Cash for Clunkers

My local House rep office estimates

1. House voting in a few weeks.
2. Couple of months for Senate and final annoucement

But there is a chance that this bill will be bundled into "Climate Change" bill which might not finalized this year.

 

of course, all manufacturers have fuel efficient new (passanger) cars. They MUST.

But I am not talking about the new cars. I'm talking about the qualified old clunkers. The majority of old passenger cars with 18 MPG or less must be american cars. Popular imports like Camry or Accord would not qualify. Geram luxury might have higher market value. Large clunkers with market value less than $3500 likely to be old big american car.

 

So how will all this work. I have an aged Acura Integra that I would like to recylce. This is probably the best car I have ever driven but no longer gets the gas mileage it used to get like 28+ MPG. It now gets less than 20 MPG.

 

You are probably out of luck my friend- your old car does probably not qualify as a clunker.

Under the current proposal, your car must have an EPA combined rating of under 18. Find your official rating here:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm

The specifics will likely change befoer the bill gets passed (if it gets passed at all), but I'd be surprised if an acura integra qualified as a clunker, as the "new" non-clunker cars only have to be 22mpg. Japanese cars from the 80s beat that.

 

hehe, plannning to pay for an EPA approved dyno test equake ?

 

A few people have mentioned that their car doesn't get as good of mileage as it once did. That's backwards. Things should get looser. Less friction should mean higher MPG. Assuming it's maintained. Change the air filter every 5 years, etc..

I think the government needs to start another program.

 

For the record I think that all of those family sedans have quite low fuel economy.

This may surprise you but most American cars made in the past 20 years have a combined fuel economy greater than 18 mpg.

1992 Chevrolets ---------------- 1992 Toyotas
Sprint ----------- 41 ------------ Tercel -------------- 30
Cavalier --------- 26 ------------ Paseo -------------- 27
Beretta ---------- 25 ------------ Corolla ------------- 24
Corsica ---------- 25 ------------ Celica -------------- 25
Lumina ---------- 21 ------------ MR2 ---------------- 22
Caprice (V6) ---- 19 ------------ Camry ------------- 22
Camaro (V6) ---- 18 ------------ MR2 Turbo -------- 20
Caprice (V8) ---- 18 ------------ Cressida ----------- 19
Corvette (V8) --- 18 ------------ Supra (V6) -------- 18
Camaro (V8) --- 18 ------------------------------------- (Clunker cut-off)
Camaro Z28 --- 17 ------------ Supra (Turbo) ---- 17
Corvette ZR1 --- 17

You have to get to the highest performance version of Chevrolet's sports cars to find one that is considered a "clunker" and these are worth more than $3500. That is a list of Chevrolet's model line vs Toyota's model line. Where is the bias for American cars? (It may surprise you to see that Toyota's get about the same mileage as their American counterparts.)

You have to get back into the 80's to find normal family cars that get less than 18 mpg combined and then they are only the V8 version of the full-size cars. (The 1980 version of the Caprice got 20 mpg for the V6 and 17 mpg for the V8)

 

Good review of current status and some added details. Some interesting, and possibly updated info, in red below:

--------------------------------------------------------
Q&A: How the 'cash-for-clunker' plan would work

By James R. Healey, USA TODAY May11, 2009
House Democrats and the Obama administration have agreed on a compromise for a so-called cash-for-clunkers bill.
Similar to European programs, the legislation — also called "fleet modernization" or "scrappage" — would provide federal vouchers of up to $4,500 for people to trade in their vehicles for new ones that get better mileage.

