Anti Clunker Bill

[vicious6]

Please take a moment to look at this and take action!

Are US government agents coming to seize my great granddad’s double-barreled, Parker shotgun from where it hangs above the fireplace? No, according to the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA), the government might first be coming after my ’89 Ford Country Squire!

The latest economic stimulus plan being considered by the US Congress could include money to pay owners of older cars to exchange their vehicles for vouchers that would be used to obtain newer, more fuel efficient vehicles. The old cars would be crushed.

California and other individual states have dabbled in vehicle retirement programs for the last twenty years. Get older, higher polluting, gas guzzling vehicles off the road by paying the owners something like $1000. The idea sounds appealing to some politicians’ constituents, but the programs usually fizzle out or are never implemented because they are too costly and unmanageable.

AAIA members are concerned because repairable cars and rebuildable parts would be destroyed. I think it is always a huge waste of natural and financial resources to turn a functioning vehicle into a compressed cube of junk.

It is also a myth that older, “clunker” cars are inherently bad because they pollute and guzzle gas. I paid $1200 for my ’89 Ford Country Squire seven years ago. It seats eight, gets over 20 miles per gallon (20 mpg) on the highway and weighs 1000 lbs. less than some new mini-vans. It does not leak a drop of anything and has a catalytic converter, oxygen sensor and plenty of other emissions parts. My wife’s little ’87 Mazda has a 1.6L engine and gets over 30 mpg! Crushing these cars and building new cars from scratch using today’s technology would not help the environment nor reduce gasoline consumption.

The impact would also be far-reaching and difficult to predict. There would be fewer inexpensive used cars for the low-income people many politicians claim to protect. Exports of used cars might decrease and the US trade deficit would increase. Even smash-up derby teams would have trouble finding cars to race!

If the government wants to subsidize new vehicle sales, then it should do it without hiding behind the false fig leaf that crushing older cars is wise and good. If you are feeling politically active, the AAIA has a neat web site for sending letters on this topic to senators and congressional representatives: Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association - Membership. Just to be safe, I am going to dig a hole in the backyard big enough to hide my old Ford. But I might leave my wife’s Mazda 323 out in the open if it gets me a voucher I can exchange for a new Dodge Challenger 6.1L Hemi!

Tom Taylor,
RockAuto.com

 

[By-Tor]

Is this a forced program or voluntary?
Also what is the difference between this bill and all the classic cars just sitting rusting away?

I think this bill is aimed towards the owners of older cars that are just pieces of junk, but they can't afford a better one.

I'm sure you, me and many others have seen these deathtraps on the road.

 

[SGRIM]

I got plenty of stuff to sale if they will give me a grand a piece for it:biggrin:

 

[TexasT]

Is this a forced program or voluntary?
Also what is the difference between this bill and all the classic cars just sitting rusting away?

I think this bill is aimed towards the owners of older cars that are just pieces of junk, but they can't afford a better one.

I'm sure you, me and many others have seen these deathtraps on the road.

So, trading a paid for beater in for a new, depreciating, car payment having one that they can't afford, is good logic? I don't see it. How about program to repair this beater into a good, clean running, well tuned, safe paid for beater. Stimulate the repair and aftermarket parts industry.

 

[corsair231]

So, trading a paid for beater in for a new, depreciating, car payment having one that they can't afford, is good logic? I don't see it. How about program to repair this beater into a good, clean running, well tuned, safe paid for beater. Stimulate the repair and aftermarket parts industry.

+1

Other than the physical space the car occupies, if a car is not running then it doesn't impact the enviroment. If it is one that is repaired and running correctly then it's impact should also be minimal. In reality it usually makes more sense to repair than to recycle. If you crush a car it will still take raw materials to create a new vehicle plus you have wasted all the energy that it took to create the original vehicle. The problem in this situation is that the manufacturers don't make money by keeping cars on the road. The problem for the consumer then becomes parts availability. Many cars have parts that are able to be used on multiple vehicles and randomly crushing cars without regards to what may still be useful on them is not good for our hobby. Does anyone really care about a 77 Caprice? Not really, but when you consider that the big car brakes, the engine, and transmission could be used on other vehicles, say an early 70's Chevelle, then it has more value than just the weight of the metal.

