nine point five
Banned
- 1,279
- 214
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
edit.
Last edited:
Cash 4 Clunkers (A Retrospective) Vol. 310 Toyota SUPRAS Destroyed!!!
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by dankenstien88,
- Start date
- 3,094
- 468
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
damn i never thought about it like this
the supra and vette hurt to watch
to think all those e30's, classic VW's, vette/ porsche wheels, just random and misc. parts, motor swaps just all going to waste hurts
smh @ this.. parts are going to be crazy expensive in the future if they already arent
Still want a slammed Karmann Ghia on old school porsche wheels
the supra and vette hurt to watch
to think all those e30's, classic VW's, vette/ porsche wheels, just random and misc. parts, motor swaps just all going to waste hurts
smh @ this.. parts are going to be crazy expensive in the future if they already arent
Still want a slammed Karmann Ghia on old school porsche wheels
- 3,094
- 468
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
obviously you arent involved in the car culture
understandable
- 13,529
- 9,454
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2008
The most common trades were American pick up for American pick up or SUV for SUV. Under the regulations of of the program trucks/suvs were only obligated to get 2mpg better than the "clunker" traded in.
This program intended to sell new cars, in this regard it was a success. But claiming these cars were "clunkers " unfit for the road is a total crock.
- 37,039
- 12,392
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
You gotta be kidding me, right ?
I completely agree with andy, this program fooled people into trading in a vehicle they OWNED for a monthly payment and the possibility of repossession.
Do you know what the program was for?
1a. To increase sales of new cars, and keep many car dealerships in business
1b. To get people to buy cars with more effeciency
Those were the metrics by which the plan were to be graded on... And by those metrics IT SUCCEEDED..
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/30/success-threatens-sink-cash-clunkers-program/
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-07-30-cash-for-clunkers-program-suspended_N.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32269548/ns/business-autos/t/cash-clunkers-boosts-auto-sales-july/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32567404/ns/business-autos/t/clunkers-moved-almost-new-cars/
But let's say it failed because it destroyed some Supras and it makes you cry to see that happen.
- 4,122
- 640
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
Do you know what the program was for?
1a. To increase sales of new cars, and keep many car dealerships in business
1b. To get people to buy cars with more effeciency
Those were the metrics by which the plan were to be graded on... And by those metrics IT SUCCEEDED..
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/30/success-threatens-sink-cash-clunkers-program/
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-07-30-cash-for-clunkers-program-suspended_N.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32269548/ns/business-autos/t/cash-clunkers-boosts-auto-sales-july/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32567404/ns/business-autos/t/clunkers-moved-almost-new-cars/
But let's say it failed because it destroyed some Supras and it makes you cry to see that happen.
oh but didnt this program cost about 24,000 to junk each car? it also caused used cars to go up. some people didnt even get a fuel efficient car cause all the EPA estimates are manipulated.
- 4,122
- 640
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
http://content.usatoday.c...post/2009/10/620000657/1
Taxpayers ended up paying an average of $24,000 per vehicle for the cash-for-clunkers program over the summer when sales that would have happened anyway are taken into consideration, says car-buying research site Edmunds.com.
The program, which cost taxpayers $3 billion, gave car buyers up to $4,500 in incentives to trade in their gas-guzzling clunkers to buy new fuel-thrifty cars. It was intended primarily to spur sales, and the economy.
But Edmunds.com says a lot of those sales would have happened anyway, with or without the clunkers program. Of more than 690,000 vehicles sold, only about 125,000 of the sales were entirely due to the government's added inducement, Edmunds.com says. The rest of buyers just got lucky by getting the government to kick cash into deals that they would have proceeded with anyhow. When the cost of the program is spread over just those extra incremental sales, the total is $24,000 per vehicle.
That's just about $2,000 shy of the average amount paid for a new car by buyers in August, $26,915.
To conduct the analysis, the Edmunds.com looked at the sales trend for luxury vehicles and others not included in cash for clunkers. It then applied those sales against the total adjusted sales rate of all cars to make estimates. "These estimates were independently verified through careful examination of sales patterns reflected by transaction data," it says.
âThis analysis is valuable for two reasons,â
- 13,529
- 9,454
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2008
But let's say it failed because it destroyed some Supras and it makes you cry to see that happen.
I smell a troll.
It took 3 pages for the first post with a legitimate criticism of the plan backed up by some actual analysis. (The post saying that most of the car sales would have happened without the C 4 Clunkers and the plan cost taxpayers $24,000 per sale)Originally Posted by dankenstien88
I smell a troll.
- 1,336
- 11
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
govment be ******ez sometimez.
