Cash for Clunkers!

[LINC400]

They know. It's their business to know. They all know, and these days no dealer is going to walk past a pile of money the way this "442" scenario was described,

No they don't know. Many car salespeople are not car people at all. They are salespeople. If they weren't selling cars, they would be selling aluminum siding or appliances. Most dealerships distribute information when the new models come out. The salespeople read them over and remember the what they think are the important points to make a sale. Anyone spending a little time on the internet can easily know more about the car they want to buy than the salespeople will. My own mother, in her 60's knew more about the Monte Carlo SS she was buying than the salesman did. Plus how many collectible cars are going to come in on trade that salespeople will need to know something about them? My friend was looking to buy a Ford County Squire (1991) or Caprice wagon (1990 for the boxy style) around 2001. He had to explain what they were, and when they were made. The dealer then told him they wouldn't have anything THAT old on their lot. I remember driving with another friend in his 1968 Lincoln Continental in 2005. We stopped at a Lincoln dealership because a Town Car on the used car lot caught his eye. The salesman looked at the 1968 and said "What is that? Are you going to be trading it in? (A most definite NO) So if a Lincoln dealer can't even identify the famous suicide door Lincoln, do you think someone is going to pay attention to a 442 badge on an '80's Cutlass? With most trade ins, they just look up the value and then try to offer as little as possible without insulting the owner so much that they walk out the door. With the clunker program, there is no need to look anything up because the $3500 or $4500 value is already in place with no haggling.

Edited August 5, 2009 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Guest THEHKP7M13]

Why? Are people honestly that weak? If they are complaining they can comment here. It is good to have debate and argument and disagreement. This is how this country has gone into the toilet, because everyone is 'offended' and do not comment.

I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT FOR YEARS.

"THE FIRST AMENDMENT ISN'T THERE TO PROTECT SPEECH THAT IS INOFFENSIVE. THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS THERE TO PROTECT SPEECH THAT IS OFFENSIVE."

-DR. MICHEAL SAVAGE-

caps off...this was important to me so it mneeded the emphasis.

[Dave@Moon]

Many car salespeople are not car people at all.

That's why they have sales managers, business managers, and used car managers. As a customer you never get to see them. They handle the deal. The friendly guy in the logo shirt handles you.

That's how a dealership works.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[Guest SwiftBuicks]

Looking at the recent posts, I really wonder if this thread should be taken seriously. I sold for the largest AMC/Jeep dealership in New England for a while. In actuality, salesmen often know cars. However, it wasn't really all that useful in selling them. Most purchasers don't care about what is under the hood as much as the amenities. This brings me to a question I have about this program. Isn't Uncle Sam involved now in a destructive policy? Can't these big 8 cylinder engines be rebuilt? That was a major concern of mine until I read this on Yahoo this morning:

>>America has a lot fewer functioning Ford Explorers these days.

The number one vehicle destroyed under the Cash for Clunkers program, the Transportation Department says, was the Ford Explorer (1998 edition). Number two, the Ford Explorer (1997). Number Three...you guessed it. The '96 model.

The top eight, Jalopnik reports, were all SUVs. In fact, they were all various editions of the Ford Explorer and Jeep Grand Cherokee. A pair of late ‘90s of minivans, the ‘97 Ford Windstar and '99 Dodge Grand Caravan, round out the top ten. All ten were domestic vehicles.<< As far as I'm concerned everyone except possibly the Grand Cherokee qualifies as a POS.

[Dave@Moon]

In actuality, salesmen often know cars. However, it wasn't really all that useful in selling them.

The guy who sold me my Prius in 2005 had just started at the dealership. He was about 60 years old, and had sold nothing but furniture and carpeting his whole life. He was a very decent and honest salesmen, but I knew more about the Prius than he did just from reading Autoweek articles. I was his third sale.

He was atypical (in automotive knowledge, not honesty), but I've purchased 9 new cars in my life and 2 or 3 of the salesmen I dealt with were similarly novices to the cars they sold and traded. It never mattered.

