Cash for Clunkers (CARS) ... Sells Out?

[mkrishnan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/business/31clunkers.html?_r=1&hp

WASHINGTON — New-car shoppers appear to have already snapped up all the $1 billion that Congress appropriated for the “cash for clunkers” program, leading the Transportation Department to tell auto dealers Thursday night to stop offering the rebates.

But a White House official said the program had not been suspended, creating confusion about its status. The program offers $3,500 to $4,500 for people who trade in an old car for a new one with higher fuel economy.

...

The program, formally known as the Car Allowance Rebate System, was scheduled to be offered until Nov. 1, or as long as the money was available. But the program was so successful that it has exhausted all the money allocated within the first week. Dealers have submitted applications on behalf of consumers seeking rebates on about a quarter-million vehicles.

...

On Thursday evening, the government Web site describing the program, www.cars.gov, still showed a chart shaped like a fuel gauge that indicated $779 million was available for trade-ins of cars and light trucks. Earlier Thursday, the Transportation Department issued a news release that said that applications for fewer than 23,000 vehicles had been submitted as of Wednesday, with a rebate value of just under $100 million.

Something seems suspicious to me. The annualized sales rate right now is around 10M new cars, making for an average of about 830,000 cars per month. How on earth were there anywhere near 250,000 qualifying (I have a hard time imagining a high percentage of new car sales involve a qualifying trade, considering how old the "clunker" has to be) sales in a week? Even if a large number of these sales came from the 3-4 weeks before the CARS was officially started, they would still represent on the order of at least 20-40% of volume sales over the time period, which I just find highly unlikely.

I wonder how many of these applications are legitimate?

[iShater]

It will be interesting to see.

I guess I am not getting my new car. :(

[mkrishnan]

It will be interesting to see.

I guess I am not getting my new car. :(

You had a qualifying vehicle to trade? I honestly don't think I've ever in my life had a vehicle that, even if I still had it, would meet the criteria....

I would suspect though that the money may not be so depleted as all that.

[yg17]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/business/31clunkers.html?_r=1&hp



Something seems suspicious to me. The annualized sales rate right now is around 10M new cars, making for an average of about 830,000 cars per month. How on earth were there anywhere near 250,000 qualifying (I have a hard time imagining a high percentage of new car sales involve a qualifying trade, considering how old the "clunker" has to be) sales in a week? Even if a large number of these sales came from the 3-4 weeks before the CARS was officially started, they would still represent on the order of at least 20-40% of volume sales over the time period, which I just find highly unlikely.

I wonder how many of these applications are legitimate?

I think the only age requirement for the clunker is that it's less than 25 years old (which I don't understand as a lot of cars older than 25 most certainly are gas guzzlers). The only requirement is that the old car has a combined MPG of 18 and the new one has a combined MPG of 22. So a lot of new cars are eligible, theoretically I could go out, buy a brand new Hummer, then trade it for a Prius and get the rebate.

Of course, no one would do that, because if you qualify for the rebate, you likely won't get any trade in value for the old car since dealers can't resell it. So really, the clunker needs to be valued at udner $3,500 or $4,500 for the consumer to benefit, so that does effectively put a minimum age on the clunker

[swiftaw]

I think the only age requirement for the clunker is that it's less than 25 years old (which I don't understand as a lot of cars older than 25 most certainly are gas guzzlers). The only requirement is that the old car has a combined MPG of 18 and the new one has a combined MPG of 22. So a lot of new cars are eligible, theoretically I could go out, buy a brand new Hummer, then trade it for a Prius and get the rebate.

Of course, no one would do that, because if you qualify for the rebate, you likely won't get any trade in value for the old car since dealers can't resell it. So really, the clunker needs to be valued at udner $3,500 or $4,500 for the consumer to benefit, so that does effectively put a minimum age on the clunker

I believe that you also have had to own the car for a certain period of time to qualify.

Edit: Here are the rules, the trade-in vehicle must:

(1) be in drivable condition;
(2) have been continuously insured, in accordance with State law, and registered in the same owner’s name for the one-year period immediately prior to the trade-in;
(3) have been manufactured not earlier than 25 years before the date of trade-in and, in the case of a category 3 vehicle, also be from a model year not later than model year 2001; and
(4) have a combined fuel economy value of 18 miles per gallon or less, if it is a passenger automobile, a category 1 truck, or a category 2 truck.

[yg17]

I believe that you also have had to own the car for a certain period of time to qualify.

Edit: Here are the rules, the trade-in vehicle must:

(1) be in drivable condition;
(2) have been continuously insured, in accordance with State law, and registered in the same owner’s name for the one-year period immediately prior to the trade-in;
(3) have been manufactured not earlier than 25 years before the date of trade-in and, in the case of a category 3 vehicle, also be from a model year not later than model year 2001; and
(4) have a combined fuel economy value of 18 miles per gallon or less, if it is a passenger automobile, a category 1 truck, or a category 2 truck.

Oh okay, so it has to be one year old then. I guess that's the only strict limit on age, but used car values will be another limit but that varies from car to car.

[swiftaw]

Oh okay, so it has to be one year old then. I guess that's the only strict limit on age, but used car values will be another limit but that varies from car to car.

Except for category 3 trucks which cannot be newer than 2001.

Also, must have owned the vehicle for at least a year and had it insured for that time, so can't be a vehicle that has been in storage.

[yg17]

Except for category 3 trucks which cannot be newer than 2001.

Also, must have owned the vehicle for at least a year and had it insured for that time, so can't be a vehicle that has been in storage.

I think category 3 trucks are big work trucks, that probably doesn't affect too many people.

[iShater]

You had a qualifying vehicle to trade? I honestly don't think I've ever in my life had a vehicle that, even if I still had it, would meet the criteria....

I would suspect though that the money may not be so depleted as all that.

Nope, turns out that I did not. I missed the part about 18 mpgs, I guess I focused on the improvement in MPGs vs. the starting point.

D'oh :p

[mkrishnan]

Ahhh, I didn't realize that the age requirement only applied to Cat 3 trucks.

Still, in essence it has to be a car or truck meeting the 18MPG as well as having a trade-in value of less than or about equal to rebate, or otherwise it doesn't really make sense to destroy it and apply for the rebate. Granted, there were lots of SUVs sold in the 90s that meet these criteria...

