Not sure if it's true, since I haven't read the language of the latest bill (which is still not a signed law), but apparently the clunker being traded in must be appraised as scrap metal. You will not get fair market value on trade in, just the voucher and scrap metal price.
Not a catch, but a really stupid thing. The new vehicle has to get 4 mpg more than the clunker. 2 mpg if it's a truck. Oh, that really helped save gas and clean the environment.
I don't understand why that's a stupid caveat? For one reason, it is required to scrap the car once turned in. And I'm even surprised that one could even recover a scrap price.
As for the environment... For mileage, not much help. But for regulated emissions, depending on the year of the turn it, it can be pretty significant. Even the best of the best 1990-1995 cars are quite a bit dirtier than the average 2009 car (as measured by the required tests).
FYI- for one of the goverment's official web pages- http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/cash4clunkers.shtml
Eric
Update- according to the above website- the OFFICIAL website is: Cars.gov
Eric
From what I've heard the environmentalist lobbies wanted much higher mileage requirements, but the American car companies thought that would be biased toward the foreign car companies since they make most of the higher mileage cars. Hence the small increase in mileage required for the voucher. It's just a way to pay people to buy American cars.
foxtrapper wrote: Not sure if it's true, since I haven't read the language of the latest bill (which is still not a signed law), but apparently the clunker being traded in must be appraised as scrap metal..
Does that even matter? I thought you just got a $4000 credit (or whatever it is) to a new car. You get the scrap value also? Sounds like a bonus to me.
On a related note, here's another perspective:
http://car-part.com/cashforclunkers/
Cash for Clunkers Bill Passed by the House of Representatives On June 10, 2009, The United States House of Representatives passed the environmentally harmful "Cash for Clunkers" bill. If made a law in its current form, this will prohibit automotive recyclers and dismantlers from harvesting and reselling engines from vehicles turned in under the program. This "Cash for Clunkers" program would force the destruction of certain vehicles' engines. Versions of this legislation under review in the United States Senate would also force the destruction of transmissions and drive train components in these vehicles. "Cash for Clunkers" will adversely affect both the environment and the automotive recycling industry - recycled parts save C02 emissions, energy, and our earth. We must take action. The "Cash for Clunkers" program is a proposed inclusion to the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act. In its current form, the Cash for Clunkers Temporary Vehicle Trade-In bill would prohibit recyclers from harvesting and selling engines from vehicles receiving an 18 mile per gallon or less rating. The automobile repair businesses and consumers who purchase these recycled vehicle components would be faced with a decline in available parts. Recyclers and consumers both rely on parts from recycled vehicles not only because of their substantial savings in reducing repair costs and lowering insurance premiums, but because of the very strong environmental benefits as well. The United States Senate is also considering other versions of similar legislation and will likely be acting on this in the near future. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) has put forth a proposal which would allow automotive recyclers to sell individual drive train components. Another proposal put forth by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) does not include that allowance and also provides for stricter fuel mileage requirements. To learn more about the specific environmental benefits provided by recycled automotive parts, click here. What can you do to help? Make sure members of congress know that you oppose the Cash for Clunkers Temporary Vehicle Trade-In bill! If you are unable to schedule a personal visit, you can fax or mail a letter to your senator of representative district office.
While I think the ARA has some agenda stuffed into their notes (capitalism at its finest!) they make some good points about not being able to reuse the powertrains from these vehicles getting scrapped. I think the whole plan of scrapping cars for a potential few bucks more than you'd get selling it just to get "cleaner, more efficient" ones out there is absolutely ludicrous, if it does go through it would be even more assinine to not allow the parts to be put to use otherwise.
This takes the idea of a "disposable society" to a whole new level.
Bryce
Clay wrote: From what I've heard the environmentalist lobbies wanted much higher mileage requirements, but the American car companies thought that would be biased toward the foreign car companies since they make most of the higher mileage cars. Hence the small increase in mileage required for the voucher. It's just a way to pay people to buy American cars.
Oh so not true.
First of all, the American companies to buy high mileage cars- Fusion/Milan and Focus all qualify for the higher suggested numbers. And qualify for the $4500 for the 10+ improvement. GM has the Cobalt and Aveo. We also both now have Hybrid sedans. While Toyota appears to have lots of small car models, they are all basically Corollas of different bodies (dare we say badge engineering).