The European programs are expected to result in 400,000 to 500,000 more new vehicle sales this year than otherwise would be the case. Backers say a U.S. version could add 1 million sales at a time Chrysler is in bankruptcy court and General Motors is fighting to stay out. Both are operating on government loans.
Talk of the vouchers has kept some would-be new car and truck buyers on the sidelines, waiting to see whether they'd qualify for government help. So, for the moment, the idea is hurting sales. Based on interviews with lobbyists and congressional offices, how it might work:

Q: What's the idea behind "cash-for-clunkers"?
A: Supporters say it would replace older vehicles with new ones that use less fuel, are safer and pollute less. And it would give the struggling auto industry a sales boost.
Q: What's the bill's status?
A: It's in a House committee and backed by the president. Senators from both parties are prepared to co-sponsor similar legislation as soon as this week.
Q: Sounds like a sure thing.
A: Not so. Environmental lobbyists, who don't think it boosts fuel economy enough, might derail it or get it changed enough in the Senate that a compromise would take awhile.
Q: Any groups trying to keep it from being derailed?
A: You bet. Car companies, autoworkers, component suppliers and car dealers, among them. The House bill "will help jump-start auto sales and the U.S. economy, while also providing environmental benefits and increasing energy security," says Ziad Ojakli, Ford Motor spokesman.
Q: What's the price tag?
A: About $4 billion, with $787 million from the already-passed economic stimulus package.
Q: If the House bill becomes law, how would it work?
A: The government would send up to $4,500 to the selling dealer on your behalf, if you:
1. Trade in a car that — this is a key point — has been registered and in use for at least a year, and has a federal combined city/highway fuel-economy rating of 18 or fewer miles per gallon.
2. Buy a new car, priced at $45,000 or less and rated at least 4 mpg better than the old one (gets a $3,500 voucher). If the new one gets at least 10 mpg better, you get the full $4,500.
Example: Trade that well-worn 1985 Chevrolet Impala V-8, rated 14 mpg, for a 2009 Impala V-8 rated 19 mpg and the government will kick in $3,500. Downsize to Chevy Cobalt (27 mpg) or even a larger Honda Accord (24 mpg) and get $4,500.
Mileage ratings back to 1985 are at Fuel Economy.
Q: What about trucks?
A: It's more complicated.
For standard-duty models — most SUVs, vans and pickups:
1. The old one must be rated 18 mpg or less.
2. The new one must be at least 2 mpg better for $3,500 or at least 5 mpg better for $4,500.
For heavy-duties (6,000 to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating):
1. The old one must be rated 15 mpg or less.
2. The new one must be rated at least 1 mpg better for $3,500, or 2 mpg or more for $4,500.
Work trucks (8,500 to 10,000 lbs.) don't have mpg ratings, so age is the criteria. The old one has to be a 2001 model or older. And only $3,500 is available.
Q: Is it worth it for $4,500?
A: The assumption is that the people most likely to use the program would trade in cars worth less than $4,500. Thus, while not necessarily clunkers, most would be at least 8 years old.
Q: Can I combine these incentives with other offers?
A: Yes. For instance, you could trade for a hybrid and get the voucher, claim the hybrid tax credit and get dealer or manufacturer discounts. You also could deduct the sales tax, if any, on your next federal tax return.
Q: Would I ever see the $3,500 or $4,500?
A: No. It's an electronic transfer from the government to the dealer. Dealers want to be sure the amount can be counted as cash from the buyer, which would help buyers get credit because they're financing less.
Q: What does the dealer do with my trade-in?
A: Gives it to a salvage operator. The engine, transmission and some other parts must be destroyed so they can't be reused. The idea is to cull fuel-thirsty, polluting drivetrains. Operators can resell other parts, however.
Q: What's to keep me from buying a junkyard car for a few hundred bucks, getting it barely running and trading it?
A: The one-year-in-service requirement noted earlier. Lawmakers wanted to exclude the revival of so-called junkyard dogs, because they've already been taken off the road.
Q: What do I get if I recently bought a car that would have qualified?
A: The bill contemplates making the incentives retroactive to March 30, but it's unclear how to find and junk cars that were traded in that long ago. Some might already be back on the road, driven by new owners.
Q: What's wrong with environmentalists' idea that the new car or truck should get much better fuel economy than the House bill currently requires?
A: Opponents say the environmentalists' fuel-economy improvement thresholds are so high that foreign brands benefit disproportionately, because their lineups tend now to have more small, fuel-efficient vehicles.
But the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy complained in a statement criticizing the House bill that the proposal as it stands now is way too lenient.
The council charged that the bill "aims primarily to clear Detroit's unsold inventory from the storage lots," rather than to seriously cut fuel use.
Q: How soon could this become law?
A: Depends on how much critics can sway the Senate, and to what piece of legislation this "fleet modernization" bill is attached.
If it becomes part of a larger bill that's likely to get lots of debate, it could take awhile. If it's attached to urgent, must-pass legislation, such as an appropriation bill, it could move quickly to the president's desk.
As proposed, it would be in effect for just one year.

