L695speed

I am thrilled to report that all this ruckus may have paid off. I came across this on Speedtv's website earlier today. Now I don't have a problem with the concept but they targeted the wrong group of cars.....

http://automotive.speedtv.com/articl...-clunker-plan/

BADMAN

iTrader: (13)

This just shows that when good people work together toward a common goal,they can do just about anything.

Mark in Maine

Good news

86WS6

iTrader: (1)

That's great news! Lots of people keep talking about being "Green." Auto parts recycling is about as green as it gets.

89rs454

Im all for this, its about time our cars start to get a little rare.imo

Guest

Well they got what they wanted. Some version of these bills passed today, apparently offering up to $4500 for your old car. Say goodbye to a lot of thirdgens.

AmorgetRS

iTrader: (6)

http://www.freep.com/article/2009050...h+for+clunkers

Still has to pass Congress....

okfoz

I did hear that it came back... Just like The "Fairness Doctrine", and other pathetic excuses for bills that are coming down the pike... Be warned this is only the first step, we may all lose our classics due to this Left leaning agenda.

John

L695speed

Theres too many people involved in the hobby and theres too much money invested in it for the government to go after every single old car. besides...Model Ts get 25 MPG. And for valuable ones like Bugattis and Ferraris and hell even the prototypes that were sold by GM, a black market will pop up, perhaps causing more problems than it solves. The same will happen to the gun market when they go after that as well.

tony_cogliandro

iTrader: (3)

there are never enough of us.
here is how they can take us out - there is no authorized replacement for egr valves for our 3rd gens - all the aftermarket stuff is non carb approved.
all they have to do is look at the egr numbers and tell us we failed because the valve is non conforming.

Klortho

There are more than authorized replacment egr valves for the 3rd gens, goto AutoZone or Advance auto and buy one. Those are supposed to be 50 state legal or they wouldn't be selling them in California, but then again I live in an area where there are no emissions testing so I don't worry about it.

okfoz

How it might happen is they will first make it a choice, then they will make it mandatory for particular cars, then they will do all cars, If you chose not to give in and surrender your car for some unreasonable amount, they take your car and you get nothing... The government DOES this already on property they want it is called "iminant domain."

You can say that it will never happen... Never say Never...

I have never been so afraid of our government as I am now ... Honestly I am not the only one...

John

L695speed

They won't go to that much trouble. And secondly, if all of the third gens end up being registered with antique plates then they can't get us for emissions or anything. I'm planning on doing that with mine in NJ if there is no mileage limit (DMV website is not entirely clear on that).

blg0720

That too will only work in some states. In NC, you can't get classic plates until your car is 25 years old. That won't work for my GTA...and they can pry that out of my cold, dead fingers!

L695speed

Well mine is 25, I guess I meant that as soon as the cars turn 25 do the classic plate deal. Of course if there is a mileage limit of say 2,000 miles I'll be saying what the hell. Screw it and drive the wheels off of it with regular plates. If the gov't comes to my house to offer me money for a fricking prius I'll tell them to f off.

L695speed

They will have to catch me first before they claim imminent domain. I'll get all my cars out of the country before they do that. If they come after me for a few measly cars, then the world perhaps will see how absurd this is and chide our gov't to quit the BS and focus on the real culprits, ie. Coal Plants and etc.

86WS6

iTrader: (1)

Your GTA is safe in NC. Only cars newer that 1995 have to pass an emissions test in NC. Anything older only has a visual inspection. It Just has to look like it works, it does not actually have to work. So as long as it does not look like it's striped of all of it's emissions contols, you OK.

LFN AT U

iTrader: (1)

Don't worry, you're FAR from the only one. I'm with you too and since gun sales have spiked big time recently apparently quite a few other people feel the same way. The clunker law is just the tip of the iceberg. There are a lot of crazy proposals working there way through right now. Hopefully people wise up before the next elections but don't hold your breath.

SolarGoldRaptor

I haven't read everything you wrote guys, but I just wanted to share my 2 cents.

