Cash for Clunkers

[lawren2 Malibu Beach Barbie & A Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close lawren2]

Cash for Clunkers Car Buying Stimulus Bill- Yahoo! Autos Article Page



Cash for Clunkers — now officially known as the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) — is a federal program passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama on June 24. The program is meant to encourage consumers to trade in older, less fuel-efficient vehicles for new vehicles that get better fuel economy by providing a credit worth up to $4,500. Modeled after several programs that have already been successfully implemented in Europe, the program is expected to begin on July 23 and end on November 1, 2009.

Though final details of the program are still being hashed out by the folks at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), below are details of the Cash for Clunkers program as we know them today. The program would offer a credit that allows consumers to save from $3,500 to $4,500 on a new-car purchase. There are also various credits for trucks and work trucks.

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

Classic car enthusiasts despise these programs because invariably some idiots turn in restorable classics or ones that at least would be useful as parts cars. Our automotive heritage needs to be preserved, not mindlessly destroyed. There is usually no way to rescue a car that some such idiot mindlessly turns in.

[RESORT2ME Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close RESORT2ME]

This move may work somewhat for environmental cleanup and bailing out the automakers, but I agree many restorable classics may get destroyed… parts no longer available.

Hopefully the “recyclers” are smart enough to find loop holes so that classics get salvaged. What a shame that new cars are sold at the cost of striping classic beauties from our world.


We restored this 89 TransAm. (I hope this is viewable at least be clicking on this link)
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/gTI3-zwhtEkzxndKxX7EZw?authkey=Gv1sRgCLbuiIasmYvp4QE&fe at=directlink

[PigsDad Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close PigsDad]

Classic car enthusiasts despise these programs because invariably some idiots turn in restorable classics or ones that at least would be useful as parts cars. Our automotive heritage needs to be preserved, not mindlessly destroyed. There is usually no way to rescue a car that some such idiot mindlessly turns in.

It is simple economics. No one is forcing anyone to turn a car in. If the car that the consumer "mindlessly" turns in is worth more than the allowance the government is offering, then it would be "rescued" as you put it (i.e., the owner would sell it for more than the voucher, not turn it in). If you are personally willing to pay more than the voucher amount, feel free to do so. But I see no reason to keep old fuel-inefficient cars around just to preserve our "automotive heritage".

Kurt

[Elan Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Elan]

I thought that when I perused the list of eligible cars, there were no cars older than 1990 on the list. I don't know of many "classics" that were made after 1990.

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

I thought that when I perused the list of eligible cars, there were no cars older than 1990 on the list. I don't know of many "classics" that were made after 1990.

If that is specifically in this legislation, it is a huge improvement over past laws of this nature, particularly the one in California.

Personally, there is little made after the mid-1970s that I would be interested in driving. Well, always a Morgan, but even a 2009 Morgan has the same bodystyle as a 1939 Morgan.

[Elan Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Elan]

If that is specifically in this legislation, it is a huge improvement over past laws of this nature, particularly the one in California.

Personally, there is little made after the mid-1970s that I would be interested in driving. Well, always a Morgan, but even a 2009 Morgan has the same bodystyle as a 1939 Morgan.

There are tons of cars made after the mid-70's that I'd love to drive, but almost by definition not many of them would be categorized as "classics". About the only exceptions would be those with limited production numbers.

BTW, I haven't read the specific CARS legislation, just glanced over the list. Perhaps there are older cars (pre-1990) that are eligible, but they weren't on the list I viewed.

[JWC Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close JWC]

This program isn't going to have much effect on new car sales. The vast majority of the folks that drive these old clunkers cannot afford to buy a new car even with this incentive.

[PigsDad Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close PigsDad]

This program isn't going to have much effect on new car sales. The vast majority of the folks that drive these old clunkers cannot afford to buy a new car even with this incentive.

I think the sweet spot is for people who typically buy a new car and drive it for close to its full useful life. When they go in to buy a new car, instead of getting $2K for their trade-in, they can get $4.5K (for example). A person like that may decide to buy a car this year instead of next.

But boosting new car sales was not the original intent of this bill. It is to get the fuel-inefficient cars off the road permanently. Take the case I just noted -- with this program the car that was traded in will be crushed. Without this program, that old car would have been bought by someone and probably driven for a few more years.

