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.
Options

Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?

1585961636484

Comments

  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    That guy who C4C'd that Supra must be dumb as a rock. I'm sure he could've put it on eBay or Craigslist and got way more for it than $4,500. Supras seem to be one of those cars that defy depreciation.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Many folks are too lazy to sell vehicles themselves. So they take a hit trading. It would depend on the Supra. It may have been a rust bucket. One of the hazards of the program. I was surprised so many of them were gas guzzlers.
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    Could have been frame damaged had a blown turbo or anything else wrong with it that would wipe out its value.

    The early 90s single turbo wedge supras aren't worth nearly as much as the later 90s jellybean supras.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    I think that 30K/month figure that pops up now and then is some kind of error. As you say, someone making 30K a month isn't sitting around on a worn out 1995 Suburban waiting to trade it in on a Versa with manual windows and no AC.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    A worn out 1991 Supra wouldn't bring any money to anyone...and a worn out 1993+ Supra would be "renovated" by a tuner and would never be at risk of a one way trip to the scrapyard.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I think that 30K/month figure that pops up now and then is some kind of error.

    That was kind of my thinking. I just hate to call anyone a prevaricator. Though fat cats owning a Prius so they can drive them to the Oscars was the fad a few years ago. I miss seeing the celebs in a late 1950s Cadillac Convertible. How are society has devolved. If I took in $30k per month a Toyota dealership is the last place I would be looking for a car.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    If I took in $30k per month a Toyota dealership is the last place I would be looking for a car.

    Eh, might be fun to buy a few, get your friends together, and stage a demolition derby. :P Although I kinda hate to see good, useful cars turned into piles of scrap for no good reason.

    If I brought in $30K per month, I'd still be buying GM and Mopar products...just not new ones. Maybe nice shiny ones with tailfins and tops that go down and so forth.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    It's only significant in that there is a small but vocal "diesel-lovers" group who are flocking to the Jetta TDI.

    Most of them were probably "wishing" they could get one and then the $4500 bonus PLUS the diesel tax credit talked them past their reservations.

    The Prius and Accord do not have a diesel tax credit right now like the Jetta.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    $30k per month = Warren Buffett = 2001 Lincoln Town Car.

    Oh yeah, he eBay'd that one and got a Cadillac DTS in '06.

    This story is getting a lot of interest around the net today:

    "Some dealers are requiring or asking buyers to sign an agreement stating that if the dealer is not reimbursed, they will repay the dealer the $3,500 or $4,500 or return the car and get all or most of their money back. They can't get their old car back because it is destroyed.

    If buyers don't comply, some dealers say they will repossess the new car, which could hurt the customer's credit rating, or report it as stolen, says Rosemary Shahan, president of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety."

    Who's on hook for failed clunker deals? SFGate.com)

    If you don't want to sign the contingency agreement, find another dealer. The glaring error in the story is that the Feds changed the rules to let the dealer store the trade-in until they get paid. So it should be a bit easier for a dealer to unwind a failed deal if the voucher is denied ... assuming the contingency paperwork is done.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I know you would lemko, and you'd probably go to China to get it. :P
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Holy smoke, if I were pulling down $30K a month, you and I would be in a race to rescue every nice unwanted 1970s behemoth. Heck, between us, we could re-enact my vision of Hill Valley circa 1985 in "Back to the Future" with Huey Lewis' "Power of Love" in the background as huge gleaming Chrysler New Yorker Broughams, Dodge Royal Monacos, Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Regency LS's, Pontiac Grand Villes and Buick Electra 225 Limiteds plied the streets. Heck, throw in a Mercury Marquis Brougham or a Lincoln Contintental Town Coupe here and there.

    I'd be doing crazy things like a concours quality restoration of my 1988 Buick Park Avenue just because I could.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Again you're trying to rewrite events to fit your theory.

    Again, we'll never know because the feds skewed the results by providing $ to both Chrysler and GM.
    Your view that the D3 would all collapse is ridiculous; for there are numerous investors who would have stepped into purchase the assets of Chrysler or GM, IF the market was missing a competitor = D2.
    And yes you are right that GM or Chrysler could not raise $ from a bank in a market where the D3 existed. That is fact. But there are many alternatives to that limited thought. On any given day in late 2008, an investor or investment group could have purchased the assets of GM, and essentially ran those factories under a new name. Or GM could have went Chapter 7. Or someone could have purchased all the GM stock for about $2B. There are many scenarios where the factories of GM could have been kept running under new private owners and management.

