The CFC was not to get the clunkers off the road. It was a plot to get the dealers selling cars so that they can pay off more of their "loan" quicker. The good thing for those of us that repair or build our own vehicles it has become a gold mine. Some people who took advantage of this program need to have their heads examined. I was in the local yard in SLC and saw a lot of people pulling parts off of one car. I squeezed in to see what the deal was and it was a '67 mustang with the CFC sticker on the engine saying that the engine had the liquid glass poured into the oil to destroy the engine block.

The body was straight but needed a paint job. This person could have put the car on ebay and gotten enough money to buy a new car outright with some left over but instead got the 4500 trade in.

 

Dealer could write it up on the customer side as a C4C, but is not obligated to submit the C4C request to the government. Thus, he can clean that car up and sell it for it's true value. See this thread and the articles posted:

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/8...-vehicles.html

 

What idiot would trade a 25th Trans Am thats paid for for a Cobalt with payments?

 

I agree. I think the CFC program was a plot to get the dealers selling more cars. It really had very little to do with getting gas guzzlers off the road.

Someone clunkered a 67 Mustang? What a jackass!

 

I don't think the '67 Mustang was for C4C....the law clearly states that the vehicles cannot be 25 years or older...
Roger

 

For anyone who is upset at seeing nice trucks in the junkyard, here's a question - would you have paid the owner $4500 for it?

 

For some of them, yes. I do see your point though. For many of the trucks that have been trashed I fully believe they were worth $4,500.

 

That dealer was free to buy the cars for more money as trade-ins instead of doing CFC, and some dealers did.

 

i was searching around the local scrapyard today and i came across a eddie bauer with the 40/20/40 bucket seats for 15 dollars.Is this a good buy or what

 

I can't believe you got those seats for 15 bucks. Thats crazy. They usually sell for 200-300 bucks.

 

i had to pay a 2 dollar core but that was it.I got them about a hour ago and installed pretty simple and easy,wish i had the extra cash cause there was a couple more sets up there.There must of been a row of 90 late 80s to mid 90s f-150s.The eddie bauer i took mine out of was mint other than the motor had oil all over it so i'm sure that was shot even before the water glass was put in it

 

This didn't happen.

If you saw it with your own eyes, then either:

a) someone put the sticker on this '67 'Stang as a joke, or
b) the dealer actually allowed a $3,500. or $4,500. credit on an INELIGIBLE CAR, (the Mustang) and will not receive reimbursement from the Fed. Gov't., even if they allowed the 'Stang owner a discount of $4,500. on a new car.

Why?

As noted by Roger T. Pipe, it states right on the C4C Program's website:

See for yourself, at the fifth bullet-point down, here:
CARS.gov - Car Allowance Rebate System - Home - Formerly Referred to as “Cash for Clunkers”

I saw a V-12 Mercedes S-Class, from the '80's-'90's, clunkered. I watched the Service Mgr. fire it up, the day after the program ended. I left before I had to witness him giving it the last rites.
-----------------------------------------------

andym,

Thank you for making this point (again)--I made it in the older, longer C4C thread, but obviously, it bears repeating:

People need to consider that shiny paint and a clean interior don't mean the truck didn't have major mechanical problems. How many F-Series auto-tranny owners here have had trans-problem$ that they didn't want to pay to fix? If it was worth more than $4,500., a normal person would have sold it outright, not "sold" it to the CRC Program at a loss....

The C4C had problems, no doubt. But there's waaay too much negative hype and MYTH surrounding the C4C Program. For example, I saw in one of the two C4C threads, here, where someone alleged that 80% of the new cars purchased were "Asian." The fact is that American cars made up roughly 42% of the new cars purchased under the C4C:

Source: Was Cash for Clunkers Good for Detroit? | Newsweek Business: Cash for Clunkers | Newsweek.com

Should the C4C have been limited to allow American car purchases only? Yes--I don't see why it wasn't. But for that we can blame Congress, who should have put more "teeth" in it. Maybe if the House worked a longer week than 2.5 days, they'd have time to get more **** right.

House cuts workweek to 2 1/2 days
Source: House cuts workweek to 2 1/2 days | Raw Story

We can attempt to "vote (some of) the bums out" in 2010--and by "bums" I mean almost ALL of the members of both Houses of Congress--Dems and Repubs alike. (Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler excepted, IF they renounce the "Do-Nothing-Dems" and go Third Party.)

We need a viable THIRD PARTY....

In the meantime, it would behoove some to attempt to verify what the rules of the C4C are, and what the actual results were (hint: Google is your friend). Dealers can and did make mistakes, so if that '67 Mustang was clunkered, some dealer is $3,500.-4,500. in the hole....

In addition to the missing "buy American" clause I think C4C should have contained, I also wish there was no 180-day limit on how long the parts can remain in the wreckers' yards--that seems harsh, and I cannot imagine what earthly good it does anyone to not allow the carcasses to stay in the yard until they're picked clean.

In the meantime, enjoy the cheap, plentiful parts.

Big Six