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
Well, maybe not - looks like the last amendment is up to add housing reform to the clunker bill.
We should pass a
lawconstitutional amendment that you can't tack unrelated amendments onto other laws brought before the Congress.Next case.
I think your perception of Ford quality and durability are dated. Same goes for GM and, to a lesser degree, Chrysler. Unfortunately for the domestic brands, it apparently takes years for perceptions and bad memories to catch up with reality.
I *think* it just passed. They are wishing everyone a happy August recess. Now they're calling the roll again. CSPAN needs closed captioning for the legislatively impaired, like me.
You better get used to having government as a business partner.
There's more than one way to consider the value of a used vehicle. Messages in this discussion almost always compare the $3,500/$4,500 figure with trade-in value. Indeed, that's what's used in the C4C program, but it's not the only relevant number for people to consider. As we know, but rarely mention here, while trade-in value on a vehicle may be less than $3,500/$4,500, the retail value on that same vehicle can exceed those figures, whether in a sale-by-owner or by dealer. That's relevant for those who choose to sell their vehicles privately rather than trading them in.
$1575 a year alone is not a huge justification to spend $18000. That's an 11 & 1/2 year payback.
But with C4C, it's an 8 year payback AND you aren't upside down in the loan. So easier to bail out if you wish.
actually, with C4C, the payback is probably considerably less than 5 years (assuming gas prices don't change much). because a 5 year old Fit would probably still sell for over $6,000 (private party might be over $8,000), and you wouldn't have to pay for any significant repairs or service in that time frame. mostly you would just get oil changes, maybe an air filter here and there and possibly tires, brake pads, and wipers. you would have to pay more in the form of collision and comprehensive insurance (a few hundred dollars a year), but liability is less on compact cars than on mid-size SUVs like the Explorer.
I believe this is an excellent idea, although I'll acknowledge there are probably some factors I haven't considered.
Those who simply can't afford a new one. For these folks the relationship between the prices for new and used isn't relevant.
Did the Senate ever mention where the money is coming from?
From the industry trade Automotive News article on the vote:
"The $2 billion is to be transferred from a renewable energy loan-guarantee program funded under the stimulus package that was enacted last February. Congressional leaders have said they intend to replenish the Department of Energy funds."
kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
The vehicle can be torn apart and sold off by anyone, the trader, the dealer or the scrap yard. The parts will be recycled onto other vehicles of the same model. The engine and tranny and frame will be recycled to become part of some structural beam or dishwasher or door frame for the next 20 or 50 years.
Facts are no fun lets just spew completely ignorant statements they are so much more fun.
I second that.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
James Madison died 200 years ago, in a very different economic climate, when America was totally isolationist, agricultural and in no way tied to a global economy.
You'd find it very difficult to be a strict devotee of James Madison in this modern era---but may he rest in peace nonetheless.
Definition of a Pittance: 1/636th of the $$$ given to the Pentagon every year?
Senate OKs more cash for 'clunkers' (LA Times)
And what's eligible? From James Riswick, our Automotive Editor:
"I checked the Edmunds Cash for Clunkers eligibility list and as it turns out, coming up with my Keep Your Clunkers list wasn't that hard.
1) '95-'98 BMW 7 Series: A clunker, are you serious? The 1997 BMW 750iL was a Bond car for Pete sake. The PT Cruiser was not.
2) '91-'92 BMW 850i: A super '90s 12-cylinder BMW coupe or a Caliber? Hmm. That's like asking me Teri Hatcher or Adele? Sure, one's a whole lot younger, but ...
3) '97-'98 Audi A8: Yet another beautifully grandiose German luxury limo. Easy choice."
The rest of the list is at Thoughts from the Curb: Keep Your Clunkers (Edmunds Daily)
Regarding the others on the list...I am pretty sure no Supra, W140, Defender, Cobra, Vette, or 968 will meet its fate this way. The Range Rover however...a 1995 Range Rover with needs can't be worth $4500, and it can eat a man alive in maintenance costs.
Tacomas, Accords, Camrys and Civics are all typically better bought new not used.
For 10,000 you can buy a whole lot of domestic full size pickup.
I have put less then 2,000 dollars on plenty of Range Rovers with needs. Even cars that ran and were drivable but needed air springs or had other issues.
A full Air suspension rebuild with new springs, compressor, control block and labor is over $3,000 dollars last time I checked.
