Clunker Bill - engine immobilization

[padgett]

One of the things I think really dumb about the "clunker bill" is the "engine immobilization" bit. Essentially replace the oil with a silicon mixture and "run until seize".

Probably the most valuable thing on a clunker is the engine for rebuilding, few are terminal and the gov in their infinite wisdom is making that impossible. They even state that the intent is to make the long block including heads unusable.

Suspect a few of these engines wil show up on CL anyway, just something else to watch out for.

Best hope is that the bill is so restrictive that few will use it.

From http://www.cars.gov/files/TheRule.pdf

"Removing the engine oil from the crankcase, replacing it with a 40 percent

solution of sodium silicate (a substance used in similar concentrations in many common vehicle applications, including patching mufflers and radiators), and running the engine for a short period of time at low speeds renders the engine inoperable."

Edited July 26, 2009 by padgett
add rule quote (see edit history)

[handmedownreatta]

i like that they trash the engine if they then sell the cars to recycling yards that sell the parts.it would be dumb to pay 4500 for a car with a large engine and then let the gas guzler engine go into another car.

[Guest Richard D]

I BET YOU WOULD NOT LIKE IT ONE LITTLE BIT IF YOU HAD A VINTAGE SKYLARK (MY SKYLARK HAS A 350 2bbl)OR RIVI WITH A 455 CID ENGINE. OR ANY VINTAGE MOPAR WITH A 383 OR HEAVEN FORBID 426 HEMI OR 440. OR COUNTLESS OTHER VINTAGE VEHICLES THAT ARE DRIVEN TO A FEW SHOWS A YEAR. THIS IS THE FIRST POST ON THIS SITE THAT HAS REALLY TICKED ME OFF!

Sincerely,

Richard :mad:

I feel that anyone who agrees with destroying vintage no longer made engines has the intellectual agility of a small soap dish.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Richard D (see edit history)

[2seater]

If I am not mistaken, the cars to be used in the government plan must be less than 25 years old. Not a lot of the vintage engines referred to in the last 25 years.

[Guest Richard D]

In that case I aoplogize, It just seems like such a waste to destroy Items that have value and are not made any more. I have been hearing so many things about this law that I don't know what do believe anymore.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Richard D (see edit history)

[padgett]

Many of the 3.8 Turbos including the 1989 Pontiac 20th Anniversary Trans Am were under 18 mpg combined (new rating )

[Guest C.F.Massie]

I'm reading the DOT NHTSA 49 CFR Pasrts 512 and 599, government documents, that is 136 pages long and in it it states your vehicle must be 25 yrs or older and have an EPA combined fuel economy rating of 18 gallons or less to qualify. Well according to the government site they tell you to go to find your vehicles combined mpg our all Reattas are rated at 20 mpg combined so none of ours qualify. Also the new vehicle you want to trade in for must have an EPA combined of rating 22 mpg or greater (for pass. cars, trucks are different). Also it does not matter if the new vehicle is domestic or foreign just not more than $45,000 and the dealer is participating in this program, sorry guys Corvettes are out. It breaks down this way:

If the difference in combined MPG The

between ti new vehicle and the Incentive is:

trade in is

_________________________ ___________

Pass Automobile: 4-9 mpg $3,500

10 or more mpg 4,500

Cat. 1 truck:

- All SUVs w/GVWR <=10K 2-5 mpg 3,500

- P/U w/GVWR < 8K & 5 or more mpg 4,500

wheelbase <= 115 in

- Pass Vans & Cargo

Vans w/GVWR <8.5K &

wheelbase <= 124 in

Cat. 2 truck 1 mpg 3,500

- P/U w/GVWR <=8,5K & 2 or more mpg 4,500

wheelbase > 115 in

Cat. 3 truck

- Pass Vans & Cargo NA (Cat. 3 do not 3,500

Vans w/GVWR have mpg rating)

wheelbase > 124 in

- Trucks w/GVWR 8.5 - 10K NA (however new vehicle 3,500

either P/U w/cargo bed must be similar size or

72" or longer or very smaller than trade in)

large cargo vans

And there you have it America now run right out and help the environment and Obama's spending package.

[HurstGN]

The whole idea behind this program is to get old cars off the road. SEMA and it's members stepped in and got the rules changed a bit. Unfortunately, this wasn't stopped entirely, but it was at least modified enough to keep from removing a lot of good old iron from the road.