Second of all, the minor improvemnt for SUV's and CUVs- again, both Honda and Toyota make their share of these vehicles which would not qualify under the car rules, so we are all in the same boat. And do we still want to ignore what Acura and Lexus brings to the table?
I've posted it many, many times, but it would be worth the time to REALLY look at the entire line up from Honda(Acura) and Toyota(Scion, Lexus) and compare it with GM and Ford. You'll find that GM and Ford are both competetive in terms of FE.
The only thing missing is a Prius/Insight kind of car. But since cars like the Fusion Hybrid is SO much better than the Camry or Accord Hybrid, I'd say that it's a wash.
But since it's so cool to bash the US companies, preception rules.
E-
Nashco wrote: if it does go through it would be even more assinine to not allow the parts to be put to use otherwise. This takes the idea of a "disposable society" to a whole new level. Bryce
Well...I'm not going to argue about whether or not the plan is good. However, I DO see why they would require the vehicles to be scrapped (and not salvaged...used for parts). If the whole "point" (selling point?) of the bill is to get old gas guzzlers off the road, not making parts available for them from salvage sources meets that goal.
Whether we agree with it or not is moot. That's the goal.
alfadriver wrote: The only thing missing is a Prius/Insight kind of car. But since cars like the Fusion Hybrid is SO much better than the Camry or Accord Hybrid, I'd say that it's a wash. But since it's so cool to bash the US companies, preception rules. E-
More devil's advocate here...but there is so much more "missing" from the equation if you're trying to compare the Big 3 to the "new domestics" or whatever you want to call Honda/Toyota/Nissan/Subaru.
The Japanese companies don't offer 1 ton trucks and mega SUVs.
I think it can be argued all day long about whether the Domestics or the Imports are offerening "what the customer wants"...Especially since "what the customer wants" changes from season to season (which is analogous with the price of fuel).
Ramblings, Clem
ClemSparks wrote:alfadriver wrote: The only thing missing is a Prius/Insight kind of car. But since cars like the Fusion Hybrid is SO much better than the Camry or Accord Hybrid, I'd say that it's a wash. But since it's so cool to bash the US companies, preception rules. E-More devil's advocate here...but there is so much more "missing" from the equation if you're trying to compare the Big 3 to the "new domestics" or whatever you want to call Honda/Toyota/Nissan/Subaru. The Japanese companies don't offer 1 ton trucks and mega SUVs. I think it can be argued all day long about whether the Domestics or the Imports are offerening "what the customer wants"...Especially since "what the customer wants" changes from season to season (which is analogous with the price of fuel). Ramblings, Clem
So the Tundra (15/19) and the Land Cruiser(13/18) don't count? Neither of which get decent mileage. Compare that with the F150 (15/20) and the Expedition (14/20). So the Land Cruiser is probably smaller than the HUMUNGOUS Expedition, and manages to get worse milage.... Interesting.
Let alone, neither the 1 ton trucks nor the large SUV's even count toward this program. So the F250-F450 kind of vehicles, which are work trucks, will not be helped by this program.
But just because GM and Ford make 1 (and more than 1ton ) pick up's plust large capacity SUV's, then the fuel economy cars they do make don't count? Is that what you are saying?
E-
BTW, Nissan isn't any better- Tundra- 13/18- best 12/17 worst, and Armada 12/18. Once again, smaller, less capable, and more thirsty all in two vehicles. What's really stunning is that they make a smaller SUV in the Pathfinder, it somehow has a model that's 13/18.
Can we stop pretending that their E36 M3 smells any better than the domestics?
E-
ClemSparks wrote:Nashco wrote: if it does go through it would be even more assinine to not allow the parts to be put to use otherwise. This takes the idea of a "disposable society" to a whole new level. BryceWell...I'm not going to argue about whether or not the plan is good. However, I DO see why they would require the vehicles to be scrapped (and not salvaged...used for parts). If the whole "point" (selling point?) of the bill is to get old gas guzzlers off the road, not making parts available for them from salvage sources meets that goal. Whether we agree with it or not is moot. That's the goal.
