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
As cumbersome as the plan is now it's mostly about the DOT having been flooded with unexpected business and probably not having the personnel to handle the document verifications that they required.
The plan is pretty straight forward as far as the customer is concerned.
The documents are a little more work, pre-delivery. It a page or two of hand-written summary data.
The only glitch is getting the DOT to sign off on the documents sent from the dealers. But I'm sure that with more personnel the initial slug will go forward and we'll all be paid. Then the program will begin to flow more smoothly.
As another poster stated in another thread.....ever submit a rebate requesto a manufacturer? 6 weeks minimum if not 12 weeks....and that's for $10 or $20.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Next...
This begs the question of why it takes such a staggering sum for certification. Can this be right. Eight hundred thousand dollars sounds reasonable, maybe, and $8 million already sounds excessive, but $80 mil/model?
Another point, quite unrelated to yours, but worth mentioning under the argument that this program tends to reward those that bought guzzlers, is that it also rewards those who, in many cases, did not maintain their vehicles well or trashed their vehicles, more than those that maintained and drove their vehicles responsibly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucor
I guess that was me I was talking about dealers getting rebates back from the manufacturer which usually takes at least a month from the time the car is sold and longer if it is a stair step program.
As far as the buying public goes, the people using this program are hardly a "majority", as someone else stated.
In fact, the majority suffers. Not only will they pay for this program with their tax dollars-giving them less money to put into the economy, they will being paying more for their cars, and the price of their more worthy trade-ins will be less, due to the false and induced demand of this program. That is simple law of supply and demand,
And many of those people were probably more credit-worthy buyers.
Previously I was planning on buying a car-now I'm putting off that purchase-because I am suddenly noticing an unwillingness to deal on the part of new car dealers I've contacted despite the fact that the model year is coming to a close.
And why should they? A small minority of the public is getting what amounts to a $3000 to $4000 subsidy on their formerly next-to-worthless vehicles. Raising the market prices for everyone whether they can take advantage of the program or not.
In effect the prices of new cars have gone up-and if you don't have a vehicle that qualifies for this program you are getting screwed. And based on that I am taking myself out of the market-it is a bad deal for me.
I'm an independent voter-I voted for mostly Democrats in the last election, including Obama. I won't make that mistake again, in part because they seem to be the big pushers for this lousy program.
I plan on contacting my local representatives and others to urge them to vote against extending and throwing more money into this program. I urge others to do the same. We can make a difference, believe me.
I think if you "went behind the curtain" you'd see that the "wizard" of C4C is, in fact, very traditional conservative pro-industry dial twisters and very cosy with the auto industry. To be fair, it's not being disguised as anything but.
RE: "your" tax dollars. This sounds a lot like the argument by the old gent who doesn't want to pay taxes for schools because he has no young children---as if, somehow, our national welfare was not intrinsically linked to our individual welfare.
NUCOR -- hardly a "start up" however. A pre-existing corporation going back to the early part of the century. Also has earned the dubious reputation as one of the filthiest industries in America regarding emissions. But certainly a success story. One might call it "an old idea done in a new way". Not quite the same as a group of kids building their own car in their garage. Nucor is big in the US but not so much in the world---just ahead of Brazil's largest corp. Also they are losing money right now. These are tough times.
RE: $80 million to pass DOT/EPA for one model. I may have read that wrong. What do you think this means? Maybe the pre-test equipping of the vehicle?
"Mahindra has spent almost $80-million getting the pickup and SUVs ready to meet U.S. federal vehicle regulations, like diesel emissions and crash tests." (source: 2008 article, www.pickuptruck.com).
SUMMARY/my two cents:
Even if C4C ultimately fails, it would have prevented the sudden collapse of a vast industrial employer. It is quite different for say YOU the auto worker, or employee affiliated with the auto industry, to hear "we are closing in a year, so get ready" as opposed to driving to work on Monday morning and finding a lock on the door.
Sure you can. Dream away.
It seems implausible that a dealer can mark up a car $4500 to compensate for the voucher without turning customers away in droves.
Why is not the hard-working, law-abiding American citizen able to enjoy the same type of subsidy, and in far more modest amounts, than given to veterans, or say first time home owners under various rural development programs (lower interest mortgages) ?
It's not like it's a "free cars for everyone" program or something :P
Some dealers are probably running low on cars which might make prices creep up some but I haven't seen it yet. Even if they do creep up I can only see a couple hundred dollar creep up in prices.
