Cash for Clunker list

[upflying]

Anything strike you as odd from the list of C4C trade-ins?

Some cars seem valued considerably more than $4500.

Others seem to get rather good gas mileage and not eligible for the program.

For those BMW car aficionado's, one M5 lost it's life.

Sadly, we own every one of these cars.

http://www.cars.gov/files/official-information/trade-in-vehicles.pdf

 

 

[Firefight911]

An Aston Martin DB7!!!!!!!

 

Uhhhhh, yeah, right!!!!

[Husker Red]

Fascinating list. Lots of Jeep Grand Cherokee's went to the happy hunting grounds.

 

 

[motoguy128]

Well, on the bight side, assuming most of these vehciles were being used, the safety of all road users just increased, since most all were replaced with vehciles with better brakes, tires, suspensions, and the ability to cause less damage to other vehcile as well as and other safety equipment.

 

Consider the difference in stopping distance of a late 90's Ford Explorer, even in fair condition, to a new Ford Escape. Now when that driver is talking on the cell phone and barreling up behind you while your stopped at a light on your motorcycle, the you can at least be reminded of one advantage of the CFC program.

[motoguy128]

Some cars seem valued considerably more than $4500.

Others seem to get rather good gas mileage and not eligible for the program.

 

The mileage that was on these vehicles was not listed. I saw a 2002 Acura MDX... but with maybe with 150k miles on it...or more, it would be worth under $4500. The BMW M5 was 18 years old.

 

Don't forget that mileage numbers were revised down after 2007. SO vehciles that you remember being rated at 25mpg in the 1990's or even in 2004 will get a revised combined rating 2-3 mpg lower.

 

 

 

All that being said, I did spot some 2008 Nissan Frontiers and a 2006 Volve XC90. I wonder if they factor in things like collision damage and vehcile condition, above just mileage to determine it's value. I think it's a matter of wheterh the seller only wants to get $4500 for the vehicle or not.

[upflying]

Who loses and who wins when a 2008 Nissan Frontier is traded in?

What was the motive for trading a vehicle obviously worth more than $4500? Why would a dealer accept such a trade-in? Is the dealer money ahead by offering "nothing" ($4500 reimbursed) for the 2008 Frontier and thereby saving the dealer from paying the actual cost of $15,000?

So these late model trade-in's are a symptom of greedy dealers at taxpayers expense?

Or is it ignorance by the seller or trading for revenge against an estranged spouse?

Can we as "owners" seek recompense for actual cash value of these vehicles?

[John Ranalletta]

What was the motive for trading a vehicle obviously worth more than $4500? Why would a dealer accept such a trade-in? Is the dealer money ahead by offering "nothing" ($4500 reimbursed) for the 2008 Frontier and thereby saving the dealer from paying the actual cost of $15,000?

The owner of the Frontier was prolly under water on his loan and the dealer was able to get it rolled forward on the new car; thus, the only way the Frontier was saleable was with the C4C rebate.

[flars]

There is a dealer in Miami, I think, who sold 9 environment friendly Hummers (a well known gas saver) under the C4C program. Another dealer sold Ford F150s, which only get 19 mpg, under the program.

Car dealerships have been getting people into the vehicle of their choice for many years - it doesn't matter what the REAL rules are, the dealer can make it happen.

[chrisolson]

Who loses and who wins when a 2008 Nissan Frontier is traded in?

What was the motive for trading a vehicle obviously worth more than $4500? Why would a dealer accept such a trade-in? Is the dealer money ahead by offering "nothing" ($4500 reimbursed) for the 2008 Frontier and thereby saving the dealer from paying the actual cost of $15,000?

So these late model trade-in's are a symptom of greedy dealers at taxpayers expense?

Or is it ignorance by the seller or trading for revenge against an estranged spouse?

Can we as "owners" seek recompense for actual cash value of these vehicles?

 

I can imagine a damaged yet drivable 2008 Nissan that might be worth only $1000. Actually, the ACV wasn't relevant except to the owner.

 

From a govt. faq sheet (emphasis mine) ....

 

"Do I get any money for my trade in vehicle in addition to the CARS credit?

 

YES. The law requires your trade-in vehicle be destroyed. The dealer must disclose to you the scrap value of your vehicle. The dealer is entitled to keep up to $50 of the scrap value for administrative fees. You are entitled to negotiate about who keeps the remaining scrap value. For example, you may use that money toward the price of your new car separate from the CARS credit."

 

The dealer had no advantage on any of these "trades" 'cause they weren't trades in the traditional sense. I find it hard to believe that any of the owners would have taken less than they would have been able to make on the open market except in cases in which it was close - i.e. if I could _maybe_ get $4500 on a private sale why would I put up with all the hassle of doing that when I could just drop it off and get the same?