So....should we just not allow any powertrain parts for "old gas guzzlers" to be sold at all? I mean, if you can't buy parts for old gas guzzlers, you're forced to buy a new vehicle and that will get old gas guzzlers off the road.
Like I said...I'm not going to say it's right...but that does seem to be the logic behind it.
I checked the other day and the "newest" vehicle in my roadworthy* fleet is an '84 F350 with a 460. I'm the choir, dude, preach on! 
Clem
alfadriver wrote: So the Tundra (15/19) and the Land Cruiser(13/18) don't count? Neither of which get decent mileage. Compare that with the F150 (15/20) and the Expedition (14/20). So the Land Cruiser is probably smaller than the HUMUNGOUS Expedition, and manages to get worse milage.... Interesting. Let alone, neither the 1 ton trucks nor the large SUV's even count toward this program. So the F250-F450 kind of vehicles, which are work trucks, will not be helped by this program. But just because GM and Ford make 1 (and more than 1ton ) pick up's plust large capacity SUV's, then the fuel economy cars they do make don't count? Is that what you are saying? E-
Back it down a notch, man. I'm not SAYING anything except exactly what I said. To compare the domestics to the imports is not really apropos. The range of fuel economy across the board of each does not line up. You can say an F250 is a "work truck" and I completely agree (that that's what it should be used for). However, if you look at a LOT of the F250s on the road you'll see a suburb commuter with a pristine, unscratched bed and lack of contractor decals/magnets on the side.
I guess I just took one point from your post and wanted to clarify a bit (remember the whole bit about "devil's advocate?). It really wasn't in favor of either side (domestics/imports). It's just a cultural difference. Japan has no use for a crewcab dually F250. US doesn't have a use for an 800cc car that won't meet our safety standards here. So, companies from each culture, make a different range of vehicles. A comparison of the two cultures is not apples to apples.
Alfadriver, I'm not the chip on your shoulder...
Sorry...I've taken it off topic,
Clem
ClemSparks wrote: Back it down a notch, man. I'm not SAYING anything except exactly what I said. To compare the domestics to the imports is not really apropos. The range of fuel economy across the board of each does not line up. You can say an F250 is a "work truck" and I completely agree. However, if you look at a LOT of the F250s on the road you'll see a suburb commuter with a pristine, unscratched bed and lack of contractor decals/magnets on the side. I guess I just took one point from your post and wanted to clarify a bit (remember the whole bit about "devil's advocate?). It really wasn't in favor of either side (domestics/imports). It's just a cultural difference. Japan has no use for a crewcab dually F250. US doesn't have a use for an 800cc car that won't meet our safety standards here. So, companies from each culture, make a different range of vehicles. A comparison of the two cultures is not apples to apples. Sorry...Iv'e taken it off topic, Clem
Yes, but when you use that point as a devils advocate, you do ignore the products that Toyota and Nissan DO make for the US market. Which are worse in FE than what GM and Ford offer. You proposed that they don't offer the full range, outside of the F250+ vehicles, they do. And I really don't see that many F250's in commuter hands. I think you are mixing them up with the F150- which is easy to do.
Sorry that it burns my rear when people post preceptions that the US cars are all guzzlers since they make trucks, and Japanese cars are all economical since they make small cars. Ignoring the fact that both sides make cars that fit in all segments. And that segement for segement, the US cars are very competetive.
Cash for clunkers isn't for the American manufacturers. But the Titan plant in Texas isn't going to be helped any more than the Tundra plant in Tennessee or the F150 plant in Michigan.
E-
alfadriver wrote: Yes, but when you use that point as a devils advocate, you do ignore the products that Toyota and Nissan DO make for the US market. Which are worse in FE than what GM and Ford offer. You proposed that they don't offer the full range, outside of the F250+ vehicles, they do. And I really don't see that many F250's in commuter hands. I think you are mixing them up with the F150- which is easy to do.
Um...no, I'm not confusing anything. Maybe your area and mine are different. But an F250 (F350 even) is something of a soccer mom status symbol here where you get on the interstate to go across town.
Sorry that it burns my rear when people post preceptions that the US cars are all guzzlers since they make trucks, and Japanese cars are all economical since they make small cars. Ignoring the fact that both sides make cars that fit in all segments. And that segement for segement, the US cars are very competetive.
