Cash For Clunkers - This is what happens.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric.
  • 259 comments
  • 24,083 views
No, it doesn't really bother me.


You're acting as if it's something new.

Well, Honestly, I didn't know you were a fiscal liberal, so, there.

I lean more conservatively fiscal, so, honestly, I don't care for it.
 
Well, Honestly, I didn't know you were a fiscal liberal, so, there.

I lean more conservatively fiscal, so, honestly, I don't care for it.
Well, it's not really that I support one view or the other, I just don't care. I view things for the way they are, it is what it is.
 
Sure give them a free car,then who pays for tax,insurance,fuel and the cost of a part when it does break and the cost of labour to have it fixed. Buying a car is only one stage of owning a car :rolleyes:

Look, I've been one of these poor people who would of benefitted from such a donation program. I couldn't afford the down payment for a new car, but I could afford the regular monthly costs and some maintenance. And most charities in the US that you donate cars to (which I have donated a car to myself) actually perform the routine maintenance needed to make the car a legitimate daily driver. If the car cannot be it is sold at auction and the money goes towards fixing another donated vehicle.

Good point. I would have brought it up myself if the cost of buying a new car didn't far exceed any of those things simply by itself. Or that many people can afford to actually operate a car but can't afford the steep cost of buying a car on top of that.
But other than that, yeah.

The bold is QFT.

I just thought of something: Is it common knowledge that these perfectly usable cars are purposely destroyed and I was just an idiot, or is this one of those fine print bills that everyone loves until they actually figure out what is going on?

I think the last sentance is the correct analysis. :D

TS
http://forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=176981

A bunch of cars posted in that thread are perfectly good, there was even a manual e34 5er that was traded in for the program. :(

edit: and just like that, it's over

I hope this thing never comes back.

They tend to get good gas mileage, thus not qualifying.


I'm sorry but I've seen a few Japanese vehicles that could easily qualify as clunkers. My Aunt's '91 Accord only gets 17mpg, and she drives like a grandmother. Its just in ratty condition, any car in ratty condition isn't going to have stellar fuel consumption.

You mean they can make them burn through gas just like they did when they were new? Awesome!

Seriously? You are obviously not a car enthusiast, or you do not care about classics. Its pretty obvious why I made that statement. You can thumb your nose at someone who wants to restore a classic to original running condition? I quit.

They are allowed to part them out, they can sell the interior, exterior, anything like that except for the engine.

I've never heard about this actually.

You do realize that these cars that are being turned in with the cash for clunkers programs are being turned in because they'll get less money with a trade in?

That 2001 (insert vehicle) isn't worth 3k the way it sits, which is why they turn it in through the program, because they'll get more money that way. It's their car and their choice, and they drove off the lot in a brand new vehicle.

They can sell it private party. A 2001 2WD Blazer with 100,000 miles and the usual preferred equipment sells for $3,700~$4,100 private party. If you don't have the follow through to sell your car for the most you can get out of it then it is your fault if you get a $2,500~$3,000 trade-in value. If it was 4WD, the L2 (or whatnot), had on-star or any other luxury option the price increases. Point is, I blame the people who trade-in their vehicles while not even TRYING to sell it private party to get the most out of it.

If it makes you feel any better, we saved a 1980's fox body Convertible with a 5.0 from getting killed in this thing.

Yes it does, thank you. :sly: 👍
 
^^^^Favorite childhood movie

Edit: Aimed at post of Brave Little Toaster, people posted while I was.


Still dodging the fiscal question, I see..

Does it, or does it not, bother you that the government is putting their grubby little fingers into the pot, and artificially manipulating the markets, spending your tax dollars, and driving inflation up and our dollar's relative value down? The incentives alone aren't the only cost: I assume the government pays to have the cars cut up and scrapped as well? Not to mention the energy and transportation costs. Or are those coming out of the dealer's pockets, and thus you don't get that raise?

This is another thing that bothers me about this, it seems like Obama & Friends just like to throw money at the economy problem when they should focus on ways to solve it without spending a billion at a time.
 
It seems I'm one of the few that just don't care.

I don't want 99% of the crap cars being crushed, nor do I care if they are. Sure they might still work, but so far I've only seen one that I can truly say is a good piece of engineering being destroyed.

