The US Federal "Cash for Clunkers" Program

[Ken H.]

Some rather interesting reading, and insight to how ‘the powers that be’ think sometimes – The new “Cash for Clunkers” program – www.cars.gov. In particular the doc – TheRules.pdf that talk about how a vehicle will be qualified and then disabled. Congress also said the engine block must be rendered non reusable (can’t be reinstalled elsewhere) , but didn’t define what an “engine block” is. So the debate/ruling begins.

 

Then how it is to be disabled:

 

“The agency has determined that a quick, inexpensive, and environmentally safe process exists to disable the engine of the trade-in vehicle while in the dealer’s possession. Removing the engine oil from the crankcase, replacing it with a 40 percent solution of sodium silicate (a substance used in similar concentrations in many common vehicle applications, including patching mufflers and radiators), and running the engine for a short period of time at low speeds renders the engine inoperable. Sodium Silicate solution is a mixture of water and sodium silicate solids.

 

When, after draining the oil, it is introduced into the engine oil system, the oil pump is able to distribute the solution throughout the engine oiling system. The heat of the operating engine then dehydrates the solution leaving solid sodium silicate distributed throughout the engine’s oiled surfaces and moving parts. These solids quickly abrade the bearings causing the engine to seize while damaging the moving parts of the engine and coating all of the oil passages.

 

The agency has decided to implement this process in the rule, requiring a dealer that receives an eligible trade-in vehicle under the CARS program to disable that vehicle’s engine prior to transferring the vehicle to a disposal facility, and to provide a certification to the agency that it has done so at the time the dealer submits its request for reimbursement.”

 

Must be painful to listen to at the very least!

 

So how many dealers (they get a big US$50 for each vehicle) are going to participate in this program I wonder? Sounds like a PITA for them to me.

 

Wonder too why vehicles older than 25 years are excluded?

 

 

[smiller]

So many of the rules seem to lie somewhere between inexplicable and downright silly. This program seems to be a perfect example of taking an idea that has some merits and then letting a committee destroy it.

[BFish]

right now they are all participating.some are matching it. the trade-in has to be junk basically. it gets scrapped. if the trade-in value is greater than the "clunker" allowance you obviously get the trade-in value. it's not a bad idea really. get gas guzzling junkers off the road forever.

 

as far the rules being "silly" i agree somewhat, but it's the govt let's not forget. also realize that any dealer or salesperson would eat a rare steak in a tiger cage if it would mean a sale!

[Couchrocket]

Is there any "how long you've owned the clunker" requirements?

 

Seems to me anyone looking to buy a new car might be well advised to find some old junker, buy it for $500., register it, trade it in at one of the dealers that are "matching" the fed gift of my tax money... and voilà you've got a cool 9K discount on a vehicle.

 

What am I missing?

[Woodie]

1 year of ownership, registration and insurance required.

 

[Matts_12GS]

and we all see how silly this is, but sooooo many are willing to let the same guys that wrote this take over banking, building cars and running healthcare...

 

 

Why is anyone surprised?

[smiller]

and we all see how silly this is, but sooooo many are willing to let the same guys that wrote this take over banking, building cars and running healthcare...

Yes, all of government is really handled by the same six people.

[Mike]

I just can't get my head around this one--the whole idea of euthanizing working machines seems wasteful.

 

On the surface, I understand the concept of getting gas guzzlers off the road as a good thing. I wonder though, has anyone considered the environmental cost of junking vehicles before the end of their service life? I don't pretend to know the answer, but given the fact that producing a new vehicle necessitates the expenditure of energy and impacts the environment to, let's say, "X" degree, has anyone determined that the environmental benefit of replacing that operable vehicle is greater than "X"? Or, perhaps more to the point, greater than "X + $4,500 - Environmental Impact of New Car"?

 

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Your car qualifies!!!

 

No it doesn't!!!

[David]

and we all see how silly this is, but sooooo many are willing to let the same guys that wrote this take over banking, building cars and running healthcare...

