What state do you reside in? Some states will not allow you to deduct the trade-in value from the purchase price of the car. The State governments do that raise more revenue. It really depends on the state.
The Dealer never has to pay the state sales taxes for you. .that is always passed on to the consumer.
Don't you think a better enviromental program for the whole country would be to reward and rebate people who go over 250,000 on their cars? Using something until it is used up is a lot less wasteful. Waste is the biggest component to the squandering of all resources.
I purchased the new replacement car in NEW York but I reside in New Jersey State. The problem I saw was that the $4,5k C4C rebate was not immediately deducted from the sale price of the car before imposing the tax- (granted that the state should collect the taxes from C4C rebates). 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:
That means the invoice is over 16k! 9k otd means about 8200 before TTL, and then add the 8k for the CARS and rebates, right? How much was the sticker price, this just seems high for a base Spectra.
Don't you think a better enviromental program for the whole country would be to reward and rebate people who go over 250,000 on their cars?
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.
Don't you think a better enviromental program for the whole country would be to reward and rebate people who go over 250,000 on their cars?
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.
From NYT (registration may be required to read the article):
...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. ...
I agree with you. When I see drivers with 4 year old cars already cracking 100,000 miles it tells me that is where the gas guzzler tax should be put in place. On our water, electric, and natural gas we pay more incrementally as we use more. Why not do that with gas or better yet mileage when we renew our registration.
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.
"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?
Mr. McCain may have some support from Democrats who are also feeling skittish about the program and its potential cost.
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.
There is also no guarantee the flimsy econobox will last as long as the Suburban being destroyed in trade. It is even worse with cars like the Prius. According to Toyota the energy and resultant pollutants in the manufacture of a Prius is much higher than an equivalent sized gas only car. The argument being the Prius will pollute less over its 150k mile life than the gas only car. Not use less energy.
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.
for transmission troubles. I had to replace mine at 50K miles, and anybody can find out how notorious the Ford's troubles have been by googling all the problems Ford owners have had. I'll gladly take a new Hyundai with 100K mile coverage.
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.
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.
There is a bit of a fallacy there in pretending that all forms of energy are equal. Even if producing a car may use the energy equivalent of 2350 gallons of gas, it will not actually consume 2350 gallons of gas. Instead, a lot of the energy consumed may be electricity produced from, perhaps, coal.
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.
Ours had a mess of issues as well. We attribute it, in part, to the fact that it was the first year of a redesign for the Explorer. It still sucks that it had so many costly issues, but we managed to keep it (until today) with close to 145,000 miles on it.
I think mainly that they didn't have enough workers manning the other other side of the terminals when the deluge hit last week. There also might have been a shortage of actual terminals at NHTSA. No one... no one foresaw such a mass movement in such a short time.
In a resonable time it will sort itself out I think.
I think a good compromise would be to end the program this weekend, and honor all the deals made to this point. If the governemt renigs on deals made in good faith, our congressmen and senators are going to get an ear full. As soon as I found out about the CFC program, I did the arithmetic in my head and knew it would be over in a matter of days. I would like to see the the government allocate the nessacery money to fund it to this point, and no more. When politicians start talking about money, I am convinced that they are in fantasy land or simply lying.
IMO the program was underfunded from the beginning. They had asked for $4 billion, but only got $1 billion. The additional $2 billion would bring the total to $3 billion which I feel is a more reasonable compromise. Out of this deal there be up to 700,000 families that will have received something worthwhile from all of the stimulus programs while bolstering the auto industry to some extent in this country.
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.
That's a very interesting analysis. I think what it all means is that we are simply a society (globally!) that runs on energy and that it behooves us to conserve what we have without choking off society's lifeblood. The clunkers program is intended to contribute to that end. Whether it achieves that goal remains to be seen.
Too many Hyundai owners have related to me that trying to collect under the 60,000/100,000 mile warranties is a daunting task. Anybody can throw out warranty numbers, but what's important is; "Do they stand behind that warranty or simply give you a song and dance when you show up for service?" Hyundai is not quite up to the standards of Toyota and Honda - yet. Resale values on Hyundai's are terrible.
I did the arithmetic in my head and knew it would be over in a matter of days.
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.