 

[By-Tor]

So, trading a paid for beater in for a new, depreciating, car payment having one that they can't afford, is good logic? I don't see it. How about program to repair this beater into a good, clean running, well tuned, safe paid for beater. Stimulate the repair and aftermarket parts industry.

I didn't mean a brand spanking new car, I meant a newer less crappier car then you have now.

If you have the time, money and ability to repair an old car so its good, clean running, well tuned, and safe. Then by all means do it. But some can't, so they don't and they throw their car away.

 

[DailyDrifter]

They will get my car with the imprint of their face in my bumper and my tire marks across their chests.

 

[V8Assassin]

I got plenty of stuff to sale if they will give me a grand a piece for it:biggrin:

I was sitting here reading this thinking about all the trades I took in doing F/I for 500 and less. Could make a fortune grabbing up old cars if they go through with this!!

 

[MeanBuicks]

The only old clunkers that need to be removed are members of Congress. They can kiss my ass if they want to use my money to subsidize the purchase of new cars by someone else when I'm in no position to go buy one myself.

 

[SGRIM]

I was sitting here reading this thinking about all the trades I took in doing F/I for 500 and less. Could make a fortune grabbing up old cars if they go through with this!!

:biggrin:

 

["Turbo-T"]

I think this idea has been brewing for quite some time but I don't see it getting thru. If you think about it, what percentage of actual old polluting cars are on the roads these days? It's not really all that big of a number. So it doesn't make any sense to abolish the ones that are left.

If anything they oughta look into a way to make diesel semi trucks not pollute so much.

 

[darkred87T]

I didn't mean a brand spanking new car, I meant a newer less crappier car then you have now.

I dunno, it sounds like so I would be trading my old peice of crap in for a newer "less crapier" peice of crap. I'm all for saving the environment but I think a bill like this could in the long run cost even more money and waste even more resources.

I agree with MeanBuicks. The only "Old Clucnkers" that need to be removed are the ones in congress.

 

[Rivical]

Funny that they continue under the delusion that there are so many old clunkers out there. The average 15yr old car these days has seen all the miles it can and is done! Why subsidize unless your trying to subsidize something else? Car sales? The 'have-not' Populace? I don't get it. Really, how many 20+ yo cars do you see anymore? I'll tell ya that here in the rust belt it's pretty rare to see one, and even then it generally looks better than the 7yo I'm driving to work in! Doesn't seem to me that the vehicles affected would be anything of intrest. And even CA has allowed stripping the interesting 'clunkers' for recyclable mat'l. read, good parts, the last I knew.

 

[faster]

So, trading a paid for beater in for a new, depreciating, car payment having one that they can't afford, is good logic? I don't see it. How about program to repair this beater into a good, clean running, well tuned, safe paid for beater. Stimulate the repair and aftermarket parts industry.

You are right on. That's what I do. There is always someone selling a great car with low mileags for a few thousand dollars. Florida is a great place to buy vehicles after the elderly die off and the kids don't want to ship stuff to their state.
Bought a flawless 50K mile 95 Cadillac LT-1 Fleetwood for $6000.00 a few years ago. 17 city and 26 highway.
Bought a flawless 17K mile 2002 Grand Marquis for $4500 last year.
Bought a Beautiful 40K mile 97 Cadillac De Elegance for $4500 just a few weeks ago.
Bought a 90K 97 Ford georgeous conversion fan with all leather captians chairs and all the bells and wistles for my tow vehicle (10K# tow capcity) for $5900 6 years ago.

I didn't mean a brand spanking new car, I meant a newer less crappier car then you have now.

If you have the time, money and ability to repair an old car so its good, clean running, well tuned, and safe. Then by all means do it. But some can't, so they don't and they throw their car away.

The bill will require you to buy a new car if you read the fine print. They want to get the auto indusrty going too. Kill two birds with one stone so to speak.

I think this idea has been brewing for quite some time but I don't see it getting thru. If you think about it, what percentage of actual old polluting cars are on the roads these days? It's not really all that big of a number. So it doesn't make any sense to abolish the ones that are left.

If anything they oughta look into a way to make diesel semi trucks not pollute so much.

Diesel trucks make far less pollution than cars do. They are far superior to cars. They make more dust in their exhaust and smell bad but have much less harmful contaminates.