Volvo once again increased or kept our market allowance money the same for every model. Incentives and rebates are not going down over here. The only decrease in incentives was on some of the X/Z/A plan bonus money but that was only 1,500 dollars and was only on a couple of models.
You can still get 10,000 dollars off in stock XC70s if you have owner loyalty without even trying to negotiate.
****
No. You Are smart and use other companies' work to your advantage. Why design a new window opening mechanism when there are several companies that make them for GM that are now looking to increase their production again to decent levels? Why design an engine yourself when you can drop a nice Toyota engine in it instead?
Hardly anything is made-on-site and in the factory any more. It's all made offshore or by a hundred smaller firms. So you too can profit by using the same suppliers and parts. This skips a huge chunks of the R&D process. Just look at the Tesla. The whole thing is full of other makers' parts...
My point is that non"Clunker" customer are going to pay more for their cars than they would have before this program went into effect due to the simple law of supply and demand-"Clunker" customers are effectively receiving a $3000 to $4000 subsidy for their previously next-to-worthless cars that non-"Clunker" customers don't get.
Obviously that is going to raise the average price of a vehicle-no, not the total 3K or $4K, but a substantial amount nonetheless. That's common sense.
My advice to non-"Clumker" customers in the market to buy a car is: Wait. Put off your purchase until this period of induced demand is over. It makes a lot more sense financially. That's what I'm doing.
At least this $3 billion benefits a few members of the public, and automakers besides ones that have earned their place in the grave.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/five-things-you-dont-know-about-cash-for-clunke- - - rs/#more-324801
From the article:
The CARS program could cost up to $45,354 per vehicle. To get to that number Seeking Alpha starts with the Edmunds stat that 200,000 old cars are traded in every three months. Since CARS will grease the wheels for between 222,000 and 286,000 deals, the marginal increase is only in the 22k-86k sales range. At a cost of one billion dollars. Bottom line, the program should cost taxpayers a minimum of $11,628 per vehicle over the average. Add the fact that these marginal sales increases are likely pull-forwards, and C4C looks less and less like the “wild success” being attributed to it
Yeah, what a great idea.
Yes it benefits a few member of the public (in a questionable way)---at the great expense of everyone.
Not good public policy.
Using the "cost per car" principle is a very short-sighted way of weighing the benefits of a specific action IMHO.
It costs maybe $30000 bucks to lock up a dangerous criminal. What does it cost society if he is set free?
Would you prefer to pay out unemployment and welfare benefits to 1,000,000 additional people? Do they all disappear once the auto industry collapses?
Noooooooo.
Also one cannot measure the health of the auto industry on some sort of level gradient of car sales.
Once sales drop below a critical level, the entire thing collapses. There's a drop dead point which is not anywhere near 0.
If history teaches anything, it teaches that "most people do the wrong thing in an emergency", and that those who weather such storms are those who admit, handle, and correct what they have done wrong--even if it looks a lot like muddling through.
It's the sure-minded visionary, the one-pointed, convinced and unapproachable committee or individual who invites total disaster IMO.
All in all, I think C4C is finding a way to a better place for the country. This may take time.
Wait until the program ends. They you can pay 3500-4500 more if you have a clunker.
Now, that makes sense!
Also should have been extra incentive allowance to go hybrid.
But to be honest this was a smoke screen to satisf auto dealer lobby !
Wait until the program ends. They you can pay 3500-4500 more if you have a clunker.
Now, that makes sense!
I was telling people who don't qualify for the Clunker program that they would be better off waiting until the program ends
What part of my post didn't you understand?
I wrote:
My advice to non-"Clunker" customers in the market to buy a car is: Wait. Put off your purchase until this period of induced demand is over. It makes a lot more sense financially. That's what I'm doing.
OK?
Maybe you could actually respond to what I wrote, instead of a strawman.
Nice tactic.
And I highly doubt that over the long run this is going to do anything to rescue the auto industry. An overall healthy economy-where people have discretionary income to spend will do that. And this program is antithetical to that. This program is just shortsighted and inefficient.
If you are awaiting a healthy economy where people have actual discretionary income that they didn't borrow to get....buy a wheelchair while you wait, is my opinion. It's been a good 30 years since that last happened in America and I personally don't see that on the near horizon.
