Topic: Cash for clunkers. Why kill the motor? WTF America?!?!

[ofreen]

(snip)  And the idea is to sell new cars AND get these gas guzzling, CO2 spewing vehicles off the road. 
(snip)
But face it.  Some of these cars need destruction.

There is irony here.  The funny thing is, we are on a site devoted to keeping a certain bunch of old motorcycles alive, motorcycles that are far dirtier than the 2004 Explorer I used to have.  If you believed the annual emissions test, the exhaust from that thing was almost as clean as the air the engine drew in.  Kind of like a mountain breeze on a warm summer day.

This video is more pertinent now than when it came out.  Check it out if you haven't seen it.  Hilarious -

[bucky katt]

was that a motorized toilet the guy was riding at the end??

[Terry in Australia]

Two words: Social Engineering.  The elite telling the masses what type of car to drive.  

I have a 2001 Suburban because I have a family of 8.  It would take 4 Smart Cars to transport my familiy, using an additional 6 gallons of fuel as compared to my truck on a trip from Las Vegas to Orange County CA.

Two more words: "Birth Control"!

Hey Andy, what's wrong with Ford Explorers? My son has a 2002 Explorer, and it's a great car, heavy on gas (but it is American.....) but no other issues. Of course, by 2002 Ford had cut their ties with Firestone tires, which I believe was the problem that gave them the "Exploder" title?

I remember that 20-odd years ago America was going thru a similar program under Ronnie Raygun and classic US iron was being scrapped, this is a terrible shame, I love programs on cable like "Wrecks to Riches" etc, and you can see that good quality 1960's and 70's "Musclecars" are in short supply, not necessarily due to the current C-F-C programs but more because these cars have been so popular with your kids over several generations, they've been all but destroyed over the years.

Ironically, all those horribly ugly little Jap imports from the same era are still in plentiful supply, because frankly, who'd want them? Don't get me wrong, as a "Camry Convert" I can see their usefullness, if not their desireability, but surely a jap four cylinder engine with 100,000 miles and the abuse meted out by several owners over a 20 year period be just as important a candidate for destruction, while they may not use as much fuel, they're certainly happy to spew oily fumes back into the atmosphere?

I tell you what, send me as many of those old US built V8 "clunkers" as you can lay your hands on and I'll store 'em in a nice dry warehouse for another 20 years, then I'll sell them and give you half of the profits. You'll have enough money to buy a shedfull of Prius' or whatever the hell we'll be forced to drive by some other well meaning, but equally uninformed government in 20 years time......... (sigh)    

[BeSeeingYou]

There was a photo in the local paper showing a large lot filled with these vehicles.  A vast majority seemed to be older minivans, SUV's and pickups.  Now who is mourning the passing of a 96 Dodge Caravan or a Ford Aerostar?  Or the future highly prized collectible 93 Ford Explorer.   This program is not running forever and sooner or later when the economy shows signs or recovery it will end.  The sheer number of these vehicles out there may be somewhat reduced but many of them will still be out there a year from now when this program may not be around.  I know I will still be driving my rolling toolbox 95 Dodge Caravan a year from now.   I would love to get $4500 for it but it means I would have to spend 15 or 20K to take advantage of it for something I really don't need.  I am hardly the only one in that situation.

[andy750]

I would love to get $4500 for it but it means I would have to spend 15 or 20K to take advantage of it for something I really don't need.  I am hardly the only one in that situation.

I was thinking that as well...what happens when all these people buying their new cars cant afford the monthly payments....put it on the credit card? 

[bucky katt]

actually i wish i had either an astrovan/safari or an aerostar with the rear barn doors. great bike hauler! 

[333]

I don't know about the Aerostar, But the Astro is not tall enough.  If I removed the mirrors, My CB125S fit.  Don't get me wrong, I love my Astro.  Working on my second one.

[cb650]

You should make your 650 not smoke.  It'll stunt it's growth.  It could've been a 750.

When I raced I hauled the bike in a old full sized dodge van.  Still have it just dont drive it anymore. Only the bikes.

