# Cash for clunkers...



## Badbeams3 (Jun 20, 2009)

Anyone planning to trade their car/truck in for a new one under this program?


----------



## NonSenCe (Jun 20, 2009)

oh how i feel shivers down my spine when i hear of these programs.. 

people destroying good usable cars. no cars for future generations to tinker with. 

to me its eco friendlier to use existing old cars instead of getting a new car that has to be made from scratch.


----------



## Greta (Jun 20, 2009)

"Cash for clunkers"... _SERIOUS_ misnomer!! There's no cash involved at all! You get a voucher for your "clunker". And the amount of the voucher is dependant upon the gas mileage of your "clunker" and the gas mileage of the new car you have to buy with the voucher.

HERE is a very good article regarding the program.

And here is the "meat" of the program:



> 1. Trade in a car that — this is a key point — has been registered and in use for at least a year, and has a federal combined city/highway fuel-economy rating of 18 or fewer miles per gallon.
> 2. Buy a new car, priced at $45,000 or less and rated at least 4 mpg better than the old one (gets a $3,500 voucher). If the new one gets at least 10 mpg better, you get the full $4,500.
> Example: Trade that well-worn 1985 Chevrolet Impala V-8 police special, rated 14 mpg, for a 2009 Impala V-8 rated 19 mpg and the government will kick in $3,500. Downsize to Chevy Cobalt (27 mpg) or even a larger Honda Accord (24 mpg) and get $4,500.


----------



## LEDninja (Jun 21, 2009)

I came across an article earlier.
It has synopsis of the European, American, Canadian and British Columbian versions.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...OS_cash_clunkers_090619/20090619?s_name=Autos

You guys got it good compared to Canada.
Quote "Ottawa is offering $300 in the form of bus passes, bicycles or cash to the owners of pre-1996 vehicles who junk their rides."

People in British Columbia get a better deal.
Quote "the payouts are based on the size of the greenhouse gas benefit. That is, the worst polluters are worth the most to owners who scrap them.
If your old car, when scrapped, offers a fairly low greenhouse gas reduction, then you get $750 applied to the purchase of a new vehicle. Medium benefit, $1,250 and high greenhouse gas benefit, $2,250."


----------



## GLOCK18 (Jun 21, 2009)

I remember a few year back they had a program for clunker that didnt pass CA smog, I received a check from the Fed Gov for 2500.00. If lucky I could have sold the car for 500. I great way for tax money to be spent, leave it to the fed's.


----------



## MarNav1 (Jun 21, 2009)

Where's a program so we can get a voucher for our "clunker" Luxeon lights for newer Cree or Seoul type lights? Say if it went from 50 lumens to 100 lumens with more efficiency? Think of the batteries we could save! Or if the light was pre 2000? Or we could apply for a "modders" voucher, so we could send our lights off to Milky or whomever to get them upgraded? Dang Congress, what were they thinking?


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jun 21, 2009)

My thoughts are the manufactures are the one who will benefit most. They will stop offering incentives...dealers too. So it will cost anyone who does not have a clunker more. And those with a clunker might not see any real gain... And of course the tax payer "you...we...us" will pay the price all the way around. 

That said, it will be worth looking into. I have a 2000 S-10 truck that I might let go of for a new one. Trade in value is only $2200 (130,000 mi). It looks great, runs great...love it. But if the deal is good enough...she`s scrap yard bound.


----------



## AlexGT (Jun 21, 2009)

I have an old minivan that I would like to trade for a small car, can it be done? or does it have to be another minivan?

So what's the catch? Will they include the incentive as taxable income at the end of the year?

AlexGT


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Jun 22, 2009)

Sounds to me that most vehicles turned in under this program will be trucks, vans, and muscle cars. Older vehicles are safer as they are made of solid metal instead of tin foil. Trading in a van for a smaller vehicle will require two cars to transport larger families. That doesn't help reduce pollution and probably doesn't help keep families together either. Trucks are needed for many jobs, and with U.S. car companies starting to go bankrupt, it will soon be harder to get a new truck. Do these old cars go to the junkyard where they can be purchased, are they made into spare parts, or are they being destroyed? If they're destroyed, it isn't going to make U.S. car owners happy as the car parts industry is in trouble and used parts may be their only option to fix up their car, especially for car brands that are no longer being made. 

Seems to me that this is yet another way to use our money to take away our choices. Want a cheap, used car? Too bad. They've been destroyed. Need parts to fix up your older car? Too bad. The company no longer makes parts for it since the brand went out of business and the used cars that had the needed parts were all destroyed. I guess you'll have to buy a new little clown car that gets 100 miles a gallon that only seats one third of your family and can't haul any cargo. At least it will be good for the environment to retire large cars to the dumps before they stop working. Not. It means an entire car has to be made early to replace the old one and landfills will fill up at an accelerated rate. At least it will reduce the amount of "poisonous" CO2 in the air and help fight global warming. Not. Manufacturing a new car to replace the old car will cause pollution which will include pollutants far worse than CO2. If you think you can stop global warming by reducing CO2, hold your breath. At least you'll know how the plants will feel if there is no more CO2.

If it hasn't been made clear already, I believe in a free market economy. I know what I need better than a beauracrat and am against anything that takes away my choices. I'll decide what doctor I want, what car I buy, how much money I'm willing to earn, what lightbulbs I use in my home, what type of knives to buy, what battery chemistry I use in my flashlights, and I don't mind being a pain in the butt to anyone who tries to take away my choices. Taking away your freedom of choice is the same as being forced to do something. Once you're left will only one option, it's not a choice, it's an order. It's like boiling a frog slowly versus putting the frog in boiling water. If you put the frog in boiling water, he'll hop out. If you raise the temperature slowly with the frog in the water, he'll get cooked to death. That seems to be the strategy here. Take away our options slowly, one at a time, and nobody will notice until we have no options and our freedoms are gone.


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Jun 22, 2009)

.
NO way ........

I'm not interested .
.


----------



## dano (Jun 22, 2009)

It's painfully obvious that the people running the States and Country don't want you to drive, nor do they want you to have teh personal choice as to what you drive and use for tranportation. 

They'll say it will help the environment, which is crap, it will only help THEM and their agenda.

Personally, I think this type of governmental intervention into personal choice and personal responsibility has got to stop. But, not many in the general populace care; too infatuated with that certain head-honcho who's swatting at flies on the evening news.


----------



## RyanA (Jun 22, 2009)

You'd figure they'd have made it so it had to be a Chevy, in order to back up the bailouts. Still, I wouldn't scoff at 4,500. I sure as heck need a new car.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jun 22, 2009)

Greta said:


> "Cash for clunkers"... _SERIOUS_ misnomer!! There's no cash involved at all! You get a voucher for your "clunker". And the amount of the voucher is dependant upon the gas mileage of your "clunker" and the gas mileage of the new car you have to buy with the voucher.
> 
> HERE is a very good article regarding the program.
> 
> And here is the "meat" of the program:



Sweet Jesus, I actually have a clunker that is exactly 18 mpg combined!!! I almost traded it in on a new Honda Accord last fall, but they would only give me $800 for it. Now this is change I can believe in. This keeps up and I may have to change party affiliations. WooHoo!


----------



## jtr1962 (Jun 22, 2009)

It probably makes more sense to give an incentive to convert large gas guzzlers to either plug-in hybrids, or better yet straight electrics, than to crush them, at least according to this article.



> If you replace your current large or small internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle with a new PHEV of the same size, it will take over 40,000 miles of driving the PHEV in place of the old vehicle to save as much energy and CO2 emissions as was consumed in the manufacture of the new vehicle! If instead you convert your existing vehicle into a PHEV, you will need to drive only 8,600 miles before beginning to save more energy and CO2 emissions than caused by the conversion process.
> 
> This is because it requires as much energy as is contained in 1,822 gallons of gasoline* to manufacture a new mid-sized PHEV PSV (Pickup truck, SUV, or Van), but only the equivalent of 360 gallons -- 1/5 as much -- to convert an existing PSV into a PHEV. For a Prius-sized passenger car, the numbers are 1,035 and 196 gallons respectively.
> 
> ...



One thing the study didn't take into account is what happens if the new vehicle is shaped more aerodynamically so that it's inherently more efficient. It may take 40,000 miles before you get a return if you make a PHEV SUV of the exact same size and shape. But what if the new vehicle is just as large (and therefore useful to its owner), but instead has a highly aerodynamic sloped front? I'd guess the return period would be a lot shorter.

Of course, there are _other_ good reasons for getting very large vehicles off the roads which have nothing to do with energy consumption but that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.



dano said:


> It's painfully obvious that the people running the States and Country don't want you to drive, nor do they want you to have teh personal choice as to what you drive and use for tranportation.


For a whole bunch of reasons, most of them economic believe it or not, it actually makes sense to have a policy which encourages people to use either public transit, walking, cycling, or some combination of these three. The annual death toll from auto use is horrific. The number of people who get cancer from transportation emissions is even higher. Pollution ruins structures and otherwise negatively affects quality of life. Roads and parking lots use valuable real estate which could otherwise be put to better uses. All of these things cost tons of money. Over most distances cars aren't even any faster than well-designed alternatives (just ask any NYer if it's faster driving or taking the subway when going into Manhattan). Therefore, you can't even say that the money spent on the other things is more than paid for by time savings for the car users. But for now we're unfortunately stuck with what we have. People don't drive because it's better, they drive because in most areas _they simply have no reasonable alternatives_. Even if we made it a national goal to build a public transit system better than Europe's (and we could), it would be at least a generation before we finished. So all we can do for now is try to make the auto less polluting. But I tend to agree that this policy is the wrong way to go about it. The car bodies already exist. Rather than crush them it makes more sense to convert them unless they've already exceeded a reasonable service life (say 15 years).

Maybe if the government is so gung ho on getting people out of their cars they should give an annual monetary incentive to those who don't own one, or even more to those without a driver's license who can't even drive a borrowed car. Granted, such a policy won't make a bit of difference in most of the US, but it might cut down significantly on auto use in areas where viable alternatives already exist. Hey, just a thought.


----------



## Greta (Jun 22, 2009)

Let's not forget here what the true purpose of this program is... to help out the auto industry. This really has nothing whatsoever to do with getting Americans to drive more fuel efficient vehicles and the whole carbon footprint thing. 

So how about this? The car companies need a bail out. They need to get rid of current inventory that is piling up and collecting dust. They need funds to keep their companies running and people employed. Many consumers need new cars. New, more effcient cars wouldn't be a bad thing but let's not discriminate. So instead of just handing over money to the car companies or coming up with spiffy little "programs", let's give anyone who buys a vehicle from one of the companies with their hand out to the government an automatic $5-10k knocked off the sticker (depending on the total cost of the vehicle which will be $1 over invoice and no more). The consumer gets a low interest loan on the balance. The amount that gets knocked off the top is paid by the government. This would be in lieu of the funds handed over as a bail out. The inventory gets lowered, consumers get new vehicles they can afford, people keep their jobs, the auto industry has to actually WORK for their hand out. It's win-win for everyone!


----------



## Beamhead (Jun 22, 2009)

I think the whole idea is silly and just wanted to state for the record that Ford has yet to ask for a bailout/takeover.


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Jun 22, 2009)

Greta said:


> Let's not forget here what the true purpose of this program is... to help out the auto industry. This really has nothing whatsoever to do with getting Americans to drive more fuel efficient vehicles and the whole carbon footprint thing.



I don't remember the program requiring that you had to purchase an American car. What's to keep us from buying a Toyota or a Honda? These are the two top fuel efficient car companies, but they are Japanese companies. Those hybrid batteries are all made in Japan or China. The truth is that we don't have much of a U.S. car industry anymore. Most things nowadays only say assembled in the U.S.A. instead of made in the U.S.A. Most parts are made oversees. This program will help other countries just as much, if not more than ours. It is simply a waste of our money. It doesn't help the environment, it doesn't help create jobs in the U.S., and it attempts to manipulate our purchasing decisions by incentivising us with our own money while eliminating our lower cost options.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jun 22, 2009)

Does not need to be an American car...or a car with hi gas milage. Your clunker needs to get an EPA rating of 18mpg or less...and you must have owned it/insured it for at least one year. Here is some info http://cashforclunkersfacts.com/bill-faq

I have my eye on a 2010 Camaro...v6....304hp...Yea baby! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtQj6ZnMwBE


----------



## Alaric Darconville (Jun 22, 2009)

So those of us who have made sensible choices (buying cars with good EPA mileage) get nothing-- and the people that have had to buy giant Oldsmobuicks at "You Get Credit Auto" and can't afford a new car (read: the working poor) can't take advantage of it, as even a $4500 voucher towards a $14,000 car probably won't help out all that much. I don't think very many people will actually be able to take advantage of this at all.

