Go Back   986 Forum - for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners > Porsche Boxster & Cayman Forums > Boxster General Discussions

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-07-2009, 12:02 PM   #1
Registered User
 
tonycarreon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Frederick, MD
Posts: 1,396
ca$h for clunker$ @ stealership

just got back from my local stealership - picking up an oil filter - and noticed this clunker sitting there. made me laugh.




tonycarreon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 12:17 PM   #2
Registered User
 
Lil bastard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Du Monde
Posts: 2,199
Interesting. I was just at my local dealership yesterday where I brought the subject up to the GM and the bulk of his sales force, and they said that the cash-for-clunkers program has done nothing for them - haven't had a single one, nor did they expect any.

They said that their usual clientele doesn't normally keep a car long enough to qualify as a clunker.

Collectively, their political view of the program was that it was a useless, wasteful, 'feel good' with little real effect either on the current economic woes, or in it's impact on environmental concerns.

__________________
1990 Porsche 964 Carrera 4 Cabriolet
1976 BMW 2002
1990 BMW 325is
1999 Porsche Boxster
(gone, but not forgotten)
http://i933.photobucket.com/albums/a...smiley-003.gif

Never drive faster than your Guardian Angel can fly!
Lil bastard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 12:21 PM   #3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 92
I explored this opportunity for getting a new car for my wife.

You can get all the info you need at http://www.cars.gov

There you'll read that

"Trade-in vehicles must be registered and insured continuously for the full year preceding the trade-in"

and also that the clunker needs to have an MPG efficiency lower than 18. If you have an old Jeep (Wrangler) you could qualify for that, but again you would be able to sell it for $4000 anyway...

I don't think many cars qualify...

Still, it's funny that people are trying to sell junk cars as "clunkers"
gstoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 03:22 PM   #4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 7,240
What bothers me is the fact that the government didn't limit the program to domestic new car purchases. We're giving millions of dollars to Asian car makers when we partially own 2/3 of the domestic brands right now.

Makes no business sense whatsoever. Pay yourself back first.
__________________
'97 Boxster (Black Hole for 42,000 Dead Presidents and counting) - 122k
New motor, transmission, suspension, and on and on and on it goes...
RandallNeighbour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 03:48 PM   #5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 92
Randal, The aim of the CARS program is to limit foreign oil imports.
By allowing Asian cars to participate in this program they actually help customers getting rid of their old inefficient cars while buying (almost) whatever they like or find more affordable.

The government will get their money back because of all the pros that come with (loosely speaking) energy independence. So, the idea is clever...

Now, what is that car that costs less than $4500, has been in your possession and fully insured for the last year and has an MPG higher than 18? That's a question I haven't been able to answer :-)
gstoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 03:52 PM   #6
Registered User
 
tonycarreon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Frederick, MD
Posts: 1,396
on this randall we do not disagree and maybe that makes me a bad democrat...

however i think the problem in limiting it to domestic cars is that it's getting harder to define what a domestic car is, is it one where the co. is based in the US? is it one where the car is built in the US?

toyota has a large presence here so cutting them out would have possibly meant layoffs in ?retaliation? either way, the program had potential, as did TARP, but then we let lawmakers set the rules and it went downhill from there.

( and this thread is getting close to being a lounge thread. i knew i should have created it there. )
tonycarreon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2009, 07:06 PM   #7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 287
Protectionism..

Is very bad and is not at all capitalism. For one thing, other countires always retaliate. This was a major factor in the great depression. You don't buy their cars they don't buy your planes or corn and so on. Besides what is an america car today? A honda built in ohio or chrysler built in canada?

Also in any of these programs there are unitended outcomes some funny, some not. I sold my ford explorer to my neighbor two years ago for $2,000 and he spent $500 for tires - last Saturday he bought a new ford focus and got the $4.500. We got a good laugh over beers on that.

But, the teenager or poor young adult (unemployment here is nearly 25%) just lost a chance to get a good, dependable cheap truck - since it now crushed and off the market. And with poor credit scores they can't qualify for a new car purchase - so on this one Obama screwed the poor...not the rich.
urban_legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2009, 01:01 AM   #8
Registered User
 
Lil bastard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Du Monde
Posts: 2,199
The Obama administration - if they had half a brain, they'd be half-wits!

Look at how the world is beginning to respond - Foreign Tax Breaks

In case you don't get it, India is now going to give a 10 yr. tax break on foreign revenue earned by indian automakers.

