Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Smart Shopper Stories from the Sales Frontlines
47909 messages, Last post on Nov 26, 2009 at 9:59 AM
You are in the Smart Shopper Forum. Your Hosts are kirstie_h & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: deltheking (Aug 14, 2009 11:48 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: canadiantoyota (Aug 14, 2009 12:33 pm) 
|
|
|
Replying to: deltheking (Aug 14, 2009 8:32 pm) I heard from Isellhondas. He's working 12 to 14 hour days because of the C4C program. Don't you know that he has some stories to tell? Perhaps in a month or two, he'll get a chance to entertain us. Speaking of C4C, it is a shame that some of these trade-ins couldn't go to a few charities who accept cars. It might help some single mom have transportation to work, or assist an unemployed dad in having transportation to go job hunting. It seems so wasteful to just destroy these vehicles. It certainly says something about American society today. If it's old or a little worn, just throw it out. Also, I hope that the C4C program doesn't put more people in debt with car payments. Without C4C, some people would have driven on longer with no payments. I realize that the program can be a good deal for some customers, and for the auto industry. Still, you have to wonder if this stimulus could backfire on people down the road. Richard
|
|
|
Replying to: richard64 (Aug 15, 2009 3:41 am) As a charitable donation, the cars have little value (far enough below $3500-4500 as to make C4C a better deal than a trade-in) so there would not be that much in it for the charity. Also, I've heard before, but cannot readily verify, that the charity's processing costs are such that they make relatively little on the average car donation. Giving it to an unemployed or underemployed person sounds like a good idea, but these cars will be older and have lots of miles. As a rule their maintenance costs are going to be relatively high. The likelihood of a breakdown that strands the driver rises as a car ages, despite any maintenance performed. Also, by definition, the clunker must get poor fuel economy. Saddling an unemployed person with more-frequent fill-ups isn't very charitable. This will probably correlate with higher pollution. In short, the operational costs are higher than average, probably much higher. The only positive I can think of is that they are probably cheap to insure. And the vehicles aren't just set aside to rust away for the next hundred years. The engines are ruined so they cannot be resold but the metal can then be recycled. The rest of the car can be parted out before it, too, can be turned into scrap metal & recycled. In the C4C discussion threads some people have noted that a decent portion of the C4C buyers are paying cash and not financing. Myself, I've been without payments for 8+ years and am ready to buy. My car doesn't meet the clunker requirements so I'm holding off in the hope that prices edge down in a few months. I'm also waiting for the 2010s as for a couple of models I'm looking at there are some improvements I'd like to have. Hopefully I'll have a new ride by December. 
|
|
|
Replying to: fushigi (Aug 15, 2009 4:17 am) One of my cars is a clunker---'03 Explorer XLT with 98k miles. It runs beautifully and looks great. Even though maintenance costs are high, it still beats a car payment or a reduction in my savings account. I recently returned from a 1,600 mile trip to Boston in the Explorer. It did very well. Thanks for your input. Join us here more often. We tend to get off topic a bit, but our discussions are interesting. BTW, you write very well. Richard
|
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Aug 13, 2009 7:05 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: richard64 (Aug 15, 2009 4:56 am) I only remember a couple of deals where the deal didn't have that large a down payment and the term was longer then 48 months. There were a couple of longer term finances but they still put down another 5,000 dollars in addition to the clunker money.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: fushigi (Aug 15, 2009 4:17 am) http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.f1c306b/3105 and http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.f1db290/1989 They make for excellent reading. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: richard64 (Aug 15, 2009 4:56 am) And handles well at speeds above the limit!!! If the total cost over 5 years or some time period you choose is worth the extra cost of the vehicle in exchange for the comfort traveling or other use to you, it's actually not resources-efficient to trade the vehicle for something that gets better mileage. I couldn't justify trading either of our leSabres for a more economical smaller car just for the gasoline savings on trips or driving locally--they're too comfortable. A big problem with the number of people who do pay cash (a Toyota salesman in the other discussions said it was a high percentage cashpayers early on) is that some other, clinkers aren't getting traded by people who don't have the resources to get a loan but their cars are really "bad." Someone mentioned that people who don't have their title, because they have a loan, can't use the clunkers for cash program. I see lots of cars sold by Buy Here, Pay Here lots that probably fit the clunker category driven by people who appear to have limited resources that society would have benefitted from having traded in. They're not able to participate, but they probably would have benefitted from better gas mileage in the next two years. The other side of this is that Asian makers have benefitted more from the sales tahn US automakers have. This is as half the $3 billion is gone the article claims. It's in the Daytondailynews.com, but I can't find it on today's website by searching or headline. My concern is that the cars sold under $4C should have been built in the US so that the purpose, to stimulate business and manufacturers, would have been effected better. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: fushigi (Aug 15, 2009 4:17 am) But what if that person had a car that didn't run because it needed a lot of repairs or didn't have a car at all? Then the more frequent fill ups would sure beat walking. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Smart Shopper Stories from the Sales Frontlines
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
