Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
So true. You don't need a 3/4 ton pick-up to transport 2 flats of flowers home from the Home Depot.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Oh, yeah, excellent point, and reason enough for additional billions in bailout money. Hmmm, I noticed you mentioned the food, but not the service. What, no camerieri wearing white gloves to serve that delicious food?
dave - I've got a friend up in New Hampshire which taxes cars as property. When he first moved up there he didn't change his car buying habits. NOwadays he figures everything on how cheap can he make a mile. He buys three thousand dollar or so cars and runs them forever. He's got a Volvo 850 right now that he bought used and has been running for at least five years. It helps that he has a guy who sells and services the things.
A brown paper bag full of money.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
my vehicles aren't clunkerish enough to take advantage of this proposal, which involves buying a replacement vehicle.
If the governments want to ensure that the savings gets spent then they need to issue Government backed Visa Gift Cards.
Makes me start looking at what I want to add to my garage.
"Old-vehicle owners could get up to $10,000 toward buying a new car or truck under a plan introduced by Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow on Wednesday, a version of the 'cash-for-clunkers' idea geared toward domestic automakers.
The plan from Stabenow and fellow Democrat Tom Harkin of Iowa would set aside $16 billion to take 1.5 million old vehicles to crushers. The owners would have to use the money to buy a U.S.-made model with better fuel economy than the trade-in. Only families with adjusted gross incomes below $75,000 could qualify.
Stabenow and Harkin said the bill would be offered as an amendment to the Senate stimulus plan, which has swelled to about $900 billion. While several groups support similar ideas, there's no consensus on important details."
That can be pretty wide open. We have the BMW X5 that is less than 30% US content to the F150 that is 80% US content. Most of the vehicles built here are not the great of an improvement on mileage, unless you are dumping a 20 year old Suburban 3/4 ton. I would say the CamCords would get the most response.
"WASHINGTON -- Backers of a plan to give owners of old vehicles $10,000 toward buying a new, more fuel-efficient model withdrew their plan Thursday evening in the face of growing concerns about the size of a $900-billion stimulus plan and objections from automakers."
Perhaps a Tax deduction for auto loan interest (like in the "old" days)? Would it be retroactive to 1/1 or is everyone eligible, even if you purchased last year or earlier.
Sholuld a person wait to purchase? Seems counter productive to not break the stimulus pkg up into pieces and tackle the auto piece like the banks in a seperate piece. People need to understand this and how it affects their buying decision. If this drags out then no one will buy until they know if they will get any extra benefits by considering alternatives.
Because they know that $10,000 in the hands of the consumer does not necessarily mean we'll spend it like they want. Put it in the hands of the automakers and it will be like giving banks money. Will the consumer ever see the benefit?
If we give $10K to people to buy cars, I will buy one in a heartbeat. If GM cannot stay in business with us buying cars again then they don't need to be in business and they don't deserve handouts.
Maybe a Subaru Outback (built in Indiana). Maybe a Cobalt SS - I hope they build that one in America.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Seriously?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I guess I'll know that Detroit has really changed when I read that Nippononly actually buys a Detroit 3 car. This isn't a criticism, since Detroit has lagged behind the import brands in the small cars that Nippononly favors. I agree with him on that.
Circling back to the Cobalt SS, the magazine's praise the car's performance, but note that the interior falls short. It shouldn't be too difficult to remedy that deficiency. Let's hope that Chevy does it.
I saw the Chevy Cruze, the designated replacement for the Cobalt, at the Washington Auto Show. Nice looking car, exterior and interior. Maybe it wouldn't be a wise use of scarce resources for Chevy to redo the Cobalt SS's interior when this model may be replaced by a Cruze SS in the not-too-distant future.
I'd fully expect to have trouble with the car and have to sort it out with 5-6 warranty visits, and I would never keep it past the warranty period.
But hey, I am used to equating fun = trouble, and am willing to pay that price.
To me that would be an easy enough thing to fix. my guess is that with the Cruze coming they aren't putting any more money into the Cobalt.
Count me in wit the crowd that is suddenly in the market of they are giving me $10K to be there.