Pretty much every repair on those P38A Range Rovers is a minimum 1,000 dollars.
That is just about the same figure with our LS400 using the Lexus dealer. Though most issues were $1200. Like resetting the airbag light. Normal service always seemed to creep up to that $1000 figure. Until we found a good indie about 5 years ago. Now it is like any other vehicle to maintain. Our local Lexus dealer is a rip-off. And the main reason we would NEVER buy another Lexus. And yes it qualifies for the C4C, and no not a chance would we subject it to that kind of death.
Yep, the 55 signer's of The Declaration would mount a second revolution were they alive today, no doubt. $4500 to trade in your old inefficient horse for a more..."economical" new one? King George wannabe's tryin' to pull a fast one on us boys? On second thought, put those pitchforks down fella's. We're not Tea Partyin' anymore. We're celebrating!!! The country has lost it's collective mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hmmm...as a famous Russian comic who landed on these shores once said, Whaaaaaaadduh country!
All kidding aside though Shifty, I happen to think out of all the extremely dumb things that have come out of our government over the past 40 years or so, this crumb they've allowed to fall to the floor from their ruling elite tables, is a godsend. Helping alot of hurting folks out there on a number of fronts as 'spyder has so correctly pointed out in his numerous posts. Glad to see the yahoo's approved the other 2 billion last night...before their "summer break". Poor lil' overworked senators... :sick:
The pricing issue only concerns supply and demand...even 5 yrs down the road.
If there were 1 million Silverado's made that year and and the year after that and the year after that and the year after that and now 4 yrs later there are another 1 million new Silverado's being offered by GM at ever-lower prices - and most importantly - the demand for large V8 trucks is shrinking that means that too much supply is chasing too little demand.
OTOH if the Tacoma only sold maybe 100K units each of those 5 yrs and again this year but the V8 truck drivers are abandoning their big rigs for something smaller there might be 200K or even 500K buyers looking to buy 100K new units...the rest are bidding up the prices of the remaining USED units. That assumes that there are any used units being offered. One of the hardest models to buy at auction is a Tacoma.
It's just supply and demand.
Because of distorted sales figures, Ford's Escape cross-over SUV, not the Corolla small car, tops the list for most popular clunker buy.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Despite the government's top-ten Cash for Clunkers sales list's exclusion of large trucks, two full-size trucks were actually among the top-ten buys and a small crossover SUV, not a compact car, was the most popular overall.
An independent analysis by Edmunds.com using traditional sales measurements, tallying sales by make and model, disputed the government's results which showed small cars as the top choice for shoppers looking for Clunker deals.
For example, the Ford Escape crossover SUV, instead of being the seventh-most popular vehicle under the program, as the government ranked it, was actually the best seller, according to Edmunds.com.
The government uses a more arcane measurement method that subdivides models according to engine and transmission types, counting them as separate models.
The Escape is available in six different versions including two- and four-wheel drive and hybrid versions. The government counts each version as a different vehicle using guidelines from the Environmental Protection Agency. Only the front wheel drive, non-hybrid version made the government's top ten list.
It is good we have Edmund's to tell US the truth about this program. Though I am glad to see Ford getting their fair share. They being the only Domestic that is standing on their own two feet.
Rank Vehicle Includes Includes 4WD Includes Hybrid
1 Ford Escape Yes Yes
2 Ford Focus No No
3 Jeep Patriot Yes No
4 Dodge Caliber Yes No
5 Ford F-150 Yes No
6 Honda Civic No Yes
7 Chevrolet Silverado Yes Yes
8 Chevrolet Cobalt No No
9 Toyota Corolla No No
10 Ford Fusion Yes Yes
I don't think the passage of time diminishes the value of the moral principles upon which this country was founded. Whenever I read a sentence which contains absolutes such as "totally isolationist" and "no way tied to a global economy" which are demonstrably false, I begin to suspect the value of the opinion presented. In 1830 (Madison was still alive; he died in 1836) the US share of world manufacturing was 2.8%, the UK's was 9.5% and China's was 29.8%. Tobacco and Cotton were important US exports.
My point was this: C4C takes taxpayer money and gives it to other taxpayers based on a political decision which favors one group of people over another. The automobile is a big part of the American economy and way of life. We all love our cars for more than just their ability to get us around. I don't think we love our refrigerators in the same way.
So its easier to sell an idea which appeals to many Americans.
But the devil is in the details; cost of administering the program and all of the other problems talked about on this forum.
