Cash for Clunkers

**freeflashstuff** · 10-21-2009, 11:29 PM

So... Hopefully everyone remembers the big thing that was "Cash for Clunkers"?(in the US anyway, I don't know about anywhere else) Well, my mom's boyfriend's son owns a dealership here in town, and she was telling me today that there was a 2005 vehicle that they had to destroy. Now, all of the "clunkers" that got traded in on this "great deal" go through this process:

They are maked so they won't be sold/traded off in everyday business dealings.
The engines are drained of their oil.
The engines are started up and ground glass is poured into the oil.
The glass does its job of jamming the engine up, never to run EVER AGAIN.

To make matters worse, parts absolutely cannot be salvaged! Any add-ons that the vehicles come in with (eg. headache racks, push guards, etc.) stay when the vehicle goes to be crushed. And anything the people want to do when they are destroying the engine outside of bashing windows in(kicking the doors in, etc) they can do as it's going to be crushed anyway.

I wonder if they realize how stupid this is? If they could salvage parts, they wouldn't have to spend extra money getting refurbished or new items, they could go to the "back room" or wherever and get the part for a job. And don't get me started on the engines....

And the terms to qualify as a "clunker": If any newer vehicle gets 5 MPG or more than the car being brought in for a trade, it's a "clunker." Most newer vehicles don't get any more mileage than older one do! And if the vehicle being traded in is a 2001 or older, it's a clunker. WTF? Most 2001's are still in decent shape. My Turtle(see sig) gets 50MPG HWY and the EPA says it should get 35 MPG HWY, and it would be called a clunker? Most hybrids can't boast that kind of mileage!

[/rant]

Correct me on anything if I'm wrong. And keep in mind I come from a LONG line of classic car buffs, which explains why this ****ES ME OFF TO NO

END!

**barnyard** · 10-21-2009, 11:40 PM

Another stupid idea by our wonderful government...

**chunkyks** · 10-21-2009, 11:45 PM

To be classed as a clunker it must nominally get 18mpg or less, according to the manufacturer - the age of the vehicle isn't the central classification.

Yes, the bit you focused on is a ridiculous farce, but fundamentally it wasn't actually the point; the point is that to improve economies you have to *move* money. And cash for clunkers did a spectacularly good job of guaranteeing billions and billions of dollars of cash will be constantly moving for the next five years.

It's my personal believe that yes, the bit you point out shouldn't have happened [parts should have been salvageable], but I feel that cash for clunkers is one of the only tangible economy-improving things to even come out of the stimulus.

Gary (-;

**freeflashstuff** · 10-21-2009, 11:57 PM

Gary, age was a determining factor though.
Senate, House Agree on Cash For Clunkers Terms
"The vehicles to be traded in must have been made between 1984 and 2001."

**Curiosity** · 10-22-2009, 12:06 AM

Uhm, it's called cash for clunkers, not cash for classics. Nobody would take a $1500 trade in for something worth more than that. It's mostly just Ford Explorers anyway.

**blazinlow** · 10-22-2009, 12:09 AM

Its infuriating.

I drive a 20 year old truck. I got to the junkyard for alot of things - brackets, pulleys, interior pieces, etc..... This whole program is destroying OEM parts that are perfectly good. I dont know why they have to crush them. Why not put them in salvage yards and make more money on parts.

**freeflashstuff** · 10-22-2009, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by Curiosity

Uhm, it's called cash for clunkers, not cash for classics. Nobody would take a $1500 trade in for something worth more than that. It's mostly just Ford Explorers anyway.

That wasn't really my point in that statement. My point was that these vehicles will be "classics" someday, and when someone decides to rebuild them, the parts won't be there because they've all been crushed.

Originally Posted by blazinlow

Its infuriating.

I drive a 20 year old truck. I got to the junkyard for alot of things - brackets, pulleys, interior pieces, etc..... This whole program is destroying OEM parts that are perfectly good. I dont know why they have to crush them. Why not put them in salvage yards and make more money on parts.

This is my point. People like myself and blazinlow rely on vehicles that have salvageable parts to work on our vehicles when they break down. Sure, some places have refurbs available, but how much do they cost?

Originally Posted by chunkyks

It's my personal believe that yes, the bit you point out shouldn't have happened [parts should have been salvageable], but I feel that cash for clunkers is one of the only tangible economy-improving things to even come out of the stimulus.

