• Go to page :
  • 1 2345
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
I was watching a hot rod show and they went to GM's plant where they make thousands of V8 crate motors every year and I was wondering again why we paid roughly $12000 total per car altogether for cash for clunkers to take these "gas hog" low mileage engines off the road by destroying them. The government is even a major shareholder in GM. Does this make any sort of economic sense?

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Penske couldn't find the manufacture to outsource the actual production to. It was Nissan, not GM or the government kill... (more)

nycll (Mar. 04, 2012 @ 10:22a) |

Your first "inaccuracy" is pedantic and plain nit-picky. The second "inaccuracy" does not cite the reason why it was re... (more)

Dus10 (Mar. 04, 2012 @ 10:37p) |

Ok thanks for conceding no 1. I thought it was significant while you claimed two brands being sougjt by Penske but in f... (more)

nycll (Mar. 05, 2012 @ 6:05a) |

henry33 said:   
It doesn't make sense because you don't have your facts straight. Cash for clunkers provided $3500-$4500 per car. Total spent was about 2.9 billion on about 690k cars or about an average of $4200 per car. About 100 million was spent on administrative costs or about $144 per car. Older cars are typically not as well maintained, get worse gas mileage and have higher emissions than new cars. Plus at the time, new car sales were really down along with the rest of the economy. As for someone else trading in their new car, the point was to get rid of their old car, not make the owner drive the same car for 10+ years.
Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

clearanceman said:   Does this make any sort of economic sense?

No but it makes political sense. It's a great way to get votes from the UAW and individuals getting new cars partially paid for by tax payers.

Ask Mitt NOW if it makes sense.

I think people who participated in C4C were required to buy cars with at least 30MPG or so. The government can't force everyone else to buy econoboxes.

jd3695 said:   I think people who participated in C4C were required to buy cars with at least 30MPG or so. The government can't force everyone else to buy econoboxes.
...and then they traded that for a V8 a year later. I know 2 people who did this.

Industry writes the bills, hands them off to bought congress person in exchange for some election monies and whatever fringe benies, news reports on contents of bill after congress voted based on the title alone after Survivor like dickering. No one reads the bill, which is being changed in real time behind the scenes by corporate interests... Some Americans bitch at the blatant idiocy and corruption, more dip their hands in the trough, most are utterly oblivious... Couple years pass and people go nuts over a WWF tribal warfare contest (aka election) that gives them a choice of heads or tails from the same coin.

clearanceman said:   I was watching a hot rod show and they went to GM's plant where they make thousands of V8 crate motors every year and I was wondering again why we paid roughly $12000 total per car altogether for cash for clunkers to take these "gas hog" low mileage engines off the road by destroying them. The government is even a major shareholder in GM. Does this make any sort of economic sense?

It doesn't make sense because you don't have your facts straight. Cash for clunkers provided $3500-$4500 per car. Total spent was about 2.9 billion on about 690k cars or about an average of $4200 per car. About 100 million was spent on administrative costs or about $144 per car. Older cars are typically not as well maintained, get worse gas mileage and have higher emissions than new cars. Plus at the time, new car sales were really down along with the rest of the economy. As for someone else trading in their new car, the point was to get rid of their old car, not make the owner drive the same car for 10+ years.

I personally bought a new car during CFC time. With rebates I saved $6100 on my car. My gas savings from my old vehicle to my new one pays the monthly payment.

henry33 said:   clearanceman said:   I was watching a hot rod show and they went to GM's plant where they make thousands of V8 crate motors every year and I was wondering again why we paid roughly $12000 total per car altogether for cash for clunkers to take these "gas hog" low mileage engines off the road by destroying them. The government is even a major shareholder in GM. Does this make any sort of economic sense?

It doesn't make sense because you don't have your facts straight. Cash for clunkers provided $3500-$4500 per car. Total spent was about 2.9 billion on about 690k cars or about an average of $4200 per car. About 100 million was spent on administrative costs or about $144 per car. Older cars are typically not as well maintained, get worse gas mileage and have higher emissions than new cars. Plus at the time, new car sales were really down along with the rest of the economy. As for someone else trading in their new car, the point was to get rid of their old car, not make the owner drive the same car for 10+ years.


Report on TV said the final true cost to the taxpayer ended up being about $12000 per car. Edmunds says it's $24,000 per vehicle, $12000 may be low

http://www.edmunds.com/about/press/cash-for-clunkers-results-fin...

henry33 said:   clearanceman said:   I was watching a hot rod show and they went to GM's plant where they make thousands of V8 crate motors every year and I was wondering again why we paid roughly $12000 total per car altogether for cash for clunkers to take these "gas hog" low mileage engines off the road by destroying them. The government is even a major shareholder in GM. Does this make any sort of economic sense?

