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
I just checked my spreadsheet, and my 2000 Intrepid has averaged about $96 per month in repairs/maintenance since it was paid off in November 2004. If the a/c compressor hadn't blown up and screwed the whole system earlier this year, I'd be down to $74 per month!
And I also did a few repairs the mechanic thought were unnecessary. For instance, back in March 2007 I had the coolant flushed and the hoses replaced. He told me it didn't need it, but at the time the car had 130,000 miles on it, and still had the original hoses. Now I know those rubber components last longer than the "good old days", but I didn't want to take a chance. I think he ended up using OEM parts, which would've been more expensive.
The cooling lines that run from the transmission to the radiator were leaking. The mechanic said it wasn't enough to really worry about, but I figured replacing them was still cheaper than a new tranny, so I had it done. Again, that was OEM parts, and probably not cheap. I remember the whole bill from that visit was $1053, but that also included brake work, suspension work, and all sorts of other odds and ends.
So, I guess if I really wanted to, I could've gotten by even cheaper! Although those "extra" repairs were 2 1/2 years ago, so even if I delayed them, I'm sure they would've come up by now, anyway, so it might've worked out to the same monthly cost, overall.
If the transmission on my Intrepid failed, I think it's about a $2500 repair. If it died tomorrow, it would only put my monthly average since payoff to about $138 per month, but at that point, I think I'd just junk the car. After all, it's almost 10 years old, and has about 150,000 miles on it. And with my luck, I'd blow all that money on the tranny and next thing you know the engine would die! And the 2.7 is so expensive to replace that I believe you're better off getting a 3.2/3.5 and making it fit!
"The article, BTW, is confirming the report of the multiple 80s Maseratis being clunked, and the '97 Bentley Continental. I say good riddance to the Escalades; I only wish more of them had been clunked."
I would no sooner buy an Escalade than you would, but my conclusion on destroying existing ones is different from yours. I say that as long as these vehicles comply with federal and state standards, the period of their useful life, and when they should be junked, should be determined by individual owners and the marketplace, and no one else. It's bad policy and a bad precedent.
I wouldn't replace the engine, though. If the engine died, then I'd scrap the car, because, in most cases, the cost of replacing the engine crosses the line of what's reasonable, in my opinion.
And I don't buy it for a second. I want photographic or better yet, video proof. In these days of so many phones having photo and video capability, it's not much to ask. All of the cars I have seen on youtube being clunked or in line are believable.
Look at this - Aston Martin? Buick GNX? 17 3000GT Spyders? 97 Supra? 97 Rolls (or Bentley)? W124 500E? E30 M3? There is either shoddy data collection here, or downright fraud.
One little detail I had forgotten about was the sales tax. A $20K car in Maryland will cost $1200 just in tax. That's almost half of a $2500 transmission repair right there!
So, if the car ever does need a new transmission, I might at least give it a second thought. Although, as the car gets older and more miled-up, it will probably make less and less sense. I tend to rationalize a repair by comparing it to how many monthly payments on a newer car said repair could cover, and use $300/mo as my baseline (although I doubt if you could get much in the way of a new car for $300/mo anymore!). So if I did a $2500 transmission rebuild, and got another 8-9 months out of the car before anything else major went wrong, I'd be satisfied.
I wonder if it's possible that some of these cars were wrecked and totaled, but still (barely) driveable? Plus, it was up to the dealer to determine whether the car was driveable or not, right? I'm presuming the gov't didn't come out personally and check every single one, so as long as the paperwork was in order (owned, registered and insured or at least a year) or at least reasonably faked, that's probably all the gov't worried about.
That doesn't answer for all of those cars, but it does for a few. Some of the others bust have been fire damaged hulks or dredged from the bottom of lakes to be worth so little.
There is an Aston Martin on the list though.
The only problems with that is that the U.S. has 300M+ vehicles that for the most part aren't high mpg. And most people don't have the $ to dump their current vehicle and get something with high mpg. And even if they did have C4C2, the program is not going to magically produce 200,000,000 Prius and Escape Hybrids.
So people are stuck driving what they have today, or buying the types of vehicles made for sale here today. That means people are going to get 15, 20 or 25mpg typically, and all high gas taxes will do is take more $$ out of the economy.
I sort of like the idea of having a basement price for fuel, i.e. tax it if it's below a certain cost. That would certainly give a boost to alternative fuels and power sources, at least they would have a worst case scenario.
Fuel here in DC is down another 7 cents per gallon on average, per WTOP talk radio last night.
1) a large increase in the gas tax. Don't like it because a) changes the rules of the "game" for the whole U.S.population who bought vehicles not expecting the government to make major policy changes that make lower mpg/income drivers have financial difficulties. b) also don't like that the excess tax collections would be used for other things other than road repair/construction.
