Jump to content

clunker bill


rhb1999
 Share

Recommended Posts

I would concur that building a new car to replace an old one is ill-conceived on an environmental level. Bleeding out toxic fluids in a junk yard, to me, is preferable to expelling byproducts of the manufacturing process. I think that there's a lesson in here, somewhere.

My main objection to the beginnings of this thread were directly related to the gloom and doom of those that pretty much stated that this was some kind of government conspiracy to take our old cars away from us.

It also bugs me that there is lots of criticism but none of it is constructive. If anyone has better ideas on how to stimulate the auto industry, feel free to speak up. Our current legislators are using a model that worked in Europe. It got a lot of inefficient and polluting cars off the road while stimulating their auto industry to the tune of 500,000 cars.

It is unfortunate that a byproduct of this program will take quite a few cars off of the road and into the crusher. However, more cars were produced in the last 20 years than the previous 40 years, I believe. The sheer numbers of mass production will keep you in parts for many years to come. Yes, some of the parts will be difficult to get, but not impossible. When the supply drops off there might be a demand for reproduction parts, just like a lot of Mustangs, Camaros, T-birds and the like. Hell, you can build an entire '57 Chevy out of new reproduction parts.

This program might take 250,000 cars off the road, one million if fully funded at $4 Billion. In the scheme of things, IMO, that's kind of a drop in the bucket. Besides, with e-bay and the rest of the internet you can find a part in minutes, anywhere in the country. The world is now your junk yard.

It is simply my opinion but I believe that the whole brouhaha is much ado about nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barry...I could not have said it better myself. That is why I didn't. I agree with you wholeheartedly, though. Especially about the masses more produced now and during the 1980s. We (I) worry about where I am going to get my 1931 Dodge parts that I need once in a while. Ebay or other internet possibilities, that's where. There were only 3,178 DH6 business coupes made by Dodge Brothers in 1931, yet I can find almost any part for it. I don't think there will be a problem finding a part from a model that they made 60,000+- of because of the "clunker" bills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People that are unemployed or afraid of losing their jobs are not going to run out and buy new cars, regardless of what their trade in brings. Once the economy gets back in order, people will buy cars. Until then, they won't.

The problem with this or any clunker bill is that they are ineffective at best. Our environment is not pollution free now due to previous clunker bills. And at worst they destroy restorable or parts cars, and drive up the price of used cars for people on a budget that need them.

This bill seems a little less of a threat to our hobby with its 1984 cut-off date and one year ownership required. However, I hardly think sales of 250,000 cars or even one million is going to pull Chrysler or GM out of bankruptcy. Escpecially if the credit can be used to buy a Honda or Toyota. It also isn't very fair to those that recently bought a new car and got zip for their trade in. I think they should just forget the whole idea. Yet some politician that knows nothing about cars always thinks this is the greatest idea in politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would concur that building a new car to replace an old one is ill-conceived on an environmental level. Bleeding out toxic fluids in a junk yard, to me, is preferable to expelling byproducts of the manufacturing process. I think that there's a lesson in here, somewhere.</div></div>

Barry, the manufacturing process for new cars is very different than it was just 10 years ago, and so is the disposal process. The environmental impact of junking a car and/or buying a new one is MUCH less than it was just a few years ago.

For instance the latest information relating to carbon emissions of new car manufacturing/distrubution peg those at just 0.7 metric tons of CO2 per vehicle. If your new car gets just 5 more mpg, you'll easily make up that difference in just the first year! Also few if any junked cars these days ever sit long enough to "bleed toxic fluids in a junk yard". The VAST majority are stripped of anything valuable and recycled within days.

The objections to removing older cars from the system that are still serviceable/restorable/useful parts sources are legitimate (<span style="font-style: italic">if nowhere near the importance of the problems these cars cause</span>). Also the use of programs like this to obtain "carbon credits" for polluters to go on their merry way is downright disgusting (<span style="font-style: italic">given the abuses that occur with absurd assumptions used to stretch the numbers to the polluters advantage</span>). But frankly the days when holding on to an old car is a good thing for the environment (<span style="text-decoration: underline">and <span style="font-style: italic">using</span> it</span>) are over.

Life <span style="font-weight: bold">is</span> getting better! smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keiser31</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think there will be a problem finding a part from a model that they made 60,000+- of because of the "clunker" bills. </div></div>

Wow, talk about a myopic and self-centered view of the world. I don't care what you believe, the reality is that part for these cars ARE difficult to find. Try finding the spoiler tips for an 83/84 Hurst/Olds.