I vote "Don't Care" as well. Assuming that you understood the bill, you had to have known, or at least understood in general that the cars were going to be destroyed - regardless of condition. We also knew, and presumably understood, that this was going to play games with the used car values as well. No, I'm not angry, because I figured this is what was going to happen in the first place.

According to Autoblog, all of this could be over TONIGHT. As in, "we had over 27,000 people take us up on the offer, orders are backlogged, and the money is likely gone" over. That makes it far, far more successful than we anticipated. Based on earlier stories that some of the most-researched cars on the C4C website had been Fords, that makes it a promising deal in terms of stimulating interest in American vehicles.

As I recall, by comparison, funding our legislation was much, much smaller than similar programs that had been offered throughout Europe earlier this year. Furthermore, I seem to recall that the rules involved in buying a new vehicle were more stringent as well. Although we want to balk about nice used cars, someone mentioned the point of this (I believe) earlier in the thread... Getting rid of otherwise valueless vehicles that are a greater drain on resources while running. Considering that you had to get a 10 MPG increase on most vehicles to get the $4500 credit, and furthermore, that it is possible that a fairly significant portion of that money went into the pockets of American automakers, the program worked. Marvelously. In less than a week (probably).


So yes, I agree with PB. "I don't care."



EDIT:

JCE
Point is, I blame the people who trade-in their vehicles while not even TRYING to sell it private party to get the most out of it.

Part of the problem with your point is that A) You assume there is a market out there for these vehicles, and B) that its better to keep some of these models on the road. I agree that there are some cars that are going to be traded in that probably shouldn't be (we were thinking of turning in our '99 Grand Prix SE), but that doesn't make them valuable. Furthermore, that doesn't make them necessarily worth saving. I could walk into the local Ford dealer and trade in an old Mustang V6 for a new Focus, and come out with an amazing deal. Some dealers here were matching the $4500 C4C money with other rebates and offers, and seeing as how some *cough*Chrysler*cough* want to get rid of their cars pronto, you could walk out of their with a brand new vehicle for nearly half of what its MSRP was.

Does it make it right? No. But does it work? According to the news... Yes.
 
Last edited:
Incandescent light bulbs will suffer a similar fate in Canada soon. So they can be replaced with mercury-filled fluorescents of landfill doom. Nice.

Howabout, instead of, you know, killing the old technology with government intervention and embracing the new, we let the old live on until it becomes extinct? I'll use the lightbulb example again.

So many people are caught up the flourescent hype, because it'll save electricity and they can get brighter light, etc. What they don't realize is that flourescents and incandescents have co-existed for a long time already, and the reason why is this: Incandescents have a warmer glow, a lower colour temperature. Red light just makes food and skin tone look better. Flourescents, in comparison, are greenish in colour. Green light makes people look sickly and food looks like crap. Hence why we still prefer to use red light in film, television and restaurants. Maybe we do want a character to have a sickly skin tone in some scenes, but the point is, we should have a CHOICE.

If we can't afford a hybrid, we should have that choice to buy that 80s Volvo or Toyota or Chevy that stills runs. Not forcefully kill them off until they become extinct.

Properly used, CFLs last longer... and you can recycle mercury.

Apart from one horror story where a CFL burst, causing state-wide panic and an EPA lockdown... in personal use over the last twenty years, I've never seen a flourescent explode... ever. The older ones (full sized) tended to burn out due to power fluctuations ruining the ballast, but these new CFLs are more stable. Have only ever had to replace one in four years.

And you can get them with filters that change the light to a more pleasant color. And they save money. And I recycle. Properly used and disposed, there's no environmental harm.

Properly disposed being the key words. It's not like you can go around throwing old CFLs like grenades just to watch them explode like you can do with incandescents... :lol:

-

Cash for Clunkers is stupid from an environmental point of view... cars become more economicallly sensible the longer you use them and run them... but CFC isn't really an environmental thing... it's a business protection scheme disguised as an eco-program.
 
but CFC isn't really an environmental thing... it's a business protection scheme disguised as an eco-program.