Same here. If the gov't gave me $10K toward the purchase of a new vehicle, I'd definitely go for it. Heck, with that much incentive, I might even be inclined to get a bit more car than I would, otherwise, so that might actually go that much further towards helping out the auto makers.
For instance, right now if I was going to get a new car, it would be something like a fairly low-level Altima or Accord, possibly a Malibu or Aura. Or maybe hold out for the 2010 Fusion. But with a $10K incentive, I'd head right to the nearest Pontiac dealer and get a G8!
With the latest pricing you could get a loaded one discounted heavily for about $26,000+ and a 10K rebate making it $16. GM couldn't make enough of them. Also most credit unions will loan 100% so borrow the $32K and pay off bills and then hopefully you'll be able to take a tax break on the financing as part of the stimulus too!
I really want a GXP but even with a $10K stimulus I'm not sure it's worth the extra.
Sorry for continuing this off-topic discussion.
The Cobalt SS appeals to me by the very notion of it looking like a rental car. It would be so much fun to blow off cars costing 2X as much with all their go-fast jingle and bling.
I think I'm still trying to find the American version of the Alfa Sprint Coupe of the 1960s. Something clean, simple, fast enough, *really fun* to drive, affordable.
Maybe the Clunker Plan could only be applied to FUN CARS! I'd like that. A kind of forced Enthusiast's Automotive Socialism/Social Engineering.
Anyway I must have been having an off five minutes when I made those Cobalt comments. The Civic at least has more soft-touch surfaces than anything else around its price, and even the SI is built in Ohio, I believe. So that is where my clunker $10K would go. And yes, I know it's not the fastest of the go-fast compacts by a long shot, but it is the best-handling and the spaceship thing has grown on me. Now if Ford DID still make the 6-speed SVT hatchback, that would be in a VERY close race with the SI. And the Outback would still be in the running if I decided to go in a different direction.
I think they should do it - the problem with auto sales only seems to be getting worse.....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Fact: Cars, even old, mostly depreciated ones, are assets.
Fact: It's wasteful to destroy still-useful assets.
Fact: We're in a severe recession.
Opinion, grounded in reality: It's especially counter-productive to destroy useful assets during tough economic times, when resources are scarce, People disagree on this point, countering that, yes, but, replacing clunkers with new cars creates jobs. My response to that reasoning is that, sure, it does create jobs. However, it's an inefficient way to create jobs. Why? Well, you can create a lot of jobs by hiring unemployed folks to break tens of millions of windshields, and then putting breaking millions to work repairing them. You've put millions to work in this hypothetical make-work program, just to end up where you started. Yes, you say, but that's a stupid analogy, a gross exaggeration. I'll readily acknowledge that it's an exaggeration, but my point is that there's a good amount of waste in destroying still-useful vehicles, provided they comply with prevailing safety laws and pass state and local emissions tests.
I long for the days when we had a painted metal dash like the 64 Impala hardtop I learned to drive in. A 327ci 4bbl, with Hurst 4 speed shifter, Mickey Thompson tires,Cragar mags and 2 cherry bomb fiberglass mufflers. Took my drivers test in that. It was my old mans car
I think the only thing that helps justify this program would be getting rid of low FE vehicles for higher rated ones. I don't really think that can be economically justified, but most "green" initiative cannot be economically justified. Thus combine this with something that will help the economy. Tough medicine to swallow.
Well, wouldn't it stimulate both? It would help keep the assembly lines for the Aussies running, but it would also provide some income to GM, as well as the salesperson and dealer I bought it from. Plus, I'm sure my insurance agent will be all too happy to write the policy, which I'm sure will cost more than my Intrepid.
Would you get a V8 in your G8?
I had pondered this thought in the past. I've only driven both the V-6 and V-8 around the Carlisle PA fairgrounds on a test loop, so I really couldn't get a feel for what the cars were capable of. I know the V-8 would be a LOT of fun, but I'm sure even the V-6 is a lot more powerful than the little 2.7 in my Intrepid.
With the gov't giving me $10K to help ease the transaction, I'd definitely get the V-8. I know that's not exactly a tree-hugging mentality, but I'm probably only driving 6-7,000 miles per year these days, and that includes running around in my old cars. And while the V-8 would be thirstier than my Intrepid, it would be downright Prius-esque compared to say, my 1967 Catalina!
