Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Good for the Poor

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Good for the Poor

    For a moment let's go back to where this thread got started. Let's say you know someone with a big SUV that is a bit of a fuel hog and where he/she is thinking about trading it in. What about if you or someone you know needs such a vehicle? What if rather than it was traded in only to become scrap, you purchased it outright for say $5000 and fixed it up some? This would only be where you know the seller and the vehicle history. Now for a pretty good price, you got a good SUV and your friend/neighbor has some $$$ to apply to the purchase of another vehicle that he/she wants.

    Part 2: With some good servicing, I bet most if not all of us can be rewarded with 10% or more gain in efficiency of about whatever vehicle(s) we currently own.

    Questions to ask ourselves: When was the air filter element last changed? Am I using energy saving oil in my engine? How about transmission fluid? When was the last time I checked the pressure in my tires when they were cool? Do I really need to drive 70MPH in a 65MPH zone when traffic is light? Slowing down to 60MPH does make a difference. Is there something causing wind drag I could change myself? Am I planning out trips well? Do I really need to run Super 93 gasoline or would a 1/2 - 1/2 mix with regular 87 work out fine? I think we all know 89 plus is over priced. I do a mix myself where they have credit card readers on the self service pumps. Yes it's a PITA but I do save some $$$ for a little effort.
    Last edited by Woussko; 08-02-2009, 12:48 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Good for the Poor

      Originally posted by Woussko View Post
      For a moment let's go back to where this thread got started. Let's say you know someone with a big SUV that is a bit of a fuel hog and where he/she is thinking about trading it in. What about if you or someone you know needs such a vehicle? What if rather than it was traded in only to become scrap, you purchased it outright for say $5000 and fixed it up some? This would only be where you know the seller and the vehicle history. Now for a pretty good price, you got a good SUV and your friend/neighbor has some $$$ to apply to the purchase of another vehicle that he/she wants.

      Part 2: With some good servicing, I bet most if not all of us can be rewarded with 10% or more gain in efficiency of about whatever vehicle(s) we currently own.

      Questions to ask ourselves: When was the air filter element last changed? Am I using energy saving oil in my engine? How about transmission fluid? When was the last time I checked the pressure in my tires when they were cool? Do I really need to drive 70MPH in a 65MPH zone when traffic is light? Slowing down to 60MPH does make a difference. Is there something causing wind drag I could change myself? Am I planning out trips well? Do I really need to run Super 93 gasoline or would a 1/2 - 1/2 mix with regular 87 work out fine? I think we all know 89 plus is over priced. I do a mix myself where they have credit card readers on the self service pumps. Yes it's a PITA but I do save some $$$ for a little effort.
      One of the problems I see with your logic on this is that many of the vehicles listed will not bring the $3500.00 to $4500.00 in the private market.

      So when the private market will only bring $2000.00 to $3,000.00 for the vehicles, along with the things a person has to do to sell the vehicle, PLUS other incentives and/or rebates manufacturers offer, people are more likely to follow the clunker program.

      People tend to head toward what makes them the most for the least amount of effort.

      J.C.
      Last edited by BobsPlumbing; 08-02-2009, 01:01 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Good for the Poor

        I briefly considered trading in a vehicle to get in on this, bluebook on my truck is only $1k, and the girlfriends car is only worth 2k or so. but the EPA rates them both at 21 mpg, a 13 year old truck, and a 8 year old car. Now, if i'd been eligible to trade in, i'd have probably still talked myself out of it. no rebate makes it worth taking on a payment I don't need.

        Even a small car would still end up neting me a what? $300 a month payment? plus the insurance hike, for the two of us on two vehicles, our insurance is about $70 a month. i'd have to get a more expensive policy there.

        So other than the peace of mind of a vehilce under warranty, what am I gaining? i'm sure losing a lot of spending power each month. I know i'm not in the minority in that I have very little in the way of savings, other than an employer matched IRA, what I earn each month gets spent.