    And certainly if GM with their larger market-share failed on their own, Chrysler and Ford's market-share would have increased greatly.

    There was no hope to save GM. GM stated as much.

    Wow that's proof there; especially when you're trying to get $15B from the government? ;);) I think I might say I really need the $, if I thought it would help me get $15B! ;) Especially if I was dragging my feet on making any serious changes like Wagoner was (in late 2008).

    If you didn't get my point before, it was - "You're a fool in believeing the theories put forth by those who had anything to gain (or avoiding losses), from ANYONE in the auto industry, lobbyists, politicians who take donations (almost all) from the auto-industry, the UAW, suppliers or dealerships."

    It is human-nature to spin theories to benefit oneself, but it does not mean I have to be a fool and buy this snake-oil. These loans and C4C are nothing but snake-oil being pitched by those who have financial and political gains involved in seeing these programs use tax dollars. It is legalized raiding of the Treasury, supported by false theories to a mostly numb (overloaded) and ignorant public.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Cerberus tried to run a failed automaker and collapsed under the effort. There simply is not, IMO, the horsepower in private venture capital to pull it off, nor the ability to raise that much $$$ even if it could pull it off, because of the economic climate of the time (extreme caution, paranoia, etc.).

    Furthermore, running an automobile company is not some intuitive venture. History is littered with the corpses of people who thought they were smart enough outsiders.

    Last of all, Asian automakers are not keen on seeing GM, Ford and Chrysler fail:

    Why Toyota wants GM to be saved
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Cerberus tried to run a failed automaker and collapsed under the effort.

    Cerberus made many mistakes along the lines of running Chrysler as usual, business as usual. Maybe if Cerberus bought the assets of Chrysler from Daimler, and ran a business free of all the paradigms of the auto-industry. Instead Cerberus ran the same old -same old business model which has been failing for the last 30 years for the D3.

    Cerberus should have made radical change at Chrysler from day 1. Chrysler should have been dissolved from Day 1 as a corporate entity. Cerberus should have reopened the company as Cerberus Motors or such with non-union workers and a new distribution/sales plan free of MSRP's rebates and gimmicks. Cerberus was guilty of buying a questionable company, with bad business strategy at the wrong time.

    History is littered with the corpses of people who thought they were smart enough outsiders.

    Yep, and yet we still have excess capacity in the auto industry.

    Last of all, Asian automakers are not keen on seeing GM, Ford and Chrysler fail:

    And there's no reason that any of these companies can't fail and the assets and resources be put back to work the next day under a new system and with new rules, such that they stand a much better chance of turning a profit. But then the UAW loses, the lobbyists are out, the politicians don't get their freebies and campaign $, the suppliers lose some because they were too vested with the poorly run D3. None of these people want to lose their $ and power, so they use taxpayer $ to support their system, under the guise of all these false, terrible scenarios they embellish.
  • 100chuck100chuck Member Posts: 149
    http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/13/autos/Ford_production.reut/index.htm?postversion- =2009081310
    DEARBORN, Mich (Reuters) -- Ford Motor Co. said Thursday it is increasing production over the rest of the year to meet increased demand spurred by the U.S. government's "Cash for Clunkers" sales incentive program.

    Ford said it now plans to build 495,000 vehicles in the third quarter, up 10,000 from its previous forecast. That would mark an increase over year-earlier levels of 18%.

    The No. 2 U.S. automaker also set a fourth-quarter production target of 570,000 vehicles, up 33% from year-earlier levels.

    The output gains will translate into immediately higher revenues for Ford (F, Fortune 500), the only U.S. automaker to have avoided a federally sponsored bankruptcy. Major automakers book revenue when vehicles are manufactured and shipped to dealers.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,928
    Great.. Now people are stealing my money to buy a new car. Can you please stop stealing money from my wallet.. How about this crazy concept. You pay for you and yours and I pay for myself and mine and both of us keep our hands in our own pockets. A novel idea! What kind of man steals money from another just because he wants a new car? No man at all, more like a pansy.

