« Four 1979-’84 H/Os Stolen at the Hurst/Olds Club of America National Meet in Indianapolis This Weekend CarDomain Blog Home Bumblebee »
August 11, 2009
The Cash For Clunkers Program from the Average Consumer's Point of View
By Jim Brennan
UDMan
All over the car blogging community, there hasn’t been a topic quite like the Cash For Clunkers program that was extended this past week. There have been heavy debates as to the merit of this program, and why anyone will trade a perfectly good vehicle, only to have it destroyed. Well, it’s time to put this all into perspective, as I am going to take the unpopular side of explaining why this program has become somewhat successful, and why everyone who is against it should just calm down.
Continue reading after the jump!
The mission of the CARS Program is to stimulate the purchasing of more fuel efficient cars and trucks, and to help people dispose of their “gas guzzler” that, up until this week, had very little trade in value toward the purchase of a new vehicle. A little history lesson: do you all remember the spring/summer of 2008, when gasoline approached $4.50 per gallon (and that was self serve regular)? Sales of the highly profitable trucks, and truck-based SUVs virtually stopped, along with anything V8 powered. All of these products were primarily manufactured here in the US by the big 2.5. This was the start of the very short slide into bankruptcy for both GM and Chrysler. Ford escaped (pun intended) this fate by mortgaging everything it had, including intellectual property like designs, logos, naming rights, along with the manufacturing plants and office buildings it owned outright.
But, a funny thing also happened, the residual values of all those large trucks, cars, and SUVs also took a substantial nosedive. So what, you’re saying under your breath, what does decreased residuals have to do with any of this? Two things. First, if the vehicles were leased, those companies that held these contracts were about to take a big hit when they’re returned at the end of the term, leaving their balance sheet tattered. Second, if they were financed using traditional financing methods (60, 72, or 84 month terms) there was no way for the current owner to get out from under them, as they are now “upside down”, meaning they owe more on the car than it’s worth. Many of these makes took at least a 50% reduction (and sometimes much greater) in their values. The first affected the financing companies (GMAC, Citigroup, BOA, Cerberus, and others), and one very key insurance giant, AIG. The second affected the average, everyday, strapped consumer, and they had to keep the vehicle for as long as they could, while their warranty expires, further dampening sales.
Before the fuel bubble, car and truck sales were cruising along at an annual yearly rate of about 15 to 16 million units a year, just in the US. When the fuel bubble burst, forecasters were predicting of an annual sales rate of only 7 to 8 million units, or at least a 50% drop. Because of this drop, factories were shutting down, dealerships were closing, and related businesses that feed off the industry also collapsed. It’s the cycle of life, but were we prepared as a nation to sacrifice the lifestyle we have enjoyed over the past decade, to let this natural progression rectify itself?
We probably could have endured the hardships of a collapsing auto industry, but we were also in the midst of the worst economic financeapocolypse since the great depression of the 1930’s. Because of some financial shenanigans in the mortgage, brokerage, and insurance industries (none of which will be debated here), there were seemingly strong, blue chip companies, that either went bankrupt, or were begging for capital from the government just to operate. Names like Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, and Morgan Stanley were sold off, or closed down. Banks that were once on solid ground like Wachovia, Washington Mutual, and Bear Sterns were all acquired by larger companies. And home values, once the rock of financial strength, began to decline, and sharply in some areas. And it was not like the US was alone in this particular mess, as the rest of the world experienced the same sort of fiscal flu.
(Above) This is Brian, and he traded in this Land Cruiser for a Volkswagen Rabbit under the CARS Program
Against this backdrop, the automobile companies, all over the world mind you, were trying to get sales going, by hook, or by crook. The cash for clunkers program was started in Europe, and it was proving to be a success. Parts of Asia started it, and again, it started to show a glimmer of hope. So, if it worked in parts of Europe and Asia, why not try it here in the US, to try and jump start auto sales, with the enticement of having the ability to trade less fuel efficient vehicles for ones that promised better fuel economy. There was also a provision for the commercial truck buyer to upgrade their equipment as well, but it is less publicized than the consumer side of the program. It looks like the CARS program is a success, well beyond anyone expectations, but it has also proven controversial, and that’s were I come in to make some sense of it all.
Let’s first discuss the normal US driver, not the car-crazed fanatics that populate the car blogs or forums. By and large, they are neither car enthusiasts, nor do they take care of their vehicle the way everyone on this site does. To them, their car is an appliance, a toaster if you will, used to transport them from one place to another, without any thought to it at all. These consumers will remember if the car fails to start properly, even if they haven’t replaced the battery in five years. A few of these consumers seem to own a desirable piece of machinery (say a BMW 5-series for example). However, they still look at it as an appliance. Let’s explore that BMW for example. The average BMW service, at an authorized BMW dealer, may cost thousands of dollars when it comes to a 60,000 mile service interval. Well, along comes CARS, and Mr. (or Mrs.) average American that happens to own a BMW looks at the upcoming service bill, or they may have been experiencing all the little, niggling, infuriating problems that comes with owning a BMW. Along comes the CARS program, and they find that they can get up to $4,500 on a trade, and not have to perform the service. They seem to turn in what looks like a perfectly fine car to the rabid enthusiast, just to be scrapped.
The overwhelming argument made by the enthusiast crowd is that the dealers should have offered at least that much on trade in the first place, and not scrapped the vehicle. Ahhh, lets take a look at the trade in values of some of these fine cars for a moment. You look at the trade in values on Kelly Blue Book, and NADA, and sometimes these books show that it’s worth that much or more. New car dealers have a different set of books, as NADA publishes an edition just for dealers, that the general public doesn’t know about. You also have to realize that the dealer has to make the car “front line ready”, which means some re-conditioning, including mechanical items, brakes, tires, and detailing. On top of that, most dealers have to offer a minimal warranty per state law. Each car is different, but if it’s over 100,000 miles, dealers are not interested in retailing them because of the liability involved.