I still think, all in all, that it's unlikely that the 20-40% of all new car and truck purchases in the last four weeks met that criteria. In particular, there really aren't that many cars on the road (i.e. that were continuously insured and then went as trade-ins just in the last month) that meet the 18MPG criteria. I mean, if those 250k apps are averaged over an extra month of time beyond the time the that the CARS was actually open, it still seems unlikely to me that 1/4 or 1/5 new car purchases in the US had trade-ins that met the clunker definition (even with how lenient the definition was).

Or are dealers applying for rebates on behalf of people who bought cars an even longer period of time before the CARS went into action?

[rdowns]

I'm sure dealers are taking shortcuts with the program.
FWIW< a local news story on Long Island said a ton of SUVs were being traded. They reported from 2 dealers and both were packed.

While these cars have to be destroyed, in fact, only the engine has to be destroyed. The rest of the car is fair game for parts.

[SilentPanda]

Well... I just bought a new car on Monday (2010 Toyota Prius). Here is what the dealer told me. Of course dealers may/may not lie but whatever.

You have $1 billion dollars. Let's say you get on average $4,000 per car ($3,500-$4,500 is the range). So you have 250,000 cars you can trade in. There are 22,330 dealers (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=anhSjXp64Ul8) give or take. This is 11 to 12 cars per dealer. There are some dealers who have near 50-100 people lined up, especially in big markets. I don't think it's unreasonable that they would have run out already.

Anyway my 16-19 MPG car was purchased by the dealer instead for $4500 instead of using the CARS program. The KBB was below that so even though I didn't use the CARS program I think I got a slightly better deal because of it.

[Zombie Acorn]

****ing stupid to destroy engines, they could be overhauled and resold, creating... jobs?

This whole program is dumb actually, people are just digging up their old **** cars they never use and trading them in for $4500, I have 3 friends who all took some old shitmobile truck that barely had paint on it and traded it in even though they never used it anyways. How is that helping emissions?

When will government learn? They would be much better served just taxing the **** out of gas if they want us to move to higher efficient vehicles. I imagine they will allocate some more funds out of our limitless pocketbook for this dumb program.

Also I don't know who all these people are who bought gas guzzlers, even my z28 camaro which is 15 years old gets enough gas mileage to not qualify. Why are we rewarding people who bought SUVs/big trucks?

[CorvusCamenarum]

I think the only age requirement for the clunker is that it's less than 25 years old (which I don't understand as a lot of cars older than 25 most certainly are gas guzzlers). The only requirement is that the old car has a combined MPG of 18 and the new one has a combined MPG of 22. So a lot of new cars are eligible, theoretically I could go out, buy a brand new Hummer, then trade it for a Prius and get the rebate.

Of course, no one would do that, because if you qualify for the rebate, you likely won't get any trade in value for the old car since dealers can't resell it. So really, the clunker needs to be valued at udner $3,500 or $4,500 for the consumer to benefit, so that does effectively put a minimum age on the clunker

Almost all the car commercials I see on TV here are advertising matching the incentive on your trade-in, which essentially works out to getting $7-9000 off the new car price instead of just the government deal.

[yg17]

Ahhh, I didn't realize that the age requirement only applied to Cat 3 trucks.

Still, in essence it has to be a car or truck meeting the 18MPG as well as having a trade-in value of less than or about equal to rebate, or otherwise it doesn't really make sense to destroy it and apply for the rebate. Granted, there were lots of SUVs sold in the 90s that meet these criteria...

I still think, all in all, that it's unlikely that the 20-40% of all new car and truck purchases in the last four weeks met that criteria. In particular, there really aren't that many cars on the road (i.e. that were continuously insured and then went as trade-ins just in the last month) that meet the 18MPG criteria. I mean, if those 250k apps are averaged over an extra month of time beyond the time the that the CARS was actually open, it still seems unlikely to me that 1/4 or 1/5 new car purchases in the US had trade-ins that met the clunker definition (even with how lenient the definition was).

Or are dealers applying for rebates on behalf of people who bought cars an even longer period of time before the CARS went into action?

Well, I believe it's up to the dealers to verify eligibility and they have to do the paperwork to get reimbursed by the government, so if they fudge numbers or don't fully verify eligibility, they take the loss, so I would imagine that they're being very careful.

Almost all the car commercials I see on TV here are advertising matching the incentive on your trade-in, which essentially works out to getting $7-9000 off the new car price instead of just the government deal.


That could be a manufacturer incentive they're offering, but they don't have to give you a rebate. If the dealer is shady enough, they'll claim they're giving you an extra $3,000 off and raise the selling price of the car by $3,000.

[SilentPanda]

Well, I believe it's up to the dealers to verify eligibility and they have to do the paperwork to get reimbursed by the government, so if they fudge numbers or don't fully verify eligibility, they take the loss, so I would imagine that they're being very careful.

My understanding from the dealership was you fill out a bunch of paperwork and file it to the government. If anything is wrong they send it back and you have to submit it again but at the back of the line. So if you have to submit it a second time and they've run out by then yer screwed. If the rebate doesn't process it is the buyer and not the dealer that ends up having to fork over the $4,000.

Also you are supposed to pay tax on it at purchase time since it's a rebate and not an amount off the purchase price. I've read that some people haven't had to but yeah... yer "supposed to".

That could be a manufacturer incentive they're offering, but they don't have to give you a rebate. If the dealer is shady enough, they'll claim they're giving you an extra $3,000 off and raise the selling price of the car by $3,000

I did my research online to find out the dealers actual cost and what the average person was paying. Of course the mortgage situation shows people don't really do their homework before they sign anyway...

[mkrishnan]

Well, I believe it's up to the dealers to verify eligibility and they have to do the paperwork to get reimbursed by the government, so if they fudge numbers or don't fully verify eligibility, they take the loss, so I would imagine that they're being very careful.

Are they paying customers before the government pays them? Or don't they just set it up so that the customer is liable for the money if the gov't doesn't come through?

[Peace]

I'm sure dealers are taking shortcuts with the program.
FWIW< a local news story on Long Island said a ton of SUVs were being traded. They reported from 2 dealers and both were packed.

While these cars have to be destroyed, in fact, only the engine has to be destroyed. The rest of the car is fair game for parts.


Actually it's the drivetrain. From the engine to the real axle..I know. I just did it with my 1999 Isuzu Trooper.

And as far as already having 250,000 qualifying cars. I believe it. They were selling like hotcakes where I live.

What the car dealer does is give you a $4500 credit towards a new car. So if a car sold for $20,000 you paid ( or got a loan for ) $15,500. Less any other incentives the dealer may apply.
Then the dealer sent in the paperwork for the cars program.
I can see how there would be a backlog.

