Cash For Clunkers

[tzsgti]

Obama mentioned once that, if all Americans would simply keep their tire pressures inflated correctly, we would save more oil than would be produced by offshore drilling (or was it ANWR?). In either case, that makes you think.

Silly, just plain silly

[tzsgti]

Local Mazda dealer with just a fraction of thier cash for clunkers cars

Salesman told me they are having a hard time getting the money back.

[Broken Arrow]

Is that true? Is that dead technology? If not, why aren't we pursuing that?

Is this what you are looking for?

[FrugalIII]

I'm not going to read all the threads, but here's what I think about the cash for clunkers program....STUPID!
It's very similar to the subprime mortgage program. Most, not all, people who drive clunkers do so because they can't afford a new car. So, the government gives you $4500 for your clunker, as an "incentive", IF you agree to buy a new car which, everything else being equal, you can't afford. So down the road you will fall behind in your payments, the car will be re-po'd and you'll be back to driving a $1k clunker again. Does that make sense? NO!!!! Of course my theory doesn't apply to everyone, but I would bet it applies to most of the people doing this......

[poundwise]

A couple of quotes, gleaned from the web today:

It seems arrogant to destroy perfectly good vehicles with many more years of useful life just to entice consumers to purchase a car that they might not be able to afford.

Cash for Clunkers would prematurely destroy vehicles and their valuable parts and components, denying more affordable used vehicles and parts to millions of low and middle income families who cannot afford to purchase a new car even with a $3,000 to $5,000 government voucher.


Ditto.

[disneysteve]

Cash for Clunkers would prematurely destroy vehicles and their valuable parts and components

The bolded part isn't actually true. The parts from the vehicles collected, except for the engine, can be removed and resold.

[tmvijai]

That is correct. check out this story from npr, How Are Clunkers Killed? : NPR about how cars are killed. They literally take all good parts including bumpers, wheels, tires and then shred them. FYI - Singapore or some other countries(I am not sure) don't even allow to drive cars older than 15years or so.

Also one thing to add to this stupid program. Because of this program, many state sponsored car donation programs are hit badly. Actually they even pay better money for these old cars.

[poundwise]

The bolded part isn't actually true. The parts from the vehicles collected, except for the engine, can be removed and resold.

Actually, the quote is accurate. It says, "Cash for Clunkers would prematurely destroy vehicles and their valuable parts and components." It is a comment on what is viewed by the one making the comment as a program that destroys many working vehicles, and their components once pulled off the road, that are valuable to used car dealers, salvage yards, and people with low to middle incomes who may not can afford a new car, even with a government voucher.

As reported on the TIME magazine web site: "...60% of a car's salvage value comes from the engine and drive train."

So, first of all, the vehicles themselves, which have some value are slated for destruction. Then, the engine, the most valuable component for the auto salvage industry, is destroyed. Next:

"Once the engine is dead, a recycling lot can take possession of the car. From that time, it has 180 days to sell the pieces of the car that retain some value. ... When the resale period is up, any leftover parts must be destroyed" (ibid.)

So, any parts not sold in 180 days are destroyed as well.

I don't quibble that this isn't enough time for those parts to be sold, once we get to that point, however, the original statement is true. Cash for Clunkers destroys "vehicles and their valuable parts and components."

By the way, it should be noted that the quote referenced was not made by me but was taken from a statement made by AAIA (Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association) president and CEO Kathleen Schmatz.

[disneysteve]

Point taken, poundwise. I guess I just find the statement a bit misleading. It might lead people not familiar with the details of the program to assume that the car, in whole, will be sent right to the crusher when in reality, lots of parts will be salvaged before it is ultimately destroyed.

I totally agree, though, that removing perfectly good cars from the market is not a good thing for folks who can't (or choose not to) buy brand new cars.

[tripods68]

When this program came out, I thought, the whole purpose of "Cash for Clunkers" was to get rid it of it completely from our roads. Meaning clunkers are "force feed" to disabled the engine to prevent it from running again. Then it goes directly to the crusher as a whole, with no parts being salvage. Apparently, the lobbyists with their briefcase cash-on-hand demand Congress in rewriting the BILL it so parts that are salvagelable could be resold or recycled.

[disneysteve]

Apparently, the lobbyists with their briefcase cash-on-hand demand Congress in rewriting the BILL it so parts that are salvagelable could be resold or recycled.

I'm not following you here. It sounds like you think it is a bad thing that the useable parts are being salvaged. If so, why would that be bad? I think wasting perfectly good parts would be a lot worse.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Er, I don't think the car junkyards have organized to hire lobbyists. Even if they did, I don't think they'd have enough cash to show up at lunch with a congressperson or senator with briefcases of it.

[tripods68]

I'm not following you here. It sounds like you think it is a bad thing that the useable parts are being salvaged. If so, why would that be bad? I think wasting perfectly good parts would be a lot worse.

That's not what I'm saying....I was under the assumption OLD CLunkers would be all sent to crusher immediately. We the "taxpayers" paid for this so it no one should be profiting. That's seems harsh but that's my opinion. If it was up to me, I would have sent clunkers immediately to be destroyed even parts that were ok. Period!

[GREENBACK]

That's not what I'm saying....I was under the assumption OLD CLunkers would be all sent to crusher immediately. We the "taxpayers" paid for this so it no one should be profiting. That's seems harsh but that's my opinion. If it was up to me, I would have sent clunkers immediately to be destroyed even parts that were ok. Period!

The problem is the lack of "old clunkers".Most of these vehicles should still be on the road. I really don't mind if someone makes a profit from a few parts; why destroy them?. We're paying to destroy good vehicles and good parts on those vehicles. I fail to see any value in that.

This program will likely dry up soon will little net effect for the taxpayer. We'll simply be out of a few billion more dollars with people having taken on debt in supposedly desperate times.

[poundwise]

We the "taxpayers" paid for this so it no one should be profiting.

No one? I get what you are saying but if the parts were not salvaged at all, we'd still have the new car dealers, the auto makers, the finance companies, and the scrap metal processors, all of whom profit from the taxpayer-funded CARS program. So, what's one or two more groups?

In fact, that is basically the point of CARS; to stimulate the economy while increasing the overall average fuel economy of the vehicles on the road. I don't agree with it and think it has been poorly executed but we certainly shouldn't be surprised that there is a profit-motive involved.

I actually find it to be a positive point in the program than these vehicles are being 'recycled,' in a manner of speaking, rather than just being completely destroyed.

But, as I said, I see your point as well.