Got a clunker?

[Chuck52]

Anyone looking to cash in on the latest government give away? I kept my old 1991 F150 when I bought a newer used truck back in May. They weren't going to give me anything for it, and I figured I'd be able to get a few bucks for it or donate it and take the deduction. Now I'm wondering if I can cash it in using the clunker deduction. I looked up the EPA estimated mileage for a 2W six with 5 spd manual, and it was 15 city and 19 highway, which wouldn't qualify because the combined for a light truck is supposed to be 16 or less. However, there was a link to the newer estimates and that was 16 combined. So, looks like it's right on the line. We really could use a good commuter car because I drive my newer truck when DW isn't working, and I'd prefer to just use the truck as a truck and save gas. If my truck qualifies, I'd get a $4500 deduction or credit or whatever it is they are going to do.

This reminds me of how I feel when folks tell me they got their 20 year old roof replaced free because of hail damage. I'm happy for them....I guess....though it bugs me that insurance rates are high partly because of such things. I really would buy a car that gets much better mileage than my old truck, but in fact I'm not driving the old truck. Of course, if I sell it, someone will be driving it, and the idea is to take the gas-guzzlers off the road, so.... Still, we all end up paying for these deals, just like we all end up paying when someone wins the insurance lottery.

Chuck

 

[TBDonnelly]

I have a 2000 Dodge Grand Caravan I'd like to use in conjunction with the cash for clunker program (www.cars.gov) but because of the inconsistent vehicle ratings on www.fueleconomy.gov my minivan is not qualifying. Here's my findings:

Concerning the Chrysler family 3.3 Liter minivans MPG(combined)for the years 1998 thru 2002. The comparisons are as follows on fueleconomy.gov:

Year------Chrysler- Dodge- Plymouth
------------MPG-----MPG----MPG
1998--------18------18-------18
1999--------18------18-------18
2000--------18------19-------19
2001--------18------18-------18
2002--------18------18-------18

For a five year period all of the Chrysler family 3.3 liter minivans are rated for 18 MPG combined EXCEPT for the 2000 Dodge & Plymouth 3.3 liter minivans which are rated at 19 MPG combined. So, out of 15 'like' Chrysler family minivans operating with the same 3.3 liter engine over a five year period, 13 qualify (18MPG combined or less) for the CARS program while 2 do not qualify per www.fueleconomy.gov. Again, ALL minivans listed have the 3.3 Liter engine. Also noted is fueleconomy.gov does not rate the longer wheelbased Grand Caravan, but rates only the shorter wheelbased Caravan.

This inconsistency unfairly excludes the 2000 3.3 liter Dodge and Plymouth owners from participating in the CARS program. While I can understand the intent of the CARS criteria, in the real world fueleconomy.gov and the CARS program are not meshing well.

Don

Update: After just checking www.fueleconomy.gov the Minivan headings have been updated to read: 'Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan' although the mileage numbers have remained the same.

 

[LBrown59]

A*This reminds me of how I feel when folks tell me they got their 20 year old roof replaced free because of hail damage.
B* I'm happy for them....I guess....though it bugs me that insurance rates are high partly because of such things.
C* We all end up paying for these deals, just like we all end up paying when someone wins the insurance lottery.
***************************
Chuck

***************************
A*So you're saying insurers should not have to pay claims on damages they have collected a premium on?
The roof replacement wasn't free because the insurance co was paid to do it.
B* So you feel insurers ought to weasel out of paying legit claims in order to keep rates low.
C*No one wins the insurance lottery except the insurance industry ..

 

[Chuck52]

LB,

You're right. Since most insurance coverage is for replacement value, and you can't replace a 20 year old roof with another 20 year old roof, the cost of replacing such roofs is built into the premiums. When my roof gets a few more years on it I'll start praying for hail. Don't want to be like the politicians complaining about the stimulus money while holding their hands out, so if I can get $4500 for my $500 pickup I'll take it and celebrate. Thanks for getting my thinking straight.

Chuck

 

[dooleysm]

The thing is, I'm pretty sure you have to buy a new vehicle in that cash for clunkers program, right?

How many people with an old, inefficient car can afford to go out and buy a brand new vehicle? There's a reason people are driving around these old gas guzzlers. They can't afford something else. $4500 is not going to change that in most cases, in my opinion.

 

[Chuck52]

True. And that's part of my comment about mixed feelings concerning the program. I do have an old clunker that may qualify and that I can afford to get rid of. If the idea is to reduce the overall gas usage, that I would probably replace the clunker with a small commuter type car that gets really good MPG would seem to fit the original intent of the folks who dreamed it all up. However, in fact I do not drive that clunker anymore, so it wouldn't be me not using the old clunker but whoever I sold or donated it to. Anyway, thanks to LB I no longer am concerned with that philosophical detail. If I can find a really good deal on a small commuter car, and also get the rebate for my clunker, I'll go for it.

I suspect that many clunkers this will remove from the road will turn out to not be on the road anyway.

Chuck

 

[dooleysm]

Well, I think another part of the program is that the car has to have been insured for the previous year, right? That keeps new car shoppers from going out and buying a $200 clunker and trading it in for the $4500 voucher. I suspect that there will be very few people who take advantage of this program in the spirit it was intended.

 

[jinman]

Chuck, I have paid well over an average of $1000 per year for homeowner's insurance for a period of 27 years. In that time, I've had one roof replaced and one garage door replaced when a drunk drove through it. The total claims paid to me over that time were less than $4000. I would not feel bad at all that the insurance company paid for a new replacement on a 20 yr old roof.

I would also not feel bad about getting that clunker money on a trade-in for purchase of a new vehicle. That deal will stimulate the economy way more than that $4500. Heck, you'll pay almost that much in extra full-coverage insurance on that new car if it is financed for 5 years or more. You'd probably even consider spending a little more money of the purchased vehicle too. I don't think you will do that much for the environment, but that's a good use of tax money that comes back to you as disposable income. It's gotta be better than paying bonuses to AIG execs with taxpayer money.

Previously, Texas had a clunker rebate for cars over a certain age in certain high pollution cities. Unfortunately, you had to have a family income that was far less than most people who could afford to buy a new car. I gave my daughter and her family my old '92 Honda Accord, but they made too much money and could not get the rebate. They are enjoying driving that old Honda though. It has 365K miles and runs like a top, giving 25-27 mpg.

 

[DIRTROAD]

I don't think many people will be able to take advantage of the program. I would love to take advantage of it, but my vehicles either do not qualify or are worth more than the guaranteed money available. I can possibly forsee some fallout due to peoples vehicles not being approved. I hope all that can take advantage of it will.

 

[Redbug]

In many cases, keeping the paid for old clunker and driving it...is still the better deal and cheaper...than trading it in on the new more fuel efficient car. The old one is paid off/no loan payments, lower insurance, etc. Month to month that is cheaper...even though you may be buying more gas for the older one. It may not be more efficient for the environment but it's more efficient on your pocket.

I think the cash for clunker deal is for someone that was already planning to buy a new car, anyways. I don't agree that us taxpayers should be subsidizing someone buying another car. Whatever happened to all the green fuel use of corn? I thought that was the way the country was going to go? Petroleum is cheaper, now. Gas and cars are intertwined. Hmmm...I wonder if there's any way to get my electric bill subsidized...