Nothing new here.

Just another program to use the taxpayers money to buy votes.....

SO YOU ARE GOING FROM A MERCEDES THAT'S PAID FOR TO A CHEAP ECONO BOX THAT IS NOT. GREAT GOING.

you buy my car and drive it. I'll take $4500 for it. fixing it all the time takes all the joy out of the car anyway. I will get back into the mb game someday , but for now I'm out. Even if the program does not continue I will still buy that car. I like it. It will be paid off quickly as I am getting a cheap one. The thing is that I kept telling myself it would get better. Just a few more parts and this thing will go for a while. It hasnt happened. Its time to let it go. Its silly for me to keep infusing cash into the car. Ive burned through lot of my savings trying to keep up my car and now I have to build up my savings again and live with the fact that the money I spent is eaten by my car to never be seen again. And yes knowing my cars engine will be destroyed is a little sickening, but the amount of cash ive spent on my car is more sickening to me.

I looked at a 560 SEC yesterday afternoon...

...based on condition, probably worth about $3K

Guy wants (sigh) $4500...:rolleyes:

BINGO. I think the program's wasteful as hell, and ill-conceived, but the real kicker is that it's my tax money funding it. My wife and I save and pay cash for our cars; it's a kick in the junk to know that billions of tax dollars are going to fund vehicle purchases that are unnecessary and will just put more folks in debt.

Brian -- I think a lot of folks don't feel the program's "valid" at all; I'd be one of them. Some of us just have a harder time explaining our positions w/o sounding like stubborn jerks (too often, myself included).

I just don't see how a multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded program that encourages yet more debt is a step in the right direction. If we want to increase the fuel efficiency of cars on American roads, get the Feds to wise-up and bring us some of the nifty diesels Europe gets. Ford's got a great Mondeo wagon with a TD engine and 6 speed manual transmission that I'd die for here, but we don't get it.

If the idea is to get more money into the economy, aren't there better ways of doing that? Like maybe put those billions back into taxpayers' hands in the first place? Or, at the very least, don't use it to buy cars that you immediately destroy. It seems utterly ludicrous to take cars with healthy motors and intentionally destroy them, especially when they're being traded in for cars may get incrementally better mileage. Why not allow them to be parted out intact? Make them salvage-only, at least, and let those cars continue to earn a little money. Surely that could be accomplished.

I sure can get frustrated at the problems our Saab can exhibit, but then I remind myself that the $300 I spend on a turbo core one time is about what we'd be paying monthly for a new car. We have one debt -- our home, which we hope to have paid off in 10 years or so -- and I intent to keep it that way as long as I can. I can acknowledge that there are certainly cars being traded in under this program that are on the wrong side of the "point of diminishing returns" scale, but all (or even most) of them? And is it a wise use of billions of taxpayer dollars to destroy all those engines and encourage further personal debt?

That's the angle many of us are taking. I can acknowledge the points you offer, and I hope you can appreciate the argument I'm making.

We could argue the best way to utilize monetary subsidies from the government until we're both 90 years of age and there would be no consensus. My opinion regarding the validity of the program is completely separate from the discussion of whether the money is best utilized elsewhere. I simply believe the program will generate the benefits that were intended............nothing more.

At the present time, the economy could use a boost with regard to auto sales. The program gives a push to those who have an old vehicle and could not otherwise afford a new vehicle without the assistance. Sooner or later, their old vehicle requires replacement anyway...........assistance or not. This benefit allows them to acquire a new vehicle rather than another older vehicle. The program won't work for everybody and the fact that it doesn't work for everybody has no affect on it's validity.

The program will increase the overall fuel economy for the vehicles on the road by an insignificant, incremental amount. However, any benefit is worthwhile, IMHO.

The vehicles that are traded in under the program have their engines disabled. The remainder of the vehicle can be salvaged, AFAIK. I also agree that the multitude of parts from these vehicles should be salvaged. The intent of the program, apparently, is to prevent the use of the engine in another vehicle. I don't see any downside to that.

