mastertech Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 we finshed destroying the last of the clunkers today some went to sleep quitely some went out fighting, the last one went out fighting took about 1min and it was done. 2001 chevy blazer 4.3 first drain out oil them add 2qt juice then start and run at appx 2000-2500 rpm or untill wont run wait for 1 hour and see if it will start and idle if so repete process, never made it to 2000 rpm and for some reason it wouldnt start in an hour. This was the biggest piece we found on the ground! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msmazcol Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Gee great! By the way has the good ole' government made good on all that clunker money yet. The company I work for does road work. We did a ton of stimulus work by bid.Seams the money is SLOW if at all coming.That will put a company right out of business.Oh swell!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastertech Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 our dealership has 4 stores and had appx 200 clunkers the blazer was the last one to get paid for. We didnt destroy any untill we got paid for them just in case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msmazcol Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Good I'm glad to hear it was all made right like promised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkyardjeff Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 What a waste of good used cars for those who dont have alot of money and if they all get crushed a big waste of good parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastertech Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 It is kinda sad to destroy these engines, at least thats the way i feel about cus this car was somebodys baby at one time. And as a tech i always make sure the drain plug is tight no oil leaks and the thing runs and handles good, and yet i have to destroy a good running 62kmile engine for what? It just makes me sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthbob Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 As someone who just had the unfortunate experience of getting a ceased engine only after 1 hour of driving a new 54 Buick (my first old car) I can say most assuredly that intentionally ceasing an engine makes little sense.I'm now rebuilding...during a time when all these working engines are being intentionally sabotaged...???Yes I understand the issues and the reasoning's but the optics, through my eyes, certainly suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkV Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 That is terrible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandy Dave Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Considering the resorces that it takes to produce an Auto of any kind, I have to agree. Destroying one on purpose really does suck. It all starts, and ends, in a firery furness....:confused: Dandy Dave! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shop Rat Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 What Bill and I find sad is that the true clunkers were for the most part not what was turned in. Those are owned by folks that do well to keep them on the road at all. They can't afford even a newer vehicle much less a new one.We think what should have been done is take the good "clunkers" that got turned in and let the low income folks have them in exchange for a vehicle that truly needs to be put out of it's misery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Braverman Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Melvin,What exactly is in the Clunker Juice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawja Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 What exactly is in the Clunker Juice?40% sodium silicate solution, kills 'em dead and right quick too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAVES89 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Shop Rat I agree completely. They should have thought of a trade system to get the worst of the worst off the road. I [and others] do work thru our church doing free oil changes and minor repairs, and some of the cars that come thru here, I wouldn't want my worst enemy to drive. However from the dealers eyes, how do you get these cars to the people that need them the most and who figures out the most needy? Our church is donated 5-10 cars a year, of which half go straight to the salvage yard and the other half are fixed and then given away. There is always a list of 8-10 families looking for a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stock_steve Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 It seems so wasteful to destroy a machine that is still capable of providing basic transportation--when, like others have pointed out, there are people out there who can't afford, but need same...Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DeSoto Frank Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I agree about the irony of destroying viable used cars...I think they should have named the program "cash for gas-guzzlers", since part of the "official reasoning" was to get gross-polluter / high consumption vehicles off the road, and get their owners into newer, more efficient, greener transportation.I could build a case that my '61 Rambler American should not qualify for "Cash of Clunkers", as it is well- maintained, and gets nearly 30 MPG on the highway.... it may be nearly 50 years old, "but it ain't no clunker"...And truth be told, I'd LOVE to have a Hyrbrid or full-electric for my daily commuting, but they're WAY beyond my financial means at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastertech Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 Have pic of conitainer that it comes in at work right now when i get home will post it. You will be surprised as to what the comtainer says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Restorer32 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Sodium Silicate aka "water glass" was used many years ago to preserve fresh eggs. Also makes a nice sealant for water