[yg17]

Are they paying customers before the government pays them? Or don't they just set it up so that the customer is liable for the money if the gov't doesn't come through?

Yes, it's deducted from the selling price of the car and the dealer gets reimbursed. I'm not sure who's liable if there's a paperwork problem, I imagine it would be whoever screwed up. But if dealers are smart, they're going over everything with a fine tooth comb before they give someone the rebate.

[rdowns]

****ing stupid to destroy engines, they could be overhauled and resold, creating... jobs?

This whole program is dumb actually, people are just digging up their old **** cars they never use and trading them in for $4500, I have 3 friends who all took some old shitmobile truck that barely had paint on it and traded it in even though they never used it anyways. How is that helping emissions?

When will government learn? They would be much better served just taxing the **** out of gas if they want us to move to higher efficient vehicles. I imagine they will allocate some more funds out of our limitless pocketbook for this dumb program.

Also I don't know who all these people are who bought gas guzzlers, even my z28 camaro which is 15 years old gets enough gas mileage to not qualify. Why are we rewarding people who bought SUVs/big trucks?


Reducing emissions is one small part of the program. The real benefit is all the economic stimulation that results in the sale of a car (which haven't been selling too well lately)- sales tax revenues, increased demand for auto producers, new insurance policies issued etc. This is exactly what a 'stimulus' program should do.

As for the requirements, the cars traded in must have been continually registered and insured for the prior 12 months. Do a lot of people have cars that just sit?

[SilentPanda]

Reducing emissions is one small part of the program. The real benefit is all the economic stimulation that results in the sale of a car (which haven't been selling too well lately)- sales tax revenues, increased demand for auto producers, new insurance policies issued etc. This is exactly what a 'stimulus' program should do.

The other thing I think it does, is just like when the U.S. started to "get their SUV on" it seemed everybody started getting them. Hopefully with 250,000 or so more fuel efficient cars on the road it might start swinging the other way. While none of my family, friends, or coworkers have gone out and purchased a car because I bought one, many of them have been very impressed with the ride which they may not have otherwise bothered.

[swiftaw]

This whole program is dumb actually, people are just digging up their old **** cars they never use and trading them in for $4500, I have 3 friends who all took some old shitmobile truck that barely had paint on it and traded it in even though they never used it anyways. How is that helping emissions?


You can only trade in a car that has been registered and insured for the last 12 months, so you would image if someone has done that then they plan on using the car. You can't trade in a car that has been sat in storage uninsured.

[Zombie Acorn]

Reducing emissions is one small part of the program. The real benefit is all the economic stimulation that results in the sale of a car (which haven't been selling too well lately)- sales tax revenues, increased demand for auto producers, new insurance policies issued etc. This is exactly what a 'stimulus' program should do.

As for the requirements, the cars traded in must have been continually registered and insured for the prior 12 months. Do a lot of people have cars that just sit?

People are right to hunker down and not spend money, in order to stimulate the economy you need to produce programs that give consumers confidence that the economy is in an upswing. Giving away $4500 dollars that we will have to pay back later surely isn't doing the job.

Have you seen the insurance costs for a crap truck out back? Its barely anything at all, and most people around here keep them insured if they run (not sure in other locations).

[SilentPanda]

Giving away $4500 dollars that we will have to pay back later surely isn't doing the job.

You don't have to pay it back later. At least not directly (I'm sure we're paying it back in taxes somewhere but not on an individual basis).

[yg17]

People are right to hunker down and not spend money, in order to stimulate the economy you need to produce programs that give consumers confidence that the economy is in an upswing. Giving away $4500 dollars that we will have to pay back later surely isn't doing the job.

Have you seen the insurance costs for a crap truck out back? Its barely anything at all, and most people around here keep them insured if they run (not sure in other locations).

I'm not sure where "around here" is, but no one I know just keeps a crap truck out back.

[Zombie Acorn]

I'm not sure where "around here" is, but no one I know just keeps a crap truck out back.

You probably live in the concrete jungle then.

[Zombie Acorn]

You don't have to pay it back later. At least not directly (I'm sure we're paying it back in taxes somewhere but not on an individual basis).

I meant taxpayers, those of us who pay taxes will definitely have to pay this back later, including that turtle tunnel that faux news reported on last week that cost us millions.

[Rodimus Prime]

Reducing emissions is one small part of the program. The real benefit is all the economic stimulation that results in the sale of a car (which haven't been selling too well lately)- sales tax revenues, increased demand for auto producers, new insurance policies issued etc. This is exactly what a 'stimulus' program should do.

As for the requirements, the cars traded in must have been continually registered and insured for the prior 12 months. Do a lot of people have cars that just sit?

you will be surprised at the number of cars that just sit there and go reality unused.
My parents have a 95 Dogde ram that gets HIGHWAY 17 mpg. They got letter about the cash for clunkers program. That dogde ram sits in the drive way most days and will go weeks with out being used. It is insured and registered. They are not trading it is because it is nice to have a truck when you need it. Mind you the Ram is really only used when they need a pick up truck. During the summer that could be every weekend. During the winter it might be used MAYBE once a month.

Then again my parents use the truck like a work truck so the bad gas mileage is really not that bad.

[it5five]

you will be surprised at the number of cars that just sit there and go reality unused.
My parents have a 95 Dogde ram that gets HIGHWAY 17 mpg. They got letter about the cash for clunkers program. That dogde ram sits in the drive way most days and will go weeks with out being used. It is insured and registered. They are not trading it is because it is nice to have a truck when you need it. Mind you the Ram is really only used when they need a pick up truck. During the summer that could be every weekend. During the winter it might be used MAYBE once a month.

Then again my parents use the truck like a work truck so the bad gas mileage is really not that bad.

Why don't they sell the truck and rent one the few times a year they actually use it? A lot of truck owners can't answer this. If you're not hauling things frequently, why own a truck?

[bbotte]

Feds gave another 2 Billion to the fund today, Game on.

[quagmire]

Why don't they sell the truck and rent one the few times a year they actually use it? A lot of truck owners can't answer this. If you're not hauling things frequently, why own a truck?