We have a similar bill here in France, it was voted around six months ago IIRC.
The State gives 1000€ when you buy a new car if you scrap your old car (it must be more than 10 years old).
The dealer takes your old car and send it to the scrapper. So once the deal is done, the car is gone forever.
Classic car enthusiasts often take a look on dealers backyards, and even though most cars are just old cars with no historical interest, they do find some nice classics : for example cars from the 70's or 80's that belonged to elderly people with low mileage. Those may not be sought after at the moment but I'm sure that in ten years they could gain a strong interest among classic cars enthusiasts.
In the US, you would see Camaro/Firebirds in those backyards, about to get scrapped.

Guest

Well, I hope everyone was paying attention in class today. Apparently you all wanted this new bill, so you got it. Passed the senate. You can be certain it will be signed by the Prez and with the state of affairs at Chrysler and GM I would not be the least bit surprised to see an amendment soon to it to make it mandatory rather than voluntary, or make it near impossible to meet safety or emissions tests with your old car forcing you to make a "voluntary" retirement of your old car. Call me paranoid if you want, but the picture isnt looking very good.

Here's some fun quotes from an article http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/auto...NoLWNsdW5rZXJz

Shocker.

Yet another shocker.

And the best one of all:
So... they're already planning a change to it in November. Watch out...

IROCmenace

iTrader: (1)

From what I found on my research the law stated cars within 25 years old, less the 18mpg qualify for the program. My 5.7 car gets 20mpg hwy. I don't know what the window sticker said but I think alot of thirdgens don't qualify. Plus the money goes down depending on how old the car is. They cannot make the emission standards from the tailpipe on our cars more stringent as they met the standards when they were produced (at least they couldn't change laws like that in the past, but since the country is heading toward facism I guess anything is possible.)

And I agree our government is scaring the crap out of me too. Of course they didn't say "Change" meant change for the better. When will America learn.

I do think the bill is to target more expendable cars though. I mean think of how many car models there are from the past that no one cares or even knows about anymore. I doubt there will be too large a demand for an Oldsmobile Alero in 10-15 years when they are "classics"

I would also hope the "Unlawful search and seizure" phrase will come into play.

snowman383

glad i live in the back woods of Louisiana...too many swamps around here ..easy for someone to disappear..

Guest

The news report I just heard says 1984 and newer, so.. no way they are talking about EPA rated highway mileage.

Ok, go to fueleconomy.gov, look up your car. I just looked up 1989 Camaro, and every V8 car there is rated at 18MPG combined (the rating they are going to use) so its on the list. The V6's that year are 19 and 20MPG (auto, stick) so a tiny revision to the already passed and certainly to be signed law is going to make them all fall in.

For a 1989 Camaro 5.7L
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008c...ef.jsp?id=5332

1986 2.8 5-spd (18 combined, on the chopping block)
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008c...ef.jsp?id=1757

Info on what the bill probably was, says 18MPG combined
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/cash4clunkers.shtml

JT

iTrader: (1)

Just for reference, the window sticker I have for the 1988 GTA Notchback 350/5.7L:
16 City / 25 Hwy.

The window sticker I have for Scott M's 1987 Iroc-Z 350/5.7L :
16 City / 25 Hwy.

IROCmenace

iTrader: (1)

I never did see if they said it was considered highway mileage or city.

But come on. MAKE me turn my car in? That still goes against the constitution. The Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness comes in as well. Happiness has been used in courts to describe property and covered rights under the Constitution to obtaining and keeping property. I know there are people out there that would love to see nothing but electric cars running around, but then again there are people out there that will protest in the streets against war, even though war gave them the right to protest in the street without being killed by their government.
This situation has so many dynamics of conversation and can bring into play so many variables everyone could make assertions and others make retorts for months or years.
If it happens I don't guess there will be much we can do. I signed the petition against this, emailed my Representative and Senator and it still got passed.
Politics is about the little crap out there.