When you take a course in negotiation (as I did from the EPA for environmental remediations), one of the first things they tell you is to not have the person with the decision-making power do the negotiation. Having the negotiator have only the power of recommendation (at least in appearence) is by far a stronger and more successful strategy. The opposing party is much more likely to make concessions if they feel the person they're dealing with is somehow an advocate for them in another, unseen negotiation. The EPA in fact cited car dealership structures as the ideal negotiation model.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[Reatta Man]

A few points to consider:

Sales staff knowledge: I've known both types. Today, I can take you to two salesmen, one sells Buicks in his 60's, and another guy in his 20's that sells Toyotas. They are BOTH walking encyclopedias (Wikipedias for you younger types) on their brand. And, if they don't know the answer, they know who to go to upstream in their brand line (not their sales management line) to get the answer.

Meanwhile I could take you to other salesmen of all brands, foreign and domestic, who barely know how to get TO the dealership, so their knowledge of what is IN the dealership is almost nil.

Cars being traded in: C'mon, guys. We ALL have been talking about some of the trash Detroit has pushed out on the public in the 80's and early to mid 90's on the buying public. So, now is NOT the time to lament some of this garbage being recycled into lawn furniture and washing machines. Yeah, I love my Buicks, but Buick has almost NO choice right now, except for three models that all loose 30-50% of their value within 12-18 months, and get the same or less gas mileage as a 2000 Lesabre with a 3.8 engine.

Am I mad at Detroit for not making safe, affordable, high-quality products that also get phenominal mileage? Yep, but I hope they have learned their lessons and come to the market soon with leading-edge products AND sales tactics, not the same stuff they have been shoveling on us for years.

So, if about 50% of the cars being sold are foreign-made or foreign brands, so be it. This IS the free marketplace at work. You can't be a conservative, free-market type, and then get mad if the market is not buying what YOU think they should be buying.

This is a game of musical chairs right now; the music started playing when Congress started kicking around the C4C idea, and what was GM and Chrysler doing? Idling their plants, that's what! And when the music stopped and buyers scrambled to the dealers, what did they find? Apparently more than 50% of what they found AND liked was at 'ferinn' dealers. Yeah, I wish GM had 50% of the market share again, but they will never get there if they keep going the way they are now.

Finally, I know people have been complaining about the money being spent on this, but I have to disagree. First, does anyone think that if Congress didn't spend (now) $3 billion on this, that WE the taxpayer would get that money back in the form of a rebate, stimulus check or lower tax rates? Not with the current mindset in DC; it would have gone to build another bridge to nowhere, probably. This money is DIRECTLY benefitting working class taxpayers, not Bank of America, Goldman Sacs or some other millionaire's club.

Just remember that this C4C program is VERY unusual for taxpayers and the DC method of doing things. Usually, DC spends (throws) billions on a program that they claim will help people, often with the benefits not coming for years or being questionable as to whether they even exist. (Think 'stimulus program'.) This program is helping people TODAY.

Joe

[LINC400]

That's why they have sales managers, business managers, and used car managers. As a customer you never get to see them. They handle the deal. The friendly guy in the logo shirt handles you.

That's how a dealership works.

I applied for a job at a dealership many years ago. Since I knew about cars, I thought this would be a great job for me. It was not. I focused on things car guys wanted to know, horsepower, displacement, engineering advancements or specialties. The three people that did best in my training class were a woman that sold appliances, a guy that sold electronics, and a woman that sold furniture. None of them knew anything about cars or had any clue about what a Studebaker, AMC, or Olds 442 was. But they knew how to close deals. So I would assume by now that if these people have not moved on to selling real estate or something else, they would be sales managers by now. So why would they now suddenly need to know about an Olds 442 or other possible collectible vehicle? How many of these are going to come in on trade for a Prius or Focus?

