By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
The Dealer never has to pay the state sales taxes for you. .that is always passed on to the consumer.
What the dealer did was - the C4C rebate $4,5k & the manufacturer incentive of $750 were added together with the new car price thus ballooning the sales tax I have to pay. Adding insult to injury, my $500 down was also included in the taxable items total! That dealership finance man is carnivorous! :mad:
I think the issue was selling a car with lots of good miles left in it rather than having it destroyed to get the maximum money out of it. If I were to keep a car 250,000 miles it would be 50 years old. Our Lexus LS400 is 20 this year and still under 100,000 miles.
No. If you had 150,000 miles on that 18 mpg vehicle then you would use up 1,000 gallons of gasoline more on that last 100,000 miles than if you were driving 100,000 miles in a 22 mpg vehicle. That would be the minimum savings under CARS.
Using something until it is used up is a lot less wasteful.
It takes far less than the energy equivalent of 1,000 gallons of gasoline to build a new car so it's less wasteful to replace that inefficient clunker with something more efficient.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
...On Friday a spokeswoman for Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said Mr. McCain would lead a filibuster against the bill to give the program more money.
“Within a few weeks we will see that this process was abused by speculators and people who took advantage of what is basically a huge government subsidy of corporations that they already own,” Mr. McCain told Fox News last week.
Mr. McCain may have some support from Democrats who are also feeling skittish about the program and its potential cost. In a tweet on Friday morning, Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, said she would “vote no on any extension” of the clunkers program, saying the “idea was to prime the pump not subsidize auto purchases forever.” A few hours later, she added that she would need to review the details of the House bill and how the program was working. ...
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/cash-for-clunkers-become-a-republi- - can-target/
No, you should be punished for excessive driving :P . It'd take me over 30 years to put that many miles on a car, so how about a reward for that?
What does he think? is it that he thinks people junked their crapmobile for a discount on a new car and then resold the new car for a profit?
I disagree:
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Research.html
"When discussing 100 mpg vehicles one must absolutely figure in the amount of energy required to make these “new” vehicles. I have good numbers showing that it requires 12% of all the hydrocarbon energy a vehicle will use in its lifetime just to make the vehicle in the first place (ore mining, raw material transport, paint, electricity, etc . . ."
"And this does not factor in the hydrocarbon energy required to make the non-existent factories that make the vehicles in the first place. Nat’l Geographic told us last June that there are 7 gallons of oil in every new tire. These net-energy costs are crucial to avoid making some painful mistakes and possibly dangerous assumptions."
"Assuming 25 gallons/wk of consumption over about 15 years (average vehicle life expectancy) that is 19,500 gallons of gasoline for a vehicle lifetime. 12% of that is 2,340 gallons of gasoline equivalent to make the vehicle in the first place. These are fixed costs that won’t change as you make higher-mileage vehicles."
"This country has almost 250 million vehicles on the road. So we’re looking at 585 billion gallons of gasoline equivalent to make these new 'theoretical' cars. Assuming a 1:1 conversion from oil to gasoline (It can’t be that efficient) that’s roughly 13.9 billion barrels (42 gallons per barrel) of oil just to make these cars."
"Is there 13.9 billion barrels of crude lying around anywhere for this process to even begin? Not hardly. There's no elasticity anywhere and this process would require taking oil supplies away from existing use to implement. Remember, you haven’t even built the factories yet. Where does that oil come from?"
If this guy is right -- we wasted ALOT of energy. About 2350 gallons to make one car (not including start up costs even!!) for a savings of 1000 gallons of gas?
The bill was a compromise originally with the Senate. They wanted it more environmental and less of a money grab for dealers. I would guess Feinstein will jump on the McCain bandwagon to block additional funds until they can get what they wanted originally. And that was a whole lot less than $4500 for any old POC. The extension is not a slam dunk as some here believe. In fact there may be some unhappy salesmen and customers when they find out their new car is not going to get a $4500 present from Uncle Sam. How many will just say oh well, and pony up the extra cash? Not many would be my guess.