No one can understand why we are in Iraq. WMD's was the excuse, it goes way beyond that and the Gulf War. Look up the Middle Eastern Wars from the 60's on. Pat particular attention to the Iran and Iraq war of the 80's over disputed territory (oil).
We were allied with Iran until the end of the 70's, then came the Islamic Revolution, we had given Iran several types of military technology. Since Iran was our ally and screwed us. We backed Iraq in the 80's, gave them money, equipment and training. Then Iran decided to end the war at the end of the 80's. Sadaam now how a huge military and still sought expansion and invaded Kuwait. Basically we empowered him to do that. We also couldn't let him control a large % of the world's oil. Enter Desert Storm. And then we go back agai nto finish what couldn't be finished in the 90's because of lack of our coalitions help. New decade, same problems. We go to Iraq and resolve an issue we helped create. Through all of the Iraw War and underlying theme has been ending our reliance on foreign energy. It is catch phrase that politicians throw out to get the crowd going. But in reality it is to move us toward the non petroleum based cars so we no longer have to worry about foreign countries dictating our energy needs. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a reality. It would give America an edge again. Since Opec's entrance into the world energy market we have been on the ropes kissing there butt. Russia and there oil is not much better. Ask anyone in the European Union. My In-Laws ar ein Poland and the Russians are allwats screwing with the oil pipeline.

Basically Our cars are going to be obsolete. I love my car, I will do what I can to convert it off oil if I can. But rest assured, someday, we will not import oil to run the nations economy. It will suck for car enthuiasts, but it could also help. Gas could be a secondary commodity. Cheaper. If most commuters drive electric cars emissions are less of a concern.

And I have proof the government thinks that way. The emissions regulations give waivers for emissions. In Tennessee we can get an Anitque Tag as long as the car is 25 years old and we do not use it for general transportation during the week. It enables you to register once, pay a smaller fee every year and no emissions tests. In orther words, if I don't use my IROC to go to work, I can get a tag that will allow me to not have my emissions tested. And if I buy a Chevy Volt, Ican drive back and forth to work without using a drop of gas. That may not be what we want to hear, but it is what will happen. We need to rid ourselves of the cancer that is Middle East, Russian and Venzuelan oil. They control us with oil.

Sorry it is long and I knwo alot of people will skip it, but I had to get it off my chest somewhere.

Klortho

What it shows is this on fueleconomy.gov

Trade-in vehicle:

Driveable condition

Has been continuously insured consistent with State laws and registered to you for at least one year immediately prior to trade-in

Manufactured in model year 1984 or later

Must have a combined MPG of 18 or less (this does not apply to category 3 trucks)

So it's combined between the city and highway, which targets both JT's and Scott's Z since both show a combined average of 18mpg.

My '98 is actually showing 19mpg with the LS1

Guest

They have already used eminent domain to take houses. You think your car is going to matter much? All they need to do to throw you under the bus legally is to make your car fail a safety or pollution test, and its gone. This state of Kalifornia has been messing with (read:lowering) the NOx standards I'm sure in a direct attempt to get older cars to fail. There was no previous set standard, so they are just picking one.

I'm sure the window sticker is out the window. I've been looking up cars and its funny how many are now rated at 17 or 18 combined in that year window they're looking at. Convienient. I'll bet you a dollar those old window sticker ratings will be ignored.

FYI, and this is very well buried in govt documents and reports, we supply well over 50% of our own oil thankyouverymuch. They are just using the whole deal of foreign oil as a scare tactic. Its working quite well.

KatsCam

I'm with you on this one. That's when they can have my RS, too!

IROCmenace

iTrader: (1)

Thanks Katscam Ü But do you mean my dead had or yours? Ü
and thanks also Klortho

Madmax. I am in agreement with you that, especially in todays current "regime", they can screw us like a prison b*^%$. But I have hope in America that it won't happen.
I agree we also produce our own oil but not 50%.
The following is from the Worldfactbook put out by the CIA.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/US.html

Oil - production:
8.457 million bbl/day (2007 est.)
country comparison to the world: 3

Oil - consumption:
20.68 million bbl/day (2007 est.)
country comparison to the world: 1

Oil - exports:
1.165 million bbl/day (2005)
country comparison to the world: 20

Oil - imports:
13.71 million bbl/day (2005)
country comparison to the world: 1

Oil - proved reserves:
20.97 billion bbl (1 January 2008 est.)
country comparison to the world: 12

Notice, top user, top importer, 12 in reserve and 20 in export. Sucks to be us.