As someone else pointed out in this thread, both of you are quite correct. It pains me to think of what sorts of good cars were wasted in this car-locaust. I'd both be curious to see the list and not want to see it at the same time. I don't even want to KNOW how many Fbodies, Foxes or classic European rarities were treated this way.
 
These cars are the property of their owners, who choose to sell them to the program. I don't care. It's obviously a failed project anyway since they were burning through way too much cash to get it done.

None of you seem nearly this upset towards the abominations shown in the Questionable Modifications thread, what's the deal there?
 
None of you seem nearly this upset towards the abominations shown in the Questionable Modifications thread, what's the deal there?
What is the government program I have to get involved in where tax payer money is contributed to me ricing a Civic?
 
Properly used, CFLs last longer... and you can recycle mercury.

Apart from one horror story where a CFL burst, causing state-wide panic and an EPA lockdown... in personal use over the last twenty years, I've never seen a fluorescent explode... ever. The older ones (full sized) tended to burn out due to power fluctuations ruining the ballast, but these new CFLs are more stable. Have only ever had to replace one in four years.

And you can get them with filters that change the light to a more pleasant color. And they save money. And I recycle. Properly used and disposed, there's no environmental harm.

Properly disposed being the key words. It's not like you can go around throwing old CFLs like grenades just to watch them explode like you can do with incandescents... :lol:

-

Cash for Clunkers is stupid from an environmental point of view... cars become more economicallly sensible the longer you use them and run them... but CFC isn't really an environmental thing... it's a business protection scheme disguised as an eco-program.

You do realize that idiots will simply throw away their CFL bulbs into the trash bin after they expire, right? Not everyone that buys a CFL is an environmentalist (nor do they have a brain). Making CFLs mandatory just gives the average moron even more potential to make a mistake. It's like giving a razor blade to a baby and expecting them to know how to use it.

We have to think about the lowest common denominator when we propose these types of laws. Anything that CAN happen, WILL happen. Cash for clunkers assumes that people will be trading in their rusted POS SUVs for new domestic hybrids, but that is clearly not the case. If only they donated the cars instead of destroying them it wouldn't be as bad, but it would still be stupid. Thankfully some people have the guts to pull the plug on it, and hopefully the Canadian government won't try to pass something similar. (I'm amazed they hadn't tried it already! :lol:)
 
JCE
I don't even want to KNOW how many Fbodies, Foxes or classic European rarities were treated this way.

Well if the UK is anything to go by you may well have lost a good few already...

SCOTS are rushing to send their rare cars to the scrap-yard in order to take advantage of the Government’s scrappage scheme.

As every car traded in under the new scheme has to be destroyed, classic car enthusiasts are worried that some rarities will be lost forever.

Showrooms are seeing Morris Minors, Mercedes and Porches being driven into their dealership to be traded in for a shiny new fuel-efficient car with a substantial £2,000 discount.

And it is leading to some out-of-character behaviour from the usually ruthless car salesmen.

Horrified salesman

A spokesman for Kia said one of their dealers stopped a customer from sending her 1960s Singer Vogue to an early grave so she could buy their Picanto model at just £4,195.

The dealer, in Ewell, Surrey, persuaded her to sell the car instead and offered her the money off the new car anyway.

At another dealerships, a horrified salesman saved a 1980s RMB Gentry kit car from the scrap-yard.

Ian Seabrook, deputy editor of Classic Car Weekly, says readers have bombarded his office with heartbreaking tales of scrapped classics.

Rare Morris Minor pickup

He said: “We don’t like to see any useable car binned like this. And some of them do hit you quite hard.

“We’ve heard of an old Fiat 500, 80s and 90s Jags and future classics like the Ford Scorpio being scrapped.

“Perhaps the saddest one we’ve heard of is a genuine 1971 Morris Minor pickup, which is a very rare car.

“People see it as an easy way to get £2,000 but in some cases they could have haggled the discount anyway.”

“Wave goodbye”

A spokesman for another dealer said some cars they had been forced to send to their doom surprised them. They included a 1996 Austin 1100, a 1968 Morris Minor, a Jaguar XJ-S and a Mercedes F500.

Tony Whitehorn, Hyundai UK’s managing director, said: “For many it is an opportunity to buy their first-ever new car and it is enormously exciting.

