CARS Act--cash for clunkers

Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,007
Location
Dallas, TX
While I agree that it could go a long way toward getting some really horrible, polluting, and dangerous cars off the road, with the average price of a new car these days, there are some folks who probably still can't afford to take advantage of this deal..hence the reason they're driving the old POS. I don't see the owner of a 70's era LTD trading that smooth ride for a Civic, regardless of its condition.
 
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
15,217
Location
Canada
Good idea, as long as its not made mandatory - ie, you HAVE to scrap all cars over 12 years old... I'd rather see incentives to buy, and get the cars on the road, than just subsidize production of vehicles that sit in storage. Cars on the road help suport other industries - local garages and gas stations...etc...
 

01rangerxl

Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
10,455
Location
Birmingham, AL
I don't like this idea anymore now than I did the last time it was discussed. A lot of perfectly good Blazers, Explorers, and other "out of style" older 'utes could be crushed for this. I know that's their goal, but I don't like it. It's wasteful.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
10,611
Location
Las Vegas NV
Would you buy these clunkers at these prices? If this bill goes through the government will force you to. And lets see, the government is in the car industry and needs to move product...
 
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
15,217
Location
Canada
Sounds crazy, but I don't entirely see aything wrong with that - gets the car off the road, and a new one on it.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2003
Messages
11,820
Location
Illinois
I would prefer this to just handing money over to car makers. Let the taxpayers benefit, when they can, instead of bankers and CEOs. Of course, this will drive up the cost of beaters as astralraen alluded to.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2004
Messages
3,226
Location
Chicago Area
 Originally Posted By: addyguy
Good idea, as long as its not made mandatory - ie, you HAVE to scrap all cars over 12 years old...
Doesn't Japan do something along these lines? Not sure if it's a mandatory retirement age or a series of costly inspections once a car reaches a certain age that make it more efficient for the owner to scrap and buy new. I seem to recall reading something about this somewhere, but it could be my mind playing tricks on me.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
10,611
Location
Las Vegas NV
How much energy is used compared to keeping an old car on the road using gas vs. making an entirely new car (including all the energy needed to dig up the raw materials, shipping, manufacturing, etc.) AND still using gas?
 
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
2,500
Location
Dallas, Texas
I like the idea of going out and buying a $1000 clunker and selling it to Uncle Sam for $3000-$5000. I have met guys that have built a "firearm" out of spare parts they had around their shop, it wouldent work, and most of the parts were broken, but they got $100 bucks for junk at a "buy back" program. How is this any different? Neither of them work.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
1,613
Location
Ohio
 Originally Posted By: Tempest
How much energy is used compared to keeping an old car on the road using gas vs. making an entirely new car (including all the energy needed to dig up the raw materials, shipping, manufacturing, etc.) AND still using gas?
Bingo!!
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2003
Messages
18,449
Location
East of IGO
I am getting tired of bailing everybody out, where does the $$$ come from? I would rather for the $$$ load up all the politicians on a rocket ship and sent them to another planet. It is scary when all the free money has to be paid back by the taxpayers.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
437
Location
midwest
I'm not necessarily opposed to this, as long as it's not mandatory. But I don't really think it will work. A lot of people are driving cars longer than before because they just can't afford a new one, and I don't see how 3-5K is going to push them over the hump. However, if it passes, and then my tranny or engine goes, I'll certainly consider it, although I prefer to pay for my cars all at once and that usually leaves out all but the cheapest new cars.
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
18,816
Location
Silicon Valley
If Germany is an example, this will work very well at a very high cost. Reducing some number of cars off the road will increase demand for new cars in a macro level. Is it the most energy efficient way to reduce pollution? No, but the better way isn't quite working (layoff workers and shut down plants). I personally don't like this idea because it is costly and doesn't solve the long term problem (oversupply in the industry). Of course, I just bought a new car 1.5 years ago, so I felt left out.
 

JDD

Thread starter
Joined
May 5, 2008
Messages
595
Location
Utah
 Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
I don't like this idea anymore now than I did the last time it was discussed. A lot of perfectly good Blazers, Explorers, and other "out of style" older 'utes could be crushed for this. I know that's their goal, but I don't like it. It's wasteful.
Mine is one of them. I have a 1993 4-door S Blazer. Looking at the recent emissions printout, NOX, HC, and CO are several times higher than my 2005 Sienna or even my 01 Explorer for that matter. NOX is particularly high, and that is what makes ground level ozone, which is dangerous stuff. The Blazer also gets about 15 mpg. The whole point of this bill is to actually replace older cars with new ones and hopefully get the BIG 3 selling cars again. The new car would have to get 30+ mpg highway to get the max $5000. If I took the deal, I would be burning over 50% less gas assuming I would get 25 mpg in mixed driving. Some of the newer cars emit almost no emissions other than water vapor and CO2 (and less of it as well). I can see why this is being seriously considered, although it goes against my liberatarian nature. But seriously, I would probably do it. As far as being wasteful, the whole idea is to recycle cars into new ones that pollute less and get better mpg to help get us off foreign oil. It takes a fraction of the energy to recycle steel than produce new steel. I have never bought a new vehicle from the Big 3, but I would now. I have bought Hondas and Toyotas and VWs new because depreciation was lower. This program would make people consider domestic vehicles that wouldn't before, even though any high mpg car assembled in the US/Canada would qualify. I am particularly intrigued by the new Malibu. I would not even be considering a new car purchase at this time, but this would get me to buy right now for sure.
 

JDD

Thread starter
Joined
May 5, 2008
Messages
595
Location
Utah
 Originally Posted By: PandaBear
If Germany is an example, this will work very well at a very high cost. Reducing some number of cars off the road will increase demand for new cars in a macro level. Is it the most energy efficient way to reduce pollution? No, but the better way isn't quite working (layoff workers and shut down plants). I personally don't like this idea because it is costly and doesn't solve the long term problem (oversupply in the industry). Of course, I just bought a new car 1.5 years ago, so I felt left out.
Panda--you are right on all points. Unfortunately, nothing done in Congress solves anything long term. And, like you say, it's expensive. But---if Washington is going to throw billions at GM Chrylsler anyway, this bill is what congress should have done before bailing out GM and Chrysler with multiple billions that they just burned thru.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
5,153
Location
MW
It's probably a better way of helping the car industry than just bailing them out.
 
Top