However, I *have* heard car ads for the Nissan Versa for $9999 -- there might be some people lucky enough to make use of the voucher in a case like that and get a real bargain.


----------



## Greta (Jun 22, 2009)

Hooked on Fenix said:


> I don't remember the program requiring that you had to purchase an American car. What's to keep us from buying a Toyota or a Honda?


 
EXACTLY!! And this is why my plan above would work out so well for OUR economy!! 



Alaric Darconville said:


> So those of us who have made sensible choices (buying cars with good EPA mileage) get nothing-- and the people that have had to buy giant Oldsmobuicks at "You Get Credit Auto" and can't afford a new car (read: the working poor) can't take advantage of it, as even a $4500 voucher towards a $14,000 car probably won't help out all that much. I don't think very many people will actually be able to take advantage of this at all.


 
BINGO!! And there, my friends, is the fatal flaw in the program!


----------



## dano (Jun 22, 2009)

Every auto manufacturer makes cars in the U.S., yet the "Big 3" are the only ones who have gone bankrupt or will be going bankrupt.

This program, should it provide incentive to purchase a new, fuel efficient vehicle (i.e. hybrid, PLEV, etc), will not help the Big 3, as they do not offer the technology. 

Smart consumers will gravitate to Honda, Toyota, Subaru (who all have U.S. factories) for the high mileage technologies.

This won't help The Big 3. That will only come when the Govt allows them to fail, and they rebuild w/out the stranglehold of the UAW.


----------



## NonSenCe (Jun 22, 2009)

glad to hear that many here seem to be thinking the same way as i am of these programs.

i dont mind giving my old junker car for 4500dollars in cash! but for a coupon.. nope. cash, so i can use it where i want it to be used. 

or if i recycle my car. you, as in car company and goverment give me a new one, of same size and comfort or better. for free of charge. (if you really want to save the world by removing my old car.. gimme new one) 

save the old cars!
save the option of paying only for cheap POS car!

hah.

and i really do not believe that those numbers for "how much it takes to make a new car vs old cars pollution" are correct. how many miles i can drive with my old junk car before i start to be even with the new car pollution costs? 

and then add the mileage you have driven already and count the costs to drive that amount with new car. then add that pollution and see how far you can still drive the old car before they are even. 

i think the numbers should also include the collateral and indirect costs. 

something like maintenance costs too.. new cars need specific tools and computers.. its hard to fix them yourself. look under the hood and you only see covers that are not allowed to be opened. headlight bulb change takes 3 hours as one needs to remove the bumper and grille and stuff to get to them. 

i spend less last year fixing my 23yo car with spare parts and one stop at local mechanic (tuneup) than it cost my friend do the MANDATORY checkups at certified company for his new car! 
and next year he will have atleast 2 of those ahead.

if my clunker breaks down completely i can buy myself a "new" one for same 1000 (for cost of my friends aluminum wheels and tyres) or the extra package he spend to get the specific metallic colors and ac and stuff, with that i could buy 3 cars! 

you know how many days you need to go to work to pay for the new 15 000 car? how much you actually pollute doing that? driving to work for 3-10 years to pay for the car alone? its not 15k car with loans.. its closer to 19k i think in total.

or the 1000 every few years on a "new" used car. walk to car lot cash in hand you saved. drive out. 

all the things you make at work, how much that costs to nature to make? do they add into pollution? yeh they do!

how about the electric you need while working to pay for that new car. and the maintenance costs

oh and lets talk about the big picture.. no. the huge enourmous wide screen beyond belief.. 

start of making the new car.. think of all people involved. add the above costs on their behalf to the pollution load too.. the time and moeny they spend to work for it. the pollution they make while working. 
just think: the designers, engineer, builders, transporters like cargoships and trucks and the people operating them, retailers, sales persons... 

oh and add the pr and media people too, reporters fly to unveilings and test drives around the world. the magazines that need to be made so the new car can be "shown" to public, all those costs to make the paper, print and then to recycle it.. 

all the people somehow involved ..all their costs to get to work and do their work. 

_gigantium costs. just for sake of making new car. 
_
and i am not one of those GREEN people.. 

i pollute. i drive for fun. my cars are 40 and 23 years old. newest i have had was 1989  i drive junk but everything i have i pay in cash. -loaning money for something like a new car.. its insane if you dont use it as your WORKtool.

the NEED for new one is false for 90% people, the WANT for new is other thing. 

but i also am still able to think with my own brains. industry first. china russia usa.. the big polluters get their pollution loads in order, then its time for smaller countries, and after that the normal people.


----------



## GLOCK18 (Jun 22, 2009)

*My car only get about 14mpg I wonder if it’s a clunker*









Or maybe they would give a vourcher for this gas burning beast (Jon Barrett 454 Rat Motor)


----------



## wacbzz (Jun 22, 2009)

Hooked on Fenix said:


> Sounds to me that most vehicles turned in under this program will be trucks, vans, and muscle cars. Older vehicles are safer as they are made of solid metal instead of tin foil. Trading in a van for a smaller vehicle will require two cars to transport larger families. That doesn't help reduce pollution and probably doesn't help keep families together either. Trucks are needed for many jobs, and with U.S. car companies starting to go bankrupt, it will soon be harder to get a new truck. Do these old cars go to the junkyard where they can be purchased, are they made into spare parts, or are they being destroyed? If they're destroyed, it isn't going to make U.S. car owners happy as the car parts industry is in trouble and used parts may be their only option to fix up their car, especially for car brands that are no longer being made.
> 
> Seems to me that this is yet another way to use our money to take away our choices. Want a cheap, used car? Too bad. They've been destroyed. Need parts to fix up your older car? Too bad. The company no longer makes parts for it since the brand went out of business and the used cars that had the needed parts were all destroyed. I guess you'll have to buy a new little clown car that gets 100 miles a gallon that only seats one third of your family and can't haul any cargo. At least it will be good for the environment to retire large cars to the dumps before they stop working. Not. It means an entire car has to be made early to replace the old one and landfills will fill up at an accelerated rate. At least it will reduce the amount of "poisonous" CO2 in the air and help fight global warming. Not. Manufacturing a new car to replace the old car will cause pollution which will include pollutants far worse than CO2. If you think you can stop global warming by reducing CO2, hold your breath. At least you'll know how the plants will feel if there is no more CO2.
> 
> If it hasn't been made clear already, I believe in a free market economy. I know what I need better than a beauracrat and am against anything that takes away my choices. I'll decide what doctor I want, what car I buy, how much money I'm willing to earn, what lightbulbs I use in my home, what type of knives to buy, what battery chemistry I use in my flashlights, and I don't mind being a pain in the butt to anyone who tries to take away my choices. Taking away your freedom of choice is the same as being forced to do something. Once you're left will only one option, it's not a choice, it's an order. It's like boiling a frog slowly versus putting the frog in boiling water. If you put the frog in boiling water, he'll hop out. If you raise the temperature slowly with the frog in the water, he'll get cooked to death. That seems to be the strategy here. Take away our options slowly, one at a time, and nobody will notice until we have no options and our freedoms are gone.





NonSenCe said:


> glad to hear that many here seem to be thinking the same way as i am of these programs.
> 
> i dont mind giving my old junker car for 4500dollars in cash! but for a coupon.. nope. cash, so i can use it where i want it to be used.
> 
> ...



After stumbling incredulously through these two posts, I've got to admit that these are seriously the top two entries for the Most Backward Thinking Post of the year here on CPF...


----------



## NonSenCe (Jun 22, 2009)

hmm ..thanks, i think.. :tinfoil::thinking:Hahhhhaahh..


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Jun 24, 2009)

wacbzz said:


> After stumbling incredulously through these two posts, I've got to admit that these are seriously the top two entries for the Most Backward Thinking Post of the year here on CPF...



Thanks a lot. You may want to save that dishonor for some of your posts if you're going to continue trolling.

I wasn't kidding about our freedom of choice being taken away and the choices I listed have already been taken away or are in the process of being taken away.

Choice of doctor: Today the president is trying to convince us that his healthcare plan will help the country. It will bankrupt the current system and lead to a single payer system with no choices. It will be run by the founder of Planned Parenthood who believes in eugenics. The Nazis believed in eugenics and used it as an excuse to kill millions. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Choice of car: Our auto industry is going bankrupt and the Cash for Clunkers program will destroy older used cars. This will leave us with few options other than small fuel efficient vehicles, walking, bike riding, or public transportation. In California, there are more cars owned than car owners. This will be a huge change for us.
Choice of how much money I make: Our country now has a pay czar who has the power to limit how much money anyone can make.
Choice of what lightbulbs I use: California now requires all new construction to have energy efficient lighting in the entire building. Any lighting that isn't energy efficient has to be on a dimmer. This rules out using screw in CFLs as the fixture has to be made to where it can't use a regular incandescent bulb. Most CFLs will get ruined being dimmed.
Choice of knives I can have or buy: Customs is in the process of changing the definition of a switchblade to include most if not all fold up knives. This will make it illegal to possess, own, or to buy a fold up knife. They will most likely take away/steal your knives to bring you into compliance.
Choice of battery chemistry for my flashlights: California classified alkaline batteries as universal waste making it illegal to throw out used batteries. Lithium batteries were already illegal to throw out. This encourages/forces more people to buy and use rechargeable batteries.

You may not like how pesimistic my post was, but that doesn't make it any less true. Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get me (or my rights).


----------



## sunspot (Jun 24, 2009)

The clunker. Does it have to be _driven_ in for trade?:naughty: A good deal for tow trucks drivers.


----------



## Alaric Darconville (Jun 24, 2009)

GLOCK18 said:


> Or maybe they would give a vourcher for this gas burning beast
> (Pic of classic Chevy Nova removed)




If it's got a straight six, I'll bet it gets pretty decent mileage if in tune.... Nice car, though!


----------



## jtr1962 (Jun 24, 2009)

Hooked on Fenix said:


> Choice of doctor: Today the president is trying to convince us that his healthcare plan will help the country. It will bankrupt the current system and lead to a single payer system with no choices. It will be run by the founder of Planned Parenthood who believes in eugenics. The Nazis believed in eugenics and used it as an excuse to kill millions. Look it up if you don't believe me.
> Choice of car: Our auto industry is going bankrupt and the Cash for Clunkers program will destroy older used cars. This will leave us with few options other than small fuel efficient vehicles, walking, bike riding, or public transportation. In California, there are more cars owned than car owners. This will be a huge change for us.
> Choice of how much money I make: Our country now has a pay czar who has the power to limit how much money anyone can make.
> Choice of what lightbulbs I use: California now requires all new construction to have energy efficient lighting in the entire building. Any lighting that isn't energy efficient has to be on a dimmer. This rules out using screw in CFLs as the fixture has to be made to where it can't use a regular incandescent bulb. Most CFLs will get ruined being dimmed.
> ...


Well, some of those freedoms you mentioned directly impact the freedoms of others. For example, if someone has the freedom to drive a huge, gasoline-burning car, it doesn't benefit me one bit but the pollution from that decision directly impacts my health. I could make a similar argument for any other decision which needlessly wastes energy when better alternatives exist. While I don't agree with this program on many levels and said as much, I do agree with one of the overall goals-namely to reduce air pollution by getting people into more efficient vehicles. The problem is this program seeks to do that AND also prop up the auto industry by getting people to buy new vehicles (rather than retrofit their old ones). IMHO the American auto industry deserves to die. There has never been another industry more arrogant, retrenched, deceitful and unresponsive to the consumer unless one goes back to the railroad robber barons of the early 20th century. Thank goodness for what little regulation the auto industry has. Without it cars wouldn't have seat belts, air bags, turn signals, marker lights or probably even brakes. After all, most consumers would consider these things unnecessary frills for which they would be unwilling to pay any extra.

Let's say your worst case scenario comes true (which I doubt) and all we are left with to get around are smaller cars, bikes, walking, or public transit. Well, for starters since all the cars are smaller safety isn't going to be compromised. If anything, you'll probably be safer in an accident as what you'll hit won't be 3 times heavier than you (let's forgot heavy trucks as even a Hummer is no match for those). Hmm, the smaller cars won't be able to carry a big family, so now you'll have to take two cars instead of one you say? Well, family size has gotten smaller. I think the average is 2.1 children per family. Just about any car made these days can accomodate 2 adults plus 2 or 3 kids. And let's suppose maybe with just smaller cars available perhaps some people like yourself get so disgusted with their "lack of choices" that they just decide to run what they have into the ground (and then for lack of choices appealing to them go carless after that). Great idea in my book. The more families which decide to go carless for whatever reason means more demand for decent public transit. And public transit isn't a frill or an option any more. Your state voted to build the nation's first high-speed rail line. Good for them. Yes, it'll cost tons of money. But the alternatives of building more highways and airports would cost even more. And you above all should appreciate what this means. It increases the number of choices you have to get around. See how that works? When you constrain your options for one choice, or maybe make the users of that choice pay the true cost of it, then all of a sudden a bunch of other choices open up as more attractive options. Often the former original choice wasn't even necessarily the most efficient economic choice but special interests effectively eliminated the other choices. Maybe you're aware of how the auto companies in the 1950s bought up trolley lines, replaced them with poor bus service, then finally eliminated even the buses, effectively forcing many to buy cars whether they wanted to or not.

