Cash for clunkers ... ?

[Chad]

http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.com/

 

Any one going to turn in a quest for $4500?

 

My mom plans to turn in her POS 86 S-10 2.5L wonder truck that has 230K miles, it burns a quart of oil per 500 miles and cost her $400 3 years ago. She'll get a "cash for clunkers" $4500 down payment credit on a $8900 hyundai Accent. She'll have $83 monthly payments on a new car that cost her just $4400 (less than half price)

 

My wife and I are considering turning in our 98 lumina for a Nissan Altima hybrid, we'll get $4500 for the lumina (KBB value =$700). The Altima we want is $27,000, and we'll get a "cash for clunkers" $4500 down payment credit, $3500 dealer discount, $3250 Nissan rebate, $2350 federal hybrid tax credit, $1500 Oregon hybrid tax credit, so the $27,000 car will end up costing us just $11,900 :eek1bluegreen: after we do our 2009 taxes next year, for a new hybrid that gets 35-40 MPG and is stylish, powerful, and nice inside. way less than half price also...

[Shelby]

don't be suprise'd if it don't quite work out that way

[Chad]

How so? I read all the fine print on the federal website...

 

the new car has to:

 

get 10 MPG combined more than the trade in for the $4500 credit

On the offical website of allowed cars for the Oregon rebate

less than $45,000 MSRP

 

the trade in car has to be:

 

get less than 18 combined MPG

newer than 1985

running

owned by buyer atleast 1 year

be registered and insured for atleast 1 year

[Chad]

This is the list of federal rebates, a lot of the hybrid rebates have been used up, but not the Nissan, it's only half way though the 60,000 cap.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/tax_hybrid.shtml

 

Here is the Offical federal website:

 

http://www.cars.gov/

 

This is the offical government fine print if you want to read it:

 

http://www.cars.gov/files/CARS-Law.pdf

 

http://www.cars.gov/files/day-one.pdf

 

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/...forclunkers.pdf

[Big Al]

Well you'll have to let us know how it works out. I wouldn't trade a quest and unfortunately I don't have any other car that fits the bill.

[Fanta]

I just might take advantage of that with my Maxima! I calculated how much gas its using. I get 16mpg in the city V_V It leaks 1/4 quart of oil a day. Not to mention, the blown front suspension, the slipping transmission, the screaming water pump and the clicking oil pump.

 

... craaaap I just read it had to have been registered for a full year. I had it lapse temporarily when a lot went wrong on the car. It expires in Nov. too?

Edited June 28, 2009 by Fanta

[Alcyone]

too bad these don't get a mile better EPa ratings.

 

you realize the trade ins have to be destroyed?

 

this is bad news unless you have a few parts cars around.

[Guest]

Say no to cash for clunkers program! It's gonna change the used parts biz forever, it'll be the beginning to the end of getting used parts for cars, specially cars like ours. It'll force auto repairs and consumers to have to purchase NEW parts for their cars, specially NEW ENGINES/ TRANSMISSIONS and suspension components. I gurantee you these enviromentalist want to do away with used parts all together so old cars can eventually become extinct!! Don't get suckered in by the "Carrot" offering, it's a legislation designed to force all of us to buy newer "gas friendly" cars, hybrids etc.

 

I run an AUTO DISMANTLER business and believe me, this legislation and others like it are being drafted to seperate us from our freedoms to own the vehicles of our choice and eventually force us all to buy and drive these "environmental crap boxes" like Honda Hybrid etc. We've known in California for some time that the state and it's legislators (whom have sold their souls to the "environmentalists" and other interst groups) want to enact legislation to force us to do what they want!!

 

SAY NO TO CASH FOR CLUNKERS PROGRAM!!!!! It's not a program designed to help you, it's designed to put the nail in the coffin and BURY OUR CARS!!!

 

http://car-part.com/cashforclunkers/

Edited June 28, 2009 by louswheel01

[BrazilBoy]

Cool now I can finally get rid of my built 87 quest for a hyundai........................................................not

[Lusion972]

This program is weak...its not based on actual MPG that you get but what the EPA says it got back when it was brand new. This program is a failure for most people because often times the cars are worth more then the rebate they give you so its basically like trading in your car. This program also implys that you will be approved for financing...its a failed program and most people wont be tradining in their clunkers when they cant afford the car payment which is the reason they have the clunkers to begin with.