[Laminar]

My brother-in-law works at Auto Zone and was telling me something about this yesterday. I did not know that the Dealers were to seize the motors and scrap the entire car or truck. He says that the junk yards and resellers of auto parts are really hurting because there are still so many parts available on these vehicles, but they are all destroyed.

I was under the impression that only the engine had to be destroyed - the junkyards could still pull and sell any other parts off of the vehicles, like interior pieces, windows, wheels, etc. etc..

How is it environmentally advantageous to destroy a perfectly useable car..only to replace it with another that cost natl resources to produce? I dont see the savings...sorta like the whole hybrid debate,but thats a whole `nother ball `o` wax.

Keep in mind that the metal parts of the car are almost 100% recyclable, so it's not as if these cars are going to be filling up landfills somewhere - once the engines are destroyed and usable parts are stripped off, the steel and aluminum will be melted down and recycled.

[Bob Wessner]

Poked around a bit and you are correct. The engines have to be destroyed, but other parts are salvageable for resale in the parts market before what remains of the car is recycled.

[Inkscars]

I work at a Ford dealership and we have approx 30 cars sitting in the back lot that nothing is wrong with. In all actuality, the cars that were traded in are nicer than some that our used lot sells.
Our guidelines that we recieved from the government states we are to put this #$%* in the engine in order to lock it up, aka, permanently disable it and then they give us $40 dollars per vehicle to transport them to the scrapyard. We are NOT allowed to sell them to a metal/junk yard. We are supposed to tell them it's for the CARS program and get a weigh in on each vehicle. Then we submit that information to the government and they send us a check.
In the information that we recieved, it specifically states that we are not allowed to remove so much as an ashtray from the vehicle, and as it was turned in, is how it must be turned in.
The vehicle is prorated up to 4500 ranging from, gas mileage, actual mileage, condition of the vehicle, it has to be less than 25 years old and has to get 18 mpg or worse. You have to have owned it and insured it for a year before you can get paid for it.
"www.cars.gov":
The program requires the scrapping of your eligible trade-in vehicle, and that the dealer disclose to you an estimate of the scrap value of your trade-in. The scrap value, however minimal, will be in addition to the rebate, and not in place of the rebate.

[Bob Wessner]

From the CARS link;

The CARS Act requires that the trade-in vehicle be crushed or shredded so that it will not be resold for use in the United States or elsewhere as an automobile. The entity crushing or shredding the vehicles in this manner will be allowed to sell some parts of the vehicle prior to crushing or shredding it, but these parts cannot include the engine or the drive train.

Looks like the dealers taking them in are restricted from parts stripping/selling, but not the entity (scrap yard) crushing them.

[ofreen]

I would love to get $4500 for it but it means I would have to spend 15 or 20K to take advantage of it for something I really don't need.  I am hardly the only one in that situation.

I was thinking that as well...what happens when all these people buying their new cars cant afford the monthly payments....put it on the credit card? 

Exactly.  Part of the problem we are in economically is that people are aready in hock up to their eyeballs.  This program encourages people to go further into debt.

[DammitDan]

Exactly.  Part of the problem we are in economically is that people are aready in hock up to their eyeballs.  This program encourages people to go further into debt.

I've seen plenty of arguments against this program so far and none of them have stood up to scrutiny.  But people will sink to any depths if they're towing the line hard enough.  I especially liked the argument about this program hurting our natural resources.  Awesome.  Please keep the slippery slope fallacies coming, I'm enjoying them  

And the whole "Social Engineering" bit; hilarious!  I love how taxes and government programs are all about "social engineering" but corporate marketing and (tax-free) religious outreach groups are there to help.  Hmm...

[Industrial Rat400f Killer]

I don't know about the Aerostar, But the Astro is not tall enough.  If I removed the mirrors, My CB125S fit.  Don't get me wrong, I love my Astro.  Working on my second one.

I bought a 2001 Astro new in late 2000.
I work construction so my carrier choice requires I have some sort of work vehicle. I would have a sports car if I worked an office job.

