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

[SOHC4ever]

I, for one, would like to see the math.

Because I find it very hard to believe that, over the long run, a car that gets 30 mpg as opposed to 12 mpg is going to consume less energy once one considers the energy expended to produce and ship the new car and properly dispose of the old car.
Additionally, as was originally brought up by the author of the thread, the spares being destroyed are very valuable if we're able to value a properly maintained old vehicle as an alternative to the carbon-spewing production of a new vehicle that would replace it.

Seriously, think about it: All of that metal has to be discovered, developed, concentrated, smelted, molded, assembled, and shipped between every stage. Most of this is naturally occurring in regions that value industry over emission control. How "green" can a new car be?

[ofreen]

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.  

The video is funny.  I've laughed at Al Franken's stuff.  By your reckoning, I must then be a liberal.   You know what they say about assumptions.  Discussions go better if you listen to what people say rather than make inferences about the rest of their belief system based on their opinion on one topic.

[ofreen]

I, for one, would like to see the math.

(snip)

Seriously, think about it: All of that metal has to be discovered, developed, concentrated, smelted, molded, assembled, and shipped between every stage. Most of this is naturally occurring in regions that value industry over emission control. How "green" can a new car be?

That was the point of the link I posted awhile back in this thread.  There is more to consider than the tailpipe emissions of a particular vehicle.  It has nothing to do with politics.  The big picture is what is important and we have to see it to know if we are doing the correct thing.

[Duke McDukiedook]

This is another further government bailout of the US auto industry, plain and simple.
They don't make a whole lot of money off the sale of used cars, only way they make money is when they sell new cars.
Used cars get more scarce and affect poor people who usually can't afford new cars anyway, rebate or not.

So much for the wonderful US "free market system".

Fascism, anyone??

[SOHC4ever]

I doubt the authors of "cash for clunkers" considered the factors mentioned in this article -

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/futures/39408

Or maybe they did, but those factors are irrelevant to their goals?

The article doesn't go in to new vs. old vehicles. The data was gathered in hopes of being used to guide production of new forms of transport.

If this is to be taken as gospel, my (our?) inference about vehicle manufacture being as large or larger than tailpipe emissions is false.

[ofreen]

If this is to be taken as gospel, my (our?) inference about vehicle manufacture being as large or larger than tailpipe emissions is false.

I think the article says all emissions considered would add about 40% to the total for autos.  Probably can't be taken as gospel as all the data may not be available, but it is plain that it is a consideration if the intent is to scrap old vehicles and replace them with newly manufactured vehicles.

[Inkscars]

This is another further government bailout of the US auto industry, plain and simple.
They don't make a whole lot of money off the sale of used cars, only way they make money is when they sell new cars.

That's incorrect, at least at my dealership.
Let's say in 2008 (i bought my 07 model focus then) my dealership bought my car from the manufacturer for $11985. Being an employee, they feed me a line about paying 11985 + 1700 esp contract + sales tax and all that they end up making about 3k off me. Maybe.
We get a 02 chevy tahoe, under 50,000 miles, good condition, trade in on another truck, they give them 1500 off the sticker price for the car they traded into. So, basically, they're out nothing yet. they put about 150 dollars worth of parts and labor into it and turn around and sell it for like 15 g. That's one hell of a profit.

[Inigo Montoya]

Ink he was talking about the auto MANUFACTURER not making anything off used cars. Dealers are another matter.

[Inkscars]

Dukies more than capable of telling me what he meant or didn't, thanks though.

Come on, what kinda discussion would this be if we didn't misunderstand someone at least 50 times a day?

[Inigo Montoya]

This is another further government bailout of the US auto industry

Well I took this to mean the manufacturer. Maybe he meant the whole shebang but given the plethora of used car dealers, it must not be doing too bad.

[Duke McDukiedook]

Yep, manufacturer is what I meant.

Shutdown of the dealerships is another whole ball o' wax that really pisses me off, don't get me started on that...

[Inigo Montoya]

Yeah that one is pretty raw. A lot of small ones are getting axed by this. A lot of places that actually do good work and WANT to work to make the sale.

[SOHC4ever]

If this is to be taken as gospel, my (our?) inference about vehicle manufacture being as large or larger than tailpipe emissions is false.

I think the article says all emissions considered would add about 40% to the total for autos.  Probably can't be taken as gospel as all the data may not be available, but it is plain that it is a consideration if the intent is to scrap old vehicles and replace them with newly manufactured vehicles.

