Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?

4045 messages, Last post on Nov 07, 2009 at 5:40 AM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Legislation, Truck, Sedan, Wagon, SUV

For questions about how the program works or to discuss program details, please visit our discussion titled, "Cash for Clunkers - Does it Work for You?"

Outline

Messages Page 405 of 405: 1; ...; 399; 400; 401; 402; 403; 404; 405; Prev; Next; Last

#4036 of 4045 Re: Curious [kdhspyder] by gagrice Nov 05, 2009 (8:43 pm)
Replying to: kdhspyder (Nov 05, 2009 8:36 pm) This part of the Stimulus is just picking up speed. First I realized the Tax Credit could be used on any NEV. Seems the local Golf Cart dealers are putting on a full court press to move these vehicles. I like this model for real practicality. The IRS has approved them for the program. http://www.gogreenmobility.com/new/E-Cars/models.php Replies to this message: steve_ (Nov 05, 2009 9:05 pm) gagrice (Nov 05, 2009 9:31 pm) dodgeman07 (Nov 05, 2009 9:15 pm)
#4037 of 4045 Re: Curious [gagrice] by steve_ HOST Nov 05, 2009 (9:05 pm)
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 05, 2009 8:43 pm) There's a huge aftermarket business for souping up these golf cars too. Not just looks but swapping out gears and stuff to make them go faster than the manufacturer intended. There's going to be a golf car version of SEMA one of these years. Replies to this message: gagrice (Nov 05, 2009 9:31 pm)
#4038 of 4045 Re: Curious [gagrice] by dodgeman07 Nov 05, 2009 (9:15 pm)
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 05, 2009 8:43 pm) This part of the Stimulus is just picking up speed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- By next spring Stimulus Bill I will be winding down and we are already talking about Stimulus Bill II. It won't take too much lobbying for a 2010 "CARS" bill to pass. We've already got $100 billion in GM & Chrysler and GM is going to need a lot more help to get through 2010. As opposed to handing GM another multi-billion dollar "payment", we might as well do CARS 2010 with more liberal rules that do not require the "trade-ins" be destroyed; just assure the purchased vehicle gets 10 mpg better than the old one. Americans can't pass up a perceived bargain. Open the thing up to anybody who wants to trade for a much more efficient vehicle and people will be coming out of the woodwork.
#4039 of 4045 Re: Curious [steve_] by gagrice Nov 05, 2009 (9:31 pm)
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 05, 2009 9:05 pm) I was just reading about all the upgrades for the GEM. Easy to get 40 MPH. I never drive over 40 MPH on my short trips into Alpine about every day. It would be nice to leave the gas guzzlers parked and take a NEV. The worst part is driving into San Diego to look at them. I have sent out a couple emails to manufacturers. I may get a dealership for up here. Something constructive to do besides blogging with you blokes all day. I think that Tax Credit is good for a good long while. They put it into play for the Volt that may never see the light of day. Along with all the over priced EVs promised. The NEVs are here and the tax credits are very good for those paying more than their share. Also NO limit on how many you can buy. A couple per year would get my taxes down to a decent amount. Here is the best deal I have found. http://www.freeelectriccar.com/?gclid=CNT8rLLS9Z0CFSQNDQodnXy0pg
#4040 of 4045 Re: AP CFC analysis [ateixeira] by andre1969 Nov 06, 2009 (5:36 am)
Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 05, 2009 1:05 pm) OTOH, that Civic would make a good, efficient used car, so why pay to take it out of circulation? Well, maybe they could have some kind of mileage threshold and condition standard, whereby if a car is efficient enough, and would still pass smog tests, it can be re-sold? Replies to this message: ateixeira (Nov 06, 2009 8:31 am)
#4041 of 4045 Re: AP CFC analysis [stephen987] by andre1969 Nov 06, 2009 (5:43 am)
Replying to: stephen987 (Nov 05, 2009 5:06 pm) Or do people who drive more tend to choose cars that get better mpg? From what I've seen, usually some extenuating circumstance happens that requires more driving, and then that forces the buyer into a more efficient car. For instance, if you moved further from your job, or your job relocated further from your home. Or if something happened that you suddenly had to start driving more, such as to regularly check in on a sick/elderly relative. Or you took a job that just required a lot of driving, like delivering pizzas, courier, etc. When gas prices go up, people with guzzlers might start cutting out some unnecessary driving. I'm sure some people with more fuel efficient cars do, as well. However, when prices go down, or people get into a more efficient car and start driving more again, I don't look at that as driving more, in the strictest sense of the word. It's more like returning to normal. If I drove 10,000 miles per year when gas was cheap, but cut back to 8,000 miles per year, then I might return to 10,000 per year if gas got cheap again or I got a more efficient car. But that's not to say I'd suddenly jump to, say, 15,000 per year just for the hell of it.
