Nuts. Cash for Clunkers Passes Senate.

Mr_Horsepower
Jun 20, 2009 at 7:44 pm

oh and I just noticed my dads truck is on here Ford Expedition 4wd, the goverernment is full of shit, on the amount of money we have in my car and his truck there is no way we will sell them ever, let alone for $3500, obama can go shove that money up his ass!

Mr_Horsepower
Jun 20, 2009 at 7:41 pm

My car is on the list Cadillac Eldorado, the head of the government can go suck my exhaust pipe, i wonder how much carbon i can pump into his lungs with a flowmaster exhaust and mild comp cam. this just fuckign pisses me off

GTwildfire
Jun 18, 2009 at 12:36 pm

talk about knee-jerk reactions, read one after another. As much as some folks apparently want every car ever made to remain intact, it’s just not a matter of feasibility. Eventually something’s gotta be recycled. If not, more ore has to be mined, processed, smelted whetever. More petroleum has to be imported to make up for the lack of recycled plastic, etc.
-
People are talking about having their cars pryed from their cold dead hands and other silly misinformed stuff. It’s almost amusing.
-
CarDomain blows the trumpet for new models as, or even well before they’re available. CarDomain has focused great attention to the plight of the auto industry and its workers, yet CarDomain thinks giving an incentive that can help boost sales of new cars at a time its sorely needed is a bad thing I guess because it is believed that every car worth 3500 or less is in peril.
-
I’m never one to mince words and I’m not about to start ever. There’s a whole lota stupid going on right now.

chevyman327nova
Jun 17, 2009 at 12:44 pm

well yea screw a gallant crush that

shadowfox1761
Jun 17, 2009 at 12:08 pm

um….you guys know this is voluntary right? i mean no one is forcing any of you to get rid of your cars. this bill was made for people in the sistution my dad is in. he has an aging car that hes going to trade in a few years from now…..but this bill comes along and he can get a good amount of money for the car so he dose it now and helps stimulate the economy. and by no means is his 4 bagger gallant ever going to be a collectible car.

638182530
Jun 17, 2009 at 6:08 am

lol, yeah like im going to take my continental to the crusher, lol. stupid goverment.

chevyman327nova
Jun 16, 2009 at 5:19 pm

this bill still sucks no matter what and it shouldnt be aloud either way whether they are forcing us or not so we’ll keep on bitching if we want i got an idea lets just take some of these bad idea bad styling green cars that noone likes and crush them wont hurt our feelings

XtremeZAO
Jun 16, 2009 at 2:53 pm

I dont lke this bill that they passed, But if one way or anther I can get a 1992 Firebird or Camaro for $3500 or less I like. Im sure that Im interpreting this article wrong, but I work for a dealer ship and Im guessing if a person comes in trades in a 1992 Firebird the most we can give them is $3500, so I can get it for that or less.

2wkd4u
Jun 16, 2009 at 2:37 pm

i do not agree with this bill at all.. there are 2 vehicles on that list i own and get MUCH better gas mileage than what is stated.. most people don’t realize there are ways to improve your gas mileage, for the same $3,500-$4,500 the government is going to give you to purchase a NEW car or truck you could have had that same amount of money to fix up your own Vehicle to get better mileage, and still have money in your pocket afterwords. i know some makes and models dont have some upgrades to make them more fuel friendly, but if you do your homework you can get a nice amount of MPG. out of your car or truck.

65stangGuy
Jun 16, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Does nobody understand what this is for? troutster52 gets it. they are not going to take or make anyone sell their cars they want to keep. quit bitchin and read a bit.

slack_67
Jun 16, 2009 at 2:21 pm

I think this bill is a load of crap. Like most of us have said it isnt cost effective for anyone to get ride of a car they already own free and clear for some change that wouldn’t put a scratch in the cost of purchasing a new/newer vehicle. They have plenty of other alternatives to crushing perfectly decent cars and giving away money. Instead of crushing cars and making us have to buy new man. parts why not buy the cars and create an agency that dismantles and resells parts for a profit therefore not costing the gov. any unnecessary cost. That which would come out of gov. pockets anyway could go towards the salary of an employee of this new dismantler agency. And those of us which still own these well cared for, older cars can still keep the history of these older cars alive for future gens. to appreciate. I agree this bill stinks of too much politics, it has only a surface coat of greenage, its funny how its been talked about for awhile now but suddenly goes through when big car companies are on the verge of bankrupcy.