You, like most others on the thread, are a capable fellow and can fix your own vehicle. Unfortunately, most people can't. You take a condescending attitude to those who are unable or unwilling to fix their own vehicle and, in a pompous way, tell them that they are not all that smart to purchase a new vehicle.

Unfortunately, you're incorrect because you fail to see the issue from their perspective.

Will I take part in the program............of course not. Will many others who need reliable transportation take part............definitely............and they should.

Wow. Didn't expect that from you at all, Brian. Pompous and condescending? I thought I offered a pretty polite reply to your post.

Anyone ever read the Car Talk guys, Click & Clack? They almost always recommend that folks fix their cars rather than trade them in on new. I don't think that's pompous or condescending at all. Is it unreasonable to suggest consumers educate themselves ever so slightly so that they can find a reliable indy mechanic and keep their car on the road? It would sure beat (potentially) creating another over-spending mess by encouraging yet more personal debt.

Perhaps you missed the part where I acknowledged that I understood some points of the "other" perspective, so I'll do it again. I may indeed be wrong on this issue, and, frankly, I hope that I am. It would be nice to see a LONG TERM fix to the economy that works; I would gladly eat crow if it meant that we'd see some improvements in that arena.

As an aside, can anyone confirm which parts must be destroyed? I have heard "the drivetrain," to include the transmission and rear end. That's the most common phrase and explanation I've run across, which seems pretty silly.

And Brian, I'd have to disagree again that destroying a perfectly good engine has no downside. I think we ought to use up what we've got, and in the meantime encourage the introduction of smaller diesel (and hybrid or electric, if that's your cup of tea) vehicles in the US. No sense destroying good motors that can help keep another car on the road for a bit longer. That's one less new car (that may potentially not even get 4 mpg better mileage) that needs to be built.

My comments were not directed at you personally, although I quoted you.........more toward some others on the thread.

Sure, I listen to Click and Clack all the time. A reliable indy mechanic is still going to cost them a small fortune to keep an old vehicle in decent condition. Furthermore, how would the average person vet a mechanic? It's not easy for those with some skills...........

This program is certainly not a long term fix to the economy. It's just a short term, stopgap measure.

Thanks for the clarification, though I am perplexed that you quoted me and made some rather pointed statements.

Anyway, back on topic. What percentage of the "clunkers" being traded in would average more than $250-300/month (an average car payment, not to mention the increased costs of insurance and routine maintenance) to maintain? I would guess a slim few would fit that level of deficiency. In those cases that do, yes, the car needs to go.

As for vetting a mechanic, I've always found that simply asking around is amazingly productive. There are certainly jobs I don't want to mess with, and I have a good idea of what shops in town are fair and honest. I'll patronize those shops and frequently advise others to do the same.

I think if folks take the time to research the issue, it would be more financially wise to maintain most of these "clunkers" than to assume the costs of new car ownership, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

If I look at the SD over the years, it costs about $1K per year in parts to maintain it...........maybe a bit more. If you add the labor, you're close to $2500............and you still have an old car.

These folks can get into a brand new vehicle for about $3600. per year. Sooner or later, they must get into something else............this just accelerates the process.

If you're speaking strictly from a financial standpoint, I agree, the new car can never make sense when the depreciation is taken into account and compared to the old vehicle.

Wow -- that's a bundle. Every Benz I've owned has cost about that to get "up to par" initially, but once they're caught-up, they have performed very well for minimal parts/labor investments. Of course, they're never perfect, but I can live with little issues. Small price to pay to avoid new car payments (no pun intended), and I don't need a "perfect" car by any stretch.