It doesn't make sense because you don't have your facts straight. Cash for clunkers provided $3500-$4500 per car. Total spent was about 2.9 billion on about 690k cars or about an average of $4200 per car. About 100 million was spent on administrative costs or about $144 per car. Older cars are typically not as well maintained, get worse gas mileage and have higher emissions than new cars. Plus at the time, new car sales were really down along with the rest of the economy. As for someone else trading in their new car, the point was to get rid of their old car, not make the owner drive the same car for 10+ years.


What was the point of destroying the engines? Which also cost money.

suezyque said:   I personally bought a new car during CFC time. With rebates I saved $6100 on my car. My gas savings from my old vehicle to my new one pays the monthly payment.

What did you do, trade an H1 Hummer for a Prius?

clearanceman said:   henry33 said:   clearanceman said:   I was watching a hot rod show and they went to GM's plant where they make thousands of V8 crate motors every year and I was wondering again why we paid roughly $12000 total per car altogether for cash for clunkers to take these "gas hog" low mileage engines off the road by destroying them. The government is even a major shareholder in GM. Does this make any sort of economic sense?

It doesn't make sense because you don't have your facts straight. Cash for clunkers provided $3500-$4500 per car. Total spent was about 2.9 billion on about 690k cars or about an average of $4200 per car. About 100 million was spent on administrative costs or about $144 per car. Older cars are typically not as well maintained, get worse gas mileage and have higher emissions than new cars. Plus at the time, new car sales were really down along with the rest of the economy. As for someone else trading in their new car, the point was to get rid of their old car, not make the owner drive the same car for 10+ years.


Report on TV said the final true cost to the taxpayer ended up being about $12000 per car. Edmunds says it's $24,000 per vehicle, $12000 may be low

http://www.edmunds.com/about/press/cash-for-clunkers-results-fin...



That is not based on the actual cost. They are coming up with those $12000 or $24000 numbers based on how much they think the government spent to cause incremental new car purchases. Its based on their own assumptions (guesses) about how many new cars would have been sold with or without cash for clunkers. That may or may to be valid. But it doesn't change the actual costs of the program nor the actual tax credit per car turned in.


The government did not spend $12000 to write checks for $4500.

brettdoyle said:   clearanceman said:   Does this make any sort of economic sense?

No but it makes political sense. It's a great way to get votes from the UAW and individuals getting new cars partially paid for by tax payers.


I think the maker that sold the most cars under the program was Toyota and Japanese brands made out a lot better than "domestic" brands which have UAW workers but point made.

jerosen said:   clearanceman said:   henry33 said:   clearanceman said:   I was watching a hot rod show and they went to GM's plant where they make thousands of V8 crate motors every year and I was wondering again why we paid roughly $12000 total per car altogether for cash for clunkers to take these "gas hog" low mileage engines off the road by destroying them. The government is even a major shareholder in GM. Does this make any sort of economic sense?

It doesn't make sense because you don't have your facts straight. Cash for clunkers provided $3500-$4500 per car. Total spent was about 2.9 billion on about 690k cars or about an average of $4200 per car. About 100 million was spent on administrative costs or about $144 per car. Older cars are typically not as well maintained, get worse gas mileage and have higher emissions than new cars. Plus at the time, new car sales were really down along with the rest of the economy. As for someone else trading in their new car, the point was to get rid of their old car, not make the owner drive the same car for 10+ years.


Report on TV said the final true cost to the taxpayer ended up being about $12000 per car. Edmunds says it's $24,000 per vehicle, $12000 may be low

http://www.edmunds.com/about/press/cash-for-clunkers-results-fin...



That is not based on the actual cost. They are coming up with those $12000 or $24000 numbers based on how much they think the government spent to cause incremental new car purchases. Its based on their own assumptions (guesses) about how many new cars would have been sold with or without cash for clunkers. That may or may to be valid. But it doesn't change the actual costs of the program nor the actual tax credit per car turned in.


The government did not spend $12000 to write checks for $4500.


They paid a lot more than $4500. That was just the amount to the car buyer. And the point of the article is most of those cars would have been bought anyway. So they paid $24000 per additional car sale above and beyond what would have been sold anyway.

clearanceman said:   suezyque said:   I personally bought a new car during CFC time. With rebates I saved $6100 on my car. My gas savings from my old vehicle to my new one pays the monthly payment.

