Clunkers out of cash. - Page 7

Homeslice · 08-07-2009, 04:06 PM

I agree that this program should have been better-thought, and there should have been more limits on what you can buy. A guy here at work just traded in an old Voyager minivan for the full $4,500 that he turned around and used on a new Honda Civic. Yeah, how much of those profits stay here in the States?

Also, why even have an 18 mpg cutoff? What if I wanted to trade in my 20mpg car for a 35mpg one? According to the gov't I don't qualify, just because 20 is 2 points more than 18. That's horseshit.

goof2 · 08-07-2009, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homeslice

I agree that this program should have been better-thought, and there should have been more limits on what you can buy. A guy here at work just traded in an old Voyager minivan for the full $4,500 that he turned around and used on a new Honda Civic. Yeah, how much of those profits stay here in the States?

Also, why even have an 18 mpg cutoff? What if I wanted to trade in my 20mpg car for a 35mpg one? According to the gov't I don't qualify, just because 20 is 2 points more than 18. That's horseshit.

While I agree that they shouldn't have set the 18mpg cutoff for a trade in they did have reasons for doing it. They wanted to limit the program to only their worst offenders, primarily SUVs and trucks, so after it is over they can crow about how they took vehicles unpopular with the voters off the road. They also didn't want a mad rush of people taking advantage of the program overwhelming dealers and the government. As we saw that happened anyway.

Homeslice · 08-07-2009, 07:01 PM

Well if they really wanted to take POS's off the road, they should have made 1970's cars eligible. Most of them are 4,500 pound pieces of crap that are probably blowing smoke from bad valve seals or head gasket. In contrast, a late 80's/early 90's vehicle is more likely to be still in good running condition even if its mileage is poor. Why destroy an OK-running car?......Do they realize how much pollution and energy is required to build a new car to replace it with?

goof2 · 08-07-2009, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Well if they really wanted to take POS's off the road, they should have made 1970's cars eligible. Most of them are 4,500 pound pieces of crap that are probably blowing smoke from bad valve seals or head gasket. In contrast, a late 80's/early 90's vehicle is more likely to be still in good running condition even if its mileage is poor. Why destroy an OK-running car?......Do they realize how much pollution and energy is required to build a new car to replace it with?

You mean a government program was poorly conceived and executed? I am absolutely shocked!:Lol

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-07-2009, 04:06 PM	#61
Homeslice Elitist Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: SF Bay Area Moto: Gix 750 Posts: 11,351	I agree that this program should have been better-thought, and there should have been more limits on what you can buy. A guy here at work just traded in an old Voyager minivan for the full $4,500 that he turned around and used on a new Honda Civic. Yeah, how much of those profits stay here in the States? Also, why even have an 18 mpg cutoff? What if I wanted to trade in my 20mpg car for a 35mpg one? According to the gov't I don't qualify, just because 20 is 2 points more than 18. That's horseshit.

08-07-2009, 07:01 PM	#63
Homeslice Elitist Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: SF Bay Area Moto: Gix 750 Posts: 11,351	Well if they really wanted to take POS's off the road, they should have made 1970's cars eligible. Most of them are 4,500 pound pieces of crap that are probably blowing smoke from bad valve seals or head gasket. In contrast, a late 80's/early 90's vehicle is more likely to be still in good running condition even if its mileage is poor. Why destroy an OK-running car?......Do they realize how much pollution and energy is required to build a new car to replace it with?