Plus there is a local dealership here that has a 1979 Collectors Series and 1978 Diamond Jubilee in very good condition. Two of the most collectible Continental Mark V's. They have been sitting on their lot for over 10 months and on Ebay about 6 times each. I love Mark V's and am not interested in either because they are not equipped the way I want, I don't like the color, and are priced at the very high end of what they are worth. So if someone specifically interested in these cars is not interested in them, how long is it going to take to sell them? I don't think this dealer would look at a 442 coming on their lot thinking "Oh goody, if we let this one sit here for 10+ months, maybe we can get $6500 for it instead of $4500 clunker cash". Plus the guy in the story offered $5000 for the 442, not $9000. Would he still have been interested in it if it was priced at $9000 on the used car lot instead of lined up waiting to be destroyed for $4500? Probably he would have walked over, said nice car, and walked away.

So with dealers having 100+ cars stacked up for the clunker program, and more deals coming in every day. I highly doubt that they are going to sit there and look for collectible cars that they might get $1000 or $2000 more for. They are interested in making money on the new cars they are selling.

As far as the top 10 vehicles being Explorers, minivans, and Cherokees, I will not miss these vehicles at all. But those are only the top ten. Same as when the WWII scrap drive was around. The top ten vehicles scrapped were probably Ford model T and A's. But there were also Pierce Arrows, Duesenbergs, Packards, and Cords that were scrapped. And now we even lament the loss of the Model T and A's. So there will be 442's, Impala SS's, IROC Camaros, and Fleetwoods destroyed now and lamented later.

[joe_padavano]

The whole point of the program is to update the fleet average in the U.S., both in terms of MPG and age.

I have to disagree, Dave. Is this an environmental program or a stimulus program? It is alternately described as both. More to the point, this is a "buying of votes" program. The fiscally responsible, but politically unpalatable program would have been to raise gasoline taxes. The driving public has demonstrated that $4 a gallon is the tipping point that gets them out of SUVs and into reasonable cars. Note, however, that even Prius sales tanked as soon as the price of gasoline returned to earth last year. Raising gas taxes would have the double benefit of both promoting sales of fuel efficient cars AND providing tax revenue for other worthwhile government programs like AIG bonuses.

And before someone starts to complain about higher gasoline prices, let's assume this clinker of a clunker program actually does reduce gasoline consumption. What happens in a year or two when lawmakers realize that revenue from gasoline taxes has dropped? Bend over.

Of course, calling for higher gasoline taxes is political suicide, which is why we won't see it.

Edited August 6, 2009 by joe_padavano
Spelling (see edit history)

[LINC400]

Raising taxes on gas does not get everyone to dump their big SUV and buy a Focus or Prius. While a few people might do that, it hurts a lot more people instead.

In order to make a decent income where I can pay my bills (because I pay all mine, not just minimums on credit cards), I must work in area X. However, I cannot afford a house in area X, so I live in area Y. The commute is not that bad if my gas bill for the month is $150-$200. However, last year it was $350-$400. My car does not qualify for clunker status because it gets too good of gas mileage. And it will cost me much more than $200 per month to buy and insure an Prius or Focus. So it will cost me more than I will be saving in gas since I have no car payment now.

My friend works for a bus company where a lot of retired people work for extra money to supplement their social security. Last year many of them had to quit because it cost them more to commute than they were making.

Plus you can ride a bicycle, drive a Prius, have a solar and wind powered house, and higher gas prices will still affect you. Why? Because of trucking. Trucking companies cannot afford to eat the increase in gas prices. So they pass that on to their customers. When it costs more for trucking, stores pass that cost on to consumers by raising the price of everything they sell. So you will pay more for food, clothing, car parts, and anything you buy.

Plus I work for a transportation company. I like to use smaller independent truckers when possible instead of big national conglomerates. Several of them went out of business last year because of high gas prices. That put a lot of people out of work, and now we have to pay more to ship the same stuff with another company. More price increases passed on to you, the consumer.