What did you do, trade an H1 Hummer for a Prius?


Just about........GMC Jimmy for a Hyundai Accent

suezyque said:   clearanceman said:   suezyque said:   I personally bought a new car during CFC time. With rebates I saved $6100 on my car. My gas savings from my old vehicle to my new one pays the monthly payment.

What did you do, trade an H1 Hummer for a Prius?


Just about........GMC Jimmy for a Hyundai Accent


LOL, that's a huge change. And they had to destroy the engine in the GMC. Maybe the person that bought the body at the junk yard bought a GM crate motor as a replacement?

u2head8 said:   jd3695 said:   I think people who participated in C4C were required to buy cars with at least 30MPG or so. The government can't force everyone else to buy econoboxes.
...and then they traded that for a V8 a year later. I know 2 people who did this.

Which they are probably regretting now.

suezyque said:   clearanceman said:   suezyque said:   I personally bought a new car during CFC time. With rebates I saved $6100 on my car. My gas savings from my old vehicle to my new one pays the monthly payment.

What did you do, trade an H1 Hummer for a Prius?


Just about........GMC Jimmy for a Hyundai Accent

The environment thanks you and those of us that do not support USA's dependence on foreign oil thank you. Your purse thanks you.


Since pics are always requested...
Disclaimer
The day I picked it up from the dealer.

clearanceman said:   ...
They paid a lot more than $4500. That was just the amount to the car buyer. ...


Nope.

As Henry33 said above, they spent $2.9 billion out of pocket for almost 700k cars. Thats under $4200 average per car turned in. The tax credits varied from $2500 to $4500.



Source :
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/the-final-numbers-on-...

jerosen said:   clearanceman said:   ...
They paid a lot more than $4500. That was just the amount to the car buyer. ...


Nope.

As Henry33 said above, they spent $2.9 billion out of pocket for almost 700k cars. Thats under $4200 average per car turned in. The tax credits varied from $2500 to $4500.



Source :
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/the-final-numbers-on-...


If that's what you chose to believe. Without even getting into the idea that they messed up the used car market and paid people to buy cars who were already going to buy cars, I guess the dealers destroyed the engines for free. And the hundreds of people doing the paperwork work for the dealer claims did the paperwork for free. But that's not the point. You read the article, you know the point even if you choose to ignore it. One of the main points the retarded government made at the time was they were getting these horrible polluting engines off the road. The same government that owns a V8 crate engine plant that sells thousands of units per year.

suezyque said:   The day I picked it up from the dealer.

I'm not sure that's they type of pic people are hoping for. But thanks for posting.

When gas passes $5 a gallon I'll be laughing at the $200 fatbody redneck fillups as I drive by in my econobox.

FootInMouth said:   FootInMouth said:   suezyque said:   clearanceman said:   suezyque said:   I personally bought a new car during CFC time. With rebates I saved $6100 on my car. My gas savings from my old vehicle to my new one pays the monthly payment.

What did you do, trade an H1 Hummer for a Prius?


Just about........GMC Jimmy for a Hyundai Accent

The environment thanks you and those of us that do not support USA's dependence on foreign oil thank you. Your purse thanks you.

Keep the red coming. Guess you need those big V8s to haul your fatasses around to pick up your fast food and ice cream.


Actually some V8 cars get better mileage than V6 cars did a generation ago. Really, it's the size and efficiency of the engine than the number of cylinders. Some V8s get close to the mileage of some turbo fours.

Sure they do.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/topten.jsp

Nothing but fours (not counting the electrics).

FootInMouth said:   Sure they do.

Look up mileage for a Subaru WRX STI (turbo 4 EPA 19 mpg / 24 mpg) and a Chevy Corvette (V8 with 200 more HP than the Subaru (16 city, 26hwy).

clearanceman said:   

They paid a lot more than $4500. That was just the amount to the car buyer. And the point of the article is most of those cars would have been bought anyway. So they paid $24000 per additional car sale above and beyond what would have been sold anyway.


Its a complete guesstimate whether the person would have "bought a new car anyway". And if they bought a new car, would it have been another SUV or were they encouraged to buy a smaller car.

As people stated, the actual costs per car sold are known. The estimated "cost to sell cars that people would not have otherwise bought" is a made up guess and not a meaningful statistic. Its just for sensationalization.

And no, no C4C car could ever be put back on the road with a crate engine. They are not allowed to be rebuilt reconstructed or get a valid registration. So none of the hose crate engines are going into c4c cars.