Guest

Those numbers are not in agreement with the published data from the Department of Energy, who actually records the information not the CIA. Anyway, thats way off subject.

On the EPA mileage rating thing again, the government only has the capability to compare apples to apples so they will not use the "old" rating printed on the window stickers but rather the "new" revised ratings they spent (wasted) so much time and money on.

Klortho

EPA has changed the way it estimates MPG.

Starting in model year 2008, estimates reflect the effects of

Faster Speeds & Acceleration
Air Conditioner Use
Colder Outside Temperatures

Colder outside temp?? WTH doesn't the EPA know that these cars run better when it's colder? I guess not.

Plus, if they would ditch the 10% Ethanol in the gas, that in itself is probably a factor they also included.

L695speed

From what I understand from reading it cars 25 years old or older are not being accepted. Thus the 84s are not under the cap. No doubt that was put in to please us folks who appreciate old cars and SEMA.

bitchin_buick

It's like >>> "The pot callin the Kettle black!"

arrowcamaro

iTrader: (2)

Negative.

They may "run" better, but they are more efficient when running warmer then most here like.

Why do you think the cooling fans come on so late? Read any emissions pamphlet and it tells you point blank to be sure the engine has been running for a while and is completely up to temp before testing. Meaning, stock temp, not adjusted fan switch and lower thermostat temp.

Klortho

Oh I don't know about any emissions pamphlet, we don't have emissions testing here.

okfoz

Technically none of our cars would qualify... as the average for our cars at worst was rated at 22.5, I see now they are claiming that the Fuel economy was 19... a 1987 Firebird/Formula/Trans Am/GTA (as it was listed on the site) now gets 17...

John

arrowcamaro

iTrader: (2)

Running "better" when cold does nothing for efficiency.

Effeciency matters in relation to this subject, "running better when its colder" doesnt. Be careful not to confuse the 2.

okfoz

One thing I think is really interesting is the fact that they appear to have changed how they calculate the average fuel economy...

We all know that they "lowered" the standard to accommodate the typical driving habits of drivers... That sounds great, but why did it take 30 years, and why I ask why did it happen about the same time as they mandated 10 Ethanol in gasoline? Ethanol does not have the energy that gasoline does and would lower your fuel economy. (In reality it takes more Oil powered energy to convert corn or whatever they are using to make Ethanol than they get, in effect it is a net loss). Then I have to ask although not 3rd gen related, Why does my 2005 Buick Rainier V8 AWD get on AVERAGE 18 mpg, and if I really take it easy I can get 19, and if I do all highway I average about 21... BUT my window sticker (yes I have the original) states that I should only get 19 highway and 15 city? The new rates are more out of whack, 14 & 17... What gives, according to this people either do not know how to drive, or there is something terribly wrong with their data. I actually posted my REAL information over a 6 month period of gas fill ups and calculating my Average... it is WAY above what it should be getting but they never post my data....
Back on topic...
So, I did a little research, I found the following... From http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f05045.htm
Therefore from the above statement from the EPA cars that were lower than 22.5 MPG Average were assessed a "Gas guzzler Tax" this is really nice considering the new owner of the vehicle will be paying more for gas anyways, sounds like a win-win for the govt. BUT NONE of our cars were ever assessed a gas guzzler tax when they were made, therefore it does not apply to our cars.

I found some window stickers, and they are as they are listed on the www.fueleconomy.gov website a 1990 Camaro with the L98 it had a fuel mileage of 16 & 24. If you take the average like they have it listed on the website you get an average of 20 Mpg if you drive half and half, that is calculated by averaging 16 & 24... According to the site it should average about 19... BUT as stated above the car had to originally get 22.5 Mpg so not to be taxed... BUT if you heavily weigh the highway over the city, say 4:1 then you get 22.4 Mpg... which give or take a couple of decimal points which are not listed on the window sticker is within reason of the projected 22.5.

