Car payments, less the $4500, may not be all that much more than repair bills on a car that old. He says it probably needs $2000 right now and I would imagine more would come up in the next few years.
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.
Yes if you can take a "long view" of the purchase it's a good deal for him. Probably end up with payments around $200 a month. I can't say that his old Taurus would cost him $200 a month for the next 5 years---but then, we have to consider that the Focus will be worth some few thousands of dollars in 5 years but the Taurus will be worth $300, if it's even running by then.
I have a 98 grand Caravan, according to the fueleconomy website it gets 18 combined so I am eligible. The way I read the info provided at cars.gov if I want to buy a car(not a van) I get 4500 only if the new car gets 28 mpg, if it gets 22-27 it would be 3500. Is that right?
That's the way I read it and that's what I'll try to do if we trade our '99 van. 28 combined shouldn't be that hard to meet with lots of sedans and hatchbacks.
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.
Say someone has an older high mileage Surburan type vehicle- MPG of 13. They can get 4,500 toward a new Yukon- MPG of 16. Meets the over 6K GVW and more the 2 mpg, and minimum MPG of 15. So, we've taken a vehicle off the road that will die a natural death in a couple years anyway and replaced it with one of minimal inprovement that will be on the road for years. 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?
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.
Your financial analysis of why to buy a new vehicle only included the positives and didn't really look at the negatives.
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.
Okay I see the new vehicle MPG requirements now. Need recommendations.
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
But you make it sound like large is "good" and small is "bad". This needn't be the case. A MINI for instance, is a small car, but it's built like a tank and I'd sure take a hit in it with all its airbags over an American compact.
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......
By having a minimum requirement of 15 MPG we will continue to send money to the middle east. 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?
Clunker legislation has been on the drawing boards for years and in the past it was an energy saving measure. When the economy tanked, the eco-green part got left in the smog while the dollar-green part took front and center.
I suggest you check out the Pontiac Vibe/ Toyota Matrix. They are essentially the same car. Assembled in the same plant in CA by US workers. 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.
I agree about the reliability and warranty part wrenching on a clunker gets old after a while plus the newer features like traction control and sync for your music and phone would also be nice.
Well Tom I could get the FWD Fusion 3.0 V6 240 hp compare to the 235 hp of my Taurus SHO, interior room is about the same both are front wheel drive, Fusion combined EPA is 25 mpg compare to the 18 mpg of the SHO.
You are correct and part of the reason those things did not occur to me is sales tax is fairly low where I live (5%), we pay a flat rate of $75 for registration of any car, and my insurance is relatively cheap (I pay $142 per year for collision & Comp on our newest car, a 2007).
OTOH, I also left out that he'd save a bit on gas...maybe something like $600 per year.
I just purchased this minivan from a private owner (what I thought was a reasonable price) and now discover that the tape player, the cigarette lighter - to plug in my cell phone do not work. how and where can I get this repaired or replaced?
BTW, why should the "wife" be the ones taking the kids to soccer?
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.
I'm driving a 86 jeep cherokee 4x4 which get a combined mpg of 16. I want to buy a chevy silverado which get a combined mpg of 17. For what I understand if I were to buy a car or suv the new car must get at least 2mpg, but a truck it's 1mpg. Is this correct?
Well to assuage some of your concerns kathy .... while the bill was written by the auto industry ( as you note the very low threshhold to convert from one SUV to another SUV ) it's the buying public which will actually put the bill to use.
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.
You can probably get a heck of a deal on a new Vibe while they last. At least a grand cheaper than their stable mate from Toyota. And you have the Obama promise to cover the warranty. :shades:
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.
The one thing that is buggin' me...my crystal ball has completely clouded over! For the life of me I can't tell if there is going to be any money left in Uncle Sam's pockets for this program come mid-to-late Sept. or October. That's when I've always done the best fishing when in the market for a new car (End of month, end of quarter, end of model year, etc. etc. etc.). This possible July start date has me a bit worried that too many folks are going to jump on this program then it's SORRY CHARLIE for the latecomers! Early bird gets the worm so should you snooze, you lose. Now under that scenerio, my $100 "clunker" no longer turns into $4500 overnight. Instead ol' Cinderalla's coach turns back into a pumpkin. What to do, what to do?
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:
Pontiac name is going out. IMO it will be no different than when Olds closed. They still make Olds parts and it's been something like 10 years if I remember correctly.
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.
I think once Chrysler and GM emerge from Bankruptcy you going to see similar offers from both to jump start their sales. Also like the stimulus program for housing most people don't qualify and most of the money is still there.
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.
I don't know if everyone can afford to jump on it. I don't know that many own cars that qualify either. Also, its not as if it THAT great of a program. It's good but as you have pointed out, the better deals and rebates come in September. Also, you get no trade-in money so the difference between the trade-in verses C4C isn't as great as it looks.
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.
"The net effect is that there is an old gas guzzler off the road and a new more efficient vehicle has been sold ( the purpose of this program ) which is presumably being driven on the road. So Who Cares?"
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.
Agree. Not just rural areas though; include suburb to suburb commutes. And with people upside-down on their mortgages or otherwise unable to sell, and people having to take any job; probably further from home, more people would be hurt, which means continuing to slow down the economic recovery.
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.
Very risky plan to tax gasoline further, because a) the USA has the worst mass transit of any civilized western industrial nation that I've ever been to, and b) gas tax raises the price of food and consumer goods, so in essence a "double tax" or "hidden tax".
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.
I have not heard of any mass transit systems that are self sustaining, that is the revenue they generate covers their operating cost. Instead, the government (taxpayers) pick up the difference. To me, that is just another form of welfare. Especially for those who live in rural areas were mass transit makes even less sense.
A tax or tax/credit scheme on every new vehicle, based on expected fuel consumption, would be a way to effectively phase in the equivalent of a gas tax.
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.
" Also like the stimulus program for housing most people don't qualify and most of the money is still there. "
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).
there seem to be a lot of other policies that go the other way and subsidize rural residents
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. I don't need a $17K so-called economy car offered by the D3.
I would have no problem with your idea if we were given access to the vehicles offered in the EU. I would love a Toyota Land Cruiser or Land Rover that gets 30+ MPG combined. Not going to happen because we have people in charge that are not interested in saving fossil fuel. So giving the FEDS more money is abhorrent to every thing I believe in. Every day we are subsidizing their corruption to the max. They throw out tidbits like this goofy C4C to the ignorant masses to eat up like candy. While padding the pockets of their friends in high places with $Billions. Unless you are one of those people, and I doubt you are, then you are only taking their bait. I cannot believe how many people they have lulled into thinking that higher gas tax would be a good thing. How dumb is that?
Mass transit is welfare if not paid for by those that use it. I know for a fact it is a HUGE drain on our budget in San Diego County. They have raised rates and cut schedules to try and get a handle on it. It will likely be part of the demise of many communities. 4-6 people riding on the bus or trolley is a waste of money and a big polluter.
It cant be properly done, its too expensive. There is no place on this planet where mass transit makes enough money to support itself. Maybe when they invent Star Trek style "transporters".
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".