Cash for clunkers

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

GDP isn't an accurate measure of recovery. I think we would be well on our way to recovery had we allowed the market to correct itself. Everything the government has done has simply delayed the inevitable and made it worse in the long run.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Of course they checked credit scores, get serious. The problem is that thanks to the easy credit of the Federal Reserve they were able to loan to people that couldn't afford the loan. Like I said, just because you can get a loan doesn't mean you can afford that loan. We need to let the market work rather than subvert it so that people realistically look at their situation and know what they need as opposed to the government incentivizing something they probably don't need.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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.

You don't even know what they're calling a "gas guzzler." Have you studied this program, O misinformed one?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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...

In other words you can't respond. By taking money out of the stimulus package for this black hole they're simply making it more likely that they're going to want another stimulus package in the near future. Considering the stimulus package is based on very faulty economics in the first place I don't think making it more likely we'll want another one a good situation.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

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.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

If I owned a gas guzzler, I DEFINITELY would have.

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.

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.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

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.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Thus is the problem, a finely tuned, well maintained 1970's car has better emissions and gas mileage than hybrids.

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.

70s cars ARE the bad polluters..... But are exempt from this program. What does that tell you?

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

70s cars ARE the bad polluters..... But are exempt from this program. What does that tell you?

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?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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?

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?

The 90s engine had fuel injection and NO carburetor

 

[Ravi]

If I owned a gas guzzler, I DEFINITELY would have.

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.

Jesus Christ, Kitten. Would you quit making shit up as you go along.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

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.

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

on another side note i put a fuel injected 351 v8 into a 70's GTO and it got over 20mpg.

My car, a subaru, with a 2.5l 4 cyl get 8 MPG....yes i said EIGHT!!!

 

[Ravi]

Some how I'm going to guess that no one driving a seventies corvette is interested in trading it in under this program.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Thus is the problem, a finely tuned, well maintained 1970's car has better emissions and gas mileage than hybrids.

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.

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

And the DEAL is, the EFI engines do almost complete combustion of the fuel. Far more efficient combustion then their carb counterparts.

INCOMPLETE combustion of gasoline MAKES CO2. As a ASE guy you know this well. But for the unenlightened, pour gasoline over hot coals. It won't ignite beyond the gaseous initial flash, but this strange cloud of white gas that clings to the ground will ensue..... That's CO2 you just manufactured. Because of incomplete combustion. Today's gasoline engines eliminate this almost totally.

 

[Ravi]

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.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

My friend had a 1970-something Datson ... we squeezed out a nice 60 mpg on a road trip.

Of course he was a mechanic ...

 

[Oddball]

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.

It's even worse than that.

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.

Parts are worth more than scrap.

Engage brain before whacking keys.

 

[alan1]

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

Alrighty then, as soon as the senate passes it, my clunker will be worth $4500 again.

 

[Soaring]

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.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

Bingo, it's another way for Obama to waste money.