I find it somewhat disturbing that so many Explorers and Grand Cherokees are meeting their demise in this bill. Those are solid built vehicles that should last over 20 years with only minimal maintenance.
So the question arises, will the environmental greens win out in this C4C battle or the greedy greens.
I thought about this a little and what I believe is:
Take the new car price say $25000. Now take the average auto builders wage, including the factories that make the little brackets and screws. maybe $30k a year. so 25/30ths of a year has to be worked to create the car. How much energy does the autoworker consume in 5/6 of a year? My guess is more than 1000 gallons of BTU's. His water, electric, heat, gas, oil, all of the above used by the gov that taxed him, the energy to create all his food (the energy for cooking of the part of the 900 total meals that are bought outside the home), a part of the energy for creation of his shelter and clothes. Just the gas he uses to drive to work for about 44 weeks might pinch off a lot of the 1000 gals. The services to his home include the gas used by the garbage truck, snowplow and mailman, the police driving around. All the energy for him to live 44 weeks to be able to earn the value of a new car through his wage. His airline flight or gas for vacation. After all, who will be making that new efficient car? him. You could argue if he lived off a trust and just spent 8 hrs a day at a car factory for fun.
If you could use the energy equivalent 1000 gallons of gasoline, in the form of coal, to eliminate just 1000 gallons of actual gasoline usage, that might still be worth doing. After all, if there were a process that could convert coal directly to gasoline, without any loss of energy content that would surely be a worthwhile thing to do.
In a resonable time it will sort itself out I think.
That, of course, is your prerogative.
When discussing 100 mpg vehicles...
But we are not discussing 100 mpg vehicles here. That's an entirely different ball game.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
I ask you this;
"What have you personally got to show for the $700 billion that was GIVEN to Wall Street types?"
The answer is not a darn thing. At least with the clunkers program 700,000 common citizens got something to show for it. You won't see some Wall Street bigwig driving around in an economy car. They drive Mercedes! BTW, most of those aren't even at least made in the US.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
In order to do that, you had to have a handle on the rate of clunker sales. How did you estimate that before any reliable numbers were available? I'm just curious.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
I'm in a small market and this is the only Toyota dealership within 30 miles of here and it appears they have done well. There are still plenty of Corollas and Camrys there but only a couple Yaris' and Matrix left. Looks like they moved 3-4 Prius' last week too.
This C4C is the best news the auto industry has had in well over a year. I hope the U.S. Senate approves the extra $2 billion to keep this thing going through mid-August. This is clearly helping the U.S. & World economies and for a few $ billion, it's worth it. $3 billion total is 0.1% of what we're going to spend between 01/01/2009 and 6/30/2010 - the other 99.9% will go elsewhere, so I see this as worthwhile.
It created excitement for sure. Will it help the total sales for the year. Not much. Will it get extended before Fall? I don't think it will. Too many Senators were not happy with the bill when it was whittled down to a billion from $4billion. If it gets reinstated it may not be as exciting as getting $4500 for a $500 POC. That was the excitement that brought out those with the bucks hidden in the mattress. Conservative buyers wanting to get back a few shillings of the taxes they feel are wasted.
I think the House of Representives passed the extension overwhelmingly (for political reasons), and I suspect the Senators will do the same (if they want to be re-elected, that is.)
As far as the politics is concerned, I won't even go there!
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
You can't without opening a never ending can of worms! I agree with gagrice that it looks very iffy for Senate approval this week. 50-50 at best.
I feel another $2 billion is worthwhile and then shut it down. The extra $2 billion should last through August 15th at least.
The entire country has been buzzing about this program and my gut feeling is that 70% are in favor of it and the extra monies needed to keep it funded in the short run. Strange thing is, many of the naysayers and doomsdayers are shaking their heads in surprise and I must admit I'm one of them. We've got a winner here so keep it open with the extra cash!
...And so, on balance, I’d have to say “no” to more money for cash for clunkers.
