Most Cashed-In Clunkers...

[planovet]

Funny how all of the top 10 being traded in are American cars but 6 out of 10 of the cars being bought are foreign.

[swissarmygirl]

What galls me is that the 'clunker' must be in running order to be traded in, and then it it rendered inoperable and crushed!!!
Also, my 02 Taurus does not qualify because when it was new, it was rated 18-24 mpg, even though now it only gets around 14-16 mpg!
I would love to have an older Explorer that's in good shape.

Hubby has a 93 Cougar..... I think it was one of those that qualified one week, and was then bumped out of the plan the next week.
It certainly does not get the 19 mpg that they claim.

[Miriam C.]

I bought a '94 Nissan Sentra new I cause it got 42 miles per gallon. I did the right thing and on one is going to give me a dime or let me trade my "clunker" in. How real is that?

Oh and don't get me started on taxes. We get a whopping $6 more a week....

Oh yeah and Ford Explorers owners might be more frugal and have better credit and be able to afford a new car........

Now write your Congress person and tell them to give those cars to the programs that find cars for folks who need them to get off Welfare and back to work........... :thumbsup:

[caseydog]

The reason for so many Explorers is probably that they were "bestsellers" in their class in many of those years, so there are a lot of them out there with high miles, and little or no value left in them. They are also notorious gas guzzlers -- especially the V8 models. I owned one, and liked it, but it drank the gas.

As for the political rants, take it someplace else. It's my thread, and I didn't start it to hear people whine about "guvment" this and "guvment" that. I posted what I thought was an interesting bit of information.

However, Chevy and Mopar fans can pick on Ford, as long as you are funny.

BTW, I the clunkers are disabled by the dealer, but If it’s a newer model, it will then usually be sold to a full-service, professional parts dismantler where it will be stripped of the 20 to 40 most commonly reused parts. If it’s an older model, it will sit at a self-service parts recycler, where individuals will pick a needed piece here and there until it is crushed or shredded.

But either way, the CARS program mandates that clunkers be crushed or shredded within 180 days, whether all usable parts have been salvaged or not.

[caseydog]

Funny how all of the top 10 being traded in are American cars but 6 out of 10 of the cars being bought are foreign.

Toyota manufactures Corollas and Camrys in America. They are both considered Domestic cars, with more than 75-percent domestic content (80-percent for Camry, and 75-percent for Corolla).

The Civic is assembled here, but is considered an import as it only used 70-percent domestic content.

BTW, the Chevy Cobalt has 75 percent domestic content. About the same as the Toyotas.

So, of the ten most purchased, actually, seven are built here, and six are considered "Domestic" automobiles.

So, the real fact s that 7 out of 10 of those cars come from American factories, where American people work.

EDIT: Toyota is building a new plant in Mississippi to build the 2010 Prius. So soon, that will be built here, too.

CD

[caseydog]

AuntieM, it seems to me that the last thing a poor person needs is a gas guzzler. Most of the "cars for the working poor" programs try to put people into reliable, fuel efficient cars they can afford to operate. What's the point in giving someone an SUV that gets 14 mpg, so they can get a job that pays minimum wage? The working poor need cars that sip gas, not guzzle it.

CD

[planovet]

Funny how all of the top 10 being traded in are American cars but 6 out of 10 of the cars being bought are foreign.

Toyota manufactures Corollas and Camrys in America. They are both considered Domestic cars, with more than 75-percent domestic content (80-percent for Camry, and 75-percent for Corolla).

The Civic is assembled here, but is considered an import as it only used 70-percent domestic content.

BTW, the Chevy Cobalt has 75 percent domestic content. About the same as the Toyotas.

So, of the ten most purchased, actually, seven are built here, and six are considered "Domestic" automobiles.

So, the real fact s that 7 out of 10 of those cars come from American factories, where American people work.

EDIT: Toyota is building a new plant in Mississippi to build the 2010 Prius. So soon, that will be built here, too.

CD

I'm aware of that, I should have said foreign OWNED. Not going to help Government Motors much...

[Miriam C.]

AuntieM, it seems to me that the last thing a poor person needs is a gas guzzler. Most of the "cars for the working poor" programs try to put people into reliable, fuel efficient cars they can afford to operate. What's the point in giving someone an SUV that gets 14 mpg, so they can get a job that pays minimum wage? The working poor need cars that sip gas, not guzzle it.

CD

First the cars I saw on TV were not all SUV's or gas guzzlers. Second the programs here are struggling with almost no or low budgets. When you need transportation to keep your job anything works. Truth is a lot of these cars get much better mileage than what some folks have. Oh and how many people need a truck for work?????? Unless you are giving up your outy

[Aaron Coffee]

What I don't understand is that the auto makers suddenly realized that they were not making profits on cars and now they are trying everything they can to get people to buy their cars at not much more than when they were losing money on them.
Also I wonder how many of the people that bought cars using the clunker rebate were well enough off that they didn't really need the rebate, but it was free money.
I almost considered trading in my 98 Dodge Dakota but don't think it qualified as new it listed at 18-20mpg or somewhere in there and I didn't really want another payment right now.