The graph doesn't show a 40% total for autos. I agree that it's a consideration, but based on what we see here it's dwarfed by tailpipe emissions.
Frankly, I'm surprised. There is language in the article about the more harmful gg's being produced in the production which doesn't surprise me at all. I think we can agree that this data is hard to gather. I'm in the mining biz, and very familiar with the enormous amount of energy that it takes to make and move metal and... this just seems low.

In any case, the big chunk that I hadn't figured in to my back-of-the-unemployment check-envelope calculation was the fuel production bar. It's bigger than the manufacturing!

[Inkscars]

Everything pisses you off duke. haha.
I think we're the only dealership around here that isn't putting OnTime in the used cars.
It's gotten crazy around here with the used car lots.

[Laminar]

This article provides some insight as to what happens with these junked cars. They're not going to waste.

A few snippets:

Automakers are also increasing their use of recycled materials in new-car production. Ford uses recycled material for its 2008 Escape's cloth seating, while Mazda and Toyota recycle used bumpers to make components of new ones.

What happens to all that steel, plastic, rubber and vinyl? The good news is that over 75 percent (by weight) of a given car's materials are recyclable. And almost 100 percent of the metal from junked cars is actually recycled, mostly for the production of new cars. Plastics are more complex, due to the large variety used in a typical car. But more and more plastics are being recycled as new technologies are better able to sort them out after pulverization. The latest methods are able to separate the different types automatically at a rate of 1,000 pounds an hour. Ten percent of the plastic in a new Mini Cooper is comprised of recycled material, and some carmakers use old carpeting in the creation of fan assemblies.

According to Ward's Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures, at least 84 percent of an average car's material content gets recycled. As incredible as it seems, automotive recycling ranks as the 16th largest industry in the United States. Recycling those vehicles provides enough steel to make nearly 13 million new cars, while also providing jobs for 46,000 people.

And one interesting sidenote:

The nickel used in the Prius' batteries is sourced from a mining plant in Ontario, Canada. Decades ago, poisonous sulfur dioxide fumes spewing out of the factory killed nearly all the surrounding vegetation, giving the once-lush landscape a barren, rocky and otherworldly appearance. In fact, it so resembled the moon's landscape that NASA astronauts used it to test moon buggies. However, the plant has since cleaned up its act, long before Toyota started using it as a supplier, cutting its sulfur dioxide emissions by over 90 percent and planting millions of trees.

Consider Ford's F-150. The truck may guzzle gas and spew emissions more harmful than the Prius, yet its River Rouge, Michigan, assembly plant is actually quite friendly toward the environment thanks to its "living roof" and several energy-saving technologies. Measuring more than 10 acres, the roof is literally green, as it is covered with Sedum plants that filter rainfall (storm water) and convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. Solar panels help provide energy and hot water for the plant. Surrounding the factory are more than 100,000 flowering perennials and shrubs in addition to hundreds of trees.

[HavocTurbo]

Seems everyone else has had a say why not me...

Since no one asked me my opinions when writing the bill or whatever they used to institute this program, my opinion doesn't hold much water.

But

Thinking from a purely economic point of view, wouldn't you want every piece of that car to be either resold or recycled? And if so, why kill the engine? Why not just part it all out and stick it on shelves to be sold later? Thus boosting the used portion of the cars/parts business? Then why not add that anything newer than 2005 with x amount of mpg will be eligible for relsale in a used car lot?

Seems to me that a lot of economic after thought was left out when throwing this together while we are in hard times.

Now think about it purely from an environmental point of view?

I want everyone to drive my "zero emissions car" (which everyone except the owner seems to know and understand that it can never be truly zero emissions) so I'm going to spend millions of dollars buying politicians to put through a program that makes people buy a high milage car and just trashes the stuff they traded in. Those poor souls who haven't seen the light will thank me someday.

Now think about it from a manufacturer's point of view?

I want people to buy my product new. Not just a used traded in form of what I have already sold. I want maximum profits for as little build cost. I need these sales to stay afloat. That $700 billion wasn't enough to get me out of the red.


Want my opinion?

Someone (or plural, obviously) has spent a lot of time and money to get us where we are today. Saving huge global business that wouldn't lift a finger to help us in return. Not just the car companies, but the environmentalists as well as the oil companies.

The problem is not that we lack the desire and drive to help out our people or country, but we as a nation lack the interest to make sure that it is done correctly and in the best intrest of us as a whole, not just a select group.

