Cash for Codgers!!!!!

[TechGuy]

whats crazy is now people who have real clunkers, (not the cars that were destroyed (mostly half way decent running cars)) will not be able to find, or pay a higher price for a used vehicle.

i cant belive that the government acted like they were surprised it was such a hit, like giving away money doesnt attract people.

Thats another great point. Alot of decent used cars got turned in.

[jeremyt]

Also, while the whole point was to stimulate the growth of the auto market and kick start the sales, it may have forced people to either hold off on buying a new car before the program started or rush into a purchase that they would have made later which may hurt new car sales in the future.

[atreis]

The idea behind the program was they destroyed the cars to keep them off the road.

They were only required to destroy the engine.

Anyway, the person that apparently wanted to shove his nicely restored old car somewhere seemed to think that I had proposed requiring the destruction of all old cars (like his).  That's quite a leap from what I said above.  And anyway, if implemented as I suggested, it would have been MUCH harder to qualify, there wouldn't have been any reason to add more money to the program, and fewer cars would have ended up having their engines crushed.  The net benefit in terms of fuel efficiency could have been the same even so because of the larger required difference in gas mileage.

I agree wholeheartedly with the comments about the program decreasing the availability of decent used cars.  (Another good reason that it should have been harder to qualify.)

[TechGuy]

I'm left wondering:

How many people qualified for a loan they otherwise could not have got with $4,500 down?

How many of those will default?

And who will bail out the banks from the defaults?

$3,000,000,000 / $4,500 = 666,666 Possible sales assuming the maximum rebate, and the whole $3B was used (it wasn't though). Assuming each car was $20K, with $4,500 down, thats $10B financed. With a 5% default, thats $500M. Not a huge loss I guess.

[Blown76mav]

They were only required to destroy the engine.

Anyway, the person that apparently wanted to shove his nicely restored old car somewhere seemed to think that I had proposed requiring the destruction of all old cars (like his).  That's quite a leap from what I said above.  And anyway, if implemented as I suggested, it would have been MUCH harder to qualify, there wouldn't have been any reason to add more money to the program, and fewer cars would have ended up having their engines crushed.  The net benefit in terms of fuel efficiency could have been the same even so because of the larger required difference in gas mileage.

I agree wholeheartedly with the comments about the program decreasing the availability of decent used cars.  (Another good reason that it should have been harder to qualify.)

The engines had to be destroyed so they couldn't be resold, they are going straight to a crusher and turned into scrap metal.  By adding old cars like mine once they are turned in they will never do anybody any good except the people crushing them and turning them into scrap metal.  None of these cars are going to a junkyard where there parts can be  resold to fix other vehicles.  All it takes is for someone like you to suggest "hey lets open it up to ALL cars" and next think ya know someone is knocking on your door telling you to turn your car in.  California has been trying this for years, all they need is some more left wing people to go along with them.  Yep cars are close to me, do I think we need to do something to help save energy yep, but not a mass witch hunt on old cars (which is what the government would do in a heartbeat if they could)

[TechGuy]

The engines had to be destroyed so they couldn't be resold, they are going straight to a crusher and turned into scrap metal.  By adding old cars like mine once they are turned in they will never do anybody any good except the people crushing them and turning them into scrap metal.  None of these cars are going to a junkyard where there parts can be  resold to fix other vehicles.  All it takes is for someone like you to suggest "hey lets open it up to ALL cars" and next think ya know someone is knocking on your door telling you to turn your car in.  California has been trying this for years, all they need is some more left wing people to go along with them.  Yep cars are close to me, do I think we need to do something to help save energy yep, but not a mass witch hunt on old cars (which is what the government would do in a heartbeat if they could)

Thank you! Everything happens in small steps. Thank god the assault weapon ban wasn't renewed.

California still has a ban on certain rifles though. Like anything chambered in .50BMG. Lots of .50BMG driveby shootings I guess. Combine that will all the driveby bayonettings and they have a SERIOUS problem.

Cash for clunkers (or codgers hehe)could be the next small step...