[John Ranalletta]

if I could _maybe_ get $4500 on a private sale why would I put up with all the hassle of doing that when I could just drop it off and get the same?

If my scenario is right, the owner would not be able to roll any loan balance forward to a new car in the event of a private sale of the Frontier.

[upflying]

What was the motive for trading a vehicle obviously worth more than $4500? Why would a dealer accept such a trade-in? Is the dealer money ahead by offering "nothing" ($4500 reimbursed) for the 2008 Frontier and thereby saving the dealer from paying the actual cost of $15,000?

The owner of the Frontier was prolly under water on his loan and the dealer was able to get it rolled forward on the new car; thus, the only way the Frontier was saleable was with the C4C rebate.

 

Ok, so let's look at a hypothetical deal in this situation.

 

2008 Nissan Frontier

$20,000 outstanding loan balance

$10,000 wholesale trade-in value

$10,000 to pay off outstanding loan balance

 

2008 Nissan Frontier

$20,000 outstanding loan balance

$4500 C4C trade-in value

$15,500 to pay off outstanding loan balance

 

purchase new 2009 Nissan Maxima

$30,000 MSRP

$15,500 to carry over loan balance

$45,500 new car loan

 

purchase a new 2009 Nissan Maxima

$30,000 MSRP

$10,000 carry over loan balance

$40,000 new car loan

 

Not sure what kind of finance company would tote the note on a new car $15k over it's MSRP.

Not sure what kind of buyer would take $4500 for a trade when he could get $5500 more.

Am I missing something in the logic?

I still think the dealer comes out ahead on an overvalued C4C trade.

 

chrisolson, scrap value of a vehicle means the value of the steel and and other recyclable products in the vehicle. Usually calculated on a per ton basis, maybe around $50-$100 per ton at the present time. A 4,000 lb car will yield $200 scrap value. Not much benefit for the C4C customer.

[chrisolson]

chrisolson, scrap value of a vehicle means the value of the steel and and other recyclable products in the vehicle. Usually calculated on a per ton basis, maybe around $50-$100 per ton at the present time. A 4,000 lb car will yield $200 scrap value. Not much benefit for the C4C customer.

 

And your point is .... ? The value of the trade as far as the program was concerned was scrap value. All the guess work on ACV is moot.

 

Not sure what kind of finance company would tote the note on a new car $15k over it's MSRP.

Not sure what kind of buyer would take $4500 for a trade when he could get $5500 more.

Am I missing something in the logic?

I still think the dealer comes out ahead on an overvalued C4C trade.

 

No you're not missing anything. No normal person would take less than what its worth and no finance co would rollover that amount. It only makes sense to use a vehicle for the program if the market value is close to $4500 or less.

 

Your missing logic is the automatic assumption of value of a car sight unseen. The program put no mechanical/cosmetic restricitions on passenger cars other than they had to be drivable and within a certain age. Condition determines value, not model year.

 

I still don't understand how the dealer comes out ahead when he doesn't keep the "trade" regardless of value but instead gets $50 for processing it for the scrapper?

[chrisolson]

if I could _maybe_ get $4500 on a private sale why would I put up with all the hassle of doing that when I could just drop it off and get the same?

If my scenario is right, the owner would not be able to roll any loan balance forward to a new car in the event of a private sale of the Frontier.

 

Help me understand how your post has anything to do with my quote ...

[upflying]

I guess I am confused. One thing for certain the only losers are those that traded in high value late model vehicles and only received $4500 for them.

[TandemGeek]

A summary that someone else prepared with all of the attention getters / interesting vehicles that carried the following note....

 

NOTE: We find it hard to believe that many vehicles in the list below were actually destroyed through the Cash for Clunkers program, and while they may be officially on the list, their inclusion is more likely explained by an error in the submission process, typos or dealerships that managed to game the system.