 

I really am enjoying have my tax dollars wasted on all these retarded programs that benefit no one.

[88TSI_Rob]

I hate this program as well. On top of the issue of needlessly crushing cars and reducing the availability of used parts I see (like Chad has found) lots of ways to "game" the system. I was happy to see that the program was restricted fairly heavily before it got passed, but if it's successful there's a strong possibility that it could be extended and expanded.

 

Out of curiosity I went to a few car websites and did some calculations based on letting my truck get crushed. With the $4500 credit + $2000 downpayment I believe I can get a nicely equiped Smart car for about $145/month. There are a couple around the city here and it turns out they have a 1L 3-cyl. Mitsu engine in them. There are also turbo kits available.

 

I'd never let my truck go to the crusher, but if I had some other piece of crap car I'd seriously consider it.

[Chad]

Most people won't qualify, your car has to get 18 MPG combined or less, most cars of this year range get more than that.

 

Many that do qualify are large nicer cars that are still worth $4500 or more, like sports cars,luxury-boat cars, or SUV's.

 

The only cars that will qualify are large crappy cars or old beatup trucks/vans. Everything else is either worth too much or get too much MPG's.

 

So yah, only old, crappy, beatup, gas-guzzlers get scrapped. Is that such a shame?

[Guest]

I gurantee you they won't stop there. It will get expanded to include "old" cars period. The way things are heading, they want to get old cars off the road, period. The cash for clunkers program will have all those old cars scrapped, not recycled as in sell used parts off of them, but just simply turn them back into metal to ship to China to make more junk.

 

Idealistically it sounds good. But junk yards are already scrapping those old cars and recycling the useable parts. This bill is mainly to revive new cars sales.

 

 

[Chad]

This bill is mainly to revive new cars sales.

 

Exactly...

[Guest]

Exactly...

 

I'm for reviving car sales. But not at taxpayers expense or disguising it as an "environmental" bill with repercussions that will increase the price of used parts on older cars and also make those parts more scarce.

 

We already dumped so much tax payers money to the car industries, this is just another method to throw more money at them at our expense. I do understand the repercussions if new car sales don't get any better and what that will do to used cars and used parts. But I don't think this bill will do any real good.

[Chad]

they have given about $90 billion to the manufacturers so far, and for what? This $1 billion is effectivly being given to the people and will sell about 500,000 new cars. If doing so can remove a few gas guzzlers from the roads, and spur some much needed sales at strugging dealerships, I suppose they may as well.

 

I get your point, I just don't think this is going to have the effect you think. It will remove certain cars only, not any/all cars.

[mikec]

It's also a "let's look good" investment for the gov't. They "invest" $4500 for old cars as a way to provide bailout money to car companies. Folks use that money to buy a new car and start repaying the investment as:

* sales tax on the new car

* property taxes year after year. I guarantee the yearly taxes on that new car are WAY higher than the clunker being traded in.

In the mean time, it gives the appearance the gov't cares about "the people working for the struggling car companies" and, when twisted right, about "being green by getting old smoggers and/or gas guzzlers off the road."

 

California has been "paying" to have "gross polluters" removed for years now - if a car flunks a smog test by a factor of 2 on any of the 3 tested emissions, it is probably eligible for the "cash to junk it" program - the car has to drive (under its own power) to a junkyard; have something resembling one front seat, and working tail lights or something like that - i.e. just enough to have been street legal. The yard is required to crush it quickly - no dismantling allowed. The cash back is recovered by California within 2 years of property taxes on the new vehicle; let alone whatever sales tax there was on the new car.

 

For folks with old dying beaters, that are worthless to them, the program makes sense: they get way more than they think the beater is worth. That might be true; it might not be - parted out it might be worth a lot more. 95% of the population wouldn't consider that though so Cali gets what it wants: cars 8+ years old off the roads, and future big tax payments. For a paltry $1000 or $2000 investment; I forget the exact amount.

 

So now the Feds want to do something similar to Cali's program, for a different reason. The Feds probably won't recoup as much of the investment dollars since property taxes and sales taxes are a state thing but they'll get some money anyway - if nothing else, from business income taxes of dealers and car manufacturers from the increased sales. And politicians get to say "I did something to save your jobs" to their voters back home. They won't word it as "I did something STUPID to save your jobs" though.