2) a yearly "sin" tax on low mpg vehicles. Could be something collected at registration time. Why don't I like this - because it wouldn't be that effective, as my next proposal will be
3) an upfront "sin" tax - a mega-gas-guzzler tax. If you want to do something fair hit the person who buys the vehicle with the expense. In this way it is a KNOWN that you will pay the amount; it's not a change to the cost to the vehicle you have in the driveway. You willingly accept the cost. I say collect the tax all-at-once; for if a person wants a Land Rover and plans on driving it 3 years, the effect of purchasing it means he then is unloading it on a used car-market where the effect is felt many years after. I say let the Buyer who creates the demand that the factory build such a vehicle, pay for the increased fuel usage for the life of the vehicle.
So for example if the Range Rover is $60,000, make the gas-guzzler tax $15,000 at time of sale. Don't make everyone pay $1,500 each year. Discourage the initial purchasd and creation of the vehicle. The person making the purchase may not care so much about $1,500 for 3 years, but a $15,000 tax upon delivery might! Similarly don't make the people making minimum wage driving a 10-year old Corolla pay much more for gasoline.
I don't buy that type of vehicle so I won't object.
The catch with a big/quick increase in fuel taxes is that it hurts poor people the most. It's a bigger proportion of their income, so they are hit hardest.
It won't keep ANYONE from buying a Bentley or a Range Rover.
Actually, there already is a guzzler tax on cars, which applies as follows...
at least 22.5 No tax
at least 21.5, but less than 22.5 $1000
at least 20.5, but less than 21.5 $1300
at least 19.5, but less than 20.5 $1700
at least 18.5, but less than 19.5 $2100
at least 17.5, but less than 18.5 $2600
at least 16.5, but less than 17.5 $3000
at least 15.5, but less than 16.5 $3700
at least 14.5, but less than 15.5 $4500
at least 13.5, but less than 14.5 $5400
at least 12.5, but less than 13.5 $6400
less than 12.5 $7700
However, that's raw, unadjusted fuel economy numbers, and it only applies to cars, not trucks. As it currently stands, it doesn't affect too many mainstream cars...mainly exotics. Initially, it did affect the 1980's Gran Fury, Diplomat, and 5th Ave, cars that had standard 318 V-8's and no overdrive. They were EPA-rated at 16/22, but the raw unadjusted numbers were something like 18/28. And for comparison, using today's dumbed-down numbers, I think they're rated 15/20!
In comparison, the Charger/300 with the 6.1 Hemi is rated something like 13/19, and is hit with the guzzler tax, but the 5.7 Hemi is not, so that's pretty much the borderline I guess.
Very few cars guzzle like that anymore, but a lot of trucks still do. I guess they could just start applying that guzzler tax to trucks and SUVs as well, and it would curb a lot of interest in those models.
The whole trucks-being-exempt idea was designed for fleet/work trucks, i.e. businesses, not private owners.
The industry has exploited this loophole for decades.
Close that loophole, that alone would work wonders. I'm not even sure fleet vehicles should be given that break any more.
"Just within the last few weeks. All of our claims have now been approved and paid. Last week we got paid on the last ones," said Justin Theel of Cedric Theel Toyota Scion."
Dealerships Getting Clunkers Cash (kfyrtv.com)
Scrolled through the list and thought some sounded like they would get higher milage. Here's a partial list w/ mileage from fueleconomy.gov:
96 Century 21
96 Regal 21
96 Skylark 21
94 Beratta 20
98 Cavalier 23
99 Malibu 21
00 Cirrus 19
00 Concorde 20
01 PT Cruiser 20
01 Sebring 20
94 Spirit 19
95 Status 21
97 Aspire 26
00 Contour 21
93 Escort 25
91 Tempo AWD 19
90 Civic CRX 27
08 Accent 28
08 Elantra 27
02 Spectra 22
99 Cougar 20
99 Sable 19
02 Altima 19
08 Altima Coupe 22
95 Ciera 22
88 Calais 20
00 Intrique 20
00 Breeze 20
95 Acclaim 21
01 Bonney 20
88 Fiero 19
99 Grand Am 20
00 Grand Prix 20
03 Ion 24
08 Scion XD 28
95 Camry 21
06 Corolla 25
97 Jetta GLX 19
Gee, I never heard of a vehicle model of "unlisted". What a joke!
Every vehicle on your list was ineligible for C4C according to both the text of the law itself and NHTSA's implementation rule. The law clearly states that only vehicles with a combined EPA mpg of 18 or below could be submitted.
Where did your list come from?
http://www.cars.gov/files/official-information/trade-in-vehicles.pdf
Looking at is again there is a disclaimer: As submitted, not necessarily reviewed or approved so, maybe they didn't pay these......guess we can at least hope not.
Even so, it appears there are some not too sharp dealers out there submitting claims for Escorts and Corollas.
Incompetence is common. So is dishonesty. Fortunately they often occur together.
GM close to selling Hummer for $150 million
... trying to complete a deal to sell Hummer to China's Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Co
I wonder if we'll get a 3 cylinder Hummer now.