What is most interesting is 1990 & 1991 are the least fuel efficient years I have found so far. According to them the same car for 1987, 1989 & 1992 L98 cars get 17 & 25 on the window sticker...

I also find it very misleading that on the www.fueleconomy.gov website they have a mid 60's Oldsmobile pictured, but only vehicles are 1984 and newer apply (Bureaucratic Bone-heads obviously put the site together).

In the end since no GM F-car car has ever been assessed the Gas guzzler tax

Here is the 1987 Data from the epa's website to give you a taste of how things work

1990 CAMARO 350FIL4 CHEVROLET
16 24 19 18 31 22 $ 947 ( 5.7L) (FFS) (MPFI) 2DR- 82/ 5 HBK- 85/12 OD RWD


I deleted some information that was really not pertinent.. So what you are looking at some of it is Obvious. The things that may be confusing are things like the 350FIL4 basically 350 CI displacement, FI = Fuel Injection L4 = 4Speed Automatic, An M5 would = Manual 5 speed...

16 = ESTIMATED (CITY) MILES PER GALLON - 90% OF UNADJUSTED VALUE
24 = ESTIMATED (HWY) MILES PER GALLON - 78% OF UNADJUSTED VALUE
(That is what is on the window sticker)
19 = COMBINED MILES PER GALLON
18 = UNADJUSTED CITY MILES PER GALLON
31 = UNADJUSTED HIGHWAY MILES PER GALLON
22 = UNADJUSTED COMBINED MILES PER GALLON (the number they used for the Gas guzzler tax as mentioned above)
$947 Average Annual Fuel
5.7L (If I have to explain this then forget it)
FFS not sure about this yet Something about the Engine description
MPFI Multi-Point Fuel Injection
2DR - Two Door
82/5 = Somehow applies to Passenger and Luggage Volume
HBK = Hatchback
85/2 = Somehow applies to Passenger and Luggage Volume
OD = Overdrive
RWD = Rear Wheel Drive

So there you have it folks, it appears that once again the information that they are

I did stumble on this from the www.fueleconomy.gov website
Does My Clunker Qualify?

I know it is a bit scatter brained, but I hope it is helpful, I did not go over it, BUT my research is all there.

Edit: apparently they are using the "New Numbers" to determine whether or not the car qualifies, the car in question the one above gets a combined of 17... So apparently more than what I thought actually apply. Also it is based on cars that get 18 or less... I am not sure if 18.1 qualifies or not. It will be interesting to see how it all works out in the wash...

Edit II: I did a little number crunching on the data above... Apparently how they determine the Combined MPG is to take the City MPG at 55% of the drive and Hwy MPG at 45% of your driving. So if you do the math you get the following on a 100 miles trip.
100 Miles total
45 Miles @ 24 MPG = 1.875 Gal Fuel Used
55 Miles @ 16 MPG = 3.4375 Gal Used
Total Fuel used = 5.3125 ( Or 3 & 5/16 Gal)
Therefore your Average MPG = 18.82353

Now using the NEW formulations
100 Miles
45 Miles @ 22 Mpg = 2.045 gal
55 miles @ 16 Mpg = 3.666 gal
Total fuel used = 5.712
Therefore you have an average of 17.5070

I wonder why they did not correctly round up? instead they opted to round down

Klortho

John, it says 18mpg or less, just about all of the L98 cars I looked at showed either 17mpg or 18mpg

The only ones I saw that didn't were the Automatic V6 cars and of course the 4 cyl....unless I misunderstood what you are saying

okfoz

Your correct, After a little MORE research the one statement was wrong, about none of our cars meeting the 18 Mpg so I deleted it.

I am not sure if it (Cash for clunkers) will work or not... only time will tell...

john

strc09

iTrader: (5)

My head hurts now. I'll just agree with most that they'll have to pry my car from the stone grip of my cold, dead hands. Our democracy is slowly fading with each passing day because as many have stated, no matter if we contact our elected officials or not...our voice goes unheard.

okfoz

Although I have not seen anything official, if you sell your car under this, according to my local news and the most reliable source ( www.foxnews.com ) they apparently will crush the car, basically the government is buying the cars... I am actually not sure if you will get the trade in for the car as well or not... Or just the $3500 / $4500

JOhn

blg0720

You're right...I think they're actually supposed to crush it as soon as possible. It really sucks and I will be keeping a VERY close watch on dealer backlots. We won't have much time to save them...

