We went through like 200 Billion dollars in a week or something like that.
Now Obama is going to make the briliant deduction that if you give money away people will take it so he is a genius for coming up with such a popular plan.
He's gone through 800 Trillion bucks or some other astounding amount already so this was a mere pittance.

Too bad we can't atleast buy the parts off of those "clunkers" to keep our "clunkers" running. I guess that would kind of defeat "their " purpose for the law in the first place.

Why didn't everyboby just get a $5,000-$10,000 worth of "Car Cash" to begin with intead of the bail-outs?

Why didn't we make the clunker money for Domestics only or atleast Domestic brands and U.S. manufactured vehicles?

Apearantly the program sold a lot of cars, good, I wish i didn't have to pay for them. Especially since I didn't get one.

 

Don`t worry. Fox News, they are rushing more money through Congress for the programme as we speak.

 

Cash for clunkers was an extension of the automotive bailout. Nothing more. Since the automotive industry thrives off use and throw away consumption, they had to somehow get people buying cars again in a time when automotive loans or even real cash was harder to find. profit margins are so narrow in detroit these days that they can't afford to simply stop selling vehicles for a year or so.

Its one thing to offer a guaranteed trade in value for a good used vehicle, but thats not what this program was about. It was about getting rid of as many used vehicles as possible so the auto makers can get back to making money again by replacing them outright.

Much of the actual bailout money appears to have been directed to making the newer vehicles cheaper to buy as well. I can't remember the last time you could buy a 1/2 ton 4wd pickup with relatively high trim level for the low 20s. And thats canadian dollars.

Good time to buy new if you are in the market, but I never buy new and never will. I agree that it would have been nice if I didn't have to pay to keep these guys working, but there are many things I have to pay for that I don't agree with.

 

Is it just me or does anyone else see that this program may just make things worse?? What I mean is this: The housing maket collapsed due to people getting in WAAAY over their heads in loans that they cannot afford. This coupled with many other things, and the camel's back breaks and the house of cards fall. Am I the only one to think that the reason people drive "clunkers" is because THAT'S ALL THEY CAN AFFORD???????............hmmm.....And if all clunkers go then what about the aftermarket parts industries and related businesses that would collapse (well at least deflate) as a result of clunker demise?? Older vehicles are just built better and are more user friendly to work on!!! So until they build a vehicle that is user friendly and that will self diagnose without the aid of a bazillion dollar stealership machine, I will continue to drive machines that are old enough to get into bars or at least vote. They make it seem like free money but it never is and some may just dumb enough to believe it. Besides, a new van like mine is BIG$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!...no thanks.

 

That's a good point on the credit problem.

 

Yes, but don't you understand? guys like us that might have more than a couple hundred dollars to our name are holding the economy back because we are now the only ones left that have money to spend.

Its all our fault that we are in a recession because you and I aren't spending our money. Hence the need to take it by force through taxes and give it to other people that will spend it for us.

We should be ashamed of ourselves for hording so much cash and still being able to pay our bills, have good credit rating, have stable debt load.......

Tisk tisk....

 

At what point will they say done is done with that program? By continually funneling money into crappy programs they will come to be expected...

 

I said the same thing when I first read about the cash for clunkers program.
If you are driving a car old enough that a 4500 trade in value will qualify you for a new car, you probably should not be getting one.

But then after they all get repo'ed, just think about the deals that will be out there and how many people will be walking.
Auto company bail out and polution reduction in the same bill.

No logic at all anymore.

 

David, i understand what you're saying as far as money input will get things flowing again. If everyone began spending instead of holding back and just sitting, it would start moving again.
As far as vehicles go, Jeep CJ's have got to be the most profitable vehicles of all time. Closely followed by the '80-'96 Fords.
The Jeep CJ's from '72-'86 and the Chrysler YJ's thru '97 share an interchangeable body tub. That's a 25 year span of the same part on the same equipment. The same goes for the '80-'96 Truck chassis.
Last i heard it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to design and build the machinery to produce these parts. So whay do automakers keep introducing new vehicles? They surely can't be making enough profit for the machinery just by selling hese disposable cars. Shame on the auto makers for changing so much crap.
How hard would it be for Ford or anybody else to produce a vehicle that is like a Jeep, bronco, or even a beefed-up escape for that matter? Small SUV with 2 engines choices and 2 tranny choices, solid axles front and rear, with easily replaceable body panels. Start with a Ranger chassis because it's in production already, design and build a sheet-metal body, and get some good axles, you're good to go. The hardest parts is stamping some sheet metal. It MUST share as much of the SAME parts as possible. Same brakes front and rear, same springs, same everything. Easy to work on, easy to modify with the aftermarket or even dealer parts, and cool to drive. You know how cool a Bronco is. Imagine a smaller version...and easier to work on (as if they aren't easy enough, compared to other vehicles). Market the vehicle for immediate off-road use, farm use, and get the public excted to drive a vehicle again.
On another point-why so many different size bolts! I realize different parts require bigger or smaller hardware, but why not regulate that small parts will use 1/4" hardware, Engine parts will use 3/8" hardware, Larger engine parts will use 1/2" hardware, chassis parts will use 5/8" hardware. I pulled the motor from my truck yesterday and all the different bolts had me nuts! By using 4 official sizes for everything-production costs will be down, that's for sure. Keep this vehicle in production for more than 6 years at a time and the costs of new machinery will be down too.
Shame on the public for not buying Domestic vehicles to begin with, and shame on the automakers for producing high-priced JUNK we backyard, weekend-warrior mechanics can't work on! Electronic-controlled engines? how do you work on that? 6.9/7.3 mechanical IDI-yes, easy enough with a good generic tool set.
And-they need to thin down the truck line-up. Why have a F250 and F350 the same? Only difference being amount of leaf springs and a different size spacer. Bring the F250 up to 10k lb. gvw available in a pickup, and only offer the F350 as a dually. That should thin out the trucks just sitting on a lot doing nothing. Why have a 8600 lb GVW pickup available if we all know it's the same parts as an F350, meaning it has the same capabilities as an F350?