My Peterbilt with the 14 liter Cummins and 32# boost uses only 2 gallons of fuel idleing all night. I could get 8.25 mpg on the old diesel fuel at 80,000 lbs being 13'6" high with 18 wheels of drag. I have the air cleaners and square hood and reefer and stacks all out in the wind. The aerodyne trucks could get 10 mpg if they tried. But I can only get 6.00-6.25 mpg on the new fuel now.
My wifes LT-1 Caddy at 4800# gets 17 city and 26-27 highway, my dads 97 Northstar Caddy gets 20-21 city and 30 highway.
Why can't a 3000# aerodynamic little car get better mileage that 22-25 city and 35 highway.
We're gettin hosed.

My Limited T is capable of high 10's and gets 16-17 city and 25 highway on 87 technology.



Mikey

 

[TexasT]

I, too, would like to know how this new low sulfur fuel is worth it. The mileage is horrible. My company ride get around 6 mpg and it is only 60K# straight truck. It is a 2006 model Cat but is equipped with all the 2010 emission equipment. It revs real good but man it lacks some low end grunt compared to the Cummins in the older rigs.

 

[TexasT]

OK, this came up in another board and I'm posting it here.

Let me hear your input on this. It is completely blowing my mind.


_______________________________________________

Old cars vs. New cars: Pollution and fuel waste
I have polled many people firsthand about how often they buy a new car, or trade in their older car for a new one. The average is, three years.

So, logically, that means, that for everyone who buys a new car, every 33 years, 11 cars were made to satisfy the demand for a new car for that car owner.

So, my car has been on the road for that long. I get bad gas mileage. I must be pretty bad for the environment, right?

WRONG. Since 1971, the year after my model year, the demand per 'average' car buyer, for a new car is there every year to replace old car models with new cars. So every three years, a new car was made. The old car remained for let's say, 10 years.

So, what's using more gasoline? My one car over 33 years, or all those cars made to staisfy the average consumer, and which lasted for ten years each?

Not only that, but there were no fossil fuels used to replace my car- it stayed on the road, and a car buyer's need for a car was satisfied. No mining of ore, transportation, smelting, forging, casting, electricity for overhead at the factory, no gas used to let factory workers commute to work, no plastic manufacturing, no nothing, after my car was built. Every new car which could have replaced it would require these things. Think about the pollution for THAT series of events: making a car. It's been done once to make my car, and since it was never retired and destroyed, it stayed on the road and was not replaced. It could have been done an average of 11 times.

Which uses more gas and makes more pollution? My one old car, or all those cars manufactured to satisfy the "average" new car buyer every three years, totaling 11 cars, plus all the fossil fuels used to manufacture, transport, and sell those 11 new cars?

New cars need to have a set number of replacement parts made for them. Think of all the extra fossil fuels used to manufacture, warehouse, and sell those parts. My old car had those parts made once upon a time, but no more. (And the aftermarket is to small to compare to GM). Every 3 years, on average, a new car is sold to satisfy the needs of a new car buyer. Each of those cars needed spare parts made for their upkeep.

So which uses more fossil fuels and makes more pollution?

My one old car, which is kept in better running condition than a new car, which had spare parts made for it once upon a time but that event in time is over, and which only had to be manufactured once

or

Each of those 11 new cars that could have been made to replace it, on average, to satisfy the new car needs of the average buyer since it was made, which entails: manufacturing each of those cars (mining, transporting, manufacturing, transporting) and needs a parts inventory behind each of those cars (again, from mining the ore to making the part to warehousing and using fossil fuels like coal to make electricity for the warehouse)

Notice I'm not even talking about gas mileage anymore.

My old car does not use as much gas as 11 cars have in 33 years. Not even close. My car does not pollute as much as a car assembly plant in a year. Not even close. Nor does it pollute as much as those 11 cars did in 33 years. Not even close.

Do not fall into the "old cars are gross polluters" trap. It is hogwash regurgitated by the gross polluters themselves, who are allowed to waste fuel and pollute in exchange for certain other business 'favors'. They have somehow brainwashed most of the public into beleiving this fallacy, when it's patently obvious to anyone who considers the facts, that it cannot be and is not true.

