Originally Posted By: JDD
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.
It takes a lot of energy to crush and recycle all of those vehicles. Plus, not all of the vehicle can be recycled. And then there will be all of the hazardous fluids and parts that must be disposed of, etc. Somebody (us) has to pay for all of that AND the handout to people who use the program. It's a feel good, save the world thing on the surface, but there are a lot of costs to consider.
I have more selfish reasons for not liking it. I like old junkers. They don't make SUVs like they used to. The only new SUVs that compare to an old Explorer or Blazer are 4Runners and Wranglers. Neither one is cheap. I can get an old Explorer that runs and has working 4WD for $1000 though...they make great beaters, hunting vehicles, toys, whatever. I miss my old 1995 Explorer, but the rust was more than I could fix on my own. When I have room for two vehicles, I want to buy another (rust-free this time) and build it up as a trail rig. I might not be able to buy one as a project or get used parts for it though if this CARS Act happens.
Don't forget, we will be footing the bill on this too.