The wholesale value is the target dealers use when taking a trade, and most of the dealers use a wholesale guide like Galves Auto Price Guide, which typically undercuts NADA by a substantial margin. According to Galves, a 1993 BMW 535I 4 Door, with a stick, and with about 100,000 miles is worth $1,200 at trade in. This number is usually a solid number, which the dealer expects to receive when he takes the car to a dealer auto auction. What are some of the other values that the cars in the videos? Let’s start out with the Jeep Grand Cherokee: a 1998 Limited with a V8: $1,800; a 1999 Volvo S-80 with the Turbo: $3,200; a 1993 Mercedes Benz 500 SEL is worth only $2,600 at trade. And that Mazda B3000 pickup, even if it had 4 wheel drive? Only $2,300 at trade. Many of the more common cars don’t even have a value past 12 years old, and dealers use a best guess as far as worth, usually from past auctions, or from wholesalers on the prowl for bargains. To each and every one of the trades illustrated in these videos, the value of these cars and trucks is higher now than before the CARS program began.
Most of the cars being traded in are crap anyway. The number one vehicle being traded in on this program is the Ford Explorer, and their worth is virtually nothing since the Firestone Tire fiasco, and the fuel bubble. Other top 10 worthless cars being destroyed include the Jeep Grand Cherokee, the Ford F-150, The Chevrolet S-10 Blazer, and the Ford Windstar. Is anyone really going to shed a tear for any of these relics? By all accounts they are being traded for the Ford Focus, Ford Escape, Dodge Caliber, and Toyota Camry among others. They are far more fuel efficient than the traded vehicles, quite a bit safer, and carry a new vehicle warranty. And that’s all that really matters to the average consumer.
Again, let me reiterate why this program is a success:
1) The average consumer is trading in a car that they deem as worthless for up to $4,500.
2) The Dealers have never offered more than this amount in trade…. FOR ANY OF THESE VEHICLES.
3) The average consumer buys a more fuel efficient car, that also has more safety and convenience features.
4) The average consumer purchases a new vehicle with a new vehicle warranty.
4) Some of the vehicles showcased may have intrinsic value to enthusiasts, but not to the average consumer.
5) Some of the more desirable vehicles featured may have underlying problems, and could be the reason they were traded.
6) The average American consumer has neither the skill, nor the desire to learn about their vehicle, and relies upon others to perform maintenance on their car.
One last thought…. If you despise this program because of what it is doing to some of these desirable cars, go and prowl the lots, and buy them off these people, for the price they are going to get from the program. If you despise this program because it’s throwing money away, and is an example of one more giveaway that the government is performing, let me remind you of this little fact: The Tarp Money (you know, the last big government giveaway to the Banks and Brokerage Houses) is being paid back by a few selected banks, generating something like 21% to 25% ROI. We will eventually see a return on the investment made to the car companies as well, but we have to jump start sales one way or another. As this is a commentary, let me know what you think. I predict a lot of heated debate.
Comments
Post a comment
Please login to CarDomain to post a comment.
Top Stories of 2009 – CarDomain Blog
Dec 28, 2009 at 3:59 pm
[...] for Clunkers – This was probably the hottest topic this year. Was it a success? Some say yes, some say [...]
JoeCool97Formula
Aug 14, 2009 at 4:28 pm
I agree with the author 100% except for calling F150’s and Explorer worthless. And I am glad to see some one else besides me thinks CARS is a good idea.
And of course I see the morons have to have their say and show their low intelligence… F— THE GOVT, BLAH BLAH, F— OBAMA, F— YOU, KILL THEM ALL, LOOK AT ME TYPING WITH ALL CAPS!
Jim Brennan
Aug 14, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I guess I’ve been too silent here, so it’s time again to put things into perspective. I will try and take each point, with a rational explanation. No need to use and NSFW words, or expletives please, let’s keep things civil.
1) The program was meant to stimulate sales, and to get some of the gas guzzlers off the road, and replace them with more fuel efficient vehicles. On that point, the overwhelming majority of the vehicles have been the 90’s vintage Sport Utility Vehicle and Minivans. These have been replaced with the CUV (Like the Escape, and CRV) and smaller cars.
2) Point: Why not just dismantle the engine, and the parts, instead of destroying the engine? Counterpoint: What is the average hourly shop rate in major metro areas today, something like $75 per hour. It is faster, and cheaper for the dealer to just seize up the engine than take it apart for usable parts. Besides, the whole point is to get us out of V-8’s and V-6’s into 4’s and Hybrids.
3) They can sell the car for almost the same money of more privately. Not everyone wants to waste their time trying to sell their car on EBAY or Craigslist. You get a rash of low ballers, pestering you on your e-mail or phone, and you never get a realistic offer. This program takes away all the stress of selling the car, and rewards the owner with cash towards a newer car.
4) Again, not every one can wield a wrench, so these cars are just commodities to them. Yes it’s tragic to see some of them go, but remember, this only represents something like 2% of all the cars on the road.
thegarbear05
Aug 14, 2009 at 12:23 pm
89RSCAMAROMAN
Aug 14, 2009 at 12:58 am
THey have destroyed every kids dream to get a cheap car and fixit up. I feel sorry for my sons who now have lost the chance
thegarbear05
Aug 14, 2009 at 12:20 pm
that is sad to see that jeep cherokee like that they dont make the 4.ol anymore cuz its to reliable if anything i will do a engine that saves more mpg cuz i love my cherokee most of the vehicle build now or plastic and dont have space
Fordguy66
Aug 14, 2009 at 11:39 am
Fuck Cash for Clunkers, and Jim… There is no reason we should be destroying these perfectly good vehicles. Before they started this, I thought it would actually be real “clunkers” that got the crusher; when in reality only good running/driving vehicles are apparently eligible. Of all the videos i’ve seen on youtube, I’ve seen maybe 2 or 3 vehicles that actually needed to be crushed. I applaud those of you who who are like me and would rather keep your $1200 car than trade it in for $4500 of someone else’s money for a new one..
SYNCEREINC
Aug 14, 2009 at 11:11 am
MAN THIS BULLSHIT I HAVE A 96 GRAND MARQUIS AND I HAVE A MISSION FINDING PARTS WHILE THESE MOTHERFUKERS DESTROYING AND THROWING AWAY GOOD CARS..WAT THE FUK WHY NOT SELL THEM CHEAP..THEY WASTING CARS AND FUCKING OVER BUYERS WHO STILL WASTE MORE MONEY PAYING MONTHLY FOR A “BETTER” CAR……….I BET MY SHIT COULD HOLD A CRASH AND THE NEW CARS WILL BEND LIKE A CAN….