 

In a free market economy, it's not really legal for a gov't to throw money at a company - i.e. subsidies. In theory at least. This "buy back" program is one way around that. Stimulating sales IS legal; flat-out giving money (subsidies) to the car companies technically not legal. Low interest loans are legal. There's an international fight going on between the US and the European Union, in international court, over "subsidies" given by EU nations to Airbus. The EU/Airbus counter that all the research money & business given by the US Gov't to "defense contractors" is an underhanded subsidy to those companys that do both defense work AND commercial work.

 

Look at the way Japan does it... car taxes INCREASE as the car gets older if I understand it correctly. It becomes financial suicide to keep a car more than a few years... that's why there are all those low mileage Japanese engines/trannies available for import - perfectly good cars are turned in because taxes are too high.

 

mike c.

 

[Guest]

It's also a "let's look good" investment for the gov't. They "invest" $4500 for old cars as a way to provide bailout money to car companies. Folks use that money to buy a new car and start repaying the investment as:

* sales tax on the new car

* property taxes year after year. I guarantee the yearly taxes on that new car are WAY higher than the clunker being traded in.

In the mean time, it gives the appearance the gov't cares about "the people working for the struggling car companies" and, when twisted right, about "being green by getting old smoggers and/or gas guzzlers off the road."

 

California has been "paying" to have "gross polluters" removed for years now - if a car flunks a smog test by a factor of 2 on any of the 3 tested emissions, it is probably eligible for the "cash to junk it" program - the car has to drive (under its own power) to a junkyard; have something resembling one front seat, and working tail lights or something like that - i.e. just enough to have been street legal. The yard is required to crush it quickly - no dismantling allowed. The cash back is recovered by California within 2 years of property taxes on the new vehicle; let alone whatever sales tax there was on the new car.

 

For folks with old dying beaters, that are worthless to them, the program makes sense: they get way more than they think the beater is worth. That might be true; it might not be - parted out it might be worth a lot more. 95% of the population wouldn't consider that though so Cali gets what it wants: cars 8+ years old off the roads, and future big tax payments. For a paltry $1000 or $2000 investment; I forget the exact amount.

 

So now the Feds want to do something similar to Cali's program, for a different reason. The Feds probably won't recoup as much of the investment dollars since property taxes and sales taxes are a state thing but they'll get some money anyway - if nothing else, from business income taxes of dealers and car manufacturers from the increased sales. And politicians get to say "I did something to save your jobs" to their voters back home. They won't word it as "I did something STUPID to save your jobs" though.

 

In a free market economy, it's not really legal for a gov't to throw money at a company - i.e. subsidies. In theory at least. This "buy back" program is one way around that. Stimulating sales IS legal; flat-out giving money (subsidies) to the car companies technically not legal. Low interest loans are legal. There's an international fight going on between the US and the European Union, in international court, over "subsidies" given by EU nations to Airbus. The EU/Airbus counter that all the research money & business given by the US Gov't to "defense contractors" is an underhanded subsidy to those companys that do both defense work AND commercial work.

 

Look at the way Japan does it... car taxes INCREASE as the car gets older if I understand it correctly. It becomes financial suicide to keep a car more than a few years... that's why there are all those low mileage Japanese engines/trannies available for import - perfectly good cars are turned in because taxes are too high.

 

mike c.

 

 

You got it Mike. Cali has had that program for some time now. I'm in the dismantling business and I can tell you I've seen the effect this is having in our DMV fees, in the availability of used parts, the price of used parts and the price of "junk" cars. I've seen so many Starions end up at "Pick Your Part" as part of the "Vehicle Retirement Program" which pays $1000 for junkers.

 

These politicians are not really looking solve anything, all they're really doing is trying to earn as many "brownie points" for their next election. In Obamas case that's his re-election. Doing the "right thing" makes you really unpopular and I'd hate to say it...but Bush was unpopular.

 

If this bill passes and it goes on in the way it's currently written, I gurantee you that all of you that live in states that enjoy low cost "used parts" will begin to feel the difference. I've got a cousin that owns and operates an auto dismantler in Oregon, I purchased his dismantler biz here in Sun Valley Ca. and he tells me how different used car parts pricing is in Oregon vs. Cali.

 

So if you care about your pocket book, I'd write a letter to your federal reps and pressure them to make some changes to that bill. I know I'm doing so.