Yes, all of government is really handled by the same six people.

 

Well, the same people DO make all the laws.

[smiller]

I just can't get my head around this one--the whole idea of euthanizing working machines seems wasteful.

 

On the surface, I understand the concept of getting gas guzzlers off the road as a good thing. I wonder though, has anyone considered the environmental cost of junking vehicles before the end of their service life? I don't pretend to know the answer, but given the fact that producing a new vehicle necessitates the expenditure of energy and impacts the environment to, let's say, "X" degree, has anyone determined that the environmental benefit of replacing that operable vehicle is greater than "X"? Or, perhaps more to the point, greater than "X + $4,500 - Environmental Impact of New Car"?

I do know of a study done in California that showed the pollution output of older vehicles to be so much higher than newer models that removal of one 'gross polluter' could offset a rather large number of newer vehicles (don't recall the exact figures), making a pretty compelling case that removing older vehicles from service was a fairly cost-effective way of reducing total pollutant output.

[smiller]

Well, the same people DO make all the laws.

Yeah, but 'the government is always wrong' argument is a pretty tired old saw. There are obviously high and low points but what institution always gets it right? Corporate America? The private banking Industry?

[E30TECH]

Your car qualifies!!!

 

No it doesn't!!!

 

""My wife just received a call from the sales manager saying that our clunker doesn't qualify anymore, and that we could either pay the extra $4,500 or return the new car (and get our old car back)," a car buyer wrote Tuesday on a message board at the Edmunds.com automotive Web site"

 

Hope they didn't run that Sodium Silicate through the engine yet!

 

(In before the thread is locked )

[David]

Well, since everybody always hijacks my threads, I'm going to do the same to Kenny.

 

The guts of the healthcare proposal in its current form is modeled after what MA did in '07 (it's explicitly said to be the case). They are the only state with mandated health insurance requirements, all done specifically (their words, again) to lower healthcare costs.

 

So, what's happened? They're rising at 30%+, higher than any other state.

 

Old saw or not, it's generally a safe assumption.

[Mike]

I just can't get my head around this one--the whole idea of euthanizing working machines seems wasteful.

 

On the surface, I understand the concept of getting gas guzzlers off the road as a good thing. I wonder though, has anyone considered the environmental cost of junking vehicles before the end of their service life? I don't pretend to know the answer, but given the fact that producing a new vehicle necessitates the expenditure of energy and impacts the environment to, let's say, "X" degree, has anyone determined that the environmental benefit of replacing that operable vehicle is greater than "X"? Or, perhaps more to the point, greater than "X + $4,500 - Environmental Impact of New Car"?

I do know of a study done in California that showed the pollution output of older vehicles to be so much higher than newer models that removal of one 'gross polluter' could offset a rather large number of newer vehicles (don't recall the exact figures), making a pretty compelling case that removing older vehicles from service was a fairly cost-effective way of reducing total pollutant output.

 

If you happen to run across that study again, I'd be interested in reading it. I don't claim to know the answer to my question . . . but it seems that many programs of this sort are enacted without regard to whether or not the net effect truly is positive (there you go, David ).

[tallman]

Does this mean my clunker will appreciate at 30% per annum?

Might better hold on to it...

 

Too bad we can't trade in some of the clunker houses, fill them w/silicate, render them uninhabitable, and trade on a new house w/a tax credit to boot.

[Knifemaker]

Let me see if I got this right...As taxpayers we are allowing the fed to spend 1,000,000,000.00 of our dollars to remove, @ 3500.00 per, 285,714 cars off the road to allow auto makers (NOT just American Auto makers) to boost sales to $5,714,200,000.00 (285,714 cars at 20,000.00 each) !!!!!

 

 

gotta love Washington DC

[Lets_Play_Two]

Let me see if I got this right...As taxpayers we are allowing the fed to spend 1,000,000,000.00 of our dollars to remove, @ 3500.00 per, 285,714 cars off the road to allow auto makers (NOT just American Auto makers) to boost sales to $5,714,200,000.00 (285,714 cars at 20,000.00 each) !!!!!