I stopped by the local Toyota dealership this afternoon and saw a row of about 13-14 clunkers lined up that they had taken "in trade". Across the lot I noticed an empty row where about 15 new Yaris' and Matrix were sitting last weekend.
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.
I figured end of July by the increased level of interest on Edmund's. I have never seen this many new posters in just a couple weeks. Even people I know that are not interested in cars at all were talking about it. One that took advantage of the program before it was out of the gate. The local Ford dealer was out of the popular models by the end of last Sunday.
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 agree on the resale values--as i have owned both a civic and accord--HOWEVER with Hyundai's 3,000 rebate, they make up for the resale value on the front end. The warranty kills honda/toyota--and since I plan to keep this car for a long time, resale value isn't important to me. Certainly others may disagree.
I take it that you purchased your new car using C4C and now want the door shut on others who haven't been able to get to the dealer showroom?
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.)
There certainly was a lot of interest displayed in C4C as the launch date approached. A lot of us suspected it would run out well before November 1st but it was a shock, to me at least, when word came out after only four days that the cash had just about run its course. Amazing!
As far as the politics is concerned, I won't even go there!
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!
The C4C law took effect on 7/1/2009. If the clunker was rated 18 MPG or lower on fueleconomy.gov between 7/1/2009 to 7/24/2009 and the purchase was done within that time frame, the dealer should ask the government to honor the C4C amount. If the car was never rated 18 MPG or lower and the dealer says it was, then the dealer needs to honor the deal.
This program is awesome, the best Billion dollar the government spent rather than throwing 30 billion at GM while the CEO pocketed the money.
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..."
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
But we are not discussing 100 mpg vehicles here. That's an entirely different ball game.
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.
From reading this board and seeing on TV that clunkers have been turned in and people are driving their new cars.....several dealerships here (NY) were delayed with the program. I went to many Honda dealerships the day the C4C began and was turned away stating their identification number had not been received and they're waiting for the paperwork in the mail. Some even stated they would not participate because of the uncertainty of reimbursement from the gov't. It's almost a week after the program started and I have not heard anything from the dealership. The order and deposit were accepted on Wed of last week. I call and call and no concrete answer as to the status. My question is... how have people in some areas been able to access the program and in other areas they would not even take the order until many days after the program was instituted and still not finalize the deal? My clunker is not a clunker in the sense of body rot/damage or even a 4x4 that wasn't maintained...it was and in great condition. The "clunker" part was the poor gas mileage and the rising cost of gas that led me to participate in this program. As I sit in limbo waiting, I have second guessed myself as to why I even bothered to go through with this. Ever go into a store and there is a crowd around someone selling something? Normally, you wouldn't give it a second look, but because so many people are gathered and buying, you have to stop and see what it's all about. Well, days later, I've come to realize that I'm spending a great deal of money,buying a new car and a dealership that has been ignoring my calls questioning what the status is, leads me wondering why I participated in a program that was not well established with a vehicle that was only a "gas" clunker. I believe I was caught up in the freenzy.
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:
> to 700,000 families that will have received something worthwhile from all of the stimulus programs while bolstering the auto industry to some extent in this country.
"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.
Honda and Toyota have a 5 year, 60K powertrain warranty that is rarely used. 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.
Given all the new cars bought by clunker owners, will their shinning new cars invoke envious feeling of their neighbors/friends/colleagues to replace their old (non-qualified) ones with new ones?
neile457...Invoice was $13,925 base...A/C $1000.00 Mats 75.00 plus $695.00 freight... Total Invoice was approx. 15,500.00 plus NJ sales tax 7% approx. $1,085.00 plus about $250.00 for tags equals approx. $16,635.00 AND THEN TAKE OFF $7500.00 ($4500.00 CFC and $3000.00 rebate) equals approx. $9035.00 OTD. I do not have the actual sales invoice as my son has it at his house but it is not $8000.00 for the CFC and rebate, it is $7500.00....
>>My question is... how have people in some areas been able to access the program and in other areas they would not even take the order until many days after the program was instituted and still not finalize the deal?
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 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?
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.
Has anyone else noticed car dealers that were desperate are suddenly arrogant and that incentives and rebates supplied by manufacturers and dealers have been yanked or reduced by significant amounts?
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!!!
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!!!