86WS6

iTrader: (1)

Ohio has apparently implemented it's own version of the law. I will try to find a link to post, but apparently they will buy the "clunker" for up to $4500.00, and sell it to a wrecking yard for salvage. The engine has to be distroyed, however the rest of the car can be salvaged for parts. A family friend sold a rotted out 88 Town Car to Ohio for the $4500.00 and used to voucher to make a down payment on a small 4x4 SUV. The old car flunked emissions inspection, and the state made the offer to the owner. They did not threaten to make the owner give up the car, but denied the owner a tag renewal for the upcoming year. They could have took the Lincoln home and used it as a planter or something. The owner took the voucher, thier new car, the new payment book, and just accepted the situation.

These are some concerns I have about this, besides an unintended risks to the collector car market.

1) It seems pretty stupid of the government to use tax dollars to buy old cars, when our grandchildren will be paying off the current deficit as it is.
2) Is this program going to encourage lower income people to over extend thier credit obligations, and how many of the new vehicles sold will become repos in the next year? Remember the now bankrupt 235 housing program in the 70's?

3) Lots of elderly people live on a fixed income, and a car payment is just not within thier reach. Besides, how many 80 year-olds actually drive that old gas guzzler over 2 to 3000 miles per year?

4) Distroying used parts that are still servicable does not demonstrate much forethought from an environmentalist perspective.

5) I am glad I live in western North Carolina. Here they usually watch what fails in more progressive areas, before wasting time and money on every useless idea that someone throws out.

okfoz

That is exactly the problem it will be bait for low income people to cash in on an old "Clunker" and buy a new car. IN short they are not able to afford a new car even at the lower price. In many cases I suspect that they may buy beyond their means, so instead of a $20,000 car they would opt for a $25,000 car and after the rebate end up in the hole.

Basically another bureaucratic ploy. Like you stated this is the exact type of BS that got us in this economic problem... It was last year when it came to a head. One group tried to fix Fannie & Freddie, but the other group was literally in bed with them and they said they were "fine"

Another problem I see is the fact that it will do our economy absolutely no good to buy a foreign car... Let's face it that money will be going back overseas if they buy foreign. This plan would only have a mediocre chance of success if they would have made it apply to US manufacturers only to help our GDP.

The sad thing is it was apparently done by Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, both are from Michigan. The attached it to the unrelated Bill to support the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There was a group that wanted to vote on it separately. In the end not many people really want a "Government Motors" car. We can thanks our Government for another well thought out plan to help us all go into eternal debt.

John

rideon1200

I AM SURE they are not putting this bill into play to take away your 1987 GTA or any other car. I have a feeling the reason for the rebate is to push that person over the edge that has been thinking about getting a new car. If someone is broke and that old PU is there only means of transportation, the money means nothing. Just like the 1500. if you buy a new a/c system. Is the government going to pull up to your house and pull out you a/c system........NO! Are people buying new a/c systems JUST to get 1500.00 ......NO. It does push those over who are on the fence though.

campin1983

iTrader: (4)

One thing to note about this program is the requirements posted above that talk about what cars qualify. A few things stick out here:

1) The car must be less than 25 years old. This means that all of our 1984 third gens automatically are disqualified. It won't be long before all of our third gen's no longer qualify.

2) The car must be continuously insured for at least a year. Most of the project cars and recent buys don't reflect this. I know mine doesn't.

3) The vehicle must be in a drivable state. This disqualifies most project cars, all junker cars and a ton of cars waiting to be restored. Noone will be taking our parts cars from the junkyard for coupons for a new compact.

4) The person trading in the vehicle must be buying a new vehicle with high MPG requirements. Who has a muscle car or collectible vehicle, and is willing to trade it for an expensive, run of the mill compact/hybrid and a payment book?