        I guess in short, I can either spend a bunch of money I dont have Right now, or spend money I do have over time, Either way i'm spending that money, just on different things. When I think it out this way, I think i'd rather spend the money on things I need, rather than on propping up an industry that can't run itself.
        No, it's not rocket science, it's plumbing and unlike rocket science it requires a license.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Good for the Poor

          Too many flaws to the program. Did people get rid of clunkers or did they simply take advantage of the program? Who assessed the condition of the so called clunkers? Answer is no one, they just used a chart and left it at that. Many of those cars were probably in good shape and as mentioned with a good tune up, some minor repairs and synthetic fluids would probably equal or out perform the new vehicles purchased. I would rather have seen the money invested in all the promised "Green" projects and real jobs. Imagine how far 3 billion dollars would have gone to stimulate mass production of solar panels and greater rebates for solar installations on private homes and businesses? We heard a lot of talk during the campaign but what has been done so far is worthless in getting us away from foreign oil or reducing our energy needs. All our government did was spend billions to move some new cars and allow tnes of thousands of Americans to get further into debt. All acted "Stupidly". Now when do all those green programs and jobs start? When do we plug up the loss of American jobs and turn employment around? With every passing day I am more certain we are headed for a depression. Did the cash for clunkers change that very real possibility? I don't think so, if anything the program made things worse.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Good for the Poor

            Last week I did a tuneup on my eighteen year old car and changed the oil and filter (synthetic oil). This week I'll let my mechanic make a few bucks and install an exhaust pipe and CV boot. With proper maintenance most cars can easily get fifteen years and over two hundred thousand miles, but we are spoiled and lazy. Can't be bothered having the preventative work done, need to have the new car! Forget car sales for a minute, put those billions into factories that employ Americans to make the things we consume so that the wealth of America stays in America! Start the green projects and hold off on sweeping health care reform. They talk about the thousands of Americans losing their jobs and healthcare, but they are doing nothing to change those facts.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Good for the Poor

              From an Edmunds.com interview:

              Friday, July 31, 2009
              Listen to the show



              Too many clunkers, not enough cash

              So many people turned in their old gas guzzlers in Cash for Clunkers, it ran out of money in just a week. Tess Vigeland talks with Phil Reed of Edmunds.com about the good, the bad, and the ugly in the Cash for Clunkers program.
              Wrecked cars are piled up on a scrapyard (Theo Heimann/AFP/Getty Images)
              More on Auto Industry

