Cash for clunkers ?

All i know is that I do not qualify for the clunker program. I have a 15yr Ford taurus. It makes to much milage. So who is geting these breakes? A car that makes under 18mpg . Kiss my gass.

I think that was the idea - getting gas guzzling cars and trucks off the road. I have an 11 year old Saturn which doesn't qualify either...I know it feels bad that those of us who didn't buy guzzlers don't get the same sort of incentives, but at least a lot of clunkers are being destroyed and new car sales are going up - and some folks are getting great deals.

I hope they recycle the steel.

It's a complicated program, with a lot of problems, but it shows one thing. If you want to stimulate the economy, give the money to the people who will spend it. If you consider the amount of money alloted for it ($2,000,000,000) and divide it by the amount for each one (average of $4,000), you'll see that at most 500,000 people could apply for it. I've heard it is actually more like 250,000, with the overhead involved.

What this shows is that there is a lot of pent up demand for new cars.

However, many car enthusiast groups have fought it or gotten some exceptions built into it, so that valuable classic cars will not be crushed. As it is, cars traded in on the program are supposed to be crushed within 48 hours, I think.

So? I see no problem in helping people that have inefficient vehicles to purchase cars that are gas-efficient, which they would otherwise not be able to do. It is better for their pocket, and more importantly better for the environment. It's a step that hasn't been taken in the past, and I think the concept is a step in the right direction. It may not seem fair to people that have older cars that are efficient, but they have to look at the bigger picture, at what this is trying to do. It's a step in becoming less and less dependent on non-renewable natural resources (oil). And imagine all the recycled parts/materials from the clunkers that we will be able to put to good use. Who knows, maybe down the line as the effects of this program are seen the qualifications will change so more people are included to participate in this.

Wait, I'm confused - why would anyone with a valuable classic car even be looking into this program? If it's truly a classic, why wouldn't the owner simply sell it to a collector and then buy whatever he wanted? But, for those who have some ratty, rusty, gas guzzling old clunker - this is the program for them, right?

Here's one of the "clunkers" being killed. The dealer has to put in "liquid glass" and run the engine until it is destroyed.

Killing a Clunker

How many of you don't have a car that nice?

When California established a crusher bill, one of the car magazines (Car Craft or Hot Rod) went down the line and bought an early Mustang for the $2500 price CA was offering, and did a build up on it. When it was finished, it was a gorgeous, high-performance car with cleaner exhaust that many new cars at that time.

well, personally, I've no need for an SUV that guzzles gas - don't forget, another part of the program is to get more cars/trucks on the road that get more than 18 mpg. While certainly some people have definite need for larger vechicles, there are ones out there that are more fuel-efficient than the pictured one (which, again, must be getting less than 18 mpg to qualify for the program, as I understand it).

And, back to classic cars (which I don't think many SUVs will qualify as), why would a classic owner be interested in the program - couldn't he get more on the open market? If not, why not, if it's a classic? Or maybe the incentives are worth more to people who have trashed 'classic' cars? And, don't most 'high performance' cars drink gas? Granted, I've a fondness for Jaguars and Corvettes myself - but not so much for mass-produced muscle cars that drink gas

The law requires that destruction of the engine, and the car is supposed to be crushed within 48 hours of the transaction. They specifically do NOT want any of the parts reused. That encourages more cars to be taken off the road.

Most classics that get caught up in the program are accidental, although there have been attempts to outlaw any car older than 1996. Why that year? Because that is the first year of OBD II, which makes emissions very easy to check.

I have heard of people bring in any number of '60's cars, just because they could get money for them and they needed the money. I know folks who have a 1968 Lincoln. To them, it's just an old car they don't use much. To an enthusiast, it's truly a classic. And in some of these programs, once the car gets to the head of the line, nothing can save it; it must be destroyed. Yes, a few early Corvettes have gone in the shredder!