Once again, the fact that YOU don't care about these cars doesn't make them any less collectible. More to the point, why are we spending tax dollars (and yet again increasing the deficit) on this ill-conceived program?

No one said this is a government plot to kill the collector car hobby. It WILL, however, take collector vehicles off the street. It is also a slippery slope. Since the current bill has been descoped, many in Congress are already talking about another version for next year. Once the public accepts the idea, expect the coverage to grow as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: joe_padavano</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keiser31</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think there will be a problem finding a part from a model that they made 60,000+- of because of the "clunker" bills. </div></div>

Wow, talk about a myopic and self-centered view of the world. I don't care what you believe, the reality is that part for these cars ARE difficult to find. Try finding the spoiler tips for an 83/84 Hurst/Olds.

Once again, the fact that YOU don't care about these cars doesn't make them any less collectible. More to the point, why are we spending tax dollars (and yet again increasing the deficit) on this ill-conceived program?

No one said this is a government plot to kill the collector car hobby. It WILL, however, take collector vehicles off the street. It is also a slippery slope. Since the current bill has been descoped, many in Congress are already talking about another version for next year. Once the public accepts the idea, expect the coverage to grow as well. </div></div>

Nobody said I did not like those cars. Did they make 60,000+- Hurst Oldsmobiles in 1983/1984??? NO, they did not. I was speaking of the "average" production cars. Naturally, the parts for the small production and rarer cars will be much harder to get parts for. I am neither myopic or self centered and never have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keiser31</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Nobody said I did not like those cars. Did they make 60,000+- Hurst Oldsmobiles in 1983/1984??? NO, they did not. I was speaking of the "average" production cars. Naturally, the parts for the small production and rarer cars will be much harder to get parts for. I am neither myopic or self centered and never have been. </div></div>

Keep in mind that cars like the Hurst/Olds, Buick GN and GNX, W-41 Achieva, turbo Rivera, and many others that I have not listed share a lot of parts (including sheet metal and interiors) with more common models. These parts are not being reproduced and used is the only option. As the pool of donor cars goes down, price goes up. I'm not thrilled with subsidizing this with my tax dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Wolk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If anyone has better ideas on how to stimulate the auto industry, feel free to speak up. </div></div>

STOP THE IMPORTS FOR STARTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! mad.gifmad.gifmad.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: joe_padavano</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Once the public accepts the idea, expect the coverage to grow as well. </div></div>

It's nice to see some people seeing the BIG picture.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: joe_padavano</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keiser31</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Nobody said I did not like those cars. Did they make 60,000+- Hurst Oldsmobiles in 1983/1984??? NO, they did not. I was speaking of the "average" production cars. Naturally, the parts for the small production and rarer cars will be much harder to get parts for. I am neither myopic or self centered and never have been. </div></div>

Keep in mind that cars like the Hurst/Olds, Buick GN and GNX, W-41 Achieva, turbo Rivera, and many others that I have not listed share a lot of parts (including sheet metal and interiors) with more common models. These parts are not being reproduced and used is the only option. As the pool of donor cars goes down, price goes up. I'm not thrilled with subsidizing this with my tax dollars.</div></div>

Yeah...I got that, but you were talking about spoiler wing tips and those are not common to all of the ones you have listed. As I said.....oh never mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with charlier and B W Burgess, on page 4, part of the reason "backyard" parts cars finds are disappearing is that guys with pick-up trucks and flat bed trailers are searching neighborhoods for these cars and offering to haul them out. And then they bring them to scrap metal dealers and junkyards where they may get $50 to $100 for them. I know this, because they come to the junkyard I go to. This has been going on for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be very interesting to see how many people have kept a 1984 to say, 1995 car registered for the last year, and now can be coaxed into buying a new car for $3500 or 4500.

Logic would seem to dictate that if they were keeping a 1985 Chrysler New Yorker or Buick Electra running then they likely could only afford a car like that, or were keeping it as a second, third or fourth car (kids in college, rarely used car that is relatively cheap to insure and register, etc.) So will about a 10-20% discount suddenly convince them to buy a NEW (only ones that qualify) car?

AND WHAT IS THE 60% OWNER OF GM DOING SUPPORTING A BILL THAT CAN BE USED TO BUY A GM OR CHRYSLER COMPETITOR????