    C4C buyers are pansies!
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    I was talking about when the D3 execs went to DC the 1st time asking for money. That was Nov 2008, not 03/09. If Bush and Congress said no life-support, then what would happen is either GM or Chrysler would first fail. They are not going to make the announcement at the exact same second. When one fails that gives hope to the markets and investors for the other 2.

    I realize that you were referring to their November 2008 road trip to DC. The reality is both GM and Chrysler had been trying for some time to find investors for their companies and mortgage some of their plants. Very hard to do when your credit rating is "junk status" and the very lending institutions you are approaching are more worried about their own survival. Here's an article detailing how Chrysler spent much of 2008: http://www.egmcartech.com/2009/05/02/report-chrysler-partnership-was-turned-down- -by-toyota-nissan-hyundai-honda-and-more/. Going to Congress was their last hope. Personally, I would have let Cerberus handle Chrysler and concentrated on GM.

    And as general advice you should consider when listening to many of these "all suppliers will crash" "millions of jobs will be lost" ... the source of that information. Almost 100% of the time it will be 1) someone who stands to lose or make a lot of $ by getting people to believe these, or 2) from the gullible who pass along these business fallacies.

    If you haven't noticed from all of my post, i can think for myself. I developed this theory by actually reading several sources including "Automotive News", "Wall Street Journal" and CNN.com. I do believe we would have eventually lost in excess of 1 million jobs and would have had a devastating effect on parts of the Midwest. I do believe that Ford would have been forced to file Chap. 11 and probably been the only domestic brand to maintain a somewhat American presence. I do believe that many of the suppliers would have disappeared since many of them were surviving on the "promise" that they would eventually get paid by Chrysler and GM. Remember there was little credit available... Chrysler would be gone; and the only GM brands remaining would be Chevy and Cadillac.

    Oh, and you're probably going to say I'm some sort of a conspiracy nut. Well I can think of 50 billion reasons why auto company executives, their investors and suppliers, the UAW, auto consultant and lobbyists, and dealerships might put these very unlikely scenarios out there.

    No I don't think you are a conspiracy nut. (had to count to 10 first :P ) I wouldn't bother responding to your posts if I thought you were a nut case. YOu have your opinions which I'm guessing were developed based on how you were raised and your life experiences. I respect everyone's opinion. I guess you don't read my posts too carefully.

    I feel sorry for many of you being duped into giving your tax money away putting the country deeper and deeper into debt, and then one day you're going to be told that the money you've paid into the various SS and medicare systems is no longer there. And I'm not just picking on the auto industry - you need to realize that all these programs are just siphoning your money away making the wealthy and politically powerful more so

    See kernick, we do agree! I'm not expecting SS or Medicare to be around when I retire in 2025. I've been blessed to have jobs that either match and/or contribute to my retirement fund. Also i am in an industry that doesn't force you out at 65. If I can just get eh stock market to cooperate.....

    There are many more Bernie Madoff's (or lite versions) out there in the business and political world. They just haven't been exposed yet, or have angles that are quasi-legal, or plain BS (Al Gore's making a nice fortune off GW and carbon-credits). I'd say wakup and realize that the best thing to do is to keep your money in your pocket, don't give it to DC to empower the system further, and return this country and government to a much simpler, less-invasive government with more individual responsibility and freedom.

    Again, we agree! Yes there are hundreds of Bernie Madoff's that we are not aware of simply because their losses weren't in the billions. Most likely in the low millions. Still, they deceived many honest people.

    global warming, there is no doubt in my mind that the Earth is getting warmer. It has been for millions of years since the glaciers starting retreating. If you ever visit the Poconos in PA, they have a park where the glaciers dumped their debris about one million years ago. It left a neat formation of all sized rocks about a half mile wide. last I checked, glaciers don't have feet so they must have melted. I don't think we had many Ford Explorers or coal burning factories back then so the logical idea is that the earth itself must be warming up. In my mind, the question is how are our actions (factories, carbon emissions, farting, etc) contributing to the warming. Also is the earth getting warmer from within? The earth's center is made of hot liquid rock. Unfortunately, I'm not shoveling 10k miles into the earth to find out. I have U8 soccer to coach.

    yes, we do need a smaller government...but not now. Until the private sector gets back on it's feet and credit is restored (the savings Americans have been doing over the past year will pay dividends in the future), we need the government to spend like crazy because there is no one else that will. Our economy and way of life is dependent on people spending not saving. While i objected to TARP, parts of the Pelosi/Reid Stimulus package and the Cash for Clunkers, they are necessary because of the greed, corruption and deceit that got us into this mess.