When all is said and done I believe this will prove to have been a bad idea and that's all I have to say on the subject. (Whew!)
Regards. DQ
PS: Next time you view your checking account statement, give a thought to writing a check for $4500 to, say, one of your neighbors who looks like he could use a new car. And those pittances; the federal budget is a collection of pittances so how else to address the budget if not a "pittance" at a time; " A pittance here, a pittance there......."
Unless of course you are of the conspiracy mindset that the cost is really 500 million dollars and that is why all the money ran out so fast. On another forum I have people that will not be dissuaded from their opinion that all the money is gone because it cost 500 million to administer the program. They absolutely are set in that belief and even when the dust clears and they total up the number of rebates and it equals pretty close to 950 million they will still swear up and down that the cost was actually much higher. They cooked the books is what they will say, took the money from some where else you can't trust the government.
I don't necessarily trust the government all the time either but the way this money will be spent seems fairly simple to account for.
That's very important because now it goes from the whole top 5 being import branded to the whole top 5 being domestic brands. Plus 8 out of top 10 are domestic nameplates, and the other two are made-in-the-USA.
Much, much better results.
Plus it makes more sense - given it's domestics that are being "traded" in.
I don't see why the government would report it any other way, this is just a mistake on their part.
What if people were paying $3000 per year for imported horse feed?
I'm sure they would try to increase the sales of more efficient hybrid horse/ponys.
Keep in mind that's really a Renault, isn't it?
Not exactly known for their longevity. My brother owned one in Brazil, and it fell apart. It was so bad he drove to a Honda dealer, broke down, and dealership employees actually had to push the car the last hundred feet or so.
It makes sense because as far as the computer is concerned those different drive train types are entirely separate models. They generate different mile per gallon figures and the VIN breaks would be different too.
This is why I am not surprised that they aren't releasing more information right now. The people working on this program are spending all their time trying to get deals through the system. They need to clear that backlog and won't worry about getting the sales statistics right till the backlog is gone.
Try standing up in Congress and saying that today. :P
The Constitution was never met to guide everyday affairs, which reflects the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. To try and extract solutions to modern problems from the Constitution, and apply it to things like C4C, or Immigration, or Highway Infrastructure, is to flounder in subjective interpretation---much like Biblical scholars have done. Tower of Babel--a hundred voices shouting at once.
It is a very broad (and rather sparse) document that outlines basic principles. It doesn't tell you how to do specific things. That's what the system of Checks and Balances was set up to do.
If you want to burn a house down for CERTAIN, just put rigid dogmatists in charge of Fire Control.
C4C + the D2 bailout money, was a response to a really serious emergency--the utter and certain collapse of the Auto Industry.
To be sure, this "stimulus" to car sales will not carry through much beyond C4C. Sales will flatten out perhaps in the future. But the benefits will also carry through, as the D3 shed excess weight, re-organize, close dealerships, launch new products.
C4C gives something more than a sales spurt---it gives TIME to the D3.
All in all, even with the warts, SMART MOVE imho. :shades:
First off, I never said 15 years old, please don't put words in my mouth.
But, to answer your question literally, the only '94 4Runner for sales within 150 miles of my zip is this one:
1994 Toyota 4Runner SR5$10,000152,256 mi.4 door, 4X4, SUV, MANUAL 5SPD, 2.4L I4, Stock# 015351T. Dealer: Kia of Coatesville (Coatesville, PA ~ 101 mi. away)
888-252-6074 Email DealerCARFAX Record Check
To be fair that dealer is insane.
I broaded the search to 93-95 4Runners within 100 miles of my zip, and found 9 of them priced from $2500 to $5000.
Notably, only 1 out of 9 of those is priced below the $3000 C4C incentive.
Think about it, though, what matters here is the margin. Even if you get $4500 for the cheapest 4Runner, you're still really only getting a benefit of $2000. Most would get little to no benefit vs. trading when the time is best for them, and without the restrictions and paperwork involved with c4c.
To a lot of people, that's not worth it. If you still need a mid-size, you're probably going to spend over $20 grand. So the discount is 10% or less. Even for a well equipped Focus it's only a 12% discount.
That's why you don't see people lining up to trade 4Runners.
Plus she wanted to stick with a SUV and no new SUVs would give her the 4,500 dollar credit.
This plan is going to stimulate business above and beyond the 250,000 or 750,000 transaction limit.