Charged_Dak
Aug 14, 2009 at 9:59 am
i can understand if the car was in bad shape and was all rusted and ran like junk but these cars are running great and are in very good shape this is a shame these people need to get bent for doing that i mean come on at least part it out for other people that want to keep their cars and still have a place to get parts for geez what is this world coming to these people need to be slapped for thinking of this and then shot for actually doing it.
poppbear
Aug 14, 2009 at 9:54 am
i drive a 93 s10 blazer with a 114,000 miles on the clock which has given me nothin but good service for the short time i’ve owned it it has left me stranded twice once for a faulty fuel pump and and the 2nd time for the freeze plugs blowing out due to it not being driven in 3 yrs but i didnt scrap it for those reasons and to add i’m only 20 yrs old so that says a lot about the program itself i think its a waste of time because what about us people with older cars what if we need a part for it then we cant get that part cause all of the damn engines are seized up and rotting away btw i still have my blazer its been a bad ass ride so far and i plan on keepin it as long as i possibly can this cash for clunkers program is a waste of time IMO.
chevy_olblue
Aug 14, 2009 at 8:37 am
that was just stupid a perfect chevy truck in the trash,no rust or anything how stupid do you gotta be,you could have parted the truck on with just the boddy panels and made more than 4500 dollors.
bigbad4runner
Aug 14, 2009 at 5:34 am
also i have to add everyone is talking about the reliability of a volvo with if they suck so bad then why does it take him 4:28 to kill it with no oil and a mixture designed for a quick kill? hmm that proves to me that they are pretty tough cars they still didnt even manage to kill it, they just caught it on fire so i think that says alot for the craftsmanship of a volvo
bigbad4runner
Aug 14, 2009 at 5:29 am
look at the bottom left of the engine bay you can almost hear it crying for help crying for someone to intervene in the horrible death of such a great automobile
bigbad4runner
Aug 14, 2009 at 5:28 am
o by the way that was a TURBO volvo what a fucking waste
bigbad4runner
Aug 14, 2009 at 5:22 am
lol people always trip me out one guy on here even associate clunkers with drugs and prostitution lol seriously?!?! most of these cars arent really classified as ‘clunkers’ and maybe instead of just helping big business in the process why not helpo some needy working class fmaily that could desperatly use an automobile? and also why are foreign automakers able to be in on this whole thing? screw them it should be for domestic car companies only after all we are trying to HELP AMERICA arent we? so if thats the case this could affect alot more AMERICANS ina positive way if we were just blowing the engines and smashing them. granted i know there are some cars in this program that probably genuinly need top be destroyed but more often i see decent uaully less the 10 year old cars getting blown enginges and crushed. there is something wrong with this picture when we have so much need in this country! thanks america for yet again proving to the rest of the world what and inconsiderate self centered wasteful country we have become!
pushtruck1
Aug 14, 2009 at 3:58 am
Well, we are all are enthusiests here, and we have all heard that saying, “It’s only a car.” This is one of those times where you just have to say, it’s only a car. I mean, this SHOULD help our American auto makers, and the economy. You can be sure, dealership technicians are going to have a lot of fun with this.
89RSCAMAROMAN
Aug 14, 2009 at 12:58 am
THey have destroyed every kids dream to get a cheap car and fixit up. I feel sorry for my sons who now have lost the chance.
FordRulesAll
Aug 13, 2009 at 10:54 pm
GTwildfire,
I will be looking foward to your comments on my Blog post tomorrow.
Believe me I know the capabilities of Nano Titanate batteries, they gain 80% of their energy in 2 minutes and 10 minutes for a full charge. Which is good. Like I said before I am up for all the alternative fuels and what not, and I definitely know how Flex fuels work. I get 30% less MPG on ethanol(that’s why I only buy it when the price is 30% less than gas).
-
Nano Titanate batteries, like I said they are good, but correct me if I am wrong none of the vehicle offered today(at least by the big automakers) use this technology.
-
Well, to just review my point about cash for clunkers. Good incentive? Yes very much so. The way they get rid of the vehicles is absolutely rediculous though. Although I would absolutely never want to see any of the big three actually go out of business totally ever, we all need to remember that the United States is founded on Capitalism. The Gov’t should not intervene as it has lately.
-
GTwildfire, you are a very hard person to argue against
90xjpunk
Aug 13, 2009 at 10:17 pm
GT, you cant argue with ignorance. its still funny though, 99.9% of the uninformned dumba*sses that responded to the previous post with simply a video of a “car dying” havent given their ill-advised input on this one, a well informed post about CFC. 300zx, i know you stopped short of saying it, but its obvious that you’re a LITTLE racially biased. shag, i like volvos, but have you ever seen the resale value of one(or heard of their reliability)?? phattacorider, finally someone with a guzzler that has the right idea. nobody is trying to take away your freedom to drive whatever the f you want, but we as human beings should have SOMEWHAT of a concern for the world we live in. own a 12 mpg pos, nobodys stopping you. but dont make it your daily driving vehicle when there obviously is no need. no the govt has no right to tell you what to drive, or do, for that matter. but should they really have to?! do you really need someone to force into your thick skull the fact that your continued lifestyle endangers hundreds of thousands? let alone throws it in their face? randallUK, unfortunately more people like you dont live in the US or we might not be in as bad a predicament as we are. and the jeep guy, dude i LOVE the bulletproof 4.0 straight 6 but PLEASE share with us how you achieved better than 15mpg with one! everyone else, get educated before you talk shit. these cars ALL go to the junkyard before getting crushed. in my locality they stay there for 6 months, and business is booming like no other. they actually have to get rid of vehicles they know wont make them money (i.e. the plethora of explorers/f150s/silverados they’re receiving). As far as the argument that crushing these vehicles causes pollution, exactly how many vehicles do you think go through CFC??? i do not agree with the means by which ALL of these vehicles are being disposed of, but i will say that to do otherwise would be defeating the purpose of the bill entirely. many charities are, unfortunately, seeing lower vehicle donations. one last point, REGARDLESS OF WHO WON THE ELECTION, WE WOULD HAVE THIS BILL!!!! get over yourselves people, we ALL love cars. we all have to sacrifice just a little to be able to continue with our love for cars. or we could just live it up for another 20 years (as all you opposers would love) and give it all up in one fell swoop when the whole damned world is out of oil
GTwildfire
Aug 13, 2009 at 8:15 pm
FordRulesAll,
-
Lithium Ion batteries consume many more hours of electricity in the process of charging. Nano Titanate batteries, since there’s less resistance and the recharge is mind numbingly faster, will consume less electricity yet yield longer run times and they have a much longer useful life.
