Cash For Clunkers - This is what happens.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric.
  • 259 comments
  • 24,064 views
They're closing a bunch of plants, getting rid of a lot of white collar workers, "downgrading" some workers back to line work, etc. General Motors Company is still arguably too large to be totally sustainable, but as more and more of Liquidation Motors is sold off, the better things should be.

Also, it would help if the new cars were here, like, yesterday.
Thank you.
A6: SHOW me a TRUE hatchback, not a crossover or a faking wagon.
When I posted that, two that was floating around in my mind was Focus & xB(the good one), both were discontinued recently. Maybe they don't sell that well in your neighborhood or something, I don't know. But the fact is that hatchback cars can, and do sell well in America. That's a fact. And Joey's Mini's sell real well, too. Too bad they didn't make a Mini sedan, huh? j/k :p

Aveo, for whatever reason, people do not care for that car. I think it looks pretty cool, and I'm not ashamed to say that I even looked into one. But I gotta say, if I get one of those, I'd never buy the sedan model.
 
Ten Most-Purchased Vehicles
1. Ford Focus (27-28 mpg) Michigan
2. Honda Civic (24-42 mpg) Indiana, Ohio
3. Toyota Corolla (25-30 mpg) California
4. Toyota Prius (46 mpg)
5. Ford Escape (20-32 mpg) Missouri
6. Toyota Camry (23-34 mpg) Indiana, Kentucky
7. Dodge Caliber (22-27 mpg) Illinois
8. Hyundai Elantra (26-28 mpg)
9. Honda Fit (29-31 mpg)
10. Chevy Cobalt (25-30 mpg) Ohio

7/10 made in the U.S.👍
 
The top car may be a Ford, but I looked at the list and spots 2-5 or something are all Hondas and Toyotas.

And 8 out of 10 spots are all Explorers on the "getting scrapped the most" list.

Owners of Explorers just don't take care of their cars. You'd be surprised (or not?) at the condition of some of the trade-ins before the cash for clunkers of Explorers. But still, the Explorers do run almost as long as F-series and the E-series. :lol:

Ten Most Traded-In Vehicles
1. 1998 Ford Explorer (14-17 mpg) <-- 1mpg less than the others? WTF?
2. 1997 Ford Explorer (14-18 mpg)
3. 1996 Ford Explorer (14-18 mpg)
4. 1999 Ford Explorer (14-18 mpg)
5. Jeep Grand Cherokee <-- how come no years were listed on these two?
6. Jeep Cherokee
7. 1995 Ford Explorer (15-18 mpg)
8. 1994 Ford Explorer (15-18 mpg)
9. 1997 Ford Windstar (18 mpg) <-- surprises me since I had no idea this many of them were sold. :lol:
10. 1999 Dodge Caravan (16-18 mpg) <-- surprised this one wasn't higher with the 100,000's sold from 1996-2000

Wow, nothing but Fords and Chryslers on that list. And to be fair the Caravan CAN get more than 18mpg if the driver drives responsibly AND avoids rush hour traffic. I'm SHOCKED that I do not see at least ONE pickup truck in there. Guess almost all of them are still running. :lol:

Ten Most-Purchased Vehicles
1. Ford Focus (27-28 mpg) <-- good car
2. Honda Civic (24-42 mpg) <-- good car
3. Toyota Corolla (25-30 mpg) <-- decent A to B
4. Toyota Prius (46 mpg) <-- gag me
5. Ford Escape (20-32 mpg) <-- surprised this is as high as it is--well maybe not
6. Toyota Camry (23-34 mpg) <-- gross
7. Dodge Caliber (22-27 mpg) <-- gross
8. Hyundai Elantra (26-28 mpg) <-- good car
9. Honda Fit (29-31 mpg) <-- great car
10. Chevy Cobalt (25-30 mpg) <-- gross

The Ford Explorer was the best selling SUV for a long time. (1992-2008ish) So there are tons on the road.

And tons of them are driven to the ground and still run. I swear the owners just don't care about routine maintenance. :D

Ten Most-Purchased Vehicles
1. Ford Focus (27-28 mpg) Michigan
2. Honda Civic (24-42 mpg) Indiana, Ohio
3. Toyota Corolla (25-30 mpg) California
4. Toyota Prius (46 mpg)
5. Ford Escape (20-32 mpg) Missouri
6. Toyota Camry (23-34 mpg) Indiana, Kentucky
7. Dodge Caliber (22-27 mpg) Illinois
8. Hyundai Elantra (26-28 mpg)
9. Honda Fit (29-31 mpg)
10. Chevy Cobalt (25-30 mpg) Ohio

Sad thing is the Calibur is such a rubbish car and its on that list above the much better Honda Fit. Also the Dodge Charger/Challenger V6 gets 26mpg--I'd rather get one of those than the Calibur. :indiff:

7/10 made in the U.S.👍

Yes but the money goes to Japan and Korea. The companies are Asian and the parts are too. Do the math, this isn't helping America as much as you think. The PROPER way to use this C4C program is limit the purchase to AMERICAN COMPANIES. That way the most possible money goes to where it should of been intended for--America.