The Astro is the best over all IMO, for my needs for these reason's
1. mpg
2. initial cost
3. I need to parallel park in the city so having something short makes that much easier.
4. I haul lots of tools and material


Last week I loaded my wife's cb350k4 and my cb400f into the back, took them to Idaho for vacation and road them all over the place. It ruled! I had to take the mirrors off to get them in but that's a quick deal. The van has been the most practical and usable vehicle I have ever owned. While on my trip I rolled over 100,000 miles, got 19 mpg while traveling at speeds around 90 mph, all while carrying about 1200 lbs.

I hardly think that all GM vehicles are of poor quality but I know some are. They stopped production of the Astro and left all us contractors to choose between bigger, more expensive, less mpg vehicles. IMO they're dicks for that.

There isn't currently a vehicle being made that meets all those criteria or I might have been tempted to go get my $4500.

[BeSeeingYou]

I would think that many of these people taking advantage of this program may have already been thinking of buying a new car but sitting on the fence because of the economy.  People are sitting on their wallets and what this thing is designed to do is get people spending to spur the economy  Sometimes the government has to kick start it to get the money flowing again.  The 1 billion already spent and the 2 billion added are not all that much.  We spend more than that every month in Iraq and Afghanistan which does not seem to concern people all that much.  I guess it better to worry and complain about the little stuff.

With the tightend up credit I doubt high credit risk types will be getting loans as easy as before.

I am thinking about selling the Dodge caravan and getting an Astro cargo van probably around 8 or 10 years old for the extra towing and cargo capacity.  Need to keep it low budget so no CFC for me.

[ofreen]

Exactly.  Part of the problem we are in economically is that people are aready in hock up to their eyeballs.  This program encourages people to go further into debt.

I've seen plenty of arguments against this program so far and none of them have stood up to scrutiny.  But people will sink to any depths if they're towing the line hard enough.  

Since you quoted me, are you saying it is good that people go further into debt during these economic times?  And why should the American taxpayer subsidize the purchase of new cars?  It is a valid question.  This program is just spending more money we don't have.  But I guess if someone disagrees with you, they are sinking to some unfathomable depth?  Kind of hard to have a discussion under those terms.

[Laminar]

They stopped production of the Astro and left all us contractors to choose between bigger, more expensive, less mpg vehicles. IMO they're dicks for that.

If a vehicle line isn't profitable, it only makes sense for a company to axe it. With all of the poor management decisions made by GM, it's strange to call them "dicks" for making one good decision.

[Inkscars]

Some of the people that came in for the CARS program bought new cars even if they didn't qualify for the rebate.
Yes bob. We cannot remove any items. We haven't taken any to the scrapyard yet, so i don't know if that is the end of the route for them or not.
We think somethings going on other then the BS they are feeding about gas mileage and emissions.
You should see some of the cars back there. really NICE cars.
We're just curious on what theyre really up to.
P.s. our dealership has not recieved the 2010 models yet either. we normally have them by now. It's a weird situation....

[DammitDan]

Cash for Clunkers is using funds from the pre-allocated stimulus package.  So yes, in this case I agree with government subsidies for buying new cars, just as I agree with the recent government subsidies for buying houses (for first-time home buyers) and the recent government subsidies for upgrading energy efficiency in private homes.  The whole idea is to stimulate the economy, and the sale of cars (even foreign cars) are indeed a part of our economy.

As for people going into debt, can you provide any data that people are buying vehicles that they otherwise wouldn't have, or that they are spending more money on a vehicle than they otherwise would have?  People are going to buy cars regardless of how much money they have in the bank, that's why there are 50 car lots in my town and they all offer financing.  As much as everyone (me included) would like spending habits to revert back to the '50s where everyone paid cash and credit was only for big purchases (like houses), that just won't happen.  There's nothing that says people must buy new cars, just that they must buy more efficient cars.

And no, I don't automatically assume that if someone disagrees with me that they are wrong and I am right.  But it's pretty clear that you're politically biased on the issue (e.g. the video you posted earlier), so it looks like you're following the party line.  I'm afraid that makes it likely that the argument will just fall into a liberal vs. conservative Dems vs. Repubs issue.