SUMMARY OF CASH-FOR-CLUNKERS AGREEMENT

Passenger car
Light-duty truck
Large light-duty truck (6,000-8,500 lbs.)
Work truck (8,500-15,000 lbs.) Minimum fuel economy for new vehicle
22 mpg (EPA combined)
18 mpg (EPA combined)
15 mpg (EPA combined)
Not applicable $3,500 voucher
Mileage improvement of at least 4 mpg.
Mileage improvement of at least 2 mpg.
Mileage improvement of at least 1 mpg or trade-in of a work truck.
Trade-in must be at least pre-2002. $4,500 voucher
Mileage improvement of at least 10 mpg.
Mileage improvement of at least 5 mpg.
Mileage improvement of at least 2 mpg.
NA Source: House Committee on Energy and Commerce

 

That's terrific. The State of California imposes restirctions on where I can get a smog check becuase my car is a "gross polluter" but it's not a clunker. And let me state, oil changed for 24 years at 3000-5000 miles and all required maintenance performed. That's why the car is still running on it's original transmission and engine.

And to the guy who thinks old cars should get more efficient because there's less friction I have a bridge to sell you.

 

Well, it's all relative. Japanses sold more of fuel efficient cars comapred to big 3.
Let's face it. We, Americans love big cars here.
More of these clunkers will be American and the bill is clearing the road for these american clunker owners to buy another american guzzlers with such a low standard for new cars.

Here is USA article that pointed out how this bill is disguising its American bent

Our view on vehicle vouchers: Put the brakes on ?cash for clunkers? - Opinion - USATODAY.com

"An owner of an old SUV that gets 18 mpg would get $3,500 toward a new SUV that gets a whopping 20 mpg. Meanwhile, an environmentally conscious driver with an old car that gets better than 18 mpg could buy one of the most fuel-efficient cars on the market, the 46 mpg Toyota Prius, and wouldn't get a dime.
It's not hard to see why the plan is structured the way it is. Of the 10 most fuel-efficient cars in America for city driving, only the Ford Escape hybrid (and equivalents) is made by one of the Big Three."

 

The attached article is spot-on. Typical Washington Beltway politics. And you can bet that some version of this bill will be passed - the unions, lobbyists, and special interests are simply too tight with our "representatives". It will do little for Detroit, and probably very little to spark the economy. But, hey, what's $4 Billion??? Chump change nowadays.

 

Is the concensus of this forum for or against the "cash for clunkers?"

As a car salesman, I'd like to see this pass into law. Even if for one year, we could use the boost in sales and even though Chev and Ford don't offer as many fuel efficient autos as we do, I expect there will be some boost to their sales.

Toyota and Honda will benefit if there are a lot of folks trading older domestics for Corolla, Yaris, and Prius but we will not have the same luck taking folks out of older Corollas and Camrys....the funny thing is that it takes an old, beat up Coroll, Camry or Yaris to see a trade value less than $3500....perhaps this doesn't help for owners of Toyota or Honda fuel efficient cars.

I realize I am reaching on this one, but I thought I'd chime in here.

 

To put things in perspective, the proposed cost of this 1-year Clunker program could purchase how many 2010 IV Prius's - assuming a price of $25K for each car. I think this would warrant a quantity discount.

So - how many?



160,000

I need to send an email to my Senator. I'll take a red one please.

 

I'm all for it! I'd be a perfect candidate, with an 1989 Jeep Cherokee (17 mpg) upgrading to a 2010 Prius. :mod:

 

I'm opposed, because the 18 mpg requirement excludes everything I have to trade in.

Trading my old Honda for a Prius would cut my fuel consumption in half, more than twice the actual gallons saved by someone trading in an 18mpg clunker for a new 22 mpg car.