Meanwhile, the guy with the Escalade or Hummer keeps driving it with higher gas prices. He just doesn't pay his gas credit card bill. He files for bankruptcy or just keeps paying the minimum like he has always done.

[joe_padavano]

Raising taxes on gas does not get everyone to dump their big SUV and buy a Focus or Prius. While a few people might do that, it hurts a lot more people instead.

And where exactly do you think the soon to be THREE billion dollars will be coming from? Checked your wallet lately? Gas tax, sales tax, income tax - does it really matter WHICH tax the money comes from? As for raising gas taxes, let's revisit this topic in a year or so once consumption goes down. Just expect me to say "I told you so".

Edited August 6, 2009 by joe_padavano
Spelling (see edit history)

[Guest windjamer]

You just cant kill a good GM. Local Chevy dealer pulled a cash for clunker 1991 suburban in the shop and drained all oil as instructed. It had a 5.7 v8 with over 300,ooo miles on it. They put a gal. of gloup in and started the vech. Its supposed to seze the eng in less than 10 min. The dam* thing ran for over an hr. but didnt quit. It did get so hot it cought fire, so they pushed it outside and let it burn. You just cant kill a good GM.

[Guest SwiftBuicks]

The guy who sold me my Prius in 2005 had just started at the dealership. He was about 60 years old, and had sold nothing but furniture and carpeting his whole life. He was a very decent and honest salesmen, but I knew more about the Prius than he did just from reading Autoweek articles. I was his third sale.

He was atypical (in automotive knowledge, not honesty), but I've purchased 9 new cars in my life and 2 or 3 of the salesmen I dealt with were similarly novices to the cars they sold and traded. It never mattered.

When you take a course in negotiation (as I did from the EPA for environmental remediations), one of the first things they tell you is to not have the person with the decision-making power do the negotiation. Having the negotiator have only the power of recommendation (at least in appearence) is by far a stronger and more successful strategy. The opposing party is much more likely to make concessions if they feel the person they're dealing with is somehow an advocate for them in another, unseen negotiation. The EPA in fact cited car dealership structures as the ideal negotiation model.

Haven't you been informed that you can't generalize from your personal experience unless you back it up with stats and research? Car dealerships like most retail businesses can experience a high turn-over rate in sales people. However, unless you know something about cars, you won't last long at one.

Joe, the Reattaman, it isn't a question of what the gov does with the money, it's how they are obtaining it. Most people want to believe it's coming from taxes, but the truth would be it is being borrowed, basically borrowed from the Chinese. Do you want to borrow money from the Chinese in order to fund such a lame program?

Edited August 7, 2009 by SwiftBuicks
More info (see edit history)

[Guest Skyking]

Joe, the Reattaman, it isn't a question of what the gov does with the money, it's how they are obtaining it. Most people want to believe it's coming from taxes, but the truth would be it is being borrowed, basically borrowed from the Chinese. Do you want to borrow money from the Chinese in order to fund such a lame program?

That's exactly what I stated in my post that's gone............

We just don't have the money for these programs.

Actually, the Chinese won't let us borrow anymore.

[Reatta Man]

Good points about the borrowed money. Unfortunately, cancelling a program these days does NOT mean the rate or amount of borrowing goes down; they just spend it on something else.

None of the trillion dollar deficit nonsense will stop or even slow down, I'm afraid, until there is a major, MAJOR change in the agenda (mindset) in DC.

I'll never believe in the "spend and tax your way to prosperity" attitude in DC right now, but I do believe in a program that directly helps real people.

Joe

[Guest windjamer]

This program will bite us in the butt so bad it will be a long loooooooooooong time befor we recover. Not just because of the billions dollers and the interest on that :mad:,but look at the waste. A former Chrysler dealer here has a mid 80,s Cad. two dr. sticking out of a trash dumpster in front of there bldg. I didnt climb in the dumpster,but from 30 feet it looks pretty darn good and if not now in a year or two it will be eligable for AACA. Trashing these car is criminal.:mad: And to top it off that dealer just put somebody in a new Honda.:mad::mad::mad:

[Guest Skyking]

You watch, Honda & Toyota will have record sales............Again!