Not only are old cars not gross polluters, but the number of old cars on the road today is such a tiny percentage that they are a non-factor in the problem of pollution. The number of newer cars, under 10 years old, which are in poor tune and pollute vastly outnumbers the number of old cars on the road, and makes more pollution than those old cars.

Big business and politicians say lots of things that are lies. They target old cars and label them gross polluters because it's easy.

I have to stop thinking about this absurd notion before I burst a blood vessel. Next up is which is cheaper: a new car or a used car. Yeah my old car uses a lot of gas. I paid for it already, and I pay 100 bucks a month in insurance. A new car has a payment every month and still breaks down! So a new car can cost 500 bucks a month for payments and insurance (don't even start me on excise fees and sales tax). I pay 100 bucks a month for insurance and no car payment. That's a 400 dollar difference. Per month. Let me tell you something: I do not use 400 dollars worth of gas in a month in my old car. Notice I haven't even made the new car in this example use gas and I'm assuming my car does. Before buying gasoline for the month, the new car owner is 400 bucks in the hole against me. Let's say he uses 100 dollars in gas and I use 200. Now he's still 200 bucks ahead of me in cost. That's 2400 dollars a year more than me. My car does not need 2400 dollars a year in repairs, but one new transmission for a newer car can easily cost 3 grand.

Who is wasting money again? This whole thing boggles my mind.

I'm not gonna start in on SUVs because I'm friendly with folks who have them but holy smokes I'm so ahead of some of them in terms of cost of ownership it is disgusting. Plus I've got a big block convertible, it's not like I have some generic jellybean car.
Let's compare those 11 hypothetical cars against my one gas guzzling car, in terms of total gallons used to date.
I will now stack the deck against my car by assuming it got only 10 mpg, ever, for 33 years! I really get closer to 12 around town, 16 on the highway if I'm a good boy. It's not, it's more like 12/10, but still, that's better than the value I will give to my car. I will upgrade newer cars depending on model year in terms of mpg to further handicap my car, and I will assume that my car gets the same mileage now as it got when new, even further hurting my chances at winning this little comparison I am preparing. I will also assume that any vehicle like an SUV gets 35 mpg, but I will also downgrade hybrid cars to 35 mpg to be fair.

Let's break it down by years, roughly, the estimated mpg of the average car for those years, and how many cars might be made to replace the average car in terms of those years, and how long that car used gas: I will list in order- years of manufacture, the cars made during that time to reflect a three year interval between new car purchases, and when those cars or car will be destroyed-
1971-75- 10 mpg. 2 cars made to replace 1970 car made in 1969. These cars will be destroyed by 1985
1976-80 -15 mpg.1 car made to replace cars made by 1975. this car will be destroyed by 1990
1981-85.- 20 mpg. 2 cars made to replace cars made by 1980. These cars will be destroyed by 1995
1986-90 - 25 mpg. 1 car made to replace cars made by 1985. This car will be destroyed by 2000
1991-95 - 25 mpg. 2 cars made to replace cars made by 1990. These cars are still on the road starting in 2001, and will continue through the 2005 model year. This is a slight anomaly in my example, a car that lasts for this long. If you prefer, pro-rate this one 16 year old car in my figures below by completely ommiting it's gasoline use. You will find that this 16 year old car's complete absence will not make up the difference by a long shot!
1996-00 -30 mpg. 1 car made to replace cars made by 1995. This car is currently on the road
2000-05 - 35 mpg. 2 cars made to replace cars made by end of '99 ( I know I'm shortchanging this time period but I want to avoid things like 33% of a car destroyed)
these 2 cars are currently on the road
Let's assume the average distance travelled per car per year is 10,000 miles.

SO, for the cars made in my example above:
1971-75 cars - (2) would travel 10000 miles per year, that's 2000 gallons per year. For ten years. 20000 gallons total
1976-80 car - (1) would use 667 gallons per year. For ten years. 6670 gallons total
1981-85 cars - (2) would use 1000 gallons per year. For ten years. 10000 gallons total
1986-90 car - (1) would use 400 gallons per year. For ten years. 4000 gallons total
1991-95 cars - (2) would use 800 gallons per year. For ten years. 8000 gallons total
1996-2000 car - (1) would use 333 gallons per year. Let's say this car was on the road for three years, the average. 999 gallons total
2001-2004 cars - (2) would use 571 gallons per year. Count one of the two for three years, the other for one year. 571 gallons+1713 gallons=2284 gallons total

The total for those 11 cars to date is: 51953 gallons. Those cars are the ones made to replace used cars, since the model year after my car, for one average new car buyer who buys a new car typically every three years.