Just the facts:

http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.com/cash-for-clunkers-final-rule.pdf


The CARS Act requires a dealer that receives an eligible trade-in vehicle under
the program to certify to the Secretary of Transportation, as prescribed by rule, that the dealer will transfer the vehicle (including the engine block), “in such manner as the Secretary prescribes,” to a entity that will ensure that the vehicle will be crushed or shredded, and will not be sold, leased, or exchanged. While Congress authorized the agency to promulgate a rule, it did not define “manner” or otherwise speak directly to its meaning. NHTSA interprets “manner”15 to include the methods applied by the dealer and
the condition of the vehicle transferred by the dealer. Specifically, the agency is prescribing in today’s rule that the dealer is to transfer the trade-in vehicle with its engine permanently disabled, as detailed below......
***

VI. Costs and Benefits

The CARS Act will have various economic, employment, safety and
environmental effects. The employment impacts of the Act will affect NHTSA, and may affect manufacturer and dealer employment. At this time, NHTSA is planning to hire 30 employees and over 200 contractor employees to handle this program over a period of 6 onths. Manufacturers’ and dealers’ employment levels are unlikely to be impacted by the Act. The impact of the Act will most likely not be large enough to increase production by manufacturers, and dealers on average will only be selling an additional 12
vehicles (250,000 estimated number of vehicles sold during the program divided by 19,700 dealers as of early 2009) during the course of the program..........

§ 599.304 Payment to dealer.
Upon completion of review of an application for reimbursement from a registered dealer that satisfies all the requirements of this part, the agency shall reimburse the dealer, by electronic transfer to the account identified under the process in § 599.200(c) of this part.

So, the dealer, once he gets thru a ton of paperwork, gets the money in an electronic transfer. What's he do with the money? Pay GM or Ford for the cars? Pay the bank on his floor plan? Pay down other loans or bills? Probably some combination of these will soak up most of the dealer $$ received.
"Stimulate the economy"? Hire more workers? Don't think so. My $.02:rolleyes:

edit: I think that the rules define a person to include corporations, partnerships, etc. Your business should be eligble too. But it's all in the link.

I'm always surprised when I see a car off on the side of the road with hood open and someone leaned over the engine that it never seems to be an old clunker.

Job Creation ?? Not at GM
 

GM: Layoffs possible after too few take buyouts, early retirements

Robert Snell / The Detroit News

General Motors Co. may start laying off hourly workers later this year because only about 6,000 employees accepted buyout and early retirement offers.

That's far short of the 21,000 job cuts GM has said it needs to make this year as part of its court-ordered restructuring.

The total, announced Monday morning, helps GM cut hourly costs, close the gap in pay with foreign automakers that build vehicles domestically and could clear the way for GM to eventually hire lower-paid workers. Since 2006, about 66,000 U.S. hourly workers have accepted buyouts and early retirements.

GM emerged from bankruptcy court July 10 after a dramatic restructuring and $50 billion in federal aid but said in a viability plan filed with the U.S. government that it needs to cut its hourly work force by 21,000 jobs by the end of the year.

The 21,000 figure may need to be revised depending on whether vehicle sales improve this year and if some of the 13,000 retirement-eligible United Auto Workers members eventually retire.

"But even if they can start building again, GM needs turnover to get lower-cost employees in there to be competitive with the Japanese who are building here," said auto analyst Aaron Bragman of IHS Global Insight.

In the 2007 labor agreements with Detroit's Big Three, the UAW agreed to slash starting wages and benefits for newly hired workers to $14 an hour.

About 40 percent of those UAW members who accepted the most recent offers were skilled trade employees and 35 percent accepted buyouts by the July 24 deadline.

"We are pleased with the number of eligible employees who participated in the attrition program," Diana Tremblay, GM's vice president of labor relations, said in a prepared statement. "One of the very tough, but necessary actions to position the company for long-term viability and success is to reduce our total U.S. workforce, both hourly and salaried employees."

The offers were open to most of GM's 54,000 hourly workers. The retirement offers include $20,000 cash and a $25,000 vehicle voucher. Workers with more than 20 years are eligible for $115,000 in cash and a $25,000 voucher to quit early.

It is the second round of buyout and early retirement offers this year and about 13,000 UAW members have accepted the offers this year.