 

My previous post was thick with sarcasm (not always easy to convey in writing). I haven't changed my spending habits since the recession hit, and have no intention of buying a new vehicle. Its true that if people simply started spending again, it might help, but I have to wonder how long the prosperity would really last if old habits return.

Didn't realize the Jeeps are still on the same platform as 25 years ago though. Interesting factoid there. The 80-96 was a great line of truck, but had certain aspects that were obsolete, like exposed rain gutter, and primitive weather seals around the windows that affected aerodynamics negatively. Thats not to say I consider the 1997 F150 to be a superior truck though

My ultimate dream truck would be built on a stainless steel chassy with cab and box structures made of space frames (cab strong enough to be a roll cage). Unstressed composite or aluminum skin would then be attached with screws and bolts to the space frames. Any damaged panels could be replaced without having to cut anything off in a long, drawn out invasive surgery.

Powertrain would be based around either an old school mechanical turbo diesel, or a high compression,un throttled diesel fueled 3-4 rotor wankel engine (possibly turbocharged) connected to an electro motive diesel powertrian. One big generator on the engine, and 1 motor in each wheel. All 3 phase AC for low cost and no wear parts like brushes. You also just eliminated thousands of moving parts worth of transmission, transfer case, drive shafts, differentials, and axle shafts. In theory the drivetrain efficiency could be as high as 90%, instead of the standard 70% that most trucks have right now.

A vehicle like this would have no gearing limitations and would be capable of rock crawling or 80 MPH freeway cruising with completely dynamic gearing in between for ideal fuel economy under most any condition without having to think about gear swaps like in our trucks. Having motors in each wheel also give a powerful dynamic braking effect like what EMD locomotives have.

Add a battery pack to the works and you have an instant hybrid further pushing up performance and MPGs. Base models could simply have engine and generator to save cost and weight. The vehicle can also function as a backup generator. The same powertrain could easily be adapted to other vehicle classes.

Needless to say, my standards for blowing 40-70 thousand on a new truck are rather high, and until I am offered something like what I just described, I will not be supporting any local automaker or their workers by purchasing their product.

 

I'll bet the '73-'91 GM truck chassis was more profitable/higher production count than anything else.
The CJ and Wrangler bodies are not interchangeable, very similar but not interchangeable.
There are definite front axle improvements in the F-350 over the 250 until 2003 or so when they finally started just putting 60s in every SuperDuty.

I agree with you, I like the evolutionary changes of vehicles over time rather than the revolutionary changes every five years BUT I'm, a dyed-in-the-wool used vehicle guy so they aren't selling cars to you and me. They are selling to the peoople who don't work on their own car and whom they have CONVINCED once your car gets 100K miles on it it's time to get rid of it before it "falls apart". WE know that's usually BS but how many people believe it?
The days of the simple, easy to work on vehicles are over. The new car buyers DEMAND all of the luxuries and conveniences and the government DEMANDS theemissions equipment and safety devices including pedestrian safety.

 

The reason for the bolt size issue?
If a fastener can be a hair smaller and a little cheaper, and still do the job you save $12 per vehicle, multiplied by 100,000 units is $1,200,000 in savings.
I had started recording excessive fastener length for a caterpillar cab subcontractor before I got laid off as some engineer spec'd a bunch of them way too long and the longer ones cost more.

And the redesign issue?
After the Ford 9" was out long enough that everyone and their cousin starts making replacement parts, Ford no longer has the monopoly on the parts.
Redesign the parts from scratch and they regain the monopoly.

Also, if you make the computer controlled system diagnostic repair equipment too expensive for the small shop around the corner to buy, they can't repair it.
So now Ford regains that monopoly.

Also, the common owner does not maintain a vehicle as well as a mechanic like myself would.
And if they built them easy to repair, or to last forever, you would no longer buy new cars.
Junk the old ones and prevent them from supplying used parts.
Monopoly regained again.

My first new car was an 88 Diahatsu Charade with the 998cc 3 cylinder and 5 speed lasted over 320,000 miles on the original, un-rebuilt engine and trans before the ex killed it 2 months after getting it in the divorce.
I also used mostly salvaged parts if they were seemingly perfect or non wear items.

My second is a 2002 Hyundai Elantra GT 2.0 and 5 speed with over 120,000 and still going strong!

 

So, if they saved $12 per vehicle on the hardware...how much extra do they spend paying an employee to switch tools?
Tools-Though they have every tool already...that means they have to keep a back-up (or two or three) of EVERY tool...not just a few back-ups for 4 sizes of hardware...

 

I wonder if any IDIs have been put to death with the clunker cash engine seize? Its hard to think about that happening. I could never fill an IDI with liquid glass.

 

Found this on the other site:

http://www.fightcashforclunkers.org/