-
Carbon media used in Lithium Ion and other batteries offers resistance to charging and discharging. People think they’re the best thing since sliced bread but really the technology… well it sucks.
-
Electric cars unlike cars that run on cooking oil, ethanol, gas or whatever… well they’re the only cars that can get power contributed from solar or wind turbine, as well as regenerative braking. Also unlike the freaking clunky-ass hybrids misguided folks are excited about, EVs are (or should be) simple, very simple in design (partly why I think Detroit doesn’t like them).
-
Since EVs aren’t and won’t be for everyone, they would make inroads in relatively small numbers, but every EV that’s on the road eliminates a car that’s using gas. This unlike hybrids correlates to a 1:1 replacement ratio, whereas it may take 3 hybrids to equal the elimination of 1 gas-burning vehicle. This would mean that far fewer EVs would be needed to make a difference in oil consumption.
-
As unpopular as it has been in the past, nuclear generation is likely to expand again because they can run for 5 years between refueling outages. I’ve been in the industry for a long time and regardless of white house administration, this option by far yields the most power output.
-
Reducing consumption enough could drive down oil prices and reduce imports to a more trivial quantity.
-
Plastics are indeed created using petroleum, but what happens in 50 years when that’s used up? No more plastic? The time to start fixing/avoiding a problem is when you realize there will be a problem, and this one may be a few decades off perhaps but it is inevitable.
Oh and on a completely different subject, XTZTwinTurbo… you may have made that last post to get a rise outa people, but either way… you’re an asshole.
XTZTwinTurbo
Aug 13, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I think they should have a national government program that hands out free, 100% working birth control for idiots in slums, and ghetos. All I see is people pushing baby carriages around with der five keeeids, and all those kidz grow up to be just like their looser parents, and ultimately drive clunkers,get into drugs, gangs, murder… and pollute like ever other human being. I think population control is the cure to most of the ails in the world. Planned parenthood is the way. People don’t need 10 kids anymore. It’s not like parents need help on the farm, like the old days. Stop having so many damn kids!!!
ShagtheD
Aug 13, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Its just sad to see some of these beautiful cars like that volvo s80 which was only maybe 3 or 4 years old get torn up like that. I can understand the guy with a old turd which barely makes it out of the driveway in the morning but its not my call. people will do whatever they think will make them money or help them in teh long run. I mean hell my cars got 195,000 miles on in and i average bout 32 mpg. just take care of your car and you wont have to worry bout having to buy a new one!
Vamp_Velocity
Aug 13, 2009 at 4:58 pm
can’t say i like this program. even if its “helping” improve fuel efficiency, what good is fuel efficiency with gas at $5 a gallon? some of the V8’s got some life left in them too. instead of crushing there’s got to be a better use. above all, i hate to see all the domestic whips getting replaced for fuel efficient euro cars with like 40 hp. oh well… Least my cars are ok!
nate12346
Aug 13, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I totally understand as a nation that this program works. It sucks to see some nice cars go, but overall just think how much gas it saves and how much better the emissions are. I drive a highly modified 1988 ford Bronco II that has a list a mile long with stupid repairs that need to be done. I wouldn’t get 100 bucks for it if I took it to a dealer. Me being a college student gives me no time or money to sit in the garage and repair it all. This is a situation where it would help me big time to take advantage of it. I mean you can hagle down a car by thousands then add the clunker deal, I could pick up some cheap ass import brand new and only have to pay a few thousands and get a warranty.
ROUSH_STG2
Aug 13, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Theres a bunch of clunkers on here that need to be traded in lol. I work at a dealer and we have never been busier, more new cars on the road means more business for everyone…from vendors down to the lowest guy. Allllll the bad news lately about the car industry this is great news for us, we sold out new malibus and 2010 equinox in 2 days, we sold more cars in 1 week then we did all month… sad to see a 95 Corvette come thru here, but you know what its not mine, and I can only worry about me, sure it could be salvaged but thats not for me to decide, I am still gonna sleep tonight comfortably.
People need to relax, if you are getting wound up about this process then you need to find a different hobby!
Biggee72
Aug 13, 2009 at 11:22 am
My 98 Explorer 5.0L AWD is a POS but I got it for $300 bucks and it makes me money. If I traded it in for a new truck I’d be losing money on it for the next 20 yrs. It gets 12 MPG and I wouldn’t trade it for less than 12k. Mehhh..give me that stang GT in the back of that first pic and we’ll forget the whole thing.
tom5191
Aug 13, 2009 at 10:34 am
i personally think they should make all the cars into demolition durby cars. then do like a $5-10 charge to watch the demolition durby. they get some money back. thats just my personal opinion. when i had my 91 lumina i started to hate the thing and would love to see someone run into it multiple times lol.
phattacorider
Aug 13, 2009 at 10:30 am
I think I will say that the whole reason we’re all in this financial crisis is because of credit. Credit screwed us all up. Idiots out there who financed something expensive and decided not to pay or realised they couldn’t pay it it anymore, or hard working, honest individuals who lost their job to a tyrant who wants more revenue to come in so he can afford his gas guzzler, whatever it is, credit got to us. I guess a lot of us just aren’t as honest as Americans should be, whether we be the idiot or the tyrant.
As far as the CARS program? It’s good that the government is pushing towards a healthy financial prospect that maybe we can all benefit from. All the old all-steel cars that were unsafe to drive because they would either kill the occupants or someone else could be recycled to make lots of fuel efficient vehicles.
I’m trying to look at this optemistically. Let’s say the majority of Americans decide to take their 8+ year old vehicles in and get a new one. Let’s say they save $600 a year on fuel for their daily commute. Let’s say in the first 5 years they save $3,000 in basic maintenance over their 8+ year old clunker (brakes, oil, tires, fluids, etc). By the time a 60 month finance is done, $10,500 would be put towards the new car that didn’t take more effort than simply going to and from work, and turning in an old clunker. Honestly, it sounds like a deal to me (but I won’t take it cuz I love my truck).
I personally have no opposition to the CARS program. I won’t even bother with the idea of reconditioning old classic cars and sell to those who barely use it. I will say, however, if you don’t want your car “clunked”, don’t bring it in. They’re only giving $4500 for it. Even if that’s worth more than the vehicle itself, that may not even bear a dent in the sentiment of enthusiasts.