Think about that......................

[MarkV]

Isnt that terrible! What a mess! I say let GM and the rest go

[Harold]

Something that I don't think was mentioned in this thread is the tax benefit to each state because of the sales tax generated with each new car sale.

I also believe that, a few years down the line, there will be a shortage of bottom-end used cars (needed by a large segment of the driving public for economic reasons) because tomorrow's beaters are being destroyed by this program.

The public in general is being very nicely hoodwinked by the cash for clunkers program.

[Barry Wolk]

Little to fear. This is only 750,000 cars. At 10,000,000 annual production there will be plenty of POS to go around.

Edited August 12, 2009 by West Peterson (see edit history)

[Guest Skyking]

The public in general is being very nicely hoodwinked by the cash for clunkers program.

Without getting into politics, this isn't the only thing the public is getting hoodwinked into. Wait and see.........

Edited August 12, 2009 by Skyking
spelling (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

I also believe that, a few years down the line, there will be a shortage of bottom-end used cars (needed by a large segment of the driving public for economic reasons) because tomorrow's beaters are being destroyed by this program.

The public in general is being very nicely hoodwinked by the cash for clunkers program.

For the last time, there is no loss of vehicles from the American roadways because of this program. For every gas hog crushed, a new efficient model is added. Therefore this program does reduce the average age of cars on the road, but does not eliminate any. The same number of cars will always be available for used car buyers that there otherwise would have been, just newer and more appropriate to today's conditions.

Therefore the idea of a shortage of used cars is absurd, even if you reject Barry's point about the ridiculously low relative number of vehicles this program effects. It does have the potential to (very slightly) lower the value of used cars by making them relatively older to the market than they'd otherwise be. (In other words: if the median car goes from 10.3 to 10.1 years old, then your 8 year old car is that much closer to being in the 50th percentile and is therefore that much less of a "catch" on the used car market.)

The ONLY effect this program has on "bottom-end" used car buyers is to eliminate some few of the trucks they'd have a terrible time feeding $4 gas to anyway, while replacing them with newer/better/more fuel efficient cars they'd otherwise not be able to afford.

Nobody's being hoodwinked, unless they want to be.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

You watch, Honda & Toyota will have record sales............Again!

Think about that......................

Get ready to eat your words, Bob.

Sales change July 2008 to July 2009 (data includes the first $1 billion in CARS stimulus money):

Nissan: -25%

GM: -19%

American Honda: -17%

Toyota USA: -11%

Chrysler: -9%

Ford: +2%

By the Numbers - July 2009: Turn of the Tide Edition — Autoblog

[West Peterson]

I sure am not catching your argument. If a nice used vehicle is being crushed rather than put into the used car market, I'd call that eliminating it.

[R W Burgess]

I sure am not catching your argument. If a nice used vehicle is being crushed rather than put into the used car market, I'd call that eliminating it.

It's also replacing an older used, reasonably priced, car with one that some folks can't afford. I'm having trouble finding a late model 80-90 model rear drive GM car now because of this.

I'll probably end up buying one of those models that couldn't be driven to the dealership because of a blown motor. High performance small blocks are not that expensive now, plus I'll have a carburetor instead of a computer to deal with.

I'm not concerned about gas mileage, considering the small amount of driving that my family does.

Wayne

[Dave@Moon]

I sure am not catching your argument. If a nice used vehicle is being crushed rather than put into the used car market, I'd call that eliminating it.

First of all, they're not nice. They're at best $4500 trade-ins, and virtually ALL of them are trucks. More on that in the next post.

And they're not just being plucked off the road and crushed. Each one is being replaced with a new car, so there's no net change in the number of cars to pick from, The average car on the road is newer, that's all.