Programs like C4C are about plugging holes in the bottom of the boat, not about setting a new course IMO.
No one in 2007 or 2008 had any idea how bad our situation actually was. This is a whole new ball game with very few answers at the moment.
Anything that averts total collapse, sheer disaster, utter chaos, etc. is a good move in my book, at the present moment.
These are dangerous times (he said, ominously) :shades:
NPR had a clunker story on today (part of it featured Phil Reed of Edmunds). Anyway, they reported that someone had lined up a deal only to find out that the price bumped up $1100 when the program went live.
Come to think of it, NPR was probably referring to one of our forum posts, so I'll pass the salt shaker. :shades:
We may have shot ourselves in the foot by not lining up a clunker deal on our van a couple of weeks ago. But I'm not going to buy until I'm ready to buy and it won't be the first time I've left money on the table buying a car. Nothing to lose sleep over.
btw Maryh3, I have a nephew at Nucor and he seems to like the employee-owned company (and when they are making money, everyone gets a hefty bonus).
Still someone saying they heard or saw something about a deal going up $1,100 dollars isn't a buyer's order and it isn't an ad in the newspaper.
Even if one or two dealers are getting greedy and do start bumping prices just go somewhere else. There are plenty of hungry dealers out there that will jump on that deal. We lose deals to our cross river rival over 100- bucks all the time and the same thing happens to them. I can tell you we aren't bumping prices just because of CARS.
I will ask more for a car I have to go get but I always do that. In stock is always a better deal.
What happening with incentives this month?
sell, repair, paint, tow, park, insure, wash, upholster, sell parts for, and build----foreign cars.
Having heard nothing from him, I showed up at the dealership this morning to see where everything was at and find out if there was anything I could do to take delivery quicker (after having read that a lot of dealerships are delivering cars before getting the NHTSA's approval). The GM of the place insisted that there was no way they were going to allow me to take delivery of the car before the tranaction was blessed by the govt. After about an hour of arguing, I gave up and went home.
I read the law. Now I'm worried. My dealer messed up the application and it will be rejected for the following reasons:
1. The title to the trade-in (still in my possession) wasn't transferred to the dealer and certainly wasn't ever marked with the "CARS.gov" logo. The law clearly states that an application cannot be submitted until title is conveyed to the dealer.
2. The dealer never inspected my vehicle to see that it was in driveable condition - my wife drove while we shopped around.
3. The dealer never confirmed that my vehicle was less than 25 years old by looking at the safety sticker.
4. I was never asked to complete any CARS survey and certainly never asked to certify under penalty of law anything about the transaction.
Well, my dealership closed at 4 p.m. and isn't open on Sundays. I'm now sitting here knowing that his app for reimbursement will get rejected by the NHTSA and there's not a thing I can do about it. The program will likely run out of money early this week (unless the senate approves the additional 2B, but even then it may already be gone with the number of deals made this weekend). Adding insult to injury, I'm pretty sure I have no recourse against the dealer if I'm right about the above.
If I've read the law wrong or clearly misunderstand how it works, will someone please let me know so I can sleep better tonight? I'm pretty sure this dealer goofed big time and saddened that his mistakes will cost me close to $5K (after I have to pay sales tax on the $4500),
These amatures have never run a candy store and now they are showing how years of just writing books have prepared them for the real world.
Friend went to dealer Thursday,with the C4C they will only work off MSRP.I guess they are concerned the administration will do to them what they did to the bond holders !
And they want to run our health care?
http://tiny.cc/OnoOa
An automotive snuff film, courtesy the US Gov't.
You seem to have some reason to think that we are holding prices higher because of the clunker program and at least in our case, this is simply not true and I don't think it's happening elsewhere.
You see, we have this little thing called competition.
Yeah, it is a pretty sick waste, though. There's a lot worse vehicles on the road.
C'mon, of course prices are going to go up. Suddenly you've got what amounts to a government subsidy to the tune of $3K to $4K, because, let's face it, most of these "clunkers" were next to worthless before this program went into effect-you would have probably gotten a token trade-in value of $500 or so (at most) if you brought one into a dealer.
Obviously, factory incentives are going to decrease, and so probably, the asking prices apart from incentives on most cars will increase . Not the full $3500 to $4500, but a decent percentage of that, I will bet. Without any change in the economic circumstances of consumers who are in the market for cars (other than this subsidy).