    I wish I could be around 150 years from now to see how history remembers America from 1990-2010. I don't think it will be pretty and the words "greed" and "corruption" will be the most used terms.
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    And there's no reason that any of these companies can't fail and the assets and resources be put back to work the next day under a new system and with new rules, such that they stand a much better chance of turning a profit.

    Isn't this what the government did by forcing them through bankruptcy?????
  • smilinjackrosssmilinjackross Member Posts: 37
    Great.. Now people are stealing my money to buy a new car. Can you please stop stealing money from my wallet.. How about this crazy concept. You pay for you and yours and I pay for myself and mine and both of us keep our hands in our own pockets. A novel idea! What kind of man steals money from another just because he wants a new car? No man at all, more like a pansy.

    C4C buyers are pansies!


    The same kind that steals to buy a new house (first time home buyer incentive, mortgage interest deduction), pay for an education (numerous scholarships and grants), food (food stamps, other programs), gets reimbursed for not growing crops (farm subsidies), new energy credit (improved windows, solar panels, hybrid tax credits) and on and on.

    Have you ever taken advantage of any of these, or others? Are you without sin and throwing the first stone? Government handouts are nothing new, not sure why this one is setting you off.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    The reality is both GM and Chrysler had been trying for some time to find investors for their companies and mortgage some of their plants.

    Yes I wouldn't have invested in an auto company either, if 1) the entire D3 is still in business competing against ecach other, and 2) with their archaic, expensive methods of running their business.

    What I am saying is that when either Chrysler or GM went under, the market now becomes D2. Many of the former customers of the failed-company are going to move to the remaining D2 companies. That is THEN attractive. If it was GM that failed before Cerberus, and GM losing its market-share, this means that Ford and Chrysler would have become so busy they wouldn't have been able to make cars fast enough. THEN Chrysler and Ford OVERNIGHT become very attractive for an investor.

    And the other possibility is that some investor like Berkshire Hathaway, or Donald Trump walks in to the Chapter 7 and buys the assets of GM for $0.10 on the dollar, and runs the place without all the old debt and restrictive contracts that the D3 are now strangling under.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Have you ever taken advantage of any of these, or others?

    I take advantage of handouts because I want something back, rather then just paying and paying each year. The system is full of these "games". People play the tax/subsidy/grant games just to try and stay even with everyone else. But that still doesn't mean that we can't complain that playing "the games" is a pain. Why?

    Because government handouts are ways to buy votes, and buy influence for the politicians who approve the handouts. What this does is create a cycle where lobbyists-industry and politicians do things that benefit each other. So you end up with a system where politicians are in office for 30 - 40 years with the support of all the corporate and wealthy contributions, and you endup with sweetheart deals for corporations. They use your tax money to do so.

    Oh sure you get a little back now and then, but it's like a casino where you can expect to win a little but lose more!

    Our government was never designed to collect lots of tax money, spend even more putting future generations in great debt, and to use that tax money to enrich and empower a corporate-political class with great power.

    So if you like the government spending over a trillion $'s it doesn't have, and banks and Wall Street still paying out bilions in bonuses, and the multi-billion $ Cerberus-group and its wealthy investors walking away from their bad investment in Chrysler, then just continue to say "So what it happens all the time.". Go stick another fork in your eye.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    What else can people do? Any suggestions? Vote for another clown in the same suit who represents the same interests? Sorry, the people have no say in it with any kind of vote, no matter that they seem to think differently. We all know the problem, what's the solution? Other than the libertarian dream of cutting out the government middleman and letting the corporations legislate directly?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I think you may be discounting too readily the utter chaos that stampedes throughout the entire auto industry after a GM failure. Also relevant to an economics discussion is the social and actual dollar cost of human misery that will result.