—Mr. Anwyl is CEO of Edmunds.com.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970204619004574324350084909302.html
The bad thing is there are dealership like Spreen Honda In Loma Linda CHARGING extra $600 fees for cash for clunkers and doing unethical things. They don't accept savaged clunkers, but it doesn't state on the program that its not allowed. Some dealership are totally clueless how the cash for clunker work
I love a good sales surge as much as anyone. But it’s not that simple. First, it’s not clear that cash for clunkers actually increased sales. Edmunds.com noted recently that over 100,000 buyers put their purchases on hold waiting for the program to launch. Once consumers could start cashing in on July 24, showrooms were flooded and government servers were overwhelmed as the backlog of buyers finalized their purchases.
Jeremy's article is well-reasoned and spot on.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Bucking for a raise? :P
Fox News seems to be on the same page as your boss. They just had a segment questioning why the program was allowing all the rich conservatives to buy luxury vehicles with the clunker money.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
That is correct - we were discussing only 22 mpg vehicles. If we were discussing 100 mpg the program would have been worth it. As it is, the article claims 2350 gallons of gas (energy equivalent) are used just to produce 1 car, irrelavant of the mpg it achieves. Your scenario of a 4 mpg increase in fuel efficiency saving 1000 gallons of gas displays that it is NOT worth destroying an old car to achieve it, for it took 2350 to make the auto in the first place.
I disagreed based upon your 22 mpg scenario. If everyone bought 50 mpg Prius's it looks like it would have been worthwhile. But then again that just brings in a new set of problems. Production of a Prius MIGHT require more than 2350 gallons of gas - IDK.
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Research.html
I disagree with that estimate but we're not going to resolve the issue here so let's just move on.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
There are lots of points to be made pro and con. MaryH3 has an interesting perspective on the issue and others here have worthwhile insights. I think it's too bad that so little of these discussions took place while the CARS legislation was being crafted but then who actually reads those things anyway? :shades:
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
"bolstering the auto industry" would have been meaningful if the autos bought had been US brands. The bill could have included autos by foreign brands assembled in this country or with a certain content already stated on the window sticker.
For a bill allegedly written by US automakers and then handed to the democrats for entering as a House Bill, it was poorly done if it were meant to benefit US automakers. E.g., a local Chevrolet dealer has has a real shortage of vehicles on their lot through the spring and summer. They apparently have been selling cars and GM wasn't building cars for a few weeks. So when this started, they have a real shortage of vehicles to sell.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Honda and Toyota have a 5 year, 60K powertrain warranty that is rarely used.
Hyundai's inital offreings were so bad they HAD to do something to instill some confidence in their product. Hence, the longer warranty.
The best warranty is the one you don't have to use.
" Resale value isn't important to me"
Maybe not to you but for many people it's a BIG thing.
It doesn't help honda oweners with 2001-2003 auto tranny
And now back to C4C. Couple my co-workers on a market for a new car. Now, they are going to wait for 2-3 month in order to get amazing insensitive, better than ever before. C4C did good for people who had clunkers and now drives good and reliable car as well for people who going to buy a new car in 2-3 month because of better discounts.
Some dealers are willing to go out on a limb and finalize the deal with the new car owner before receiving approval and cash from the federal government. I made a down payment 7/19 and closed the deal 7/22.
I don't believe anyone in Congress would listen to you unless you approach them with a pocket full of unmarked $100 bills. Maybe your boss has the stroke as Edmund's has emerged as a media voice.
Yeah, when the taxpayer is paying $3,500 or $4,500 for rebates, it's time for the dealers and manufacturers to r*pe the public.
This is because people can't resist a "sale," even if they are ignorant to the fact that they're paying more now than before, for the same exact vehicle, because of dealer rebate and incentive pullbacks, and less willingness to negotiate price.
Cash for Clunkers seems to be welfare for dealerships. They get a boom in sales, and they get to raise prices the most in the shortest period of time in many, many years.
But when the money runs out, they'll be even more desperate for customers.
Just you wait and see.
This program is a big joke and a sham.
Let's give cash vouchers to everyone for everything!!!
Better yet, let's have everything free!!!