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 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
The had the worst handling, sloppiest suspension and terrible brakes!
As a fun, hobby car, I would love one. As a daily driver on a crowded freeway, I don't think so!
As one of the car mag writer said years ago - D3 made vehicles for the roads and environment around Detroit and the rest of the mid west. Flat and straight roads (hence the handling, or lack thereof), and hot/humid summers (hence the AC).
Of course, that didn't stop the top percentile of wage earners from borrowing heavily anyway.
C4C is really nothing more than a subsidy for loss of spending power IMO.
As for the term "broke", if a country spends more than it produces, it's broke. If you make $60K a year and spend 65K, then how are you defined economically?
It's all a pattern of BOOM/BUST since the Civil War.
Would it be any worse than my '57 DeSoto? It's about the same size...126" wb, around 219" long overall. I think it's about 500 lb heavier though. I'm sure the 413-4bbl would have a lot more kick to it than the 341 Hemi-2bbl in my DeSoto...but the brakes are the same, so it might be harder to stop. I wonder what kind of fuel economy that 413 would get? The 341 Hemi was actually pretty economical for what it is, but I'm sure the 413 would guzzle a lot more.
The had the worst handling, sloppiest suspension and terrible brakes!
My biggest beef with the DeSoto's brakes is that they're overly complicated, with dual wheel cylinders up front, and having to use that special wheel puller to get to the back brakes. The drums are 12", and actually do a great job of stopping the car...when they're adjusted properly! And that's just the problem...they get out of adjustment really easily. The single master cylinder might sound pretty scary, but thanks to the handbrake, and pushbutton transmission, it's one of the more bearable cars to drive "brakeless" that I've discovered. :surprise:
But yeah, I wouldn't want to drive a 1960 New Yorker, or my '57 DeSoto, on a daily basis if that involved long commutes, crowded freeways, cramped parking spaces, etc. I could probably get away with it with my short commute, but I really wouldn't want to take something like that into DC or Baltimore, or if I had to suddenly take a long road trip.
Finding someone with the skills to work on them may be difficult as most of the old timers are long gone.
If the ball joints, tie rod ends and control arm bushings are in good shape they were passible but I wouldn't want to use one of these on a crowded highway.
Our wholesalers aren't happy. Some very nice and very usable cars are going to be distroyed.
A lot of well maintained, sweet running engines are about to be distroyed and a lot of good looking cars, trucks and SUV's are about to be crushed.
Just out of curiosity, anything that I'd shed a tear over? Are these cars going to just get crushed immediately, or are they going to at least have a chance to have salvageable parts like sheetmetal, trim, interior stuff, etc salvaged?
Unfortunately, I've always considered mileage when purchasing a car, therefore, my next vehicle, which I'll be purchasing within a week, doesn't qualify for a dime of the C4C.
What peevs me is that they could have easily included a much larger group of new car buyers for this "entitlement" (entitlement, because that's what it is to anyone driving a large 18 miles or less to the gallon vehicle - to me, it's just one more way to get my money and give it to someone who really didn't give a d*mn for anything or anyone but themselves).
The C4C program should have been a graduated rebate program, based on increasing the percentage of miles your old vs new vehicle would get. For example: an increase of 100% (going from a vehicle getting 18mpg to 36) would net you $4500, an increase of 50% (going from a vehicle getting 20mpg to 40) would net you $2250, and so on. My current vehicle is rated at 24mpg. My new vehicle will get 27mpg - an increase of 10+% - I'd love to get a $450.00 rebate, but no, I'll get nothing, yet I'll be paying for someone else's rebate.
Is it really worth less than $450? I seriously doubt it. I think you may have misinterpreted the program.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The six cylinder FWD model gets 22 combined and the ratings just go down from there. I think maybe you are confusing the 18 mpg for highway rating. The 18 mpg is the combined rating and after the dumbing down of the EPA test in 2008 even cars that got 21 or 22 combined could have been knocked down to 18.