    Also, when a company goes Ch7 , it is LIQUIDATED and picked apart. No one comes in and flips a switch to rejuvenate it. As the magazine article says, you bid on "brownfields"--that is, the devastated remains.

    Nobody started up Hudson again, or Packard, or Studebaker again, or Plymouth, or Oldsmobile, or Tucker or Hudson or Delorean. They all disappeared and/or morphed into holding companies and then diversified into non-auto related businesses.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 20,723
    i just had a funny thought (to me anyway). maybe that's Andre1969's evil twin. :P
    2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • KCRamKCRam Member Posts: 3,516
    From Automotive News: The NHTSA has just announced that dealers can make C4C deals on factory-ordered vehicles as well as dealer-stock vehicles. This will help dealers who are out of stock on the high-mileage vehicles people are looking for.

    Of the 10 Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep dealers around me (northwest NJ), there's exactly 1 Dodge Caliber in stock between them - only 1 Jeep Patriot and no Jeep Compasses for that matter.

    kcram - Pickups/Wagons Host
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    i just had a funny thought (to me anyway). maybe that's Andre1969's evil twin.

    Actually, I think Lemko once asked him if Mr. Spock had a beard in his universe. :shades:

    In his defense though, the one bad Mopar he had was a 1995 Neon, which I've heard could be bad enough to make you swear off Chrysler products forever.

    Back in high school, one of my friends told me about some friends of his family who swore off domestics forever because in one year, 1979, they bought a lemon from each of the big Three and got burned on all of them. The cars were a 1979 Pinto, a Plymouth Horizon, and an early-build Chevy Citation. Man, talk about a trifecta! :lemon:
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    >I'd be doing crazy things like a concours quality restoration of my 1988 Buick Park Avenue just because I could.

    And Lemko does great restoration work: see this example of Lemko Plumbing's classic:.

    Lemko's Plumbing truck

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 20,723
    great, except for misspelling his own name. :)
    2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 20,723
    LOL! you are defending that poster?
    i changed my mind. it really you posting under another name! :P
    2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Nobody started up Hudson again, or Packard, or Studebaker again, or Plymouth, or Oldsmobile, or Tucker or Hudson or Delorean.

    It doesn't matter! Any of these companies failing or if GM or Chrysler failed doesn't matter in the macroeconomic sense. The U.S. consumer is going to buy X-number of cars regardless. If GM fails the others split that business and gain. If GM was selling 1M vehicles, there's 1M vehicle sales that go to the remaining competitors. This makes them stronger, and in business more profitable. There are going to be enough factories and workers to make 10M vehicles. Nothing changes except that by putting money into GM and Chrysler you now have 3 weak companies that haven't changed much, instead of 2 strong companies.

  • kathyc2kathyc2 Member Posts: 159
    The powers that be didn't see to have a problem using this concept to eliminate dealers!
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    dealers can make C4C deals on factory-ordered vehicles

    The only problem is that most dealers will want to park your trade-in until your ordered clunker comes in. I suppose you could rent a car for 6 to 8 weeks.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    That would be part of the negotiation. It sounds like the program is losing steam and they are trying to revive it with being able to order a vehicle. What happens if you order and they destroy your clunker and the new car is not to your liking.

    If you are still thinking of a Prius, Portland Toyota dealers seem to have a good supply. I would check them out. Oregon is a good state to buy in. Easy transactions. So is Idaho unless they don't have what you want.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=portland+toyota+dealers&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rl- s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    The new amendment to the rules (not really that new now) says the dealers don't have to destroy the trade-in until they get their voucher money from the feds. So that would make it easier to unwind a deal if the feds rejected the voucher application for some reason.

    What I wonder is what happens if the deal falls apart and the customer gets their trade-in back. Who eats the depreciation and pays for the miles used on the new car?

    We are leaning back to the xD instead of the Prius. The 2010s may or may not be out. A dealer over in Colorado is advertising them but they may just be taking orders. The xD is cuter and has no haggle pricing (not to mention a lot cheaper), but there was a pretty nice reddish Prius turning around in our culdesac tonight while we were watching the sunset.