I guess what the government needs to clarify is the direction they are taking Americans with the automotive industry. How many vehicles do you see towing a boat to the lake that get over 25mpg? How many vehicles do you see taking quads to the desert that get over 25mpg? How many trucks do you see in construction and farming that get over 25mpg? NONE. And I’m sorry but if I get into a collision with someone in their “fuel efficient” car, they won’t stand a chance against my 6,000lb F150 (which is flex fuel capable).
I will forever and always own a truck. Even if car makers stop making trucks, I will always own mine. But one favor I will do for the CAUSE of the cash for clunkers program, I will one day go and buy a fuel efficient vehicle. So long as I still have my F150, getting a Yaris, Focus, Caliber, or something small that will more efficiently handle my daily commuting won’t hurt.
FordRulesAll
Aug 13, 2009 at 8:53 am
GTwildfire, I never said we shouldn’t invest in alternate fuels(my car is a Flex Fuel), and I do agree with you. But plug-in hybrids with Nano Titanate emulsion batteries(your previous comment) all have to be plugged in to where?..That’s right your house..That gets its power from where?…The same place your gas car got is power from. Manufacturing the hybrids or any alternative fuel vehicle uses foreign oil, no matter what. Yes, cars use about 47% of the the oil, but 23% is used for heating houses + diesel fuel, 18% is used for sythetic materials such as some rubbers and plastics, and 10% is jet fuel, the rest is propane and asphalt and what not. So my point is that we should look for alternate resource of fuel and material for other things first, like replacing plastics(which get used in vehicles no matter what), or running our houses on alternative and renewable energies. Yes, there are a ton of reusable energies out there for homes and buildings, but they are in no way pushed as hard by the Gov’t as automotive alternative fuel technology is(Shoot you could run a whole house with regular energy use and not connect it to the power grid at all). Home renewable energies would completely kill costs of heating cooling and powering a home, which would lower the bills of home owners and make it cheaper for people to live combatting the number one cause of this recession home foreclusures. So until every single house, factory, building, and/or workplace in the US run on clean, renewable, energy the electic car will sill use petroleum.
-
See I never said that people are getting forced out of their cars. What I was saying was that, citizens are being urged and how it looks will have no choice to get some small little Prius type car, that robs a person of their self-pride. This is happening with things like a “Gas-Guzzlers tax”,”Cash For Clunkers”,and “CAFE standards”.
-
Yes I am sure the auto companies have better technologies to help out, but without everyone and every thing committing to alternate energies we will never be completely unhooked.
the94camryman
Aug 13, 2009 at 7:53 am
if people didnt neglect to maintain theyre cars and engines, then they would get twice the mileage in their cars. a 1994 camry with proper tire pressure, new fuel, air, and oil filters and lubricants, good plugs, and so on can get as good or better gas mileage than an 09 camry. people just neglect to perform regular maintainance because theyre lazy. the same thing will happen to their new cars in 15 years. i gaurantee it.
dartravens
Aug 13, 2009 at 1:21 am
I well i appose it mostly but the suvs like the expedition and escalade need to go theres no place in this world for them use less just a truck trying to do a minivans work. but i beleive that the junk yards should get all of the left overs. I personaly love my 82 civic its almost more fuel efficient than most hybrids i get 43 mpg + free way and 38 city and just a 8 gallon tank and it still give me a respective 110mpg and anough umpf to roast the tires off with little to now mods. and if i added a hyrdrogen kit 300$ very simple to put in about 2 hours woorth of work i could out do all hybrids and then add pulse plugs to it 170 dollars for for though i could probaly push 80+ mpg with nothing lost so $470 could effectivly solve and surpase most emmissions standards any where and id still be having fun
ILLY-Sase
Aug 13, 2009 at 12:36 am
I love Cars. But c’mon guys…How can you murder a machine that hasn’t even a soul? lol Just worry about your own car…or like the article said, go purchase one of these clunkers from the person who’s trying to sell it. How in world is someone you never will meet, selling their car thru Clunkers even affecting you. by the way..i’ve taken a gander at some of you guys rides…and umm..maybe you should fall in line. Just my opinion.
OffRoad2224
Aug 12, 2009 at 10:23 pm
what they are doing to these vehicles is murder, and i cringe at watching it…
we are in on the economic mess because people bought homes they really didnt have the cash for, whose to say that those same people are taking advantage of this cash for clunkers deal,
in about a month or two when the first or second car payment rolls around, this economic mess is only going to get worse, because of those same irresponsible people are now buying vehicles they dont have cash for, the market will be flooded with expensive new vehicles, and all the used ones will be in the scrap heaps around the country,
its only a big cycle that seemingly doesnt work
GTwildfire
Aug 12, 2009 at 10:17 pm
FordRulesAll… The U.S. may have the best military and all but we have to reduce our oil dependency. We’re buying some of our oil from unstable countries with regimes that would rather not see us on the map. The U.S. has led the world in technical achievement and innovation, so why should we just stop and stick with certain vehicle technology instead of continuing to make improvements, especially improvements that reduce energy consumption and would hopefully make it so we can sustain our environment and way of life?
-
In the U.S. nobody forces people out of their cars, it is their decision what they drive, just as its the decision for a couple already deep in debt to go to a fancy restaurant instead of paying a little more on bills or instead cooking a nice meal at home.
-
decisions have consequences, and nobody is exempt from that. Spite is a poor decision-making tool. Rationality is the best decision-making tool.
GTwildfire
Aug 12, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Personally, I hated the high gas prices and hope they never come back. Of course they will and unfortunately the U.S. is not in the driver’s seat when it comes to oil demand. We’ve been displaced by China, who is now the #1 consumer of oil. That may be deceptive though because if all the goods coming to the U.S. that are made with petroleum, as well as the fuel that’s used to manufacture them is subtracted and added to the U.S.’s consumption we very well may still be the largest consumer still.
-
Nonetheless, unfortunately demand sets the price because supply has a very small margin for expansion anymore… and drilling in the U.S. WILL NOT make a significant difference because it would take time to get wells producing here, the amount of provessing will be more than some other oil-rich nations, in that time some other sources will be exhausted and demand will still be increasing.
-
The answer is not more oil. Its a dying horse we’re not going to get much farther on. The answer is electricity. Batteries already exist and are a PROVEN, new technology using Nano Titanate emulsion. They are not carbon-based thus do not heat up like all Li Ion or older types and they charge in as little as 10 MINUTES to a full charge.