              Links


              TEXT OF INTERVIEW

              TESS VIGELAND: So you were planning to head out to the auto dealership this weekend. Looking for a little government-sponsored trade for that gas guzzler in the driveway. Then you heard that Cash for Clunkers was so popular that they had to suspend it.
              Scratch that. Go buy your car. They'll find a way to pay for it. Really! That's pretty much where we are. On Friday, the House allotted more money and the Senate will vote next week. Meantime, Uncle Sam is urging you to keep those clunkers comin'. If for no other reason that to give the government bragging rights to a program that works.
              Our good friend Phil Reed of Edmunds.com is here with the latest. Hi Phil.
              Phil Reed: Hi Tess.
              Vigeland: You been a little busy the last 48 hours?
              Reed: It's been a wild ride. Nobody could've predicted that this would happen, I don't think.
              Vigeland: Well obviously nobody predicted this would happen. This thing is basically less than a week old. You do the math on a $1 billion program with $4,500 rebates and that's something like 250,000 cars traded in already?
              Reed: Well yes, that would add up to a billion. But there's probably a lot of deals that are pending. So it's unknown. There could be far more than that already.
              Vigeland: Wow. Can you give us an idea of what that means in the industry? Do they ever sell that many cars in a week?
              Reed: It's definitely a big spike, in terms of sales. The question is, how long will it last? Now, if it lasts at its current rate, it will put us on track for about, I think it's 12 million or 13 million cars. Now, in the good old days, just a couple of years ago, they used to sell 16 million cars per year. So we're getting back to where that used to be. But if it sort of goes back in the other direction, we'll probably wind up this year selling about 10,000 or 11,000 cars.
              Vigeland: What does it tell us about pent up demand for cars in this country?
              Reed: I think it sends a clear signal that given a good reason to buy a car, people are ready to take the plunge. And that's, I think, exactly what the program was designed to do. Because in terms of numbers, as you pointed out, it's really not going to solve all of the problems that they have out there, but it shows people, first of all, this is a program that works. And secondly, that there is a pent up demand of people waiting for the right reason to go out and buy a new car.
              Vigeland: Well so you say the program works. What are you hearing about the process, both for consumers and for dealerships? Has it been fairly easy?
              Reed: The process is definitely not user-friendly. It's probably a little easier for consumers than it is for the dealers. The consumer needs to first of all find out, "Do I qualify?" Once they qualify, they need to find a replacement vehicle. A lot of people think they qualify and they don't, so you have to go to a fueleconomy.gov and make sure you get 18 miles per gallon or less. that's a good starting point.
              As far as the dealers go, I was actually in New York this week talking to dealers and they were just deluging us with questions about the mechanics of the program. Many of them are very detailed and they pertain towards the titling and the insurance of the cars, but there's also a lot of unknown questions about how to dispose of the trade-ins. The car has to be basically rendered inoperable. But then once you do that, how do you salvage the car and who gets the money from that? So there's lots and lots of questions.
              Vigeland: You know, I joked about this a little earlier, wondering if junkyards were ready for this.
              Reed: Everybody's been watching this coming and people that are going to profit from it, in terms of money, have been trying to arm themselves and be prepared. And clearly, deals are going through. In other words, I mean, they've almost used up the money, so some people have navigated a very, sort of labyrinthine process. Meanwhile a lot of people are very vocal with questions.
              Vigeland: This was meant not only to help jump start the auto industry, but also to get more fuel efficient cars on the road. Is there any sense yet of what consumers are buying when they trade in their clunkers?
              Reed: That's a great question and we have been getting reports of inventory levels that are definitely diminishing. And that means that some of the very highly fuel efficient cars -- particularly for example, in the Toyota line-up -- are getting to be hard to find. And that's partly because production levels were cut way back and there's probably going to be less and less to choose from as we go forward.
              Vigeland: So, I hate to ask this, but does that potentially mean prices are going to go up?
              Reed: Well that's been a huge discussion this week. We've been getting lots of feedback from consumers who were in the middle of a deal when the Cash for Clunkers was approved and funded, they went back, they thought that they had a set price for the vehicle and one consumer reported that the price was suddenly raised $1,100. Other people are saying dealers are telling them flatly, "You have to buy sticker price in order to qualify for this program." So clearly, we felt that the price was going to go up, but a lot of people feel that this is an opportunity for dealers, who were coming hat in hand for any deal previous to this to suddenly begin gouging.


              J.C.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Good for the Poor

                Sorry J.C., but I listened to some of the audio and I don't agree with much of what was said. The program ran through a billion dollars in one week and now there will be two billion more alloted to keep it going, what fuzzy math predicts how many more cars will be crushed or how much more money will be funded? Who figures the benefits of the government (taxpayer) money infused against return to our economy? The speakers said the program proved that buyers just needed a good reason, but unless the cars turned in were evaluated how do we know what percentage of the buyers were just craving something new and different? Are there any figures to show the average gas mileage of the new cars purchased against the ones junked? It is too soon to even begin to appreciate the fraud that will take place when these junked cars are not properly disposed of! Criminals in the salvage industry will swap VIN #'s and many of those junked cars will be on the road for years to come. I maintain that many of those clunkers could have and should have been fixed up, our government should have encouraged responsible ownership instead of rewarding the disposable mindset of the spoiled American consumer. When times are tough, you take care of what you have and spend money wisely. The end result of this "successful" program will be massive consumer debt, massive waste of materials and a very temporary false rise in profits and confidence in a failed industry and tanking economy. I may be completely wrong, but I firmly believe I am right.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Good for the Poor

                  My wife has a 98 camry and gets 30mpg. The new camry with a 4 cylinder is only rated for 22mpg. What's the point of "upgrading"? As much as love toyota, I believe that the government should crack down on companies like this by having a penalty tax if you buy a vehicle that doesn't meet a certain fuel consumption standard. How do you build a car for decades and get WORSE fuel consumption? My first car was a 1977 chevelle malibu station wagon with a 350 V8. I got 13mpg, roughly the same as many trucks on the road today with a big V8. This doesn't compute. I believe that companies should focus less on horsepower and more on economy but the manufacturs will build what the consumers wants.