1_eyed_bob
Jun 16, 2009 at 1:37 pm

Whether the cars are collectables, will be or never will be, I think this is all crap. Alot of the cars they listed off arnt even that bad on gas. Regardless of that fact I would try and talk anyone into avoiding this. People are distroying potential vehicle history just for a small chunk of change. Without some of these cars in the junk yards as well alot of perfectly good parts will be lost, costing many of us alot more money when we need simple things that are perfectly fine to buy used. One thing that I noticed though.. what about all of the sports cars from the 80′s and 90′s that get terrible mileage? Regardless, they shouldnt be on the list even with the cars that already are. Offer vouchers for people to get tune ups to improve mileage. For the $$$ you would get paid to scrap the hole thing, you could just use it to make it more eco friendly. Im not really into the green movement although I know we have a need for it, but man they are taking all the fun out of being a car nut with all these new regulations!

MODest26
Jun 16, 2009 at 11:27 am

this bill is one of the dumbest things i have ever heard, these “clunkers” that are on the list are a hell of a lot better then most new cars. Older cars have personality and are by far better then anything rolling off the lines now, this bill is shit and is a terrible idea.

RavenAegis45
Jun 16, 2009 at 10:49 am

its really not helping much to save Oil, its more aimed at making Consumers (IE Us!!!!!!!) buy new cars in troubled times for car makers. I’d much rather hold onto my aging Celica than go buy some new car I wouldnt like. Beside there aren’t as many new cars in my price range I’d LIKE to buy. all the good cars are over my price range even if I cut back on Living cost and get a voucher. This Bill needs to be written better honestly.

CH3VYBOI
Jun 16, 2009 at 10:20 am

I do not know much but that bill is bull shit. Just because a car is sitting does not mean there is not a plan for it. I own a 1979 Chevy Blazer K5 and its just sitting in my driveway. Why is it sitting? well I am changing the timing chain. if they call cars clunkers because they dont run and they are older than 25 years old then i will be pissed. my truck does not run because im fixing it. fuck the bill. and fuck all the supporters for the bill. if they support the bill then obviously they do not have a love for old cars. Even if they try to make us smash our cars i will not. If they think it will make me buy a new car then they are full of shit. the older cars are built better and will run longer than the new cars. these new cars might have performance but the technology is not for long lasting cars. they design the shit to fuck up after a while so you pay them to fix it or pay for a new one.

GTwildfire
Jun 16, 2009 at 10:18 am

Also – obviously – people aren’t breaking down doors to buy cars these days. Factor in that weak number with a further reduction of folks who won’t be crushing and voila… a bunch of noise about almost nothing.
-
parts will still be just about as available as they are now. Cars will be just about as numerous as they are now, and the plug will eventually be pulled on this unsustainable program, which is obviously unsustainable because there’s no means of funds directly returning to the government aside from taxes.

troutster52
Jun 16, 2009 at 8:12 am

Everyone needs to just calm down. There won’t be any law that forces you to junk your car, it just makes it more beneficial than usual to do so. Those of us that love these cars own them already and nobody can take them away from us. The root cause of this whole deal is to stimulate new car sales. If everyone would just stop complaining about the government’s problem-solving skills (or lack thereof) and bought a new car, they wouldn’t have to pass legislation like this. As long as there are car accidents and mechanical failures, junkyards will be plentiful and full and as long as there are people, there will be collector cars, cash for clunkers or not.

ChAMbER_CUStOMS
Jun 16, 2009 at 6:19 am

I’m sorry if i offend anyone BUT the american senate are idiots. I’m from canada so i don’t have to worry about this law but the amount of vehicles i see on the list that still have potential are ridiculous. i have a 98 blazer 4door 4×4 and it is not a clunker. if anyone wants to spend time and look at how many “clunkers” from that list are on our beloved cardomain it would make me sick to see them go. Many vehicles that are on that list would make great first cars for beginner drivers, father-son projects, or off road vehicle….hell even daily drivers. I hope to hell that this law doesn’t force you to sell your vehicle.

