cash for clunkers

I'm missing out on part of a BBBBBiillllllion $$$$$ freebee.

Well, maybe not free.

[ThisIsNot]

My "clunker" doesn't qualify either. It is a 1998 Ford Escort. It has over 150,000 miles on it but I am still getting about 30 MPG in the city with the manual transmission. I use that to put around town.

I purchased a 2009 Honda Civic coupe in October of last year, that is my main car. It is part of the cash for clunkers program but $4000 for that would be a rip-off as it still has less than 5,000 miles on it, smells like new, has the threads on the tires, and is rarely ever taken out (I only use it when I must travel).

I don't understand how the U.S. government expects people to buy new cars when a bunch of models from 1997, 1998, and 1999 aren't accepted.

Originally Posted by ThisIsNot

I don't understand how the U.S. government expects people to buy new cars when a bunch of models from 1997, 1998, and 1999 aren't accepted.

The current new car stock is old economy era. Once a billion dollars is spent to entice people, who bought those old economy bad choice cars as defined by cash for clunkers, to clear them out, then a new wave of enticement/penalties will be introduced to buy new economy era new production. Old economy was bad but new economy people got it fixed. New economy is good - see how it is working. Vote for me.

[squid27wfd3]

i looked up my truck on one of the local dealers sites to trade it in and they didn't even have it listed

Originally Posted by squid27wfd3

i looked up my truck on one of the local dealers sites to trade it in and they didn't even have it listed

Info1 Info2 Search by year and class (drop down menu for truck). FAQ

There is a downside to C4C. Inflation. Okay, job loss too. Well, Ford motels also. (A Ford motel is the term for low-level workers who live in their own clunker. Scrub the countryside of clunkers, and these workers become less mobile therefore even more dependent on government assistance programs.) Fewer clunkers are expected for donations to charity.

Remember the saying, The deepest cuts to ourselves are from our own swords.

Cash for Clunkers has been suspended. Now, that's funny.

Well, now I read that more money may be provided for clunkers.

Let's see if I get this right. The government buys cars for $4,500 and then destroys them. How clever is that?

Next we find that the government may be buying even more cars. Now, that's funny.

Disclaimer: I do not own a clunker.

[ThisIsNot]

They are recycling the cars. The metal of a car frame can be melted down to something new (ie tanks and other military vehicles), the parts can be recycled, and so on.

This has actually rejuvenated U.S. car sales for a few days. However, I still think that this idea is flawed. The premise behind cash for clunkers is that you will trade in your old, gas guzzling vehicle for a new fuel efficient car. I can understand that. Bring in a Suburban from the 80's and drive away with a Toyotoa Corola, Ford Focus/Fusion, whatever. However, a bunch of people are taking in their old SUVs and getting new ones. To me, that defeats the entire purpose. Sure, the new SUV gets better gas mileage but not by much.

I also saw footage of people who were driving away with new Ford Mustangs. Again, that defeats the purpose as Mustangs aren't fuel efficient.

Maybe I should run for President and then choose netbooking as my Secretary of State (since we all know that they have more power than the Vice President).

[fewt]

Originally Posted by ThisIsNot

They are recycling the cars. The metal of a car frame can be melted down to something new (ie tanks and other military vehicles), the parts can be recycled, and so on.

This has actually rejuvenated U.S. car sales for a few days. However, I still think that this idea is flawed. The premise behind cash for clunkers is that you will trade in your old, gas guzzling vehicle for a new fuel efficient car. I can understand that. Bring in a Suburban from the 80's and drive away with a Toyotoa Corola, Ford Focus/Fusion, whatever. However, a bunch of people are taking in their old SUVs and getting new ones. To me, that defeats the entire purpose. Sure, the new SUV gets better gas mileage but not by much.

I also saw footage of people who were driving away with new Ford Mustangs. Again, that defeats the purpose as Mustangs aren't fuel efficient.

Maybe I should run for President and then choose netbooking as my Secretary of State (since we all know that they have more power than the Vice President).

That's not true at all. V6 mustangs get 29MPG highway, and my V8 gets 26 (per the dashboard computer and my fuel expense spreadsheet). While they aren't 50MPG penny racers, they are pretty fuel efficient.

Funny though, according to the EPA my 2008 mustang qualifies for the full 4500 trade in.

The car business has had a long history of recycling. A trade in was fixed up or maybe just washed and resold in the used car market. Parts houses did business because owners with older cars used the DIY and repair markets. Salvage yards would sell replacement parts then eventually smash cars so metal could be reclaimed. C4C is not about recycling. It was already getting done.

The billions of dollars used to bail out the car companies and now used to support C4C will have to be paid back. The US borrowed the money from some country and now must tax us to pay it back or print more paper to drive up inflation. Each hour, each day, each month, each year that the US runs a deficit will reduce what budget money we have for our own use. C4C is not about helping the economy.

For countries or people, the rules are the same about money, fuel dependence, housing markets or jobs and computers. Unless your income exceeds your outgo, your upkeep will be your downfall.

[ThisIsNot]

Originally Posted by fewt

That's not true at all. V6 mustangs get 29MPG highway, and my V8 gets 26 (per the dashboard computer and my fuel expense spreadsheet). While they aren't 50MPG penny racers, they are pretty fuel efficient.

There is a reason why your Mustang qualifies... I am sorry but 26 MPG and 29 MPG (both being highway) are not fuel efficient (these are opinions so my statement can't be false, it is just what I have been observing). Sure, they are better than older models that used to get much less but they can't hold a light to fuel efficient vehicles such as the Honda Civic, Ford Focus, whatever Toyota has, and so on. My Civic gets over 30 MPG in the city and about 42 MPG on the highway, that is a fuel efficient engine (it is not a hybrid). My grandparents have a new Ford Focus that gets a little less than that. There is also a reason why cars, such as the Mustang, carry that gas guzzler tax.

The rules have changed as far as fuel efficiency goes. There used to be a time when 26 MPG on the highway was pretty good. Not anymore. Increasing technology and the ever increasing gas prices (anyone remember when prices were above $4 a gallon not too long ago?) means that the area for fuel efficient vehicles has increased.

The same thing goes for engine power. For example, 280 HP used to be a lot for a V8 engine. Now Chevy is squeezing out over 300 HP in their V6 Comaro. 280 HP just isn't what it used to be.