I WANT more choices. I want the option of public transit in more places than it currently exists. I want nice LED alternatives to dated, inefficient incandescents. I want rechargeable battery technology to continue to develop. But remember that free markets don't always give the consumer the best choice, so in some cases you need some manipulation by government. Sure, government will sometimes back some things which are poor products doomed to failure. But by the same token equally poor products will often be the only choice in free markets if they happen to maximize profit over superior products. Look at batteries for example. LSD rechargeable batteries overcome any excuse for not using rechargeables. They're better or as good in every way compared to the alkalines they replace. In the long run they save tons of money. I would tend to think based on that I shouldn't see alkalines on store shelves any more. But of course the battery makers as a rule don't want these batteries in the same highly visible areas as their disposibles. Instead, if a store carries them at all, they're hiding behind the counter along with cigarettes and shavers. So of course the average consumer isn't aware of them, and buys the same old cash cow alkalines. And for that matter why is it that seemingly every product sold these days seems designed to produce a steady revenue stream, whether it's ink jet printers, or digicams with proprietary batteries, or cars for that matter? Not good for the consumer but great for the bottom line of these businesses.

So yeah, they are out to get you. They're out to get as many dollars from your wallet as they can by severely limiting your choices to the ones they make the most money out of. A totally free market society frankly frightens me as much as a totalitarian one. In the latter some megalomaniac dictator rules. In the former a bunch of unelected CEOs with unlimited terms whose only goal is profit do. I'm glad for some government interference from time to time, even when it's poorly thought out like this latest plan, just to keep companies on their toes. Sadly, far too many companies have lost sight of the real reason they exist-namely to give the consumer what they want.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jun 24, 2009)

Great posts everyone...but I didn`t mean for this to become political...not to much anyway. 

It is what it is...like it or not. The best way to not loose entirely is to have... and be able to trade in a old clunker that is not worth anywhere near $4500. I had hoped for some pic`s of old clunkers and comments about what Cpf`ers would like to trade for. More of a fun thread.


----------



## wacbzz (Jun 25, 2009)

Hooked on Fenix said:


> Thanks a lot. You may want to save that dishonor for some of your posts if you're going to continue trolling.



_Dishonor_?? Calling me a troll doesn't in any way take away from the backwardness of your post. 



Hooked on Fenix said:


> You may not like how pesimistic my post was, but that doesn't make it any less true. Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get me (or my rights).



Unbelievable. 

But on to the real topic of the thread...



Badbeams3 said:


> It is what it is...like it or not. The best way to not loose entirely is to have... and be able to trade in a old clunker that is not worth anywhere near $4500. I had hoped for some pic`s of old clunkers and comments about what Cpf`ers would like to trade for. More of a fun thread.



When somebody brings in a vehicle that will count towards the voucher program, I will try to get a picture of their trade and talk with them. They will, after all, have to pass through my office before they leave the dealership...:devil:


----------



## flashy bazook (Jul 4, 2009)

When I first heard about this program I thought it might be a good deal.

I thought, I could trade-in my older car at some value (say, X), get the voucher (say, Y, up to $4,500), so I could get a new car for X+Y LESS than I could negotiate it for.

BUT - this is not how this works - you basically LOSE the value of the older car (no X!) completely. So you ONLY gain Y-X with this deal.

A lot less attractive than I first thought.

In any case, I tried to work out how many cars this program could help support, and it's actually very few - maybe a bit more than 200,000 cars at max voucher value, which is only a small fraction of cars sold PER MONTH (maybe 20%?).

Keep in mind that the whole program cost is limited, so no more vouchers after the program cash runs out.

Basically, this program will help only a few people who really have old clunkers of the $500 bucks worth variety AND who have been running them rather than having them rust in the back yard (since they need to have been insured for operation).

For the rest it is a bit of a "bait and switch" item, gets you thinking about buying that new car and making a trip or two to the dealer, and maybe they can grab you into buying something EVEN WITHOUT the voucher.

Buyer be-careful-out-there!


----------



## NeonLights (Jul 4, 2009)

I really dislike this latest scheme of the government, inpart because it just doesn't make sense for any of the many people I know who drive qualifying "clunkers". None of my cars would qualify except maybe my two V8 Mustangs, but I personally average 20 mpg or better in mixed driving, and they are both worth a lot more than $3500 or $4500. 

All the people I know who drive qualifying cars do so for two reasons, either by choice because they prefer to drive an older car that is paid for, or by necessity, because they can't afford a newer car. In the first case, the people could afford a new car if they wanted, they just choose not to as they feel it isn't a wise financial decision to buy a new car (it rarely is, although I choose to do so for myself), so an additional $4500 wouldn't do anything for them. In the 2nd case, $4500 isn't enough to make any new car affordable since they could just go out and buy another used Ford Taurus for $1-2000 and have it last for several more years. 

This program really makes sense for almost no-one, and will destroy a lot of potential used parts that could be rescued from a salvage yard to keep other cars running in the future.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 4, 2009)

NeonLights said:


> This program really makes sense for almost no-one, and will destroy a lot of potential used parts that could be rescued from a salvage yard to keep other cars running in the future.



Why would anyone think that anything done by Government should make sense?


----------



## NonSenCe (Jul 5, 2009)

wacbzz: i have been waiting you to explain with further detail how i was wrong with my thinking. 

why do you think all those costs and pollution should not be counted in too? how come they are not valid in your mind? they do exist, as everyone involved do add their load in too, right? so i still think they should be counted in. have you some actual facts and proof that might persuade me to think otherwise, some actual data might be nice.. some super smart reasoning why they shouldnt count into the total?

and then after that, please let me also know where was i wrong when i said that the already made things are more ecofriendlier to nature than the things to which you need to find and dig new resources out of the earth? and then design and process the raw material to something useful, then manufacture and market them? and finally deliver them to end user? 

oh dont forget to count in the fact that they too will be junk in the end, and by your thought process as if it breaks or gets old it must be replaced with new one at once.. with faster pace these days as things are made for short term use only.. and that new one that replaces the "now new" thing in future. -huge leap yeah. but not really wrong to presume this to happen is it?

the natural resources are limited you know. and things already that have been into use and recycling them as themselves saves energy when compared to actual recycling them into bare essentials and then again building new things out if them. right?

and making new stuff out of the recycled stuff, that also takes energy right? 

any new stuff pollutes while it beeing made, right? 
some pollute while they are in use (like cars) right? 
and in future they will become yet another source of recycling and pollution. right? 

-they too become "clunkers" in the end.. and i bet faster than people think. in the "old days" cars were made for decades of use. (over built some might say) 

more newer cars you look at, and weaker they are in many ways.. easier to break stuff and small ding in parking lot forces you to change the whole bumper as its in pieces.

(try running a modern plastic bumper car against an old volvo 240 or 70s american car at 10mph and let me know which took it better.. or do 25mph crash against volvo. your airbags deploy and crash zones crumple so that car is instand junk. too expensive to fix. while volvo changes a bumper and grille and maybe a headlamp glass for few hundred..)

new cars are made with more "use once and dispose" method. the new cars lifespan is counted at around 10years or so (some have said even as low as 7years before the things needing fixing start to cost half of the value of the car) 

.so how are they better for nature if they are junk faster? and then building a brand new one (with above mentioned collateral costs) every 10 years or less is better than using and fixing the preexisting ones aslong as possible? 

and also to get that "new stuff" from ground up and process it to final product takes energy, alot of it, until it is at the end users posession, dont it? 

man must dig deeper and further into the ground to find the metal ore etc. have you been into one of those open mines and seen it yourself? -i have, and didnt like it. 

recycling and dismantling the old stuff to their basic form so they can be used again as something else.. yeah it takes time energy and nasty chemicals.. but most of those processes, are better for ecosystem than making them items from scratch. right?

but that kind of recycling still its worse than using them items as is. right?

and its immensely worse than above to make new stuff from scratch. right? 

so please, explain, how this is not correct? how this is backwards thinking?

have you actually counted the days you need to work to pay for the new car? so how long you personally just need to work to cover the expense of getting that "new car luxury"?

i have. didnt like that thought.

only buy what you can afford to.
-its so insane if you need to loan money for something considered as luxury, money that you end up paying back for years. short term loan for such is somewhat understandable. but years..? 

basically: you dont have afford to it if you cant pay for it within a year or so. and this without cutting seriously costs from elsewhere. 

home/house and business equipment etc are not solely luxury but neccessity to some.. so i give them a pass.. but a new car.. no. 

there are so few people that can actually say and prove that they NEED a new car. and to me, those need it because they need it for work. not just for the commute but to use it in their work. if your livelyhood and income relies solely in the new and carefree working equipment, then its understandable.. but only if you can pay for them. if you dont earn enough to use em and keep em, you do not need it that bad either.

i say buy the car/stuff only if you have the money for it upfront or can pay it off with ease in year or two.. you know before it becomes "old" and undesirable as the new model is around. and also before it starts to loose its "value" dramatically.. (as if like there would be other as drastic loss of value in comparison to 1.crash/breaking it and 2.driving it out of the store floor.)

rule of thumb: only buy and use, what you can afford to use/loose/break and replace.

hmm.. i think i have said enough for now and i just sit back and wait for your reply to prove me wrong. 

the reply might be rather extensive by nature as there is some need for you to provide some actual data to back your sentiments so i might be obliged to agree into some of them too.

but somehow i have this nagging feeling that you are not capable to do that with such an certainty and authority that i would actually be persuaded to believe it wholeheartdly.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 5, 2009)

NonSenCe said:


> rule of thumb: only buy and use, what you can afford to use/loose/break and replace.



It's hard for me to take anyone seriously who doesn't know the difference between lose & loose, and doesn't understand proper sentence structure and capitalization.


----------



## NonSenCe (Jul 6, 2009)

1. i was drunk. 

2. i always (when sober too) make alot of typos i cant be bothered to fix. 

3. this is only a chat forum where grammar is not a priority. i would imagine that caps and sentence structure is non-important in this kind of venue. this is not an english exam nor anything similar that demands perfection or is it? if it is.. count me out, i can find other places to hang around that are more.. hmm.. tolerable. but make sure that everyone then follows suit and writes only perfect english here from now on. make sure that you personally correct and rectify everyones mistakes from now on then. 

4. i pity the person whom cant read and understand text that is flawed. shows serious lack of language skills. that cant be the case.. so:

5 i pity the person that thinks that correct grammar is so important that the points made, in a text that is not "perfect", are somehow irrelevant or not worth taking seriously. such an small minded and descriminating way of thinking..especially in this kind of venue. i could understand it if i had written it on major newspaper as journalist or in some other formal function that stresses the point of using perfect grammar. but not in chat forum. that.. just is so.. so deeply ..hmm..disturbed way of thinking.

6. english is my 3rd language, so how is your third language grammar skills? and you do write everything in that language in this kind of forum without any flaws in spelling and grammar? applause if you do. but i doubt it. 

7. i repeat, i pity a fool that judges other people just by the way they write or talk. and therefore classify their thoughts and writings as less worthy just based on that kind of things. such a person clearly thinks he is superior just because they care to use the correct grammar and capital letters. its just so prejudistic and small minded way to live. 

so this kind of comment of yours, it makes me ill. just naucious. and i do hope you can understand what i have written above even if its not up to your high fking standards. there are plenty typographical errors along with alot of grammatical failures but i still do think they do not diminish the value and validity of the text.


----------



## Greta (Jul 6, 2009)

:sigh: ... are we going to be adults and get this thread back on topic in a civil discussion or should I just close it now? :shakehead

Lux... funny how you point out NonSenCe's spelling error of "lose" as "loose" and discredit his entire post because of the spelling error but you fail to catch Badbeams3's SAME spelling error.... 



> It is what it is...like it or not. The best way to not loose entirely is to have...


 
As NonSenCe asked... if you're going to be the spelling/grammar police around here, first be sure that yours is perfect and second, at least be consistant across the board. Otherwise, please sit on your hands. Thank you...


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jul 6, 2009)

Greta said:


> Lux... funny how you point out NonSenCe's spelling error of "lose" as "loose" and discredit his entire post because of the spelling error but you fail to catch Badbeams3's SAME spelling error....