Sure, if you were looking to buy a new car, this is a great opportunity. But if your neighbor wanted, or needed, your old car because he couldn't afford to buy new, and you would be perfectly happy seeing him drive it around, why would you then just casually throw it out?

I think the radio stated that 900,000 cars in two days were traded in and then sent to the scrap yards. Not junk yards.... SCRAP yards. That's a potential % of cars that people could then trade their even older cars for newer. Thus reducing yet again, even if by a small amount (and hey, something is better than nothing right?), the amount of pollution put into the air by those even older guzzlers.

It's a great "idea" this cash for clunkers. But we implemented it too soon, and definitely without thinking it through.

I drive a 1988 Ford f-150. I have over 300,000 miles on it. I get 12mpg both loaded or unloaded. Doesn't matter. I would barely be able to afford a used car, but not a new one. And that newer used truck that gets 22 loaded or unloaded..... just got thrown away.

[noahspop]

when i heard about this program, i though of that movie  robots. with robin williams in it. (its a cartoon) my son and i watch it all the time.
its all about robots, a little steam punkish, no offense to that artist.
the  factory that makes all the spare parts and new parts is taken over. the new guy that heads up the factory decides to no longer make used parts.
only new upgrades. if you don't get upgraded, you will be considered junk and then melted down.
I'm telling you the government is gonna start coming after your sandcast.

like many other government programs, its a good idea in the beginning, but in the end its not very well thought out.

just my 2cents.

[Bob Wessner]

They have, or have had similar programs in Europe (France, Spain, UK) anyone from there have any thoughts on how it went in their country?

[Sam Green Racing]

Brilliant, but I'm just about to dine...you'll have to wait a while

Sam.

[Laminar]

Thinking from a purely economic point of view, wouldn't you want every piece of that car to be either resold or recycled? And if so, why kill the engine? Why not just part it all out and stick it on shelves to be sold later? Thus boosting the used portion of the cars/parts business? Then why not add that anything newer than 2005 with x amount of mpg will be eligible for relsale in a used car lot?

Making used cars eligible would help car dealerships instead of car manufacturers.

If you parted out the engine, those parts could be used to keep another gas guzzler running. Reducing the quantity of spare engines/engine parts makes prices for those parts higher and makes those vehicles (even more) expensive to keep running.

[Sam Green Racing]

They have, or have had similar programs in Europe (France, Spain, UK) anyone from there have any thoughts on how it went in their country?

I took advantage of the offer in the UK and have had the car for about 2 months.
I had to wait 3 weeks as they had just sold the last one. The wait now 2 months later is 5 months.
People are realy taking advantage of the governments (£1,000) and manufactures (£1,100 in Fiats case) offers.
I paid £4995 for a £7,095 car, I realy didn't want to go through another winter with the old Ford van.
Although the Ford was as economical as the Fiat, it wouldn't pull the skin of a rice pudding and I needed to be able to tow my race bike to meetings.
The Fiat has everything that the Ford didn't and my only gripe is, I have to clean it because it's new. The Ford got washed once in just over a year and that's only because there was a bikini wash at my local pub

Sam.

[DammitDan]

Damn, thanks for that correction Laminar.  I had mixed up the rules with the vehicle being traded in vs. the vehicle being bought (I know, I don't make sense to myself, either  )!

[Duke McDukiedook]

Damn it Dan!

[razor02097]

Washington doesn't get it.  It SETS the price for any SUV or truck that gets 18mpg combined or less.  For example my jeep according to KBB even if it was in "Poor" condition is still worth more then the $4500 they would give me.  If I went to buy a car and trade my jeep in they would give me the cash for clunkers value and not its real value.  That pisses ME off.

Just look at the list sometime... would someone trade in a corvette or a jag for 4500?  Its a bunch of yuppies setting the rules here.  They don't give a crap about the economy or the environment.  They are taking your and my dime to fund stuff like this so they can crush the perfectly working car and sell it for scrap.  Who is the buyer of the scrap?  Not America...   It takes far too much labor to separate that stuff out... you need sweat shop people for that.  It ends up being sent over seas, shredded, sorted melted down, filler added then sold back to America... inferior very expensive pot metal.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I can smell a rat... and there are way too many in washington spending our money right now.

[333]

Anybody that tries to trade a car that's worth more than the rebate is an idiot.  And that goes double for someone who tries to trade a Corvette or a Jag.