-
Unfortunately for us though, it will take another 20 years for most auto makers to use them at the rate we’re going. No matter what, even if life as we know it is at stake… they gotta have their planned obsolescence… idiots.
FordRulesAll
Aug 12, 2009 at 9:58 pm
RandallUK300,your environmental point,well, crushing old cars and the machines to do so aren’t helping any with the environment. Crushing them makes waste and the machines to do all of this take gas and make what else CO2 emissions.So I think that defeats the purpose.
-
America is THE BEST COUNTRY ON EARTH(although I don’t agree with some of the politicians in office)Bar-None.”We represent only 5-8% of the worlds population yet we consume over 50% of its non-replaceable resources”I think not, The US consumes 25% of the world’s energy with a share of global GDP(Gross Domestic product) at 22%(wikipedia), so I think that point is gone.
-
“Big SUV/Trunks are going and should go the way of the dinosaur”, as an American anyone has the right to own what property they want if I want a freakin’ 10MPG Hummer I will sure as hell get myself one. The Gov’t does not have the right to tell a citizen what type of vehicle they can and cannot own.
-
“Sure folks will say well we are the BEST Country in the World to which I say so was Rome so was Egypt and so where the Mayans at one time! Rome lasted 1000yrs will we beable to say the same?” Rome fell because of the rise of new religions, and the unsteadiness of their military. The U.S. military is the strongest military in the world with technology far eceeding the technology of others,and difference in religion and choice of religion is what this country was founded on. Ancient Egypt fell because their Ruler died and they easily succumbed to the Persians, and I don’t think the Persians are going to come and try and conquer us anytime. And the Mayans.. well there is no definitive proof of how the Mayans fell. All in all I do not see what the histories of these empires have to do with America or Cash for Clunkers.
RandallUK300
Aug 12, 2009 at 8:24 pm
I agree with your logic/argument 100%. What folks here dont seem to understand is that in the long run THIS is the best thing for Americans! Big SUV/Trunks are going and should go the way of the dinosaur. The more we can get off the road the better we will all be. Americans seem to feel/think that we should have EVERYTHING regardless of the impact on the rest of the world. We represent only 5-8% of the worlds population yet we consume over 50% of its non-replaceable resources. We EXPECT cheap gas even though we refuse to drill for it in our own backyard – basically we feel the RIGHT to say F the world I want it and that is all that matters. Look where that attitude got us. Sure folks will say well we are the BEST Country in the World to which I say so was Rome so was Egypt and so where the Mayans at one time! Rome lasted 1000yrs will we beable to say the same?
So overall less gas guzzlers on the road will mean less fuel used, less pollution, less wear/tear on the roads and less dependency on others for our oil habit! A push towards energy independence with energy WE can create right here in the USA. I luv high gas prices because it forced our hand to more fuel efficiency
and more environment friendly cars. A push to develop electric cars/hybrid cars, wind energy/solar cells, etc. I imagine one day we will be hopping up our electric cars and talking about 0-60 times and how to better improve them,etc.
Change is hard and I am sure that the horse/buggy guys had the same discussion with the intro of the first Ford on the road. We will ALL benefit in the long run from this but I understand the short term pain involved.
Bigtime070516
Aug 12, 2009 at 7:56 pm
WHY NOT TAKE THE CARS AS TRADE INS AND PUT THEM OUT IN A BIG FIELD WITH THE TITLE FOR A YEAR AND LET THE PEOPLE TAKE THE CARS FOR PARTS CARS AND AFTER A YEAR CRUSH WHATS LEFT. ILL TAKE THAT WHITE 5.0 MUSTANG FOR SURE AND LOTS OF PEOPLE WANT TO KEEP THEIR CARS BUT CANT FIX THEM, GIVE THEM A CAR THAT”NOBODY WANTS” TO FIX THEIR CAR WITH THE PARTS THAT ARE SALVAGEABLE…YOU SHOULD SEE SOME OF THE VEHICLES PEOPLE DRIVE UP HERE IN ALASKA!!! HALF OF THE CARS IVE SEEN DESTROYED ARE BETTER THAN MOST CARS UP HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GTwildfire
Aug 12, 2009 at 6:35 pm
OneOriginals,
-
A major part of the reason we owe China is WalMart, not Detroit… so if you’re concerned about reducing that debt, try and find whatever america is still making like… cars. By the way, Buicks are very popular in China. I guess they haven’t reverse-engineered them yet.
-
Also, the comparison with other things like houses, clothes and such is retarded. Sorry, gotta call it like I see it. Sometimes its better to not click “Post Comment” and no, I didn’t and won’t regret clicking it this time…
-
BuickPimpin,
-
I’ve owned 3 Jeep Cherokees and loved them all. Restored two of them. They’re awesome, and the 4 litre inline 6 is one of the best engines around but dude… don’t worry. There’ll be plenty of ‘em left when the CFC money runs out.
-
As far as quality is concerned you’re probably as wrong as the day is long (but anything is possible I guess) about today’s cars being shit. They’re not and I think to make that argument involves 100% emotion and close to 0% thought. Quality issues have eroded American auto makers’ business for decades, with more and more buyers choosing foreign cars instead. Why? Better quality. Even if its a simpleton consumer who sees his car or truck as an appliance, if his fridge was a piece of shit, or his buddy’s fridge was a piece of shit its time to shake things up with the next purchase. IF ANYTHING, cars have improved in quality over the last decade or two.
-
BurningDesire,
-
This is AMERICA dude. Fucking NAZIs and COMMUNISTS like to crush dissent. Get with the damn program. It’s called the First Amendment. Read it. Understand it, but most of all RESPECT IT because a major reason why we think we have FREEDOM in the U.S.A.
buickpimpin101
Aug 12, 2009 at 6:13 pm
It is not about all of that shit!! It’s about those cars that we can never get back, for a new piece of SHIT that will begin breaking down in 5 years!! And as for this comment
“”Most of the cars being traded in are crap anyway. The number one vehicle being traded in on this program is the Ford Explorer, and their worth is virtually nothing since the Firestone Tire fiasco, and the fuel bubble. Other top 10 worthless cars being destroyed include the Jeep Grand Cherokee, the Ford F-150, The Chevrolet S-10 Blazer, and the Ford Windstar. Is anyone really going to shed a tear for any of these relics? By all accounts they are being traded for the Ford Focus, Ford Escape, Dodge Caliber, and Toyota Camry among others. They are far more fuel efficient than the traded vehicles, quite a bit safer, and carry a new vehicle warranty. And that’s all that really matters to the average consumer.”"