[Alcyone]

Look at the way Japan does it... car taxes INCREASE as the car gets older if I understand it correctly. It becomes financial suicide to keep a car more than a few years... that's why there are all those low mileage Japanese engines/trannies available for import - perfectly good cars are turned in because taxes are too high.

 

mike c.

 

 

you're correct but to add to it: it's a mileage increase that raises the taxes.

Japan is small and it take s long time to get to rack up mileage.

 

which is why there are also lots of low mileage old school cars for import to

Australia and Canada....

 

which we can't touch till they are 25 years old.

I am very surprised we don't have a few JDM Starions on the board.

 

 

 

louswheel:

at least in that deal the Starions wound up at the pick your part.

 

 

The only cars that will qualify are large crappy cars or old beatup trucks/vans. Everything else is either worth too much or get too much MPG's.

 

I'll remind you that the Starquest Qualifies.

is it an old clunker to you?

and yes I am selling mine for much less than that but to a member that needs the shell.

 

 

[strang3majik]

I just traded mine on a new Dodge Challenger SRT8 yesterday. 28,800 with the Quest, customer loyalty, employee discount, and, the fact the dealer was closing. Not bad for a SRT8. B5 blue, special edition.

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll305/kimdewald/Chally/photo052.jpg

 

they promised me it wouldn't get crushed though, and said it'd go to a happy home.

Edited June 29, 2009 by strang3majik

[strang3majik]

maybe I should've added a JK...lol

[Alcyone]

I just traded mine on a new Dodge Challenger SRT8 yesterday. 28,800 with the Quest, customer loyalty, employee discount, and, the fact the dealer was closing. Not bad for a SRT8. B5 blue, special edition.

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll305/kimdewald/Chally/photo052.jpg

 

they promised me it wouldn't get crushed though, and said it'd go to a happy home.

 

hey, if you're tradin' trade up right?

 

 

Edited June 29, 2009 by Alcyone

[88TSI_Rob]

The only cars that will qualify are large crappy cars or old beatup trucks/vans. Everything else is either worth too much or get too much MPG's.

 

So yah, only old, crappy, beatup, gas-guzzlers get scrapped. Is that such a shame?

 

Your wrong. No part of the bill says that the car/truck has to be beat up or crappy. If it did I wouldn't be so upset about the bill. At least they give you the option of stripping parts off the car before you turn in, but I doubt anyone is going to take advantage of that.

 

And BTW Starquests qualify. How many Starquests sell for more than $4500? Even ones with nice paint, under 100K, and perfect mechanical condition often don't fetch that much. Anyone here can, and I'm sure it's going to happen, drop off their car to be crushed so they can buy a new car. And as I mentioned before, my truck qualifies and it's far from crappy or beatup.

 

What else qualifies? Supra's, Rx-7's, 300ZX's, Mustangs, Camaros, Grand Nationals, Toyota pickups & Land Cruisers, old Broncos and Blazers. A lot of european cars from the late 80's to mid-90's qualify as well. Alfas, Mercedes, Jaguar, Audi, Land Rover, BMW, etc. Tons of nice, rare cars that still look, run, and drive fine will be crushed because their owners can't sell them for more than $4500.

 

And to top it all off, how many people are going to use that $4500 or $3500 to buy a new domestic car? Not many. All the cheap, reliable, high mileage economy cars are made by the Japanese and Korean car makers. So after all these cars are needlessly crushed we can watch hundreds of millions of our taxpayer dollars go to stimulate the asian car companies.

 

So now the Feds want to do something similar to Cali's program, for a different reason. The Feds probably won't recoup as much of the investment dollars since property taxes and sales taxes are a state thing but they'll get some money anyway - if nothing else, from business income taxes of dealers and car manufacturers from the increased sales. And politicians get to say "I did something to save your jobs" to their voters back home. They won't word it as "I did something STUPID to save your jobs" though.

 

Actually, I'd be willing to bet that the net effect of crushing older cars is actually a negative in terms of tax revenue. Old cars need: mechanics, parts, tires, batteries, and used car dealers. All the businesses that support older cars will be negatively impacted. Meanwhile the only ones that benefit are a handful of automakers, their suppliers and new car dealers. Add up all the jobs that support old cars versus the jobs used to create/sell new cars. Old car jobs must out number them like 10 to 1. And if my assumption is right that mostly asian car makers are going to benefit then that is another argument to show that tax revenue is unlikely to rise.

