Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don't think it's a black hole of a program. Maybe the economy is just recovering faster than expected...and people are taking advantage of a rather large incentive to buy a new car.
The economy is not recovering, and people are taking advantage of this incentive. However, I'm guessing that most of them can't afford a new car even with this incentive. It's clearly a black hole of a program considering it wasted $1 billion in a week.
How long did it take to get where we are? How fast do you think it should recover? Do you "black hole" naysayers EVER pay attention to anything on a daily basis?
CNNMoney.com Market Report - Jul. 31, 2009
"There's a constant bid in the market, you can't knock it down," said Joseph Saluzzi, co-head of equity trading at Themis Trading.
In the last three weeks, the major gauges have all gained around 12% as investors have breathed a sigh of relief that the pace of the economic slowdown has eased and corporate profits are closer to recovering.
GDP: The pace of economic decline slowed in the second quarter, in the clearest indicator yet that the recession is winding down.
GDP, the broadest measure of U.S. economic activity, shrank at a 1% annual rate in the April-through-June period. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com thought GDP would shrink at a faster 1.5% rate.
God you people are dumb. With tight credit being what it is, if someone couldn't qualify for the loan on the balance, they wouldn't have gotten the fucking car in the first place.
Just because you can qualify for a loan doesn't mean you can afford it.
Yeah, right. Tried to get a car loan lately with a rating below 700? Good luck with that. The whole purpose of scoring credit is so that a new lender can SEE if you can afford what you're buying. Duh... When the street sharks were out hawking houses, they didn't bother with insignificant stuff like checking credit scores of course.
You don't even know what they're calling a "gas guzzler." Have you studied this program, O misinformed one?IF i was looking to get a new vehicle I would have taken advantage of this.
I guess the dealers are making people sign wavers now saying "If the govt doesn't pay up you must return the vehicle or pay the difference"
If I owned a gas guzzler, I DEFINITELY would have.
It's money already in the stimulus package, not new money. Just like the "bailout" money for GM wasn't new money; it came out of the existing TARP funds, which some of you dummies still don't get.
Yes, and how much of that stolen money are they going to have to steal to continue funding this black hole and eventually have to steal more money directly from the taxpayers?
To respond to that I would feel like I had to reach all the way back to 'splane it to my 10-year old nephew (who understood, btw), so why bother...
You don't even know what they're calling a "gas guzzler." Have you studied this program, O misinformed one?IF i was looking to get a new vehicle I would have taken advantage of this.
I guess the dealers are making people sign wavers now saying "If the govt doesn't pay up you must return the vehicle or pay the difference"
If I owned a gas guzzler, I DEFINITELY would have.
No, no way possible.You don't even know what they're calling a "gas guzzler." Have you studied this program, O misinformed one?If I owned a gas guzzler, I DEFINITELY would have.
Thus is the problem, a finely tuned, well maintained 1970's car has better emissions and gas mileage than hybrids.
No, no way possible.You don't even know what they're calling a "gas guzzler." Have you studied this program, O misinformed one?
Thus is the problem, a finely tuned, well maintained 1970's car has better emissions and gas mileage than hybrids.
Carburetors are horrible for efficiency and worse for emissions. If it has one, it needs to be upgraded to fuel injection or junked. That's what I'm saying, cash for clunkers does NOT include any car manufactured prior to 1985. Because before that, they're "antiques" and protected under the various state laws.
You cannot make a carburetor engine be as fuel efficient as a fuel injected one, no matter what you do. It's the nature of the beast.
70s cars ARE the bad polluters..... But are exempt from this program. What does that tell you?No, no way possible.Thus is the problem, a finely tuned, well maintained 1970's car has better emissions and gas mileage than hybrids.
Carburetors are horrible for efficiency and worse for emissions. If it has one, it needs to be upgraded to fuel injection or junked. That's what I'm saying, cash for clunkers does NOT include any car manufactured prior to 1985. Because before that, they're "antiques" and protected under the various state laws.
You cannot make a carburetor engine be as fuel efficient as a fuel injected one, no matter what you do. It's the nature of the beast.
That's the thing, you can upgrade those on the older cars. Newer ones they build so you have to replace the whole thing. Even then, that's only part of what makes them fuel efficient, maintenance is another huge factor, most people don't even change their oil until the machine won't run, which makes these newer cars no more fuel efficient than a lawn mower.
70s cars ARE the bad polluters..... But are exempt from this program. What does that tell you?No, no way possible.
Carburetors are horrible for efficiency and worse for emissions. If it has one, it needs to be upgraded to fuel injection or junked. That's what I'm saying, cash for clunkers does NOT include any car manufactured prior to 1985. Because before that, they're "antiques" and protected under the various state laws.