DecaturGaBoy404
Jun 16, 2009 at 5:54 am

Good grief! If there are no junk cars to get good parts from how will I restore my own. I not buying parts direct from GM they are going out of business! And what are they gonna do charge me $70 for a door handle for a 87 monte carlo??? F-That! How am I gonna teach my son when he gets older the vaule of good hard work with the xbox, ps3, wii and all the other things that make kids less creative and less enthusatic about things going on in the real world! Don’t get me wrong their are some real POS out there but even in a POS their might be a great frame or a good rear end. Will there be a criteria that must be matched before a car is crushed??? And who the heck is goning to do the judging??? What about the great classics people??? Bel Airs, Fastback Mustangs, Mopars, will these cars only be in museums???

65stangGuy
Jun 16, 2009 at 4:42 am

what i think they want to do this for is to melt down the metal and use it for something to support the war. like making bombs, aircraft parts, parts for naval ships, etc. i dont think they just want to crush cars for the sake of getting them off the road or out of peoples back yards. they arnt going to take these cars from people SPECK2008. i think its a good idea if they will use the scrap for something in support of the war.

RockstrMentality
Jun 15, 2009 at 10:18 pm

Wow. Fudge Obama and his government.
This is just a terrible idea on so many levels. I don’t know where to start.

speck2008
Jun 15, 2009 at 9:25 pm

i own a 1989 pontiac firebird formula and no matter what damn law they pass they are not taking my car from u its a classic and always will be i dont understand why they are doing this. everybody loves a good classic car fuck all these new cars

Cski15
Jun 15, 2009 at 9:21 pm

RIDICULOUS!!!!! I just bought a 71 cutlass supreme which is obviously over 25 years old but i still bought it. These cars are certainly not hurting anyone if they sit why is that a problem to the govt. IT’S NOT THEIR CAR OR BACKYARD so piss offffff!! Let us decide on what we wanna do to these future beauties.

badcoma
Jun 15, 2009 at 8:37 pm

One more thing how will kids own there own there cars
if there are no old cars to buy and fix up.

badcoma
Jun 15, 2009 at 8:33 pm

This pisses me off to no end!

the old cars were built last, I work on this old boys truck it was 1969 chevy truck he owned it sins it was new and he drives it all the time.

don’t buy a peace of crap thay call a car.

SAVE AND RESTORE THE OLD CARS

mikealp123
Jun 15, 2009 at 8:09 pm

the cars on this list dont mean anything to me so no big deal right.the problem with it is that if its successful they will keep going after older car or just try to put them off the road all togather. i drive a 1998 s10 4×4 it gets about 17 mpgs that sucks but its easier to stay home a little more and save gas than pay for gas and a 500 to 700 dollar payment on a new truck and get 20 mpg.then with outragous full coverage insurance cost.so ill drive mine keep it going for a while.wish economy was better but come down to food ,electric, home or 35,000 dollar truck

chaztheoccultist
Jun 15, 2009 at 5:33 pm

the government is really trying to fuck people that need parts for there old cherished cars. what dont they get not everyone likes the new crap cars. most people love there old cars. its just another plane to make us go into debt by buying a 45,000 car. and getting ride of cars that dont cost a arm and a leg.

ms_ss_07
Jun 15, 2009 at 4:48 pm

Theres just one thing wrong with this bill, once the majority of the clunkers are traded in, theres only one thing auto sales can do and that is to drop right back to where they are now. Yea it may sell a few thousand in five months or so, but whats going to happen after majority of ppl have new cars, u cant re-sell them another new car?? So its only going to help sales for about 5 months or so, then is going to hit rock bottom again. I should know, I work at 2 dealerships.

GTwildfire
Jun 15, 2009 at 5:03 am

Like I said before, true classics would be spared. ’92 firebirds? I like Firebirds of course but I still don’t see these dropping off the face of the earth.
-
The last gen Firebirds have a following and only a village idiot would crunch one of them but if that happened there would only be a mild reduction in their numbers anyway.

The Government can only afford so much to give away and when realization finally sets in, programs like this one will dry up and shrivel.

In the meantime, again, I also make the point that this is also an INCENTIVE PROGRAM that should help the auto industry increase sales – and AGAIN I hear NOTHING from the blogging staff that acknowledges this. Did I miss reading that somewhere and/or was that just glazed over quickly and back to the brim & firestone er… fire & brimstone.

1lowscort
Jun 14, 2009 at 7:50 pm

Monk: Myself and two of my friends have personally bought in the neighborhood of 40 cars in the last year to prevent them from going to the crusher. I am doing my part the the best of my abilities. Sure, there will be some cars traded in that are actually at the end of their life span, just plain worn out. However, there will be many many useful parts destroyed that are still quite useful. This will cause the parts that I need to keep my own 80′s cars on the road to skyrocket in price, as well as prices for other enthusiasts, which you do not seem to be at all.