Short term there are some conflicting reports right now, but most used car dealers are complaining that they can't sell their inventory. New car incentive programs, when effective, always drive down the price of used cars. After the dealers are tired of sitting on thier inventory for a few weeks, prices for used cars will begin their inevitable decline. A 2001 LeSabre will likely be slightly devalued in the marketplace by the effects of the CARS program.

Which is a good thing if someone really is concerned about low income people being able to buy cars.

[West Peterson]

First of all, they're not nice. They're at best $4500 trade-ins, and virtually ALL of them are trucks. More on that in the next post.

And they're not just being plucked off the road and crushed. Each one is being replaced with a new car, so there's no net change in the number of cars to pick from, The average car on the road is newer, that's all.

No net change is the sole basis for your argument?

"Mr. A" would like to buy a car. "Mr. B" decides to buy a new car. Rather than sell his old one to Mr. A, he trades it in to "Mr. Dealer," who crushes it.

Now, instead of two cars on the road, there is still only one. Mr. A still doesn't have a car because Mr. Dealer "eliminated" it.

You're right. "There's no net change in the number of cars to pick from." But that doesn't help Mr. A.

[Dave@Moon]

I went to the local U-Pull-it today, where quite a number of C.A.R.S. vehicles were lines up for the picking (literally). ALL were SUVs and pickups, the nicest of which was a 2001 Ranger 4WD 4.0L, with 105,000 miles. (One of the things I was there fore were Ranger wheels, so I checked it out.)

I was dismayed to find that the only consistent way to tell a car was a clunker, and therefore had a siezed motor, was a laminated sheet of paper mounted in the engine compartment w/ wire ties. Most had "C4C", "Clunker", or some other similar words written on the windows, but not all....and a few had already had their glass removed. I hope other yards are a little better at marking these engines as siezed in the C.A.R.S.

It appeared to me to be a very easy thing to mix up good and bad motors. Be careful when shopping these places.

[Dave@Moon]

No net change is the sole basis for your argument?

"Mr. A" would like to buy a car. "Mr. B" decides to buy a new car. Rather than sell his old one to Mr. A, he trades it in to "Mr. Dealer," who crushes it.

Now, instead of two cars on the road, there is still only one. Mr. A still doesn't have a car because Mr. Dealer "eliminated" it.

You're right. "There's no net change in the number of cars to pick from." But that doesn't help Mr. A.

Yes, but Mr. B bought a new Frappington Wildebeast (a National Lampoon reference:)), increasing the number of Frappington Wildebeasts on the road. Therefore the Frappington Wildebeasts already owned by Mr.'s C through Z became that much less valuable, resulting in the last one in line being more affordable to Mr. A.

[West Peterson]

But the Wildebeast (as mean and nasty as it sounds) can't tow the trailer that Mr. A has. Mr. A really needs the Suburban that Mr. B was about to sell him.

[Dave@Moon]

But the Wildebeast (as mean and nasty as it sounds) can't tow the trailer that Mr. A has. Mr. A really needs the Suburban that Mr. B was about to sell him.

Then Mr. A has a problem. How is it he can afford a heavy trailer, but not a $4500 used truck? Also how will he continue to tow this heavy trailer around (by any means) as fuel prices rise with increasing scarcity if a $4500 truck is even a stretch for him? :confused:

[West Peterson]

Then Mr. A has a problem. How is it he can afford a heavy trailer, but not a $4500 used truck? Also how will he continue to tow this heavy trailer around (by any means) as fuel prices rise with increasing scarcity if a $4500 truck is even a stretch for him? :confused:

He CAN afford the $4,500 used truck. But it's no longer on the market!!! And it's not a stretch for him to spend that much money. He just doesn't like spending 10 times that amount on a depreciating asset.

[Dave@Moon]

Mr. A has no problems finding money. He's pretty well off. He just doesn't like spending a lot of money on a depreciating asset.

Then Mr. A has even more problems. One of the main points of the whole program is to eliminate vehicles that burn lots of gas in advance of the coming increases in the price of gas. If Mr. A doesn't want to buy a depreciating asset, he'd be hard pressed to find a faster depreciating asset than a truck that costs too much to drive.