                  I believe this entire cash for clunkers program had absolutley nothing to do with saving fuel consumption. I believe it was an incentive program to get us to buy vehicles, which would theretically stimulate the economy. But here's the quandry, now there are more americans on the road with nice new cars but also in debt more then were before. I believe the government did a disservice to the public by misleading them into thinking this was a good idea. The short term gain of less fuel consumption is greatly offset by the increased car payment. The sole advantage to this program was that the dealer and the consumer both knew the rebate upfront.

                  I had great hope for President Obama but unfortunantly it appears that his plan is to get America spend money we don't have. Kinda like the guy who has the nice car, house but nothing in the bank.
                  Buy cheap, buy twice.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Good for the Poor

                    a few hundred dollar tax credit would have been effective an incentive to trade up on gas mileage,
                    it could have been such that on a new unit you could get $XXX and on a used unit $YYY,
                    It would not be destroying road worthy cars, and it would not only benefit the new car buyer, at tax payer expense.
                    Push sticks/blocks Save Fingers
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good."
                    attributed to Samuel Johnson
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    PUBLIC NOTICE: Due to recent budget cuts, the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil...plus the current state of the economy............the light at the end of the tunnel, has been turned off.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Good for the Poor

                      I bought us a "new" van last fall. Our old Astro blew the engine and was not worth fixing, sent it to the junk yard. Our "new" Chevy conversion van is a 1990 G20 sport. Best vehicle I could find for available funds. Can't go into debt right now, not sure if I will be working much longer. Going back for heart surgery the 11th to see if they can fix me or not. This program will take a lot of nice older vehicles out of circulation from people who need them.
                      Last edited by papadan; 08-02-2009, 05:56 PM.
                      info for all: http://www.hoistman.com http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/index....wwtoolinfoforu --- "I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me."

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Good for the Poor

                        Frankie, no need to say sorry. I'm just thinking about the whole thing and you could be right about it not being a good thing.

                        I think Gear is right and the real purpose behind it is to motivate spending and not really a MPG thing. However there are CAFE standards that taxes vehicles that fall below the standard required. BUT the standard may be too low. Been awhile since I've looked at them.

                        On the debt side, I'm not sure one should assume that buyers are accumulating bad debt. I wouldn't if I were to pursue the clunker deal.

                        I highlighted the the last words in that interview because I think "gouging" is what's going to occur. I remember when the feds put out the very first hybrid credit. Just always been a car person that checks out new stuff, what it costs etc. Not long after the credit went into effect....prices increased on hybrids around $3,000.00. I watched prices before and after.

                        I also check websites once in awhile. GM, Toyota, Ford, etc. etc. etc. For a long time the website build price was always much higher than what was at the local dealer.

                        Now I'm seeing a low "clunker" web site deal that cannot be found at a dealer.

                        J.C.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Good for the Poor

                          WOW i finally said something that had legs. My biggest concern is the family that needs a cheep car. They should not have to compete with the government for used cars.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Good for the Poor

                            I'm gettin scared. I don't personally own anything newer than a 97 civic

                            Where am I gonna get parts?a
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Good for the Poor

                              I'm seeing some "clunkers" on the lots. I wonder if all these "trade-ins" will make it to the crusher or resold? I doubt the feds have the capability to check on every trade-in.
                              (The Low Spark of Steel-Toed Boys)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Good for the Poor

                                Originally posted by NHMaster3015 View Post
                                I'm gettin scared. I don't personally own anything newer than a 97 civic

                                Where am I gonna get parts?a
                                Partstrain.com is a good site for all sorts of parts. I recently got exhaust, driveline and tuneup parts for my 1990 Maxima from them at a very good savings. You shouldn't have any trouble finding any part for your car now that so many have been turned in for dismemberment.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X