Of course, there are much more efficient ways of getting gas guzzlers off the road, such as taxing them so they are much more expensive to own than a more efficient car. But what do you expect from our government?

Kurt

[RESORT2ME Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close RESORT2ME]

There are tons of cars made after the mid-70's that I'd love to drive, but almost by definition not many of them would be categorized as "classics". ...

I agree. There are head turners that will never be Classic.

I have an idea that some nicer vehicles, that are not being used, will get crushed... if they are only sitting, the owner just waiting for a bit of a nudge.

Some… no big deal.

Classic, many times, depends on the eyes of the beholder.

One I have my eye on for bringing to super shape: A 2002 Buick Park Avenue 4dr (3.8L 6cyl).

Most likely these won’t qualify to be scrapped due to their mpg. I like that as I hope there will be parts availability for many years to come.

The one I’m evaluating has 56k miles and can be had for $200. It is worth being kept for the mpg and its excellent ride alone. It has fuel mi. 23 in town and 33 highway.

It is so easy to get in and out of. Quite wonderful smooth ride with great road handling. I believe GM made this one right... comfortable SEATS, sound system, Quite Ride, Power On Demand, Stopping Power, Great Fuel mi. on regular Unleaded. Lots of cup holders, two in the back with a console all in the arm rest stows away in the seat back. Tri Zone climate control.

So far I find nothing economically wrong with it.


Caroll just might enjoy a trip in this car!

[Elan Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Elan]

I think the sweet spot is for people who typically buy a new car and drive it for close to its full useful life. When they go in to buy a new car, instead of getting $2K for their trade-in, they can get $4.5K (for example). A person like that may decide to buy a car this year instead of next.

But boosting new car sales was not the original intent of this bill. It is to get the fuel-inefficient cars off the road permanently. Take the case I just noted -- with this program the car that was traded in will be crushed. Without this program, that old car would have been bought by someone and probably driven for a few more years.

Of course, there are much more efficient ways of getting gas guzzlers off the road, such as taxing them so they are much more expensive to own than a more efficient car. But what do you expect from our government?

Kurt

I agree with this.

There are definitely people that will utilize the $4500 incentive -- especially if they're downsizing to a small, efficient, inexpensive car. In these situations, the $4500 could be 25-35% of the price of the car.

I would add that had the CAFE standards remained intact as originally written, we'd be a lot further down the road to oil independence. As you said, our gov't at it's finest............

[JWC Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close JWC]

So what do the people do that can't cram their family into a small car? My son is now looking at 7 passenger vehicles as they are expecting another child in September. They are pretty well limited to mini-vans. I don't believe it is the government's function to tell us what to buy.

[PigsDad Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close PigsDad]

So what do the people do that can't cram their family into a small car? My son is now looking at 7 passenger vehicles as they are expecting another child in September. They are pretty well limited to mini-vans. I don't believe it is the government's function to tell us what to buy.

I assume they are expecting their fifth child, correct? A 7-passenger RAV4 is rated at 27 mpg. There are hybrid SUVs with very good mileage ratings that fit 7.

No one is forcing consumers to buy a smaller car. If you choose to have a large family, then higher living costs are a part of that choice.

[Elan Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Elan]

So what do the people do that can't cram their family into a small car? My son is now looking at 7 passenger vehicles as they are expecting another child in September. They are pretty well limited to mini-vans. I don't believe it is the government's function to tell us what to buy.

Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything, that's why it's called an "incentive".

And, obviously, not everyone is going to be able to capitalize on the program. But those that do, as Kurt noted, may be saving $2-3K by realizing a higher trade-in value for their older, less efficient vehicles.

OT, but there are plenty of 7 passenger vehicles that aren't mini-vans. Almost all 3rd row SUV's are classified as 7 (or more) passenger.

[JWC Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close JWC]

I assume they are expecting their fifth child, correct? A 7-passenger RAV4 is rated at 27 mpg. There are hybrid SUVs with very good mileage ratings that fit 7.

No one is forcing consumers to buy a smaller car. If you choose to have a large family, then higher living costs are a part of that choice.

No, they are expecting their 3rd child. It so happens that you can't get more than 2 child safety seats in one row.

The RAV4 has one 7 passenger model.