Cash for Clunkers Is a Junker

This whole cash for clunkers thing makes little sense to me, I mean, sure they have to draw the line some where, but 18mpg? Should have been a bit higher to increase the number of cars turned over if they were really interested in doing the damn thing right.

*sigh* Not only do I not agree with killing some potentially classic cars (not that those mentioned are), but I dont agree with that low of a limit, essentially only Trucks, SUVs or reaaaalllly terrible cars are going to get trading in, and that isn't going to accomplish much in the way of greening up or stimulating sales.

" "Once again, the government, and Katie Couric, has let me down." "

That about sums up the asinine policies that the federal government keeps coming up with to "help", but that cause more trouble and wreak more havoc than there originally was. Yet enough of us keep voting for this idiocy and sending more of these idiots to Washington on the same uninformed premise that they even have the authority at all to legislate and enact such grandiose schemes.

Government is not the solution to the problem; government *is* the problem. People need to wake up before it's too late.

This article makes way too much good sense to get people riled up leaving comments expressing their outrage, which is the whole point of a Mechanic article. Hmm...

Isn't that why this was renamed the "Get the Explorers and Suburbans Off the Road Act"? This was made to get SUVs off of our roads. The only problem I see is that a 1999 year old Chevy Suburban with the 4-speed automatic that gets 12 mpg is worth... oh wait, about $4000. So it still makes economic sense to keep it. And in my case, a 1997 SL320, rated at 18 mpg (perfect!), is still worth about $10,000, so it's still useless.

So I looked up my Buick Regal GS....was pretty sure I'd qualify...but nope.
19mpMFg!

Anyone think there's any kind of effort being made to keep cars off the 18mpg mark?!?!

lol it seems like theres some government ploy to get as many cars rated at 19 as possible

but really, the bill would only work for truck-based SUVs, or at least seems like that

I started to get excited as well. My '97 Intrepid is going to be traded in by the end of the year. It's the 3.3 ... so, yeah ... 20 MPG average. I'm screwed, too. I'm sure they searched the database and there are too many vehicles that average 19+, so that's how they came up with 18. I'm sure I only average about 18 in real world driving. With extremely careful driving, I've gotten 25 MPG on the highway... like twice. Oh well ... I guess I'll have to find a dealer who overpriced their USED cars and hope they show me $4,500 on paper! Oh, wait... that's pretty much every NEW car dealership around! That should be easy. Bend me over and rip it through my jeans, Uncle Sam!

This bill is truly stupid. As has been noted, there aren't really that many vehicles that will qualify as being rated below 18 mpg and have an open market value significantly below the $4500 voucher value. Secondly, there is a reason that people are driving these "clunkers" and that reason is that they really can't afford a brand new car, even with a $500-$4000 handout from the federal government. What a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Well, my '96 Fleetwood LT1 qualifies! I'm sure it also has a high scrap value, which just adds to the top of the $3,500-$4,500. Kelly Blue Book has really downgraded its value over the past two years, so $4,500 doesn't seem as absurd as it did in '07.

Wife wants a Smart ForTwo. $13,000 - $4,500 - scrap value is a fairly decent deal.

Ugh, what will get scrapped is the interesting stuff, not clunkers...the last great big Caddy qualifies but not my '94 Taurus...which gets about the same mileage in real world driving...go figure...

I doubt many of the folks driving a SUV or truck that qualifies are interested in trading it for an Accord, Fusion or Civic that offers almost zero utility for it's 20k + price. If I'm driving a '96 Suburban and getting 12 mpg, it's either because I need to or I cannot afford to get into something more efficient but expensive. Obama and his minions seem to be oblivious to the fact that many people drive SUV's and trucks becarse they need to. And in fact an Expedition or Suburban being used to capacity is no less efficient than the 3-4 Smart's, Golf's or Civics that would be needed to accomplish the same task. And the minivan argument isn't very convincing either, as the recent Town & Country and Toyota models I've had as rentals couldn't break 20 mpg even lightly loaded. Certainly the SUV's being used as style statements (24" wheels, booming sound systems, etc.) are dumb, but I don't see many of those around anymore. If the Feds get behind a clean diesel program and encourage development of mid-size diesel powertrains for light-duty pickups and SUV's, we could have our greatly improved economy while maintaining the utility needed by some. A turbo-diesel Odyssey or Flex would also make great sense in today's marketplace. Hybrid is simply not an option for these vehicles as witnessed by the dismal sales of the GM and Chrysler products.

To the above posters (and the mechanic):

Were your expectations for this bill really that high? There are two reasons why I can see that the mpg threshold wasn't made a little more reasonable, actually providing some incentive to trade in a vehicle that isn't an 8th gen F-150:

1. The taxpayers who own cars above the mpg threshold would complain that they're unduly paying for the decisions of others; and

2. The bill might actually be effective.

I'm an optimist. At least it's a nice gesture. And, heck, maybe some owner out there of a 305 cubic-inch five-liter Caprice will take uncle sam up on his offer.