passages etc. Fresh eggs could be preseerved for 6 months and longer if immersed in sodium silicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastertech Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 here it is 40% sodium silicate 60% water SiO2/Na20 here is the pic of the container it says water treatment compound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Earl Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 In the early 30's my Dad & his got involved with finance companies and banks and they junked out cars that people got behind on their payments on. The theory was that all those used cars would flood the market and ruin it. The Sheriff would show up with the paperwork and Dad would go tear the car up for junk. They did it with a team of horses, hammers and cold chisels. (I never saw my Dad miss what he swung an ax or sledge at) Anyway, he said that the Sheriff would sit on the running board of his car with a shotgun in case the people that "owned" the car got unruly, since it was often junked out right in front of their place! They also pulled some of the cars out to where he lived and tore them up there. Then they would burn them first and then shake the bodies apart since they were mostly wood. It wasn't a government program so muck like today, but something that he always thought Roosevelt asked the banks and finance companies to do to help out. Part of the NRA I guess. They sure cut up some nice cars. Dad said they kept a '32 Buick Phaeton and hauled batteries in it until the whole back end of the car was eaten up by the acid. He and his Dad had a sort of junk yard and they didn't do much with the bodies since tin wasn't worth much. Dad always said that there must be 200 car bodies buried by where one of the water towers in Nora Springs is now. Dad's aunt said the same thing. Back then, as long as you could get it into the railroad car they took it. So it didn't have to be small chunks like today. He always thought that it was a shame what happened to all those nice cars. But times were tough and there was money to be made. Up until he died he thought the scrap drives during WWII did more to get rid of the pre-30's cars than anything. It wasn't patriotic to keep an old car around. I'm 47 and from Dad's second marriage. And we cut up a lot of cars growing up. But nothing like what he saw go down the drain in the 30's. They did the same thing with farm produce in the 30's and it was like my Grandmother used to say "How many hogs will Roosevelt have to kill to get us out of this depression?" So, it does beg the question about how many clunkers will have to go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest martylum Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I've read that history repeats itself. I've read that during slow sales times in the 20s and the 30s similar programs were instituted by the auto companies perhaps with dealer contributions.I don't believe the Government (the taxpayers) were involved in those programs but they got the same result. Unfortunately, in modern times the American auto companies aren't in a position to plow any money into a clunker program but we did give them a nice short lived benefit. I certainly hope it extends into a longer term survival for these companies.Martin Lum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Schramm Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Here is an article with some numbers of exotic and expensive cars that were turned in.Cash-for-clunkers gems: Corvettes, Camaros, Mustangs and one infamous Bentley meet the end of the road: AutoWeek Magazine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keiser31 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I have heard my wife's father talk about when they took a "clunker" off the road for the World War Two scrap drives, they broke a hole through the engine block to disable it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old car fan Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Well,its sad,and without going in to the idiots we have in office ,just how many people,deserving,could have these cars,heck ,if they are americans,sell them on the never never plan .still be cheaper,just venting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Here is an article with some numbers of exotic and expensive cars that were turned in.Cash-for-clunkers gems: Corvettes, Camaros, Mustangs and one infamous Bentley meet the end of the road: AutoWeek MagazineBeware the author with an agenda.Well over 1/2 of the cars mentioned in this article as being scrapped in the C.A.R.S. program weren't even eligible. Of those eligible cars that were mentioned, only a fool would take $4500 from the government for. In this case the fool would be the dealer, who always had the option to pay $4500 trade-in for the car. There was never a mandate that any car had to be taken. This is rubbish.:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xprefix28truck Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I find it terribly hard o believe that anyone would turn in a 2008 Mustang, or a 2007 or '08 chrysler 300. Let alone some of the other ones on the list. Some of them I don't find hard to believe. For instance the Corvettes they spoke of. Around here you can't give away a 1984 or 1985. So that's not surprising. I know a bunch of families that could have used some of those vehicles. WHAT A WASTE!! But hey, It only cost "US" (the tax payers that is) 2.9BILLION!