Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs
Comments
How about we get back to C4C talk? Edmunds set up a whole page dedicated to it.
Cash for Clunkers Resource Center
Even as strong as that frame was it still had a ton of chassis flex. You can't even compare it to how rigid a Mark III Range Rover is with its triple sub-frame Monocoque chassis. The mark III range Rover when it debuted in 2002 had a torsional rigidity of 24,000 pound-feet per degree. SO it takes 24,000 pound-feet of torque to twist the chassis a single degree. I am trying to find the spec for the Rover's maximum snap pull rating but I can't seem to find that right now. It is incredibly massive though and most other SUVs would be torn in half at that pull strength.
No other car in the world was close to that level of stiffness in 2002 and even now there are few vehicles that can match it.
Good luck.
More durable? Yeah maybe the car, but the people inside die.
What do you perfer?
Dealer said that in NY they might require the 4500 to be added to the agreed price of the car ($22,000) and then apply 8.375% tax to it.
Anyone with info on this?
I'd say the most common vehicle I see on its side or upside-down is an SUV...not necessarily the standard-sized ones, as they're wider, which helps mitigate the height a bit...but the smaller ones, midsized and down. Second most common? Low-slung sporty cars...Corvette, Nissan Z, Acura Integra, slammed Civics, etc.
The reason they excel in rollovers isn't the vehicle so much, as the driver!
You have obviously never seen The Last Action Hero where they crash one of those checker cabs into a then modern sedan of some sort.
Yeah, I remember that...Ahh-nold was in a 1987 or so Mercury Sable sedan, and whatever bad guy was driving a Checker cab, and they hit head on. I kinda remember the bad guy going through the windshield because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt.
Been ages since I saw that movie, and I only vaguely remember that car crash, plus earlier on Ahh-nold was driving a '69 Bonneville convertible in that same awful goldish-greenish color that my '69 4dr ht was.
While I don't ignore the advances in crumple zones and such, I think the biggest contributors to lower fatality rates is higher seatbelt usage, and improved seatbelts. It wasn't until something like January 1, 1968 that the gov't even started forcing them to put shoulder belts in cars, and back then, they were separate belts. They didn't get integrated until sometime in the 1970's. Maybe 1973? My grandparents had a '72 Impala, but I don't remember what kind of belts it had. I just remember that nobody wore them.
And then, it wasn't until the late 1980's that they started coming out with seatbelt laws, and probably years after that that people finally started wearing them more religiously.
What did his wife look like? Maybe you could have made deal to make up for the loss of service by her husband :shades: :shades:
Charities Lament Clunkers Program, Say It Will Curb Much Needed Donations (Green Car Advisor)
I have a SUV with 14mpg. If I scrap it and buy another SUV with 18mpg, I get $3500. On the other hand, if I go for a passenger car with 21mpg, I get nothing.
On the gas mileage stand point, a passenger car with 21mpg is a better choice to me, but the CARS doesn't think so.
I'd rather support the charities of my choice and take from the big sucking maw of ineffective government social programs. Not that I'm getting political... :blush:
At the time, I was wondering just how long they would get away with this and the ride lasted longer than I thought it would.
The people who are getting hurt now are the wholesalers. They used to buy these "clunkers" form the big stores who didn't want them.
A lot of thse guys did a good job of buing nice, older cars, maybe do whatever was required to make them look and run good and they would sell them on thier lots to people who needed cheap wheels.
We have taken in some cars that will be a shame to crush. They still look and run just fine.
It is too bad that you're seeing some decent cars crushed, but they'll salvage parts out of them, and, as you say, this is entirely voluntary---and really who am I to point an accusing finger at someone and say "How COULD you dare to crush a 1996 Ford Taurus?" :P
There's your problem. I have a '99 Quest that I bought new, promptly keyed on purpose, and have gone as long as 11,500 miles between oil changes. It has 134,000 miles on it and I regret changing the original plugs, belts, and wiring at 124k (did nothing to help the gas mileage).
If we don't clunk it, we may still drive it another 50,000 miles. It choked last year on a knock sensor code, but has yet to leave us stranded (original timing belt on it too).
But if we can find something we like to dump it on, it's history, even if it's been reliable almost to the point of legendary status. :shades:
Well, if this helps, don't look at it as losing $4500 by keeping your minivan. Instead you're saving $10K, $15K, or whatever worth of payments, by holding onto it, rather than trading it for something newer.
If you're in the market for a new car, and no longer need the minivan, then by all means go for it. But spending $XX,XXX on a new car just to get $4500 just doesn't make that much sense, financially.
I'm in sort of the same pickle with my '85 Silverado. I guess if I wanted to unload it, I might luck out and get $1500-2000 for it. Now it's in anything but pristine condition, but it's still pretty reliable, and makes itself useful as a work truck. Right now I'm using it to move dirt around in the yard. I'd hate to think that the truck survived 24 years, only to meet an untimely demise for a gov't voucher! If I really wanted a new truck, it might be a different story.
For me, though I will really miss having a minivan that I can beat the heck out of, the van needs a tie rod, the air conditioning doesn't work, the passengers window motor no longer works, one of my kids managed to break the dashboard (perhaps that air bag won't work?), front tires are worn, rear brakes may be low, all cup holders are destroyed. Most of van is OE so with 194K on it - you know its a matter of time before something goes... the frugal minded types will know.
Try that with a european make and see what happens!
A broken timing belt would probably total the car
A couple of years ago I got a rebate for a new water heater. Next April 15, it's the $1500 credit for a new heat pump I put in a couple of months ago. $4,500 for clunking out the van would make a nice trifecta.
Mexico is getting in the act too. (Purchasing.com)
"The Mexican "car park program" is less ambitious as it will provide vouchers up to $1,100 to buyers who turn in cars at least 10 years old to recycling centers so they can buy new cars costing up to $11,800. However, it has no scheduled end date.
The Mexican program also is designed to expand home-market demand for motor vehicles, whose sales are on pace to drop by 35-40% this year and aren't expected to rebound to record-high 2008 levels of 2.1 million units until 2014, says Secretary Mateos. "