So what you say?

Well, Tata is now the owner of Jaguar, to name just one. This is a form of dumping, and whatever else, is certainly not gonna make the big three competitive.

And, the Senate is proposing tax breaks for those automakers who recieved federal bailout money. Ford, who didn't request or receive any federal money and is the only US automaker to try and make it on their own, without the dole, will be excluded by this bill.

Waaay to go Mr. Prez.

__________________
1990 Porsche 964 Carrera 4 Cabriolet
1976 BMW 2002
1990 BMW 325is
1999 Porsche Boxster
(gone, but not forgotten)
http://i933.photobucket.com/albums/a...smiley-003.gif

Never drive faster than your Guardian Angel can fly!
Lil bastard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2009, 06:10 AM   #9
Registered User
 
Brucelee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 8,083
And then there is the case of my cousin.

Drives a 17 yr old Lexus with 310K on it.

She hears about the CFC program and decides its time for a new Lexus.

Now, I love my cousin but hey, she could buy 5 Lexus' for cash and not bat an eye. So, for the sake of an extra grand or so, she is in a lather to get a new Lexus.

Net net, her gas savings will likely be 8 MPG at the end of the day.

Do you think the govt could spend our money more wisely?

Hey, I hope so.
__________________
Rich Belloff

Brucelee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2009, 06:38 AM   #10
Registered User
 
tnoice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 355
Unfortunately the whole program is stupid and un-thought out. And why they are asking for the destruction of all of these vehicles that a teenager or a less fortunate family could use I will never understand. Lets advocate the acquisition of more debt!!!


__________________
Lov'n my boxster!

2013 Lexus IS350awd
2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser
2004 Porsche Boxster S
tnoice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2009, 06:40 AM   #11
Registered User
 
tnoice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandallNeighbour
What bothers me is the fact that the government didn't limit the program to domestic new car purchases. We're giving millions of dollars to Asian car makers when we partially own 2/3 of the domestic brands right now.

Makes no business sense whatsoever. Pay yourself back first.

Just have to say; Toyota and Honda produce just as many cars in the US as Ford and GM. Toyota and Honda atleast do not outsource to Canada and Mexico.
__________________
Lov'n my boxster!

2013 Lexus IS350awd
2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser
2004 Porsche Boxster S
tnoice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2009, 06:45 AM   #12
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 92
IMHO you are really missing the point here.

Brucelle, your cousin has too many $$$ sitting in the bank. The government needs to find a way to keep the economy rolling. When she buys a new Lexus (let's say for 40K) the dealer pays something like 10% (I guess it's way more but let's say it's 10%) in taxes. So for the government it's just a tax brake, they are not spending our money. They just don't get any BUT they help the economy rolling (which is crucial in our times). People working on the dealership will not loose their jobs, she would drive more to enjoy here new car, she might go on driving vacations etc etc... Just have money available in the market

On the other hand, the main point is this:
I am Greek. Greece is exporting vegetables, olive oil, yogurt, an of of course is making most of its money from tourism. We import everything else. To make our economy stronger the government needs to find ways to export more than we import.
Generally speaking, in Europe the "clunker" idea would fail because the concept in most of the cities is "do not use your car". But cities are built with an infrastructure that can support the "using mass trasportation" concept. In Boston, where I live now, there are several incentives in using the "T" (the public trasportation system). But if you live in UT or OH then you need to (must) use your car.

So, America is importing huge quantities of oil. Reducing that (by using more efficient cars) is good for the economy. You will end up importing less! And your carbon footprint is reduced at the same time.

Now, I agree that they mixed up a bright concept by allowing only some of the car companies in the CARS program (did they? I am not so sure) and by letting people think that this program supports the american automotive industry.

Last example...
Brazil was a joke (really people were laughing at their government) when they were spending millions on bio-ethanol research and developing an infrastructure for bio-ethanol. Today Brazil is one of the very few countries that enjoy independence in transportations fuels. They even export bio-ethanol.

Sometimes, it takes time for people to see the good in decisions that don't make sense at the time taken...
gstoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2009, 07:40 AM   #13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 142
gstoli, you've been drinking the kool-aid too much.

Cash for Clunkers is not about reducing foreign oil consumption.

