"What would I want to get rid of it for?" - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Emmerich · #46 08-02-2009, 10:01 PM

You miss the fact that most people that own older cars and are of the "turn the key" variety rather than a car brand fanatic, probably CAN'T AFFORD a new car and thats why they have the old car. So now they get shoved into a new car payment, higher insurance, possibly a lower quality car that won't last as long as the one they have... and so on. And lets not forget the fact that this country got into trouble by buying things IT COULD NOT AFFORD, now the government is pushing us in that direction.

And the premise of doing this for the environment is a joke, why else are 25+ year old cars excluded? These would be the biggest polluters of all. And lets not forget the negative economic impact to the dismantler industry.

Bottom line, its political BS with no positive gains outside that arena.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

I believe that you and others on this thread look at the program from the position of person who is capable of diagnosing and repairing an older vehicle.

This is the fundamental point that is missed by those that decry the program. If you own a vehicle that gets 18 mpg, but can maintain it at relatively low expense (read: do your own labor), there is an economic disincentive to get a trade-in value of only $4500. and assume a car payment on a new vehicle.

However, if you are like the vast majority of the population and understand that all a vehicle requires is for you to turn the key to "start", the program makes very good sense if you happen to own one of these older vehicles. You certainly need to seriously consider selling or trading this old vehicle anyway..........and, nobody is going to give you anywhere near $4,500. for it. So, if the government gives $4500. and the dealer gives $4500, you're $9000. closer to a brand new vehicle that gets significantly better fuel economy. If you decide to do the deal, which makes very good economic sense for you, you get a vehicle without the need for any repairs for the next five years at a cost of approximately $300. per month.

The folks who cannot see the benefits of this program are simply blind to the fact that most of the people in this country are incapable of repairing an older vehicle at a reasonable cost.

Chas H · #47 08-02-2009, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

You miss the fact that most people that own older cars and are of the "turn the key" variety rather than a car brand fanatic, probably CAN'T AFFORD a new car and thats why they have the old car. So now they get shoved into a new car payment, higher insurance, possibly a lower quality car that won't last as long as the one they have... and so on. And lets not forget the fact that this country got into trouble by buying things IT COULD NOT AFFORD, now the government is pushing us in that direction.

And the premise of doing this for the environment is a joke, why else are 25+ year old cars excluded? These would be the biggest polluters of all. And lets not forget the negative economic impact to the dismantler industry.

Bottom line, its political BS with no positive gains outside that arena.

Participation in the CARS program is strictly voluntary. Anyone wishing to hang onto their clunker can do so without even giving a reason. No one is pushing anyone. Where did you ever get that idea?

Brian Carlton · #48 08-02-2009, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

You miss the fact that most people that own older cars and are of the "turn the key" variety rather than a car brand fanatic, probably CAN'T AFFORD a new car and thats why they have the old car. So now they get shoved into a new car payment, higher insurance, possibly a lower quality car that won't last as long as the one they have... and so on. And lets not forget the fact that this country got into trouble by buying things IT COULD NOT AFFORD, now the government is pushing us in that direction.

And the premise of doing this for the environment is a joke, why else are 25+ year old cars excluded? These would be the biggest polluters of all. And lets not forget the negative economic impact to the dismantler industry.

Bottom line, its political BS with no positive gains outside that arena.

A payment of $300. per month for a new vehicle is probably within the reach of many. For those that cannot afford the new vehicle.........the program is obviously not for them, and basically not relevant to the discussion.

Bottom line is that it will generate some sales in a time of serious recession and eliminate some highly fuel efficient vehicles from the roads.

It's unfortunate that folks like yourself criticize a perfectly valid attempt to stimulate the economy a bit while simultaneously providing no alternatives.

Skippy · #49 08-02-2009, 10:42 PM

Government attempts to stimulate the economy are generally a bad idea. You can't tax your way to prosperity.

I don't like Cash for Clunkers, but I'm not getting too mad about it. Most of the cars I really like are safe. (Over 25 years old or get too good mileage)

Hatterasguy · #50 08-02-2009, 10:42 PM

They probably excluded cars after 25 years because there are so few of them on the road. Plus you start to get into classic cars that do have value, I mean who wants to see a so so 69 Mustang crushed for this program? Most of the cars that I have seen in the videos seem to be from the 90's, so just over 10 years old and getting past their prime. A lot of worthless old SUV's and vans that nobody can sell anymore.

Not to mention these days you have to actualy be able to afford the car to get a loan, its not like it was a few years ago.

Like I said before, this program targets a very narrow segment. Those people with older cars worth less than $4,500/$3,500, who can afford new cars, and do buy them. All its doing is pushing their purchasing time frame up a bit. If this program didn't exist they would have junked/traded their vehicals in on new or newer ones in the next few years anyway. All the government is doing is speeding the process a long. A nice side affect is that it forces people to trade in their SUV's on more sensible cars, a taste of $5 a gallon gas last year helps this along.

I dislike the program because I don't think my tax money should buy other people new cars. But the program is well designed none the less.

Palangi · #51 08-02-2009, 10:45 PM

Nothing new here.

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

nh500sl · #52 08-03-2009, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E150GT

I am probably going to take advantage of this deal. I know I've said before that I dont like debt and all. But If I can trade in my car and get 4500 for it, which is way more than its worth, and buy a cheap new car, I will do it. Sure it doesn't have the road presence of a w126 and its not going to be paid for right away, but it will be reliable for the next five years which is way more than I can say for my benz. I am currently looking at a Mazda 3 base model which has everything I need in a car and has just as many options as my car considering most of them are broken. With the rebate from the gov. and additional rebates, I can finance 12000 and have it paid off in less than 2 years.

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

E150GT · #53 08-03-2009, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nh500sl

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.

G-Benz · #54 08-03-2009, 04:46 AM

I looked at a 560 SEC yesterday afternoon...

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

Guy wants (sigh) $4500...

cscmc1 · #55 08-03-2009, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

what bothers me is they are taking my $4,500 to do it, when I don't have a new car myself.

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.

cscmc1 · #56 08-03-2009, 11:09 AM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

A payment of $300. per month for a new vehicle is probably within the reach of many. For those that cannot afford the new vehicle.........the program is obviously not for them, and basically not relevant to the discussion.

Bottom line is that it will generate some sales in a time of serious recession and eliminate some highly fuel efficient vehicles from the roads.

It's unfortunate that folks like yourself criticize a perfectly valid attempt to stimulate the economy a bit while simultaneously providing no alternatives.

Brian Carlton · #57 08-03-2009, 11:29 AM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cscmc1

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.

cscmc1 · #58 08-03-2009, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

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.

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.

cscmc1 · #59 08-03-2009, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

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.

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.

Brian Carlton · #60 08-03-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cscmc1

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.

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.