Because I don't trust the maintenance on rental trucks. Have heard way to many horror stories of POS U-Hauls always breaking down or having something wrong with it( my brother also experienced this with several U-Hauls) Where we know the maintenance of our Suburban because we take care of it. Not only has it come in handy when my mom needs to tow her horse trailer, but it came in handy one winter when my mom had hip surgery and was coming home. We have a long driveway and 2 days before we had a snow/ice storm where the ice made the snow frozen solid and made it impossible for our tractor with a plow or our snow blower to remove it( which if we had a plow attachment for our Suburban would have made another use for it). We were having a hospital bed be delivered so she can sleep on the first floor because she couldn't use the stairs yet. The delivery truck could not get up our driveway and I had to drive the Suburban down to go get the bed which would not have fit into a BMW, Saturn, our even our Equinox. And, just recently I bought a 47" LG TV. TigerDirect used YRC Freight which they use Semi's for delivery and I don't think a Semi truck can get up our driveway...... The Suburban came in handy again and put it in there to bring it to our house.

Are you telling me to rent a truck for that situation? Our Suburban has come in handy for unplanned events so many times despite it living the same life to Prime's Ram. It's that and poor maintenance on rental trucks is why I will buy a truck if a need ever develops for one in my future. And I am pushing my parents to replace our 2002 Suburban with a new GMT-900 one before GM moves it to the less capable Lambda platform which the Traverse rides on.

[it5five]

Are you telling me to rent a truck for that situation?

It appears that you or your mother own horses, and thus tow a horse trailer. Clearly, if you own large animals that need to be hauled around on occasion, or need a large vehicle to haul feed back and forth, a large vehicle makes sense.

I thought it was clear I was talking about the people that use their truck maybe 3-4 times a year to move a large piece of furniture. I guess I wasn't clear enough.

[quagmire]

It appears that you or your mother own horses, and thus tow a horse trailer. Clearly, if you own large animals that need to be hauled around on occasion, or need a large vehicle to haul feed back and forth, a large vehicle makes sense.

I thought it was clear I was talking about the people that use their truck maybe 3-4 times a year to move a large piece of furniture. I guess I wasn't clear enough.

Ironically, that is about the amount of time our Suburban is connected to the horse trailer per year because my moms horse is being boarded at another barn at the moment so it doesn't need to be moved all that much. Like I said, the Suburban sits outside not used most of the time. It is there for my moms or my backup vehicle when the BMW, Saturn, or Chevy is in service, long trips, to pull our horse trailer, move sails, lines and other boat gear when our boat is launched/hauled twice a year.

My family has a need for it despite it not being used all that often.....

[Macky-Mac]

....I thought it was clear I was talking about the people that use their truck maybe 3-4 times a year to move a large piece of furniture. I guess I wasn't clear enough.

I suspect that a lot of these trucks were previously in use a lot more than 3-4 times a year and are still kept around only because there's also plenty of space to park them and it's easier to keep them than to get rid of them

[Rodimus Prime]

Why don't they sell the truck and rent one the few times a year they actually use it? A lot of truck owners can't answer this. If you're not hauling things frequently, why own a truck?

Well if you do the math on how often it is used. It cheaper to keep the truck than it would be rent one. Plus many of the times it is used are pretty well unplanned.

Renting a truck for a single trip you are looking at a cost of 40-50 dollars each time and that is local.

Take that for when lets say they help me move then you tack on the longer miles and it is cheaper to use our own truck..

Like I said during the summer it is used almost weekly. During the winder it drops to once a month.. The truck cost 30 a month for insurance. Between all the cost for the truck not counting fuel it works out to be maybe 400-500 a year. Cheaper than renting the truck for how often it gets used.

Also it is not like the truck is polluting for a daily driver. 80-90% of the time it is used it is being used for the fact it is truck.

[Zombie Acorn]

Feds gave another 2 Billion to the fund today, Game on.

this pisses me off to no end. It's funny how everyone thinks thy hit the jackpot when the gov gives out your own money (you will pay)

[Desertrat]

What with the additional two billion bucks, it means 3/4 million fewer cars in the used-car market, to move down to third- and fourth-owner poor folks' cars. Anytime you reduce supply, the price goes up.

Definitely benefits the UAW, of course. And why not? They voted for the Big O.

[LumbermanSVO]

What with the additional two billion bucks, it means 3/4 million fewer cars in the used-car market, to move down to third- and fourth-owner poor folks' cars. Anytime you reduce supply, the price goes up.

And 3/4 million fewer cars that will end up as parts cars in the junkyards too. For many poor people the junkyard is their auto parts store, with less parts the price of the parts will go up. Sure, the car itself can still go to the junkyard and be parted, but not the most important part, the drivetrain. There should have been a better way of figuring that part out.

[bbotte]

this pisses me off to no end. It's funny how everyone thinks thy hit the jackpot when the gov gives out your own money (you will pay)

I hit the jackpot? I own 2 2005 Subarus. I don't qualify. People assuming stuff pisses me off to no end.

[dukebound85]

Why don't they sell the truck and rent one the few times a year they actually use it? A lot of truck owners can't answer this. If you're not hauling things frequently, why own a truck?

Because they want it:cool:

Its the price of convenience to have it on hand than to not have it and be forced to rent

My next vehicle is going to be a truck because I have come across too many instances where it would have been really nice to have one

[bbotte]

Believe it or not folks, some of us were prepared and ready for this economy. If you are not hurting for cash why sell if you use it. I totally understand the old truck thing, I am looking to buy one though it's hard to find one now LOL.

[Rodimus Prime]

Believe it or not folks, some of us were prepared and ready for this economy. If you are not hurting for cash why sell if you use it. I totally understand the old truck thing, I am looking to buy one though it's hard to find one now LOL.

Even people who where prepared for this economy are still could not stand up to me. Loss a job for 6 months most of the saving are completely wiped out. I know people who are at 10+ months unemployed and looking.

Or people just getting out of college right now are really screwed with depression era unemployment for that group. It sucks.

[bbotte]

Sorry to hear that. But again not everyone has hardship right now.

[Rodimus Prime]

Sorry to hear that. But again not everyone has hardship right now.

Sorry it coments like yours that kind of piss me off because it makes me think that you think people in bad shape right now it is there own fault.

Right now the economny is so bad even those people who where considered in good shape and prepared for hard times are at the ends of their ropes. Their money is wiped out and no savings left to fall back on.

I would say in better times it more the case but currently I am finding that it is more and more once some one looses their job they are screwed because average unemployment is not measured in months instead of weeks and it is growing very quickly.

[bbotte]

Sorry it coments like yours that kind of piss me off because it makes me think that you think people in bad shape right now it is there own fault.

Who's fault is it then?