 

 

gotta love Washington DC

 

 

Just another piece of the union jobs program.

[smiller]

Ken, don't pretend that you didn't know exactly what was going to happen with this thread...

[Whip]

Ken, don't pretend that you didn't know exactly what was going to happen with this thread...

 

Whenever you're ready all you gotta do is ask...

 

 

 

BLACK AND WHITE BABY!!!!

 

:rofl: :rofl:

[Lawman]

Well, since everybody always hijacks my threads, I'm going to do the same to Kenny.

 

The guts of the healthcare proposal in its current form is modeled after what MA did in '07 (it's explicitly said to be the case). They are the only state with mandated health insurance requirements, all done specifically (their words, again) to lower healthcare costs.

 

So, what's happened? They're rising at 30%+, higher than any other state.

 

Old saw or not, it's generally a safe assumption.

 

I think this same concept can work with the health care plan..Once a certain threshhold of cost is reached the government can pay the family of an old sick person a certain number of dollars that will be much lower than continued treatment and then put the family member down..Think of the savings there...

[E30TECH]

Well, since everybody always hijacks my threads, I'm going to do the same to Kenny.

 

The guts of the healthcare proposal in its current form is modeled after what MA did in '07 (it's explicitly said to be the case). They are the only state with mandated health insurance requirements, all done specifically (their words, again) to lower healthcare costs.

 

So, what's happened? They're rising at 30%+, higher than any other state.

 

Old saw or not, it's generally a safe assumption.

 

I think this same concept can work with the health care plan..Once a certain threshhold of cost is reached the government can pay the family of an old sick person a certain number of dollars that will be much lower than continued treatment and then put the family member down..Think of the savings there...

 

Would they put said family member down by filling them with Sodium Silicate and making them run?

[Matts_12GS]

seems kind of like the rationing is already beginning!

[ghaverkamp]

I think this same concept can work with the health care plan..Once a certain threshhold of cost is reached the government can pay the family of an old sick person a certain number of dollars that will be much lower than continued treatment and then put the family member down..Think of the savings there...

 

And then turn him into a nutrient-rich food product. Win-win-win.

[steve.foote]

:grin:

 

All right!!! Now that there is just plain funny.

[bakerzdosen]

Would they put said family member down by filling them with Sodium Silicate and making them run?

I think you got that a little mixed up...

 

The first step is to convince people (through some wikipedia entries and online posts) that it's OK to take sodium bicarbonate for heartburn. Then they'll take care of things on their own.

 

 

 

[insert evil "muuuuwwwahahaha" laugh here]

[Paul Mihalka]

Soylent Green

[E30TECH]

Would they put said family member down by filling them with Sodium Silicate and making them run?

I think you got that a little mixed up...

 

The first step is to convince people (through some wikipedia entries and online posts) that it's OK to take sodium bicarbonate for heartburn. Then they'll take care of things on their own.

 

 

 

[insert evil "muuuuwwwahahaha" laugh here]

 

But sodium bicarbonate is ok for heartburn

[Twisties]

I just can't get my head around this one--the whole idea of euthanizing working machines seems wasteful.

 

On the surface, I understand the concept of getting gas guzzlers off the road as a good thing. I wonder though, has anyone considered the environmental cost of junking vehicles before the end of their service life? I don't pretend to know the answer, but given the fact that producing a new vehicle necessitates the expenditure of energy and impacts the environment to, let's say, "X" degree, has anyone determined that the environmental benefit of replacing that operable vehicle is greater than "X"? Or, perhaps more to the point, greater than "X + $4,500 - Environmental Impact of New Car"?

I do know of a study done in California that showed the pollution output of older vehicles to be so much higher than newer models that removal of one 'gross polluter' could offset a rather large number of newer vehicles (don't recall the exact figures), making a pretty compelling case that removing older vehicles from service was a fairly cost-effective way of reducing total pollutant output.

