cash for clunkers

[theholycow]

It would be impossible to create something entirely tamper-proof. Tamper-resistant, backed up by sharp-toothed laws, would do the job well enough. There's plenty of motive for odometer tampering as it is now, but the practice doesn't seem common.

[dkjones96]

Well, so much for my idea of cheap SUVs. The vehicles turned in for the rebate are to have the engine and transmissions pulled and destroyed. Beyond that they are to be scrapped as normal.

Not that I see many of them in the yards anyways(oddly enough, they grow on trees on the roads here) but I don't think my Durango scrap parts with be easy or cheap much longer

[jcp123]

Originally Posted by theholycow

The 25 year thing protects against antiques now, but doesn't protect tomorrow's antiques.

I am not yet convinced that tomorrow's antiques will be any newer vintage than today's.

[GasSavers_BEEF]

guy I work with has a 8 passenger van. could be a 12 but he doesn't have the back seat.

it qualifies for this but like he said, it's worth more with a traditional trade it or sell it yourself than they are willing to give.

plus, it's paid off and still runs good. he also has 4 children

[Project84]

Soooo.... do we all really think they will be destroyed, or do you think the Gov't will be selling the vehicles/engines/trannys to chop shops who will become fat-cats off selling parts for quadruple markup in price.

I don't really see this as a good thing. A lot of american workers make a living off seeling old parts. This bill will effectively remove a few dozen vehicles from America's history books. Think of the thousands of dollars being lost by parts stores and the jobs being lost by mechanics.

I'm not so sure this is a good thing.

When you really think about it, those getting less than 18 combined are probably more inclined to stay at home rather than drive around wasting gas. You give them $4,000 and take their clunker off their hands, they'll go buy a Cavalier and drive everywhere, just for the hell of it.... or mostly due to paying $20 to fill your Cavalier up twice in a month is less noticeable than paying $40 to fill it up a GMC Safari once per month.

I see no benefit here.

[GasSavers_maximilian]

Originally Posted by Project84

You give them $4,000 and take their clunker off their hands, they'll go buy a Cavalier and drive everywhere, just for the hell of it.... or mostly due to paying $20 to fill your Cavalier up twice in a month is less noticeable than paying $40 to fill it up a GMC Safari once per month.

That is a problem with efficiency standards that economists often cite. Make something cheaper and people tend to do it more.

[GasSavers_BEEF]

you have to buy a new car to get the credit (can't buy a new cavalier, and I know, the cobalt is the new cavalier)

the short term is that it gives the car industry a boost and the long run idea is to get the larger vehicles off the road even though you are probably right about the long run not happening the way they feel like it should.

the government has a stake in the auto industry now so they are concerned about the short term (which this bill will boost) and the long run goals will hopefully make the public think that they are trying to save the planet/go green/give more confidence in alternative fuels.

most of that is my opinion but many share it.

[GasSavers_maximilian]

I think a cash for clunkers bill definitely can have a place, as long as expectations aren't unrealistic. The idea that there will be a serious black market in supposedly destroyed parts seems a little paranoid.

[Project84]

^^^I don't think it'll be a black market. I think the gov't will sell the vehicles to junkyards/chop shops. Lets face it, not everyone is going to turn in their clunker. So the people keeping them still need replacement parts.

Oh, I must've read over it too quickly and didn't realize it "had" to be a new car. I did see where they put a cap on the purchase of a car at $35k, but I didn't catch the part about it being a new car.

Hell, I wish I had a clunker then... I'd grab a Yaris sedan in a heartbeat. Finance $10k and payments would be like $250/mon. Practical.

I do think it's worth getting all the Astro/Safari/Expedition/Yukon/Suburban type vehicles off the road that are daily driven by 1 person commuting to work. That's just inefficeincy at its finest.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by jcp123

I am not yet convinced that tomorrow's antiques will be any newer vintage than today's.

It's a generational thing. To me, classics include a 1985 Monte Carlo SS, a 1993 Cadillac Deville, almost any Eldorado or STS, any Buick Grand National, or a 2002 Camaro SS is a classic (why can't I come up with other manufacturers' stuff? I know it's there.).

There's plenty of other examples, but those are the first ones that come to my mind.

Originally Posted by Project84

Soooo.... do we all really think they will be destroyed, or do you think the Gov't will be selling the vehicles/engines/trannys to chop shops who will become fat-cats off selling parts for quadruple markup in price.

I don't think they'd get away with it unless it's made into law and done out in the open. Keep in mind, "out in the open" doesn't mean it's publicized, just that it's on the books and not kept secret.

When you really think about it, those getting less than 18 combined are probably more inclined to stay at home rather than drive around wasting gas. You give them $4,000 and take their clunker off their hands, they'll go buy a Cavalier and drive everywhere, just for the hell of it.... or mostly due to paying $20 to fill your Cavalier up twice in a month is less noticeable than paying $40 to fill it up a GMC Safari once per month.

I don't see that happening enough to nullify the purported benefits. As mentioned above, you aren't giving them cash to buy a used car, you're subsidizing a new car purchase; people who buy a new car (even a subsidized one) typically aren't limited to less driving by their gas budget.

The only people who would just drive everywhere for the hell of it are people who enjoy driving just for the hell of it. If they enjoyed it in a big ineffcient car, they're probably not going to enjoy it in a small efficient car. Even if they do they were likely to already do as much of it as they wanted before.

I used to enjoy driving just for the hell of it. My 14mpg car (1987 Cadillac Deville) didn't discourage me from doing so. When I got a much more efficient car (1997 Pontiac Grand Am) I didn't even track my fuel economy and didn't drive any more than I did before. These days I don't enjoy driving just for the hell of it, and I wouldn't expect that to change even if I had my favorite car.