It seems common sense went to Disney World while they were passing this piece of......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost never post in response to Joe's posts. But since nobody's stepping on this one....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">AND WHAT IS THE 60% OWNER OF GM DOING SUPPORTING A BILL THAT CAN BE USED TO BUY A GM OR CHRYSLER COMPETITOR????</div></div>

Respecting freedom?

Running a country?

Understanding and respecting the rule of law as it applies to them?

======================

We get it. Republican good. Democrat bad. It'll slip through again tomorrow in this "non-political" forum, and probably every day after that.

Funny how that happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

We get it. Republican good. Democrat bad. It'll slip through again tomorrow in this "non-political" forum, and probably every day after that.

Funny how that happens. </div></div>

Not funny at all. Clear leanings are apparent. Watch this post disappear, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Wolk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

We get it. Republican good. Democrat bad. It'll slip through again tomorrow in this "non-political" forum, and probably every day after that.

Funny how that happens. </div></div>

Not funny at all. Clear leanings are apparent. Watch this post disappear, too. </div></div>

Shocking. laugh.gifgrin.giflaugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: West Peterson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As demand grows reproduction parts will appear, just as what happens with all collector cars. In many cases, the repros will be better. </div></div>

Apparently you're never compared the Chinesium repro body panels available today for 60s and 70s cars to the original panels. Suffice to say, they are NOT "better". Thinner? Yes. Misshapen? Yes. Better? Only to the extent that they do not have rust holes.

And unless you have a 69 Camaro, 67 Mustang, or 55-57 Chevy, Chinesum panels are all that is available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: West Peterson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As demand grows reproduction parts will appear, just as what happens with all collector cars. In many cases, the repros will be better. </div></div>

I have <span style="font-weight: bold">NEVER </span> yet bought a repro part that was better than factory, ever!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I think I have it figured out. China loans us money to pay for scrapping our cars. The scrap metal is then shipped to China where it is used to manufacture new cars. Our new 'made in China' cars, are easy on gas and future generations pay for them. Sounds pretty good to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Skyking</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: West Peterson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As demand grows reproduction parts will appear, just as what happens with all collector cars. In many cases, the repros will be better. </div></div>

I have <span style="font-weight: bold">NEVER </span> yet bought a repro part that was better than factory, ever! </div></div>

Actually quite a number of repro parts for my TR6 turned out to be better than factory. In particular the interior panels, which are virtually indistinguishable, are much better made. Some mechanical parts are better as well, but most are either the same or (in some cases) clearly inferior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Barry and Dave,

You can make all of the political comments you wish to make, and try to hang them on me all you like.

The idea of a subsidy for someone to buy a non-U.S. made car is not Republican or Democrat....it is WRONG.

Now, if you want to dissect whether a government check should go to subsidize the purchase of a Chevy (Daewoo) Aveo that is made in Korea vs. a Honda made in Ohio, be my guest. The fact is, if this is going to happen, it should only be to help put food on an American table or keep the lights turned on in an American household.

I would be against the idea of subsidizing imported cars while Detroit and other manufacturing communities are in double-digit unemployment no matter who is president or speaker of the house or majority senate leader.

If you wish to insult me, do it in a private message. I remember where the delete key is on my computer. But please don't insult other users in here just because they committed the sin of not agreeing with everything you think and post in this and other forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Actually quite a number of repro parts for my TR6 turned out to be better than factory. </div></div>

But Dave, it's a British sports car. It would be hard for repro parts to be worse than factory. grin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: joe_padavano</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Actually quite a number of repro parts for my TR6 turned out to be better than factory. </div></div>

But Dave, it's a British sports car. It would be hard for repro parts to be worse than factory. grin.gif </div></div>

Now THAT is funny...no offense to British cars since I owned a few for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: joe_padavano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But Dave, it's a British sports car. It would be hard for repro parts to be worse than factory. grin.gif </div></div>

Oh, you'd be surprised! shocked.gifeek.gifmad.gifwhistle.gifgrin.gif

Here's a hint: If you're ever looking at a newly restored Triumph TR, pull the hood release <span style="font-style: italic">very</span> carefully and make sure the owner installed a back-up release cable. Either that or bring a new shirt and a cell phone to tell everyone you'll be late! mad.gif

Unrestored cars aren't usually a problem, at least in that respect. grin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Civil, polite, debate or discussion of facts is fun and educational to read.

Insults and/or namecalling is not.