“Some buyers have taken the decision to wave goodbye to cars which have been in the family for a generation.

“But their sadness disappears when they get into their new Hyundai.”

From: http://deadlinescotland.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/6825-1247/

The bits I've put in bold are exactly what's very, very wrong about the scrappage scheme (well, about people in general). It's bad enough that people trade in cars in perfect working order but it's almost criminal that people are just mindlessly sending classic cars to the scrapper to get a new Korean piece of 🤬
 
So I wake up today and turn on the news and they said Cash for Clunkers has been cancelled because they ran out of money. Yay Obama 👍 :lol:
 
These cars are the property of their owners, who choose to sell them to the program.

This pretty much sums it up, the people who originally purchased the car own it and therefore can do with it what they like. The government isn't mandating you scrap your cars, it's merely giving the people and option to do so if they wish.


That 2001 (insert vehicle) isn't worth 3k the way it sits, which is why they turn it in through the program, because they'll get more money that way. It's their car and their choice, and they drove off the lot in a brand new vehicle.

Blazer's aren't worth anything at all. My 2003 Blazer only fetched $3,500 on a trade in and I probably could have only got $4,500 selling it on my own. If you look around AutoTrader and what not you aren't going to find to many S-Series vehicles selling for any great deal of money. They lost their value extremely quickly.

Although since that is a four door Blazer instead of a two door it's probably worth more. The only problem is that we don't know what sort of condition it was in.

I think American needs to quit being so caught up in the past and move on. Big heavy bricks of cars are done. I don't like hybrids, but we need to get with the programs like the rest of the world did a decade ago and not rely on massive engines to produce power.

I agree with this and disagree with this to a degree. I think America in a lot of areas can't be bothered with the past. Try studying archaeology in America, it's next to impossible because as a nation it's not a priority to know what happened here a long time ago. However, we choose to hang onto things that are artefacts of our lives. One example being Tiger Stadium, thousands and thousands of people protested the demolition of it and for what? It was no good to anyone and it was costing a fortune to maintain it.

With technology, ya it's cool to save some things but with most of it just recycle it and get something new and updated. I bet most of us have no problem with scraping a computer because it gets too old or even a game console. So why cars?

I agree that the CARS programme was doomed from the start and that it probably didn't really help any of the ailing auto companies out in any way, but it did clean up some junkers laying around and it did help some people out. A guy I know who isn't exactly rich posted on his Facebook last night that he got a brand new Jeep Patriot after trading in his Jeep Cherokee that had so many mechanical problems it was ridiculous. He couldn't afford to make the necessary repairs nor could he afford something new. With the CARS programme, combined with rebates and employee pricing, he was able to get the new Jeep.

What really gets me about all of this is why didn't we just do the CARS programme instead of bailing the auto industry out? The programme could have ran longer, more junk could have been removed from the road, and more fuel efficient vehicles could have been built. Dealers would be seeing customers and the auto industry would be building cars again. Sure it wouldn't fix the economy but it sure would help. And at least the CARS programme was sort of along the lines of a tax refund, the people got money back instead of it going to poorly managed companies that just give their executives large sums of money.
 
Last edited:
With technology, ya it's cool to save some things but with most of it just recycle it and get something new and updated. I bet most of us have no problem with scraping a computer because it gets too old or even a game console. So why cars?

Because cars aren't just tools, for many of us here. A computer is a tool. There isn't any emotional attachment, it's just a means to an end. You use it to go on the net, to word process, to organise photos. When it breaks you can already buy something vastly better and much cheaper which will continue serving it's purpose until it breaks, and the process is repeated.

Games consoles are the same. We don't love them for all the wires and circuits inside, we love them because they're a tool that allows us to play the latest games or watch films.

In essence, a new laptop, games console, phone etc is no different from buying a new fridge-freezer. It'd suck if we had nowhere to put our food sure, but if we replaced it we wouldn't feel loss for the old one.

Apart from anything, all the above are significantly less expensive than cars, and that other inanimate object that people fall for, a building (house, home, whatever). These are places that we spend a lot of time. We have to take care of them, essentially, they need to be nice places to be and we generally keep them for longer than we keep a characterless piece of electronics.