Well I was drunk to...:buddies:So my spelling was a little lose.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 6, 2009)

I said it was hard for me to take anyone seriously for previously mentioned items. That doesn't mean I can't or won't. Nor does it mean that I discredited his entire post. What it means is exactly what I said. It's hard. 



​I knew that Badbeams3 was drunk, so until he sobers up there is no point since he is likely seeing pink elephants on the screen.














​


----------



## AlexGT (Jul 30, 2009)

Seems like cash for clunkers is now gone!

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/30/autos/cash_for_clunkers_suspended/index.htm

Did anyone get a chance to trade in a clunker? I sure did! this past monday I finished the sale of my clunker and got me a 2009 car for about $9,900. Not bad! 

AlexGT


----------



## Saaby (Jul 31, 2009)

Yeah it might be gone...they'll probably make up some more funny money to extend the program longer. Ridiculous. 

The destruction caused to perfectly good cars by this program makes the environmentally aware side of me fuming mad, and it makes the engineering side of me want to cry just a little.

I can't believe this thread has gone this long without somebody bringing this in.

Here is the official procedure that dealers must go through, to disable cars traded in as part of this program:



> Perform the following procedure to disable the vehicle engine.
> 1. Obtain solution of 40% sodium silicate/60% water. (The Sodium Silicate (SiO2/Na2O) must have a weight ratio of 3.0 or greater.)
> 2. Drain engine oil for environmentally appropriate disposal.
> 3. Install the oil drain plug.
> ...



Not angry, or sad, or both, yet? Consider this...

...the true clunkers (AS has been pointed out by people in this thread) are being driven by people _who can't afford a new car!_

So what kinds of cars are being traded in? Cars that people have been paying to keep running up to this point. Cars that are just old, but in many cases, probably not "clunkers" at all.



> NaplesNews.com
> Dianne Sage, 63, negotiates with Honda sales agent Kevin Poeling for a price on a new Honda Civic at the Germain Honda Naples dealership on Wednesday in Naples. Sage traded in her 2002 Dodge Caravan as part of the Cash for Clunkers program.



or how about a more personal account


> It is kinda sad, we took in a 2000 Plymouth Grand Voyager that looks brand new. I can think of four or five familys right now that could benefit from that vehicle. Too bad they couldn't be donated to charity or something. They want them off the road though, their program, their rules.




That's only a 7-year old car! It might have had some dings and scratches, and the 2002 Caravan was hardly the most modern car in the world, but the drivetrain was pretty reliable, and it's a really fairly safe vehicle too. Now it's going to be scrapped. And for a Civic! I have nothing against the asian car companies, but she's not even buying an American car with the incentive!

Meanwhile what do the single mothers who can't afford a new car continue to drive? Probably a 10+ year old minivan or something that isn't nearly as safe.

I think this whole program is vile, and it needs to be over with. I'll jump for joy if it's done for good tomorrow, but the way things are going...I think it will get all the funding it needs to run at least to November, if not beyond. 


I think this pretty much sums it all up right here, read this on another forum:



> My friend works at a saturn dealer and he said it all goes by MPG. He said the guy who showed them how it works said that a 2004 Jeep Grand cherokee is considered a "clunker" but a rusted out 88 sun bird isn't because of the gas milage




Our tax dollars should not be going towards destroying perfectly usable stuff. Oy.


----------



## Beamhead (Jul 31, 2009)

Very well said Saaby. :thumbsup:
Rumor has it that Fords must do step 12 repeatedly.......(12. If the engine will operate at idle, repeat steps 7 through 11 until the engine will no longer idle.)


----------



## jtr1962 (Jul 31, 2009)

Saaby said:


> Yeah it might be gone...they'll probably make up some more funny money to extend the program longer. Ridiculous.
> 
> The destruction caused to perfectly good cars by this program makes the environmentally aware side of me fuming mad, and it makes the engineering side of me want to cry just a little.
> 
> I can't believe this thread has gone this long without somebody bringing this in.


I'm not as mad as you (yet) but I know I mentioned earlier in this thread that it would be better to just retrofit many of the cars being junked as EVs. It would create jobs same as selling brand new cars, and result in far less waste. And it would give us valuable engineering knowledge plus large scale field testing of EV components. After all, the bodies of these cars are perfectly serviceable in many cases-it's just the power plant which is the problem. So now you waste energy crushing old bodies and making new ones. Besides that, many of the new vehicles being bought are hardly stellar examples of ecofriendliness. They're better than what they replace for sure, but nothing to get excited over.

And unfortunately, being that the primary purpose of this program seems to be to stimulate the economy rather than help the environment, they will likely continue to pump money into it at least until November.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 31, 2009)

Even though I have a vehicle that qualifies for this lame program, I couldn't bring myself to validate anything the politicians in power are doing. This is but a small example of how inept Government in general is. 

Remember that someone had to write this bill, including the destruction methods Saaby quoted, and the thinking behind it. Then there had to be a majority that voted for it, and a President who signed it into law. They actually think they are helping the people who voted for them. They are just getting started. That is the saddest part.


----------



## lctorana (Jul 31, 2009)

My daily driver is now 33 years old. Still qualifies as a modern car in my book.

Now, for the first and last time on this forum, I will use the following non-smiley:

:nana:


----------



## MarNav1 (Jul 31, 2009)

GLOCK18 said:


> *My car only get about 14mpg I wonder if it’s a clunker*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Nova would be more fun than most of the new cars I can think of, looks better too. :thumbsup:


----------



## ABTOMAT (Jul 31, 2009)

When you use other peoples' money, it never runs out. $2B more:

http://www.freep.com/article/20090731/BUSINESS01/90731028/House-approves--2B-more-cash-for-clunkers

And speaking of a horrible waste, what would this normally bring in on trade? $8K?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waj2KrKYTZo

And another nice vehicle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twwWjAq1fXM


At this moment I'm actively shopping for a model of '90s V8 domestic sedan that probably is just the sort of thing people are going to turn in to be wrecked. Drives me crazy since they're not making them any more, they're lovely cars, and clean runners are hard to find. The odds of finding a $2K bargain are going to get much worse.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jul 31, 2009)

Ha, burned thru 1 billion in a week...and now congress is approving 2 billion. But...think it will last 2 weeks? No way...folks had felt they could take their time...trade in november...now...their going to race to get rid of their qualifing cars. And in their panick..little thought given to whether they can afford the payments. I give 2~3 DAYS! Out of money again. Our nation might be going broke...but our citizens will be driving around in new cars  Then the banks...give it time...will have a ton of repossed cars...and THEN...need more bailout $$$ You just have to laugh...no point in crying any more. It is what it is.

Hope I get a chance to trade in mine...don`t qualify yet...haven`t quite owned it long enough


----------



## Beamhead (Jul 31, 2009)

I have a 23 year old pick up that qualifies for the full $4500. I have received junk mail pamphlets from 4 auto makers leading me to their respective cash for clunkers sites where it qualifies at all, it wouldn't bluebook at 1k but it has been well maintained, only has 89k on it and passes the stringent Sac Valley CA smog tests every 2 years. I will be keeping it as the need for an 8 ft bed outweighs the need for a sardine can that gets more mileage. 
I believe my 01 SUV would also qualify but that is in mint condition and will be driven until it falls apart.


----------



## ABTOMAT (Jul 31, 2009)

Who wants a nice high performance BMW? Whoops, too late:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3qXvDDhUpE


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jul 31, 2009)

Here is a Blazer meeting her end...and least it goes quick...not a lot of suffering http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOEqJIGnXRw


----------



## Beamhead (Jul 31, 2009)

Watching these videos just fuels my wish for this guvment to suffer being forced to a grinding halt and scrapped.


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Jul 31, 2009)

I was watching CSPAN earlier today and apparently, many of the dealers aren't being refunded the money for the cars. They have already made the deals, given the cars to the new owners, and destroyed the clunkers. If they don't get paid, this program can quickly destroy the auto industry. They're already hurting, as is the parts industry. Now our tax payer money is being used to destroy all of the used cars and make it so no working used cars can get parts to work in the future. If the intent of this program is to limit greenhouse gases from cars, it seems like it will work by making people have to walk or ride a horse once the used cars are all destroyed and the car companies making new cars are all bankrupt.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 31, 2009)

I just got back from running some errands, and just for fun--rather than calling, pulled into my local Ford dealership to schedule an oil change. It was like they have a heat seeking clunker radar on the roof. I no sooner pulled in and walked in the door before a "gaggle" of sales groupies made me feel like Springsteen walking off stage. 

Same with the service manager who suggested instead of an oil change, I should really trade it in while the program was going back in effect. He obviously had at his fingertips those Ford models that met the guidelines. I opted just for the oil change. 

I enjoy the unique persona of car salesmen/women in America. Always reminds me of Danny DeVito in "Tin Men."


----------



## RyanA (Aug 1, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> I just got back from running some errands, and just for fun--rather than calling, pulled into my local Ford dealership to schedule an oil change. It was like they have a heat seeking clunker radar on the roof. I no sooner pulled in and walked in the door before a "gaggle" of sales groupies made me feel like Springsteen walking off stage.
> 
> Same with the service manager who suggested instead of an oil change, I should really trade it in while the program was going back in effect. He obviously had at his fingertips those Ford models that met the guidelines. I opted just for the oil change.
> 
> I enjoy the unique persona of car salesmen/women in America. Always reminds me of Danny DeVito in "Tin Men."



My brother works at a Chevy dealer. To destroy "clunkers", instead of oil, they pour sodium silicate in and run the engine. With your car on the lift I suppose they already had the job half done. Kinda screwed up, eh.
Again, not that I'd pass up free money. But I think the motives behind this bill are less than idealistic, nakedly so. I guess the auto companies are good to go for another pass at gov't money, but junkyards aren't a legitimate part of the economy. Probably because there's no Junkpac.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 1, 2009)

RyanA said:


> My brother works at a Chevy dealer. To destroy "clunkers", instead of oil, they pour sodium silicate in and run the engine. With your car on the lift I suppose they already had the job half done. Kinda screwed up, eh.
> Again, not that I'd pass up free money. But I think the motives behind this bill are less than idealistic, nakedly so. I guess the auto companies are good to go for another pass at gov't money, but junkyards aren't a legitimate part of the economy. Probably because there's no Junkpac.



LOL...so LUX...I hope your going to stand there and watch them change the oil..."I don`t know sir...guess your motor was all worn out" LOL


----------



## John_Galt (Aug 1, 2009)

My parents took advantage of this program last night. they traded in our 1993 Toyota 4Runner (231254 miles on the odometer, with two engine rebuilds, both courtesy of Toyota, free to us because of an OEM head gasket problem) for a Scion xB. 
It was weird, last night, I woke up and was crying, because I was more emotionally attached to that car than most people I know. I was brought home from the hospital in that car, I learned to drive a manual transmission in it, I learned all sorts of preventative maintenance and repairs on that car. I knew it inside and out. And know it will be destroyed... The car that I had always assumed would some day be mine... To keep running, somehow... 

My mother also said she was a little sad to see it going, as it was the first luxurious car she had ever purchased.

But, my dad had a point too... It was a V6, running on 4 cylinders, with an unknown fuel leak, somewhere, with a rusting out underbody and frame, a worn out clutch, destroyed front rotors (my parents put 210,000 miles on the original set of brake pads and rotors in the front; when we finally replaced the brake pads @210,000, they were still at about 20% original thickness... The new pads my dad purchased were a newer material, and pitted and warped the front rotors), non-existent e-brake, and no AC.

Overall, we traded a family memory for an over complicated electronic bundle. Something I don't even think I'll be able to change the oil in. A bad trade in my opinion. But theoretically, we should still get the rebate, the dealer said that we should, and they would guarantee it...

But one thing is for certain... I sure am going to miss that car...


----------



## 1wrx7 (Aug 1, 2009)

I live just outside of Detriot, and the company I work for supplies auto manufacturers with equipment... foriegn and domestic. Everyone here has done a good job posting up the rules of the cash for clunkers so thankfully I don't need to bother. I'm really torn on this subject....

I'll start with the good. A local talk radio station brought up the subject and there were mixed reactions. One example was a guy who turned in his... maybe $800 vehicle, got his $4500 CFC voucher. Dodge matched that $4500 and threw in more dealer incentives. He also had a relative who worked for Dodge so he qualified for their pricing discount. He ended up with a new Dodge Caliber for around $130 a month for 5 yrs. This is why this program could work.

Now the bad...Why are we destroying perfectly good cars at the same time? These are the cars that most people can afford... especially with our crappy economy. Don't even get me started about how there will be virtually no parts to fix older cars if this kind of thinking continues. While $130 per month is a good deal many can't even afford that. I'm sure the government went into this with the best of intentions... but we know how that works.

