Cash for clunkers?

Anyone here want to trade in their "gas guzzling" Mustang
or any other vehicle for a new ... Toyota or another mundane
vehicle? I didn't think so. As I understand it, the vehicles
that are traded in have to be destroyed. Personally, it seems
like a stupid program, but who am I to say.

Dick
84 Capri RS 5.0 that gets 25 mpg on the highway (5th gear
at 1800 RPM).

"Dick R." > wrote in message
...
> Anyone here want to trade in their "gas guzzling" Mustang
> or any other vehicle for a new ... Toyota or another mundane
> vehicle? I didn't think so. As I understand it, the vehicles
> that are traded in have to be destroyed. Personally, it seems
> like a stupid program, but who am I to say.
>
> Dick
> 84 Capri RS 5.0 that gets 25 mpg on the highway (5th gear
> at 1800 RPM).

stupid in many ways, very shallow thinking there, its the Government, dumb
as rocks.

On Aug 4, 7:38*pm, "Dick R." > wrote:
> Anyone here want to trade in their "gas guzzling" Mustang
> or any other vehicle for a new ... Toyota or another mundane
> vehicle? I didn't think so. As I understand it, the vehicles
> that are traded in have to be destroyed. Personally, it seems
> like a stupid program, but who am I to say.

The auto companies are fighting against their own innovations,
advancements and refinements. Cars last longer now than they
ever have. In the '60s and before you'd have serious problems
with rust in many areas of the country. If your engine lasted more
than 100,000 mi you would be lucky.

<Mustang content> The running changes made to the engines in
about "1984 1/2" that were intended to help with fuel economy
(roller cam, low friction pistons/rings) actually had the side benefit
of giving the engines a longer lifespan.

The quality of the metals (although thinner for lighter weight) and
the
finish and rust protection, and replacing many areas with plastics
and aluminum have helped the bodies last longer and look good
longer.

So the big # (how many will be left) companies need to do something
innovative to get the older vehicles off the road, even though they
may
just as reliable and possibly better in some ways as the newly
manufactured offerings.

> Dick
> 84 Capri RS 5.0 that gets 25 mpg on the highway (5th gear
> at 1800 RPM).

My '89 5.0 and the Bullitt both clock about 1800 at 60mph.
The 5.0 gets around 26mpg, the 4.6 maybe 23mpg.
The 5.0 also outputs extremely low pollutants in the (required)
sniff test.

rd

Dick R. wrote:
> Anyone here want to trade in their "gas guzzling" Mustang
> or any other vehicle for a new ... Toyota or another mundane
> vehicle? I didn't think so. As I understand it, the vehicles
> that are traded in have to be destroyed. Personally, it seems
> like a stupid program, but who am I to say.
>
> Dick
> 84 Capri RS 5.0 that gets 25 mpg on the highway (5th gear
> at 1800 RPM).
Um, ok, print some money and give it to people so they will rid their
payed-off vehicle for a new, built by a bailed-out, bankrupt company
car, so they will have to make payments, because they don't have any
money. Sounds perfectly sane to me.....

On 2009-08-04, Dick R. > wrote:
> Anyone here want to trade in their "gas guzzling" Mustang
> or any other vehicle for a new ... Toyota or another mundane
> vehicle? I didn't think so. As I understand it, the vehicles
> that are traded in have to be destroyed. Personally, it seems
> like a stupid program, but who am I to say.

It is stupid. It's a government plan. It's wasteful, stupid, and
transfers wealth from one group to another. These are the people that
want to run health care.

"Dick R." > wrote in message
...
> Anyone here want to trade in their "gas guzzling" Mustang
> or any other vehicle for a new ... Toyota or another mundane
> vehicle? I didn't think so. As I understand it, the vehicles
> that are traded in have to be destroyed. Personally, it seems
> like a stupid program, but who am I to say.
>
> Dick
> 84 Capri RS 5.0 that gets 25 mpg on the highway (5th gear
> at 1800 RPM).

The number one traded-in-for vehicle is the Ford Focus. There are days when
I'd consider trading both Frogs (a combined $9,000, more than book value for
both) in on a new Focus, that's for sure.

Those days aren't many, but there are those days.

I also see, every day, cars out running on the roadways that I WISH would be
destroyed. I pay a pretty good amount to keep my cars running in safe,
reliable fashion, and I often wonder how some of those cars pass annual
inspection (or IF they do).

Sure, I'd be happy - thrilled - to accept a rebate of more than my car's
value at trade-in. If I didn't drive Mustangs. I think it's a wonderful
program, and I'm happy to see it extended (with moneys already allocated for
a different use). This is a great time to be a buyer, and that extra $3500
to $4500 would make a difference for a lot of people. No harm, no foul.

The average increase in fuel mileage for the 250,000 units sold so far is
10mpg. If true, that's 2,500,000mpg better already, with the majority of the
new units either built by US companies or at least assembled in the US.

I can't believe that the sixth most traded for vehicle is the Ford Escape. I
CAN believe that the most traded-IN vehicle is the Ford Explorer.

Maybe us old farts need to realize that our little V8 powered gas guzzlers
are dinosaurs, and that we should all be tooling around in Smart Cars and
the not-too-distant US versions of the Nano.

Nah.

I'm not trading in the Twins any time soon. Still, it's a wonderful program.

dwight

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-08-04, Dick R. > wrote:
>> Anyone here want to trade in their "gas guzzling" Mustang
>> or any other vehicle for a new ... Toyota or another mundane
>> vehicle? I didn't think so. As I understand it, the vehicles
>> that are traded in have to be destroyed. Personally, it seems
>> like a stupid program, but who am I to say.
>
> It is stupid. It's a government plan. It's wasteful, stupid, and
> transfers wealth from one group to another. These are the people that
> want to run health care.

These are the people who run Congress' health care. Do you hear them
complaining?

dwight

On 2009-08-05, dwight > wrote:

> The average increase in fuel mileage for the 250,000 units sold so far is
> 10mpg. If true, that's 2,500,000mpg better already, with the majority of the
> new units either built by US companies or at least assembled in the US.

And maybe in 15 years there will be an environmental benefit (measured
in the consumption of resources) *if* the new cars purchased are still
on the road. If they too were replaced early then the hole of wasted
resources gets deeper.

On 2009-08-05, dwight > wrote:
>
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2009-08-04, Dick R. > wrote:
>>> Anyone here want to trade in their "gas guzzling" Mustang
>>> or any other vehicle for a new ... Toyota or another mundane
>>> vehicle? I didn't think so. As I understand it, the vehicles
>>> that are traded in have to be destroyed. Personally, it seems
>>> like a stupid program, but who am I to say.
>>
>> It is stupid. It's a government plan. It's wasteful, stupid, and
>> transfers wealth from one group to another. These are the people that
>> want to run health care.
>
> These are the people who run Congress' health care. Do you hear them
> complaining?

Congress's plan for themselves, which they keep under the bill, is they
get whatever they want at the expense of those forced to pay taxes and
those who hold and use US dollars.

I hope nobody minds if I drift slightly OT.
I think the "clunkers" are 4WD vehicles that people drive to
work everyday, maybe racking up 10,000 miles a year, and wasting
lots of gas idling on the freeways.
As a retired old fart, I still drive my 1995 Ford E150 van, but
only on over the road excursions - maybe 5000 miles/year. I don't
check gas mileage, but the last time I did, I was towing a boat,
with a tail wind, and got 16 MPG. No "clunkers" at my house!

Dick
84 Capri RS 5.0