[atreis]

The engines had to be destroyed so they couldn't be resold, they are going straight to a crusher and turned into scrap metal.  By adding old cars like mine once they are turned in they will never do anybody any good except the people crushing them and turning them into scrap metal.  None of these cars are going to a junkyard where there parts can be  resold to fix other vehicles.  All it takes is for someone like you to suggest "hey lets open it up to ALL cars" and next think ya know someone is knocking on your door telling you to turn your car in.  California has been trying this for years, all they need is some more left wing people to go along with them.  Yep cars are close to me, do I think we need to do something to help save energy yep, but not a mass witch hunt on old cars (which is what the government would do in a heartbeat if they could)

You're making ungrounded and unfounded assumptions about me without having any clue who I am.  You've labeled me (probably not inaccurately) and assume that I exactly fit your stereotype of that label without leaving room for individual variation.  You have no idea what sorts of government programs I do and don't support, why I do and don't support them, what I think about old restored cars, old cars in general, restoring cars in general, cars that aren't yet old, or even how I actually vote.

If you would really like to turn this into a political discussion, let's take it to PM.

[Blown76mav]

Last paragraph on page 33 of the regulation:
It goes on to define how "combined fuel economy" is calculated.  So what are those categories of trucks?

So, yes, if what you owned was a category 2 truck, you could indeed trade it in for a vehicle that got as little as 15 mpg.  Since a category 2 truck would be a full size van or full size pickup, 15 mpg could be an improvement.  Also, the amount of rebate given was based on a calculation that compared the combined fuel mileage of the 2 vehicles.  So if it wasn't an improvement, you wouldn't get anything anyway.  Unfortunately for category 2 trucks, any improvement was enough to qualify.

The regulations (should you care to read them): http://www.cars.gov/files/official-information/rule.pdf  (Just to warn you - it's quite lengthy.)

If you want to play with different car choices and see how much of rebate someone could have gotten: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/CarsSearchIntro.shtml  Click on the "I'm ready to begin!" button and pick various car choices.  It's interesting to see just how low the bar was set for category 2 trucks.  (Yes, you could trade a 2000 Ford F-150 V8 in for a Hummer H3 3.7L V6.  The H3 gets 2 mpg better than the F-150.  The H2 didn't qualify.  The minimum mpg was set to 15 for the new vehicle for category 2 trucks.)

Personally, I agreed with the philosophy behind the program, but not the implementation.  The bar was set way too low in terms of the required amount of improvement in MPG.  I thought it should have required at least a 10 mpg improvement to qualify for any funds at all regardless of category and a 15 mpg improvement to qualify for full funds, but of course that wouldn't fly because it would have largely excluded US car companies except for the relatively low number of trade-ins that got 15 mpg or less.  I also don't think it should have excluded cars older than 25 years.

Who funded the loans?  Banks, credit unions, and S&Ls did, the same as for any other car purchase that requires a loan.

Are these not your words?

You're making ungrounded and unfounded assumptions about me without having any clue who I am.  You've labeled me (probably not inaccurately) and assume that I exactly fit your stereotype of that label without leaving room for individual variation.  You have no idea what sorts of government programs I do and don't support, why I do and don't support them, what I think about old restored cars, old cars in general, restoring cars in general, cars that aren't yet old, or even how I actually vote.

I didn't label you, you labeled yourself.  I don't really care how you vote, or what government programs you support or don't support.  You made it clear how you felt about older cars with the words above.  If those aren't your words then I appologize, but I'm pretty sure I'm quoting the right guy. 

[Riderc82]

When you guys solve the worlds problems send me a txt.   

[atreis]

Are these not your words?

Yes, they're my words, and I still don't see that they have much of anything to do with your complaints.  It's really hard to imagine someone trading in a car like yours in such a program.  However, trading in, say, an '82 Honda Accord with >300k miles on it, tons of rust, some dents, a slightly bent frame, an air conditioner that hasn't worked since '93, broken fuel gauge, and burns oil (my mom has one of those, btw) I could see.  It's hard to imagine someone wanting to restore it.  There are probably a few useful parts on it and if anyone cared to do so (not likely in this case) they could be removed before destroying it so long as the engine is destroyed.

The fact of the matter is, most old cars are like that one.  They're not classic.  Aside from an example here and there, they're not going to be common targets for restoration.

I didn't label you, you labeled yourself.

You're the one that labeled me as a person who would support a program that would REQUIRE the destruction of all cars once they reach a certain age.  (I challenge you to find anywhere where I've said that I would support anything of the sort.)

In fact, what I said is that I would support a program that would give people the option to trade-in low mpg cars (regardless of age) for significantly higher mpg cars with incentives, and which would guarantee that the low mpg cars that people freely chose to trade-in under this program would not be placed back in service.  Seems to me there are probably ways to guarantee this that don't involve requiring the destruction of any part of them (such as parting them out) and I have no problem with that, although conservatives might - it would make the program more expensive.

I don't really care how you vote, or what government programs you support or don't support.