    I think Portland is the port where Priuses come in; when we were checking on colors a while back, that's the first place the dealer looked. I wouldn't be adverse to driving over and getting one there. No sales taxes in Oregon, so no worry about double paying taxes when we register it in Idaho.
  • mudhouseholdmudhousehold Member Posts: 22
    Yes, it worked for us. The hubby is happy. :)

    Gone was a 1987 Isuzu Tropper with 230K miles, no AC, and the heater cannot be turned on either. It has been used for daily commute until the last day.

    In came a 2009 Honda Fit Sport.

    The deal was made on July 17th, the C4C application was submitted on July 30, and we picked the car up on Aug 13.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Oregon is a good state to buy in.

    Or for a small fee I'll get your name on a utility bill and you can say you live with me in NH. And you can skip the sales tax. You have a temp-30 day registration, and you can drive it out of here without any taxes. :D
  • mudhouseholdmudhousehold Member Posts: 22
    Oops, sorry I posted in a wrong thread. A typo (that I can no longer edit): We made the deal on July 27th.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    ...that has been traded in a C4C deal? Somebody at the Cadillac topic posted a picture of a 2000 or so Cadillac DTS that appeared to be in pretty nice condition sitting in the C4C lot of a dealer with a rather nice looking Ford F-150 parked behind it. If I offered the dealer $4,500 for that DTS, could he accept it or is that car doomed by law?
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    No it is done for. The title has CARS stuff all over it so you can't buy it. Good chance that DTS has some type of serious mechanical problem and that is why it was clunked anyway. I had a very nice 1999 or 1998 Seville in here the other day that looked great and only had 150,000 miles on it but the trans was going. It wouldn't stay in gear anymore and is slipping badly. The guy says his mechanic told him it is a 2,500 dollar repair minimum.

    Too bad it got 19 mpg combined and not 18 so he couldn't clunk it. Was only worth 500 bucks as it sits.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Too bad. If the car was truly in good condition, I'd have the tranny fixed and be done with it. $2,500 is still cheaper than a car payment and the extra insurance for the next 3-5 years.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Maybe in the vacuum of an academic exercise you would be right---but in the real world, Chrysler would have collapsed first, GM would have gone into at least Ch 11, by itself, with no bailout, and buyers wouldn't touch their cars with the threat of GM going Ch7. In this likely scenario without bailout and C4C, Ford would gain some sales but a very healthy junk would go to foreign manufacturers for the simple reason that Ford itself is not making any money and is in peril (still, right now).

    Also Ford would have to deal somehow with all the bankrupted suppliers that once fed Chrysler and GM and used to feed Ford.

    To say nothing of all the people who, out of sheer geographical convenience, cannot reach a Ford dealer.

    Remember, when an automaker goes Ch. 7, that's it. No warranty, no nothin', you're screwed.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Remember, when an automaker goes Ch. 7, that's it. No warranty, no nothin', you're screwed.

    You mean like when people bought a TV from Mad Man Muntz in the 1950s for as much as a new car? Then he went belly up and people looking for parts to repair them. I think there is a lot of unfounded doomsday hype in allowing the automakers to go BK. First off GM is doing well in many parts of the World. Those entities would be able to survive if the US auto industry was allowed to die as it should. Those that want to maintain the status quo are living in the age of 17 million cars being sold per year. And big fat expensive SUVs to boot. Those glory days of the D3 are gone. This C4C should make that clear. Little cars little profit. That will not support the behemoth auto industry that GM is Still stuck with. They did not eliminate the mill stone around their neck. Do you think the VEBA stock holders will allow cuts in wages and benefits?
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    That's a shame. You could use another car! Andre, too.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • speedy34speedy34 Member Posts: 1
    The Cash for Clunkers program is a major punch below the b elt to many of us classic car enthusiests. While many like myself would love to see classic cars restored, we are instead seeing them traded for government money (my taxpayer money) ans crushed; sold for scrap. Many of these vehicles have survived thanks to loving owners, enthusiasts like myself, and pure good luck. Would you send a restorable antique peice of furnature to the dump? i wouldn't. And I hate to think that my government is taking my money and using it to destroy beloved and already hard-to-find pieces of american history; pieces of art. It is already sending a major blow towards our hobby and way of life.
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    Please most of these cars are late 80s early 90s trash. I haven't seen a single car worth saving.

