Anyone wanna guess

User Forum Topic
Submitted by SD Realtor on August 8, 2009 - 12:01am

what happens to the cars that are traded in for the cash for clunkers?

Are they given away for charity?

Are they resold as used cars?

Take a few guesses...

Submitted by DWCAP on August 8, 2009 - 12:16am.

they are crushed, arnt they?

Submitted by 4plexowner on August 8, 2009 - 3:06am.

"vehicle will be crushed or shredded onsite within 180 days of receipt of the vehicle, that all toxic or hazardous components will be removed and properly disposed of prior to crushing or shredding"

http://www.cars.gov/disposal

Submitted by svelte on August 8, 2009 - 6:51am.

Here is the process for killing the car, in video technicolor glory:

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/31/video...

Being a car guy, a small part of me dies just watching the video...kind of like watching children drink Jim Jones Kool-Aid.

That's a 95 Olds Aurora with over 240K miles being murdered.

Submitted by Coronita on August 8, 2009 - 7:46am.

Repost....

These cars die a horrible death. Next up, under the new healthcare program.... Here you go great-gramps, drink this....

Page 2:

http://piggington.com/gov039t_giving_you...

flu wrote:

meanwhile, here's a video of what dealers are suppose to do to destroy the "clunker"...Drain oil, fill with sodium silicate, and rev the engine until it seizes. I cringe watching folks kill cars like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXfaUjMtt...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOEqJIGnX...

BMW 735....scraped

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3qXvDDhUpE

Late Model Volvo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waj2KrKYT...

More...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M5Sm3A7r...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOEqJIGnX...

This is such a fvcking waste in so many different ways...Where are the tree huggers now?

Next up, ObamaCare asking you to trade in your sick family member under a cash for sick/elder program. Here you go, drink this......(Shudders)

Some more...

BMW 530
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SXA1oZnj98

BMW 5 series V8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvTZLPyi2...

BMW 525

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoMQXlS8Wmk

...sigh....Those would have been good donor cars for projects...If i see an M5 trashed this way, I'm going to hurl

Something interesting also about what cars are top sellers in the C4C program...

http://autospies.com/news/Evidently-The-...

What are people trading their clunkers in for? It depends on who you ask.

The government's results showed small cars as the top choice for shoppers looking for Cash for Clunker deals. But an independent analysis by Edmunds.com disputed those results, and showed that two full-size trucks and a small crossover SUV were actually among the top-ten buys.

The discrepancy is a result of the methods used. Edmunds.com uses traditional sales measurements, tallying sales by make and model. The government uses a more arcane measurement method that subdivides models according to engine and transmission types, counting them as separate models.

For example, the Ford Escape is available in six different versions including two- and four-wheel drive and hybrid versions. The government counts each version as a different vehicle using guidelines from the Environmental Protection Agency. Only the front wheel drive, non-hybrid version made the government's top ten list.

Edmund's Top 10 Cash For Clunkers
Rank Vehicle Includes Includes 4WD Includes Hybrid
1 Ford Escape Yes Yes
2 Ford Focus No No
3 Jeep Patriot Yes No
4 Dodge Caliber Yes No
5 Ford F-150 Yes No
6 Honda Civic No Yes
7 Chevrolet Silverado Yes Yes
8 Chevrolet Cobalt No No
9 Toyota Corolla No No
10 Ford Fusion Yes Yes

Submitted by Veritas on August 8, 2009 - 1:34pm.

"German officials noted this week that there has been firm evidence of clunkers there being routed abroad — to Africa and even eastern Europe — and being resold. The Association of Criminal Investigators, or BDK, estimated that about 50,000 cars — polluting makes and models — have been sent outside of Germany. Clunkers in Germany aren't required to have their engines disabled and thousands have not made it to the scrap yard."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/econom...

Submitted by EconProf on August 8, 2009 - 3:47pm.

To crush perfectly good, 18 MPG cars, some with less than 100k miles on them is positively sinful. The cars have lots of utility left in them, and in a world with needy people this is such a waste. 40 miles south of us poor people are pushing around real clunkers, massive polluters and unsafe gas guzzlers. There would be a net gain to the environment, to human safety, and to consumer satisfaction if our government could have exerted a modicum or creativity and traded our "clunkers" for theirs.

Submitted by bsrsharma on August 8, 2009 - 5:43pm.

EconProf: That was a very smart suggestion (destroying Mexican clunkers and replacing them with US gifted used cars) to reduce border/global pollution and get a lot of free goodwill. It is so sad our governments have so little creativity. Imagine if U.S. government offered to just buy more than, say, 5 or 7 year old cars for $3500-$4500 and gifted the good ones to Mexico in exchange for getting equal number of their cars for scrapping. Overall pollution would have been reduced and our auto factories would be working at full speed increasing employment. This would have been the best stimulus money can buy.

Submitted by SD Realtor on August 8, 2009 - 5:57pm.

It was not a perfectly good idea, it was perfectly stupid. It has nothing to do with incentivizing people to help the environment. Are you kidding me? It was an ill conceived idiotic idea. First off it is a subsidy for an already ailing auto industry that already had been pumped full of govt money. It also was a pathetic attempt to help people spend more money when people should be saving money rather then incur more debt. Finally it has done nothing but provide a strong bump in sales and clog the already overclogged landfills with many cars that were nowhere near ready to be destroyed.

I am amazed that this could be considered a great idea by anybody.

You really think this is a wise use of your tax dollars?

Submitted by bsrsharma on August 8, 2009 - 6:21pm.

As it is being done, it is a poor plan; especially with the loophole allowing one to buy low MPG trucks. But done the way EconProf suggested, it would have done a lot of good. U.S. drivers get to buy newer cars, U.S. workers get jobs, pollution is reduced, a lot of goodwill is generated abroad. What government program comes anywhere half as good? Much of postwar (1945) government expenditure has been on creating and fighting imaginary enemies (and transfer payments).

Submitted by alarmclock on August 8, 2009 - 7:24pm.

The entire cash for clunkers program seems like a very American (ca 1980-) way to achieve the various goals, so in that respect it was not the slightest bit surprising. Although I'm trying to emotionally detach from the decay in our way of life, when I heard what they were doing to disable the clunkers it definitely still stung.

Submitted by Coronita on August 8, 2009 - 8:45pm.

SD Realtor wrote:
It was not a perfectly good idea, it was perfectly stupid. It has nothing to do with incentivizing people to help the environment. Are you kidding me? It was an ill conceived idiotic idea. First off it is a subsidy for an already ailing auto industry that already had been pumped full of govt money. It also was a pathetic attempt to help people spend more money when people should be saving money rather then incur more debt. Finally it has done nothing but provide a strong bump in sales and clog the already overclogged landfills with many cars that were nowhere near ready to be destroyed.

I am amazed that this could be considered a great idea by anybody.

You really think this is a wise use of your tax dollars?

Yup, we're on the same page. Getting people already in financial trouble to spend even more money they don't have. Oh well, at least the equity markets like it (for now)

Submitted by bsrsharma on August 8, 2009 - 9:02pm.

Getting people already in financial trouble to spend even more money they don't have

Flu,

I think that comment borders on patronizing (car buyers). Firstly, statistics show most of the buyers have been middle class and better. Secondly, in this day and age, which idiot financier will advance a dodgy loan on a fast depreciating asset? I think most of the buyers are pretty good credit risks. This is a generally good program except for the politically inspired "gerrimandering" of allowing low MPG trucks for purchase. Also, the scrappage could have been done better - for example by offering to exchange the trade in vehicles, when feasible, (for free) with really old & polluting vehicles (like the pre 1990s for example) or donating to Mexico and destroying like number of Mexican clunkers (many without any emission controls and some still using leaded gas).

On the whole, a better program than the completely dysfunctional "foreclosure prevention" crap and other stimulus boondoggle (like wire transferring funds from treasury to Goldman via AIG, almost like in a third world tinpot dictatorship).

Submitted by SD Realtor on August 8, 2009 - 10:35pm.

It is comical... purely comical that anyone thinks that any measures to push an already strapped consumption based population is to...

Have them spend more money!!!

Yes that makes alot of sense.

Why not give them a government based tax credit to buy flatscreens to replace any tube televisions? Why not replace those outdated cd players with mp3 players? Why not give them 8k no maybe 80k of taxpayer money to give up that old klunker energy inefficient home and buy a nice energy efficient KB Home? Then you can have goodwill by letting bums or illegal aliens live in the klunker home!

Giving people an incentive to get further in debt is not the right way to fix a f*$cked up economy. Why don't you give them a tax credit to live within thier means? Why don't you give them a credit to lower thier debt? Why don't you teach them to live a different lifestyle instead of telling them that they have to continue to buy?

You are missing the big picture by so much it is amazing to me.

When the government has to reach into the taxpayers pockets to incentivize consumers to buy product from a company the government owns how screwed up is that?

Giving people money so that they can get into more debt is not a good thing. I don't care if you give every friggin car in the USA to starving kids in Darfur.

Try to understand the big picture of what the government is really doing here. Even in the model that econprof brought up, spending more and reinflating is not the way out.

Submitted by ucodegen on August 9, 2009 - 2:48am.

Some of this is really sad..

Some of those clunkers are not really that much of a clunker. The Oldsmobile Aurora V8 is a pretty good engine and hot-rodders like to build hot-rods from them. It is one of the very few 4valve cyl, dual overhead cam V8s made by GM, and is derived from the Cadillac Northstar engine.

Here are some pictures of properly dressed Aurora V8s.
http://www.fabulousracers.com/images/pho...
http://www.katechengines.com/street_perf...

Most of those cars should be donated to low income people in trade for the POS they may be driving (income lower than a certain amount, and only to replace a car of poorer condition). It also shows how stupid some people are. Some of the used car values on the cars turned in are greater than the $4500 that they receive on the clunkers program.

So what will really happen from all of this?

* more stuff going to landfills (not 100% of a car is recyclable)
* repair/replacement parts get more expensive - rebuilt engines come from somewhere.. you can't use the crank or the block of these engines in a rebuild because of the scoring.
* Used cars get will more expensive - these cars would have probably gone on the used car market.
* New cars get more expensive - prices were going down until this.
* People who had a car that was paid off now have a new car that will be depreciating quickly and have yet another 'mortgage payment'. (less discretionary income.. which is needed for recovery)

Dealers may also be gaming the system...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_S9XJlml...

--
How about $4500 towards a roof-top solar array of 5KVA or better?.. $4500 will buy you 2.5KVA+. I wonder how much CO2 we would be prevented this way...

Peter Schiff's take, actually starts at 0:23:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5E7PTtQP...

Interesting comment at 2:09...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3roRBIkNK...

Submitted by Coronita on August 9, 2009 - 5:50am.

bsrsharma wrote:
Getting people already in financial trouble to spend even more money they don't have

Flu,

I think that comment borders on patronizing (car buyers). Firstly, statistics show most of the buyers have been middle class and better. Secondly, in this day and age, which idiot financier will advance a dodgy loan on a fast depreciating asset? I think most of the buyers are pretty good credit risks. This is a generally good program except for the politically inspired "gerrimandering" of allowing low MPG trucks for purchase. Also, the scrappage could have been done better - for example by offering to exchange the trade in vehicles, when feasible, (for free) with really old & polluting vehicles (like the pre 1990s for example) or donating to Mexico and destroying like number of Mexican clunkers (many without any emission controls and some still using leaded gas).

On the whole, a better program than the completely dysfunctional "foreclosure prevention" crap and other stimulus boondoggle (like wire transferring funds from treasury to Goldman via AIG, almost like in a third world tinpot dictatorship).

Aren't middle class the ones complaining about higher medical costs, jobs going overseas, wages being frozen or cut? I don't see with the current economic climate how a majority of middle class should be sinking greater depth into debt.

I think there definitely is a priority problem here, and seeing that so many folks are more than willing to spend money on a government subsidized bling, but such abhorrent toward spending more on say health care, sends a pretty clear message to me....Americans haven't truely experienced enough economic calamity to have learned sh1t about fiscal responsibility.

And frankly,the comment about the "people middle class or better" are car current buyers in this C4C program...I'm assuming by that statement, you're saying referring to people with more financial capacity and disposable income....Well people in this category don't 'need' a credit to buy a car do they? In fact, I have a few friends that live in RSF and Del Mar(real del mar) whom have bought cars (plural) under the C4C program, some for more than one family member...I had a few friends that bought a car for themselves, and each of their kids (because each of their kids had their clunker in their own names). And they definitely don't NEED this government subsidy. (Frankly, i would have milked the system too..) I just wonder though how folks feel who can't afford a home even today feel about indirectly subsidizing someone of my RSF/Del Mar buddies and their kids.

I have a really tough time digesting this "wealth redistribution" to support more consumer spending on cars. A new car for most is most likely a "want" and not a "need". And in this economic climate, I think for most americans, that any financial $$$$ should be going towards the "need" category and the "savings" category..

So, this is a subsidy to the automakers/dealers, purely. The arguments for environmental gains don't seem to hold water. For one thing, a good portion of cars from the 80ies are actually more fuel efficient than modern cars... The 80ies honda CRX for instance gets 41 mpg roughly combined, which is about the same as the current generation civic and prius hybrids.

http://www.egmcartech.com/2007/12/26/57m...

Several reasons for this include (1) arms race from auto manufacturers...ie horsepower wars... and (2) cars these days are weigh like porky pig, with the aforementioned hybrids weighing 1000lbs more than the CRX. That's we're i think the auto makers should be investing r&d...How to make the bloated pigs less bloated via composite materials while preserving strength. Some auto companies got that going on with Aluminum, asf, and carbon fiber....Vettes, BMW and Audi come to mind.

Second, most of these "clunkers" are just going to the landfill...Those cars could have been recycled for parts. Also, I wonder what this will do to the used car market.
You should have seen some of their cars that some of these RSFs/Del Mar buddies trashed. Some of them were early model lexuses, honda/toyota minivans, that ran just fine but got say 17mpg and were below the $4500 in the dealer trade in value, so they just didn't go through the hassle of doing private sales and just trashed the cars under C4C. For instance, an early 90ies Lexus LS400 gets less than $3500 at dealer trade in, and meets the C4C program. and that car was immaculate.

Well, anyway, like I said... all this consumer spending at least the equity markets like it (for now)....I've seen companies that are so heavily dependent on consumers spending money they don't have like American Express rise from $18 during the early year to $33, and I'll be laughing my ass of even harder if I see shitygroup go from $1 to $5 or higher, because it's highly unlikely it will ever go back to $1. So, I'm not complaining. I do feel bad for a lot of the cars people are destroying...To me it's like putting your dog to death because you want a new puppy.

Anyway, like housing, I'm sitting out on a new car purchase. I have a feeling after this C4C program runs out, you might find a good deal on a car....Seems like dealer inventories are hitting lows, and that probably means that auto companies are going to ramp up production to meet demand to squeeze every nickel out of consumers...However,it's just a short demand...Sine auto manufacturers can't simply change supply as quickly to meet a much more fluid consumer demand...I suspect that just about when the new cars start hitting the showrooms again, the $2billion will be gone, and suddenly, we're back to square one...Dealers with excess inventory without knowing what to do with them, and auto companies having to write down big losses. just you watch...

Submitted by bsrsharma on August 9, 2009 - 8:14am.

SD Realtor & FLU,

Keynesian economics is not today's invention. Government intervention to prevent recessions from turning into depressions has been the accepted policy from 1930s. So, even though I share your feelings towards debt, (especially when excessive), it may be the only way to prevent Hoovervilles from becoming commonplace. I agree CFC has many problems; but at least the intention of fuel efficiency can't be questioned; especially when much bloodshed has been over oil (directly or indirectly). In fact, the loaded cost of oil has been estimated to be about $200 per barrel if you include the cost of all military misadventures. Being a government program, obviously it was corrupted and porked up. But I would direct my outrage towards Congress buying more weapons that Pentagon doesn't want or keeping U.S. troops in Japan, Germany, UK, Italy etc., 64 years after WWII. There is a lot of government waste; but C4C is not the top of list.

Submitted by SD Realtor on August 9, 2009 - 9:35am.

Right so give people money to buy a car from a company that you essentially own, or a foreign company. Have them trade in a car that runs on oil to buy another car that runs on a tiny bit less oil, while you pile more of our landfills with dead cars.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Submitted by PCinSD on August 9, 2009 - 11:29am.

This program is also hurting local charities that rely on people donating their old cars:

http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20...

Submitted by afx114 on August 9, 2009 - 11:35am.

Stimulus is bad, but stimulus that actually works is even worse!

Submitted by jpinpb on August 9, 2009 - 6:30pm.

I have to agree w/SDR on what he's said so far on this.

Submitted by ralphfurley on August 9, 2009 - 7:08pm.

SD Realtor wrote:
It was not a perfectly good idea, it was perfectly stupid. It has nothing to do with incentivizing people to help the environment. Are you kidding me? It was an ill conceived idiotic idea. First off it is a subsidy for an already ailing auto industry that already had been pumped full of govt money. It also was a pathetic attempt to help people spend more money when people should be saving money rather then incur more debt. Finally it has done nothing but provide a strong bump in sales and clog the already overclogged landfills with many cars that were nowhere near ready to be destroyed.

I am amazed that this could be considered a great idea by anybody.

You really think this is a wise use of your tax dollars?


C4C is a drop in the bucket compared to the other stuff that's going on.

Of course it's another handout to the auto industry. Of course it's a waste. But people like to buy new shit they don't need. This gave them reason to do it. I bet a couple months down the line, the majority of folks will be wishing they had their clunkers back in favor of a monthly auto payment.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.