You cannot make a carburetor engine be as fuel efficient as a fuel injected one, no matter what you do. It's the nature of the beast.
That's the thing, you can upgrade those on the older cars. Newer ones they build so you have to replace the whole thing. Even then, that's only part of what makes them fuel efficient, maintenance is another huge factor, most people don't even change their oil until the machine won't run, which makes these newer cars no more fuel efficient than a lawn mower.
The 90s engine had fuel injection and NO carburetor70s cars ARE the bad polluters..... But are exempt from this program. What does that tell you?That's the thing, you can upgrade those on the older cars. Newer ones they build so you have to replace the whole thing. Even then, that's only part of what makes them fuel efficient, maintenance is another huge factor, most people don't even change their oil until the machine won't run, which makes these newer cars no more fuel efficient than a lawn mower.
Meh ... I don't know as much about cars as I do computers, that's for sure, but I do know my friend way back when replaced on engine in one with a 90's engine and it was awesome. But yeah ... what's up with that?
You don't even know what they're calling a "gas guzzler." Have you studied this program, O misinformed one?If I owned a gas guzzler, I DEFINITELY would have.
Thus is the problem, a finely tuned, well maintained 1970's car has better emissions and gas mileage than hybrids.
Jesus Christ, Kitten. Would you quit making shit up as you go along.
No, no way possible.You don't even know what they're calling a "gas guzzler." Have you studied this program, O misinformed one?
Thus is the problem, a finely tuned, well maintained 1970's car has better emissions and gas mileage than hybrids.
Carburetors are horrible for efficiency and worse for emissions. If it has one, it needs to be upgraded to fuel injection or junked. That's what I'm saying, cash for clunkers does NOT include any car manufactured prior to 1985. Because before that, they're "antiques" and protected under the various state laws.
You cannot make a carburetor engine be as fuel efficient as a fuel injected one, no matter what you do. It's the nature of the beast.
And the DEAL is, the EFI engines do almost complete combustion of the fuel. Far more efficient combustion then their carb counterparts.No, no way possible.Thus is the problem, a finely tuned, well maintained 1970's car has better emissions and gas mileage than hybrids.
Carburetors are horrible for efficiency and worse for emissions. If it has one, it needs to be upgraded to fuel injection or junked. That's what I'm saying, cash for clunkers does NOT include any car manufactured prior to 1985. Because before that, they're "antiques" and protected under the various state laws.
You cannot make a carburetor engine be as fuel efficient as a fuel injected one, no matter what you do. It's the nature of the beast.
I'm an ASE certified mechanic and he is right about the carbs. With computer controlled FI cars you can get much higher mileage than with a carb.
On a side note. the 2009 Corvette C6 with a 6.2L gasoline 8 cycl get 26mpg on the highway. most hybrids with motors with motors that are under 2.0l only get in the high 30's for mileage.
Not to say with R&D those numbers for hybrids cant get better, but their mileage isn't all that great considering an all gas honda civic gets over 40mpg
Even if they were, it wouldn't qualify with such a good mpg rating.
Kitten, my car gets 45 mpg. Show me your list of seventies cars that even come in the ballpark.
Parts are worth more than scrap.It's even worse than that.Cash for Clunkers is a con game used to take away choices from people with the guise of getting paid for it. Most "clunkers" can be taken to a shop and fixed up really nice for far less than buying a new car, even a frame is valuable to those who restore cars.
The dealers taking the trade-in are required to crush them, rather than fixing them up or liquidating them for parts.
If ya kinda-sorta didn't know better, it looks like those geniuses in the District of Crooks are trying to inflate a used car bubble.
For which they pocket the cash paid by the scrap metal dealer.
Cash for Clunkers clearly wasn't a success. How could anyone consider a foolish program that ran out of funding a success? Not to mention how it subverts market forces.
At any rate, the Clunkers program isn't going anywhere.
The House voted Friday to transfer $2 billion in emergency funding from the economic stimulus plan to the "cash for clunkers" program, ensuring it has sufficient funds to continue.
The move follows a scramble Thursday after it emerged that the initial $1 billion allocated to the clunkers program may have been close to exhausted after just one week. The legislation would shift $2 billion from the $787 billion stimulus plan to the program.
House Votes to Extend 'Clunkers' Program - WSJ.com
That's the same normal discount you would get by a reputible dealer when trading in any old car for a new one. What is the big deal here? MSRP prices are way more than the 4500 above what the dealer actually pays for the car. You guys and the American public as a whole are idiots when it comes to trading an old car in for a new one. The government hasn't paid any auto dealer any money for the program. I wonder why? It's a scam, that's why.
