Slashdot Mirror

Timing is everything - according to the NHTSA, Toyota sold 120,507 cars in the Cash for Clunkers program, which ended in August. By comparison, Chrysler sold 9,033 cars.

Um, no, that's another program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System [wikipedia.org] or CARS. THATS cash for clunkers.

Yes, please read that link. Scroll down to section 'legislative history', fourth paragraph. Notice this is Betty Sutton's bill. She got it passed on HR2454 on May 19th. Here's John Dingell congratulating her about "Fleet Modernization/Cash for Clunkers". Check that previous link I sent you to her website - as of May 21st, it was pulled as an amendment and offered as its own bill, HR 2640, which was re-introduced as HR 2751, which Wikipedia verifies as the CARS program. Go ahead and compare the bills, there are some minor changes (always are if the bill number changes), but it's the same bill.

The full title of HR2751, aka CARS aka C4C, is: To accelerate motor fuel savings nationwide and provide incentives to registered owners of high polluting automobiles to replace such automobiles with new fuel efficient and less polluting automobiles.

But please, feel free to check out the offical site and show me where it says businesses are eligible for the rebate: http://www.cars.gov/ [cars.gov]

Who ever said anything about businesses?

If you've been curious, why have you wanted until now to search?

Eh? I'm well aware of the issues, I was giving you some links since you couldn't find the first hit on Google.

But let me do some searching for you and point you to an article thats NOT three months old already: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQcFan9QMe0k [bloomberg.com]

Do you understand that article? It says that the booked revenue in GDP was inflated due to the Cash for Clunkers sales. It does not refute the source I showed you that the auto manufacturers were ramping up production to back-fill inventory due to C4C, which was counter to your claim. Manufacturing activity would not be booked as GDP revenue.

Wow, really? The very first hit from Google?

To save you the trouble, "Cash for Clunkers" is the colloquial name for the Sutton Fleet Modernization Amendment.

Um, no, that's another program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System or CARS. THATS cash for clunkers. But please, feel free to check out the offical site and show me where it says businesses are eligible for the rebate: http://www.cars.gov/

This is all I've been asking as well. To save you the trouble of searching again

If you've been curious, why have you wanted until now to search? But let me do some searching for you and point you to an article thats NOT three months old already: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQcFan9QMe0k

Hate to burst your bubble but I work at a wholesale auto auction and we sell those cars to salvage dealers that are on an approved list. They have 180 days to strip the car for parts before they shred them.

Look for yourself at cars.gov It's under 'What happens to the vehicle I trade in?'

You'll also find the specific mention in law at the bottom of the third page here.

And here's an article about the parts flooding the market.

I don't know where you live but the dealers/salvage people their don't know what their talking about.

Besides, I can't believe you of all people would cite NBC as a reliable source :)

Hate to burst your bubble but I work at a wholesale auto auction and we sell those cars to salvage dealers that are on an approved list. They have 180 days to strip the car for parts before they shred them.

Look for yourself at cars.gov It's under 'What happens to the vehicle I trade in?'

You'll also find the specific mention in law at the bottom of the third page here.

And here's an article about the parts flooding the market.

I don't know where you live but the dealers/salvage people their don't know what their talking about.

Besides, I can't believe you of all people would cite NBC as a reliable source :)

Hate to burst your bubble but I work at a wholesale auto auction and we sell those cars to salvage dealers that are on an approved list. They have 180 days to strip the car for parts before they shred them.

Look for yourself at cars.gov It's under 'What happens to the vehicle I trade in?'

You'll also find the specific mention in law at the bottom of the third page here.

And here's an article about the parts flooding the market.

I don't know where you live but the dealers/salvage people their don't know what their talking about.

Besides, I can't believe you of all people would cite NBC as a reliable source :)

The improvement I would make, in addition to the maximum of 17mpg tradein, I would mandate a minimum of 27mpg on the new vehicle - nearly 60% improvement. You could still buy an SUV at that level, if that's what you needed.

From Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009:

(D) that has the combined fuel economy value of at least-
-
(i) 22 miles per gallon for a passenger automobile;
(ii) 18 miles per gallon for a category 1 truck; or
(iii) 15 miles per gallon for a category 2 truck;

The law, then, stated that the trade-in must have a combined rating of 18 mpg or less and a car must get 22 mpg or more. 19 mpg would not qualify for a car, but would qualify for an SUV. Sad that they made that loophole for SUVs.

Of course, I do agree that I would have liked to see this requirement raised. I think 28 mpg or higher would be quite fair, or perhaps just make the reward on the lower mileage vehicles lesser.

I think I'm going to stop talking, because people clearly are not listening. When I say Congress crushes every nut, bolt, radiator, et cetera, that's what I mean. The entire car has to be trashed according to this Cash for Clunkers program. Bloody stupid.
And by "the entire car" I assume you mean "the engine and drivetrain" which is all that the CARS program requires to not go back on the road. http://www.cars.gov/faq#category-14

That's great for your capital costs, but you are confusing recurring and capital costs. You are talking about spending tens of thousands of dollars in capital costs to save a couple hundred per year. If you are looking to save money, don't look towards diesels or hybrids.

He's looking to trade in a 1987 car for a 2009 one. His current vehicle is 22 years old, so there may be maintenance issues cropping up. Oil, filters, belts and such should still be easy to get, but people who can rebuild carbs are getting rarer and more expensive.

Now, the choice of diesel can be a smart one. For example, I mostly drive highway miles. Right smack in the Diesel efficiency range, I'd be better off avoiding the hybrids though. It all depends on his driving habits.

Oh, and a 17 to 19 mpg improvement wouldn't be enoug - from the site it's 3.5k for '4 to 10 mpg increase', 4.5k for more than 10.

Of course, he was probably talking about the truck rules, which would mean that the SUV would have to qualify under the truck class. Many today don't.

Why doesn't the 1987 Plymouth qualify? To much mileage? We'd need the model and preferably the engine size to tell more. Plugging in a Reliant, 2.5L, 3 spd auto, you get 3 mpg too much. Ouch...

Personally, I would have subtracted like .5 mpg per year of age beyond 10, just to bias the program towards getting rid of the old ones. Of course, there's nothing preventing commodore64 from buying the volkswagon anyways, he just doesn't get $3.5-4.5k from the feds for buying a foreign car.

If I had an old 17mpg pickup I would be allowed to get a 19mpg SUV and get the free congressional money,

Wrong! The new car has to get at least 10 mpg more than the trade in to get the maximum rebate and at least 4 mpg more to get anything at all. So 17 -> 19 mpg gets you a whole lot of jack shit.

Try looking it up first!