Can we all please try to keep it nice and use some manners? We don't have to agree, we just need to keep it civil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skyking, Sorry, it was simply intended as the next reply in the discussion for the benefit of everybody. It was not meant to be "addressed" to you. Hopefully, everybody will read it and think about it prior to typing anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The so-called "clunker bill" has been sent for President Obama's signature. The bill is H.R.2346 and has been attached to a war spending bill so that it will get an almost guaranteed signature. In Section 1302 the bill specifies the destruction of the complete drivetrain. Sounds to me like its straight out of California. A brief summary:

<span style="font-weight: bold">TITLE XIII--CONSUMER ASSISTANCE TO RECYCLE AND SAVE PROGRAM

(2) DISPOSITION OF ELIGIBLE TRADE-IN VEHICLES-

(A) IN GENERAL- For each eligible trade-in vehicle surrendered to a dealer under the Program, the dealer shall certify to the Secretary, in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe by rule, that the dealer--

(i) has not and will not sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise dispose of the vehicle for use as an automobile in the United States or in any other country; and

(ii) will transfer the vehicle (including the engine block), in such manner as the Secretary prescribes, to an entity that will ensure that the vehicle--

(I) will be crushed or shredded within such period and in such manner as the Secretary prescribes; and

(II) has not been, and will not be, sold, leased, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of for use as an automobile in the United States or in any other country.

(B) SAVINGS PROVISION- Nothing in subparagraph (A) may be construed to preclude a person who is responsible for ensuring that the vehicle is crushed or shredded from--

(i) selling any parts of the disposed vehicle other than the engine block and drive train (unless with respect to the drive train, the transmission, drive shaft, or rear end are sold as separate parts); or

(ii) retaining the proceeds from such sale.</span>

If you are interested in reading the text of the bill go to:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c111:./temp/~c1119pvuDS

Bob Robb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep -- And the entire drive train -- engine, transmission, drive shaft, differential. The Californians tried this a few years ago. They spent taxpayer dollars to pour sand into the cylinders and oil of engines that were politically incorrect and then ran them to completely destroy them so they could not be recycled into other vehicles.

Bob Robb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I could afford a new car (barely working right now) I would use this opportunity to trade my 91 Grand Marquis with 74,000 miles in a heartbeat. Just NOT on a small car from GM Ford or Chrysler, they don't build anything I want that is remotely affordable. Hmm, that might be why they are in such trouble right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The idea of a subsidy for someone to buy a non-U.S. made car is not Republican or Democrat....it is WRONG.</div></div>

My nephew and his youngest son (my grand-nephew? shocked.gif )have been visiting for the past week. I took them to the local cruise-in last week and today (Sunday) they are coming to see me at the big classic/antique car show at Sully Plantation in Chantilly, Va.

Anyway, Saturday night after dinner at Emilio's Pizza (best in the area!), my wife and I took them to our local Ferrari/Masterati/Lamborghini dealership to ogle the cars (dealer was closed). I thought about coming back next Saturday with my 1998 Ford Expedition (160K miles, 10 mpg) and seeing if I could get a "clunker" rebate for it and trade it for a new Lamborghini LP560. grin.gif

Then reality hit: the Lambo only gets 8 city and 12 highway. So much for that dream. cry.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Lamborghini LP560</div></div>

Costs more than $45,000 too, I'd say. wink.gif

My wife and I were speaking of the same thing, trading off one of our older cars for a Corvette, same deal, over $45,000.

"Thank you, Gov!"

We don't need a new car anyway. Just dreaming about it works for us. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I have been very busy and haven't been on the forum much. Man did I miss a lot!!!

Reading this and seeing how things turned out, it wasn't quite so bad in upstate New York where in the urban areas the smog will hide the stars while the road salt rusts the cars:D:D:D

As things turned out, the clunker bill was used to our advantage. My dad decided that he'd had enough of his '93 Ford F-150, so under the clunker bill, him and I pooled our money and went out and bought a 2009 Chevy Silverado Z-71. The original sticker price was $37,000, but after all of the rebates that we received, we drove the truck off of the lot for $23,700 (before the sales tax). It was a deal that we couldn't walk away from.

Other than the dealer blowing up a very strong Ford 302 (which hurt), and giving up a good C-6 transmission, and the posi rear end, there wasn't much left of it. We pulled the chrome rims and drove it in with bald tires, we stole the radio and speakers out of it (Ford premium sound), and we went into a junk yard and paid $35 for a used bench seat so we could keep the factory bucket seats and center console (which was a $600 option that my dad paid back in 1993).

The doors were solid, but the rest of it was not. There's not much that we gave up with parting with ole Blue, except 16 years of trusted faithfull service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...