On a side note... I drive a 2003 Subaru. With the work I've done it makes around 300 crank horsepower and averages 20mpg. With my engine management it should make more power and get better mpg if I can find a tuner I trust. My EM also allows for several different tunes... IE one for max power, one for daily daily driving, one for best mpg. I had a 2002 but I had to crash that car into a tree It took some convincing but I got the insurance company to sell me the totaled car for $4500. I stripped it down and kept all of the useable parts. The unibody was screwed but the drivetrain was perfect. Now if I have a problem with my car I have almost every replacement part I could need. Which is a good thing if programs like CFC keep going. I know a lot of people don't like maintaining cars, but for me I want to get many more years out of my perfectly good car instead of buying another one. This disposable society we live in is troubling to say the least.

If I didn't buy the crashed car I could have used the insurance money to get my replacement right away. Instead I had to wait a few months to get a down payment. Imagine that...actually waiting/saving until you can afford to buy what you want

I guess my final thought is... if the car companies have so much excess inventory... will this program help them or hurt them in the long run? I'm no fan of the UAW but, the US can't afford to lose it's manufacturing base. I hate to say it but if it weren't for GM and Ford we might be speaking German or Japanese right now:tinfoil: I guess we'll have to wait and see if this program works:shrug:


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 1, 2009)

John_Galt said:


> My parents took advantage of this program last night. they traded in our 1993 Toyota 4Runner (231254 miles on the odometer, with two engine rebuilds, both courtesy of Toyota, free to us because of an OEM head gasket problem) for a Scion xB.
> It was weird, last night, I woke up and was crying, because I was more emotionally attached to that car than most people I know. I was brought home from the hospital in that car, I learned to drive a manual transmission in it, I learned all sorts of preventative maintenance and repairs on that car. I knew it inside and out. And know it will be destroyed... The car that I had always assumed would some day be mine... To keep running, somehow...
> 
> My mother also said she was a little sad to see it going, as it was the first luxurious car she had ever purchased.
> ...



Sorry you feel bad. Sounds like your parents made a great move. 

I must admit even at my old age...watching those video`s of the motors being destroyed makes me cring. I always run good oil in my truck...synthetic...If I trade it in under the program...I don`t want to see them ruin it...it just seem to stupid.


----------



## Saaby (Aug 1, 2009)

> It was weird, last night, I woke up and was crying, because I was more emotionally attached to that car than most people I know.



Look. I'm a car guy. See my username? Born with oil in my veins. Not too mechanically inclined (Dad always used a mechanic, so now I use a mechanic for almost everything too -- when my car is down I just need it back up quick! Some day when I have a daily car and a hobby car...), but I know how they work (Studying Mechanical engineering...guess why?).

Fortunately, it sounds like your 4runner was pretty much done. I'm still sorry to see it go, but at least it had a good run, right? I don't mean to personify these machines _tooo_ much, but a lot of time and effort go into designing them, building them, and keeping them running. The 2 that really bother me is people that are trading in newer cars with maybe even under 100k miles -- cars that have probably been pretty well maintained and probably look great internally, untill we run sand in the engine I mean...

...and the other one that practically brings me awake in the night is the thought that there are a few combinations of Saabs that fit the criteria (92-93 with Auto transmissions)...the idea of that Saab B204 or B234 engine grinding to a halt oo:



> *1wrx7 said:*
> "This disposable society we live in is troubling to say the least."



Yup! Without getting too political, it seems like we hear our current president apologizing a lot. One of the complaints I hear from foreign countries about America is how much we consume. This program does not help with recycling, reducing, and reusing...it just drives more consumption. 

The New York Times did a little story on the program. The dealers are all smiles about it*, but the NY Times does some good reporting by telling a side of the story many people don't even think about -- the auto recyclers side. The auto recyclers are being kept very busy with the program, but with seized engines, these cars are actually of little value to them. 

The only thing I don't like about the NY Times video is that they went to a Honda dealer. Nothing wrong with Honda, I'm all for competition, and I realize a lot of Honda's are assembled in America anyway, but couldn't our media at least show some home-team spirit by featuring an American dealership for free? 

*Well mostly, they just learned today that the $4,500 will be TAXABLE INCOME for the dealer -- contrary to what they'd been told previously


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 1, 2009)

Don't have a link, but every radio news program has been reporting that the government ran out of money for the program already!

They ran out of money! 

Apparently the government had no idea that there were so many clunkers out there. Maybe if those who are running the government didn't ride in limos with black-tinted windows, they'd actually be able to see the huge amount of older vehicles that many Americans are driving. 

If the Federal government can fail _this _miserably in the used car business, image what'll happen with healthcare. Stephen King couldn't come up with a more horrifying concept.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 1, 2009)

You mean again?


----------



## ABTOMAT (Aug 1, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> Apparently the government had no idea that there were so many clunkers out there. Maybe if those who are running the government didn't ride in limos with black-tinted windows, they'd actually be able to see the huge amount of older vehicles that many Americans are driving.



Oddly enough, most of the older, smokey, beat-up vehicles I see around here wouldn't qualify for the program, but those black-tinted limos would.


----------



## LukeA (Aug 1, 2009)

The short-term economic stimulation of the Second World War (not the production that resulted from later civilian innovation out of the brains of GI-bill educated former servicemen) could have been duplicated by producing all that materiel and simply dumping it in the ocean. This program is similar (but not exactly identical) in concept to that. It certainly sounds bad, but the effect of the scenario sixty-four years ago was unambiguously positive.

It's easy to point out unfortunate isolated situations and it's also easy to fall victim to confirmation bias and generalize those isolated situations into a negative perception of the entire program.


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 2, 2009)

Badbeams3 said:


> You mean again?


 
Oh yeah, you're right. Forgot about the fact that the government also ran out of money for the converter box program. Digital TV was supposed to take over at the start of February this year. But due to a higher than expected demand for the converter box rebate program, the date had to be pushed back to June 12th. 

Worked out for me, I got to use my hand-held Casio TV for a few extra months during my breaks at work. 

Maybe, just maybe; a basic knowledge of economics should be a requirement before being put in charge of a federal program.... Maybe.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 2, 2009)

He might be asking if they ran out of the next batch of billions, and the first billion in funding was gone in a week.

The biggest thing that makes no sense about this program from a purely economic standpoint for the buyer is the fact that it only applies to new car purchases. The moment you have driven the average new car off the lot, it has lost a lot more value than your rebate. From everything I have read, buying a new car is for suckers.

If this had been available as a credit towards a certified used car (like a low mileage Honda), I'm sure I would have jumped at it.


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 2, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> The biggest thing that makes no sense about this program from a purely economic standpoint for the buyer is the fact that it only applies to new car purchases. The moment you have driven the average new car off the lot, it has lost a lot more value than your rebate. From everything I have read, buying a new car is for suckers.


 
There are some advantages to buying new. Although clearly, the price advantage of a used car is a big one.

My best friend bought a brand new Dodge Neon back in 2000. It served him well for serval years before being totalled in a head-on collision.

After that, he bought one used headache after another. Three or four in total, before getting lucky with a very slightly used Chevy Malibu. All things considered, he would have actually saved a ton of money if he had just bought another new compact sedan; after his Neon was totalled.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 2, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> There some advantages to buying new. Although clearly, the price advantage of a used car is a big one.
> 
> My best friend bought a brand new Dodge Neon back in 2000. It served him well for serval years before being totalled in a head-on collision.
> 
> After that, he bought one used headache after another. Three or four in total, before getting lucky with a very slightly used Chevy Malibu. All things considered, he would have actually saved a ton of money if he had just bought another new compact sedan; after his Neon was totalled.



Yeah, when I say used...I mean a low milage certified program that guarantees and covers all the crap that can happen. Honda and others have such programs with pristine cars having 15-25K miles which are half the price of new.


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 2, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Yeah, when I say used...I mean a low milage certified program that guarantees and covers all the crap that can happen. Honda and others have such programs with pristine cars having 15-25K miles which are half the price of new.


 
Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood your earlier post.


----------



## nbp (Aug 3, 2009)

> Saaby said:
> 
> 
> > The 2 that really bother me is people that are trading in newer cars with maybe even under 100k miles -- cars that have probably been pretty well maintained and probably look great internally, untill we run sand in the engine I mean...
> ...


Well said! These are basically my sentiments as well. It saddens me to see good used cars being destroyed as part of this program based solely on their gas mileage. I drive a 1995 Mazda 626 with 201k miles on it. Guess what? It looks pretty good, and starts every day and I will drive it until it dies. There is a lot of my sweat and blood in that car, because as a college student, it's a necessity to make do with what I have and can afford. I've worked hard to keep it running. The thought of pouring glass into the motor makes me angry.  (The other funny thing is that this old worn out car doesn't even count as a clunker; I get 30-33 mpg! And I only paid $750 for it! If I bought a new car, I'd likely be driving something WORSE in terms of fuel economy.)

Saaby's other point is an area of concern for me too. It takes an awful lot of energy and natural resources to build new cars. And the ones being turned in are just going to sit and decay? That's sad. :sigh: I suspect that the 4 mpg increase a buyer is required to get when they get a new 'fuel efficient' vehicle will take a long time to offset the environmental impact of manufacturing their new machine and junking their old one. 

We are so wasteful :shakehead


----------



## HarryN (Aug 7, 2009)

Wow - what a dramatic thread.

There certainly are some aspects of this program that bother me, including the "destruction" portion, but it gets down to the big picture. Like it or not, the America Auto industry is one of the corner stones of the entire economy. If there is no North American Auto Industry, there will be no America, and frankly, Canada will fail as well.

Take a look at a simple trend - the downward spiral of employment at GM / Ford / Chrysler, and the falling value of the US dollar. Plot this over a 40 year period, and it is just as obvious as the nose on your face. 

Free markets have become an empty philosophy, as there is no such thing in the far east, and never will be. Yes, I am a true capitalist, but I am also very pragmatic. A global economy means you need to accept that a lot of people don't care what we think, except to use our concepts against us. If we are going to compete globally, we need to really understand not just how to make products at low cost, but just how our tax and economic structure is being used against us.

If you compare the 1 - 3 Billion spent on this at least partially useful program to the 2 - 10+ TRILLION spent to bail out the banks and insurance industry, this is a bargain. At least as a result of this program, there will actually be some middle class salaries paid, which is a good thing, and that certainly did not come from any of the TARP / AIG money

For me, the hardest pill to swallow of this program is that Toyota, a foreign firm, is getting the biggest benefit from US tax money spent on this program. I will bite my tongue very hard and not go into just how unpatriotic it is for Americans to buy cars made in countries with massive, long term, manipulated trade imbalances, while their felllow North Americans go homeless and hungry. What the heck are you thinking ?


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 8, 2009)

HarryN said:


> For me, the hardest pill to swallow of this program is that Toyota, a foreign firm, is getting the biggest benefit from US tax money spent on this program. I will bite my tongue very hard and not go into just how unpatriotic it is for Americans to buy cars made in countries with massive, long term, manipulated trade imbalances, while their felllow North Americans go homeless and hungry. What the heck are you thinking ?


 
Quick question, which do you consider to be an American-made car... The Chevy Impala that was built in Mexico, or the Toyota Camry built right here in America?


----------



## HarryN (Aug 8, 2009)

That is a good question, and many people struggle with this question.

As I said in the post, my concern is not "international trade in general", but "unfair trade", as in - long term, structurally / law induced methods which cause long term, substantial trade imbalances. For the economists out there that like to be especially technical, I mostly focus on the Merchadise Trade Deficit, as this is particularly hard on middle class jobs.

As a practical example, let's look at Canada and the US. There is actually a rather large trade deficit with Canada, and it probably is too large, but for the most part, it is not law or structurally in induced. Wages, benefits, food quality, and environmental concerns in Canada are relatively similar to the US. Canada and its citizens have not designed laws or cultural protectionist barriers with the US, and while there are certainly a healthy range of political and economic opinions, Americans and Canadians can relatively easily do business with each other.

For these and other reasons, it makes perfect sense to form a regional economic block with Canada.

Looking at Taiwan as a second example, from outward appearances, 90% of what I said about Canada could be assumed to apply. Income for similar work in Taiwan is actually often higher than in the US. As long as you are "importing merchandise to the US from Taiwan" or "exporting specialized machinery to Taiwan", things go pretty smoothly. If you dig a little deeper, some of the structural / law oriented aspects come in.

Taiwan heavily subsidizes merchandise "work in progress" with 0 interest loans - as long as it is for export to the US. If they sell a TV in Taiwan, all of that special treatment goes away. Still, even if made for 1/2 price in the US, importing a TV into Taiwan would be nearly impossible, even if in great demand by people there. Similarly, the income tax structure is designed to take advantage of the US income tax system, allowing massive tax avoidance.

For these and other reasons, there is a long term, structural / law induced merchandise trade imbalance with Taiwan, not because it is actually cheaper to produce there. IMHO, the reason we accept this massive merchandise trade deficit with Taiwan are its regional implications.

