worth of gas to me.
Depending on what your state and city taxes are, you will pay sales tax, and significantly higher registration costs on a new vehicle (NH taxes each year based on the book-value). Also a clunker is not usually insured for collision and comprehensive, which a new vehicle will have. That would be an increase of $300 - $700/year depending on what your rates are.
And lastly you have now moved a person from what was once a performance larger vehicle into an average compact.
So I'm not saying it isn't a good deal overall, but you made it seem a much rosier deal than it really is.
We do not own any AWD vehicles. Could use one at times. Was planning on getting a Subaru Tribeca when my clunker T&C died but this program changes this. Looks like a Tribeca won't make the MPG requirement. Need suggestions for AWD that meets or exceeds the 22 mpg requirement.
Prefer a 7 seater but could compromise on a 5 seater. The Subaru Forrester fits the 22 mpg but has no rebate. Tribeca has a $2500 rebate right now. Vehicles with rebates combined with this program would look real good.
*** Just noticed that the site will do a search for you based on desired MPG
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byMPG.htm
Race cars are among the smallest, lightest and safest cars in the world---of course, they aren't CHEAP, that's true.
Your point about higher insurance is well taken...I had forgotten about that. But still, you are getting a) reliability, b) much better safety over a 1996 car (in my opinion) and c) a WARRANTY......
these are not piddling advantages.
The goal of this bill was to be 2 fold; stimulate cars sales and reduce gas use and emissions. The low MPG requirements on SUV's will not take car of the latter.
My "econobox" 325 Convertible gets over 25 MPG, and my Grand Prix and isn't far behind.
BTW, why should the "wife" be the ones taking the kids to soccer?
Maybe in the next round....
We are buying the Vibe without AWD for my son next week. Pontiac has some great rebates right now, especially if you own a GM vehicle.
The resale won't be as high as the Forrester, but it you are planning for a number of years, it shouldn't make all that much difference.
As you can tell - with 194,000 mi on my T&C we drive our cars into the ground. The resale doesn't mean too much to me.
But say what you want, this program is going to steer me into buying a slightly smaller SUV than I would have otherwise.
OTOH, I also left out that he'd save a bit on gas...maybe something like $600 per year.
Also the ride seems to be bumpy and noisy.
advice appreciated.
Visiting Host
Ummm, because it is a boring game and mothers like to get together even if there is no beer being served?
I am just going by what I see when I accidentally take the school road to town before or after school. There are lines of SUVs waiting for the kids, all running to keep cool. All because the schools charge so much for bus service with little protection. Moms are usually the designated drivers. Don't get me started on the trophy wives in the Range Rovers, LX, X5s and Escalades that have never been on a dirt road.
It's all about our choices. In fact the NA buying public is downsizing the national fleet dramatically. There are very few people going from Suburbans to Tahoes these days. There are two main reasons...
..the public is still spooked by the run up in gas prices last year
..the banks are not lending big bucks to anyone these days unless the borrower doesn't need a loan. Seriously.
Have faith in your fellow citizens.
(It might be +1 for a "category 2 truck".)
Pontiac is going out of business in a couple of months. The Vibe has been cancelled already effective immediately.
INVESTIGATE FIRST.
The Vibe is still plentiful in So CA. The GMC/Pontiac dealer I bought from shows both 2009 and 2010 Vibes in stock. Should be able to get Toyota parts 10 years down the road that will work.
All opinions welcome especially the ones who don't think this is NOT the last program that will come down the pike from Uncle Sugar. If only that were the case! Damn crystal ball. Come on you stupid thing, work!!! :mad:
I don't blame him, but rather the government. If the gov't is putting the money out there, why shouldn't he get it?
Just one more waste of taxpayer money.
If you only keeps vehicles for a couple of years, now would not be the time to buy a new Pontiac. If you hold onto vehicles for several years the difference in depreciation should not be that much.
Remember the Vibe is esentially a Toyota. I've had 3 Pontiacs and never any problems other than wear and tear items. I've not at all afraid to buy another one, but I can see why some people would feel differently.
////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Although the C4C program is currently only set up for August-September, rest assured it will likely run through the end of the calendar year. My gut feeling is that not many people will use the program, probably 100K in the 1st 2 months. Running it through the end of the year will likely garner the 250K units many have targeted.
The biggest thing the C4C has going for it is: Everybody's who is into cars or is thinking about buying a car either already has heard of it or will know about it by the end of the summer.
That consumer awareness will generate traffic and traffic will generate some sales now that people realize our entire economy is NOT going to collapse. This thing is like free advertising and it hasn't even started yet.
Bet the rebates will get bigger when the program ends. Dealers and the companies will use the program to their own advantage and not give as great of deals pocketing more than they would when the program ends. I can't blame them.
For me, I can get a Tribeca AND a $2500 rebate which is the car I really want or I can get a Forrester and a $3500 C4C rebate but it is not my first choice.
So I don't think everyone is going to jump on it. The actual dollar amount it will save may not be THAT phenomenal when you take everything into consideration to make everyone jump.
This is the type of flawed reasoning that our politicians used to hoodwink us. Unfortunately, The net effect is neither as simplistic nor as beneficial as you make it out to be. further, your remark ignores all the arguments put forth by those who believe this is a bad plan.
Nice in theory, but it would only work if everyone had the option of mass transit. Otherwise you'd just be punishing people who live in rural areas.
This is a related government hand-out; since I want some government $ and don't have a clunker. I'd like to thank all of you, for helping pay for my new wood-pellet-stove. I get a 30% tax credit on the price.
The only way I could see a gas tax being "sold" to the American people is if the proceeds are dedicated to immediate mass transit projects and to alternative energy + job creation---voters might go for that.
Some countries are already building entire small cities that are zero emissions and zero waste communities. Impressive.
For example, base it on 150,000 miles and a $1 per gallon equivalent tax:
buy a 25 mpg car and you pay $6000 tax
buy a 20 mpg car and you pay $7500
buy a 30 mpg car and you pay $5000
buy a 40 mpg car and you pay $3750
Or if a credit/tax scheme is desired:
Buy a 20 mpg car and pay $1500 tax
Buy a 30 mpg car and get a $1000 credit
Buy a 25 mpg car no tax, no credit
Buy a 40 mpg car and get a $2250 credit
I am not too concerned about a gas tax harming rural residents, though, as there seem to be a lot of other policies that go the other way and subsidize rural residents. I think harming low income people would be a more valid justification for looking at taxing the new vehicle buyers, rather than gas at the pump.
Actually it's because the mortgage companies wer so flooded with regular re-finances (ultra low rates in March, April and most of May) that they spent their time on these. Plus they were easier to deal with.
I read about this last week on CNN/Money (I think).
Please tell me what they are, as I seem to have missed getting "my share".
My solution as far as additional tax on gas use would be to have the gas guzzler tax apply to ALL passenger vehicles. No more exemptions for trucks or SUV's. Go one step further and have the consumer match the manufacturer/ importer tax. Now that would cause people to think long and hard about buying that 17MPG vehicle!
Delivery trucks should not have any additional tax, and by not having additional tax on gas they can't use that excuse to increase the price of consumer goods.
Sounds good. Now if we just change the rules a little - I'll take a Tata Nano, so it will basically be free.
Maybe when they invent Star Trek style "transporters".