You should of not been allowed to buy a Toyota Corolla, Honda Fit or Hyundai Elantra with your rebate. Just my opinion.
 
Well here is the way I look at it, if the company is based here and the assembly plant is in another country a couple of fat cats get more money here and more jobs are made wherever the plant is(good for their economy not ours). If the car is made here that is more jobs here, I don't care where the money goes, if it makes more jobs for Americans I'm all for it.


Also, apparently the "C4C is green" argument is really a bad one.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090804/ap_on_re_us/us_cash_for_clunkers_pollution
 
On the parts, not necessarily. You walk around inside Ford parts warehouse, those parts are made in all over the world. Not many of them are made in the good ole USA though. :D
 
I know that, I'm talking assembly plants though. Lets say that it takes 25 people to fully assemble a car, if the car is assembled in Canada that means 25 jobs are created there, however if it is assembled here that means 25 more Americans are working. It doesn't matter what company is making the car, as long as the jobs are going to Americans.
 
I was talking to JCE. I didn't even see your post between mine & his.

Sneaky you!...... :lol:

Edit: Regarding your subject, I never clearly understood that. You are right, yes, but so is JCE. Is it actually a win-win?

Profit stays in the States, wages say went to Mexico, or Canada. Manufacturer "A" will invest a big chunk of the profit in the U.S. Extra tax for the U.S. Government as well. But if say a Toyota was built here, American workers will get paid. They'll invest in the country, they'll pay the taxes, too. Either way, there will be investments and taxes for America. I guess it all depend on which way will make more overall contribution to America.
 
Last edited:
That dealer....... no class.

But I'm not gonna lie, I laughed pretty hard at that first pic. :lol:
 
Ten Most-Purchased Vehicles
1. Ford Focus (27-28 mpg) Michigan
2. Honda Civic (24-42 mpg) Indiana, Ohio
3. Toyota Corolla (25-30 mpg) California
4. Toyota Prius (46 mpg)
5. Ford Escape (20-32 mpg) Missouri
6. Toyota Camry (23-34 mpg) Indiana, Kentucky
7. Dodge Caliber (22-27 mpg) Illinois
8. Hyundai Elantra (26-28 mpg)
9. Honda Fit (29-31 mpg)
10. Chevy Cobalt (25-30 mpg) Ohio

7/10 made in the U.S.👍

Why are there some cars on there not made in the US? I thought the entire purpose of the program was to get people into more efficient vehicles that were built in the US. That's mildly upsetting that the government is putting that much money into a program and having there be an option that none of it helps the country out in any way.

double_facepalm_lg.jpg
 
Wow. I did not know they were destroying every car traded in on this. Can anyone think of a purpose?
I have one, here comes the conspiracy theory.
Pretty much all new cars have gps, and onstar, or maybe all of them do. (or whatever that company calls their system)
With these things they can tell exactly where you are, and how you're driving at the touch of a button.
Can anybody say ground control?
Whether it's the police suspecting you of a crime, or the government demanding quarantine, you certainly won't be able to drive away for to much longer.
I've been wondering how the government would get rid of all these old, unwatchable vehicles, vehicles that don't have to conform to certain tests, and can be modified so easily, without their knowing.
Given that I've thought the government has been looking to use these tools to ultimately control our driving, such as gps-based speed governors, and there is no logic to this whatsoever, I gotta say I do believe it.

Nest they'll make people with older cars have some kind of newer computer "management" system on them, right?:lol:

EDIT: gotta say I don't mind seeing the exploders.
So what if people stole a bunch of these fairly new "clunkers"? I bet the FBI would come in, anybody care to try? I got a kid, so I can't.
 
Last edited:
I know I'm a little late to the bandwagon but in my mind, Cash for clunkers is such a wasteful concept, I would be able to much better understand it if the "trade ins" weren't just being destroyed. If they were removed from the road and sold to wreckers for use as spares that would be a much better use of the cars, rather than breaking the engines and crushing (usually) still useable cars. And to think it would help keep other cars running instead. Cash for Clunkers 👎
 
JCE
Yes but the money goes to Japan and Korea. The companies are Asian and the parts are too. Do the math, this isn't helping America as much as you think. The PROPER way to use this C4C program is limit the purchase to AMERICAN COMPANIES. That way the most possible money goes to where it should of been intended for--America.

You should of not been allowed to buy a Toyota Corolla, Honda Fit or Hyundai Elantra with your rebate. Just my opinion.