 

 

Individual Vehicles

1987 Buick ASC GNX

1997 Aston Martin DB7 Volante

1997 Bentley Continental R

1989 20th Anniversary Pontiac Trans Am

1992 GMC Typhoon (no!)

1985 Audi Quattro

1992 BMW 850i

2006 Audi A4 Convertible

2006 Cadillac STS

2008 Foose F-150 (2)

2007 GMC Acadias (3)

2008 Hyundai Accent (see above)

2006 Nissan 350Z Roadster

2006 Roush Stage 3 F-150 (2)

2006 Toyota Corolla

2005 Mazda RX-8

2002 Kia Spectra

1988 Aurora Cobra kit car

1996 Buick Funeral Coaches/Hearses

1987 Duntov GT

1987 Excalibur Autos Phaeton

1990 Honda CRX (Less than 18 mpg?)

1985 Maserati Quattroporte

1999 Mercedes C43 AMG

1985 TVR 280i convertible

 

Groupings

(18) Audi S4 and S6

(31) AM General postal vehicles

(24) Alfa Romeo 164

(60) AMC Eagle

(53) Audi A8

(3,500+) BMWs including an M3, M5, Z3, 850i and (3) 740il Protection

(52) Cadillac Allante

(15) Cadillac Commercial Chassis/Limousines

(1,007) Chevy Camaro

(97) Chevy Corvette

(5) AWD Chrysler 300

(17) Chrysler Conquest

(39) Chrysler TC by Maserati

(3) Dodge Conquest

(6) Dodge Daytona

(210) Dodge Stealth

(16) Eagle Talon

(2) Federal Coach Lincoln Limo

(2) Ford Aspire (didn't these things get like 30 mpg?)

(855) Ford Crown Victoria CNG

(917) Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor

(14) USPS Ford Explorer

(24) Ford F-150 SVT Lightning

(1,611) Ford Mustang (so Mustang beats Camaro here)

(107) Ford Taurus SHO (don't tell Neff)

(15) Isuzu Vehicross

(1,047) Jaguars including (9) XJR, (2) XK8 and (96) XJS

(3) Laforza SUV

(6) Maseratis including a Biturbo and the 1985 Quattroporte

(373) Mazda RX-7

(5,000+) Mercedes-Benz including (142) SL, (3) S600, a 1994 E500, a 1992 500E, 1995 C36 and 1999 C43

(26) Merkur Scorpio and (21) XR4Ti

(187) Mitsubishi 3000GT

(3) Mitsubishi Eclipse and (4) Starion

(2) 1984 Nissan 200SX, (2) 1994 240SX and (381) 300ZX

(1,935) Oldsmobile Aurora

(22) Peugeot

(87) Pontiac Aztek (more please), (61) Fiero and (569) Firebird/Trans Am/Formula

(6) Porsche 928 including (2) S4

(6) Porsche 944

(597) Saab

(3) Saturn

(20) Sterling

(173) Subaru including (123) SVX

(327) Toyota Supra, including (4) final generation

[Quinn]

I can imagine a tow truck bringing in a wreaked, totalled car as the $4500 trade-in on a new car; after buying it back from their insurance company. I can also imagine the car dealer not wanting any more used cars sitting on his lot when he can process them out the door as scrap; especially if it's at all close. A $5000 trade-in sitting on your used car lot for six months or wholesaled out for $4000 is not as good as a done deal with no worries.

 

 

 

 

[OoPEZoO]

Anything strike you as odd from the list of C4C trade-ins?

Some cars seem valued considerably more than $4500.

Others seem to get rather good gas mileage and not eligible for the program.

For those BMW car aficionado's, one M5 lost it's life.

Sadly, we own every one of these cars.

http://www.cars.gov/files/official-information/trade-in-vehicles.pdf

 

 

Forget the E34 M5........the crime was losing the rare E30 M3. I hope it didn't have a straight body panel and was barely running to deserve that fate.

[Harry_Wilshusen]

I guess I am confused. One thing for certain the only losers are those that traded in high value late model vehicles and only received $4500 for them.

 

I can think of at least 2 losers:

 

1 Taxpayers

2 China (if the US defaults on the loans or inflation makes the loans worthless)

[upflying]

Maybe I wasn't wrong about the greedy dealer remark I made. Someone else agrees with me.

 

"dealerships that managed to game the system."

 

[pbharvey]

Did "Cash for Clunkers" Cost Taxpayers $24,000 Per Car Sold? |

Written by Thomas R. Eddlem

Monday, 02 November 2009 00:00

 

The federal $3 billion “Cash for Clunkers” program promoted by the Obama White House last summer cost an average of $24,000 per additional car sold, according to an analysis by automotive consumer researcher Edmunds.com. The White House has responded with a blistering attack disputing the finding.

 

For that price, the federal government could have purchased the 125,000 cars outright at manufacturer suggested retail prices, such as a Ford Fusion, Focus or even a Mustang, and then handed each of the recipients an additional bonus check averaging the Cash-for-Clunkers subsidy of $4,000. Or they could have bought every one of those 125,000 people a Smart car and then given them a check for $6,000.

