Cash for Clunkers Program
 

Do you guys know about this? have questions?

The official rules will be delivered the 24th, but I have a rough understanding of how this is going to work. Up to $4500 for taking your gas guzzler off the road and buying an efficient car begins this Friday.

info here

mpg ratings here

linkto a pdf of the actual law

So my last car, an '82 Buick Century, isn't eligible. It was too old.

I just wanted to say that that's dumb. It's exactly the kind of car that should be taken off the roads. Well, I suppose full size vans, trucks, and SUV are worse.

What are they going to do with these clunkers? Melt them down?

they have to be crushed. engines and drivetrains may not be parted out, but other bits an pieces may.

They're smart that you have to prove you've had the car for a year. Otherwise people would be buying clunkers just for the trade in potential.

Exactly Glatt. I was skeptical, but those two points answer a lot for me. I was saying to J, what, you can go on Craigslist, buy a $500 beater, and get $4500 for it? OK, no you can't.

This is the part that concerns me:

ok....so...like....how do you know when they run out of money? it's going to take a few weeks for the dealer to get paid after the deal is done..... scary

So you just repossess the cars, right? If the buyer won't pay you back?

Oh the irony...:eyebrow:

The most over priced cars:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/01/ove...ner=yahooautos

Same thing they would do to that car if you traded it in - scrap it for spare parts.

Drove a newer version of that same car in the early 1990s. It was all over the road. Even my 1980 Honda Accord in that same month was more stable. Keeping that car on the road was a tribute to the mechanic and the attention of its driver at all times.

Makes no sense to buy a clunker when its very design makes it all but amazing it is still one the road. Would you melt down a miracle?

I can't believe the Wrangler and Liberty are on the list but the Commander isn't... and they have the Wrangler msrp at $28,000 but they start at less than $22,000. Hmmm.

I didn't go to the link yet to read it because I'm in a rush, but I watched the session in Congress on CSPAN when they first passed it in committee, and it is a bad bill. First of all, you have to buy a new car, you can't get a used one. Second, if you're getting rid of a gas guzzling SUV, you only have to buy a new one that gets ONE MORE MPG, and if it's a car, FOUR MORE MPG. That is seriously fucked up. If they were going to do it, it should have been for much better gas mileage, and you should be able to get a used car. This is just another giveaway to the auto companies.

Dianne Feinstein and Olympia Snow were working on a much better bill. I hope some of their ideas got incorporated into this one before it passed the full Congress.

Remember what those who would pervert any soluton want. More SUVs. Why does an SUV have a large engine compartment? Then the world's crappiest cars can still use 1968 technology engines. Then the vehicle need not be an 'integrated' design.

Congress is a cross section of many opinions. Some want vehicles that even a bean counter could design. That is an SUV - designed by bean counters - no innovations - 1968 technology engines. SUV have minimal engineering and exemptions from many design and safety requirements.

paraphrasing:
'i didn't read the link, but i DID want to misquote some information'

(mean comment deleted before posting)

it really depends on what you think the objective of the action is. I think it will definitely stimulate some sales. it will have a minor positive effect on emissions, too. what is more important today?

The program in a nutshell.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/fresh-gr...-clunkers.html

The costs and potential pitfalls.

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/c...009-06-10.html

That looks just like mine Glatt. And mine is a 92'

yeah, you're right. I did a Google image search and came up with that picture. I didn't have a picture of mine handy. I don't think the picture is an '82. The lights look different, and mine had a padded vinyl top.

This is an '82 and is much closer to the way mine looked. Good comfortable car for road trips, but that's about it. A POS otherwise.

AS I SAID, I was quoting WHAT I HEARD while watching the bill go through committee. THEN I WENT ON TO SAY... Dianne Feinstein and Olympia Snow were working on a much better bill. I hope some of their ideas got incorporated into this one before it passed the full Congress.Geez. :rolleyes:

i was just pointing out that you're stupid.

Do you enjoy being an asshole or is it just a gift?

sometimes it's both.

understand my perspective. I put up a thread because I'm in the car business, and thought people might want to find out about this program. I offered to answer questions.

Why did you find it necessary to post your incorrect opinion as though it were fact even though i had linked the actual information and offered to clarify any questions?

didn't have enough time to read the link.....you were in a rush? and yet you had time to post incorrect information, and the judgement that this is a bad program.

you're like a stupid version of Aliantha. jesus.

This is a chart I remember seeing as well. In fact, I think I posted it somewhere, although it may have been on another site.