If I had a long commute to work, I'd probably consider the V-6.
Those days, when cars either didn't have seatbelts, much less shoulder belts, or most people didn't wear them, were great, as long as you didn't get into an accident.
Anyone who really wants a '64 Impala with a 327ci 4bbl, with Hurst 4 speed shifter, Mickey Thompson tires, Cragar mags and 2 cherry bomb fiberglass mufflers today can go out and buy one. There are still plenty of these cars, and similar ones, around. They may not be as affordable as they once were, however.
Any idea of the going price for, say, a "3" example of the Impala described above?
For one thing, the interior is burgundy, an interior choice that probably doesn't even exist anymore. The lower part of the dash is metal, and painted red, with the padded part being burgundy. It also has some trim parts that look like brushed aluminum but are probably just plastic. Still, it's nicer looking than that gray plastic crap they use nowadays. And the door panels are softened up somewhat with cloth inserts in the upper part, and carpeting on the lower. However, being a pickup truck, maybe those hard plastic surfaces are actually better? They'd be easier to clean and would probably last longer than carpeting, cloth, or any soft-touch material.
Nowadays, they usually only offer 2 or 3 generic, muted color choices that can go with a wider array of exterior colors, and I think that contributes to making the interiors look more boring. I think that dullness might also make an interior look cheaper than if it had some bright, flashy color to it.
I agree with you. I think all that would happen is the dealers would jack the prices back up and the buyers being desperate to use the $10k would be screwed over. I would have to beat the dealer down below invoice then add the $10k onto that. Even then it would be mostly wasted. I would pay $5k in sales tax on most anything I would buy. I think it would be like most government programs a big mess. And a further erosion of the US Dollar value.
Ford sales in Germany up 14.2 percent in Jan, helped by state's environmental bonus program (Yahoo)
It has probably seen its better days if not well maintained. My Wife's grandson is driving a 70s Suburban back and forth to work every day. I think it is a diesel. Every year you stretch out that old vehicle it is your car payment times 12 in the bank. It is surprising how fast you can save enough to pay cash and screw the bankers. Instead of them screwing you.
Perfect for those shopping mall trips:
Ain't that the truth! I've been keeping track of my 2000 Intrepid's expenses, from the day I bought it...November 6, 1999. I made the last payment on November 24, 2004. Since then, it's cost me about $81 per month, plus gasoline and insurance.
Now it hasn't been trouble-free. I figure I put about $450 into it in 2005, around $260 into it in 2006, $2000 in 2007, and $1100 in 2008. A lot of that, however, is maintenance stuff, that all cars need eventually anyway. Oil changes, filters, a transmission service, tires, etc.
And it still beats the heck out of the $347.66 I had to dish out every month in payments!
Ah!, I've thought of what to do with the junkers. Thinking globally and not wanting to waste anything, we send all the 1990's junk to Cuba and let them all have 40 year newer cars than what they currently drive. Bring all those 57 Chevy's back here and sell them at the auction block to help pay for the stimulus portion of our new car $10K.
Yes, but new cars don't. So that comparison is invalid when comparing vs a new car payment, which pays for a car under warranty costing no more than $100 or so per year for the first three years.
Given that sales tax from car sales represents such a large portion of many local municipalities' revenue, a federal tax credit for the purpose of buying a new car can be seen as equivalent to than a huge federal giveback to states and local governments. Which maybe isn't such a bad thing if it also helps the auto industry.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Anybody know if there is anything other than the Golf Cart earmark in the Stimulus bill? Even the deduction for sales tax is not a big savings. If you buy a $25k car the tax in CA at most is $2125. If you are in the 33% bracket it would only save you $700.
I think that putting the $360 in my pocket will get it out into the economy and as a stimulus item that might work. But as a stimulus to get me to buy a new car, that won't even enter the equation.
Being ignorant of Big Government in the land of liberals, with all of the taxes I've read about (sales, property, wage, etc) how in the world is CA broke??? Does it cost that much to run a "green" state?