You, sir, are guilty of slander. In my case, and the case of many others who have posted here, the vehicles that will be "clunked" are vehicles that we purchased when we did, in fact, need them. I bought a Dodge Ram pickup because I needed a truck--I was remodeling my house. Have your automotive needs remained constant throughout your adult life? Mine haven't, nor have those of most people I know.
The house is done now, and I can trade the truck for something that fits my current needs. In this case, either a Honda Fit or a Kia Soul.
If you think that means I "don't give a d*mn for anything or anything but [myself]," then you and I should have a talk, because I'd love to tell you about the 60-80 hours a week I spend (on and off the job) working to improve my community--and the students who say I've changed their lives.
But you're obviously more interested in ranting because you don't get a rebate.
The V6 Camry gets 19 combined with 24 highway. I got a feeling that is the car you own correct? That car was rated at 22 combined using the old EPA test.
There are a lot ot us that DO NOT SPEND MORE than WE MAKE!!! Yes, tthere are many people that DO SPEND more than they make...BUT NOT EVERYONE> Some of us still have a lot of common sense and know how to budget our money!!!! Please do not put the whole country in that category!!!
And yes, quite frankly I am irritate that I don't qualify for a rebate (at least that what the websites tell me when I enter my data). I hope you enjoy what mine and your tax dollars have provided.
You simply didn't meet the requirements.
They made both in 1999 but all the Series I cars were SDs so no leather or sunroofs, Discos have two remember, unless someone special ordered them with roofs.
Either way the engine in that vehicle is the least valuable part. There are tons of those engines out there and I guarantee no matter how well that car runs now it will have an expensive problem or start leaking oil badly soon.
According to the fueleconomy.gov website the cost to run that car on premium, at $2.66 a gallon, is 3,000 dollars a year. Add in that almost anything that goes wrong on that car is a 1,000 dollar repair and I think they did the right thing.
All of a sudden a person cen get 4500.00 for a POS clunker that is on it's last legs?
Yeah, I never could figure out why they used that little aluminum Buick V-8 in them but they did for years!
RE: CLUNKERS TRADED IN: These clunkers being traded in couldn't be all *that* good, given that the owners voluntarily brought them in with full knowledge that $3500 bucks was way more than the market was going to give them. Who knows a car better than the owner? Not we casual observers, who haven't lived with these trade-ins, seems to me.
True some bottom-feeder wholesalers working used car lots with in-house financing might be distressed, but they're only distressed because they were outbid by the gov'mint. THEY know these vehicles aren't worth $3500. They probably aren't worth 1/3 of that, most of 'em.
RE: WE'RE BROKE -- here's a chart showing ability of Americans to save vs. other major industrialized countries----dead last and still dropping:
The American Debtor
You are probably right. Though I would still be getting a gutless wonder with another used one. I was planning to put a 302 Ford V8 or a Cummins 4BT diesel. Either one will cost about $6k installed. Then I can make it up my road with my utility trailer loaded with topsoil.
I am surprised that the Japanese are following our course into bankruptcy. Though their national debt is way higher than ours as a percentage of GDP.
Not sure what's going on with Canada--I suppose because they are so tightly bound to us economically.
I don't expect that C4C will help this graph any, but really it's a drop in the ol' bucket.
NHTSA rule says that proof of continuous registration is satisfied by the combination of (1) a title issued in your name more than a year ago, plus (2) a current registration card. So the point of the "continuous registration" requirement as they interpret it is to establish that you haven't just bought the car in order to take advantage of the program.
They don't seem worried about folks who let the tag lapse for a day or two. I guess they figure that if the insurance coverage has been continuous, then the car hasn't been off the road for any length of time.
Don
That's exactly what IS required. Check the official website to learn the facts about the program--then see if your opinion remains the same.
My truck has a good seat, good side and rear windows, and good power window and seat motors. Beyond that, I suppose someone might want a door or fender off of it, or maybe a headlight or taillight, but that's probably about all.
The problem was first reported by users at Edmunds.com and other Internet sites who reported the fuel economy figures on their clunkers changing without warning, knocking them out of the program.