I'm sorry it burns you rear when people do this, but you're projecting it on me particularly and I specifically excluded myself from that population, several times now, I feel.
Clem
ClemSparks wrote: I'm sorry it burns you rear when people do this, but you're projecting it on me particularly and I specifically excluded myself from that population, several times now, I feel. Clem
LOL! No you are not. Is it not funny to counter that some people choose the F250 as a commuter, which apparently negates the Focus since Toyota doesn't offer it? If I'm not mistaken, you keep posting the preception, far from excluding yourself.
But, if it makes you feel better, I don't hold it against you. :)
E-
It doesn't make any sense that there is a cutoff at 1985 for gas guzzlers. By 1985 cars had O2 sensors and all sorts of tricks up their sleeves to improve mileage. If you want to get real pigs off the road go for cars from the 60s and 70s.
benzbaron wrote: It doesn't make any sense that there is a cutoff at 1985 for gas guzzlers. By 1985 cars had O2 sensors and all sorts of tricks up their sleeves to improve mileage. If you want to get real pigs off the road go for cars from the 60s and 70s.
The only sense that it makes is that is the first year for the window sticker and certified fuel ecomomy testing. Other than that....
E-
Makes sense since I didn't see any fuel mileage standard for a funky old mercedes like mine. Hell there are 1970s V8 mercedes sedans that get like 12mpg downhill bothways with a tailwind.
Thanks for the info alfadriver.
benzbaron wrote: It doesn't make any sense that there is a cutoff at 1985 for gas guzzlers. By 1985 cars had O2 sensors and all sorts of tricks up their sleeves to improve mileage. If you want to get real pigs off the road go for cars from the 60s and 70s.
i think at least part of that is so that it doesn't target classic cars that could be restored or used for parts
alfadriver wrote: LOL! No you are not. Is it not funny to counter that some people choose the F250 as a commuter, which apparently negates the Focus since Toyota doesn't offer it? If I'm not mistaken, you keep posting the preception, far from excluding yourself. But, if it makes you feel better, I don't hold it against you. :) E-
Hmmm my head hurts trying to figure this all out. I guess what I'm trying to defend now is that I'm not one in the camp that says "US cars are gas guzzling suck boxes." This is the type you are against, I gather.
I am saying that some PEOPLE prefer gas guzzlers and that's why the vehicles that guzzle more gas are on the market...because there's a DEMAND for them. The reason that there are no ultra efficient vehicles for sale here has, I think, to do with safety regulations. I've seen some of these vehicles and they make a Corolla or a Focus look like a late 70's LTD by comparison.
No worries from my end...just trying to not be confused for someone I'm not.
Clem
aircooled wrote: Does that even matter? I thought you just got a $4000 credit (or whatever it is) to a new car. You get the scrap value also? Sounds like a bonus to me.
It matters. It matters a whole lot. For you don't get the trade in value of the vehicle.
So you show up with your old Toyota Tundra because you're sick of feeding it (17 mpg average). You want to trade it in on Honda Fit and you're all excited about getting this bonus.
You figure you'll get the $7,000 trade in on the truck, plus the $4,500 cash4clunkers bonus, and be sitting pretty.
Nope. You dont get any trade in, you get the scrap metal price. Oh boy, $40. Not the $7,000 you were expecting.
So, you can get either the $4,500 cash4clunkers voucher, or the $7,000 trade in value of the vehicle, but not both.
Which would you chose?
benzbaron wrote: If you want to get real pigs off the road go for cars from the 60s and 70s.
I don't know where you live, but up here in the rust belt all those cars (except carefully preserved classics) are already long gone. Heck, my 89 Civic wagon is well on its way to rusting out from under me. And I'd rather have that than a Honda Fit - unless we start getting the K20 powered AWD Fit here in the States...
benzbaron wrote: It doesn't make any sense that there is a cutoff at 1985 for gas guzzlers. By 1985 cars had O2 sensors and all sorts of tricks up their sleeves to improve mileage. If you want to get real pigs off the road go for cars from the 60s and 70s.
But there aren't a lot of 60s-70s cars being used as daily drivers.
You'll need to log in to post.
