Cash for Clunkers... anyone ditching their SVX?

[Mike621]

I think the bill is a good way to get rotten old domestic cars off the road and sell new cars, but at what cost?


The problem is the funding. Limits on the program are a must. Are we able to make the sacrifice for something that could potentially backfire into an increase in reposessions and spiralling debt?


I would rather give my 93 to someone for $1250 to see them fix it, rather than get a $4500 credit to see it crushed. However, if it was the death of... lets say... my 93 Explorer if I still had it. In that case, I would take advantage and get a smaller new car for commuting such as a Fit or something.

[BoxerFanatic]

The bill is an abomination, and outside the scope of the federal government.

Rotten cars should be scrapped on their scrap metal value, if they are not viable cars.

If the CA smog-test-failure retirement program is a pre-cursor to CFC, then I SAVED an SVX from that fate.

DON'T LET ANY SVXs GET CRUSHED FOR GOVERNMENT POLICY!!! Keep them on the road, and if that isnt' possible, part them out for the other SVXs to STAY on the road.

This makes me so angry that I bought a car I wasn't planning to buy right now, to put my money where my mouth is.

[demonsvx]

Its a socialist idea in my opinion, they just try to make it look good with a $4500 credit, a new car and saying your saving the environment. Give me the $4500 to maintain my car regardless of mpg and it will cut the emissions. Invest the money in a real alternative fuel source like our natural gas reserves and tell the Arab countries to piss off

[AppStateSVX]

i'd hope that no one from these boards would be dumb enough to kill their SVX in this way. far too many are getting destroyed as is

[dcarrb]

Actually, if you could get a $3500-$4500 credit toward a new car by sacrificing a worn-out, high-mile, rust bucket SVX, you've gotta set-aside emotional attachment to the car and let practicality make the call.

JaySVX described the smart play: Buy a late-model car and keep the SVX.

dcb

[demonsvx]

Its just more government waste in money, energy and a way to make them look good. There isnt much the government gets right anyway and more to this than meets the eye.

[SubaROO]

My biggest question is: who pays to CRUSH these cars? Yes yes, we get the fact that the government is giving you a credit, but crushing cars isn't free...

[SVXdc]

The 'Cash for Clunkers' Law Looks Like a Lemon

Not enough new-car buyers can take advantage of it, and the program may even put more gas guzzlers on the road

By David Welch

When President Barack Obama made the "Cash for Clunkers" bill law on June 24, supporters like Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) hailed it as a great way to modernize America's car fleet and "accelerate national economic recovery." But don't expect either to happen in any meaningful way.

The problem with the law is that it is both underfunded and too narrow to generate a spike in showroom traffic. Standard & Poor's (MHP) says the most it will do is boost sales by 3% for the year; a similar German program pushed sales up 30% a month this year. "This is a waste of taxpayers' money," says analyst John Wolkonowicz of Boston research firm IHS Global Insight (IHS). "There won't be enough people who can take advantage of it."

First off, the feds have approved only $1 billion for the program. That could help fund the purchase of just 250,000 cars—not much more than a week's worth at current sales levels—between August, when the program likely will start, and Nov. 1, when it ends.

Plus, the law makes little sense for most passenger-car owners. The government will cut checks of $3,500 to $4,500 to dealers so they can buy old cars that get 18 miles per gallon or less and then sell the owner a more fuel-efficient replacement. But most cars on the road get more than 18 mpg, so they won't qualify. And many that are thirsty enough to warrant the deal are luxury models worth a lot more than $3,500 to $4,500. If a consumer can sell the old car for more than what the government will pay, there's no reason to take advantage of the bill, says Wolkonowicz.

Yes, there are plenty of old cars that do qualify. But many are 10 years old or more, says Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl. People driving cars that ancient often buy used, and even with a $4,500 discount, they probably won't want to take on new-car payments during a time of economic hardship.

Paradoxically, the bill may help the Big Three sell more gas-guzzling pickups. There are a lot of old trucks out there, which typically get less than 15 mpg. The government only requires that a consumer buy a new pickup that gets 18 mpg or better or a heavy-duty work truck that gets 15 mpg or more—hardly the kind of performance that will help wean America off foreign oil.

The government will have a chance to revisit the Clunker program. Once it expires, on Nov. 1, the feds say they could approve a more robust $3 billion from the existing stimulus bill. Lawmakers also could open the program to more car buyers. But for now, it has a lot of squeaks and rattles.

Link to article on businessweek.com dated today

[Green1995SVX]

Originally Posted by JaySVX

Crazy thought, buy a car one year off new, ie. used, and save $10-15k, and keep your svx.

DING DING DING!!

[Mensaf]

Originally Posted by JaySVX

Crazy thought, buy a car one year off new, ie. used, and save $10-15k, and keep your svx.

Depends on what you're looking at. You're not getting something like a Mazdaspeed 3 for much cheaper used than you would new.

