Clunker for Clunker

[G_j]

Instead of destroying the traded-in clunkers, why not offer the better ones as an even trade to people with even less efficient clunkers, and perhaps cars with over 125,000 miles?
Then maybe destroy those cars.

That would help out some poorer people, and get some of the worst cars off the road,

:think:

[atomic-fly]

1. Great idea!

There are plenty of unemployed with total POS cars!

[G_j]

5. certainly an unemployed person

would not be eligible for the 'cash for clunkers'

But having a better car, could help them in finding employment.

[Indydem]

2. I agree.

Some of the details of this program are just plain dumb. Why was 1984 the cutoff? I know plenty of people who need newer cars that are driving cars from 79 and 83. What makes 84 so magical?

They are destroying "better" cars than many people drive and everyone seems to think this is agreat idea...

[armyowalgreens]

4. I'm assuming they rounded to 25 years.

[G_j]

6. why a cutoff at all,

especially if they are "killing" the cars anyway?

[ColbertWatcher]

3. Interesting. n/t

[G_j]

7. ==

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

8. I wrote on another thread that one of the biggest problems, IMHO

is that Cash for Clunkers was taking affordable used cars out of the market for those of us who can only afford used cars.

[G_j]

9. that's true

There is a large segment of the population that could use some help here, and the worse clunkers
will still be out there.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

10. As an example... my son was accepted to a a good state college about 40 minutes

from here. He wanted to live on campus and is working on student loans. It turns out that there isn't housing available for him so he's going to have to drive there. My ex-husband and I don't have the money right now to buy a newer used car for him but do want him to have something safe & fuel efficient. "CARS" will now narrow down our choices for him.

[SoCalDem]

12. Not necessarily. There are many cars still available that missed the "cutoff"

Our 92 Honda Accord is a prime example. It's got 200K + miles on it, it;s a bit "not beautiful" these days, but it gets 26 mpg. It's not "worth" 4500 for resale, but someday we'll part with it & it will still be going strong.. There are lots of Toyotas, Nissans & Hondas..older ones that would fit the bill for your son..

Just the other day, a neighbor sold his 94 Civic for $1800.00

[LeftHander]

11. Not about helping poor...

It is about maintaining status quo for middle class credit zombies and dinosaur auto dealers.

[G_j]

13. I understand that

but it occurred to me that if they added this extra feature to the program, it could help out a lot more people and the economy,
The dinosaurs will still get theirs.

(is it them who keep un-recing this thread?)

[Bluenorthwest]

14. And you know,

I have always purchased cars for high mileage. So that means no 4500 for me. Just for those who drove guzzlers when we all already knew better. It is a bit rankling to watch the give away to some, while others with older cars that get good mileage get nothing. Our cars are still old. Beaten up. But we did not buy an SUV on a warming planet so we get nothing. Not even, by the way, a "thanks for doing right without being bribed" statement.
I'm happy for those getting the hand outs, as always. I'd simply love to see a break come my way just one time. Just once. I could also use a break. My car is 11 years old. Sorry it is not a guzzler at this point, if it was, I'd have a new car coming.
Just a personal gripe. But I'm not the only one feeling this way, the people with 1983 cars getting 12 MPG are really not happy about it! Oh well.

[scheming daemons]

15. Not a bad idea.... but what is considered a "better clunker"? 15 MPG? 12?

How do we define it?


It seems like a good basis for an idea, though.

[G_j]

16. isn't the cash for clunker requirement, 9 mpg better?

or something like that?
Perhaps the same numbers could be applied.

[scheming daemons]

17. I thought it was: Trade in a less-than-15 MPG for a greater-than-25 MPG vehicle

I thought that was the standard.... but I may have the numbers wrong.

[G_j]

19. I believe I'm taking that from a comment from Rachel Maddow

actually, she may have said, on the average, the new cars were 9mpg more efficient than the traded-in models.

But, I need to check on this.
Anyone know?

[slipslidingaway]

21. Government site...

http://www.cars.gov/

"Your vehicle must be less than 25 years old on the trade-in date

Only purchase or lease of new vehicles qualify

Generally, trade-in vehicles must get 18 or less MPG (some very large pick-up trucks and cargo vans have different requirements)

Trade-in vehicles must be registered and insured continuously for the full year preceding the trade-in

You don't need a voucher, dealers will apply a credit at purchase

Program runs through Nov 1, 2009 or when the funds are exhausted, whichever comes first.

The program requires the scrapping of your eligible trade-in vehicle, and that the dealer disclose to you an estimate of the scrap value of your trade-in. The scrap value, however minimal, will be in addition to the rebate, and not in place of the rebate."


Our 1992 and 1993 cars do not qualify as they are listed as getting over 18 MPG.

[Stinky The Clown]

18. Great idea!...... and as an add-on benefit, employ some out of work techs to refurbish the trade-ins

before they get into their new owners' hands.

[caraher]

20. There are 2 standards (besides the cutoff date)

This is from memory so it might be slightly off

1. the clunker must get <19 combined MPG under the revised EPA estimates
2. the new vehicle must top the old value by 10 MPG

This should have little adverse effect on buying a used car that gets at least 19 MPG. In fact, if anything it should make reasonable used vehicles *more* affordable, since the only old vehicles for which there's a financial incentive to use "cash for clunkers" are ones with horrific fuel efficiency. A college student who needs a car has no need for a gas guzzler - which will be hard to keep fueled anyway if the personal budget is tight!

The whole point is to get these abominations off the road. Trading them back to poor people defeats the goals of the program. A better idea would be to subsidize the purchase of both new and used high-mileage cars; this would aid the folks of modest means who do need a car, but without the economic benefit of goosing demand for new cars.

on edit: For the facts see the government's site on the CARS program

Apparently it's <19 MPG for old vehicle and only 22 MPG or better for the new

Also, the reason for the cutoff date is almost certainly the presumption that vehicles that old are unlikely to stay on the road much longer anyway. It's to get more bang for the buck in terms of retiring vehicles and preventing them from guzzling gas for years to come.

[slipslidingaway]

22. knr for a great idea n/t

[comtec]

23. Better idea... Bad for WORSE!

That is if you are poor and have a car that certainly qualifies but REALLY can't afford to buy a new car, you trade it with someone who has an older, but unqualified - thus better than your's - car.

everyone wins!

The poor get upgrades on their old cars, and the less poor, get to buy new cars!

Notice I didn't say rich... because this doesn't even apply to them. They NEVER have cars 5, let alone 10-20 years old.

That aside.. maybe I should start a website doing this.... clunk-bay LOL 100 bux per successful listing, to be paid by the one who can afford it.