 

If this bill passes and it goes on in the way it's currently written, I gurantee you that all of you that live in states that enjoy low cost "used parts" will begin to feel the difference. I've got a cousin that owns and operates an auto dismantler in Oregon, I purchased his dismantler biz here in Sun Valley Ca. and he tells me how different used car parts pricing is in Oregon vs. Cali.

 

So if you care about your pocket book, I'd write a letter to your federal reps and pressure them to make some changes to that bill. I know I'm doing so.

 

It's a little late, the bill was signed into law last week. However that shouldn't prevent anyone from writing a letter. Let them know you are suffering as a result of this bill and to not extend it past November.

 

 

 

I found this story to be a nice summary of my thoughts and as a bonus it features a picture of our beloved Starion. Even the media knows that our cars are target of this bill.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive...rs/4322912.html

 

[Chad]

No, the car doesn't have to be a beatup old POS, but few others qualify. Almost all of the cars you listed are worth more than $4500 if the are not a beatup POS, which goes back to the statement that only old beatup POS cars will get crushed. In this program, I could crush my low mile highly optioned 97 Tahoe. It does qualify, but I won't do that because I can sell it for more than $4500. Just because a car qualifies does not mean it will get crushed. Hell, any Ferrari ever made qualifies, do you thin this is the feds way of getting them off the roads? Some are worried aobut nice cars that happen to qualify will be scrapped, but there is no financial motive to do that if it actualy is a nice car. None of the hondas qualify so I can assure you it won't hurt the honda parts business.

 

Don't forget the taxes from interest on car loans, that's more income to the govenment. Figure a typical car payment is about 15% interest payment over time, a $20,000 car loan at 6% for 60 months = a car payment of $386, that is $3160 in interest income to the bank, so if about 20% is going to be paid to the IRS as income tax, so $632 goes right back into the feds pocket. I doubt few cars that qualify will put that much into the "system" over 5 years. there is also manufacturer income tax, dealer income tax, salesman income tax, manufacturer workers income tax, state registration taxes, sales tax, the list goes on...

 

New cars need maintanance too (tires, oil changes, etc). There is also increased insurance, more $$ stimulation. It's a pretty difficult argument that an old car contributes more to the economy than a brand new one.

 

In the end, this $$ comes out of the consumers pocket, ther person that buys the car. Tax payers pay upfront, but their investment will be returned in time, plus some...

 

Lets make one thing clear here too, I'm not an advocate of this program, infact I'd probalby vote againt it if I had a choice. I didn't get to vote though, and voted against all those that made this happen. It's a done deal now, so we may as well capatilize on it. I see this as a way to stimulate the economy just like the 2008 economic stimulus, except this time it's geared towards a specific financial sector, and benifits the environment too. I saw few here complaining about the 2008 stimulus

 

It probably won't generate a lot of new sales from those that had no intention of buying already, it will however steer many that were already planning to purchase to get clunkers off the roads and purchase more efficient cars. We wanted to get a new sedan to replace the lumina we have, we would have gotten an non-hybrid due to the added cost (takes 5-8 years to recoup the cost though fuel savings). This is an opportunity to effectivly get the hybrid option for free.

 

BTW,the forigen car I'm looking to purchase is made in Smyrna, Tennessee., using Japanese-made hybrid system purchased from Toyota, which is made in Toyota's Kentucky factory. Pretty much every hybrid currently sold in the US is made in the US regardless of brand name . This nissan likely has more americal labor in it that my 97 Tahoe does (made in Canada and Mexico)

[PDX87Starion]

Wont this make the used cars market go all wacky I mean HOW can they sell a used car for less then 3500-4500? there will be no longer any cheap cars for those that don't have $$$

 

No because there are millions of used cars on the road, and there aren't very many people buying new cars. Even some people who want a new car suddenly cant get financing.

 

This is like a tax break for regular people.... usually only big business gets these type of tax breaks or incentives.

Plus all they have to do to keep people from buying a 90's ford explorer for $800 while on the way to the dealer to trade it in...is to put a clause that says you have to prove ownership (of the trade-in) for 6 months. I'm sure they can change the requirements at any time.

 

I think this will be a great incentive, and I dont think there is going to be enough people doing it to unbalance the cheap car or parts market. Its very possible that a SQ or two will get traded in, but it will still be way less than the ones being towed, auctioned, sent to a wrecking yards and crushed every week.