I've noticed it myself because I've been shopping for a couple of months now-and the asking prices have actually increased as the model year is coming to a close-which is unprecedented in my experience.
And that will hold whether you have a clunker or not.
Which is why I plan to stay out of the car market for a while, and I believe any buyer who doesn't have a clunker would be wise to do the same. A new car would have been nice, but I can certainly do without. And I'll bet there are a lot of the people in the same boat as me who will ultimately decide likewise.
Are you really going to tell me the prices you get for whatever vehicles you sell are the same now as they were before this program went into effect? Sorry, but I believe in the law of supply and demand.
And yes, I resent being forced to subsidize other's purchases, while at the same time my planned purchase is being made more expensive. Double whammy. I'm not opposed to helping the automotive industry in general, nor dealers in particular-but I think a better, more efficient, and fairer way could have been found to help out car dealers-some sort of general tax credit for car purchases, perhaps (over and above the piddling sales tax deduction that is now being allowed).
And spare me the reasoning that this is some sort of altruistic way of helping the environment. In my job I do travel demand modeling and air quality modeling for the government in a metropolitan area.
This program won't even be taken into account in the kind of work I do. It's not worth quantifying the benefit, because it is not even a drop in the bucket, and the environmental activists and policy types, who I have to deal with as part of my job, are livid, because they think this program is a joke in terms of increasing the average MPG of the vehicle fleet, or reducing emissions.
In fact, this program rewards those who were careless in their vehicle purchases because they decided that MPG was something they didn't have to worry about.
Great message there, what economists call Moral Hazard, and one that is being reinforced by the fact that the vehicle you buy only has to be 3 MPG better than your old vehicle to get a $3500 credit.
Cash for Clunkers is a joke, on so many levels. Just about everyone can find something to dislike about this program. I strongly encourage anyone who agrees with me, to contact their elected rep (especially their Senators) and encourage them to vote against throwing any more money down this hole.
Fair enough. My apologies for overreacting.
Your denigration of the whole auto industry - on an auto enthusiast website of all places - is noted as well...sheesh.
But as you know I've been fully in favor of both assistance programs to revive two serious competitors. As an American I am fully in favor of keeping both GM and Chrysler alive, making vehicles, employing workers, feeding suppliers and contractors and building the wealth of the US.
Killing off both would have been a boon to our business. It would have been a huge boost. However the country might not have withstood the economic disaster when it occured last December. Now if one or both disappear in 5-10 yrs because they can't make it even after being favorably restructured then they should go...preferably in a time of more robust economic condition where the loss or one or both wouldn't have been so serious.
If you want to quote the party line of the Negativistas or Faux News...that's your right.
Ken Iverson was a maker of rebars. That's the lowest rung of the ladder in steel usage, it gets buried in concrete and never seen again. I sold steel to him.
The large integrated mills like USS and Beth and LTV and Armco loved his business in slow times because there was no quality needed and volumes were huge. When times got good though they dropped him like last week's fish.
He got so pissed that he said 'Screw you I'll make my own steel!'....Buwahahahahahaaaaaaaa. 'Sure you will'.......He did. Mini mills were born. Then when that went profitable in 4-5 yrs he went into beams and structural members, then plates then hot rolled flat products.....all at prices lower than the Integrated mills. Now they were pissed. He went from being a large but 4th rate customer to be annoying pest as a competitor.
He finally went into higher quality flat rolled steel and really began putting a hurting on the old dinosaurs when he went after high quality appliance and automotive business. Now the integrateds were in a world of hurts.
Today only USS survives....and Nucor is larger than USS.
BTW...my former company is twice as large as both Nucor and USS combined.
However this all took 20 years.....This did not happen overnight.
Just how many more billions would you suggest they waste on life support. Face it this economy is in dire straits. The Libs can drag it along for 15 years as FDR did or go ahead and start another war and get it over with. FDR gave into the inevitable. Just as Barry's successor will have to give in. The only question will it be Iran or North Korea?
I don't have Pie in the Sky hopes for this economy. And a billion or 4 billion in C4C money will make NO difference in our economic condition. You will be able to count on your hands the jobs the C4C will create. Kernick has a much better handle on what it will take to kick start the economy. People in the auto industry have tunnel vision. They believe all the crap about how important they are to this country. The auto industry is dead. Just not buried. That includes Toyota if they don't get back to their pre 2006 standards.