Accepting a buyout is still risky, particularly in Michigan, where workers face a difficult time finding other jobs or selling their homes so they can seek employment in another state, analysts have said.

GM also is slashing salaried ranks by 20 percent and executive employees by almost 35 percent as part of broad restructuring moves.

GM started the year with 29,650 white-collar workers and wants to have 23,500 at the end of the year.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090803/AUTO01/908030376/GM++Layoffs+possible+after+too+few+take+buyouts++early+retirements

I don't think that it's out of line as compared to others. Most folks fail to keep a detailed log on the expenses and a few dollars here and there over the course of a year easily adds up to $1K.

I recently did some front end work, tires, wheels, radiator, and grille. The cost is going to be about $1.5K. You can drive an old car and not perform this work............but, it won't drive anywhere close to the new car that you decry.

I'm of the firm belief that those who have "minimal parts/labor investments" are in a state of denial regarding the deterioration of the various systems.

Oh, I don't decry new cars. Someone's got to make/buy them so I can buy them in 5 or 10 years. :grin: I just don't think for a moment that the "brand new smell" and a few other amenities are worth the cost of personal debt, but I also understand that's just a personal preference. I can certainly understand, for instance, wanting a much newer car for a wife and young child to be traveling in. There are always considerations, and I fully acknowledge that. I don't care if someone wants to buy a new car; I care when they are using my tax dollars to help do it, and the "undesirable" cars are being swapped out and essentially destroyed in the process. How terribly wasteful.

Funny you should mention cost logs -- all of my receipts are filed away for the parts and labor on the Jetta, Benz, and Saab. I also keep a log of every fillup for the Jetta and Benz, and in the same notebook I record every fluid change, repair, dates of winter/summer tire swaps, etc... I even have the installation of the EGR bypass kit you sold me for the W124 recorded in there (date and mileage). I suppose I ought to go back and look those lists over; it would make an interesting study regarding costs. Of course, the W124 is down with a blown head gasket at the moment. Grrrrr...

Anyway, tell me more about this implied state of denial -- that has my curiosity piqued. I have genuinely NOT intended to be a smarta$$ in any of my replies, but I get the repeated sense that you enjoy throwing barbs my way here and there.

I'm not enamored with buying a new car for those folks, either. I've never owned a new car and don't expect to ever own a new car............so, I'd prefer not to assist them in getting one. However, once the government has chosen to bail out the economy in this fashion, I'm not terribly opposed to the program. The "undesirable" cars must go eventually, anyway. This just hastens the process.

You may keep very detailed records of all your expenses and you might find that the cost of maintaining one of those vehicles will be $500 per year. I suggest to you that the real cost of maintaining the vehicle is far greater than $500 per year and you choose to allow the various systems to wear out. Somewhere along the line, you're looking at $5K required to bring it half way back to a reliable vehicle. But, what usually happens is that the vehicle is sold, or scrapped, and the owner effectively "used up" the vehicle. There's nothing wrong with that approach but to conclude that repairs were less than $500. per year puts the individual in a state of denial regarding the condition of the vehicle.

I once made the statement that I could probably take a look at 90% of the vehicles that are on the forum and find $2K worth of work that's required without searching too hard. I stand by that statement. It's very costly to keep these vehicles at close to factory specifications............and most of us are fine with the fact that they are not there. But, I don't think you, or anyone else, should be in denial about it.

How is this any different than helping a home owner with his mortgage by him getting a tax deduction that a non-owner doesn't get?

What on earth makes you think that I deny that my old cars don't meet new specs? I have already admitted that that's the case, and that I'm OK with the fact. I really don't think that qualifies as denial, does it? Maybe I'm reading that last reply the wrong way, but I'm not following the "denial" accusation.

Otherwise, I understand your position, but there will (hopefully) always be some of us who'd rather spend a few grand to properly fix a car rather than spend exponentially more on a new car, and go into debt doing so. I have already acknowledged that there is a point of diminishing returns with cars, and presumably you read that. I have not suggested that anyone keep throwing money at a car that's beyond repair, but I would argue that too many of the cars being junked under the new program are far from "beyond repair."