 

If you happen to run across that study again, I'd be interested in reading it. I don't claim to know the answer to my question . . . but it seems that many programs of this sort are enacted without regard to whether or not the net effect truly is positive (there you go, David ).

 

I haven't seen that study but there are numerous studies performed in various locations and conditions in the peer reviewed literature that show that roughly 2% of all vehicles account for 50% of the transport sector air pollution load (traditional pollutants, not carbon).

 

Of course the technology also exists, Steadman at U of Denver, to identify offending vehicles as they pass on the roadway. There would be no question that program to selectively remove and repair or replace such vehicles would be cost effective in terms of air pollution. Of course this program had much broader objectives... stimulus of the auto sector being one which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

 

Doesn't really answer your question. It's a good one. I am big favorite of cradle to grave total effect analysis. I think some of those studies have been done, but I no longer have subscriptions to my old journals, so can't look them up for you.

[rkd]

So, ah ...

 

If you bought a SUV or other large vehicle and obtained a tax break via the "Jobs and Growth Act", can you now get a tax break for the same vehicle by turning it in under the "Cash for Clunkers" program?

[E30TECH]

So, ah ...

 

If you bought a SUV or other large vehicle and obtained a tax break via the "Jobs and Growth Act", can you now get a tax break for the same vehicle by turning it in under the "Cash for Clunkers" program?

 

Trucks and SUVs have different rules. I believe the cars that qualify have to get 18mpg or less (cty/hwy combined).

 

I'm not sure if everyone knows, but the 'cash' is not in addition to your trade in...

[Mike O]

Let me know when they start the "Cash for R1150RT's" program. I'm gonna trade mine in for a new Ducati.

 

Mike O

[smiller]

Let me know when they start the "Cash for R1150RT's" program.

Sorry, it will only be good for R1150RT's that get 18 mpg or less. And they must be blue.

[bakerzdosen]

But sodium bicarbonate is ok for heartburn

Oh yeah, right, keep the illusion going.

[Bob Smith]

Since the vast majority of people have to use "Credit" to purchase a new car, it seems odd to me that the very Evil that was tossed around in December (AKA Debt) is being used to rescue us! Not sure I'll ever buy a New vehicle.

[Tony_K]

Not sure I'll ever buy a New vehicle.

 

Nah, just sell them!

http://www.bobsmithtoyota.com/index.htm

[Selden]

Barring unforeseen disasters, I'm trading in a 1996 Nissan Quest tomorrow for a 2009 Honda Fit Sport AT. Almost everything (cooling system, oil pan, AT) started leaking on the Quest in the past 90 days, so this is a no-brainer.

 

I've read through the entire 125+ pages of the final submission, and I was impressed by how thoroughly they are trying to prevent fraud. The law is what it is, and like most legislation, is the product of compromise. A straight mpg difference credit would have made more sense; e.g., +5mpg = 3000; +10mpg = $4000; +15mpg = $5000, but that would have tilted it even more to Japanese and Korean manufacturers.

 

The only ambiguous part is that dealers are required to give a "best estimate" of the scrappage vehicle of the vehicle being traded in, and retain $50 for administrative overhead. I've seen several reports of best estimate = $1.00, + $49.00 admin. charge. Dealers are specifically prohibited from charging any other fees.

 

I expect the program to run out of money before Labor Day. At that point:

 

-- CARS is over

-- Congress authorizes another $1 billion (original request by Detroit was for $4 billion)

-- CARS is rewritten with more sensible constraints (hah!)

 

I should have details of the experience by this time tomorrow.

[Selden]

I'm not sure if everyone knows, but the 'cash' is not in addition to your trade in...

Wrong. The trade-in value is in addition to the $3500/$4500. Not that I (nor the people who wrote the CARS regulations) expect many dealers to offer more than estimated scrappage value.