That being the case, then why would you have had such a violent initial reaction to my opinions?

[Lost Floridian]

I'm gonna throw some gasoline on Lonnie's fire...

here are some of the reported cars clunked:

1987 Buick ASC GNX
1997 Aston Martin DB7 Volante
1997 Bentley Continental R
1989 20th Anniversary Pontiac Trans Am
1992 GMC Typhoon (no!)
1985 Audi Quattro
1992 BMW 850i
2006 Audi A4 Convertible
2006 Cadillac STS
2008 Foose F-150 (2)
2006 Nissan 350Z Roadster
2006 Roush Stage 3 F-150 (2)
2005 Mazda RX-8
1988 Aurora Cobra kit car
1996 Buick Funeral Coaches/Hearses
1987 Duntov GT
1987 Excalibur Autos Phaeton
1985 Maserati Quattroporte
1999 Mercedes C43 AMG
1985 TVR 280i convertible

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/24/shed-a-tear-for-clunkers-that-deserved-better/


and here are a couple of more intresting reads on the cash for clunkers program:
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/26/top-ten-green-cars-that-met-their-fate-during-cash-for-clunker/
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/01/autoline-on-autoblog-with-john-mcelroy/

[Blown76mav]

Thanks Will,   Now I want to go curl up in a corner and cry....none of those vehicles on that list should have been included, most had some kind of collector value.  See it starts small and grows.

Like I said wasn't trying to turn a joke into a political thread.

  It obvious that atreis isn't getting it, my car didn't start out the way it is in the picture, I didn't buy it, I built it.  It was one of those ">300k miles on it, tons of rust, some dents, a slightly bent frame, an air conditioner that hasn't worked since '93, broken fuel gauge, and burns oil" and at one point in time would have qualified under atreis's thinking(again these are your words.)  I mean really who fixes up a Maverick?  Its not a Mustang or a Camaro to most it ranks right there with Honda.  To me it doesn't matter the make or model as long as someone cares enough to fix it up. My point was even if a car is all that is mentioned above someone somewhere might want to fix it up but would never have a chance if we all thought like that.

Why do I get mad even if I don't care politically what you do?   Because it directly affects me and my hobby.

You didn't implement the program, but you agreed with the program "Personally, I agreed with the philosophy behind the program" (again your words) thats what has me in a uproar, anyone who supports such a program I would tell the same things to, weather on here or face to face.

 It would be like that nut case law they were trying to pass on "native species" that would affect my reef tank.  You better believe I'm going to take a stand against anyone who tries to take my freedom from me regardless if its a hobby, way of life or religion.

I'm done, you can keep talking if ya want.  I've proved my point over and over ya just don't get it.

 

[atreis]

I'm done, you can keep talking if ya want.  I've proved my point over and over ya just don't get it.

I'm done too.  I've also proved my point over and over and you just don't get it.

Looks like we agree. 

[TechGuy]

I'm gonna throw some gasoline on Lonnie's fire...

here are some of the reported cars clunked:

1987 Buick ASC GNX
1997 Aston Martin DB7 Volante
1997 Bentley Continental R
1989 20th Anniversary Pontiac Trans Am
1992 GMC Typhoon (no!)
1985 Audi Quattro
1992 BMW 850i
2006 Audi A4 Convertible
2006 Cadillac STS
2008 Foose F-150 (2)
2006 Nissan 350Z Roadster
2006 Roush Stage 3 F-150 (2)
2005 Mazda RX-8
1988 Aurora Cobra kit car
1996 Buick Funeral Coaches/Hearses
1987 Duntov GT
1987 Excalibur Autos Phaeton
1985 Maserati Quattroporte
1999 Mercedes C43 AMG
1985 TVR 280i convertible

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/24/shed-a-tear-for-clunkers-that-deserved-better/


and here are a couple of more intresting reads on the cash for clunkers program:
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/26/top-ten-green-cars-that-met-their-fate-during-cash-for-clunker/
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/01/autoline-on-autoblog-with-john-mcelroy/

Now I am FURIOUS! 

The RX-8? Not a collector car yet, an enthusiast car yes. I have owned three RX-7's. Buying parts is rediculous, trust me. And many a RX-8 owner will be in the same boat in 10-15 years.

I read on the 300ZX forum something terrible. A guy and his wife both had a 300ZX. Z32 chassis. A Cherry Pearl red (like mine) 90', mint, 100K miles. Worth over $5K on the market. His wife? A Pearl white 95' Vert, same deal, less than 100K.