    They put the cut off at 1984 for a reason you know.

    Name me 10 cars from the 80s and 90s that are worth saving and don't either...

    A: get over 18 mpg combined
    B: aren't already worth more then 4,500 if they are in good shape

    and therefore would not qualify as a clunker.

    If they are truly in poor shape then better to put them out of their misery and give someone a chance to save the parts before the neglectful owner destroys the rest of the car.

    Ahh but I see you just registered today and this is your only comment.

    Drive by comment I think?

    If they were really loved by owners then wouldn't be dumping them for only 4,500 bucks.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Fewer "classic" cars available means value of existing cars goes up. Great for sellers.

    Lack of parts makes your hobby more challenging.

    See the "half-full" side of the glass, Amigo !!!
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    Care to name any potential classic cars that have actually been destroyed?

    1985-2005 is hardly the golden age of the automobile. Especially for American cars.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    My next-door neighbor's step-grandson has a truck that would be good for qualifying for C4C. He wants something small and economical. The truck is sitting next door, at his grandmother's, with a for sale sign on it. It's a 1986 F250 4x4, with a 351 that looks like it has some kind of hot aftermarket 4bbl on it. Just one little problem. Sucker has a GVWR of 8600 lb!

    IIRC, at that weight, the only thing it can be traded in for, and still get a credit, is another truck with a GVWR of 8500 lb or more. It's actually not a bad looking truck. It's sort of a creamy antique white, something that would be called "Cool Vanilla" on a 300 or Charger. It had been filthy, but it got washed up, and unfortunately, I see a little rust on it. Nothing that looks too serious, but it's not flawless. He's also only asking $1500.

    I guess if I really wanted to, I could C4C my '85 Silverado for some economy car, and either sell my Intrepid outright or try to roll it into the trade. And then go buy this truck, so I'd still have an old workhorse for when I need it. But, that just seems like too much work!

    Plus, I guess I'm kinda attached to the Silverado, because my Granddad bought it new. And, I know what's wrong with it, at least. I've heard this F250 start up, and have seen it moves under its own power, but I'm sure it has its issues. In fact, just in looking at it, I found one. The driver's door won't open from the outside. Might not be too difficult of a fix, but still a hassle.

    Also, I hate to think what kind of fuel economy something like this would get. That GVWR is 3000 lb more than my Silverado, plus with the 4wd, I guess this thing could have a half ton of curb weight on my truck. And I'm sure a 351 with a hopped up carb isn't exactly a fuel sipper. My Silverado got 14 mpg on its last tank, which sounds awful, but that was mostly local driving, lots of very short trips. I bet it would be easy to sink this F250 down into single digits!

    And, as for this C4C thing hurting the classic car enthusiasts, well as much as I love some of those old 80's guzzlers, even I'm not falling for it. For one thing, it's mainly trucks, SUVs, and minivans getting turned in. Not too many cars. And for say, something like a 1986 Caprice, I'd imagine they're at the point these days where the audience for that car is divided. You either have the well-preserved ones that people are going to hold onto, no matter what. Then you have the ones that are donked up, pimped out, or whatever, to the point that the wanna-be thugs driving them have more money invested in them then they'll ever be worth. Then finally, you have the clapped-out ones, the ex-police cars and taxis that are almost at death's door, but afraid to ring the bell.

    I guess the only sad part, is that when these beat-up cars do get crushed, a lot of trim pieces and such that are hard to find will go with them. However, often, if you have a car from that era and have broken a trim piece on it, chances are any equivalent versions of that car already in the junkyard had that same piece break years ago!
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    The way the CAT 1, 2 and 3 trucks are set up for C4C is the stupidest part of the program.

    I hope they change that if they decide to authorize any additional money. You should be able to trade down from a Cat 2 to a Cat 1 or passenger car if you want to.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Typo?

    You can - you can trade in a cat 2 Silverado 1500 4WD for a cat 1 Prius. (CARS).

    Cat 3 is another story and there are lots of people wanting to trade in the heavier SUVs for a compact.
Sign In or Register to comment.