[Laminar]

Since you quoted me, are you saying it is good that people go further into debt during these economic times?  And why should the American taxpayer subsidize the purchase of new cars?  It is a valid question.  This program is just spending more money we don't have.

Ideally, consumers would save up for purchases and pay in cash. People would forgo the need for something RIGHT NOW and be smarter with their money.

That being said, economic crises are very largely dictated by the media. The twenty-four hour sensationalist news stations freak out about a possible economic problem, so people get scared of spending money, so fewer new cars are purchased, fewer new houses are built, fewer new appliances are purchased, etc.. Now every company in those industries is faced with hard times because people aren't buying their goods, so they resort to pay cuts and/or layoffs, which mean white and blue collar workers alike have less money to spend. It's kind of a vicious cycle. The point of a program like this is that those people just sitting on their money waiting for the economy to bounce back would take the leap and spend. Once people start spending again, production ramps up, jobs are created, and the economy bounces back. It's all cyclical, there will always be booms and fall outs, some more severe than others. The hope here is to kick-start the journey back to a better time. If the recent mortgage crisis has taught banks anything, they're much pickier about who they loan money to, so it's much less likely that they'll lend money to people that can't afford to make the payments.

[Laminar]

We think somethings going on other then the BS they are feeding about gas mileage and emissions.

I bet the government is building a killer army of fuel-inefficient cars.

[BeSeeingYou]

We think somethings going on other then the BS they are feeding about gas mileage and emissions.
You should see some of the cars back there. really NICE cars.
We're just curious on what theyre really up to.

Painting them black and adding cars to go along with their fleet of black helicopters.

Or turning them into transformers so they can rule the world.

[Laminar]

As much as everyone (me included) would like spending habits to revert back to the '50s where everyone paid cash and credit was only for big purchases (like houses), that just won't happen.

Preach it!

There's nothing that says people must buy new cars, just that they must buy more efficient cars.

In the Cash for Clunkers bill?

A:  Here are a few updates we know from the Final Rule published on 7/24/2009:

   1. The purchased vehicles, which must be new (2008, 2009, 2010 models)
   2. The vehicle can not cost more than $45,000.
   3. The vehicle must be purchase between July 1, 2009 and November 1, 2009 to qualify.
   4. Motorcycles are not part of the trade-in or sales process.  
   5. Your clunker  has to be in driveable condition.
   6. You must have a clear title to present to the dealer; no liens.
   7. The person on the title of the clunker has to be the same person who is buying the new car. (pg 9)
   8. The EPA mpg ratings on fueleconomy.gov is what is being used; no exceptions

From here.

[Inigo Montoya]

It must be awesome being in politics. Nothing you could ever do would be right. If Obama did not even do a thing to try and get the economy going again, people would complain about that. Even if this all does end up working, people will still complain about something.
What is funny is that people are griping about engines being destroyed. Sure some are but will it be every single one? No.
Will some salvage yards hurt? Maybe but then given the price they want for some parts anyways, I doubt it will be much. I went to get a HUBCAP and a salvage yard wanted $50 for it!!! AND I had to go and pull it off. It was not chrome, there was nothing special about it. It was a simple plastic cap. So for $15 I went to walmart and got 4 that look just as good. Sure they do not have the mazda name but so what.

The premise here is to remove old cars/trucks that were never efficient and to get sales moving some. Arethere problems with the plan? Sure, when aren't there. I doubt a single person here has ever come up with a plan just for themselves that didn't potentially have problems, now come up with a plan to save a whole economy that doesn't have some bugs in it.

Once you put it in that perspective, suddenly it isnt so easy anymore is it.

I suppose the govt could make a law that says you must pay for everything with cash and that you must save 20% of your check every time you get paid. Wonder what the economic fallout for that would be.

Bottom line comes to people controlling their money. Some just HAVE to have that large truck to look cool in or some need a larger house than their neighbor or we could have even more govt control to make us save money.
I know this is america but when did living in america mean being stupid? If people thought about what they NEEDED and not what they THOUGHT they needed because of the jones', we might not be so deep in this mess?

I guess whether or not you agree, lets just hope we have a country left once this all turns around. A country that we can hopefully be proud of and where the people learn some lessons.