Wow! The mechanic strikes again with cold hard facts. They should rename this the SUV for Car bill.

Wow, so we're going to argue over a few examples that won't qualify. What garbage. And as for the waste of tax payer dollars crap. The program is designed to give people a few thousand tax payer dollars to get a vehicle that is a drain on tax payer dollars due to it's poor fuel economy and pollution, and get them to put tax revenue back in the system by buying a new vehicle that you will pay tax on, provide revenue for the dealership and sales people by selling cars which also generates tax revenue by keeping people employed which means they pay income tax, and by them staying employed due to the increased car sales that this program is designed to do that salesman can afford to go out and buy things which keeps others employed and further generates tax revenue.

Oh, and also for those of you would bash the bill by pointing out that certain people own trucks/SUVs for a reason, kindly note:

"Owners of sport-utility vehicles, pickup trucks, or minivans that get 18 mpg or less would receive a voucher for $3,500 if their new truck or SUV gets at least 2 mpg higher than their old vehicle. The voucher would increase to $4,500 if the mileage of the new truck or SUV is at least 5 mpg higher than the older vehicle." (Taken from a Business Week article.)

By allowing a relative before/after mpg comparison for trucks/SUVs in addition to the 18mpg threshold, this means that there is a greater incentive for a truck/SUV owner to step into a more fuel efficient truck/SUV than there is for a current sedan owner to purchase something even more economical. (The government gives you nothing if you decided to trade in your 21mpg V6 Accord for a 30mpg Civic, whereas they might throw 3.5k at you if you trade in your 13mpg Silverado for a 16mpg Canyon.)

Consider this: These incentives also substantially movitate the re-purchase of newer trucks and SUVs, drumming up business for domestic dealers, in turn helping them move what currently are pretty stagnant inventories.

Johnny Lawmaker has other motives than just trying to screw Uncle Bubba.

cocarguydj: "What a waste of taxpayer dollars."

Actually, your conclusion is wrong. The ineffective way the bill is written is saving tax payer dollars.

@dbarks1:

Punctuation, man!

And, you're right: the bill was arguably more about putting taxpayers money back into the american auto industry than it was saving the environment. They just marketed it that way because it makes everybody feel warm and fuzzy inside when we help save the world.

P.S.: If Uncle Bubba had owned an aging truck, he'd actually be one of those people who would benefit most by the bill.

@cocarguydj:

There are plenty of vehicles out there that qualify.

@dbostondriver:

They really should call it the "SUVs for New SUVs" bill.

canadia:

"There are plenty of vehicles that qualify"....for the $3500 passenger car rebate, which only requires 22 combined mpg.

As for the $4500 rebate, relative to the overall number of US built models available for sale in the US and the respective engine options, the number of models that achieve 28 mpg combined is a small list confined to more expensive hybrids.

This statute has been enacted to help unload the huge numbers of unsold 2008-2009 existing inventory (many of which are hidden in remote parking areas).

Correct me if I am wrong, but this sounds like a useless incentive. What if your vehicle qualifies by MPG but it is actually worth more than $4500? According to the government, the dealers are not allowed to resell the trade ins, they will scrapped or parted out. So, if I want to trade in my 2 year old suburban for a toyota prius where does that leave me with my trade in? I see a potential problem of dealers not even accepting the trade in at all.

athens:

This is true.

b40:

I wouldn't consider your 2 year old suburban to be a "clunker." The bill wasn't written to motivate people to trade their SUVs for hybrids, but rather, as others have pointed out, to marginally increase mpg gains on certain trade-ins, and to motivate the sale of '08-'09 leftovers.

So you mean my fleet of first generation RX7 parts cars aren't covered by this? 23 MPG . . . . and people COMPLAIN about rotary mileage.
Truth be told, bone stock I can only squeeze around 17 mpg average from a tank. Make those secondaries mechanical and remove all the useless emissions junk though and it shoots up closer to 25 ^_^

The K-car burning oil like crazy or the Camry with the bad O2 sensor or beater '94 Accord with the rusted out cat or poorly maintained xxx without regular maintenance is making waaaay more smog and emissions than the well maintained gas guzzler that granny drives two times a week not to mention probably burning more fuel...this bill is a fail for passenger cars. To say it's improving gas mileage of the passenger fleet is deceptive, if not outright fraudulent.

The truck provisions are quite reasonable and I can support those...I just vehemently disagree with the car provisions...which are silly considering CAFE has been above 18 mpg combined since 1978 when it went into effect...congratulations...you can replace you're 7-series with a 3-series and get a 4,500 rebate!!!! What a joke...