I could go on, but does anyone not believe that these kinds of structural / legally induced barriers to free trade of merchandise do not exist with Japan, Korea and China, just to an even greater degree? I doubt it.

Coming back to the question specifically about Mexico. Our merchandise trade imbalance with Mexico is not ideal. At the same time, I think it is in our best interest to try to manufacture regionally while we work with Mexico on increasing its purchases from other countries in North America.


----------



## HarryN (Aug 8, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> Quick question, which do you consider to be an American-made car... The Chevy Impala that was built in Mexico, or the Toyota Camry built right here in America?



These kinds of situations are of course designed to confuse us, so I apply a 5 point system to judging a product's regional content:

a) Where was it designed / engineered?

b) Where do the raw materials and parts come from? (also applying these same 5 questions)

c) Where is the management base of the company?

d) Where is the ownership base of the company?

e) Where was it assembled / packaged?

I apply 20% to each line item, and judge its % regional / local content from this number.

It is hard to get it entirely right, but not that hard to get with 20 - 25%.

So, let's take that Toyota Camry, whose content actually varies quite a bit depending on where you buy one.

a) Designed - not in US / North America
b) Parts and raw materials - mostly either imported, or provided by Japanese suppliers
c) Management base of the company - Japan
d) Ownership base of the company - Japan
e) Assembly - US (not all of them, some of them, and in a US taxpayer subsidized factory)

At best, the Camry hits 30 - 40 % North America content.

Chevy Nova assembled in Mexico

a) Designed - At least 50% in North America
b) Parts and raw materials - at least 50 % NA content
c) Management base - NA
d) Ownership - NA
e) Assembly - NA

If you count NA content, then it is pushing hard into the 70 - 80% range.


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 8, 2009)

I take a different view of things. To me, (e) is far more important than (a) - (d).

The heart of any company are the workers who put the product together. Designers, owners, CEOs... They're important, but with the exception of owners, none are as important as the workers on the line. An outside company can be hired to design the product. Anyone with decent business-sense, and some morals, would make a good CEO. But it's the sheer volume of workers who turn around and spend their hard-earned money supporting the nation's economy.

If it's a Mexican factory, the money stimulates the Mexican economy. A factory in America, even one not owned by an America, is still going to stimulate the American economy.

Staying a bit more on-topic, nice to see the government pouring more money into a failed program. But then again, it's only another $2 billion. Not like there are better things that money could be spent on.


----------



## BB (Aug 8, 2009)

One more thing to put in the Cash for Clunkers box... Old, fuel inefficient cars destroyed... New fuel efficient cars purchased--according to "unreleased" government records (From CNN):



> August 4th, 2009
> 1: Ford Focus
> 2: Toyota Corolla
> 3: Honda Civic
> ...


But--when others finally gets hold of the raw data--somebody has been playing with the numbers (again from CNN):



> August 7th, 2009
> 1 Ford Escape
> 2 Ford Focus
> 3 Jeep Patriot
> ...


Why?:



> What are people trading their clunkers in for? It depends on who you ask.
> 
> The government's results showed small cars as the top choice for shoppers looking for Cash for Clunker deals. But an independent analysis by Edmunds.com disputed those results, and showed that two full-size trucks and a small crossover SUV were actually among the top-ten buys.
> 
> ...


Wonder why they did not want to release any data about the program?

I guess I should have turned in my "old" F-150 and get a few grand from the government to buy a new F-150 (lots of trucks on the list--even a Hummer H3 is there).

-Bill


----------



## Beamhead (Aug 9, 2009)

BB said:


> I guess I should have turned in my "old" F-150 and get a few grand from the government to buy a new F-150 (lots of trucks on the list--even a Hummer H3 is there).
> 
> -Bill


Every site I enter my old F-150 info on, a V6 Ranger is the only choice for a pick up. 

EDIT: I found a click through that gives more info, I could trade it for another F-150, now I'm torn, should I recoup some of my yet to be born grand children's confiscated wages to get their grandpa a new truck. If it lasts like my current F-150 I could will it to one of them.


----------



## Superdave (Aug 9, 2009)

Sad thing is that GM knew how to get better highway mileage back in the 80's/90's but the EPA wouldn't let them.. The engineers left the option in the ECM though. 


I get 30-35 on the highway and 10-20 in town while making 320+ HP from a '04 Malibu engine in a '91 Cavalier 5 speed.


----------



## tpolley (Aug 9, 2009)

i think the basic idea is about recycling. think about how many cars are out there in junk yards that are wasting away while we're buying steel from freaking japan.
my main reason for replying to this topic was about the mpg issue. why is it that a train can get 100mpg but they can't or won't or are forced not to design a car or truck that can get exponentially better gass milage. i can't seem to find any articles at the moment to support my 100mpg claim but they're there.


----------



## Superdave (Aug 9, 2009)

tpolley said:


> i think the basic idea is about recycling. think about how many cars are out there in junk yards that are wasting away while we're buying steel from freaking japan.
> my main reason for replying to this topic was about the mpg issue. why is it that a train can get 100mpg but they can't or won't or are forced not to design a car or truck that can get exponentially better gass milage. i can't seem to find any articles at the moment to support my 100mpg claim but they're there.





Train engines run at very low RPM's and they have a very large displacement so they make tons of torque. Their volumetric efficiency is very good within their designed operating RPM. I could probably get you some actual specs and MPG info as my father in law is a train engineer. 

If you took a car and ran it at a constant RPM and load you could get incredible mileage, but going up and down hills, stop and starts, changes in altitude, weather, outside temp etc all effect the way a car runs. 

you can purchase an aftermarket vacuum gauge and use it to train your driving style, try to keep the engine between 10 and 15" while crusing. People have been doing that since the 70's and it still works great.


----------



## BB (Aug 9, 2009)

Trains can get very good fuel efficiency when measured as short ton miles per gallon... 400+ MPG/Ton

However, the train itself may pull 100 cars with 110 tons of payload per car (hopper cars)... Just a rough calculation would show a freight train does not net 100 MPG--but (my estimate is probably is worst case average fuel consumption):

(400 MPG/Ton) / (110 tons * 100 cars) = 0.036 miles per gallon or 27.5 gallons per mile

-Bill


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 9, 2009)

tpolley said:


> i think the basic idea is about recycling. think about how many cars are out there in junk yards that are wasting away...


 
I can understand recycling a product once it has reached the end of its usefulness. Turn it into something new, something that is useful again. The problem I have with this government program is that it calls for wasting perfectly good cars before they have reached the end of their lifespan.

My dad bought a 1981 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme in 1982 from a successful business man. (Leasing didn't exist back then). That car lasted our family for the next 16 years. To be honest, dad kept it an extra 2 years than he should have. 

The so-called clunkers that are eligible for the program are no where near as old as that '81 Olds. They're perfectly good cars. All being destroyed due to a program in which people are bribed into buying another vehicle. Bribed with tax-payer dollars. Money that could easily be used for far more important programs than one designed to get folks who already own cars, to buy different cars.

As far as junkyards go, there's no such thing as a poor Junkman. Those cars in his junkyard are goldmines of spare, and sometimes, hard-to-find parts.


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 9, 2009)

tpolley said:


> my main reason for replying to this topic was about the mpg issue. why is it that a train can get 100mpg but they can't or won't or are forced not to design a car or truck that can get exponentially better gass milage. i can't seem to find any articles at the moment to support my 100mpg claim but they're there.


A single diesel locomotive can easily pull 100 freight cars, each with 100 tons of payload, on level track at up to perhaps 50 mph (and at higher speeds with more locomotives or fewer cars). It will burn about 200 gallons per hour (in run 8), which equates to about 4 gallons per mile. However, the fuel economy per ton-mile is fantastic compared to any road vehicle (in this case 2500 ton-miles per gallon although the average for all freight trains is a bit above 400 ton-miles per gallon). Two reasons for this, neither of which are directly applicable to cars as they are currently made and operated. The primary reason is physics. Coefficient of rolling friction for steel wheel on steel rail is anywhere between 0.0008 and 0.002, depending upon design. Coefficient of rolling friction for rubber tires varies from about 0.0065 for heavy truck tires to as high as 0.015 for knobby, low pressure SUV-type tires. _This is about an order of magnitude difference._ The second reason has to do with how rail vehicles are operated-namely in a train. This means only the leading unit has to cut through the wind. The following units ride in the wake of the unit in front, and thus only deal with air drag on the sides (again about an order of magnitude lower). There has been talk of having cars built with an extra set of steel wheels to run on steel rails on expressways. There have also been ideas of running them by computer in very closely spaced trains. Neither idea thus far has come to fruition, nor do I think either will in the near future. All that being said, 100 mpg is right around the limits of what is possible in a normal-sized vehicle capable of being driven on normal roads. No real good engineering reason why such vehicles aren't in common use, but loads of other reasons too OT for this thread.

Obviously I'm not happy the program was renewed as it is not the best way to go about what needs to be done.


----------



## BB (Aug 10, 2009)

Well--in my in-laws area--just came home from visiting them... In an area with $1+ million homes (believe me, $1 million does not go far in the SF Bay Area), brand new Honda and Toyota just out of the showroom joined up in a random line at the stop sign with no-plates (dealer ads--we don't have temp plates in California).

I guess another couple of "poor people" got their share of the $1-3 billion dollars out there to help the American worker... :green:

-Bill


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 10, 2009)

BB said:


> Well--in my in-laws area--just came home from visiting them... In an area with $1+ million homes (believe me, $1 million does not go far in the SF Bay Area), brand new Honda and Toyota just out of the showroom joined up in a random line at the stop sign with no-plates (dealer ads--we don't have temp plates in California).
> 
> I guess another couple of "poor people" got their share of the $1-3 billion dollars out there to help the American worker... :green:
> 
> -Bill



LOL! Let's see....now what district is the Speaker of the House from again? They should all be very proud.


----------



## BB (Aug 10, 2009)

Actually Pelosi is from San Francisco--We are down south on the SF Peninsula with a different house madam.

-Bill


----------



## [email protected] dog (Aug 10, 2009)

Some of us tall drinks of water don't want to be in sardine cans. Even the new Ford pickups don't have the leg or headroom of the old trucks.
I like my old Ford pickup.


----------



## HarryN (Aug 10, 2009)

BB said:


> Well--in my in-laws area--just came home from visiting them... In an area with $1+ million homes (believe me, $1 million does not go far in the SF Bay Area), brand new Honda and Toyota just out of the showroom joined up in a random line at the stop sign with no-plates (dealer ads--we don't have temp plates in California).
> 
> I guess another couple of "poor people" got their share of the $1-3 billion dollars out there to help the American worker... :green:
> 
> -Bill



Hondas and Toyotas sold in CA have nearly zero American content by anyones measurement stick. The only US worker that makes a nickel from that transaction is the dock worker unloading them.


----------



## ponygt65 (Aug 11, 2009)

Beamhead said:


> I think the whole idea is silly and just wanted to state for the record that Ford has yet to ask for a bailout/takeover.


 I agre with this post.


----------



## ponygt65 (Aug 11, 2009)

Superdave said:


> Sad thing is that GM knew how to get better highway mileage back in the 80's/90's but the EPA wouldn't let them.. The engineers left the option in the ECM though.
> 
> 
> I get 30-35 on the highway and 10-20 in town while making *320+ HP from a '04 Malibu engine* in a '91 Cavalier 5 speed.


 How did you pull that off? :thinking:


----------



## MarNav1 (Aug 11, 2009)

Still driving my 83 Delta 88. The A/C finally gave up last year and it's not all shiny but it runs and drives fine, parts are very cheap. Just can't see junking it, I wish they still made cars like these. I'm a big guy, I can't fit in these newer cars too well.


----------



## Big_Ed (Aug 11, 2009)

MARNAV1 said:


> Still driving my 83 Delta 88. The A/C finally gave up last year and it's not all shiny but it runs and drives fine, parts are very cheap. Just can't see junking it, I wish they still made cars like these. I'm a big guy, I can't fit in these newer cars too well.



I had an 85 Delta 88 a few years back. Comfy! Nothing like a full-framed car with a V-8.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 12, 2009)

ponygt65 said:


> How did you pull that off? :thinking:
> 
> 
> Superdave said:
> ...



He was talking about bugsplats on the windshield. I'm just amazed that he counted them.


----------



## ponygt65 (Aug 12, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> He was talking about bugsplats on the windshield. I'm just amazed that he counted them.


----------



## ponygt65 (Aug 25, 2009)

ponygt65 said:


> How did you pull that off? :thinking:


 :sigh:


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 26, 2009)

Some of the news channels on the radio were reporting that quite a few dealerships have pulled out of the Cash for Clunkers program, because they are not being paid by the Government in a timely manner.