[Phil Hill]

We've just got a similar scheme here in UK, modelled on supposedly successful schemes from Germany and France : If you trade a 10 year or older car for a new one the UK Government will give the Selling dealership a £1000 cash-back, which the dealer is supposed to match and pass on to the consumer, making a minimum of £2000 off the sticker price of the new car.

The conditions here are similar to yours, a certificate of destruction from an approved vehicle dismantler must issued before the dealership can "claim back" their £1000 incentive from the Government. Which means in very real terms the car must be destroyed before the dealer gets his cash back.

This is supposedly to boost car sales and save our ailing automotive industry as well as the usual diatribe about new cars being cleaner and greener.......

Unfortunately as pointed out by various pundits, including the BBC Top Gear team in their new season opener recently, the UK doesn't have a domestic automotive industry any more, so we are in fact subsidising other nations automotive industries by this implementing this scheme.............

What we do have is an awful lot of little jobbing garages who earn their living repairing and maintaining older cars, so if everyone went out and traded their 10 year old Fiats, Fords and Peugeots etc for new Hyundai and Kia's all these little one man garages will have nothing to repair, especially as these new cars come with 5 or 7 year warranties, and so will all become jobless !!

In reality prior to this "scheme" most dealerships had, or would under negotiation, reduce the sticker price of the new vehicle by greater than the £2000 currently on offer (depending on model of course, but in general I mean), but hey, never mind, the consumer is getting a really great deal from the new scheme........... and we are getting "old and polluting cars off the roads"

The Eco-credentials of this kind of scheme just don't stack up, as it's obviously makes both sound financial and ecological sense to scrap a perfectly serviceable 10 year old diesel VW Golf or Peugeot to replace it with a new one, doesn't it ??

Phil.

[Subie59]

The last thing Americans need is to go further into debt by selling perfectly good cars (whether they are SVX or something else) to"stimulate" the economy. The problem in the US and Canada is too many people living way beyond their means with no savings... By going further into debt, especially car debt, you might be boosting the economy for a short period but at what cost. Most of these new car purchases will be foreign-owned cars that only provide marginal benefits to the North American economy. A large chunk of that money will go back to Korea or Japan rather than staying in the US or Canada and invested in much more productive ways that benefit the North American economy. In addition all these new cars being scrapped creates its own environmental problems.
The US government has to stop relying on its consumer-society mentality and return to what made it an industrial power and start producing products instead of just consuming them.
If not, China and Russia are going to own the US and your dollar is going to be worth pennies. Inflation will skyrocket and we will not be able to afford a hyundai let alone a Subaru.
Sorry for the rant but it had to be said....

[SubaROO]

Originally Posted by Subie59

The last thing Americans need is to go further into debt by selling perfectly good cars (whether they are SVX or something else) to"stimulate" the economy. The problem in the US and Canada is too many people living way beyond their means with no savings... By going further into debt, especially car debt, you might be boosting the economy for a short period but at what cost. Most of these new car purchases will be foreign-owned cars that only provide marginal benefits to the North American economy. A large chunk of that money will go back to Korea or Japan rather than staying in the US or Canada and invested in much more productive ways that benefit the North American economy. In addition all these new cars being scrapped creates its own environmental problems.
The US government has to stop relying on its consumer-society mentality and return to what made it an industrial power and start producing products instead of just consuming them.
If not, China and Russia are going to own the US and your dollar is going to be worth pennies. Inflation will skyrocket and we will not be able to afford a hyundai let alone a Subaru.
Sorry for the rant but it had to be said....

Agreed entirely. We're so boned. :P

[demonsvx]

Personally Im sick of the GOVERNMENT telling us what we should do to stimulate the economy when it should be U.S. AMERICANS telling them what to do with our money. They have spent 3 trillion dollars bailing out companies who are not viable. Imagine if this money was invested in small business, education and to the americian people. Its our money that they are pissing away To put that in perspective go here http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html
Now does that make you feel better

[Roo]

Originally Posted by BoxerFanatic

The bill is an abomination, and outside the scope of the federal government.

Rotten cars should be scrapped on their scrap metal value, if they are not viable cars.

If the CA smog-test-failure retirement program is a pre-cursor to CFC, then I SAVED an SVX from that fate.

DON'T LET ANY SVXs GET CRUSHED FOR GOVERNMENT POLICY!!! Keep them on the road, and if that isnt' possible, part them out for the other SVXs to STAY on the road.

This makes me so angry that I bought a car I wasn't planning to buy right now, to put my money where my mouth is.

Speaking of that car, it wouldn't be eligible anyway.

When I filled up in Chappell, Nebraska, I purchased 13.745 gallons of fuel after driving



You're reading it right - there is no mistake on that odometer reading. I could have probably made it another 50 miles or more with the fuel I had left in the tank.

Oh, and here are a couple of panoramic pics I took while I was on the road: