Cash for Clunkers Bill passed.

It does have some interesting restrictions. Your car has to be an 84 or newer (so the classics won't get crushed). You have to have it registered/insured for at least a year (and the Bill only lasts a year, so if you don't already own it you're boned), and then the clunker has to get 18MPG or worse while the new car must get 22MPG or better. Those figures are for the combined rating on www.fueleconomy.gov

If the new car gets 10MPG better than the old one you get $4500, less than that is only worth $3500.

My P71 qualifies (yet it's worth around $3500 anyways, so that's stupid) but the RX-7 is too old (YAY!!!). The Genesis Coupe V6 only rates 20MPG so it wouldn't qualify anyways unless I hit the 2.0T for 24MPG.

I think the restrictions might actually make this bill useful. Ideas?

This watered down version should see a lot of the 90's junk off the roads, it might actually be a good thing, but if just one GNX is crushed I take back these comments

P71 wrote: (so the classics won't get crushed).

They're not classics...yet...but they will be, especially if they start getting crushed. 3rd/4th gen F-Bodies, Fox body Mustangs, etc. are going to be collectible classics in the not-so-distant future. Of course, they already are to some people, but that's another story.

Crushing cars and creating incentives to buy new cars is only going to create more pollution, more waste, etc. than keeping those same old cars on the road. This is also a net loss for money, since "we the people" are paying for "we the people" to get tax breaks. I guess this will be a temporary aid for the car companies "we the people" are slowly taking over (but will probably help the foreign car companies even more). Fortunately, this will require more government involvement and bigger government is always better. Oh....wait....strike that.

The concept sucks. Sure, I'd take advantage of it if I could (free money!), but it still sucks.

Bryce

I agree that it sucks. I'd much rather keep an old car on the road, it's far earth-friendlier.

I do have to admit that the must own it for a year clause will keep the used market from going to the crapper. I could have used this 2 years ago when I was shopping (and got the P71 instead of a newish car because dealers sucked) as I had an old TBird (87 5.0, nothing to cry about) that would have been perfect. It had a billion miles, was hit and repaired incorrectly (wheelbase was different side to side!) and I only paid $200 for it. It did run/drive (kinda).

I'd never junk the 7, it's a classic to a lot of people. The P71 would be tempting (buy for $2450, drive for 2 years/20K, junk for $4500) but it's worth enough privately (modded anyways) and too nice to crush.

It's a dumb move (for environmental reasons anyways) but at least somebody with a brain wrote the clauses. I actually have a family member in dire need of a new car that could use this, and the $3500 is probably the difference between buying a new car or not.

Keeping old cars on the road is not UAW friendly and supporting the UAW is the real goal.

Looks like the trade-in has to be running, so my P71 with the transmission halfway out needs to be put back together to qualify.

What is fun, mondo cheap, and gets 28+mpg?

So my '88 Chevy 1/2-ton is worth $4500, sweet!

Unfortunately, there isn't anything on the EPA site that will pull a fully-loaded car hauler & still get their 24mpg average or better.

Lugnut wrote: Looks like the trade-in has to be running, so my P71 with the transmission halfway out needs to be put back together to qualify. What is fun, mondo cheap, and gets 28+mpg?

Duh, Miata!

ha, congrats to the 50 people that fit those categories and are in a financial situation that allows you to take advantage of it.

They can pry my FC from my cold, dead hands. Preferably after I've wrecked it with a big E36 M3-eating grin on my face. It's a good thing they have a large enthusiast backing, or otherwise there go my parts sources.

After reading the stipulations, this bill doesn't sound like the carpocalyptic visions I was thinking of. If I hear about any cool enthusiast cars headed to their demise, however, I will track down the owner and smack him silly.

P71 wrote:

Lugnut wrote: Looks like the trade-in has to be running, so my P71 with the transmission halfway out needs to be put back together to qualify. What is fun, mondo cheap, and gets 28+mpg?

Duh, Miata!

Looks like there's a handfull of sporty cars that fit the requirements of the bill: Lotus, Miata, Genesis Coup, Solstice....probably a few I'm forgetting.

While I don't necessarily agree with the Bill, the wife's Cherokee has a combined rating of 16 sooooo, I might be tempted to cash in on this, since wholesale values on chrysler suv's are in the tank to the tune of it only being worth ~$2500 otherwise!!

One thing I haven't seen is do you ONLY get the 3500/4500 or do you also get the scrap value of the vehilce when you scrap it, PLUS the $4500 voucher?

my 1992 CV is worth a couple hundred dollars. If I am in a position to get a new car in the next year, I will certainly take advantage of it.

Just the $3500/$4500.

GregTivo wrote: ha, congrats to the 50 people that fit those categories and are in a financial situation that allows you to take advantage of it.

Bingo.

This is political posturing more than anything. Another way they can say "look what we did to help the economy!" that won't do squat but wind up costing the rest of us more in long term debt.

All that's happened is some folks have worked out an agreement. The two houses of Congress have not worked out a final language bill, no one has submitted it to the white house, and the president has not signed any bill into law.

It has NOT passed.

ddavidv wrote:

GregTivo wrote: ha, congrats to the 50 people that fit those categories and are in a financial situation that allows you to take advantage of it.

Bingo. This is political posturing more than anything. Another way they can say "look what we did to help the economy!" that won't do squat but wind up costing the rest of us more in long term debt.

How can you say on one hand that virtualy no one will be able to take advantage of this, then on the other claim it will end up costing us money?

I'll likely trade in the cruddy conversion van for a Smart for the wife. Let's see, $13,000-$4500=goodness. Plus, the wife will be happy, and when Momma's happy, everyone else has a chance to be happy.

mistanfo wrote: ..... and when Momma's happy, everyone else has a chance to be happy.

Words to live by.

In reply to foxtrapper:

The news article said a final version of the bill passed both houses and it was just awaiting the President's signature. That sounds pretty much passed to me?

If I had more money I would be tempted to trade in the Rover on something like the smart car mentioned above, then buy another Rover.

In reply to MrJoshua:

My wife is interested in trading in the Suburban, but I just can't think of a car that can replace it and still meet the 23 mpg that is called out. We have a family of 5. We are tall even the kids (the 3 year old is like 5 feet. Just kidd'n about that)

What do you guys think can replace the Suburban and cost $8-18K? I like the Volvo v70r (used would fit in my price range easily). Wife doesn't want a wagon. I love wagons.

vazbmw wrote: In reply to MrJoshua: My wife is interested in trading in the Suburban, but I just can't think of a car that can replace it and still meet the 23 mpg that is called out. We have a family of 5. We are tall even the kids (the 3 year old is like 5 feet. Just kidd'n about that) What do you guys think can replace the Suburban and cost $8-18K? I like the Volvo v70r (used would fit in my price range easily). Wife doesn't want a wagon. I love wagons.

What are the requierments of this vehicle, besides being able to carry 5 tall people? And I think it only counts towards new vehicles.

"my" crappy F150 has not been insured in almost a year and we just turned the plates in, Can I still use it?

Re-plate it before the President signs the bill!

I'm shopping for an 85-90 Crown Vic to use as trade in fodder now ;)