[Elumia]

CD, If you don't make it political what is there to talk about?

So one could ask if the 10 year old chevy's and mopars are still running? Lots of Jeeps on that list too.

Another way to look at it is that it is not that much different than a tax rebate. (those are good right?) That said, it is limited to those that had an old running car that are able to buy a new car, so it is not fairly applied. I hope too people didn't get screwed with 21% loans on their new cars.

I wonder how many of the new vehicles purchased were done by people trading in their 3rd vehicle when they only drive 2?

In CA there is a state program that pays people $1000 (no trade needed) to take their pre 1988 (I think that is the year) running vehicle off the road. That is done for air quality, and usually more than the car is worth.

If I had the means, I might have considered it. I'd like a diesel jetta sportwagon....

Mark

[Woodyperk6]

CD, I sent you a PM.

[eamarquardt]

I recently got into a minor fender bender. My 2001 Windstar van (purchased 2nd hand) has 113K miles on it. My insurance company sez it's not worth fixing and is going to pay me over $4K and I get to keep the car. Parts off the internet $600, professional painting (including fixing some existing scratches and dings) $1100. The major downside is that I'll have to get a salvage title and get a brake and light inspection but I just installed new front and rear brakes, axles, struts, shocks, and a few other things last summer. I figure it will take me a morning to pull off the old parts, do some minor strightening on some of the sheet metal and fiberglass the inside mud liner (then pop rivet the fiberglass to the existing plastic for a repair stronger than new). Then just a little time to put it all back together after painting and 2K for my trouble. On the otherhand, I could take the settlement, the governments $4500 and spend ten to fifteen thousand dollars on a new car I don't need (the choice a lot of idiots would make, IMHO). The sad part is that the insurance company is taking the easy way out. They can say to the government, see we paid this money out (even though they should have fixed the car) and they'll be allowed to pass the expense on to customers (as they are "just getting by" and not making excessive profits). They should be fixing the car at a fair price and retaining the excess therfore not overcharging us for our insurance, but this is the easy/American way out.

The great "American Way" is to spend money you don't have on things you don't really need. I know of many people that have had the same opportunities and salaries (and a lot more) as I have over the course of their life and don't have a "boot to piss in". I got too sick to be a reliable employee at 52 and was "forced" to retire. Due to proper prior planning (frugal living, working hard on my own time on investments) money is not a big issue at our house (but my wife being a professional bean counter is considerably more worried than I, ha).

We need to change our culture starting with the government. Don't spend money you don't have! Buy second hand if it will meet your needs and put the extra in the bank. Don't spend all of the money you do have. Plan and act for the future, NOW! The average public safety person's RETIREMENT (police and firefighter) in my county is $5,500/month. These folks are eligble for SS when the time comes (as I understand it). The military, (often criticized for generous retirement benefits) isn't nearly this sweet a deal. All retirements should be funded along the way and portable. You quit, you take your balance with you. But with the current mind set, people spend it because they have acess to it (IMHO they shouldn't except under exceptional circumstances) By the way, I served 3.5 years and the "sweet retirement", along with all of the personal turmoil being in the military can generate didn't seem so sweet to me, but I wouldn't trade the experience and friends for the world. Government benefits are obsene! $5,500/month (AVERAGE), that's a damn fine wage in my book. Worst of all, the government hasn't saved up for these expenses (as I understand it) and is using current revenue to pay for these retirements! Betting on the come!!!

The only real security we will ever have is a solid economy based upon good financial practices, not the ponzi schemes and hollow promises of the current government. Government cannot and should not be all things to all people.

I'm sure most of the people participating in the "cash for clunkers" program could get by just fine without the program. We're just mortgaging our future with these dumb programs. After all, the government pukes are getting paid a good wage to pass these stupid programs and then administer them.

By the way, I get SSDI but would rather have the money that I and my employers put away rather than my current benefits! There you have it, the world according to Gus.

Enjoyed venting.

Cheers,

Gus

[Roly Nelson]

Even though I can drive 300 miles with only 10 gallons of gas in my 4 banger Camry, I still have my eye on the new 2010 Prius. I wanted my $4,500 buck, cash for clunkers, gift too, but they don't even want to talk to me. Bummer.
Roly

[caseydog]

We need to change our culture starting with the government. Don't spend money you don't have!

I agree, but I think change has to start with individuals. Government really is a reflection of the people, IMO.

[caseydog]

A buddy of mine just used cash for clunkers money to trade his 1995 Explorer in for a Smart ForTwo. Now that's a big change.

Of course, it's another statistical blow to the poor Explorer.

CD