#4042 of 4045 Re: AP CFC analysis [dodgeman07] by ingvar Nov 06, 2009 (7:58 am)
Replying to: dodgeman07 (Nov 05, 2009 2:52 pm) If the "CARS" 2010 kicks in, under invoice prices could go away.
#4043 of 4045 Re: AP CFC analysis [andre1969] by ateixeira Nov 06, 2009 (8:31 am)
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 06, 2009 5:36 am) Yeah, don't crush anything that already gets 20+ or so mpg, and passes emissions.
#4044 of 4045 Rewarded the jerks for driving huge gass suckers by farout Nov 06, 2009 (11:58 am)
The cash for clunkers was a royal screw up! Think about this. We bought a new 1969 Dodge Neon. It gets 30+ mpg. The Neon has 200,000 miles on it. Because it got a epa rating of more than 19 mpg we could not use the program. However, a guy that bought a gas sucking pig of a Ford 150 that was epa rated at 15 got to trade it in on a new Ford 150 that gets 16 mpg. That is outragious! You and I paid for those who were not trying to be frugal with gas, to be rewarded for their draining our oil and gas. But we who have been carefull to get a vehicle that got good mpg, we get stuck with nothing but help pay for the idot who could care less about gas economy. Who ever thought up this cash for clunkers deserves the "purple finger of fait" Our nation needs a huge turn around and quit rewarding those who are so nonresponsible. I wonder how many dead beats with junky credit got a new vehicle because the banks saw a big down payment? It seems to me there just might be a huge repo rate of returns. TO SUM IT UP THIS WAS ONE HECK OF A SCREWED UP PROGRAM THAT FOREIGN MADE VEHICLE MAKERS MADE OUT LIKE A BANDIT! FAROUT Replies to this message: andre1969 (Nov 07, 2009 5:40 am)
#4045 of 4045 Re: Rewarded the jerks for driving huge gass suckers [farout] by andre1969 Nov 07, 2009 (5:40 am)
Replying to: farout (Nov 06, 2009 11:58 am) It gets 30+ mpg. The Neon has 200,000 miles on it. Because it got a epa rating of more than 19 mpg we could not use the program. Well, at least you're one data point to offset that other dude here on Edmunds who's always griping about his 1994 Neon! I agree though, it would have been nice if they had made a concession to people with higher-mileage cars, to encourage them to get something newer and more economical. FWIW, a Neon from that era (I'm guessing you meant "1996", and one finger just got ahead of the other when typing) is rated at 25 combined with the automatic, 28 with the stick. Not horrible numbers for the time (and considering the Neon only had a 3-speed automatic) but it wouldn't be hard to find a new equivalent car that did better. However, this bill was written mainly to benefit the dealers and manufacturers, to move stock off the sales lots. Another intended benefit was to cut dependence on oil. And by targeting the biggest guzzlers, that's where the biggest fuel savings are. If you get someone out of a 15 mpg vehicle and into a 16, you save as much fuel as getting someone out of a 25 mpg vehicle and into a 28. If someone has a 35 mpg vehicle, you'd have to get them into a 41 mpg vehicle. This bill was also intended to get money moving in the economy again. By giving people $3500-4500 to trade in a qualifying vehicle, they've gotten those same people to turn around and sign up for loans of $10K, $15K, $20K, what have you, up to whatever the MSRP limit that the gov't set. Local governments have benefitted in the form of taxes for titling and registration. Insurance companies have benefitted as liability-only clunkers are replaced by full-coverage vehicles. Lending companies have benefitted. And with this extra money going into people's pockets, theoretically they're going to spend more, so local businesses and such are benefitting. However, that one might be a double-edged sword. While buyers are putting money back into the economy in the form of car payments, titling taxes and such, it's also reducing their disposable income. That $200, 300, whatever per month is now tied up in a car loan, rather than being used for other types of consumption. This bill wasn't really written with the car buyer in mind, though. Sure, we benefitted from it if we had a qualifying "clunker" and traded on a qualifying new vehicle. But We The People were never intended to be the primary beneficiaries of this; at least, not at the point-of-sale.