If the bill has a graduated requirement, such as the new car must get at least 40% better mpg than the tradein, then I'd support it. Otherwise, it is just transferring tax money away those of us who were responsible in the past, and giving it to folks trading up to "fuel efficient" new cars that in many cases are still lower mpg than my old clunker.

 

I support anything that causes us to use less gas. We intend to keep my wife's current car, son turns 16 in August. If we did trade it in, wouldn't help anyways, Hyundai Accent.

I want to buy a Prius, because I feel it's the right thing to do. I really wish there were better choices right now, but there are not. I think we need to use less gas for many reasons, climate change, not giving money to terrorists, $4.50 a gallon gas being the last nail in the coffin, to our economy last summer, to name a few. The thing is, I'm not buying one because I think it's going to make a difference. Buying a Prius makes about as much difference as tinkling in the ocean. My future Prius, your Prius, and every other Prius ever sold make up a tiny percentage of the cars on the road. The different variations of this bill,will help, and I support that.

...and what happens to a car over time, to magicaly make it's mpgs go down?

 

Regarding gas mileage in older cars going down, its true that as the car gets older initially the gas mileage tends to go up as things wear in, but eventually cylinder compression begins to go down meaning less horsepower is produced per gallon burned causing lower gas mileage. Most people don't keep a car long enough for this to happen. My 1973 Corolla which i bought new, doesn't get near the mileage now that it did when it was say a mere ten years old. Mechanical wear causes wasted motion and additional friction which also contributes to lower mileage.

 

I think "Cash for Clunkers" is a good idea. I would prefer that new trucks were required to meet higher standards. I don't see a lot of cars being traded in because most cars sold in the last 20 years get better than 18 mpg combined. So this will mostly be people trading trucks and SUV's. I would prefer new full size trucks and SUV's be excluded from the plan. Image the benefit if we could get people to downsize a size of vehicle:

Trailblazer => Equinox
Explorer => Escape
4Runner => RAV4
Pilot => CR-V

 

Sorry, I'm late to the game w/this very long thread that I haven't monitored, but I saw this article the other day: Cash-for-Clunkers Would Rev Trucks - WSJ.com. Hope it's not a repeat.

The facts aren't new (been posted elsewhere in this thread) but it gives a similar example to monblanc's.

Good grief. SUVs and pickups ought to NOT qualify for this stuff.

It's also lame that all light trucks (SUVs, pickups, minivans, and some vans) are exempt from the gas guzzler tax (http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/420f06042.htm) which is based on "non-fudged" (not adjusted downwards) old EPA methods. However, this is nothing new (been going on for years (always?)) and unrelated to "cash for clunkers". I wish lawmakers would get rid of this stupid exemption.

 

<WARNING RANT COMING>
I am against it for one main reason. The government is broke.

The current debt is over 11 Trillion or 5-6 times total tax revenues for a year. The interest on the debt is roughly 25% of total tax revenues for a year and could fund almost every government program with the exception of the top 3 (social services, defense & interest). China no longer wants to buy our debt so the Treasury is printing money to buy the debt.

Since out debt is already going to double (causing our interest payments to double) and since interest rates are likely going to rise (due to the factors above) interest on the debt could easily rise to greater than the total tax revenues, more spending runs the risk of actually collapsing the government. Don't believe me, check out where all the govt. money is spent and do the math. Federal Budget Spending and the National Debt
</WARNING RANT COMING>

Now combine all that with the following facts:
1. The modest increase in fuel economy will never pay for the additional economic environmental cost of producing all the new vehicles.
2. It removes all the low value vehicles off the road further damaging the very people who are hardest hit in a down economy.
3. The economic benefits are short term and only result in higher taxes for everyone which will decrease spending down the road.

In the interest of full disclosure and as I have said before, if this program takes effect I will likely take advantage. I'm going to pay for it in taxes down the road I might as well get the benefits now. For all you who say that's hypocritical it probably is but I keep my tax refund when I get it too. In either case the government is just giving you back your own money. And trust me I have paid my fair share as I suspect alot of people who can afford Prii have.

Thanks for letting me rant
G