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.