If your car is reaching the end of it's life and really won't be any use to anyone then I don't see any problem it being chopped in. If, however the car has plenty of life left and could be used by somebody else who can't afford a new car then I think the morality behind scrappage schemes begins to get a little dubious.

As for people who treat classics like those in my previous post like white goods and can't see anything wrong with sending a piece of motoring history to the crusher so they can hop into a bland econobox for the last three years of their life, they don't deserve the privelege of a driving licence.

But, the public as a whole and the goverment especially don't give a flying 🤬 about cars. There are schemes for listed buildings but nothing similar to stop people destroying pieces of motoring heritage. It's just lucky that some dealerships are sensible enough to turn people away when they try and swap something too rare.
 
There are a lot of people though that are emotionally attached to things like computers, gaming consoles, etc. There are a lot of people that just view cars as tools, which is effectively what they are. In the end though it is still that person's property to do with it what they will. If they want to scrap it in a government programme they have that right as the property's owner.

If I still had my Dodge Neon I would have used it towards the CARS programme in a heartbeat. I didn't care about that car, it was something to get me to and from school. It had life in it when I sold it but I only got about $1,000 for it. I would have much rather got $3,500 for it and bought something like a Civic.

I'll admit I can get emotionally attached to a vehicle, this should be pretty obvious judging by the love I show my own car. I mean you've seen my thread here on GTP and you've seen my facebook with the tons of pictures I have with it. Hell I've even given my car a name.

To be honest though I don't really care about most classic cars, sure there are some I really do like but a Mustang from the 70's? Meh. An old Camaro? Meh. I know a lot of people do though, and thus a fair number of them will be saved and cared for.
 
I agree that the previous owners of these cars can do what they want with them. If they want to get a good trade-in at the cost of having the car junked, that is fine.

What I do not agree with is $1 billion of taxpayers' dollars going toward that end. While the government loves to pretend they have a magic penny bank, the truth is that the money is coming from people who can and do buy cars without the need of government hand outs.

Sure, this is small in light of the trillions government wastes every year, but that doesn't suddenly make it acceptable waste.


One other issue I see coming up soon will be when these people have to pay their annual property taxes next year. Anyone remember when Oprah gave cars to people who couldn't afford them? When the taxes came due they had issues paying them. Can we expect people that couldn't afford to buy one of these cars without help to afford the property taxes, insurance, and upkeep? Or what if they miss a payment on their loan because they were already in a bad financial situation? Does this program guarantee them a good loan rate, despite credit?
 
So I wake up today and turn on the news and they said Cash for Clunkers has been cancelled because they ran out of money. Yay Obama 👍 :lol:

It didnt run out of money, they were worried about that becoming a problem. There have only been 27,000 people that have done the program so they haven't used it all yet.
 
I should run down to my close dealers and see if I can sneak anything away from them. Im in desperate need for a car since I just moved to a new town, and this pains me to see what they do. My mother had a 1995 chevy blazer and it ran great, made better MPG than most new trucks. WITH the 4.3l v6. If you take care of your older car, it will take care of you. Hell Id love A 1999 Pontiac Grand prix SE. (A commercial just came on for C4C :() It shames me to see the ignorance of an 18 year old who has fun killing cars. Its not like an old tv. And its different because these run OK. Not enough people in America have automotive education, hell, some cant even turn a lugnut, never the less drive well. But This whole program isnt going to help the automotive economy, its just like the low rate loans that were handed out for homes a few years back. This will bite back soon.


Now Im taking my dollar bills and seeing if I can pick up any deals before they die.
 
Last edited:
Exactly, assuming the plan starts again what will happen after it ends and the sales plummet to what they were before? We will be back where we started except with a couple new cars.
 
Depends. Big-whigs are expecting the automotive market to recover by almost 50% by next year, which is moving forward, but certainly nowhere near where things had been back in 2005 and 2006. Cycles like this normally occur, but not always at this magnitude. We went from selling 16 Million vehicles in the US to no more than 10 Million... That's huge.

Determining who is going to be successful, and who will sell the most will likely be who can get to the bottom first. Selling cheap, fuel-friendly, and otherwise well-built cars are going to put you in the lead. So far, Ford is doing just that (I'm starting to see a lot of the new Fusion SEs out on the road). But with more brands coming into the market, and old brands making larger commitments to re-gain market share... Its going to be a bloody battle for sales during this reset of the market.
 