Wow people still think this way?

Yes, some of the money goes back to the country of origin for the company, but a lot of the money goes to pay US workers, US taxes, US utilities, etc. Buying a car made in the US is far more important then buying one from an American company. Many GM's, Ford's, and Chrysler's are built in Mexico and Canada, which doesn't really help out as much as if the cars were actually built here.

Why are there some cars on there not made in the US? I thought the entire purpose of the program was to get people into more efficient vehicles that were built in the US. That's mildly upsetting that the government is putting that much money into a program and having there be an option that none of it helps the country out in any way.

If the government would have put a stipulation in that required people to only buy US made vehicles there would be a bunch on ineligible GM, Ford and Chrysler products.
 
Last edited:
If the government would have put a stipulation in that required people to only buy US made vehicles there would be a bunch on ineligible GM, Ford and Chrysler products.

I think I'd rather see that the money was guaranteed to get back into the US economy. And I wouldn't really feel sorry if GM, Ford and Chrysler missed out on the opportunity to sell more cars by moving their jobs out of the country. I don't see why we're scared of punishing them (even in a pretty mild way) for not making cars here. Moving everything elsewhere did more damage to Michigan than we could do to them by saying only US built cars are eligible.
 
Why are there some cars on there not made in the US? I thought the entire purpose of the program was to get people into more efficient vehicles that were built in the US. That's mildly upsetting that the government is putting that much money into a program and having there be an option that none of it helps the country out in any way.

To entirely assume that C4C was created to have people buy cars that were only made in the US would have been worthless. As Joey pointed out, not everyone builds their cars and trucks here. It would have been too narrow, and essentially, beneficial to no one. The main purpose of the bill, as I recall, was to get "wasteful" and "inefficient" older vehicles off the road, getting consumers into more "economical" and more "environmentally-friendly" cars and trucks. Of course, part of it was also to stimulate the industry, as it can have a strong influence in the recovery of an economy (looking at the '80s), putting some things back in line. Generally speaking, the plan has worked surprisingly well, and in turn, companies like Ford are seeing the effect on their bottom line.

EDIT: New News


Where is the Money Being Spent?

Cash_For_Clunker_State5.jpg


According to Jalopnik, the greatest among of money is being spent in Michigan (over $34 Million), Ohio coming in at a close second. The Dakotas and Vermont come in last within the continental states, places like Guam even getting at least one. Who has the least? Washington D.C., where there have been none.


Updated Trade-In List from Jalopnik

Jalopnik
The Ten Most Traded-In Vehicles
1. Ford Explorer 4WD
2. Ford F-150 2WD
3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD
4. Jeep Cherokee 4WD
5. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan 2WD
6. Chevrolet Blazer 4WD
7. Ford Explorer 2WD
8. Ford F-150 Pickup 4WD
9. Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2WD
10. Ford Windstar FWD Van
 
Last edited:
I wasn't aware that you could put a car into a dumpster.
 
It's just for the show, if that's what you mean.

Man, that is my favorite generation RX-7. RX-8, as beautiful as it is, it looks very lame to me, compared to any of the first three gen RX-7's.
 
I just died a little inside in these two pictures.


That makes me sick to my stomache.

To entirely assume that C4C was created to have people buy cars that were only made in the US would have been worthless. As Joey pointed out, not everyone builds their cars and trucks here. It would have been too narrow, and essentially, beneficial to no one. The main purpose of the bill, as I recall, was to get "wasteful" and "inefficient" older vehicles off the road, getting consumers into more "economical" and more "environmentally-friendly" cars and trucks. Of course, part of it was also to stimulate the industry, as it can have a strong influence in the recovery of an economy (looking at the '80s), putting some things back in line. Generally speaking, the plan has worked surprisingly well, and in turn, companies like Ford are seeing the effect on their bottom line.

No the point was to put money back into the auto industry. It actually has very little if anything to do with being green.

Also, it has successfully pissed off auto enthusiasts and caused the goverment to double-dip on our taxes. We can't afford this spending spree that Obama is on.

It's just for the show, if that's what you mean.

Man, that is my favorite generation RX-7. RX-8, as beautiful as it is, it looks very lame to me, compared to any of the first three gen RX-7's.

+1 FC's are my favorite--which is why those pics bother me.
 
Last edited:
To entirely assume that C4C was created to have people buy cars that were only made in the US would have been worthless. As Joey pointed out, not everyone builds their cars and trucks here. It would have been too narrow, and essentially, beneficial to no one. The main purpose of the bill, as I recall, was to get "wasteful" and "inefficient" older vehicles off the road, getting consumers into more "economical" and more "environmentally-friendly" cars and trucks. Of course, part of it was also to stimulate the industry, as it can have a strong influence in the recovery of an economy (looking at the '80s), putting some things back in line. Generally speaking, the plan has worked surprisingly well, and in turn, companies like Ford are seeing the effect on their bottom line.

