Cash for clunkers?

stupid in many ways, very shallow thinking there, its the Government, dumb as rocks.

The auto companies are fighting against their own innovations, advancements and refinements. Cars last longer now than they ever have. In the '60s and before you'd have serious problems with rust in many areas of the country. If your engine lasted more than 100,000 mi you would be lucky.

The running changes made to the engines in about "1984 1/2" that were intended to help with fuel economy (roller cam, low friction pistons/rings) actually had the side benefit of giving the engines a longer lifespan.

The quality of the metals (although thinner for lighter weight) and the finish and rust protection, and replacing many areas with plastics and aluminum have helped the bodies last longer and look good longer.

So the big # (how many will be left) companies need to do something innovative to get the older vehicles off the road, even though they may just as reliable and possibly better in some ways as the newly manufactured offerings.

My '89 5.0 and the Bullitt both clock about 1800 at 60mph. The 5.0 gets around 26mpg, the 4.6 maybe 23mpg. The 5.0 also outputs extremely low pollutants in the (required) sniff test.

rd

Um, ok, print some money and give it to people so they will rid their payed-off vehicle for a new, built by a bailed-out, bankrupt company car, so they will have to make payments, because they don't have any money. Sounds perfectly sane to me.....

It is stupid. It's a government plan. It's wasteful, stupid, and transfers wealth from one group to another. These are the people that want to run health care.

The number one traded-in-for vehicle is the Ford Focus. There are days when I'd consider trading both Frogs (a combined $9,000, more than book value for both) in on a new Focus, that's for sure.

Those days aren't many, but there are those days.

I also see, every day, cars out running on the roadways that I WISH would be destroyed. I pay a pretty good amount to keep my cars running in safe, reliable fashion, and I often wonder how some of those cars pass annual inspection (or IF they do).

Sure, I'd be happy - thrilled - to accept a rebate of more than my car's value at trade-in. If I didn't drive Mustangs. I think it's a wonderful program, and I'm happy to see it extended (with moneys already allocated for a different use). This is a great time to be a buyer, and that extra $3500 to $4500 would make a difference for a lot of people. No harm, no foul.

The average increase in fuel mileage for the 250,000 units sold so far is

10mpg. If true, that's 2,500,000mpg better already, with the majority of the new units either built by US companies or at least assembled in the US.

I can't believe that the sixth most traded for vehicle is the Ford Escape. I CAN believe that the most traded-IN vehicle is the Ford Explorer.

Maybe us old farts need to realize that our little V8 powered gas guzzlers are dinosaurs, and that we should all be tooling around in Smart Cars and the not-too-distant US versions of the Nano.

Nah.

I'm not trading in the Twins any time soon. Still, it's a wonderful program.

dwight

These are the people who run Congress' health care. Do you hear them complaining?

dwight

And maybe in 15 years there will be an environmental benefit (measured in the consumption of resources) *if* the new cars purchased are still on the road. If they too were replaced early then the hole of wasted resources gets deeper.

Congress's plan for themselves, which they keep under the bill, is they get whatever they want at the expense of those forced to pay taxes and those who hold and use US dollars.

I hope nobody minds if I drift slightly OT. I think the "clunkers" are 4WD vehicles that people drive to work everyday, maybe racking up 10,000 miles a year, and wasting lots of gas idling on the freeways. As a retired old fart, I still drive my 1995 Ford E150 van, but only on over the road excursions - maybe 5000 miles/year. I don't check gas mileage, but the last time I did, I was towing a boat, with a tail wind, and got 16 MPG. No "clunkers" at my house!

Dick

84 Capri RS 5.0

Some of us drive those things we want to drive.... others drive those things we can afford to drive.... some folks even decide that they will do more than their fair share to reduce the load on our environment and spend the extra coin for a hybrid. Or should the whole world start driving old Mustangs ranging from painstakingly maintained to clapped out pieces of crap that only an owner could love....

The cash for clunkers program is a way to try stimulating the US economy... while attempts at spending your way out of debt need to be considered carefully, I'm not really surprised that all the critics are not suggesting alternatives... We can just let the economy collapse and all of us can be on welfare is the thought process I am seeing.

My 4X4 is likely cleaner than most of the modified vehicles represented here... and there is every chjance that, unloaded, I am spending less money to go further thana lot of you stop light Adrettis...

Both of our governments are busy trying to stimulate research into alternate fuel sources - this would hopefully ease the burden on our ecosystem.

Reducing fuel consumption (at the cost of our atmosphere) is a fools errand... or should the government divert funding from alternate fuels and direct it, instead, to developing alternate sources of shit we can breathe?

Dick... in case you hadn't noticed.... ANYTHING idling on the freeway is wasting gas...

Hey Jim, I totally agree. Back in my working days, I drove my newest car, a 1998 Escort, 10,000 miles per year, and still wasted a lot of gas idling on the freeway. Those days are only a memory now, and if I absolutely have to drive on a freeway, I'll pick the "off peak" hours.

Dick

If I read you correctly, you're saying we shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush. I suppose you won't mind if I point out that you might want to make that same kind of concession to the members of this group.

