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
Automotive News & Views Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?
4110 messages, Last post on Nov 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
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?"
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 05, 2009 9:05 pm) http://www.freeelectriccar.com/?gclid=CNT8rLLS9Z0CFSQNDQodnXy0pg |
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 05, 2009 1:05 pm) 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?
|
|
|
Replying to: stephen987 (Nov 05, 2009 5:06 pm) 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. |
|
|
Replying to: dodgeman07 (Nov 05, 2009 2:52 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 06, 2009 5:36 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 |
|
|
Replying to: farout (Nov 06, 2009 11:58 am) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 07, 2009 5:40 am) Would that the government display the ingenuity of the golf cart people! Regards, DQ
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 07, 2009 5:40 am) This $3 Billion is a tiny part of the overall stimulus package. This one helped one limited sector. Other parts of the stimulus help other sectors and do nothing for the auto industry. This $3 Billion is 0.38% of the overall package. Some respected economists like Paul Krugman believe that the stimulus will fail simply because it wasn't big enough!!! They believe that it should have been 50% larger at $1,200 Billion ( $1.2 Trillion ). We'll have to wait and see on this one. |
|
|
I guess the investors figured this out long ago but it didn't occur to me. Sirius is still losing money but their subscriber base increased in the last quarter as a direct result of Cash for Clunkers. There's always a lot of churn but lots of new car buyers who get the free trial of satellite radio continue their subscription. So there's another "supplier" enjoying trickle-down benefits. As do Sirius's "suppliers". Cash-for-clunkers boosts Stream client Sirius (Eye on Business)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