Thats bullshit. The jeep grand cherokee is one of my favorite vehicles, we have had ours since 03, and all it has cost us, was 1 fuel pump, and it is not terrible on gas, with the Fuckin AWSOME 4.0 jeep motor.
And that gets me goin on the fuel ” Issue ” Our gas that we burn in our vehicles has absolutly NOTHING To do with out ” Global Warming “, if the goverment really cared about this, they would shut down Every plane, if they did that for 1 year, the world would ” Fix itself ” BUT that is not what is affecting our climate, what is affecting our climate is just the way that the world turns. every so many years, the world changes rotation, just because thats the way it is, we are getting closer to the sun, more and more every decade. nothing we do can or will change that,
And back to my point all the car guys that care about this bullshit program, care about those cars that we will never get back. The ONLY ONLY good thing that will come of this is that these cars that are still around will be worth alot more to future car collecters.
Plus we dont gain anything by trading in our ” Clunker ” because all they do, is up the price by 4 grand, so the goverment gets their money back in taxes! It’s a win win for them and a lose lose for us, they are turning us all into followers.
THEONE-ORIGINALS
Aug 12, 2009 at 5:35 pm
We owe China $800BILLION DOLLARS maybe we should wait to buy a new car. What happens when we can’t make the payments? Are they going to foreclose on Florida?
THEONE-ORIGINALS
Aug 12, 2009 at 5:25 pm
“You can take the Cash for Clunkers strategy and apply it to other areas. We can destroy our homes, why don’t we burn our furniture and tear up our clothing? There are a lot of things we already have that we can destroy and go into debt to reacquire.” -Peter Schiff
burning_desire
Aug 12, 2009 at 5:22 pm
If you agree with this bullshit you should be PERMENTLY banned from ANY automotive event, website or CONVERSATION!!! This is one of the BIGGEST waste’s of tax money since the stupid war started! If you seriously believe there is ANY good coming out of this then you are a COMPLETE RETARD that needs to have your right taken away to even own a vehical! What dont you people understand that these cars and trucks are gonna be what my kids are restoring?!? Anyone whose for this is distroying history! This is discusting to come home from work and see these videos of how their destroying these cars and trucks. What the hell is wrong with people?!? This is a waste. Theres no way around it. Obama is a dumb ass for even THINKING about this program.
tipdrip215
Aug 12, 2009 at 11:49 am
this is just a terrible idea. while it’s getting all these “clunkers”, which some of them aren’t even worthy of being called, off the road just because they drink gas, there’s going to be someone who wants them. even if alot of these are pieces of junk with lots of problems, if they weren’t scrapped, they could be restored to as good as new condition. there’s plenty of money to be made in both situations. it’s not just rabid car enthusiasts who are going to want these saved, it’s also those people who can’t afford anything new but could use the portion of these vehicles that are perfectly functioning, regardless of what kind of gas mileage the cars get. they’re also scrapping cars that alot of people who have money and aren’t poor would like to have. i have alot more that i could say about this, but it would take too long. the point is, it’s an all around bad idea.
artie99
Aug 12, 2009 at 9:16 am
“We will eventually see a return on the investment made to the car companies as well, but we have to jump start sales one way or another.”
My only comment, the rest of your entry was fairly well thought out, is that investing in a car company is a short term return. We all remember when the big 3 were selling cars at employee prices. That was a huge boost for the time the sale was on. This will have the same effect. Once CARS is over, people will stop buying cars like they are now and will return to their usual habits, minus the people who had been waiting to buy and jumped on this program. Those people would have spread their money out over a few years. Now they will leave a huge hole in the next few years where none of them needs to buy a new car. So the Big 3 better be able to hang on to their cash for the long winter to come.
Biggunna
Aug 11, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Many good points, although I still believe if you let your car become a “clunker” you deserve to have basic transportation. Those of us with the respect for our vehicles will drive your inspiration.
GTwildfire
Aug 11, 2009 at 6:03 pm
*sigh*… finally.
RatsEatChildren
Aug 11, 2009 at 5:58 pm
What a totally bloodless and bureaucratic defense of this hideous program. Score one for corporate America.
sarahsmile90
Aug 11, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Like anything, there are pros and cons to this program. But I support it, stimulating the economy and letting some people feed their families is good enough for me Dealers and their employees are hungry).
Overall there is more win here than loss.
gold94corolla
Aug 11, 2009 at 5:11 pm
The problem is that we don’t help the environment. Crushing, destroying, lifting, moving old cars creates a lot of pollution and certainly making new cars does too.
I feel that this isn’t a good time for the program. We should be spending the money more on developing the cars that get 100s of MPGs and then making the CARS program. I mean, $3500 for a new car that only gets 4mpg better??? Come on now, really. That’s not helping anything.
FordRulesAll
Aug 11, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I agree with 1lowscort, 500/month in maintenance, no way, my Taurus does a good 35 miles everyday and has 140,000 miles on it already and I spend no where near 500/month in repairs.
1lowscort
Aug 11, 2009 at 3:54 pm
500/month in repairs? I have a turbocharged Escort running 14-18 PSI on stock cast aluminum pistons. I drive it hard and I don’t spend that much on repairs. I will stand by my guns…this program is crap and in the end it benefits nobody, but takes from the enthusiasts and the tax payers.
NobiZero
Aug 11, 2009 at 11:36 am
troutster52, any real repair shop gives the customer the option of a new part, an aftermarket part or a salvage part. Obviously salvage being the cheapest and with the most risk.