"Crate engines" are used in restoring old cars , performance uses (racing) and cars needing engine rebuilds. The crate engine is almost always better performing and less polluting than the old engine it replaces, so there is a benefit to the economy and the environment when people use Crate engines to replace their old engine.

clearanceman said:   FootInMouth said:   Sure they do.

Look up mileage for a Subaru WRX STI and a Chevy Corvette.

Anyone buying a WRX STI isn't concerned about economy.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   clearanceman said:   

They paid a lot more than $4500. That was just the amount to the car buyer. And the point of the article is most of those cars would have been bought anyway. So they paid $24000 per additional car sale above and beyond what would have been sold anyway.


Its a complete guesstimate whether the person would have "bought a new car anyway". And if they bought a new car, would it have been another SUV or were they encouraged to buy a smaller car.

As people stated, the actual costs per car sold are known. The estimated "cost to sell cars that people would not have otherwise bought" is a made up guess and not a meaningful statistic. Its just for sensationalization.

And no, no C4C car could ever be put back on the road with a crate engine. They are not allowed to be rebuilt reconstructed or get a valid registration. So none of the hose crate engines are going into c4c cars.

"Crate engines" are used in restoring old cars , performance uses (racing) and cars needing engine rebuilds. The crate engine is almost always better performing and less polluting than the old engine it replaces, so there is a benefit to the economy and the environment when people use Crate engines to replace their old engine.


So the used car market took a hit and the used part market got a boost from the dismantled CFC cars/trucks? I'll never agree that it made sense to destroy running engines using tax payer money. And most of those crate engines use carbs or crude Throttle body FI, so they aren't more efficient and a lot of the cars being made with them are for racing, kit cars or antique cars and won't even have converters.

FootInMouth said:   clearanceman said:   FootInMouth said:   Sure they do.

Look up mileage for a Subaru WRX STI and a Chevy Corvette.

Anyone buying a WRX STI isn't concerned about economy.


It's ok, I knew you wouldn't look up the figures, so I did for my original post.

FootInMouth said:   Sure they do.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/topten.jsp

Nothing but fours (not counting the electrics).


Lots of turbo fours in that list, huh?

clearanceman said:   And most of those crate engines use carbs or crude Throttle body FI, so they aren't more efficient and a lot of the cars being made with them are for racing, kit cars or antique cars and won't even have converters.
You're talking about an insignificant amount of the entire US auto market. Half of that is in Jay Leno's garage.

FootInMouth said:   When gas passes $5 a gallon I'll be laughing at the $200 fatbody redneck fillups as I drive by in my econobox.

I wouldn't they'll think you're trying to pick them up.

FootInMouth said:   clearanceman said:   And most of those crate engines use carbs or crude Throttle body FI, so they aren't more efficient and a lot of the cars being made with them are for racing, kit cars or antique cars and won't even have converters.
You're talking about an insignificant amount of the entire US auto market. Half of that is in Jay Leno's garage.


I thought that too until I saw the piece on HP TV. They can make 100 engines per hour. You think they are storing them out back?

clearanceman said:   I was watching a hot rod show and they went to GM's plant where they make thousands of V8 crate motors every year and I was wondering again why we paid roughly $12000 total per car altogether for cash for clunkers to take these "gas hog" low mileage engines off the road by destroying them. The government is even a major shareholder in GM. Does this make any sort of economic sense?Yes.

Were you under the impression that CAC has eliminated all V8 or GM shouldn't be making a product the market demands?

nycll said:   clearanceman said:   I was watching a hot rod show and they went to GM's plant where they make thousands of V8 crate motors every year and I was wondering again why we paid roughly $12000 total per car altogether for cash for clunkers to take these "gas hog" low mileage engines off the road by destroying them. The government is even a major shareholder in GM. Does this make any sort of economic sense?Yes.

Were you under the impression that CAC has eliminated all V8 or GM shouldn't be making a product the market demands?


I don't think they should have used tax payer money to destroy something that they make anyway.

clearanceman said:   nycll said:   clearanceman said:   I was watching a hot rod show and they went to GM's plant where they make thousands of V8 crate motors every year and I was wondering again why we paid roughly $12000 total per car altogether for cash for clunkers to take these "gas hog" low mileage engines off the road by destroying them. The government is even a major shareholder in GM. Does this make any sort of economic sense?Yes.

Were you under the impression that CAC has eliminated all V8 or GM shouldn't be making a product the market demands?


I don't think they should have used tax payer money to destroy something that they make anyway.