By the way, my 2002 F150 pickup would be eligible for the clunker program, in spite of the fact it has only 50,000 miles on it and is is perfect condition. A 1998 Taurus with 200,000 miles on it, however, might not be eligible, depending on its equipment.

A lot of people don't realize they own a "classic"...they just think of it as an old car sitting in the garage. Given to someone who loves cars, it can be restored and be gorgeous! And, most people that restore cars only drive it to and from shows (if then) so they don't eat that much gas. I think it's sad that old cars which are pieces of history are being crushed.

I'm still kicking myself for getting rid of my 78' Firebird. Yeah, she wasn't the prettiest thing, but man she could move!

What is next? Outlawing automobile junk yards where people go to get used parts for their older cars? We are such a throw away society.

I understand the reasoning behind this program and agree with it.

But what about the millions of people with clunkers that would qualify, but even with the $4,500.00 in hand, cannot afford to put what is needed with it to purchase another vehicle and they cannot qualify for a loan?

Quick question for everyone... Hopefully someone can tell me if my dad's pick-up would be eligible for this program. I really don't know the fine details since my car is less than a year old ('08 Pontiac Vibe- LOVE that thing to bits, wouldn't trade it in for anything in the world) so I never had to worry about it much. My dad's truck is a 2005 GMC Sierra, over 100,000 miles on it. He's a regional manager of a fairly large logistics company, so you can see why he has so many miles on it. Would he be eligible for this program? I'm sick of seeing that gas guzzling "Big Bertha" (truck's nickname lol) wasting gasoline. I know it's not that old, and even though my dad gets fairly reasonable mileage when he does drive it (he ended up getting a 2nd car for himself last year becuz of gas $$) I know there are hybrid-type trucks out there that I know he would go for (I've turned him into an earth-loving hippie like me ).

Can we ditch Big Bertha once and for all???

(sorry I kinda interrupted the whole thread with this- I just didn't see the need to start a new thread for this simple question)

I was reading the site that was just listed and there is some interesting info there. Like for one if your car is 25 years old or older it does not qualify, about the engine and drive-train must be destroyed via liquid glass, etc... Just interesting info.

Nice to know my 11 year old Malibu does not qualify because combined it gets 21 mpg but hubby's 2000 Blazer does because its gets combined 16 mpg. But neither of us are looking to trade anything in because we can't afford a loan and do don't have the money to out right buy.

I think this program is a huge waste. Mr. Blanche went over one of the big reasons: Why destroy a perfectly useable car?

This causes two problems -
1) The parts available for used cars goes away. This makes repairing your car even more expensive than it is now. My two cars are both from the late 1990s and I cannot afford to purchase a brand new car, but I can afford a $300 repair once a year. It's great that there are newer hybrid cars out there, but who I can't afford a new one. So if I can't repair my car due to cost, and I can't buy a car due to cost, I would have to waste a lot of time going by public transit or quit a good job in a bad economy.

2) Why not give the cars to the less fortunate? A lot of the problems I hear about people not being able to find jobs is that they can't get to the job and need a car. What a perfect thing to do! Give an older car to the less fortunate so they can drive and become productive.

This could all turn out poorly if the economy continues to go down hill. These people now have brand new cars, with brand new monthly payments and a nice big raise in insurance prices. If they lose their jobs, what happens? Their new car goes away but they don't get their old car back. So now someone is possibly unemployed, with a bad mark against their credit, and no way to effectively drive to job interviews.

This government continues to waste money and hurt the poor and lower class.

I've already read an article where a group of people have turned in cars worth well under the value, gotten a new fuel efficient car, turned that car in for a used, sold that car, and bought another making nice profits along the way. Good job Barack!

I'll keep my car and donate it to Cars for Kids like I did with my first car. At least then I know if it is sold for parts or given to someone else the community is benefitting.

The idea, of course, is to get those cars off the road. Giving them to the poor would actually increase fuel usage and CO2 production.

I find it fascinating that my mothers old oil-burning 1963 Chevy Impala isn't eligible, but my pristine 2002 F-150 is.