If it were, there would be a second "step" in the process that would allow less-affluent consumers to trade in their true "clunkers" for the cars that were traded in by the more affluent. The guy in Cleveland driving around in a 12-mpg 1976 Caprice that hasn't seen a tune-up since the Reagan years would be happy to get a grand for it in trade on a 17-mpg traded-in "cash for clunkers" car.

Instead, Cleveland guy is still stuck driving the 1976 Caprice, and polluting more to boot. Meanwhile, the engine in the 17-mpg vehicle is rendered permanently inoperable.

Brilliant idea, Obama administration.

Cash for Clunkers is simply "feel good" legislation that is supposed to make the sheeple think that their government is "taking action!" Fortunately, from the online chatter I've seen, most people aren't buying it, and see it for what it really is.

Last edited by Banana S; 08-08-2009 at 07:42 AM.
Banana S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2009, 07:57 AM   #14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Depends on the day of the week....
Posts: 1,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana S
gstoli, you've been drinking the kool-aid too much.

Cash for Clunkers is not about reducing foreign oil consumption.

If it were, there would be a second "step" in the process that would allow less-affluent consumers to trade in their true "clunkers" for the cars that were traded in by the more affluent. The guy in Cleveland driving around in a 12-mpg 1976 Caprice that hasn't seen a tune-up since the Reagan years would be happy to get a grand for it in trade on a 17-mpg traded-in "cash for clunkers" car.

Instead, Cleveland guy is still stuck driving the 1976 Caprice, and polluting more to boot. Meanwhile, the engine in the 17-mpg vehicle is rendered permanently inoperable.

Brilliant idea, Obama administration.

Cash for Clunkers is simply "feel good" legislation that is supposed to make the sheeple think that their government is "taking action!" Fortunately, from the online chatter I've seen, most people aren't buying it, and see it for what it really is.
I'll second this. Even if you approve of the idea of the program (which I don't), it kills me to see plenty of perfectly viable cars (for the less affluent) wind up as scrap.

Not to mention, if I were going to help someone out by offering them $4500 for their car, which was only worth, say, $2000, I would want to sell it for at least $1000 and cut my loss from $4500 to $3500. Multiply this by the number of cars we, as the taxpayer, are effectively buying, and it amounts to a significant sum. How about the car that got traded that was really worth $4000? Another decent car going to the scrap pile for no reason.

I'm also surprised that the environmentalists haven't ********************ed about this yet from the standpoint of the materials and resources used to make these new cars.
__________________
Boxster S
Cloudsurfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2009, 09:13 AM   #15
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 92
I don't even vote here, so why am I defending Obama's policy???
Well, I don't, I just think CARS is a program in the right direction.

A teenager can always buy a car for a few $$$. The cars in the 1-3K range are typically the old camrys focuses civics and so, that don't qualify as clunkers because of their (relatively) high mpg (higher than 18).
Now if a teenager wants to buy a 1990 Wrangler (that qualifies as a clunker), well he (or she) shouldn't!

The old guy from Cleveland with the 30 years old Caprice is driving a car for 30 years with an average millage per day less than 30 (30 miles * 300 days * 30 years = 300K miles => the engine is dead or will die very soon). His Caprice doesn't qualify as a clunker because of the 25-years-old upper limit of the CARS program. It shouldn't because it's not being driven a lot and it will die soon (if it's not almost dead, left in a backyard, waiting for some stupid government to call it a "clunker" ). These cars will not have a significant effect on tomorrow's oil consumption.

The CARS program, is a tax brake. When we trade clunkers between us, generally when we buy a used car, we don't pay tax (or at least is negligible). So, when you trade your 15 years old 16 MPG clunker for a 12 years old 18 MPG better clunker and the government pays you $4000, then it's me and you who are actually paying that money. Do you want that? I don't...

And finally, the clunkers are not supposed to be sold because the whole point is to stop using them! If the government sells them for (say) $1K, then the concept of CARS is lost... The inefficient clunkers will still be used...

The beauty of the program is endless IMO . The only thing that is wrong is that a low MPG "clunker" typically costs $3-5K anyway... So, the $4.5K are not as tempting. If you are going to make an omelet you need to brake some eggs (pay a few extra $$$, so the customer is really tempted for change) ....
gstoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2009, 06:52 PM   #16
Registered User
 
Brucelee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 8,083
As the resident libertarian, I am all for small small government. You can understand why I think the Feds meddling in car purchases is not such a good idea.