He also will have real problems just buying a new truck to do the same thing very soon. In 6 years trucks will have to to have a corporate average fuel economy (C.A.F.E.) of 30 mpg. The price of new tow vehicles is about to skyrocket, as manufacturers are forced to limit the number of these things they sell to stay below the CAFE limit.

Frankly, Mr. A better get his butt in gear and get off the pot soon. There are basic changes coming in our lifestyle that no degree of car market manipulation by anyone will change or delay. The next decade starts in 135 days. By the end of it, gas will be MUCH more expensive than it is now. Projections vary between $8/gal and $12/gal, exclusive of inflation. Even if Mr.A has no problems burning $12 gas in a tow vehicle, enough people will have problems such that the tow vehilces that survive ths C.A.R.S. program will almost certainly write new records for depreciating assets.

The new ones will as well, no matter how expensive they initially were.

Mr. A has some decisions to make.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Dave@Moon
typo (see edit history)

[West Peterson]

No investment is worse than a new car. How can my $4,500 used truck depreciate faster than the $45,000 new truck (I'm not interested in percentages)? The new one will depreciate a minimum of the cost of the used one during its first year alone. I can buy a whole lot of gas with the money I don't waste on the depreciating asset.

Doesn't it take a lot of valuable resources to build a new truck? Mr. A is thinking Green by "recycling" the older truck.

I believe that the next decade starts January 1, 2011. And Mr. A believes the same thing I do.

[Guest THEHKP7M13]

...And they're not just being plucked off the road and crushed. Each one is being replaced with a new car, so there's no net change in the number of cars to pick from, The average car on the road is newer, that's all...

RE-READ IT!!!!!

You can replace truck for truck as long as there is a minimal improvement in milage.

[Harold]

Another thing that wil affect the availability of used cars in the future is the higher percentage of hybrid vehicles being sold. An 8-10 year old conventional vehicle can be repaired if needed. How many people will be willing to spend the money to replace the battery pack in a 10 year-old hybrid when it fails?

[Dave@Moon]

Another thing that wil affect the availability of used cars in the future is the higher percentage of hybrid vehicles being sold. An 8-10 year old conventional vehicle can be repaired if needed. How many people will be willing to spend the money to replace the battery pack in a 10 year-old hybrid when it fails?

Although I'm much more likely to someday need a new engine block, if I need to replace the battery pack in my prius I can buy a good one tonight on eBay (and probably from any number of on- and off-line junk yards) for about $400.00. Replacing it is a bolt in exercise, I can do it with procedures in my Haynes manual.

The rest of the car is little different from anything else on the road.

[Dave@Moon]

RE-READ IT!!!!!

You can replace truck for truck as long as there is a minimal improvement in milage.

We covered that already.

Going from 10 to 12 mpg is a significant change. At 10,000 miles/yr. (a laughably small figure for most trucks), that's a fuel savings of 166.7 gal/yr. Using the guideline limits for cars of 18 and 25 mpg results in a savings of 155.6 gal./yr. at 10,000 miles/yr.

There are some bright people working for the government. Give 'em a break.

This might be something else for West's Mr. A to consider. 167 gallons of gasoline isn't exactly small potatoes these days.

[Barry Wolk]

You're wasting you time Dave. Even math doesn't make sense to these guys. They will believe the world is about to end, whatever proof you give to the contrary. As it ever was.

[R W Burgess]

......How is it he can afford a heavy trailer, but not a $4500 used truck? Also how will he continue to tow this heavy trailer around (by any means) as fuel prices rise with increasing scarcity if a $4500 truck is even a stretch for him? :confused:

Because the trailer is for recreational use, wheather a camper or an antique car trailer used 4-5 times a year. A lot ot towning vehciles are used just for that, the summer vacation!

[R W Burgess]

.........or as a trash pickup like mine.........