"Stoplight Andrettis"? How about "Self-impressed, self-righteous bloviators"? Suit you? I'd think not.

I'll know that we're serious about fuel economy, when we can synchronize lights so that I don't have to stop and wait at three red lights in a row in a three block stretch of roadway.

dwight

Cash for clunkers?

1. Rich people can afford a new car and the fuel. People who drive clunkers normally can't afford a new car.... soooooo....

Lts give a $4500 credit to a person who couldn't afford the payments on a new car, so they'll buy one, and still not be able to make the payments.

(Gee, that sounds like the idea Clinton pushed on the banks to make more loans to low income families and illegal aliens so they could share in the Amwerican dream of home ownership.)

Next, we'll pay $7000 to any dealer who uses one of the credits.

So, the dealer gets a $7000 cash payment while the buyer only gets a $4500 credit.

Then, we'll make it better. We won't limit to American companies the goverment just took over. The result? Of those people getting those new cars, 4 out of 5 are made in Japan. That REALLY goes a long way toward increasing jobs for Americans. And it sends the money outside the country which is great for the economy.

Yes, folks. The inmates ARE in charge of the asylum.

If someone intentionally set out to bancrupt America, they couldn't do a better job than this administration is tryin to do.

That's Keynesian economics. It made the great depression great.

They got good lobbists.

Made by a japanese company, but a big percentage of the actual vehicles are assembled in the USA. Lots of the parts come from US suppliers too. So it's not quite that bad.

They have been for decades.

that's because they are. In the end the people who own the majority of elected federal office holders will have almost all the wealth of the nation. It's not enough to be wealthy, everyone else has to be poor.

This is typical crap that gets spewed around as if it were fact.

First, it assumes that everyone is a drooling moron except "us smart guys." Yes, I'm sure that there are SOME out there who will buy a car they maybe can't really afford. But I'd venture to bet $1.00 that the vast majority of new car buyers are the same people just like us, who know how to manage their finances within reason and make car payments on a timely basis.

Second, it contains flat-out false information to make a rather nice program sound like a disaster.

Here are some interesting actual numbers: Over half (55%) of cars purchased under this program are foreign brands. That means that 45% are American brands, with another healthy percentage being foreign brands that are at least assembled in the U.S.A.

The big winners under this program are (here's a shock): GM 18.7% Toyota 17.9% Ford 16% Honda 11.6% Chrysler 10.6%, etc.

83% of trade-ins have been trucks. That is amazing, in itself. All of the top 10 trade-ins have been Detroit models, Ford Exporer sitting firmly at No. 1.

This helps the automakers, helps the dealers, helps a lot of Americans get into new, more efficient vehicles. And it now uses moneys that were already allocated for another purpose to help out the automakers. If you ask me, this is a better use for that money.

dwight (really wish I had a use for this program, myself, but I still can't see either of my Mustangs getting crushed for a lousy $4,500)

It is a disaster. It's theft from one group of people (those who aren't buying cars the federal government approves of or already own cars the federal government approves of) to people who are buying new cars that the federal government approves and are getting rid of cars the federal government doesn't approve of.

The government doesn't have money of it's own. It either A) takes it from people directly by taxation. This means the people who pay the taxes don't have the money to spend on things. Instead it went to automobiles. B) It prints money. This steals it from people who have savings in USD by devaluing the dollars they hold. C) It borrows the money, which depletes money to make loans for other purposes. It also has to be paid back, with interest, by the means of A and/or B.

Meanwhile as older vehicles are destroyed this raises the prices of the remaining used cars. This hurts the people who cannot afford to buy new vehicles. Also it's resource wasteful. A lot of resources went into building those vehicles and now they are being destroyed for the sake of destroying them.

If you don't like paying taxes, just say so. If you don't approve of certain government programs, just say so. What bugs me is the dissemination of garbage as fact.

Taxes are always and have always been about taking money from one group and giving it to another. There is nothing new there.

And, finally, no one is forcing anyone to trade in a car. This is not a mandatory program.

dwight

*sigh* not that crap again.

I'm talking basic economics. Although the kind that isn't approved of by government because it unmasks what they do. They take from one group and pay those that buy influence.

And you're just fine with that? There is the seen and the unseen. These government interventions cause harm and dislocations in the economy. This current bust is a direct result of government and central bank intervention in the economy, these idiots doing more isn't going to make things better.

This program doesn't help overall. It's just the usual smoke and mirrors. There is the seen and the unseen. The unseen is what isn't done because of government interference. So a bunch of people get new cars. Now what about the businesses that suffered because people's money was diverted into buying other people new cars? What of the money that people would have spent on something else had there not been this program to encourage them to buy a new car instead? What of the money to loan that was instead drained from savings to buy new vehicles as encouraged by this program? What of those businesses that now have less business? What of those jobs? What of those who now can't get a loan because the available money to loan was depleted?

In the 1930s FDR did something to keep prices up. Crops were burned and livestock destroyed. It kept prices up and people starved instead. What is happening to used cars? Prices are going up and the poor are just going to have to do without. Maybe the government could buy homes and burn them down to keep prices up.

The money is still being taken from the productive people to support those with influence. Not participating only means being on the paying end but not the reciving end.