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastertech Posted October 3, 2009 Author Share Posted October 3, 2009 It did help our dealerships we sold out of all the eligible cars at all four stores now we cant get any new cars to replace the ones sold. Our toyota store has started to get a few, our Hyundai store has gotten a few now our 2 chrysler dodge and jeep stores well havent gotten but 2 or three, that i Know of our store has gotten 3 jeeps 1 van no trucks and just recieved a challenger last night before i left work. My understanding is that they cant make them fast enough to go around since all the plants shut down for a couple of months. the truck that was in there yesterday had Fords Gm and chrysler on it . so now we are kinda back where we started first people wernt buying now people are there but no cars to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex98thdrill Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 The clunker bill worked for us. $3,500 for a '93 Ford F-150 that is rusted out with 108,000 miles on it.After all the rebates, we drove off the lot with a new Silverado for less than $24,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xprefix28truck Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 The clunker bill worked for us. $3,500 for a '93 Ford F-150 that is rusted out with 108,000 miles on it.After all the rebates, we drove off the lot with a new Silverado for less than $24,000. Did you check on the same deal before you went in for the cash for clunkers program? I have spoken to several people that were offered better deals before the program, than after. They said it was because the program price had to be the sticker price with no rebates. Can anyone shed light on this? My friend that I spoke to today, said his daughter checked on a new Cobalt 6 months ago. She could have gotten into it for 17,000. Last month she took her same car in and tried the program. It was going to cost her 21,000 PLUS her car that she's driving. I never checked on the program. After 22 years of driving I still have no desire for a new car. I have never had a new vehicle. I don't like payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 They said it was because the program price had to be the sticker price with no rebates. Can anyone shed light on this? Not true. Never believe a salesman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex98thdrill Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Did you check on the same deal before you went in for the cash for clunkers program? I have spoken to several people that were offered better deals before the program, than after. They said it was because the program price had to be the sticker price with no rebates. Can anyone shed light on this? My friend that I spoke to today, said his daughter checked on a new Cobalt 6 months ago. She could have gotten into it for 17,000. Last month she took her same car in and tried the program. It was going to cost her 21,000 PLUS her car that she's driving. I never checked on the program. After 22 years of driving I still have no desire for a new car. I have never had a new vehicle. I don't like payments.No we didn't check on the trade-in value. But back in January that same dealer wanted $18,000 PLUS my 2004 Chevy Silverado, so for $5,700 more I kept the 2004 and bought a 2009.The sticker price on the truck was almost $38,000 and after all the rebates and clunker bill we drove the new truck off of the lot for $23,700.At that point who cares?? I feel that we got a good enough deal where it doesn't matter. The '93 was unsafe, and we were able to buy a brand new truck and pay cash for it.The dealer was happy because they got a truck off their lot, got paid in cash and don't have to worry about ever having to do a repossession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Xprefix28truck Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 I agree... You did good!! You never know what to believe when people tell you something.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkyardjeff Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 That truck with only 108,000 miles could of gave someone some years of use as a beater truck,I got rid of my rusty 92 that had 260,000 and its still going.The clunker bill worked for us. $3,500 for a '93 Ford F-150 that is rusted out with 108,000 miles on it.After all the rebates, we drove off the lot with a new Silverado for less than $24,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Schramm Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 I was at my local dealer and they were telling me of persons that traded in the "clunker" under the program for the government dollars instead of taking the money from the used car dept which was more. Some people just want to get it from the man I guess?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex98thdrill Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 That truck with only 108,000 miles could of gave someone some years of use as a beater truck,I got rid of my rusty 92 that had 260,000 and its still going. That truck had the 302 in it, and from an engine standpoint, you're right. Had they not blown the truck up, we would've tried to buy the engine back.The body mounts were going, the brakes lines were going, the steering box was going and the frame was starting to go!! We pulled everything out of that truck aside from the steering wheel. That truck had the optional bucket seats and center console so we went out and bought a bench seat out of a junkyard for $35, and pulled the premium sound, power bucket seats, center console and chrome wheels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkyardjeff Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Mine was quite solid compared to yours as mine just had the usual rust in the cab corners and above the rear wheels but the floors, mounts and bed floor had no holes and still had perfect front sheet metal and tailgate. I thought Ohio weather was tough on vehicles but it looks like New York is worse,I would of kept it but I heard the E4OD trans were only good for a little over 100,000 but at over 250,000 I was concerned it would go and the local shop wanted 1,600 to rebuild it so I bought a crown vic with the AOD which were plentiful in the junkyards and cheaper to rebuild then the E4OD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex98thdrill Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Mechanically it was a good truck. As a matter of fact had Ford still built trucks today like they did that '93, we'd still be driving Fords.That truck had 78,000 miles on it back in 1997. In 12 years my dad put 30,000 miles on it and the truck really didn't start getting that ratty up until the last 3-4 years. But when the truck started going, it started going quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now