My car has used 33000 gallons in the same time (1970 model year car getting an average of 10 mpg for 33 years). That is a difference of 18953 gallons that my car didn't use in comparison with the cars made to replace it, on average.
Now then. WHO is wasting gasoline??? Not me!

 

[faster]

OK, this came up in another board and I'm posting it here.

Let me hear your input on this. It is completely blowing my mind.


_______________________________________________

Old cars vs. New cars: Pollution and fuel waste
I have polled many people firsthand about how often they buy a new car, or trade in their older car for a new one. The average is, three years.

So, logically, that means, that for everyone who buys a new car, every 33 years, 11 cars were made to satisfy the demand for a new car for that car owner.

So, my car has been on the road for that long. I get bad gas mileage. I must be pretty bad for the environment, right?

WRONG. Since 1971, the year after my model year, the demand per 'average' car buyer, for a new car is there every year to replace old car models with new cars. So every three years, a new car was made. The old car remained for let's say, 10 years.

So, what's using more gasoline? My one car over 33 years, or all those cars made to staisfy the average consumer, and which lasted for ten years each?

Not only that, but there were no fossil fuels used to replace my car- it stayed on the road, and a car buyer's need for a car was satisfied. No mining of ore, transportation, smelting, forging, casting, electricity for overhead at the factory, no gas used to let factory workers commute to work, no plastic manufacturing, no nothing, after my car was built. Every new car which could have replaced it would require these things. Think about the pollution for THAT series of events: making a car. It's been done once to make my car, and since it was never retired and destroyed, it stayed on the road and was not replaced. It could have been done an average of 11 times.

Which uses more gas and makes more pollution? My one old car, or all those cars manufactured to satisfy the "average" new car buyer every three years, totaling 11 cars, plus all the fossil fuels used to manufacture, transport, and sell those 11 new cars?

New cars need to have a set number of replacement parts made for them. Think of all the extra fossil fuels used to manufacture, warehouse, and sell those parts. My old car had those parts made once upon a time, but no more. (And the aftermarket is to small to compare to GM). Every 3 years, on average, a new car is sold to satisfy the needs of a new car buyer. Each of those cars needed spare parts made for their upkeep.

So which uses more fossil fuels and makes more pollution?

My one old car, which is kept in better running condition than a new car, which had spare parts made for it once upon a time but that event in time is over, and which only had to be manufactured once

or

Each of those 11 new cars that could have been made to replace it, on average, to satisfy the new car needs of the average buyer since it was made, which entails: manufacturing each of those cars (mining, transporting, manufacturing, transporting) and needs a parts inventory behind each of those cars (again, from mining the ore to making the part to warehousing and using fossil fuels like coal to make electricity for the warehouse)

Notice I'm not even talking about gas mileage anymore.

My old car does not use as much gas as 11 cars have in 33 years. Not even close. My car does not pollute as much as a car assembly plant in a year. Not even close. Nor does it pollute as much as those 11 cars did in 33 years. Not even close.

Do not fall into the "old cars are gross polluters" trap. It is hogwash regurgitated by the gross polluters themselves, who are allowed to waste fuel and pollute in exchange for certain other business 'favors'. They have somehow brainwashed most of the public into beleiving this fallacy, when it's patently obvious to anyone who considers the facts, that it cannot be and is not true.

Not only are old cars not gross polluters, but the number of old cars on the road today is such a tiny percentage that they are a non-factor in the problem of pollution. The number of newer cars, under 10 years old, which are in poor tune and pollute vastly outnumbers the number of old cars on the road, and makes more pollution than those old cars.

Big business and politicians say lots of things that are lies. They target old cars and label them gross polluters because it's easy.