[Selden]

The car I'm trading in is on its last legs; it's been touch and go whether or not it would last until July 29. For me, CARS is a win-win; a genuine clunker that gets 18mpg combined (far less stop and go) is being replaced with something that gets 30-40mpg, depending on how it's driven. I suspect that, between sport mode and paddle shifters, I will end up much closer to 30mpg, at least during break-in.

 

[vizhip]

Funny thing is...my S10 does not qualify... but my Z28 does... and the Z gets better gas mileage than the S10... even WITH the V8 in it... and the S10 has a much smaller engine...

 

Regards -

-Bob

[BFish]

I'm not sure if everyone knows, but the 'cash' is not in addition to your trade in...

Wrong. The trade-in value is in addition to the $3500/$4500. Not that I (nor the people who wrote the CARS regulations) expect many dealers to offer more than estimated scrappage value.

 

correct as the trade is required to be scrapped. dealer won't offer more than the 3500/4500 then scrap the vehicle.

[Mike O]

Let me know when they start the "Cash for R1150RT's" program.

Sorry, it will only be good for R1150RT's that get 18 mpg or less. And they must be blue.

hmmmm.... Mine's blue and with some very easy changes I could get 18 MPG easy

 

Having said that, isn't there still some tax rebate or some such thing available on motorcycles?

 

Mike O

[upflying]

"Honk if I helped pay for your car"

[Bud]

"Honk if I helped pay for your car"

 

HONK HONK HONK

 

Here is my latest purchase from BMW.

 

 

Thank everyone who was willing to get my old pick up off the road.

[Mike]

Would they put said family member down by filling them with Sodium Silicate and making them run?

I think you got that a little mixed up...

 

The first step is to convince people (through some wikipedia entries and online posts) that it's OK to take sodium bicarbonate for heartburn. Then they'll take care of things on their own.

 

 

 

[insert evil "muuuuwwwahahaha" laugh here]

 

But sodium bicarbonate is ok for heartburn

 

That's what they want you to think.

[Ken H.]

Ken, don't pretend that you didn't know exactly what was going to happen with this thread...

Yeah, before I even typed it I knew it would be twisted into an attack on revamping US healthcare.

 

It did make it to the sixth post however! Which was further than I expected!

 

[smiller]

Having said that, isn't there still some tax rebate or some such thing available on motorcycles?

There is a deduction available this year for any sales taxes incurred when purchasing a new vehicle (including motorcycles.) Which means... since the replacement vehicle under the 'Cash for Clunkers' plan must be new I guess one can double-dip?

[motoguy128]

Your car qualifies!!!

 

No it doesn't!!!

 

""My wife just received a call from the sales manager saying that our clunker doesn't qualify anymore, and that we could either pay the extra $4,500 or return the new car (and get our old car back)," a car buyer wrote Tuesday on a message board at the Edmunds.com automotive Web site"

 

Hope they didn't run that Sodium Silicate through the engine yet!

 

(In before the thread is locked )

 

 

I'd ask them to show me in the sales agreement where it says that the credit is contengent on approval. I'd ask what their margin was on that sale, plus the book trade-in value of the "clunkers" and then pay any remaining difference.

 

They shouldn't profit from a misleading sale or not understanding "the rules".

[motoguy128]

Since the vast majority of people have to use "Credit" to purchase a new car, it seems odd to me that the very Evil that was tossed around in December (AKA Debt) is being used to rescue us! Not sure I'll ever buy a New vehicle.

 

Debt in itself wasn't evil. Most capital investment results in debt. Growth is stiffled without some amount of lending.

 

The problem was HOW the money was lended and further, more importantly how the risk of that loan was valued and managed.

 

The banking corporations forgot the fundamentals of investing. Anything with a high rate of return or high profit margin, in most cases, carries with it a high level of risk. The banks did the equivalent of a insurance company collecting the high premiums for a flood prone area, showing huge profits, then begging for help when a flood comes and those incured start making claims. What the leaders of these banks did was fraud... and they should be prosecuted for it.

[russell_bynum]

Old saw or not, it's generally a safe assumption.

 

+1