Yeah you are right, i'd much rather my tax dollars be spent blowing up schools, bridges, hospitals, neighborhoods in foreign lands and then paying Haliburton contracts to rebuild the schools, bridges, hospitals and infrastructure. Than to attempt to stimulate an industry in my own country that seems to have actually worked at a mere fraction of the cost of our adventures overseas in the last 10 years.

Woodchuck312 said:   clearanceman said:   nycll said:   clearanceman said:   I was watching a hot rod show and they went to GM's plant where they make thousands of V8 crate motors every year and I was wondering again why we paid roughly $12000 total per car altogether for cash for clunkers to take these "gas hog" low mileage engines off the road by destroying them. The government is even a major shareholder in GM. Does this make any sort of economic sense?Yes.

Were you under the impression that CAC has eliminated all V8 or GM shouldn't be making a product the market demands?


I don't think they should have used tax payer money to destroy something that they make anyway.



Yeah you are right, i'd much rather my tax dollars be spent blowing up schools, bridges, hospitals, neighborhoods in foreign lands and then paying Haliburton contracts to rebuild the schools, bridges, hospitals and infrastructure. Than to attempt to stimulate an industry in my own country that seems to have actually worked at a mere fraction of the cost of our adventures overseas in the last 10 years.


How about neither? A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money...

clearanceman said:   nycll said:   clearanceman said:   I was watching a hot rod show and they went to GM's plant where they make thousands of V8 crate motors every year and I was wondering again why we paid roughly $12000 total per car altogether for cash for clunkers to take these "gas hog" low mileage engines off the road by destroying them. The government is even a major shareholder in GM. Does this make any sort of economic sense?Yes.

Were you under the impression that CAC has eliminated all V8 or GM shouldn't be making a product the market demands?


I don't think they should have used tax payer money to destroy something that they make anyway.


I'm not sure I see your point or that you even have a point. Those crate motors would have been made regardless of whether cash for clunkers existed or not. The clunkers were destroyed, the engines were destroyed although parts were allowed to be salvaged off the cars. But they weren't rebuilt. Also considering that the cars were only worth $3500-$4500, they probably weren't candidates for a crate motor, once you factor in the cost of labor to put one in.

Also those guesstimates on the real costs are just that. You could always make the case that a certain number happened that would have happened anyway, I'm just not buying the number they came up with, they compared numbers before and after, but people can own cars for years, what if the analysis was expanded further? Also they traded in old cars for new ones, just how many people who drive clunkers buy new cars, wouldn't they have traded it in for just slightly newer clunkers instead of buying new? Just too many variables.

Skipping 122 Messages...
Dus10 said:   nycll said:   Dus10 said:   nycll said:   What's so great about Saturn and Pontiac? GM had too many brands and it still has too many brands.

You totally missed the point and are simply deflecting. I never said that there was anything great about Saturn or Pontiac, and I have always thought that GM would be better served with fewer brands... maybe even just one.

The point is that the Saturn and Pontiac brands had some residual value... how much is certainly debatable. Nevertheless, Roger Penske was going to buy them... he was willing to exchange money or some other capital for these brands. Further, until he could get all of the kinks worked out, all production was going to be outsourced to GM. Instead, Obama and whoever else in his administration decided on "no deal" and passed on the money. Some money is greater than no money. I am sure we would be talking in the several million dollars ballpark, too.

Penske's plan was to work on distribution, kind of like Wal-Mart, and figured he would always outsource the manufacturing... whether it be to GM, Kia, Toyota, whomever.
Are you an auto industry analyst or just repeating the half true circulating around the internet?

Someone already pointed out Penske was only buying one of the two brands. That is your factual inaccuracy no 1.

Here is an article in September 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/business/01auto.html

But Penske Automotive said that an agreement with a potential manufacturer of future Saturn products had been rejected by that company’s board. Penske Automotive declined to name the company, but people familiar with the transaction said that the Renault-Nissan alliance had been involved in discussions. Penske couldn't find the manufacture to outsource the actual production to. It was Nissan, not GM or the government killed the deal. This is your factual inaccuracy no 2.


Your first "inaccuracy" is pedantic and plain nit-picky. The second "inaccuracy" does not cite the reason why it was rejected. Just because the board rejected it does not mean it was not the government, by poorly negotiating, that caused the fallout.

Ok thanks for conceding no 1. I thought it was significant while you claimed two brands being sougjt by Penske but in fact it was only one.

Do you have a reference to support your theory on no 2?

Do you have any evidence that Penske was a ready and willing buyer of ANY GM brands BEFORR the bk filing?



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2015