A Mechanic on the forum posted that they traded them in on the Clunkers program. And here I am, spending months looking for a temp gauge, IACV, MAF, and rocker panels.

Pisses me off. 

[cyberwollf]

I'm gonna throw some gasoline on Lonnie's fire...

here are some of the reported cars clunked:

1987 Buick ASC GNX
1997 Aston Martin DB7 Volante
1997 Bentley Continental R
1989 20th Anniversary Pontiac Trans Am
1992 GMC Typhoon (no!)
1985 Audi Quattro
1992 BMW 850i
2006 Audi A4 Convertible
2006 Cadillac STS
2008 Foose F-150 (2)
2006 Nissan 350Z Roadster
2006 Roush Stage 3 F-150 (2)
2005 Mazda RX-8
1988 Aurora Cobra kit car
1996 Buick Funeral Coaches/Hearses
1987 Duntov GT
1987 Excalibur Autos Phaeton
1985 Maserati Quattroporte
1999 Mercedes C43 AMG
1985 TVR 280i convertible

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/24/shed-a-tear-for-clunkers-that-deserved-better/


and here are a couple of more intresting reads on the cash for clunkers program:
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/26/top-ten-green-cars-that-met-their-fate-during-cash-for-clunker/
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/01/autoline-on-autoblog-with-john-mcelroy/

I'm going have to say regardless of the collectors status of some of the cars....most of those people got ripped off on a $4,500 trade in...Who trades in a 3 year old 350Z for that little?

[TechGuy]

I'm going have to say regardless of the collectors status of some of the cars....most of those people got ripped off on a $4,500 trade in...Who trades in a 3 year old 350Z for that little?

People who are upside down in a loan I guess. Who knows.

People suck.

[UD Flyer]

I'm going have to say regardless of the collectors status of some of the cars....most of those people got ripped off on a $4,500 trade in...Who trades in a 3 year old 350Z for that little?

The question is; what type of condition were those cars in at trade-in? From my understanding the car had to be running, but doesnt mean it couldn't have been totaled. lets say it was a totaled 350Z and the owner took the engine and all the expensive parts off of it and rigged up a engine that could get it from the tow truck around the corner onto the dealers lot.

Right off the bat it looks like the people trading these cars in are fools but, in reality there's a reason why those cars were traded in and the variable we dont know is the condition. Hell it could have been a completely striped car with no windows, doors, seats etc... 

But im sure some of the people who traded in the cars on this list were ignorant in their cars value to a collector/someone needing parts/ restorer etc...

[TechGuy]

The question is; what type of condition were those cars in at trade-in? From my understanding the car had to be running, but doesnt mean it couldn't have been totaled. lets say it was a totaled 350Z and the owner took the engine and all the expensive parts off of it and rigged up a engine that could get it from the tow truck around the corner onto the dealers lot.

Right off the bat it looks like the people trading these cars in are fools but, in reality there's a reason why those cars were traded in and the variable we dont know is the condition. Hell it could have been a completely striped car with no windows, doors, seats etc... 

But im sure some of the people who traded in the cars on this list were ignorant in their cars value to a collector/someone needing parts/ restorer etc...

Its not that simple. You had to have owned the car for a year, with insurance and proof.

Although you are right. They could have been stripped. Having had a car to trade in, or a new even worth trading in for, I think thats the route I woul dhave taken honestly.

[JSLeedy]

I have some real problems with this program aside from the obvious issues of tax dollars.  There is a reason a lot of these people were still driving "clunkers".  If they could afford a new car they would have already gotten one.  I expect to see a huge amount of repo's in the not so distant future.  There is going to be a flood on the used car market with models only a year old.  They are going to have to be almost given away just to move them off the lots.  This of course is going to murder the new car market.

By destroying the cars that were taken in is also going to have a big effect on the used parts market.  Now the poorer folks out there that drive a older car and fix it themselves with parts from junkyards and places like them are going to have a harder time finding parts and pay more when they do.  This is going t create a huge burden on these people.  When you also take into account the amount of used scrap metal we ship toour good buddies the Chinese this really wasn't the great fix it looked like on the top.

Does anyone have a list of the number of cars sold.  I know most were imports and a lot were not exactly the "green" cars this was supposed to promote.

[JSLeedy]

I may be wrong about this but I think you are required to pay taxes on the $4500 as earned income.  That means if you are in the 30% bracket your paying back $1350.  You could actually be losing money depending on what the trade in was worth.  It's great how things get covered by the indepth reporting out there.

[Amstar]

Reading all of this makes my head hurt.