 

Edmunds.com analyzed the plummeting auto sales in the United States market during September and concluded that the program generated only 125,000 additional automobile sales over and above what would have been purchased by consumers anyway. Edmunds.com then calculated the cost of each new car by dividing the program's $3 billion funding by 125,000 cars and found the cost to be $24,000 for each additional car sold. The average purchase price of a new car under the program was only $25,000, according to Edmunds.

 

The White House responded by describing the Edmunds analysis as coming from “Mars,” adding that:

 

This faulty assumption leads Edmunds to a conclusion that is at odds with many independent analyses: Edmunds assumption that more than 80% of the payback from Cash for Clunkers would occur in 2009 isn't how many mainstream analyses ... approach the problem.

 

The problem with the White House complaint is that the “mainstream analyses” cited by the White House consisted entirely of old predictions, none of which had the benefit of industry September sales data. In other words, the White House “mainstream analyses” were based upon predictions rather than actual data. And the same President's Council of Economic Advisors' study cited by the White House press office in its complaint about Edmunds even admitted as much, stressing:

 

The clearest conclusion that can be reached from a careful examination of these data is that they do not provide much reliable evidence on the key question we want to address: the timing and magnitude of the payback effect. While the direct effect of the incentives is clear enough (and highly statistically significant), no statistically robust pattern appears to characterize the aftermath of incentive programs. In fact, the data do not clearly reject the theory that sales simply return to normal after an unusually generous incentive scheme ends.

 

The White House press office also objected on the grounds that the program created new jobs:

 

Most importantly, this program is helping boost our economy and create jobs now when we need it most. In a comprehensive report, the Council of Economic Advisers estimated that the Cash for Clunkers will create 70,000 jobs in the second half of 2009.

 

If we take the White House analysis seriously, then these new hires will be laid off as soon as inventories reach acceptable levels once again. Edmunds explained in a response to the White House criticism that "no manufacturer increases production — a decision with long-term consequences — based on the 30-day sales blip triggered by an event like Cash for Clunkers.” And they went on to explain in their rebuttal:

 

Apparently, the $24,000 figure caught many by surprise. It shouldn't have. The truth is that consumer incentive programs are always hugely expensive when calculated by incremental sales — always in the tens of thousands of dollars. Cash for Clunkers was no exception.

 

The White House claims that our analysis was based on car sales on Mars and that on Earth, the marketplace is connected. We agree the marketplace is connected. In fact, that is exactly the basis of our analysis.

 

That's exactly right. There is no money tree. There is no way for government to create money out of thin air without first taking it from taxpayers. And government is never as efficient as the American consumer.

[Quinn]

[Most importantly, this program is helping boost our economy and create jobs now when we need it most. In a comprehensive report, the Council of Economic Advisers estimated that the Cash for Clunkers will create 70,000 jobs in the second half of 2009.

 

Wonder how they figure 70,000 jobs created. If created, that would imply new jobs as opposed to jobs rescued. How long does a job have to last to be a job? Does the week before the Rose Bowl parade create 2,000 jobs even if they're only there a week?

 

Still think it would have been cheaper and more effective for the Feds to just send every taxpayer a check for $75,000 to spend down their mortgage, buy a new car, or whatever. Writing out the checks and mailing them would have created some jobs also.

 

--

[motoguy128]

The definition of a job created is always suspect in a slow economy. I beleive by definition, a job can be created if a person who was previously collecting unemployment is now employed. Thsi would include an autoworker that was laid-off when a factory was idled, then called back when C4C increased demand.

 

But yes, the "job creation" may only be temporary. But you have ot start somewhere.

 

The real key in getting the conomy moving, is to get those that have lots of money to reinvest it or spend it, rather than sit on it.

[AviP]

I guess I am confused. One thing for certain the only losers are those that traded in high value late model vehicles and only received $4500 for them.

 

I can think of at least 2 losers:

 

1 Taxpayers

2 China (if the US defaults on the loans or inflation makes the loans worthless)

I disagree. Only the taxpayers lost. China is a superpower. It's just that nobody talks about it.

[AviP]

I can imagine a tow truck bringing in a wreaked, totalled car as the $4500 trade-in on a new car; after buying it back from their insurance company. I can also imagine the car dealer not wanting any more used cars sitting on his lot when he can process them out the door as scrap; especially if it's at all close. A $5000 trade-in sitting on your used car lot for six months or wholesaled out for $4000 is not as good as a done deal with no worries.

The car had to be running and driven to the lot. Also the car had to be insured in the buyer's name for at least one year. Supposedly, this was to ensure that people don't buy wreckers and trade them in for shiny new cars.

 

I don't know who was responsible for validating the documentation but given that the dealers were getting paid very slowly by the govt due to the lengthy application process, I'm guessing it's the govt. As with any system, there will always be the cheats.