How very _not _surprising. :shakehead


----------



## ponygt65 (Aug 26, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> Some of the news channels on the radio were reporting that quite a few dealerships have pulled out of the Cash for Clunkers program, because they are not being paid by the Government in a timely manner.
> 
> How very _not _surprising. :shakehead


 
THe funny thing is, those that were realistic, already knew this. It's those that put faith/belief in these type of programs (I could elaborate, but I won't) that can't/won't see the fore-comings.


Can't run C4C, but wants everyone on board for healthcare....YEAH, RIIIIIIGGGHT. :nana:


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Aug 27, 2009)

This must be the solution to global warming. Have all the old cars and parts destroyed. Then get the car companies to get rid of all their inventory by promising to pay them thousands of dollars per car. Then, refuse to give them the money promised. The overextended car companies go broke. You can't get a new car. They destroyed the old cars and their parts. You can't buy a used car or fix up your old car. Your choices remaining are to walk, ride a bike, or get a horse. Here's the new government philosophy: If it ain't broke, break it, hire someone to fix it or replace it, and call it job creation.


----------



## John_Galt (Aug 27, 2009)

Hooked on Fenix said:


> This must be the solution to global warming. Have all the old cars and parts destroyed. Then get the car companies to get rid of all their inventory by promising to pay them thousands of dollars per car. Then, refuse to give them the money promised. The overextended car companies go broke. You can't get a new car. They destroyed the old cars and their parts. You can't buy a used car or fix up your old car. Your choices remaining are to walk, ride a bike, or get a horse. Here's the new government philosophy: If it ain't broke, break it, hire someone to fix it or replace it, and call it job creation.




You enjoy a good conspiracy theory, don't you?:tinfoil:

Just Kidding!!!

That actually makes sense. But it's not that the gov doesn't _want_ to pay these dealerships. It's that they can't, because they have super low tax revenues, because they put the car companies and oil/energy co's out of business. Oh, well, at least the Earth won't be warmed by oil burning...


...



*NOT*!


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Aug 28, 2009)

I'm glad this program is over. I just hope our government learns some much needed lessons from this, and those lessons are:

1. You can't spend your way out of debt.
2. Destroying private assets does not create wealth.
3. Getting people to destroy their assets and replace them with debt doesn't help the economy. They just added another bubble that will burst.
4. Giving people free money and getting plenty of takers doesn't make a program successful.
5. The government stinks at math. They said the program would only cost $1 billion and it cost $3 billion. Just wait until they tackle healthcare.
5. Sometimes, the best thing the government can do is to step aside and let people solve their own problems without interference.
6. Most of the time, the government doesn't solve the problem, the citizens do. The government just comes up with a solution that makes the problem worse and when the people finally get out of trouble, the government tries to take credit.

I think the scariest words to hear right now are, "We're with the government and we're here to help you."


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 28, 2009)

True, you can't spend your way out of debt.

The problem is, there are some respected economists who actually peddle that sort of nonsense. They make it clear that the average person or family can't do it; but still insist that the Government can. Well, only way to do that is to print more money. I never even took a basic economics course in college, but even I know printing more money or trying to spend your way out of debt is a p*$$ poor idea that's never going to work.


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 28, 2009)

Monocrom said:


> I never even took a basic economics course in college, but even I know printing more money or trying to spend your way out of debt isn't a p*$$ poor idea that's never going to work.


Well, I _did_ have a few economics courses and you're both right and wrong at the same time. Seeing what's going on lately (the national debt is projected to grow by something like $9 trillion in the next decade) I think we intend to do exactly that, and yes, it can work in a manner of speaking. Print enough money, and eventually you have rampant inflation. The $9 trillion extra you owed is suddenly equivalent to _only_ $900 billion in inflation adjusted dollars. Bingo, you just got yourself out of debt without raising taxes or cutting spending. Only there's one huge problem with all this-the holders of your debt have lost big time. In essence those who saved and bought bonds to finance your big spending are screwed. Being that much of the US national debt is held overseas, this policy could actually not have a huge amount of political fallout in the US, at least initially. Long term though it'll be a major disaster. Those countries who held bonds will be quite unhappy with us. The US will _never_ be able to borrow money again as its credit rating will be worthless. That means either major tax increases or major cuts in government benefits, both of which would prove highly unpopular. And if there's major inflation at home, it's highly unlikely wages will keep up (they never have in the past). So as usual the working class will get shafted. Nevertheless, I really feel this is exactly how our government intends to get out of debt. In the short term it will work. By the time the proverbial you know what hits the fan the politicians who started this will be long gone.

Bottom line is this-if we try to get out of debt by printing money we're screwed long term. If we continue on our course, and try to pay back the debt fair and square, we're still screwed as taxes will need to go sky high. I also don't think we can "grow" the economy out of this. All indications are that this recession has put a major long-term damper on the idea of "consumerism". People are going to start saving money now when they get their jobs back, not spending money they don't have on things they don't really need like they used to. Right now we don't even have a model for what a sustainable post-consumerist economy will look like, much less a plan to implement it. Despite the recent climb in the markets, IMO the future looks very bleak no matter how you slice it.


----------



## HarryN (Aug 28, 2009)

Hooked on Fenix said:


> I'm glad this program is over. I just hope our government learns some much needed lessons from this, and those lessons are:
> 
> 1. You can't spend your way out of debt.
> 2. Destroying private assets does not create wealth.
> ...



It is all relative. Which program is likely to provide more jobs in North America per $ invested - cash for clunkers at $ 3 Billion, or cash for bankers at $ 3 trillion ( $ 3,000 billion ) ?

It is entirely possible that if they had started a program with $ 1 billion / month of purchases of consumer goods made in North America (cars, appliances, clothes, etc) a few years ago, and just gave them away, the cash for bankers program would not have been needed. 

As a general rule, people with jobs will pay their mortgage, people without jobs simply cannot. Fraud of course is a different issue.


----------



## BB (Aug 28, 2009)

Everyone that got C4C--you do know that the program money is taxable (as ordinary income?):



> But many of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer's office windows. That's because the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable.
> 
> "They didn't realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don't realize that. So they're not happy and kind of surprised when they find that out," Nelson said.



And hopefully, the dealer got all of the paper work to you so do you don't have any more out of pocket experiences:



> Nelson adds that if you did recently purchase a vehicle, ensure your dealer gets you the paperwork in time because if they don't you could pay extra interest and penalties.



-Bill


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Aug 28, 2009)

HarryN said:


> It is all relative. Which program is likely to provide more jobs in North America per $ invested - cash for clunkers at $ 3 Billion, or cash for bankers at $ 3 trillion ( $ 3,000 billion ) ?
> 
> It is entirely possible that if they had started a program with $ 1 billion / month of purchases of consumer goods made in North America (cars, appliances, clothes, etc) a few years ago, and just gave them away, the cash for bankers program would not have been needed.
> 
> As a general rule, people with jobs will pay their mortgage, people without jobs simply cannot. Fraud of course is a different issue.



This is an apples to oranges comparison. When the bankers got the money, they didn't have to destroy their banks to receive it. They weren't taxed on the money they got. Cash for Clunkers is the equivalent of the government hiring someone with your tax payer money to smash in house windows, replacing the windows with new ones, taxing the home owner for each window replaced, and only paying the guy who broke the windows a fraction of his wages. The home owner loses money, the guy breaking the windows loses money, the government wasted money, and there is a net loss for all parties involved. You can't create new jobs when you're losing capital.


----------



## HarryN (Aug 28, 2009)

Hooked on Fenix said:


> This is an apples to oranges comparison. When the bankers got the money, they didn't have to destroy their banks to receive it. They weren't taxed on the money they got. Cash for Clunkers is the equivalent of the government hiring someone with your tax payer money to smash in house windows, replacing the windows with new ones, taxing the home owner for each window replaced, and only paying the guy who broke the windows a fraction of his wages. The home owner loses money, the guy breaking the windows loses money, the government wasted money, and there is a net loss for all parties involved. You can't create new jobs when you're losing capital.



Hi - my point was not that "cash for clunkers" was a perfect idea, it is that we have to keep it all in perspective. The government is going to spend money in an "attempt" to fix the 40+ years of problems they have created - That is what governments do. (no matter our opinion)

How many average people in North America will benefit from the $ 3 billion dollar "CARS" program - a fair number, but less than 1/2 as many as could have with a "North America content" requirement.

How many average people in North America will benefit from the $ 3,000 billion (no I am not exaggerating, that is the real number) "cash for bankers" program - practically none.

If people had jobs, they would pay their mortage, and the bankers would get their monthly payments, and not need the $ 3,000 billion "infusion" - at least in theory.

Is the CARS program any worse than the historic "infrastructure" programs - repaving roads, etc, that are traditionally done? I would say, no worse, maybe better.

Oh, and by the way, in many cases, it did require you to destroy your bank / insurance company / investment firm to get the "cash for bankers" program. (unless you are Goldman Sachs and your President is head of the Treasury of course)


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 29, 2009)

HarryN said:


> Is the CARS program any worse than the historic "infrastructure" programs - repaving roads, etc, that are traditionally done? I would say, no worse, maybe better.


 
Repaving roads benefits everyone. Cash for Clunkers on the other hand (putting aside that the Government has horribly mis-managed it) benefits only a small percentage of folks. The program itself is horribly wasteful, since many of the so-called clunkers being turned in are perfectly good cars. As far as putting in a clause that says buyers can only purchase vehicles from the Big Three, it wouldn't be an issue. Few individuals get pleasure from driving. Many folks use their cars as appliances. Being able to save up to $4,500 would cause a lot of folks to "Buy American," as it were. 

Personally, I feel that a Toyota Camry built in America is far more American than a Chevy Impala built in Mexico. I'm just saying that if the law-makers really wanted to, they could have put in such a clause.


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Aug 29, 2009)

HarryN said:


> Is the CARS program any worse than the historic "infrastructure" programs - repaving roads, etc, that are traditionally done?



Yes. Destroying cars that may be the only ones millions of people can afford during the worst recession since the Great Depression is bad. Getting people to destroy their paid off car in exchange for payments on a new car that they may not be able to afford is bad. Wasting $3 billion in taxpayer money to do it when federal revenue is low and the deficit is higher this year than in all previous years combined is bad. Bankrupting car companies by promising incentives to sell cars and not paying them before they run out of capital is bad. Requiring that the car companies' computers be open to government phishing in order to have a chance to get their money is bad. 

The biggest problem with this program as well as the massive spending lately is that it seems like we are being led some place that some of us don't want to go and the government is burning the bridge behind us. There's no going back with these plans. If cash for clunkers causes unforseen problems, there is no going back. You can't get the destroyed cars back. I don't think that they thought this through (or did they?). Older cars can be worked on by their owners. New cars have everything computerized and you need a specialized mechanic at the dealer to do the job. If the dealers in your area go out of business, there's no way to fix your car. The most fuel efficient cars are hybrids. Japan and China make and hold all the patents for lithium ion and most Ni-MH batteries. Our auto industry will become dependent on them. We're not getting rid of our dependence on oil. We're adding a new dependence. China holds much of our debt. Does anyone else fear that they may have the power to hurt a needed industry if we don't please them with our monetary policies? We're spending so much money, there's no going back. We can't unspend it and once it's gone, we're stuck. It's like we're putting all our eggs in one basket and the basket might not have a bottom. There's some other things that bug me about these new cars. Many of us here follow the KISS principal for flashlights. How about cars? Older cars have fewer things to fail. Newer cars have far more electronics and other components that can fail. Lithium ion and Ni-MH batteries don't have the working temperature range that lead acid batteries have. My sister's Toyota Prius stopped working and left her stranded on her wedding day. It was hot outside and the car shut down because it was out of the temperature range for charging the hybrid battery. It was no more than 110 F. I wouldn't want to own one of these cars living in warm or cold climates. The expensive battery limits their life to around 80,000 miles before things start going wrong, under ideal conditions.

Why are you comparing construction to destruction and saying they are the same thing? They're not.


----------



## HarryN (Aug 29, 2009)

I almost didn't respond again to this thread, and have decided that this will be my last post in it to avoid things getting out of hand. Instead, I will just go back to posting about flashlights.

First - I am primarily concerned with the "cash for bankers" = $ 3,000 billion program vs the "cash for clunkers" = $ 3 billion program. 
- Which is more out of hand? 
- Which one represents a greater impact on the budget deficit? 
- Which one represents a greater bailout for the least number of Americans benefiting?
Seriously - count the zeros.


Second - Construction projects do benefit some, but certain not all. 
- If the law contained provisions that only steel and concrete and engineering from the US or North America are used, that would be one thing. 
- If the goal of the projects were for the common good of the US, that would also be useful.

At least in CA, the majority of steel for these projects, as well as entire bridge and massive crane sections, are coming in from Korea and China. Our tax dollars at work - giving job to who?

