Absolutely heart breaking waste

[exbass94]

That is disgusting. These cars could have been given to someone less fortunate (instead of just blowing them up). That is the last thing we need in this economy is running, reliable (and affordable) cars being blown up. Great program. Get rid of all the reliable vehicles that will last forever, for junk that falls apart in 30,000 miles.

Also, why the hell do they destroy the engines. Why don't they just crush the cars if they are so bent on destroying them? Malicious if you'd ask me.

Junk that falls apart in 30k? Care to provide some examples? I'm not aware of any manufacturer making such crappy cars. Pretty much all vehicles being produced are capable of 200k+ miles, and are just as, if not more reliable as the vehicles being junked.

Giving the cars to poor people would defeat the purpose of the program. The purpose of the program is to help the environment by getting heavily polluting vehicles off the road. If they give them to someone else to drive, they're still polluting.

And they DID crush the vehicles. But they were allowed to sell parts off of them, just not the engine. (That whole preventing heavily polluting stuff again) so they destroyed the engine, stripped and sold parts, and then crushed the body.

 

[mentalbreakdown00]

Well if you are soo green, do you believe in recycling? If so then wouldn't it be more prudent to take a older car or truck that has already been produced, and update it to modern standards instead of manufacturing new equipment, this is the point we are trying to make, and not all of the clunkers were gas hogs, most vehicles only get 1-2 mpg better than the 20 yr old counter parts they are replacing. My horrible polluting 1989 toyota corolla with a CARB, get 32 mpg, what does a 2010 get?

 

[bd2988]

Junk that falls apart in 30k? Care to provide some examples? I'm not aware of any manufacturer making such crappy cars. Pretty much all vehicles being produced are capable of 200k+ miles, and are just as, if not more reliable as the vehicles being junked.

Giving the cars to poor people would defeat the purpose of the program. The purpose of the program is to help the environment by getting heavily polluting vehicles off the road. If they give them to someone else to drive, they're still polluting.

And they DID crush the vehicles. But they were allowed to sell parts off of them, just not the engine. (That whole preventing heavily polluting stuff again) so they destroyed the engine, stripped and sold parts, and then crushed the body.

Well, today, parts in vehicles (even vehicles themselves) are made over-seas more than they were 10-15 years ago. Parts are cheaper and of less quality. I was being brash in my 30,000 mile estimate, but vehicles aren't of the same quality (IMO) as they were. (Check out carsurvey.org)

Also, I would think of a heavily polluting vehicle as one without emissions, or one with failing emissions. I just can't see wrecking good cars that are in proper working condition. Is an Explorer, with 58k, and proper working emissions really heavily polluting?

Sorry but I just never really cared for this program. If the government was really interested in reducing carbon emissions from vehicles, we would have a wide spread electric car by now. Even cars that get 40mpg and that are all about "less pollution" still give off a carbon footprint.

 

[colby450xc]

Giving the cars to poor people would defeat the purpose of the program. The purpose of the program is to help the environment by getting heavily polluting vehicles off the road. If they give them to someone else to drive, they're still polluting.

I was under the impression that this program was more of an economic stimulus program. Either way, I imagine a lot of the cars were being sold to people that couldnt really afford them. Yeah $4500 helps when you buy a car, but in the long run $4500 doesnt make that big of a difference on even a $20,000 new vehicle. I think it was a terrible program.

 

[exbass94]

I'm not trying to defend the program, I think it was a stupid waste too. I'm just explaining why they didn't resell the cars. (If they did resell them, then everyone would complain "what's the point? They're still polluting" instead of complaining about the waste) I still disagree about the quality of the cars though. All the manufacturers have really stepped up their game and are producing some fine machines. Yes, even the Koreans.

Edit: just wanted to add that I'm all for reusing old vehicles. My mom wanted (still wants, actually) to trade the Explorer for something new, and I'm convincing her to keep it until it dies. I even dumped about $600 into it to keep it going. Over the past year, I put about $1000 into my '92 Accord, and will soon spend another $500 in tires, and will also keep that car till it dies.

 

[bd2988]

I'm not trying to defend the program, I think it was a stupid waste too. I'm just explaining why they didn't resell the cars. (If they did resell them, then everyone would complain "what's the point? They're still polluting" instead of complaining about the waste) I still disagree about the quality of the cars though. All the manufacturers have really stepped up their game and are producing some fine machines. Yes, even the Koreans.

Edit: just wanted to add that I'm all for reusing old vehicles. My mom wanted (still wants, actually) to trade the Explorer for something new, and I'm convincing her to keep it until it dies. I even dumped about $600 into it to keep it going. Over the past year, I put about $1000 into my '92 Accord, and will soon spend another $500 in tires, and will also keep that car till it dies.

Well, to each his own. I am one of those who thinks "newer isn't always better". Plus, newer is never cheaper

I understand your explanation on why they don't resell the cars. Double edged sword in a way. I initially thought that the program was just intended to help sell new cars, never really thought of it in a pollution way before. Also, I used to think that they really did sell the cars. I remember when the program was initially started, some dealers would have many older cars for sale that fit the description of the clunkers program. Dunno if that was just a coincidence or what.