Cash For Clunkers – Car Allowance Rebate System Overview
Summary of Car Allowance Rebate System - Cash for Clunkers Voucher Qualifications
Min. Fuel Economy for New Vehicle $3,500 Voucher $4,500 Voucher

Passenger Car 22 mpg * Mileage improvement of at least 4 mpg - $3,500 Voucher Mileage improvement of at least 10 mpg - $4,500

Light-Duty Truck ** 18 mpg * Mileage improvement of at least 2 mpg - $3,500 Voucher Mileage improvement of at least 5 mpg - $4,500

Large Light-Duty Trucks *** 15 mpg * Mileage improvement of at least 1 mpg - $3,500 Voucher or trade-in of a work truck Mileage improvement of at least 2 mpg - $4,500

Commercial trucks ****
Trade-in must be at least pre-2002



http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.com/

I believe that is what I said?

Glatt, whats the deal with that picture? It looks like it could be out of a Cohen brothers movie...:p

According to the chart I just posted, I wasn't wrong AT ALL in the requirments I posted. Even according to the link you provided, I wasn't wrong. And I specifically said I had not read the link YET because I was in a hurry (I have now read the link), and that I was going by what I had I seen in committee.

I am happy you were posting something to help people who might be in the market for a new car. Good for you. I STILL think the bill Feinstein and Snow were working on would have better because it would have benefited more people. Not everyone can afford a new car right now, but many people who can't might could afford a used one. Why is it taboo to say so?

Fargo!

Tan Ciera! Tan Ciera!

:lol:

THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID:

An SUV is like JEEP.....a Class 2 Truck is like an F350

most people here don't drive heavy pickups

you do this repeatedly. i've told you about it before. you form an opinion in a blink and then immediately begin to spout it as fact. I don't want you to do that in this thread if you wouldn't mind.

bwahahahahahaa

Looks like lumberjim has found himself a new whipping boy(girl).

Lucky you sugarpop.

This is the last thing I will post about this. This is from the FAQs page from the link you posted:
If both the new vehicle and the traded-in vehicle are category 2 trucks and the combined fuel economy value of the new vehicle is at least 1, but less than 2, miles per gallon higher than the combined fuel economy value of the traded in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If both the new vehicle and the traded-in vehicle are category 2 trucks and the combined fuel economy of the new vehicle is at least 2 miles per gallon higher than that of the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500.

The value of the credit for the purchase or lease of a new passenger car depends upon the difference between the combined fuel economy of the vehicle that is traded in and that of the new vehicle that is purchased or leased. If the new vehicle has a combined fuel economy that is at least 4, but less than 10, miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If the new vehicle has a combined fuel economy value that is at least 10 miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500.

yea. Lucky me.

bwahahahahaaa

Don't worry, you are not the first, nor will you be the last.

LJ, how's it going for you? Has this Cash for Clunkers program boosted your business? It's been almost a week.

been too busy to read the cellar.

i'm off today, but i have to get shit done around here too.

we've done 20 C4C deals since Friday. The claims process is daunting. Guess who gets to deal with that nightmare.... We have to scan a shit ton of documents, and fill out multiple page forms on the site, submit the claim, then go back in and submit the scrap certificate.....etc.

plus, we're freaking jamming busy all day. no time no time

I didn't think of that. We, too, get to bear the brunt of new government programs. It's like "here's what WE'RE gonna do...it's gonna be freaking GREAT. Now, YOU figure out the nightmare of administering it within our sketchy and complicated regulations. Guidance? You don't need no stinkin' guidance."

Hang in there!

BUT, that's better than the alternative. ;)

There's a cash-left-ometer on the page you linked to. Currently at $858M

The meter is probably approved claims, I wonder how much is in the pipeline?

Why does that make it bad? it's only very recently that manufacturers here have really been attempting to reduce the MPG, so a new car is likely to be more fuel efficient than a used one. Also, surely, we're only guessing at the MPG of a used car. Which is fine if you're getting rid of a probable gas-guzzler, but to be certain you're replacing it with something significantly more efficient surely it needs to be new which a known mpg? I suspect if the scheme were opened up to used cars, there would be much shennanigans afoot.

Also, you poo-poo the 1mpg improvement required for trucks, and yet if they are only getting 15mpg, that's 6.7% which is not insignificant. Plus clunkers are probably getting far less than that which of course increases that percentage. From what I could tell from the tables linked to in the OP, the mpg for these vehicles does not appear to have improved that much. I would say it's pretty safe to assume that most of these vehicles are on the road because either (a) they are needed for what they are used for -in which case if they are replaced it's going to be with much the same thing which is going to be impossible if you make the required mpg change much higher, or (b) they are vanity vehicles in which case their owners likely have more money than sense and are not likely to be interested in replacing them with smaller vehicles for a few grand discount -which is the only way you'll get a bigger mpg reduction. So although it doesn't sound much, maybe it's the best that can be realistically effective, and is enough that it's better than nothing? I agree that on the surface 1mpg seems like a measly figure, but i think it's a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss it out of hand. 1% is often insignificant, 1 elephant is usually not. It's all relative. and I could be stupid.

