anyone else mad about "cash for clunkers"?

[racsan]

i bet some do get saved-fines or not. it may be illegal to turn back the odometer, but it used to happen. the grey ranger of my neighbors' is gone, replaced by a red kia soul. what a waste. someone should dump a couple quarts of a chemical soulution down Nobamas throat.

 

[wrecking-crew]

someone should dump a couple quarts of a chemical soulution down Nobamas throat.

why would we want to pollute the ground he would be burried in if that happened?

 

[naford]

I was under the impression that the motor had to be disabled but if you need body parts tranmissions etc you could get them when the vehicle went to the recycler.

Something I read in the paper. Ford and Kia are the most popular cars bought with the clunkers plan. Ford didn't have to bring back any employess but Kia is going from 4 days to 5 day work weeks at the Alabama plant. So if you worked for Kia your happy. Ford and Kia were the only cars companies not to have a loss this quarter. Even Toyota had a loss. I should clarify of the major automakers. They are saying an overall 60% increase in fuel mileage over what was traded in.

 

[Speedwagon]

i was at the ford dealer....some guy gave them his 1997 ford ranger 2wd 3.0l 5 spd for 3500...it was in immaculate condition...it had 123,000 on it and IT RAN LIKE IT WAS BRAND NEW....i teared from the site

How does this vehicle qualify? I checked my '92 3.0 2wd 5spd, and it gets 18/23, so the combined is higher than 18, which isn't supposed to qualify.

edit: I just went to the epa website with the fuel economy numbers.. that's just wrong. My '92 gets a combined 20mpg, but a '97 get a combined 18mpg. Fuel economy is supposed to go up, not down, over the years. WTF. And not one of my vehicles qualify for this crap program anyways. My POS '87 Ranger gets 21mpg combined, and it runs like ass!

 

[Toms01PSD]

LOL. This is amazing. I went to www.fueleconomy.gov and searched a few vehicles. Apparently my Ranger gets the same mileage as my old mans F150. I also compared my mothers mini-van (01 Dodge Caravan 3.3 2wd) to a 2010 Chevy Camaro with the 6.2. The Caravan comsumed 19 barrels a year, got a Carbon Footprint of 10.2, and 16 city/22 hwy with 18 avg. The '10' Camaro with the 6.2 uses 18 barrels a year, got a Carbon Footprint of 9.6, and 16 city/25 hwy with 19 avg. Anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

 

[LearjetMinako]

I finally saw one of those "Death of a clunker" videos. Now I have mixed emotions and mental stress. I just pray my evil side doesn't come out and find my steel toe boot up someone's butt hole. As a mechanic, I strave to keep engines going. Not to destory them.

I told my mom, that if she wanted to trade-in the Blazer. Sell it to me first. I will pay her the $4,500 for it. No need to have a perfectly good 96 Blazer 4x4 go to waste. Besides, we've owned it since new in 1996.

 

[Beanmachine7000]

LOL. This is amazing. I went to www.fueleconomy.gov and searched a few vehicles. Apparently my Ranger gets the same mileage as my old mans F150. I also compared my mothers mini-van (01 Dodge Caravan 3.3 2wd) to a 2010 Chevy Camaro with the 6.2. The Caravan comsumed 19 barrels a year, got a Carbon Footprint of 10.2, and 16 city/22 hwy with 18 avg. The '10' Camaro with the 6.2 uses 18 barrels a year, got a Carbon Footprint of 9.6, and 16 city/25 hwy with 19 avg. Anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

The fact that newer technology allows more efficient engines to be produced? No...

 

[Toms01PSD]

The fact that newer technology allows more efficient engines to be produced? No...

I guess she'll just have to trade it in for the new Camaro then.