We ALL need to keep up on this law, and watch what happens. It doesn't take much to float a new bill to expand the years included, or remove the "must be running" part, or remove the "must be titled and insured for a year" parts. The gov't has it's foot in the door right now.....lets watch this closely to make sure they don't open the flood gates on us.

Food for thought: The new law that states you can only paint 2 vehicles a year as a hobbyist, was originally going to be that a hobbyist couldn't paint a vehicle themselves at all. When arguements were heard on this law, there were arguements for the hobbyist to be able to paint a vehicle, and an arguement against the hobbyist painting a vehicle at all. Yes, that against was in the proper singular tense. When the law was signed, and all the discussion was posted on the gov't website, it stated clearly there was 1 opposing view that a hobbyist should not be able to paint a vehicle at all. And the EPA ran with that one person's argument and it had lots of power for a while. Once opposition was made clear, that a hobbyist should be able to work on a car and paint it, the bill was changed to allow 2 vehicles per year. For the want of 1 person, the EPA almost got us all with a law prohibiting our right to paint a car.

So, while one voice can make a difference, or a real mess as almost happened with the painting law, many voices can make more of a difference. Just because this program is set to expire later this year, don't let it slide. In PA, we still pay taxes to help recover from the Johnstown flood. Today, July 27, 2009 we still pay this tax, and the Johnstown flood happened on May 31, 1889!!! A perfect example where the foot got in the door, and the rest is not just history, but current news, still.

[padgett]

Language is in lawyer-speak "have been manufactured not earlier than 25 years before the date of tradein 9" but that sounds like not over 25 years old (and they go by the tag in the door jamb which has the month).

"9 This means that all pre-model year 1984 vehicles, and most model year 1984 vehicles, are not eligible as

trade-in vehicles"

Edited July 27, 2009 by padgett
added quote (see edit history)

[padgett]

OK, here are the restrictions:

"(1) be in drivable condition;

(2) have been continuously insured, in accordance with State law, and

registered in the same owner’s name for the one-year period immediately

prior to the trade-in;

(3) have been manufactured not earlier than 25 years before the date of tradein9

and, in the case of a category 3 vehicle, also be from a model year not

later than model year 2001; and

(4) have a combined fuel economy value of 18 miles per gallon or less,10 if it

is a passenger automobile, a category 1 truck, or a category 2 truck.11"

So my 1992 TranSport 3800 (17 mpg) would qualify but a 3.1 TBI (18 mpg)would not. Sorry, I like it too much.

What it does not say is whether the mpg basis is the origigal rating or the "new" ratings.

[Guest Richard D]

After reading all this my brain hurts. However as HurstGN says we must not let the guvmint stick it's foot in the door anymore.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Richard D (see edit history)

[JWC]

"Also it does not matter if the new vehicle is domestic or foreign"

That is just not right, in my opinion the foreign car company should not be able to get the $$$$ from us, let them get it from their own country, and I don't want to hear that we build these cars here and it keeps us working, all the profits go overseas.

Again this is just my opinion.

[Guest Squire Tom]

looked on the guvamint site and 91 reatta is 18 combined. i sent a note to my guvamint representative regarding the mandatory use of ethanol which i have documented on two vehicles which has lowered the mpg from 9 to 12 % which means the 18 mpg on the reatta is 12% less and therefore it should be eligible. not gonna do it , but thought i would throw a monkey wrench into the guvamint gearbox.

well.... back to the Jack....

[Guest kennyw]

yah:> said my 88 was 20 mpg and did not fit the profile of 18.......With the alcohol in the fuel it should. Where else can one get 4,000 + for an old beater? ken

[Ames63]

I must say I got mixed feelings about the program. I love my pickup truck, ita a 93 Chevorlet C1500 pickup with the Mark III package, with a 350 under the hood, integrated car phone and radar detector. Any Kid 16-40 would love it. But I am currently running 243,000 on the odemeter. I get about 13 city and 17Hwy combined 15. I hate to see it destoryed but its a guzzler and up in age.

On the flip side I am falling in love with the Colorado crew cab, the Explorer Sport Trac, and a Nissan Frontier crew cab. All get about 18-21 city 23-26 Hwy.

Downside is I'll have a payment for the next 4-5 years, arrrgh!!

I know in the end I'll part with my truck. But its just that right now some mornings i wait up ready to trade and buy and some morning I tell myself I'll keep what I got.