[Desertrat]

And then there's this:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/152909-cash-for-clunkers-may-cost-up-to-45-354-per-vehicle

"Some refreshingly honest reporting has come from Edmunds.com, a car buying site that is telling the truth, in spite of benefiting from an increase in business and site traffic, due to the program. According to Edmunds, about 200,000 old low mileage cars would normally be traded in, every 3 months, in exchange for more efficient higher mileage cars, without this program."

From that, it holds that the incremental increase for a billion bucks is 22,000 cars at $4,500, or $45,354 per induced sale over the usual rate of such sales. The 86,000 at $3,500 would mean $11,628 per car. Edmunds estimates a mix which results in some $20,000 per car.

Keeping it simple, what Edmunds is saying is that nine out of ten of these $4,500-rebate customers would have done the deal without the program.

While the program undoubtedly affects the Edmunds conclusions by adding to total sales, it's hard to tell how much. Feedback across the Internet and on talk radio indicates that very few applications are being approved. It will likely be months before any certain, factual knowledge is available. For now, however, it looks like just another foolish government boondoggle.

'Rat

[LizKat]

Feds gave another 2 Billion to the fund today, Game on.

I went out in the driveway this morning and shakily written in the dust on the dashboard of my clunker was "... i am NOT a clunker..."

It's going on ten years old, but it's no clunker so I guess all it needs is a little detailing on the interior and some loving reassurance that it's not about to head off for an engine-killing sodium silicate lunch any time soon.

One of my bros lined up a clunker deal though. He's got an old van on its last legs so they're trading that in for a Kia Rio or something. First time anyone in our family ever got a new car. We have all been subscribers to the idea that you lose too much just driving a new car off the lot to make the investment pay off. The cash for clunkers difference in this case might make it worthwhile; I hope so for the bro's sake.

With a good mechanic down the road I'm still a fan of rides that cost around $5k with less than 70k miles on them. It can take awhile to round one up that has a rep for lasting 200k miles, but time invested has saved me plenty of dough on cars.

[rdowns]

And then there's this:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/152909-cash-for-clunkers-may-cost-up-to-45-354-per-vehicle




I'd be curious to know if these numbers hold true for the current economic cycle or are numbers from more prosperous times.

[LizKat]

I'd be curious to know if these numbers hold true for the current economic cycle or are numbers from more prosperous times.

Bingo. No one was BUYING cars during the downdraft. Ask the dealers!

No one was even getting their rat spare ride fixed in the six months after the implosion of credit markets (ask me, my bro, my neighbor, guy down the road). Everyone took a deep breath and said "Let's wait and see how this plays out."

imo this is just another reasonable way to get things moving again. I am no fan of government wasting out money but we have not lived through something like this, ever, and I include the Great Depression because we were not so globally interdependent back then.

And for those screaming about this program, a) it's at least as temporary as tax cuts to the millionaires, and b) how much money gets wasted on some AF dude hotdogging a plane into the desert every once in awhile, some dark ops guy handing over $2 million to the wrong guy in a long white skirt, etc. All these little multimillion dollar bloopers add up. And that's before the multi-BILLION dollar excess investment by Congress in stuff the Pentagon doesn't even want more of but the Congressman's state needs the employment. One might think about where one's own ox is grazing before trying to gore someone else's critter.

[Wotan31]

"Cash for Clunkers" is a scam. Its just as much of a scam as the rest of this stupid Bailout.

Here's what they do with the clunker trade-ins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waj2KrKYTZo

They are required to fill the motor with a sodium silicate / water solution and run it until it self-destructs. Then they send the cars to the crusher. They are not allowed to resell the cars. They are not allowed to sell the cars to junk yards or used parts places. It has to be crushed and destroyed.

How is taking tens of thousands of perfectly good late model cars and destroying them good for anyone? It's bad for taxpayers. It's bad for the environment. It's bad for everyone. Except the horribly mis-managed US auto industry with their corrupt execs and their crappy products.

FYI Do you know where Obama "found" the $2 Billion to fund this "clunkers" program? He took it away from the EPA's budget.

[Rodimus Prime]

Who's fault is it then?

Right now the fault I will put on the banks selling loans to people who could not afford them, and people taking those loan. That started this domino effect.

Now it is screwing a lot of people who under all reasonable terms did everything right. I cut them slack at 3 months in savings did things right.

People fresh out of school did things right and got screwed by bad timing but most of traces back to the lending that just started the domino effect.

On top of the lending people were not saving so when they lost there jobs anything on credit fell because no savings to fall back on to cover short term.

But after 3 months they are just getting screwed by the economy.

[dinaluvsApple]

"Cash for Clunkers" is a scam. Its just as much of a scam as the rest of this stupid Bailout.

Here's what they do with the clunker trade-ins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waj2KrKYTZo

They are required to fill the motor with a sodium silicate / water solution and run it until it self-destructs. Then they send the cars to the crusher. They are not allowed to resell the cars. They are not allowed to sell the cars to junk yards or used parts places. It has to be crushed and destroyed.

How is taking tens of thousands of perfectly good late model cars and destroying them good for anyone? It's bad for taxpayers. It's bad for the environment. It's bad for everyone. Except the horribly mis-managed US auto industry with their corrupt execs and their crappy products.

FYI Do you know where Obama "found" the $2 Billion to fund this "clunkers" program? He took it away from the EPA's budget.
there is a perfectly good reason for destroying the cars.

let me give you a scenario.

-There are 100 ford trucks that get 15mpg.
-normally if 40 of them were traded in or just sent to scrap yard like normal
that would mean that the 60 owners left now have access to very cheap parts so they can hang on to their ford trucks. or people can just rebuy them from the used car lot and keep polluting.
- what this clunkers program does it is eliminate both these possibilities and forces the hand of the remaining owners since they cant obtain cheap parts and prospective buyers cant buy them.

[bbotte]

Right now the fault I will put on the banks selling loans to people who could not afford them, and people taking those loan. That started this domino effect.

Now it is screwing a lot of people who under all reasonable terms did everything right. I cut them slack at 3 months in savings did things right.

People fresh out of school did things right and got screwed by bad timing but most of traces back to the lending that just started the domino effect.

On top of the lending people were not saving so when they lost there jobs anything on credit fell because no savings to fall back on to cover short term.

But after 3 months they are just getting screwed by the economy.

Funny this didn't effect me or my wife at all.

Again not everyone is in hardship. It is a response to the statement "why would you not sell the truck? That's a lot of money to be tied up in a vehicle."