Anyway, I'm not sure I've effectively communicated my thoughts of the Cash for Clunkers program. Suffice it to say that I think it's bad for the environment AND bad for the economy (inasmuch as it will generate yet more debt). Nothing wrong with buying a new car if it floats your boat, but do it on your own dime, not mine, and please don't destroy what's left of your trade-in's drivetrain in the process!

EDIT: please, folks, don't lump me in with the crowd arguing that it's sacrilege to dump a Benz for a new Hyundai. That alone is a matter of personal preference, and owners can do as they please with their cars. It's when the government gets it's hands involved in the process and perfectly fine automobiles are being destroyed and personal debt grown that I get my feathers ruffled.

Yeah smart move, dumping an old money pit for a reliable high MPG car.:cool:

Not sure if you've followed this thread but it gave me a better picture of some of the people on here...

Maybe I read your response incorrectly, but it appeared that your costs were far less than the $1K that I mentioned as the bare minimum necessary to keep an older vehicle "close" to factory specs. Others have spent far more to have a mint vehicle. If you maintain a budget that's significantly lower than $1K and agree that the vehicle is slowly working its way to a non-reliable condition, then there's no denial.

We really don't know the condition of the cars that are being turned in under the program............do we? They may be far worse than you or I might guess.

The program will decrease fuel consumption, and, therefore be desirable for the environment. Sure, it increases the waste stream momentarily, but the retirement of said vehicles will occur anyway............this just hastens the process.

The impact to the economy with regard to more debt is negligible considering the huge expenses that have been spent elsewhere.

I completely agree with BC with the average upkeep costs on older cars. $1000-$1500 is about what I spend a year per car after the initial sorting out period on my two long term vehicles. The others I fixed what was needed, or disclosed what was wrong, and let the next owners deal with upkeep.

I am curious how the E500 and Wagoneer are going to perform, since I intend keep them for a while.

Good point. I am sure there are some real beaters in the bunch, but I also just read an article in the local rag about the program wherein a young couple said they were going to trade in a minivan with 53K miles on it. "Nothing wrong with it" was the quote, but the trade-in was less than what the program was giving them, so off it goes, to have it's 53K mile engine (and possibly transmission?) destroyed purposely.

Why such modest demands for increased mileage, then? Why not just shake up the Fed regs and let some of those nice Euro diesels over here? Let folks see what REAL economy looks like.

That's a moral relativity argument that I disagree with, but I obviously have to concede that we waste far too much money in this country. I just don't think that justifies a poorly thought out Cash for Clunkers program.

Well, if the door is hitting me on the way out, it's hitting my wallet that still has cash in it and I'm sure that I'm going the right direction from inside the burning building and out where I have a chance to survive...economically. Thanks for the "ass-warning" - I like that advice when it's given in the right circumstances! :thumbup1:

As for the "...your (you're) to (too) narrow minded..." crack... ( :rolleyes: ) see if anyone can explain to us "thinned-gray-mattered folks" where the "Cash For Clunkers" cash is actually coming from?

The "Green Tree" down the street?

Little Miss Muffett's tuffet?

That pot at the end of the rainbow?

Johnny: OH!!!!! I KNOW!!!!! I KNOW!!!!! PICK ME!!!!! PICK ME!!!!
Teacher: OK! Johnny? Where is the "Cash For Clunker" cash coming from?
Johnny: It's coming right from your @**!!!!

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Oh, did we happen to forget that little part?

What comes from the Gubment was already taken from us (or will be by the 15th of next April) and we won't be getting 100% of it back...either.

So, enjoy the "free cash" before you open your eyes folks...it might seem a slightly different color when you really realize where you're heading...again...in your financial future...

I avoided it the first time (Except in the 401(k) area! :eek: :rolleyes:), but I'm not steering myself anywhere near this branch in the logic road...it's a dead end street and there's nothing but bankers waiting at the end of it to pick u'all clean...