- 37,039
- 12,392
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
University of Delaware study shows only a net cost of $2,000 per car... Edmunds.com study says that they THINK only 125,000 of the 690,000 sales were caused by the program.. That's where they get the numbers from. If you use the metric of 690,000 vehicles sold at $2,800,000,000 in cost, you get $4,057 cost to taxpayer per car, which is the average of the rebate.
Also projections of sales in 2009 were often faulty because consumer confidence was shaky at best.. There was no way to appropriately forecast sales of new cars in that market.
Another argument is it took future sales, which is also up for debate because had their not been a rebate of $3,500-4,500, plus increased value of trade-ins, and other specials run by specific dealerships it is not a certainty that the person who purchased a new car from cash for clunkers would have in say November 2009 or February 2010.
All of the COSTS of the program are based on perceived market projections.. That are difficult to make from a government side, wall street perspective, business prospective, or analyst perspective with the amount of uncertainty in the market
- 8,148
- 104
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
smh
- 4,122
- 640
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
everyone knows governments like to over/underestimate things in their favor. but dont worry we will be getting another stimulus programs for the GM inventory problems they are experiencing right now cause we really need 2 cars with a note attached to at least one of em per person and a mortgage we cant afford that will probably go underwater.
- 37,039
- 12,392
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
I didn't use any government metrics other than the 690,000 instances of Cash 4 Clunkers rebates.. Which is not disputed by anyone that 690,000 rebates were given.
As well most people do not own their used car. And still have car payments on it for a few years after they buy the used car. (Key word MOST). Even buying a good used car, it takes most families over a few years to officially own that car.. Secondly with used cars people often have major repairs necessary, which add to the cost of the car... Take into account that by the time you "own" the car it would most likely be over 100K, where repairs become more and more a regular occurences.. And would you agree a car with a few hundred miles is not going to have a tenth of the repair costs of a car sitting at 80K miles, or 100K miles..
With Cash 4 Clunkers it gave them not only the incentive of getting a new car with maybe 10-20% off the sticker price, it gave them the one time chance of getting well over the market value for their used car.. And many dealerships were giving better deals than they normally would have to try and cash in on the massive increase in business..
Could have been done way better, and for that I agree.. But to cast it as a program that failed because it was not a 100% success is looking for perfection in a world that not only a government could provide, but neither could a market.
As well most people do not own their used car. And still have car payments on it for a few years after they buy the used car. (Key word MOST). Even buying a good used car, it takes most families over a few years to officially own that car.. Secondly with used cars people often have major repairs necessary, which add to the cost of the car... Take into account that by the time you "own" the car it would most likely be over 100K, where repairs become more and more a regular occurences.. And would you agree a car with a few hundred miles is not going to have a tenth of the repair costs of a car sitting at 80K miles, or 100K miles..
With Cash 4 Clunkers it gave them not only the incentive of getting a new car with maybe 10-20% off the sticker price, it gave them the one time chance of getting well over the market value for their used car.. And many dealerships were giving better deals than they normally would have to try and cash in on the massive increase in business..
Could have been done way better, and for that I agree.. But to cast it as a program that failed because it was not a 100% success is looking for perfection in a world that not only a government could provide, but neither could a market.
- 4,122
- 640
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
ok yea that sounds like a great idea but shouldnt the gubbermint let the market decide? if the car manufacturers and other car businesses were struggling they shouldve gave customers an incentive and not let the governments do it. look what happened to all the used cars. destroyed and sent to china as materials. this is like the broken window fallacy gone bipolar.
nine point five
Banned
- 1,279
- 214
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
Last edited:
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
so you're telling me da idiots who decided to trash their supras couldn't find someone to sell em to who would've appreciated em for MORE then 4,500 dollars?
- 13,529
- 9,454
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2008
Originally Posted by ninjahood
so you're telling me da idiots who decided to trash their supras couldn't find someone to sell em to who would've appreciated em for MORE then 4,500 dollars?
Living in Missouri, I know quite a few country bumpkins with classic cars they purchased new who would rather see their baby destroyed then somebody else behind the wheel.
- 5,456
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
Yet, the UAW is stronger than ever and just signed some new contracts with GM and Ford. Chrysler is going to be tougher to get a new deal because Fiat ain't American, but I see the UAW winning again.Originally Posted by ninjahood
bailing out car companies that were handcuffed by da UAW that provided hundreds of thousands of american jobs and UNTOLD amounts of jobs in daOriginally Posted by nicedudewithnicedreams
Word to bailing out GM.
aftermarket sector was a DROP in da bucket compared to what da government gave to da banks which started da whole mess in da first place..and let's not forget they STILL not letting
ppl borrow like that.
Do the people that defend the auto bailouts work in the auto industry? They love talking about how it saved thousands of jobs, but yet the US has lost plenty of other jobs that the Govt did not bail out... Life ain't fair I guess.
Big banks are wack, but they aren't the only reason the recession happened. Everyone has to take some responsibility.