But, hey, I could be wrong!
__________________
Rich Belloff

Brucelee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2009, 08:30 PM   #17
Registered User
 
Lil bastard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Du Monde
Posts: 2,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brucelee
As the resident libertarian, I am all for small small government. You can understand why I think the Feds meddling in car purchases is not such a good idea.

But, hey, I could be wrong!

I agree completely. And CARS is just the beginning.

If anyone really want to get the ******************** scared out of them, download the text of H.R. 3200 the "America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009". The degree to which this act wants to direct the choices and level of care you may have, and intrude into your lives, such as complete and involuntary access to your financial records, is truly hair raising. It makes the Canadian and British healthcare system look good by comparison.

My most disturbing issue with the current Congress, and Administration (beyond policymaking) is the degree of secrecy and lack of debate on issues which have very real effects on both our wallets and our lives.

To date, any legislation (or Presidential Orders) has rarely seen the light of day until it has already been enacted as the 'Law of the Land'. There seems to be a priority on rushing everything through with little debate or explanation to the American people for fear that opposition may rise up. I believe that right now, it is more important than ever before to scrutinize everything coming out of our government... we're in this fix because of our collective abstinence and apathy for what is going on on our behalf, easy to assign blame elsewhere, especailly when the root cause is us!

Yet, through all this - (the poor economy, TARPS payments of millions, citizens of all strata tightening their belts), Congress still found the time to give itself a raise and fund a new fleet of private jets for their use.

IMHO, any healthcare proposal should first start with Congress and the White House doing away with their generous pension and healthcare plans! They should be forced to use, and pay into, Social Security and Medicare like all the rest of us. Then, and only then, will you see these programs improve for all of us.

__________________
1990 Porsche 964 Carrera 4 Cabriolet
1976 BMW 2002
1990 BMW 325is
1999 Porsche Boxster
(gone, but not forgotten)
http://i933.photobucket.com/albums/a...smiley-003.gif

Never drive faster than your Guardian Angel can fly!

Last edited by Lil bastard; 08-08-2009 at 11:25 PM.
Lil bastard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2009, 05:48 AM   #18
Registered User
 
Brucelee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 8,083
I agree completely. What galls me is the arrogance of these Congressman. They act like royalty, impervious to how the rest of the world lives.

As an example, as one bill come forward that has addressed how the USA will be economically competitive with the rest of the world?

How about the vanishing industrial base?

Instead, I hear BO feels that all US Citizens have a RIGHT to healthcare and a RIGHT to higher education. I guess we have a RIGHT to a new car too.

How can this nonsense be tolerated>?

A chicken is every pot was never true.
__________________
Rich Belloff

Brucelee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2009, 06:08 AM   #19
Registered User
 
tnoice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 355
Doesn't the Federal Government already have the power to look at your financial records through the immense power of the IRS!!
__________________
Lov'n my boxster!

2013 Lexus IS350awd
2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser
2004 Porsche Boxster S
tnoice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2009, 06:48 AM   #20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sanford NC
Posts: 2,388
I hate to tell you folks but it is working

Bruce's relative is getting 8MPG more. She spends her money, the dealer pays his salesguy, the salesguy feels good and buys a home. The money spins through the economy and everybody starts to feel normal times are a possibility and they start spending.

I see the new car across the street and I buy a new car because it is now socially acceptable to buy a car...I always could but I didn't want to be seen as one of the rich guys while others were suffering and I was saving my $ because I wasn't sure...and I don't qualify for the rebate but buy anyway and my money goes spinning through the economy.

And the cars that they are taking in are a glut on the market already. The used car lots I see are already full of precisely those cars and, by taking thousands out of the available market, they actually help the value of those still there. There will still be a lot of these cars available for those who need them because of their financial ability to spend and because of their family circumstances (my mini-van did 90k miles going back and forth to colleges with kids and their stuff and then I didn't need it any more and bought that higher-mileage Porsche Boxster)

And when I talk to people in the auto parts making business they see orders picking up, people being put on full time, people being hired and even an occasional shift being restarted. And a company or two saved....

without the governemnt owing anything or dictating which car you can buy.

At one time I owned a Dodge mini-van made in Ontario, a VW Jetta made in Mexico and a Mazda (partially owned by Ford) made in Michigan by UAW workers with 85% US parts content. I couldn't tell how I was to tell what the import was. But each was bought and serviced at a US dealership.

mikefocke is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page