I have to stop thinking about this absurd notion before I burst a blood vessel. Next up is which is cheaper: a new car or a used car. Yeah my old car uses a lot of gas. I paid for it already, and I pay 100 bucks a month in insurance. A new car has a payment every month and still breaks down! So a new car can cost 500 bucks a month for payments and insurance (don't even start me on excise fees and sales tax). I pay 100 bucks a month for insurance and no car payment. That's a 400 dollar difference. Per month. Let me tell you something: I do not use 400 dollars worth of gas in a month in my old car. Notice I haven't even made the new car in this example use gas and I'm assuming my car does. Before buying gasoline for the month, the new car owner is 400 bucks in the hole against me. Let's say he uses 100 dollars in gas and I use 200. Now he's still 200 bucks ahead of me in cost. That's 2400 dollars a year more than me. My car does not need 2400 dollars a year in repairs, but one new transmission for a newer car can easily cost 3 grand.

Who is wasting money again? This whole thing boggles my mind.

I'm not gonna start in on SUVs because I'm friendly with folks who have them but holy smokes I'm so ahead of some of them in terms of cost of ownership it is disgusting. Plus I've got a big block convertible, it's not like I have some generic jellybean car.
Let's compare those 11 hypothetical cars against my one gas guzzling car, in terms of total gallons used to date.
I will now stack the deck against my car by assuming it got only 10 mpg, ever, for 33 years! I really get closer to 12 around town, 16 on the highway if I'm a good boy. It's not, it's more like 12/10, but still, that's better than the value I will give to my car. I will upgrade newer cars depending on model year in terms of mpg to further handicap my car, and I will assume that my car gets the same mileage now as it got when new, even further hurting my chances at winning this little comparison I am preparing. I will also assume that any vehicle like an SUV gets 35 mpg, but I will also downgrade hybrid cars to 35 mpg to be fair.

Let's break it down by years, roughly, the estimated mpg of the average car for those years, and how many cars might be made to replace the average car in terms of those years, and how long that car used gas: I will list in order- years of manufacture, the cars made during that time to reflect a three year interval between new car purchases, and when those cars or car will be destroyed-
1971-75- 10 mpg. 2 cars made to replace 1970 car made in 1969. These cars will be destroyed by 1985
1976-80 -15 mpg.1 car made to replace cars made by 1975. this car will be destroyed by 1990
1981-85.- 20 mpg. 2 cars made to replace cars made by 1980. These cars will be destroyed by 1995
1986-90 - 25 mpg. 1 car made to replace cars made by 1985. This car will be destroyed by 2000
1991-95 - 25 mpg. 2 cars made to replace cars made by 1990. These cars are still on the road starting in 2001, and will continue through the 2005 model year. This is a slight anomaly in my example, a car that lasts for this long. If you prefer, pro-rate this one 16 year old car in my figures below by completely ommiting it's gasoline use. You will find that this 16 year old car's complete absence will not make up the difference by a long shot!
1996-00 -30 mpg. 1 car made to replace cars made by 1995. This car is currently on the road
2000-05 - 35 mpg. 2 cars made to replace cars made by end of '99 ( I know I'm shortchanging this time period but I want to avoid things like 33% of a car destroyed)
these 2 cars are currently on the road
Let's assume the average distance travelled per car per year is 10,000 miles.

SO, for the cars made in my example above:
1971-75 cars - (2) would travel 10000 miles per year, that's 2000 gallons per year. For ten years. 20000 gallons total
1976-80 car - (1) would use 667 gallons per year. For ten years. 6670 gallons total
1981-85 cars - (2) would use 1000 gallons per year. For ten years. 10000 gallons total
1986-90 car - (1) would use 400 gallons per year. For ten years. 4000 gallons total
1991-95 cars - (2) would use 800 gallons per year. For ten years. 8000 gallons total
1996-2000 car - (1) would use 333 gallons per year. Let's say this car was on the road for three years, the average. 999 gallons total
2001-2004 cars - (2) would use 571 gallons per year. Count one of the two for three years, the other for one year. 571 gallons+1713 gallons=2284 gallons total

The total for those 11 cars to date is: 51953 gallons. Those cars are the ones made to replace used cars, since the model year after my car, for one average new car buyer who buys a new car typically every three years.

My car has used 33000 gallons in the same time (1970 model year car getting an average of 10 mpg for 33 years). That is a difference of 18953 gallons that my car didn't use in comparison with the cars made to replace it, on average.
Now then. WHO is wasting gasoline??? Not me!

Very good point!

Mikey