Not everyone thinks it is a lot of money tied up. I view it as a tool, like a hammer, you don't use one everyday if you don't work as a carpenter, but when you need it you have it. You probably don't think there is a lot of money tied up in a hammer......

[bbotte]

there is a perfectly good reason for destroying the cars.

let me give you a scenario.

-There are 100 ford trucks that get 15mpg.
-normally if 40 of them were traded in or just sent to scrap yard like normal
that would mean that the 60 owners left now have access to very cheap parts so they can hang on to their ford trucks. or people can just rebuy them from the used car lot and keep polluting.
- what this clunkers program does it is eliminate both these possibilities and forces the hand of the remaining owners since they cant obtain cheap parts and prospective buyers cant buy them.


This is exactly what it is doing, and lessens our demand for oil in the future by a little. I wish we were doing well enough to buy a Tesla! Those are cool! How cool would it be to give the finger to Dubai? I wonder what that place will look like when the oil money is gone.....

[Wotan31]

there is a perfectly good reason for destroying the cars.

let me give you a scenario.

-There are 100 ford trucks that get 15mpg.
-normally if 40 of them were traded in or just sent to scrap yard like normal
that would mean that the 60 owners left now have access to very cheap parts so they can hang on to their ford trucks. or people can just rebuy them from the used car lot and keep polluting.
- what this clunkers program does it is eliminate both these possibilities and forces the hand of the remaining owners since they cant obtain cheap parts and prospective buyers cant buy them.
And that's exactly why it's idiotic. Because what you've just described doesn't work. These "cheap parts" that owners require to keep their cars running come from AutoZone and PepBoys and are made in China. The number of people who pay a shop to repair their car (using new parts) is orders of magnitude larger than the number of people who pick used parts from junkyards to keep their cars running. Further more, there are 238 million vehicle (http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb25/Edition25_Chapter03.pdf#search=%22polk%20%22vehicles%20in%20operation%22%20by%20year%22)s on the road in the US. If 225 thousand were traded in on this clunkers program, that's less than 1/10 of 1 percent. And whose to say these replacement vehicles are polluting less? Pollution is not even part of the equation. MPG is. Different thing altogether. And the MPG difference is negligible. Only a paltry few MPG difference. The entire program = FAIL.

You're a lemming if you believe this clunkers program has any environmental benefit, or even that the environment is part of the original intent. Keeping an older car on the road is far more environmentally friendly than crushing it and manufacturing a new car.

This is purely a program to funnel cash to banks and auto makers. A useless and ineffective program that ALL taxpayers are being forced to pay for. :mad:

[Wotan31]

This is exactly what it is doing, and lessens our demand for oil in the future by a little.
LMAO. No. it doesn't. You simply raise the CAFE standard if you want to lessen the demand for oil. Simple as that. Clunkers is part of the federal bailout program. It's for the automakers and the banks. It's not for the environment, lol, and it doesn't benefit the environment in any way.

How cool would it be to give the finger to Dubai? I wonder what that place will look like when the oil money is gone.....
Now we can agree on this. Places like Dubai and Saudi Arabia would still be herding camels if it wasn't for oil money. They don't produce anything. They don't contribute anything useful to the world. They just consume and consume, all funded by the black gold that happens to flow up from the ground in their country.

[bbotte]

LMAO. No. it doesn't. You simply raise the CAFE standard if you want to lessen the demand for oil. Simple as that. Clunkers is part of the federal bailout program. It's for the automakers and the banks. It's not for the environment, lol, and it doesn't benefit the environment in any way.


Now we can agree on this. Places like Dubai and Saudi Arabia would still be herding camels if it wasn't for oil money. They don't produce anything. They don't contribute anything useful to the world. They just consume and consume, all funded by the black gold that happens to flow up from the ground in their country.


I will continue to drive the same weather I get 40MPG or 20MPG, difference will be in my wallet. But that is me and people I know I guess.

I am eagerly awaiting the Chevy Volt, if it is affordable I can really see pulling the trigger on one of those. It will be a great feeling, buying my first new American(kind of) car and thumbing my nose at the middle east. :)

[Wotan31]

I will continue to drive the same weather I get 40MPG or 20MPG, difference will be in my wallet. But that is me and people I know I guess.
So do I. How is this relevant? Raising the CAFE standards achieves precisely this goal of raising the average MPG, and it's FREE! Raising CAFE standards don't cost the taxpayers a single dollar, much less a couple Billion $ like clunkers.

Maybe I just dont understand what you're trying to say? :confused:

[Rodimus Prime]

So do I. How is this relevant? Raising the CAFE standards achieves precisely this goal of raising the average MPG, and it's FREE! Raising CAFE standards don't cost the taxpayers a single dollar, much less a couple Billion $ like clunkers.

Maybe I just dont understand what you're trying to say? :confused:

CAFE standard had little effect on gas mileage sells. But when gas was 4 dollar gallon boy did the average MPG of cars sold in the US jump. Higher gas price have a much better effect than CAFE.

[Wotan31]

CAFE standard had little effect on gas mileage sells. But when gas was 4 dollar gallon boy did the average MPG of cars sold in the US jump. Higher gas price have a much better effect than CAFE.
CAFE standard applies to all new cars sold. It doesn't matter whether you choose the oversized SUV, or the econo-box. Raise the standard significantly and average MPG of all new cars sold in the US will go up significantly.

Alternatively, I like the european model where vehicles are taxed annually based on engine size. A 2.0 liter engine pays less taxes than a 3.0 liter engine, for example. This encourages joe consumer to buy a car with smaller sized engine (which is more fuel efficient), but it also forces automakers to build more efficient engines to remain competitive. Look at the cars in europe, all the euro auto makers sell small engines like 2.0 liters that make lots (200+) of horsepower.

[Rodimus Prime]

CAFE standard applies to all new cars sold. It doesn't matter whether you choose the oversized SUV, or the econo-box. Raise the standard significantly and average MPG of all new cars sold in the US will go up significantly.

Alternatively, I like the european model where vehicles are taxed annually based on engine size. A 2.0 liter engine pays less taxes than a 3.0 liter engine, for example. This encourages joe consumer to buy a car with smaller sized engine (which is more fuel efficient), but it also forces automakers to build more efficient engines to remain competitive. Look at the cars in europe, all the euro auto makers sell small engines like 2.0 liters that make lots (200+) of horsepower.

CAFE in theory should work but really what it starts doing is case the supply of SUV to drop thus the cost of them goes up. People will still get want the SUV because fuel cost is better.