I don't get it. They say they allocated $1 billion. If 27000 people took advantage it would cost between $94,500,000 and $121,500,000 based on the $3500 and $4500 figures. Is the government that inefficient?
 
I don't get it. They say they allocated $1 billion. If 27000 people took advantage it would cost between $94,500,000 and $121,500,000 based on the $3500 and $4500 figures. Is the government that inefficient?
I can't tell if they mean that they have a huge stack of paperwork to be approved, and that count is what they are talking about or if they really just misspoke in a panic when they realized they would be finished next week at this rate.

My best guess is they realized that it was going too fast and with Congress leaving session after today they needed to freeze it to beg for more money.
 
There are a lot of people though that are emotionally attached to things like computers, gaming consoles, etc. There are a lot of people that just view cars as tools, which is effectively what they are. In the end though it is still that person's property to do with it what they will. If they want to scrap it in a government programme they have that right as the property's owner.

If I still had my Dodge Neon I would have used it towards the CARS programme in a heartbeat. I didn't care about that car, it was something to get me to and from school. It had life in it when I sold it but I only got about $1,000 for it. I would have much rather got $3,500 for it and bought something like a Civic.

I'll admit I can get emotionally attached to a vehicle, this should be pretty obvious judging by the love I show my own car. I mean you've seen my thread here on GTP and you've seen my facebook with the tons of pictures I have with it. Hell I've even given my car a name.

To be honest though I don't really care about most classic cars, sure there are some I really do like but a Mustang from the 70's? Meh. An old Camaro? Meh. I know a lot of people do though, and thus a fair number of them will be saved and cared for.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

A car is usually the 2nd biggest investment you'll ever make. A computer is probably the 12th.

Essentially a car's purpose (entertainment aside) is, as Superintendent Chalmers wonderfully put it - "a way of getting from point A to point B, and on weekends point C". Of course that was before he fell for the 1979 Honda Accord, but still.

Anyway, a 2001 Blazer will still fulfill these needs just as well as a 2009 Trailblazer would. It's not like a computer - it doesn't get massively slower over the years. It'll still do 70 - hell it'll probably still do 130, so why needlessly destroy it? Someone could still buy it and get YEARS of use out of the thing. You can't, however, get YEARS of use out of the average 2001 laptop in quite the same way.


Anyway, it's not that people are opposed to the government scrapping say, a rusting 1989 Ford Tempo, it's the fact that hundreds of perfectly good 8 year old cars are being needlessly destroyed when they could be sold on.
 
I saw this on Jalopnik today and thought it was fitting.

504x_Get_Clunked.jpg
 
I can't tell if they mean that they have a huge stack of paperwork to be approved, and that count is what they are talking about or if they really just misspoke in a panic when they realized they would be finished next week at this rate.

My best guess is they realized that it was going too fast and with Congress leaving session after today they needed to freeze it to beg for more money.

The commercials kept saying that the it was only available until the money runs out. Sales would probably have plummeted soon.
 
I can't tell if they mean that they have a huge stack of paperwork to be approved, and that count is what they are talking about or if they really just misspoke in a panic when they realized they would be finished next week at this rate.

My understanding was that there was enough money to last until early September, probably, but that there was enough of a backorder of the credits that the math would mean the money would run out too soon. Personally, I didn't expect it to be this popular either.

Not to worry kids!

The US House of Representatives approved $2 Billion in extra funding for CARS. The plan is to have the Senate debate this next week, before they leave on vacation.
 
Giving free money to people who were idiots and bought some gas guzzler years ago is a terrible idea.

Where is my dad's reward for buying his fuel efficient Ranger 4-cylinder 15 years ago? He gets no pat on the back for saving gas and trees throughout the years? No, he doesn't get anything. But irresponsible buyers get free money!

Why does our government reward bad decisions? Why don't they reward good decisions? Like giving people who already have old, tired, but fuel efficient cars a little boost to get them into a new fuel efficient car. I mean if you're going to enact a terrible policy that's gonna add to my money's worthlessness, at least give the money to the right people.
 

Latest Posts

Back