As that top ten car sales list shows, a lot of the cars that people want to buy with their C4C money are already built in the states. So I'm sure the selection wouldn't be all too narrow for people looking to cash in on this. As for stimulating the rest of the world, why is that our job? We owe the rest of the world a good chunk of all the money that there is in this world. Getting everybody back on their feet is important, but I don't think we need to be the ones jump starting the whole machine.

I think the envirnomental stuff was probably tacked on to make the bill a little more appealing to everybody as well.
 
As for stimulating the rest of the world, why is that our job?

The cynical answer I usually give in class, and here, is "because we made it our job." But, that doesn't mean that we're fixing everyone's problems by buying our own cars. Get banks lending, get houses sold, and have cars moving out of the factories and we can begin to stabilize. And we have (slightly). But, normally, if we become stable, the rest of the world will follow.

Congress was smart enough to wrap several reasons for voting for the bill in there. Anyone here can take their pick for what they like, and don't like about it.


EDIT:


Looks like the leaderboard is changing on sales...

Jalopnik
The Ten Most Purchased Vehicles
1. Toyota Corolla
2. Ford Focus FWD
3. Honda Civic
4. Toyota Prius
5. Toyota Camry
6. Hyundai Elantra
7. Ford Escape FWD
8. Dodge Caliber
9. Honda Fit
10. Chevrolet Cobalt

The Focus falls by one, I believe, the Corolla jumping three?
 
Last edited:
Good god, before Obama is done there won't be any money left for any of us to buy food much less a car. AND, we'll owe the world even more money.

Yea, throwing money at problems blindly solves the issue everytime doesn't it? Riiiiiight. I don't want Joe, Jack and Jane taking MY HARD EARNED tax dollars and wasting it on cars that are either mostly or almost completely foreign made. I paid my taxes from my American wages so my American tax dollars should goto as many American companies and people as possible. Also it is decieving to the public to try and shroud this as anything but a foolhearty lazy attempt at preventing Chrysler and GM to go bust. I wonder if or how many politicians are driving around in their new GM's or Chrysler's. :yuck:
 
A6: this is heartbeat country around here, big time. I've seen a LOT of t400's around here (and actually owned one for a month) around here, Pickups are used for their original purpose, ditto with the SUV's. the only cars I see belong to the Doctors and Lawyers, and they ain't Mercedes (i've seen mabey three Mercs), thy're more Mercurys!

this is why I was saying that there will be no used vehicles. I even had to tell the Amish that they were crushing the cars.

since Foolkiller seems to be looking at the thread, prepare for a good old arguing time.
 
The problem with this plan is that it stimulates very little, outside of a few car companies' bottom line for maybe a month or two. This isn't generated wealth, it is transferred wealth. This is the perfect example of Bastiat's broken window fallacy.

Then when you take into account that the extension is siphoning money from the stimulus bill it is a broken window in a broken window. This money was previously intended to be used for a loan program to encourage research into green technologies. So, now loan money which would, one assumes, be repaid is just being tossed. On top of that, it hurts the supposed environmental aspect of the C4C program as we are now creating a minor temporary environmental effect in place of what could have been a long-term solution being discovered.

Cash for Clunkers was a bad idea to begin with as it would not do what it was advertised as, and now the extension is actually going to slow down, if not reverse, the intended long term results.
 
The broken window is a very apt analogy for what is happening... :lol: And they're going to spend another $2 billion breaking more windows and feeding all the glassmakers to the detriment of everyone else... everyone else who was sensible, that is, and bought good windows in the first place.
 
The problem with this plan is that it stimulates very little, outside of a few car companies' bottom line for maybe a month or two. This isn't generated wealth, it is transferred wealth. This is the perfect example of Bastiat's broken window fallacy.

Then when you take into account that the extension is siphoning money from the stimulus bill it is a broken window in a broken window. This money was previously intended to be used for a loan program to encourage research into green technologies. So, now loan money which would, one assumes, be repaid is just being tossed. On top of that, it hurts the supposed environmental aspect of the C4C program as we are now creating a minor temporary environmental effect in place of what could have been a long-term solution being discovered.

Cash for Clunkers was a bad idea to begin with as it would not do what it was advertised as, and now the extension is actually going to slow down, if not reverse, the intended long term results.

... Equi me.

Yes but it helps the automakers at everyone else's expense. There is no growth, only a reallocation at the very best. Yet it will always be a net loss for the economy as it takes resources to reallocate in the first place.

There is only an illusion of aid or growth, in accord with what Frederic Bastiat called that which is seen and that which is not seen.
 
Back