The problem with the European style of taxing is I can find you some small displacement cars with some really crappy gas mileage and a larger displacement getting better MPG.

Now how they get that high horse power in Europe cars is just putting on a turbo charger that adds other problems. All you have to remember there is NO replacement for Displacement. Turbos has problems with much larger stress on the engine and a limited power band. Large engines have a wider power band and a lot more low end power. But like I said tax base on gas mileage I would support. Not one based on displacement size.

A better tax is based on gas mileage and not displacement size.

personally I go with slapping a gas guzzler tax on SUV and leave it be.

[LumbermanSVO]

With a good mechanic down the road I'm still a fan of rides that cost around $5k with less than 70k miles on them. It can take awhile to round one up that has a rep for lasting 200k miles, but time invested has saved me plenty of dough on cars.

I completely understand this. I drive turbo 4 Fords from the 80's. They are cheap to buy, cheap to fix, easy to work on, cheap to insure, get decent enough mileage and are even fun to drive. In the 9 years I've have my current Mustang I've spent probably less than $13k on it, including the purchase price and insurance. It gets 26 MPG in the city, 32-33 MPG on the highway and makes over 250 horsepower. The last time I had it tested at a WA state emissions testing place it passed with far better than factory numbers, with all the factory emissions equipment removed.

Before this car I had another just like it. I just recently decided I didn't want my other turbo Ford so I pulled all the good parts that will work on my Mustang(including the engine itself), sold a bunch of other parts then sent it to the scrapyard. I broke even on the car and now have a stack of small spares and an engine to build. Even if I go nuts building the engine I'll still be much farther ahead than if I were to buy a new car, especially since I rarely drive my own cars anymore.

I hate having payments for cars and I hate having cars I don't know how to fix.

BTW, if you are going to rely on your car everyday and want to drive something this old(24) then you need two cars, that way you always have a running car should one of them break. Just grabbing the other set of keys is much easier than calling a cab, or for a rental, when it doesn't start in the morning.

[Shivetya]

I think the whole thing is a bunch of fail.

So we are encouraging people to take on debt? Throw in the fact that the savings to the environment versus crushing a working vehicle aren't proven and it comes across as a stunt.

[Desertrat]

Amen, Shivetya.

LizKat, this entire mess came about from easy credit, excessive debt and all that government-inspired BS. We now have these idiots inside the Beltway encouraging people to buy now instead of deferring until some real need arises. It's merely encouraging people to take on more debt. And it's being fomented with more government debt.

"There is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action." -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[dukebound85]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32290028/ns/us_news-environment

Apparently, not much effect on pollution at the expense of billions paid by us

Only people it really benefits are those that make use of this deal IMO, and my car doesnt even qualify, despite being 19 years old

[abijnk]

Only people it really benefits are those that make use of this deal

And the dealers, and the manufacturers, and the financiers, and the junk yards, and the scrap metal industry...

[dukebound85]

And the dealers, and the manufacturers, and the financiers, and the junk yards, and the scrap metal industry...

pfft, those guys dont count lol

[SilentPanda]

Apparently, not much effect on pollution at the expense of billions paid by us

Yeah. I really think they should have at least made the MPG difference more significant. From what I heard this morning a lot of people are just going about just trading up their old SUV for a minimally more efficient SUV. I went from 16/19 to 48/51 though... and didn't end up using the deal... so don't blame me!

And the dealers, and the manufacturers, and the financiers, and the junk yards, and the scrap metal industry...

I heard the junk yards aren't benefiting a lot. People are getting rid of their crap cars so there is less demand for parts for that crap car...

[abijnk]

I heard the junk yards aren't benefiting a lot. People are getting rid of their crap cars so there is less demand for parts for that crap car...

I saw a little blip on the news tonight about that. The junk yard people said that they would be making the most money off of the engines, but of course they can't sell those. But at the very least, incoming cars is pretty much always better than no incoming cars.

[dukebound85]

i am slightly upset how these perfectly working cars cant be given to charities

not to mention that if a dealership sees you drive in with a clunker, they wont be as negotiable on the price, thereby rendering most of the rebate to pretty much moot. dealers arent stupid

not a fan of this program at all

[Zombie Acorn]

I hit the jackpot? I own 2 2005 Subarus. I don't qualify. People assuming stuff pisses me off to no end.

You own 2 4 year old cars, no one is sympathetic to your plight.

I am glad that American manufacturers are making the cars that American's want, its obvious when you look at the top five cars on the list: "1. Ford Focus, 2. Toyota Corolla, 3. Honda Civic, 4. Toyota Prius and 5. Toyota Camry". The administration stated that American cars are making up 47% of the sales, but they need to put the stats where their mouth is first as far as I am concerned. I wouldn't be surprised if American cars make up less than 30% (not that I really care, most of the japanese car makers have plants here as far as I know).

I think it says a lot about how the American car makers AREN'T making the cars we want.

[Rodimus Prime]

You own 2 4 year old cars, no one is sympathetic to your plight.

I am glad that American manufacturers are making the cars that American's want, its obvious when you look at the top five cars on the list: "1. Ford Focus, 2. Toyota Corolla, 3. Honda Civic, 4. Toyota Prius and 5. Toyota Camry". The administration stated that American cars are making up 47% of the sales, but they need to put the stats where their mouth is first as far as I am concerned. I wouldn't be surprised if American cars make up less than 30% (not that I really care, most of the japanese car makers have plants here as far as I know).

I think it says a lot about how the American car makers AREN'T making the cars we want.

Well you forget some times those Foreign cars (Toyota and Honda) are more domestic made than the Domestic brands (Ford, and GM). By that a larger percent of the Foreign car is made in the US than the domestic counter part. Sad but true. A lot of "american" cars are made in Mexico.

[Zombie Acorn]

Well you forget some times those Foreign cars (Toyota and Honda) are more domestic made than the Domestic brands (Ford, and GM). By that a larger percent of the Foreign car is made in the US than the domestic counter part. Sad but true. A lot of "american" cars are made in Mexico.

I actually said that in my quote near the bottom. I am more using this as a testament to show that American car companies AREN'T making the cars we want than anything else. If they were they would be taking more slots in this program. Ive actually heard that the foreign US plants are ran better and more efficient because they aren't unionized. Go figure.

[Wotan31]

CAFE in theory should work but really what it starts doing is case the supply of SUV to drop thus the cost of them goes up. People will still get want the SUV because fuel cost is better.