Gary (-;

Wouldn't it have been smarter (economy-wise) to allow parts to be salvageable? Because even though it would be years later, the money spent on the salvaged parts would funnel back into the economy. Like I've said, people DO still own older vehicles, and the vast majority of the "clunkers" that were traded in, were the most common ones that a lot of people still own and use on a day-to-day basis. Here's an example. At the lot my mom's boyfriend's son owns, there were 3 Tercels sitting on the lot that were "destroyed." Myself and AT LEAST 5 other people in town still use ours on a day-to-day basis. Mine goes back and forth to school, and the others are used to commuter upwards of 100 miles daily, and in-town for groceries and the like. Hopefully you all can see my point.

**Tical84** · 10-22-2009, 12:31 AM

It really has nothing to do with energy. If the government or anyone else thinks it is they are delirous. Does anyone know how long it will take to make up the energy used to destroy a vehicle making 18MPG, then manufacturing a new one making only 22? If it's an SUV or truck the new vehicle only has to make 2MPG more.

**chunkyks** · 10-22-2009, 12:45 AM

Oh, I can absolutely see the point, and I do feel that the parts should have been salvageable. But it is what it is, and the reason for demanding a complete-crush was to avoid abuse of the situation.

What the government wanted to avoid was second hand car salesmen [a notoriously dodgy lot] taking a car for free from a customer, having the govt pay the customer 4500 bucks, and then have the 2nd hand car salesman turn around and sell the car for a few grand, at 100% profit. Or, for that matter, for dodgy salesmen to take a customer's car, fill in a bit o' paperwork, pocket five hundred bucks on the deal, and let the customer drive away with both their old car, a new one, and 4500 bucks in pocket.

I understand both sides of the argument, but I don't know of a good resolution to avoid the [charitably] "enterprising" car salesmen from abusing the scenario.

Cars more than 25 years old are already exempt from various things, as I understand it; my classic bug only costs about 30 bucks a year to register or so, and I think it's exempt from smog checks. So the 25-year limit is there for a good reason.
And cars newer than 2001; is the argument that a hummer less than a year old should have been run with the oil pan filled with crushed glass? Because if it's wasteful doing it to older cars, it's *definitely* wasteful doing it to newer ones.

... Don't get me wrong, I'd pay good money to watch someone do that to a hummer, but I don't feel it's a net gain for the environment or the economy :-)

I still maintain that while it was, indeed, wasteful from a hardware-perspective, it was an excellent investment on the government's part from a stimulus perspective; and as such, while I oppose the stimulus in general, I think this is one specific, rare, case where it was a "valid" program to work on fixing the economy.

Or, looking at it another way, "I fully agree with your view on the situation as it stands, but I think your view is a bit narrow on the wider issues at hand".

IANAE, BILCTTONPR [I am not an economist, but I listen carefully to them on national public radio]

Gary (-;

**freeflashstuff** · 10-22-2009, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by chunkyks

Oh, I can absolutely see the point, and I do feel that the parts should have been salvageable. But it is what it is, and the reason for demanding a complete-crush was to avoid abuse of the situation.

What the government wanted to avoid was second hand car salesmen [a notoriously dodgy lot] taking a car for free from a customer, having the govt pay the customer 4500 bucks, and then have the 2nd hand car salesman turn around and sell the car for a few grand, at 100% profit. Or, for that matter, for dodgy salesmen to take a customer's car, fill in a bit o' paperwork, pocket five hundred bucks on the deal, and let the customer drive away with both their old car, a new one, and 4500 bucks in pocket.

I understand both sides of the argument, but I don't know of a good resolution to avoid the [charitably] "enterprising" car salesmen from abusing the scenario.

I understand that part of the scheme of things there.

Originally Posted by chunkyks

Cars more than 25 years old are already exempt from various things, as I understand it; my classic bug only costs about 30 bucks a year to register or so, and I think it's exempt from smog checks. So the 25-year limit is there for a good reason.
And cars newer than 2001; is the argument that a hummer less than a year old should have been run with the oil pan filled with crushed glass? Because if it's wasteful doing it to older cars, it's *definitely* wasteful doing it to newer ones.

... Don't get me wrong, I'd pay good money to watch someone do that to a hummer, but I don't feel it's a net gain for the environment or the economy :-)

With the rules that were set, that should have happened because Hummers only get 10-12 AVG. MPG HWY, but, yes that would be "a waste." And I would also love to see that done to a Hummer.