 

[Ranger Dave (B25)]

The point he's making is that the production of new vehicles (however "green" and eco-friendly their manufacturers claim them to be) is always going to be more enviromentally damaging than reusing older, existing vehicles. He's not talking about the new engines.

I disagree.

What I quoted is what was posted. How anyone could spin that into 'what he means is...' is beyond me.

In reality they got stuck with a brand new foreign "eco" pos, that produced more pollutants being made, then their old clunker engine would of.

I read that as they make more pollutants than the vehicle they replaced.

Now, if the PO really meant 'the production of these vehicles creates more pollutants than the vehicle being replaced would have,' it should have been phrased that way.

Sorry, not buying it. YMMV.

 

[AllanD]

A careful financial and environmental analysis of the entire Cash-4-clunkers program

Basically points out that in essences the government was "paying" for a gas savings that essentially equaled their buying the "saved" gasoline for $27/gallon.

they have also guaranteed that the price of used cars of quality will be artificially inflated because of the generally serviceable vehicles that were permanantly, irrevocably and prematurely removed from the available pool of vehicles.

Discarding something before it's useful life has been exhausted is ecologically unsound.

any savings to the environment are either an illusion or a barefaced lie, because the pollution footprint from building ANY new vehicle is greater than continuing to run ANY correctly operating vehicle until it's natural service life is exhausted.

THAT is simple reality and no ammout of wishful thinking or political correctness is going to change reality.

Write this down perceptions change like the wind, weather or mind of a capricious woman... reality is what it is.

Recognize that or suffer the consequences.

AD

 

[ragajungle]

Junk that falls apart in 30k? Care to provide some examples? I'm not aware of any manufacturer making such crappy cars. Pretty much all vehicles being produced are capable of 200k+ miles, and are just as, if not more reliable as the vehicles being junked.

I know I am gonna be abused for this (They'll beat me unmercifully and poke at me and twist my assy nipples [Jerky Boys] Snicker Snicker)


BUT Ford has demonstrated that they can produce a car that has catastrophic failure in under 30K miles....GOOGLE 5r55e transmission problems and you'll find about 3 million hits on it. Alot of those failures happened under 30K miles. Rangers, Explorers, Sport Tracks, Lincoln Aviators all use the same crummy rehashed A4LD trans - rehashed to make it worse. Between here and explorer forums there are people incessantly posting on this issue, myself included..

Don't get me wrong I love Ford, but they should stay away from the Borduae (SP) produced transmission

 

[Ranger Dave (B25)]

A careful financial and environmental analysis of the entire Cash-4-clunkers program

Basically points out that in essences the government was "paying" for a gas savings that essentially equaled their buying the "saved" gasoline for $27/gallon.

they have also guaranteed that the price of used cars of quality will be artificially inflated because of the generally serviceable vehicles that were permanantly, irrevocably and prematurely removed from the available pool of vehicles.

Discarding something before it's useful life has been exhausted is ecologically unsound.

any savings to the environment are either an illusion or a barefaced lie, because the pollution footprint from building ANY new vehicle is greater than continuing to run ANY correctly operating vehicle until it's natural service life is exhausted.

THAT is simple reality and no ammout of wishful thinking or political correctness is going to change reality.

Write this down perceptions change like the wind, weather or mind of a capricious woman... reality is what it is.

Recognize that or suffer the consequences.

AD

Preach it, Allan.

 

[Ranger Dave (B25)]

I know I am gonna be abused for this (They'll beat me unmercifully and poke at me and twist my assy nipples [Jerky Boys] Snicker Snicker)


BUT Ford has demonstrated that they can produce a car that has catastrophic failure in under 30K miles....GOOGLE 5r55e transmission problems and you'll find about 3 million hits on it. Alot of those failures happened under 30K miles. Rangers, Explorers, Sport Tracks, Lincoln Aviators all use the same crummy rehashed A4LD trans - rehashed to make it worse. Between here and explorer forums there are people incessantly posting on this issue, myself included..

Don't get me wrong I love Ford, but they should stay away from the Borduae (SP) produced transmission

I'm curious: what do you do for a living, and does it involve union dues?

 

[COPPERHEAD85]

Ouch!

Thay can have my 15 MPG almost 30 year old truck when the pry my cold dead fingers from the steering wheel!

 

[ragajungle]

I'm curious: what do you do for a living, and does it involve union dues?

No I am not in a Union, what does that have to do with anything?

 

[Ranger Dave (B25)]

No I am not in a Union, what does that have to do with anything?

Because some of your posts have that flavor: "all foreign-made (stuff) is shit."

 

[AllanD]

They can have my nearly 30 year old truck only when I can no longer drive over the piles of bodies of those trying to take it away from me OR I run out of ammunition, whichever situation happens last.

Frankly though it's be cheaper for them to "fix" the powerball so I win 100million dollars
let me buy the twin engine turboprop airplane I really want then they can have all the crap I'll leave behind while I fly elsewhere to spend the rest of my life farting in their general direction.

AD