General Motors Co., working to cut its U.S. brand count in half as it recovers from bankruptcy, has completed a deal to sell the Hummer SUV brand to China's Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Co. Ltd
Let the cost cutting begin!
GM's Sale of Hummer to Chinese Company Imminent (AutoObserver)
GM wanted $500 million, a bit more than the $150 million they got.
Told ya the Chinese would step in and pay pennies on the dollar for these assets.
And the worst part is they're really buying the name. They will gradually shift production to China, where they can build 'em more cheaply.
Mark my words.
They're gonna sell a bunch of cheap trucks with GVWR big enough to avoid safety and emissions regs.
Yeah, but they can do it cheaper!
They'll make for some fun crash test videos, anyway.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Auto sales analysts at Edmunds.com say the pricey program resulted in relatively few additional car sales.
By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: October 29, 2009: 9:33 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A total of 690,000 new vehicles were sold under the Cash for Clunkers program last summer, but only 125,000 of those were vehicles that would not have been sold anyway, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the automotive Web site Edmunds.com.
Still, auto sales contributed heavily to the economy's expansion in the third quarter, adding 1.7 percentage points to the nation's gross domestic product growth.
Is the economy really getting better?
The Cash for Clunkers program gave car buyers rebates of up to $4,500 if they traded in less fuel-efficient vehicles for new vehicles that met certain fuel economy requirements. A total of $3 billion was allotted for those rebates.
The average rebate was $4,000. But the overwhelming majority of sales would have taken place anyway at some time in the last half of 2009, according to Edmunds.com. That means the government ended up spending about $24,000 each for those 125,000 additional vehicle sales.
I think Edmund's has it just about right.
Basically they're taking a sound point (C4C netted a 125,000 vehicle sales increase), and then creating a politically motivated "result" from it in order to paint the program's overwhelming success as a failure.
As someone who has come to Edmunds' for nearly ten years, I'm extremely disappointed by the political grandstanding.
Cash for Clunkers was a political grandstand by politicians to look like they were effectively doing something. What kind of result would one expect from that kind of program: data is data.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
White House Charges Edmunds.com Got It Wrong on Cash for Clunkers
Edmunds.com Responds to White House Criticism
Those links are from our own AutoObserver.
Here's a take from the Christian Science Monitor:
Report: Cash for Clunkers was a lemon
No, the same numbers could not be used to make those claims.
Do you think this Administration and Congress really care that it cost $24,000 per vehicle? No. Between the CFC program and the $8000 tax credit for first time home buyers they got the bump in the economy they were hoping for. And that's all they care about. It doesn't matter what the cost is to the taxpayer because the government has completely lost their sense. Imagine a 5 gallon bucket full of rice. Now take one grain of rice out of that bucket and that's how much CFC cost in comparison to the insane amount of money they are spending. This isn't political grandstanding on the part of Edmunds. You are upset because the government has been called out on yet another wasteful program and your party is responsible for it. You gotta stop supporting the spending habits of these people. It's absolutely nuts.
I thought Edmunds' reponse was kinda weak.
We all saw automakers announce increased production to replenish depleted inventories as a direct result of C4C, in fact it happened even while the program was still in effect.
You can't say it was the economy bouncing back when unemployment is increasing. Can't buy a car if you don't have a job.
We may indeed have a W, i.e. a double-dip recession, but let's face it, that middle part where the economy went upward was most certainly helped by C4C.
Lots and lots of the news stories today about the recession "officially" ending give credit to Cash for Clunkers (and that $8k new home credit).
Some samples:
U.S. GDP Rises On Government Stimulus Ending Recession (Dailyfx.com)
AutoNation posts profit on cost-cutting, Clunkers (Reuters)
US economy is growing once again (BBC)
I want to see the quarterly gas savings generated by the increase in mpg that the program supposed enabled. There may be enough initial benefit there to offset a good chunk of the money going forward, not even looking at the savings in unemployment payments, food stamps, and all the rest of the social net costs.
At what cost did we get that bump? Hint: The deficit QUADRUPLED from $459 billion in 2008 to $1.85 trillion this year. They better be able to get a bump out of spending that much money!
We all saw automakers announce increased production to replenish depleted inventories as a direct result of C4C, in fact it happened even while the program was still in effect.
I agree with you, the Edmunds response was weak. This was no "blip" for some automakers - it was a total clear-out of every vehicle on the lot for their dealers.
I had people asking me if the local Honda and Toyota dealers had gone out of business, and how could that be, they always looked like they were doing so well?
Now of course, for ToyHon who were on their way down prior to C4C, this was a convenient way to clear out excess inventory and production didn;t have to be increased much, but for Ford and GM which had already dramatically reduced production, this total clear-out of certain models left them in dire need of production ramp-ups to put stock back on dealer lots.
You watch in 2010 Q1 - that extra production will suddenly cease again as all those stocks have been replaced, and sales continue to stumble along at a SAAR of 10 million or less.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)