In Germany, where the scrapping scheme has been extended due to popularity, the "clunkers" have to be at least nine years old, but there aren't any conditions regarding mileage. I suppose that means the German government is mainly interested in subsidizing the automobile industry. The bonus is €2,500 ($3,580), and has really only helped the manufacturers of small cars costing around €10,000.

The reason why mileage is not a factor is probably because most european cars are MUCH MUCH MUCH more efficient than North American vehicles. Pick-up trucks like we have here don't even really exist over there. You'd have to import in your Ford F-250 in order to have a big truck (metaphorically speaking of course). Cars are much more compact in Germany, because of the gas/diesel costs and all the older, more narrow roadways. If you imported that truck you'd have a tough time driving in Europe with it . It is also to stimulate the economy, as believe it or not they are still recovering from many years back (the "bad" years, hopefully ya know what I'm talking about)

But then the poor are without means of personal transportation. For me, it is better to have a fuel guzzling car given to a poor person to increase their ability to find/go to work/pick up their kids/run errands efficiently than to destroy perfectly good cars for the "greater good."

I was watching something on tv one day where a woman said she couldn't get a job because she had no car and had to take her child to school. Because she had to do everything by public transit that took longer and could often run behind schedule, she wasn't able to hold a steady job. Think of how much a car could improve her life - even if it is the gas guzzling kind. Hopefully, in a few years of consistent work she could afford to upgrade. But without getting that break, she has no ability to proved properly and earn money.

That is a perfect example that we need to improve our public transportation . If you look at other countries, they are MUCH better than the US with public transportation. Getting a gas guzzler will be more expensive for her to fill up gas everytime, and it really won't benefit her in the long run as it will just create more smog, which is even worse for her child, let alone the rest of the world. I understand what you're saying with it helping her have a steady job and making her life easier, but at what cost???

In every U.S. city where it's been tried, with the possible exceptions of New York and maybe Chicago, the cost of a new public transit system, especially a light rail system, is so high that it would actually cost the city less to build more parking lots and give each regular rider a $20,000 car. This includes Dallas, by the way.

First of all, our cities are not organized properly for efficient public transit. It really only works for those who live downtown, not for those who live on the edge of the city and work anywhere but downtown.

That's not to say that it can't change, over time.

My beef is that all these people who had the $$$$ to buy a gass hog in the fisrt place are getting the break. And again I put my money into my education instead of some big ass cool looking low milage pick up.


I realize that the program is good for the enviroment. Maybe the people who added to the vehical emmission GASS useing prob the most should not be rewarded?

I am car shopping now with or with out the program, I am peeved.

I heard today of the 30,000 car models produced since 1984, some 22,000 are not eligible.

Unfortunately living in a city like Los Angeles that has already been developed, adding public transportation isn't the answer. We have a highly inefficient bus system (in fact, one day when I had no car, I waited 90 minutes for a bus to show up and 6 showed up at once!) a poorly run MTA that can't reach our expansive areas, meaning that to get from where I live to downtown LA is at least a 2.5 hour drive and transferring 3 times. There are ruined freeways where a rail system was going to be built and then stopped midway effectively cutting 4 lanes on each side to 2. Anytime an improvement is attempted it is expensive, isn't completed on time, and is not as effective as it claims to be.

mrblanche is correct in that most major cities that might benefit from better transportation, adding infrastructure will only cost more.

Besides, and this is me and only me talking, after spending 3 years having to use public transportation, I will ride a horse where I need to go before ever stepping on a filthy, crowded, behind schedule bus again. I wont even go near the metro. Nope, keep the masses to the rest, I personally love my air conditioned, blast my own music, keep to myself personal vehicle.

I don't mind the trade in part- I mind that these cars are being destroyed. At least keep the parts for the used car markets, at least sell off the steel, at least donate to a trade school so that students can practice. It's the waste of a perfectly useable car that bothers me.