I just love the attitude that government isn't the answer, government is the problem. Well sure it is, when you elect a whole lot of people who believe this so enact policies and appoint people with the sole design of making government fail. It's designed to get old cars off the road and stimulate new car sales. So what if it doesn't include every car that some imaginary Uncle drives, it will get a good amount of cars off the road and stimulate some buying. And if it doesn't get used enough, then the tax money doesn't get used, so you have nothing to complain about. Government can be great if you put people in government who believe in it. How good would any company be if the CEO and all the executives continuously held press conferences to say how poor their company is. Yet this is exactly what we hear from one half of our government. They hate government yet spend millions in campaign dollars to be there and rally supporters to vote for them to be there. Seems a bit weird doesn't it?

"It's a 1987 model, and Aunt Flossie loves that Caprice because it looks like the cop car that took Uncle Bubba to jail for general philandering once"... "But which five-liter V8? The 305-cubic-inch, or that Oldsmobile 307-cubic-inch?

"The big motor," Uncle Bubba says. "The 307."

Not so fast! The 307 was a wagon only motor. Any "cop car" lookalike Caprice would be the sedan, which in V8 form only came with the 305. Better call Bubba back...

Some of the fleet cars and quite a few of the Canadian sedans had the 307. Maybe one leaked across the border.

dbarks, that is why I support politicians who also agree that government IS the problem, and will fight for less of it!

yep. bill will do little for people that are willing to purchase new vehicle by trading in older vehicle. My '93 Dodge Intrepid with 3.5L averages 19mpg while the same exact car 4 years later '97 Dodge Intrepid with 3.5L averages 18 mpg and qualifies.

Trucks have to have a combined average of 15mpg's.
There are probably a total of 250,000 cars that will qualify for this program in the US. If you are waiting to see if your car qualifies, it doesn't.

I have a bigger POS than either of Uncle Bubba's cars, but my E36 is rated for 20 mpg combined, so I'm just as SOL.

What is with all the dimwits here? For crying out loud if the qualifications were set any easier, who is looking to save the taxpayer dollars? If a car already does better than 19 mpg, it is doing fine, five years from now when it gets replaced, it'll be something more fuel efficient anyways. There is NO point in wasting tax payer dollars on a non-problem car! Who can't get this thru their thick heads!? It is NOT to give out money to anyone just so they can go on a new car shopping spree!! As for you treasured 1969 10mpg collectible whatevers, they don't get driven enough to matter anyways, the other 10mpg clunkers deserve to be junked, you just might find a sudden influx of low cost parts for treasured collectible because of these junkers going to the junk yard. Just who are these doofus that thinks that this is an entitlement program, and that they are entitled to the money? Crazy fools!

No one screwing Uncle Bubba. The problem that Uncle Bubba is worthless trailer park trash who thinks he is entitled to goverment money, or rather our tax payer dollars!

g35xfun-

I couldn't help but think the same thing. Here's the thing - it's a credit that you only get if you meet all qualifications. What it means is there is NO SPENDING by the government at all if no one trades in a car under the plan.

It's clear this isn't really about cars as very few cars would qualify. BUT ... SUV's qualify like crazy. And one can combine with other credits too. They also know the reality is, if the vehicle is rated at <18mpg, it probably is currently doing even worse, furthering the impact of the program.

This whole "big government" thing is such a crock of hootie and blowfish. Try big health insurance on for size - the government seems like a needle in a haystack by comparison.

I think they should have raised the fuel economy number. In reality a car rated at 18 mpg overall is probably getting less than 18 mpg made worse by age and condition of the vehicle. There are a lot of junky cars that get better stated fuel milage than that.

@g35xfun:

This is exactly my point... you just articulated it a little less delicately.

Why is that photo of a Buick GNX up there as a "clunker"? That car is SWEET!! Definitely not a clunker, and anyone who crushes that car should be shot.

Sadly I have an '86 BMW 3 series. It somehow averaged 20mpg according to fueleconomy.gov. Now the 87 on up gets an average of 18... If I had waited until '87 I would have qualified! Well maybe clunkers will help out the >.001% of the population that does qualify. *cough*

The real joke about cash for clunkers is the gov't will require the dealers to report the vouchers as income. So a $3500 voucher will equal $1400 in income tax from the dealer and a $4500 will=$1800. Good luck getting anyone to sign on to do it in the first place. Dealers won't sell cars to lose $1400-$1800 on each one.

Well, I guess we're just lucky to have a 1996 Cadillac Seville that's on the giant list of qualifying cars (seen here: http://www.edmunds.com/industry-car-news/cash-for-clunkers-eligible-vehicles.html).

Plus, the TMV trade-in value is only $1200. So, even if we did private party sale, the CARS program is still a good deal in this case.

According to http://www.cars.gov/index.php/faq#question-05, the trade-in must be "be continuously insured and registered to the same owner for the full year preceding the trade-in". I don't have a car to trade in. But I am wondering if a 3-way trade could be possible. For example, I go to the dealer with a guy who has a qualified trade in. He trades his car and I buy a new one. I will give him (half of that $3500/$4500 + the market value of his car) for him to buy a car somewhere else. So both I and he could benefit somewhat from this bill. Possible? The bill doesn't seem to rule this out.