The "improvements" at the Port of Oakland that I am helping to pay for - who is benefiting - not me, that is for sure. 
- The container ships are the largest local source of pollution around - they literally burn tar and have NO emission controls at all.
- Who benefits from making it easier / faster to unload imported goods into Oakland - not the local workers, that is for sure, unless you count the handful of dock workers vs the 1,000s that have lost jobs by importing more cars, ipods, macs, etc.

From my perspective, the infrastructure spending program, at least in CA, is just a waste of money, and no one I know will benefit at all.

Like I said, this is my last post in this thread. I realize that neither you guys nor I will likely change our minds, so I am going back to discussing incans and LEDs.

Take care,

Harry


----------



## BB (Aug 29, 2009)

Harry,

I don't disagree with anything you have typed.

Regarding the cash for bankers--there is one thing missing (IMHO) from your analysis... The Federal government used this program to gain control over the financial sector.

Well Fargo, for one famous case, did not want the money and was told that they had to take the money or else...



> From the WSJ:
> "During the discussion, the most animated response came from Wells Fargo (WFC) Chairman Richard Kovacevich, say people present. Why was this necessary? he asked. Why did the government need to buy stakes in these banks? Morgan Stanley (MS) Chief Executive John Mack, whose company was among the most vulnerable in the group to the swirling financial crisis, quickly signed.
> 
> Bank of America's (BAC) Kenneth Lewis acknowledged the obvious, that everyone at the table would participate. "Any one of us who doesn't have a healthy fear of the unknown isn't paying attention," he said."
> ...


How can a independent bank compete with others getting trillions of free bucks from the federal government. Kind of like the mafia making a deal you cannot refuse.

And, when some banks wanted to pay back the loans/investments/etc. -- they had to "get permission" to do so from the Government.

At this point, it is hard to prove that any of the things done so far have actually improved the overall financial health of the country.

Anyway--lots to discuss here--deserves a thread of its own.

-Bill


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Aug 30, 2009)

I'll agree that the bank bailout was a big waste. For the $3 trillion it cost, the government could have given every man, woman, and child in America $10,000. Instead, each person is that much in the hole in the long run, plus they have to pay interest on it. The taxes collected to pay off this debt and it's interest will take away money that people need to pay down credit cards or mortgages. They will end up paying for the interest twice on the same money overall. Can you imagine what kind of effect it would have on the economy if everyone got $10,000? People could pay down their credit cards or mortgages so they wouldn't be paying such high interest rates for bad credit and would have less principal to pay. They would have more expendable money each month to spend with less debt. $10,000 would add a lot more time for people to find work if the money was used to extend unemployment benefits. $10,000 would encourage people to take risks in business again and create more jobs. People would have more money saved to put in the bank so the banks would have more money to lend and stay in business. The Federal Reserve has not helped by keeping interest rates artificially low. Without their interference, people would get a decent interest rate and want to save. The banks can't make money off of lending it out at a higher interest rate if nobody is willing to put money in the bank because their interest rate for saving is practically nothing. With little to no interest earned, banks failing regularly, and the FDIC going broke, people would rather keep their money in cash rather than risk losing it for the little interest earned in the bank. No amount of money given to the banks will fix this until the Fed leaves interest rates alone.

The cash for clunkers program isn't a worse miserable failure than the bank bailout, it's simply another one. I don't care which one is worse. They are a waste of our money and they add up. Cash for Clunkers didn't cost us just $3 billion though. You need to add up the value of all the cars destroyed, all the interest the owners will have to pay on the new ones, the interest on the $3 billion in debt added to the deficit, the lost ability for future potential buyers to buy affordable used cars, the lost ability for used car owners to buy parts to fix their cars, and the difference in cost between a new and used car or car part for all the people who wanted a cheap used car or part and had to pay full price for a new one plus interest. Then take into account the increased maintainance costs of a new car with all the electronics that make it impossible to work on yourself. Finally, take the decreased mileage you'll get from all hybrids into account as the battery fails usually within 80,000-100,000 miles and costs a fortune to replace.

Both programs are a waste, and the biggest problem is that the government is trying the same wasteful things to fix the economy over and over again. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting results.


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 30, 2009)

Not to nit-pick, but the definition of _stupidity _is doing the same thing over and over again; while expecting a different result than the same one reach every previous time.

Insanity or stupidity, Cash for Clunkers is a horrid waste of tax-payer dollars. It reminds me of a fictional government program in the film "Dave," in which tax-payer money is being spent just so those Americans who have already purchased an American car can feel better about buying American. The character Dave (who could pass for the President's identical twin) gets caught up in a situation where he must pretend to be the gravely ill President. Not being a freaking politician, Dave puts an immediate stop to the wasteful program; so that the money can be used to fund an important program.

Talk about Life imitating Art.

Cash for Clunkers and Cash for Bankers are both horrid wastes of our money. Apparently if you use a gun to steal $20 from a Stop & Rob, you get tossed in jail. You use a business degree from Harvard to steal $20,000,000 from the same Wall Street company you work for, and apparently you get a check from Uncle Sam. :ironic:


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 30, 2009)

Hooked on Fenix said:


> Yes. Destroying cars that may be the only ones millions of people can afford during the worst recession since the Great Depression is bad. Getting people to destroy their paid off car in exchange for payments on a new car that they may not be able to afford is bad.


No arguing there were _some_ decent used cars which could have been bought by people on a budget destroyed in this program. That being said, the idea that many good used cars were destroyed here was largely exaggerated by the media looking for another sensationalist story. I know for a fact based on feedback from some people I know in the business that the vast majority of vehicles destroyed were piles of junk. In this economy the only reason most people will consider buying a new car, or even a better used one, is if their vehicle is getting close to giving up the ghost. Besides, at most this program destroyed around 1 million vehicles, most likely a few hundred thousand less than that. Still loads of decent used cars left. And because of this program you now have a lot more spare parts from the clunkers to use to keep other used cars on the road.



> Older cars can be worked on by their owners. New cars have everything computerized and you need a specialized mechanic at the dealer to do the job.


Most of this computerized stuff starting appearing in the 1980s. You really need to go back a looooong time to find cars which can easily be worked on by their owners (not to mention almost nobody wants to get their hands dirty any more regardless). My brother does some work on his 1994 Mark VIII, but it's mostly the same drivetrain/suspension/body work he could still do on a newer car. He's rebuilt engines on 1960s cars, yet there's not much he'll touch on the Mark VIII.



> Japan and China make and hold all the patents for lithium ion and most Ni-MH batteries. Our auto industry will become dependent on them. We're not getting rid of our dependence on oil. We're adding a new dependence.


Actually, a lot of rechargeable batteries are manufactured in Asia because for a bunch of reasons it makes more sense to make them there. As far as who holds patents, there's not a glut of patents held in Asian companies. Just look at the A123 cell, for example. I do agree though that we're too dependent upon the Far East for manufacturing our goods. For many reasons it makes sense for us to retain industries which manufacture a wide variety of industrial products, including batteries.



> China holds much of our debt. Does anyone else fear that they may have the power to hurt a needed industry if we don't please them with our monetary policies? We're spending so much money, there's no going back. We can't unspend it and once it's gone, we're stuck. It's like we're putting all our eggs in one basket and the basket might not have a bottom.


I fully agree the debt problem is going to come back and bite us in the behind big time eventually. I even said as much a couple of posts up. That being said, who except ourselves do we have to blame for the debt? American consumers have long spent more money than they have. When the bills got too big for them to handle, they would just declare bankruptcy. It apparently didn't bother them enough to keep them from voting people into office who did the same with our government spending. The electorate has long been schizophrenic. They want all kinds of things from the government, yet they still want low taxes. You can't have it both ways. And soon we'll all be paying the price for this short-sighted policy, including those who were responsible with their money.

And it also bears mentioning here that had the deficit spending been used to create wealth (i.e. infrastructure), it might have paid for itself long term. However, most of what the governments (and private industry) spent money on in the last cycle of "prosperity" created little of long-term benefit. It seemed the only infrastructure being created was luxury condos, cheaply built private housing in ever more remote areas, and shopping malls (also in ever more remote areas). We neglected to even maintain our established infrastructure, didn't add new public transit even in areas which sorely needed it, and in general increased the sprawl which made us dependent upon cars and oil in the first place. Not to mention we are falling behind among first world nations subsidizing the scientific research upon which our industry is based. If Asia eventually kicks our behinds, we have nobody to blame but ourselves. They think in terms of generations, we think only to the next quarter. 



> There's some other things that bug me about these new cars. Many of us here follow the KISS principal for flashlights. How about cars? Older cars have fewer things to fail. Newer cars have far more electronics and other components that can fail. Lithium ion and Ni-MH batteries don't have the working temperature range that lead acid batteries have. My sister's Toyota Prius stopped working and left her stranded on her wedding day. It was hot outside and the car shut down because it was out of the temperature range for charging the hybrid battery. It was no more than 110 F. I wouldn't want to own one of these cars living in warm or cold climates. The expensive battery limits their life to around 80,000 miles before things start going wrong, under ideal conditions.


As I said earlier, you really need to go back at least two decades, actually closer to three, to find cars simple enough for an average person to work on. I know-my brother has been tinkering with cars since the late 1970s. I watched him many a time. Most of those those easy to work on cars are long gone (and despite being easy to fix, they required constant finessing to keep them running well). I agree with the KISS idea however, and for that reason I think internal comubustion engines with complex transmissions, or even more complex hybrids, make little sense with today's batteries. A battery which isn't abused will last the life of an electric car. Other than eventually replacing the battery (assuming the body is still in decent shape after 200K or 300K miles), there's little to go wrong in the drivetrain of pure electrics. Hybrids aren't a great idea. In my opinion they're being used now mostly as a test bed for EV components by auto makers. They're merely a halfway house between fully ICE and fully electric vehicles, not a long-term answer in their own right. The bugs with the batteries and electronics will eventually be worked out. To a large extent they already are. A lot of the heat problem you mention has to do with sticking a battery and electronics alongside an internal combustion engine. I recently had a similar problem with one of my automotive LED drivers. Not a thing wrong with the driver, just the engine was throwing off too much heat for it to function. Once engines are gone, any heat issues with batteries will be.

No argument this program was the worst of both worlds, and I'm glad it's over. I would have given $3 billion instead for people to retrofit their old ICE cars as EVs. This would have given us boatloads of real world experience, plus extended the life of vehicles with good bodies but dying engines. And also greatly increased the visability of pure electrics.

But the real waste was the bailout of the banks to the tune of several trillion dollars. I've yet to see that anything positive has been accomplished by this. At the very least they should have specified that any bank receiving governement funds must now pay at least 3% interest (better yet 5% or 6%) on savings accounts. This would have encouraged a big flow of capital to banks. And the banks can afford it given that most still charge well over 20% on credit cards.


----------



## reptiles (Aug 31, 2009)

Wow, I did really well with the program. 

I gave them a '92 Eagle Talon AWD Turbo Automatic (the manual tranny doesn't qualify) I bought it new in late 1991 for about $18,000. It is listed at 18mpg but I got way less. The car went in with two dented fenders; 200,000+ miles; an engine that leaked lots of oil, blown turbo, etc. Additionally I sold the rear hatchback, right side mirror, complete interior, wheels; radio/CD player; amp; rear seats; plastic side cladding; intake; assorted parts; and drove it in on 4 donuts! 

I bought a new Toyota Rav4 that gets 28 MPG, so I got $4500 for the clunker; made about $850 on used parts; and Toyota gave me $600 off sticker (eventually.) That's almost a $6k incentive to buy a new truck. 

I wanted blue but had to settle for black, as local dealers sold 200 Rav4s in the three weeks I was shopping --so there were only 3 left. I spent way less than I did in '91 and have a reliable vehicle with lots of room. 

Regards, 

Mark


----------



## BB (Aug 31, 2009)

Law of unintended consequences--Or, cash of clunkers; the gift that keeps giving:



> Here's the problem: General Motors went through the bankruptcy earlier this year and was able to pawn off a lot of unwanted things onto a new company called, originally, General Motors Company (since renamed Motors Liquidation Company). Some of the unwanted crap includes polluted old factories (which we knew about) and the responsibility to safely discard mercury switches in vehicles that were scrapped in the recently-concluded Cash For Clunkers program.
> 
> Millions of mercury switches were used in anti-lock brakes sensors and hood and trunk light switches until automakers phased them out in 2004. Since 2005, the group End of Life Vehicle Solutions Corporation (ELVS) "manages, on a nationwide basis, programs to collect, transport, retort, recycle, or dispose of elemental mercury from automotive switches." GM is not listed as a member of ELVS, but GM told us that Motors Liquidation Company is a part of ELVS.
> 
> ...



-Bill


----------