SHOTyme70
Aug 11, 2009 at 10:03 am
Good comment FordRulesAll..
oldscoob
Aug 11, 2009 at 9:55 am
my state isn’t budging. even a rockhead as maine might say, knows fater 1 winter what is junk and what isnlt fuel may be a cost. my state never ever falls into these car gimmicks. An old sube is immortalized, a 5.9 liter jeepo can still be seen bellowing its custom headers and full duals at a negative 10mpg. even my neighbor is hanging onto a blazer with a 4.3, and a door that gets taped shut..simply for the jacked up appearance and pretending strong AWD. maybe its the c-frame rails. what economy is going to replace that. If a city mentality takes over heterosexuality and need for real machines again..this carpocalypse is only the beginning of big money getting put in a pedo cage.
satty12
Aug 11, 2009 at 9:45 am
Wow these videos are disgusting i will agree with your point of view it is good for people who cant afford 5oo a month repairs and getting a car that is more fuel efficient and reliable is great especialy if you have a car payment 250 a month but i was smart forsaw something like this when i bought my first and second cars 91 and 95 saturns damn fuel efficient and fun to drive unlike todays cars the new civics fords and the like i am damn glad no saturn s series cars qualify whos laughing now gas hogs.Aside from that i think any v8 powered sports sedans coupes and the like should be exempt just destroy the suvs and save the trucks they actualy serve a purpose.(FYI a truck has a bed dont try telling me a stupid suv is a truck despite the platform its made on.)
FordRulesAll
Aug 11, 2009 at 9:27 am
Great write up Jim! As with almost everyone I agreee the average consumer doesn’t care and won’t care how to properly maintain their vehicles on their own, and the “Cash For Clunkers” program has a good incentive with the whole $4500, but the part where they just crush the cars that’s absolutely stupid. If anyone remembers along with the fuel price hike our Gov’t was trying to help out the environment(all that global warming crap). Now I may be wrong, but just crushing a car and making waste isn’t too environmental.
-
Truthfully, a good part of this whole recession thing is that people couldn’t pay their bills. People bought(financed) a vehicle thought they could pay and five months later they wake up to the repo man taking the car they thought they could pay for. Now saying”hey I can give you $4500 for your old worthless car so you can buy a brand new one”, well that’s just going to give a little more encouragement to that one guy who actually can’t pay for it even with the $4500. So you trade in your old car(the one that wouldn’t fetch any money at a dealer) finance a brand new car because you got your $4500. Then as it’s time for the payments…Oh no! you can’t make them, that’s why you didn’t buy a car before. Then the repo man comes take your ride. Now your in more debt, without ANY vehicle, and that car is going to the auction block, going to be sold to an average consumer(NO warranty) or a used car dealer(barely any warranty), and very soon become a clunker itself. Yes the credit approval process would’ve been went through but what I’m trying to say is that this is telling someone to buy a car when they don’t really need to. And buying un-needed things is not exactly the smartest thing to do in these economic times for your average consumer.
troutster52
Aug 11, 2009 at 7:50 am
Speaking about people having hard times, if what you NobiZero says is true, and the average consumer knows nothing about vehicle maintenance (which I agree with) then getting junk car parts to salvage yards doesn’t help them in the least bit. Salvage yards are for handy people, not the average consumer. As far as someone in “tough times,” helping them finance a new car that doesn’t incur 500 a month in repairs (assuming they are going to shop or dealer) is the best thing for them, even with a car payment. a 250 car payment after 4500 down in trade for their clunker is a lot better than 500/month in repairs and 200 in gas to continue driving an unsafe vehicle anyway. Not only that but the bulk of repairs on a brand new car would be covered in warranty, and the public roads wouldn’t have to be at risk because someone can’t afford new brake pads.
I agree that it sucks that its coming out of my taxes since I am not getting anything out of it but I am still in full support of the program. It is helping people that need help, while stimulating the economy and helping the auto manufacturers. Nobody can really make the claim that salvage yards are in dire need of door handles or window motors for Ford Explorers or Chevy 1500s. They are already overflowing with those vehicles, cash for clunkers or not.
lejourinator
Aug 11, 2009 at 7:23 am
Well i under stand the whole point of cash for clunkers and I’m not totally against it. There’s just one problem I’d like to address. Rather that totally destroying the “clunkers”, they should send them off, engine and all, to local junkyards that could you these cars as financial help in these tough times.And its not like it would cost any money, just get some of the techs to drive them over at the end of the day. Or even call up the yards and have them tow it off the lot. The cars may still never see the roads again but at least it helps bring in free money to Yards that can get the most out of the cars.
bustedwheel
Aug 11, 2009 at 5:01 am
I agree with the principal behind the program, i just wish it wasn’t coming out of my tax dollars. I am not participating in the program because i was sensible when i bought all of my cars. I figure I’ll just wait til they all start getting repossessed and then buy one of those.
NobiZero
Aug 11, 2009 at 4:24 am
I agree 100% that Joe Public knows next to nothing about vehicle maintenance, and that’s probably the main reason they trade these cars in for $4500 in their pocket as opposed to spending $4500 for repairs they need because of neglected maintenance. What I don’t agree with is the reasoning behind this program. These vehicles that qualify that get 18 mpg or less(heard somewhere that was raised to 19 mpg) someone bought it when it was new, so someone didn’t mind the lackluster fuel economy. If that’s the problem, then people need to get off their lazy rears and get themselves educated. My personal car, a 2001 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP is no econobox by any means. I’ve spent well under $4500 on it in modifications, and I’ve been able to achieve more than 30 mpg highway, and around 22 mpg city. I work at a Honda Dealership, and those figures meet the 2009 Accord 4 cylinder, which I’ve driven and to be honest, it’s a wimp of a car. Mine is not only more fun to drive, but just as economical with a few tweaks. The blame for this though isn’t on the consumer, but on the automakers themselves because it’s how the vehicle should have come from the factory. With some backyard engineering my 8 year old vehicle is as fuel efficient as a brand new one. Imagine how well GM would be doing if they themselves had done this from the get-go. I’ve participated in “clunking” a few cars myself. A few of them were absolutely mint. Case in point, 2 Lincoln Continentals, and an Olds Aurora. Why not recondition them and sell them to, say, an elderly person who doesn’t drive much, and the fuel economy doesn’t really matter to? If the vehicle isn’t being used every day, then it’s not having much of an impact as far as fuel consumption goes. The cash cow for dealers has and probably will always be used vehicles. If the government takes that away, or severely reduces it as they are now, what’s going to happen is these dealerships will slowly start to close because they’re not making enough money to survive, and then the auto manufacturers will have no one to distribute their product. In the long run, it seems, to me anyway, they’re shooting themselves in the foot here.
Chris Trout
Aug 11, 2009 at 2:58 am
I am glad someone is on my team on this site and is approaching this topic rationally and doesn’t want to firebomb congress or every dealer that does Cash for Clunkers. I think its good to remember that these cars aren’t being ripped out of the consumers hands. The consumer decides if they want to bring their 200K mile Blazer in to be traded for something different. Nice writing, good message.