Also, do you know who is going to be paying for this? Me and you and all the other Joe Taxpayers out there…oh, right and our kids. This is a piss poor way of spending the tax dollars that I am forced to pay. I pay for enough BS that makes no real sense. Now we have people actually wanting to spend more of our money to crush a million running, driving cars, and put more people in debt, as well as the government farther in debt, all the while causing serious injury to the independent automotive repair shops. This causes damage to me personally, as I am:
A. An automotive enthusiast
B. An automotive technician

I am already on the brink of losing everything I have because of the shitty economy and people not wanting to fix their cars, now I have to deal with the independent shops that I am struggling to find employment with failing. Yea…this bill is fantastic. Go team.

fortyfordsedan
Jun 13, 2009 at 3:42 pm

The last copy of the bill I saw said it had to be driven, owned for over a year and in drivable condition so these likely aren’t cars that are sitting rusting. I think the bill is misguided and useless because
1. The bill ignores the impact to the environment of building a new car when an old one was already serviceable. I mean if you are replacing a truck that only gets used a few times a year to go to the dump or cut firewood its not doing the environment much or any good to scrap it and build a new one.
2. I dont think very many people who have to drive a car valued at less then 3500 dollars have the money to get a newer vehicle, if they did and it were that important to them they would probably already own one. Maybe a few people who have a truck that makes a trip to the dump a year might take it in but I am skeptical that it will account for the 1 million cars it is supposed to boost sales by.
3. Assuming it actually increases sales 1 million units that would mean the government would be spending at least 3.5 billion on incentives to get us to buy cars. The whole bill in my opinion is just a waste of legislative time and money at a time when we have serious issues in our country and a huge deficit.

palefacetsw
Jun 13, 2009 at 6:49 am

My cars are pre-1985….so I have no opinion on the matter……

Monk73
Jun 12, 2009 at 11:04 pm

So let me get this straight. You would rather see these cars rust out to the point the their metal is useless, then give the car the opportunity to be turned into something more ecologically and economically viable. If there was a market for the cars on the list, then there would be more people buying them and less of them going to waste. I see more of the late 80s and 90s cars sitting in junkyards and peoples driveways(just sitting and not used) than any other car. So if you guys are here to just complain that DEM CARS IS GETTEN CRUSHED thats fine, but if you are serious, pay these people for their cars so they don’t get crushed. Stand up, fork over, or stop whining.

chevyman327nova
Jun 12, 2009 at 8:15 pm

this shits still gay as hell but atleast on the list its newer stuff thats a dime a dozen but it dont make it right.

oldscoob
Jun 12, 2009 at 7:55 pm

ya wanna hear something bizarre, I can hear every one of those cars on the list with a bad spark plug. Hello, how can I help you today?
even that list is tinkerable in the fuel department, but if you must play consumer report yuppie games, kiss them goodbye. there is a marketing mechanic, and there is a real mechanic…one has a magazine and tie on…

1lowscort
Jun 12, 2009 at 5:15 pm

Then there are those of us who don’t care one lick about rarity. I would rather see them all over the place being happy and not flat then see them needlessly removed from the road, allowing mine to be worth a bit more.

Monk73
Jun 12, 2009 at 4:10 pm

If you like your car… Don’t junk it. If you have a useless piece of crap sitting in your backyard, junk it for a new one. You guys make it sound like there will be no more of these cars left. Welcome to the idea of rarity. This innocent bill will turn your piece of crap soon to be classic into a rare classic. All should rejoice. Also, the Wrangler is more likely to be purchased private seller for more than the voucher anyway, I do not see many of these being junked.

fireball22
Jun 12, 2009 at 4:07 pm

Actually, the list provided by Consumer Reports is THEIR suggested list of what cars should junked under the voucher program. That does not mean that these cars are on a Government “Hit List”. It’s an opinion of the CR writers.

That said, any idea why the ’92 and older Firebird is on the list but not the Camaro?

And I sure would like to get my hands on any of those old Fairlanes in the pic!

Curtis
Jun 12, 2009 at 3:26 pm

I wish the following vehicles were not on the list:
-Pontiac Firebird
-Chevy Astro
-Ford Aerostar
Seriously, those are like the last minivans ever to have ANY personality!