Cash for Clunkers

Post Reply New Topic

Apparently my '97 Ford Explorer is number 2 on the top ten trade-ins, with many other editions of the SUV taking the top four slots. But I ain't trading in my Ford. Extremely reliable, never failed in the ten years it's been with us, and it's my escape onto the road.

Anybody participating in the Clunkers program? Or has this thread already been posted?

Nope sorry. I don't want the rest of America paying for my vehicle. That's entirely my responsibility.

I anticipate all sorts of unscrupulous an greedy dealers and consumers taking advantage of this program in creative and devious ways that haven't even been anticipated by the government. Especially the car dealers. Being an unscrupulous greedy bastard is like a job requirement in that business.

That's the other reason why I don't want to be a part of it.

And it's probably paid for, yes Why take on new payments when you have a decent vehicle now, eh.

If you look at the numbers they're throwing out to show how successful the program has been the math doesn't add up.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32228179/ns/business-autos/

40,000 x 4,500 = $180,000. They estimated another 200k vehicles sold but they have no proof. Where's the actual proof, actual numbers to say the program even worked?! Where do they say "here's all the vehicles that sold and what their combined gas-per-mileage savings are?" then back it up with data? They haven't shown one piece of verifiable data to say the program even works, but they still went ahead and dumped another 2 BILLION dollars into the program. Are they nuts?

We're doing something similar in the UK.

I can understand why we're doing it - stimulating the purchase of new cars during a recession will save jobs, not just at the car plants, but in dealerships, and in the many different firms which supply parts and materials. But I'm concerned that the industry is getting an artificial boom - people who might otherwise not buy a car are doing so. I'm almost expecting this forced boom to be followed by a protracted bust.

I'm not taking part in it. It's more cost effective for me to keep what I have than to replace it and be at the head of the depreciation curve. Someday I might buy a new car, but my next car will probably be a used one. I also do my own repairs, so I've been rather unsupportive of the portion of the economy devoted to repairing and selling these units.

There are already rumors popping up that US car dealers are trading in old cars already on their lots, collecting the $4500 under false names, and keeping the cash for themselves. Since the numbers don't add up, I suspect there's tons of fraud, and that there are few fuel efficient cars being sold, and that most of the money is going into a few pockets. As usual.

More Yank silliness. Here we're quite proud of keeping old cars. When we license them, they have to go through a stringent inspection and have bits fixed up before getting a license. Seems like one of those 'make work' bills.

Used is still cheaper ...

Yup: as usual.

Don't they stipulate that the replacement car must have 25% better fuel economy? So someone could trade their Hummer that gets 10mpg for a Suburban that gets 13mpg? Gawd. The rule should have been to double the fuel economy of existing car. So people with family cars could trade up to a hybrid, and people driving SUVs and those huge diesel pickups could trade-up and get a car instead. That'd be a sensible program, so no we can't possiby have that.

Dealers will rip off the government blind. They've been doing it to car buyers for a 100 years.