. . .

as an addendum, I may not have Jim's finesse, but I do agree that it's somewhat rude to post that you don't have time to read the link but then take the time to give your opinion on what you think it probably says, especially when your opinion -valid though it may be- is about the worth of the program and not it's workings, which was the point of the OP. It's almost trolling. You're not the only one who does it by a long way, but I generally expect better given the usual quality of your posts. Just sayin'

If it's approved claims, then they must be going through pretty quickly. I reckon it might be submitted claims.

Plenty of people post their opinions around this place without reading whole links. In fact, I'd say 100% of people around here have done. I'd be extremely surprised if anyone other than perhaps UT and maybe Bruce actually took the time to read every detail in every link before they post every time.

I'd also say that thread drift is going to happen. Just because the author of the OP doesn't happen to like the particular direction the thread has drifted to is no reason to get stuck about someone discussing a different aspect.

Should we have several threads about this one subject just to keep the pedants happy instead or just discuss the topic in one thread?

I don't think sugarpop deserves the comments she's received here, and I also think some of the points she's raised are valid regardless of whether or not they were points the author of the OP wanted raised or not.

Ms Pop directed me to the first information I read about the Cash for Clunkers program. When I posted what I'd read, from the link she directed me to, she completely changed her perspective. Not because of me, mind you, but because she forgets from one minute to the next which side she is on. :lol:

I don't think she forgets. I think she tries to see things from different perspectives.

Well I'm not entirely sure which "side" I'm on either. hey, Shaw, when did you buy your car? One of the links i read said it was being backdated to 1st july....

Yeah, but my car's government-issued mpg was far better than I actually got. It's all based on year of car, and a few other statistics, not condition of car. (The Green Machine has been a trooper, running badly but getting me to work every day!) Otherwise, I would have waited. They look at combined mileage of highway and city mileage, based on agreed upon history, and I just missed the mark.

Although, I admit I haven't read the law as set in stone, but I'm guessing that part hasn't changed.

Oh, and I bought my car end of June. lol.

I think you meant increase. ;)
They use the EPA estimated mileage that's been published for every make/model sold in the US for the last 35 years.

Seems to me, the family driving a 1980 land-yacht getting 12/14 mpg because they can't afford to trade up, and could with the help of this program buy a 2 or 3 year old car that gets 24/26 mpg, would be a good thing.

I suppose they are trying to reduce the manufacturers inventories and get the factories/employment moving, with the new car restriction. But I think they are missing an opportunity to get some of the real clunkers off the road.

What car did you have in mind here?

The damnfucking website has been crashing all day. you would not believe what you have to go thru.

you have to fill in all these fields that are pop up menus and then attach eleventy nine images of the documents you've scanned in.....and it won't goddamn save a claim until it's complete. It's crashed 3 times on me on this one application that i havent gotten in yet.

ive wasted 2 hours dicking around and gotten zero done.

its currently experiencing high traffic.

E

A

D

But is the traffic getting good mileage?

Jim says they've suspended it, think the money is all used up. He's still trying to get tonight's deals entered, but the site keeps crashing.

ouch

See? A nightmare for those who have to deal with it. Why can't government consult small and successful businesses about how to think about all that stuff ahead of time, or don't expect success?

No, the money isn't used up. Because the traffic is so heavy the site keeps crashing, they suspended it until they can figure out how to do it.

None in particular, just an example why used cars should be included, even it they stipulate a larger gain for them to qualify.

I stayed at work until 2 am scanning files and organizing the information i need to enter 10 of the 21 claims we have.....

I tried intermittently to enter claims, but was invariable frustrated by 505 internal server errors, unexpeted errors, time outs and freezing windows. i was able to submit one claim a few minutes ago when i got home....at 3:20 am.......but now ....when i log back in ....i see this:::

it's 3:51 am my time.....wtf

They also said all deals that were written before 11 pm last night would be honored.

The noon news, now says the money is almost gone, whereas the 11pm news last night said no. I wonder if they really know, with the computers jammed up?

I fear this may go the way of the other money in the Stimulus Bill. For example there were a bunch of grant money just given out for police departments. Many hired new cops. To bad the money is only for 3 years. After that the money will not be available anymore without more repeat spending, i.e. more money from the government largesse. Then what do all these police departments do? How about all the road projects that take years to complete? What happens when those monies run out?