This program would have helped my dad. He had a rotting 2000 Dakota he still owed a few thousand dollars on, and could barely get that back. He refused to carry over money owed onto a new loan, but couldn't get that much for it. It was a gas thirsty, run of the mill, rusting like crazy pickup truck, and he happened to want to replace it with a new vehicle. He already wanted it gone, and just needed something to push him over the edge (really good trade-in value finally swayed him at one dealership).

As the bill stands, how many people have a collectible car that has both been in rough enough shape to warrant its disposal (and a new car loan), yet also continuously insured and drivable? AND how many of these people wish to replace it something that is absolutely nothing like its predecessor? Most people who buy muscle cars, replace them with muscle cars. Most people who buy projects replace them with projects. All positives and negatives aside, I just don't see a Firebird owner crushing their 3rd gen for a Prius coupon.

This is meant for all those people who got sucked into the SUV and truck craze to have a way out of their monsters and into smaller cars. Its also meant to really only influence those who want their cars gone in the first place. If you like your third gen, a coupon for a compact won't change your mind.

If anything, I bet this bill takes lots of big, unsafe vehicles off the road, and makes it a bit safer for our third gens.

Thats my two cents anyways.

gregsz-28

iTrader: (1)

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/tech...-question.html

KatsCam

I just read this on Car and Driver online a few minutes ago:

Five Reasons “Cash for Clunkers” is a Joke
Why Cash for Clunkers is more a political maneuver than substantive help for the U.S. auto industry — or the environment.

By Steve Siler
With news that Congress has passed its ballyhooed $1 billion “Cash for Clunkers” bill, we feel compelled to voice our skepticism about the program. Here’s the bill in a nutshell: Buyers of new vehicles between July 1 and November 1 will be given a voucher for $3500 if they forfeit a post-1984 car or truck that has been registered for at least one year and has a combined fuel economy rating at least 4 mpg lower than their new vehicle. The voucher grows to $4500 if the increase in fuel economy is 10 mpg or higher. The old car or truck is then crushed and recycled.

Here are five reasons we don’t think this program is worth the time it took to draft it, let alone a billion dollars:

1. The voucher replaces the trade-in deal you might otherwise get from the dealership; it’s not in addition to the car’s private sale or trade-in value. In other words, if you’re trading in a car that’s worth $3000, your net gain is only $500. Although if your car is worth $100, CFC couldn’t come at a better time.

2. We’re not sure how many folks driving cars worth $3500 or less are in the market for a new car in the first place. Sure, there’s the occasional fresh-out-of-college new-hire (we’re not sure who’s hiring right now, but we’ll play make-believe) that might still be ready to move from a Dodge Omni to a shiny new Honda Insight, but people driving cheap old beaters are probably doing so because they can’t afford a new car. And $3500 doesn’t go far when the average transaction price of new cars hovers around $24K. The vouchers don’t apply toward the purchase of used cars, for which the majority of old beaters are traded in.

3. People driving large, gas-gulping old cars and trucks often do so because they need the utility those vehicles provide. Old station wagons, for example, have few modern counterparts that are as versatile while achieving better fuel economy. Ditto pickups, which have gotten bigger and more capable but not much more fuel-efficient. And if the government thinks that someone is going to step out of a 1994 Dodge Ram into a Honda Fit, they need to get out of D.C. a little more often.

4. Naturally, we have some reservations about any bill designed to facilitate wiping out—we’re sorry, recycling—any automotive species. And let’s face it, while there are a lot of bona fide clunkers out there, we’re afraid that a bunch of future classics will get caught in this roundup. We propose, then, that a certified auto enthusiast (paid, of course) be placed at all certified CFC dealerships to screen the cars that are brought in, returning the cool cars—including anything with T-tops—to the streets.

5. Besides cleansing the U.S. of gas-guzzling pigs, the other supposed benefit of the CFC program is to provide a short-term boost to the starving auto business. However, we hope these legislators don’t expect it to meaningfully help the domestic automakers. Many of the automobiles with fuel-economy ratings high enough to qualify for the vouchers come from Japan and Korea.

On the bright side, the cost to taxpayers will be minimal when no one actually participates.