Enjoy that ride...again...but this time, take a little snowball with you...it might help cool you down as you go rollin' down...whereever... :rolleyes:

Let's go with that estimate, which is not unreasonable -- that's about $100/month for maintenance. For me, that's far preferable to a car payment that could be triple that figure, plus added insurance costs and dealer maintenance (to maintain the validity of the warranty). I won't even go into the economics of depreciation on a new car.

I just don't think this new program is encouraging sound financial decision-making. Quite the opposite, it's encouraging debt spending when folks ought to be looking at conservation instead. But, there I go again with the personal preference thing; sorry. My real beef is that we're all funding this wastefulness with our tax money.

Anyway, no ill-will intended to anyone (particularly BC, who I replied to frequently). I do indeed appreciate your points, but just find too many of the details of this program too distasteful.

But, that's the problem...a $300.00/month payment where they didn't have one to begin with.

My tax dollars are going to a program that is stimulating...what? Everyone? Nope, just the automotive industry and its inefficient system that's still in place...and the program is being overseen by an even-more inefficient system...our own gubment. Anyone need a $300.00 valve-stem cap?

Generated sales are one thing...artificially generated sales are a whole different matter. Why are we taking something that's still perfectly good and trashing it out? And all of this is based on junk-science and backed-up by arm-chair experts that have text-book knowledge but little, or no, real-world experience with any of it.

This is another example of "Chicken Little" screaming that the sky if falling and no one is TAKING THE TIME AND COMMON SENSE to correct a serious problem...

Throw money at it...it will get better...

BS!

That's my money! (And for those of you that haven't figured it out yet...it's your money, too! (;))

Spend it right or lose your job!

If people were smart, they'd start to demand that all the middle management jobs that are in the big 3 be scaled back drastically.... That excess baggage causes more costs than the wages they consume. They'd be wise to get rid of all of that, and reduce the price of the vehicles.... The big 3 will lose sales to companies that have done something like this...
They don't need to cut assembly staff, just the middle management....

All of your points are quite valid. However, we need to distinguish between the two groups of people:

1) Those that really want a new car...........if they can afford it.

2) Those that see the very apparent fact that a new vehicle costs significantly more than an old one...........even when $2500 per year is factored in for repairs.

Those in the former group are going to buy that vehicle, if they possibly can. The government is simply facilitating that behavior. Like it or not, if everyone in the US behaved fiscally conservative, every single new car dealer would be out of business. The fact that this does not occur will clearly tell you that there is a very good business in new cars (despite the current recession). Consider it in the category of "you can't take it with you".

Those in the latter group see the significantly greater expense for a new vehicle and can't justify it.

Let's restrict all our comments on the thread to the former group...........and we can also agree that the latter group is absolutely correct............but, it's OT for the purposes of this discussion.

Therefore, your argument is restricted to the fact that the government is paying for those in the first group to gain access to a new vehicle. It's a valid argument and I certainly don't disagree with it. I do see the program as stimulating some auto sales at a time when the economy desperately needs a push............and that can't be a bad thing............considering the minimal expense involved.

Just a random thought...

A friend of mine has driven 289k miles in a '89 Nissan Pathfinder, he bought it new. It runs like great, and it doesn't use any oil.

I just helped him diagnose why it wouldn't rev past 3000rpm. The Nissan only shop he took it to first told him to junk it, and them gave him a quote of $1500 for new T.B.I. injectors.

It turns out the throttle body was fine, and the reason one injector was dead(it went into fail-safe mode to protect itself, ergo the rpm limit of 3k) was because the computer was bad and wasn't groung out one injector. $50.00 and a phone call to a junkyard later it was running like a top again.


My theory is that once a car gets past a certain mileage point and is running well, it will last almost forever.

For as much as people poke fun at Jaguars, I have a '90 Vanden Plas with 190k miles and it runs great. Yes, all the electric goodies still work.