The problem with the European style of taxing is I can find you some small displacement cars with some really crappy gas mileage and a larger displacement getting better MPG.
And that's exactly why a displacement tax works! Because if a consumer decides they're going to stick to the 2.0 liter displacement, for example, they'll likely rule out the models that get crappy mileage. This forces the manufacturer to improve their product. It's a win-win.

Now how they get that high horse power in Europe cars is just putting on a turbo charger that adds other problems. All you have to remember there is NO replacement for Displacement. Turbos has problems with much larger stress on the engine and a limited power band. Large engines have a wider power band and a lot more low end power. But like I said tax base on gas mileage I would support. Not one based on displacement size.
Turbo chargers do not add "other problems". I see you do not know much about turbo charged engines since they have a much broader power band than a normall aspirated motor. They also produce more torque that is available sooner than in a normally aspirated motor. Non-turbo-charged engines are the ones with the limited power band.

Further, turbo motors are built using stronger beefier components to withstand the stress, this in turn makes for a more reliable, longer lasting engine. This is particularly true for the diesels, of which europe makes MANY small car turbo-diesel motors that get 40+ MPG and produce LESS pollution than a gasoline motor. Look at the "Top 10 Green cars" list for the UK. 8 of the top 10 are diesels. Furthermore, diesels are even more reliable and longer lasting than gasoline motors. That's why 60% of all cars sold today in Europe are powered by small turbo-diesel engines.

But turbo charging is only one technology of several that can increase the power of a small motor. Direct fuel injection, optimized combustion chambers, there are many areas that can be improved.

Big displacement is the American auto maker mentality because it requires no engineering, no advance technology, it's cheap to build. If you like paying for low-tech inefficient garbage, you simply buy a bigger motor. I do not. The rest of the world does not. Only in the USA...

[Wotan31]

Ive actually heard that the foreign US plants are ran better and more efficient because they aren't unionized. Go figure.
Of course. Unions are an antiquated and outdated concept that just needs to go away. They suck the life blood out of a company with their demands and binding contracts. Why should the guy who sweeps the floor at night get paid $85,000 per year, just because he's been doing it for 30 years? Unions made sense during the time when there were no labor laws, and factories were exploiting their workers. Today we have OSHA, minimum wage, workers comp, child lablor laws, non-discrimination laws, employer sponsored health coverage, employer sponsored 401k, etc. etc. the list goes on. We don't need unions any more. The problem is that the unions are so large and powerful now, and also the liberal lawmakers like Obama who passed laws *requiring* certain industries in certain states to only use union labor. This is the root of the problem.

The foreign US plants are a perfect example. The Mercedes Benz plant in Georgia and the BMW plant in South Carolina come to mind. Those two auto makers aren't looking for a bail out, they're doing just fine. Their workers are employed (and well paid) and there's no layoffs or plant closures. It's because those companies aren't handcuffed by absurd union contracts.

[CorvusCamenarum]

The foreign US plants are a perfect example. The Mercedes Benz plant in Alabama and the BMW plant in South Carolina come to mind. Those two auto makers aren't looking for a bail out, they're doing just fine. Their workers are employed (and well paid) and there's no layoffs or plant closures. It's because those companies aren't handcuffed by absurd union contracts.

Fixed that for you. The plant is actually in Vance, AL, unless there's another plant in GA of which I am unaware. The wait list just to get an interview at MB here is something like 2 years long, in part because they pay decent wages and treat their employees very well. They've recently had to scale back to a 4-day work week to curb overproduction, but they're adamant about doing their best not to lay anyone off. Seems a much better deal than what the domestic companies are offering at the moment.

[Wotan31]

Fixed that for you. The plant is actually in Vance, AL, unless there's another plant in GA of which I am unaware. The wait list just to get an interview at MB here is something like 2 years long, in part because they pay decent wages and treat their employees very well. They've recently had to scale back to a 4-day work week to curb overproduction, but they're adamant about doing their best not to lay anyone off. Seems a much better deal than what the domestic companies are offering at the moment.
Oops thanks! Silly me, and I've actually visited that plant in AL before. :o Sounds like the Big-3 would benefit greatly from studying this successful business model, since clearly their current model isn't working.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Oops thanks! Silly me, and I've actually visited that plant in AL before. :o Sounds like the Big-3 would benefit greatly from studying this successful business model, since clearly their current model isn't working.

They're right down the road from me. The plant has been a major boon to this area since its inception, as it's not only the direct jobs at the plant, but all the support jobs as well with suppliers and the like.

Part of me is forced to wonder if the nature of the plant is partly responsible for its continued success even in these bad times. They do make luxury cars, after all (M- and R-class lines), and those who can afford them are probably not being hit as hard economically as the average folks.

[mkrishnan]

Oops thanks! Silly me, and I've actually visited that plant in AL before. :o Sounds like the Big-3 would benefit greatly from studying this successful business model, since clearly their current model isn't working.

At the beginning of the decade, Ford's maquiladora plants were generally considered among the best examples of this... Hermosillo has been considered among the best plants in NA. Also incidentally their Ford Focus (which was previously but is not now made there, with Hermosillo now making the Fusion and derivatives, I think) seems to be (http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/ford-focus-tops-rebate-purchases/) the most popular replacement car in CARS....

[Desertrat]

Wotan31, who told you that, "Big displacement is the American auto maker mentality because it requires no engineering, no advance technology, it's cheap to build. If you like paying for low-tech inefficient garbage, you simply buy a bigger motor."?

To me, low-tech is a single-point distributor and a carburetor. My 2000-model full-size GMC PU with its 5.3-liter motor has a computer, fuel management, individual coils and gets 19 mpg at 65 to 70 mph.

My '85 Toyota PU is low-tech. Single-point distributor and a carburetor.

Guess which one I WON'T take 20 miles from the pavement? :D

As far as mileage, I've seen Chevy ads on TV claiming some two dozen models which exceed 30mpg. And I rented a Ford Escort, once; put 1,500 miles on it at 70mph with the A/C going. Got 42 mpg.

Some folks would gripe if they wuz hanged with a new rope. :D

'Rat

[jecapaga]

not to mention that if a dealership sees you drive in with a clunker, they wont be as negotiable on the price, thereby rendering most of the rebate to pretty much moot. dealers arent stupid

not a fan of this program at all

That's why you negotiate the price down to an agreeable amount and then bring up the clunker rebate that you would like to take part in. You're still dealing with car salesmen after all.