Anyone else experiencing "moral" issues with the cash for clunkers deal?

[bull]

This has been touched on a few times here but it never really hit home for me until my brother-in-law announced that he wants to turn in my former 1985 Dodge Ram 1/2 ton pickup to buy a new car (I sold it to him about 12 years ago). And then I find out they are required to destroy the cars they turn in. What a waste. There's nothing wrong with it other than poor fuel ecomony but these big pickups do have a purpose. Then I considered turning in my aging Dakota pickup but I just don't think I can stand the thought of it being destroyed. It's a pretty good little truck and it always gets me where I need to go. It's odd to feel this way I guess but it just seems wasteful to start smashing decent cars and trucks. What's the hurry? Most of them aren't going to last forever anyway so why push them into the crusher before their time?

[Silver R/T]

It's a mind game. They want you to think that you're doing good thing by "recycling" your "clunker" While they rip you off on a trade-in. Just another scam that government is helping dealers to push through.

[Ghoste]

It's called helping government to purchase the green vote.

[Dans 68]

Now, what California is doing, as of July 1st, is to offer $1,000 for your '89 and older "clunkers", which, if approved, will be taken apart by the local pick-n-pull and thus recycled. I have a '87 BMW 535i which will probably go that way. I can't get near $1,000 for it, and really the only thing wrong with it is that I don't have room for it. Damn shame, but the economics say to turn it in. I need the space.    But of course I'll probably get an I.O.U. from the State....

Dan

[bull]

I can kind of understand something like that. If the car is beat, belching smoke and using a quart of oil everyday, and it's not a restorable classic, then I can see turning it in to the hippies to crush. But I just don't see the logic in smashing perfectly good cars just because they get 18 mpg.

[Dans 68]

... I just don't see the logic in smashing perfectly good cars just because they get 18 mpg.

Agreed.

Dan

[Mike DC]

The Greenie lobby always seems a lot more poweful whenever they're pushing Corporate America to do something that is unpopular but profitable. 

[68X426]

Here's a twist on the clunker story. I know someone with a 2002 Honda Insight. 80k miles and the battery needs replacing. It is $5000 for the battery and $1000 or more to install. The Blue Book is $4800. The old battery comes out and Honda gets to recycle it and keep the money. The Insight owner is financially screwed. But she will remain green no matter the waste. 

Ironic, that she really does have a clunker.

Where is there anything practical, green, or sensible with this car? Just more consumer waste but that's ok to the greenies because she lowered her carbon footprint. I'll keep my free range, fair trade Hemi Road Runner.

So is the clunker program moral? I think that the clunker sham is just one more example of CONSPICUOUS VIRTUE. So no, its not moral.

I share selected observations from Joe Rago writing in the Wall Street Journal in 2007. I wish I had the capacity to express these concepts like he did. Go Joe.

Conspicuous Virtue:

Increasingly many consumers are not seeking an outright demonstration of wealth. Instead, they consume to demonstrate their innate goodness. They spend not to suggest the deepness of their pockets but the deepness of their hearts. We inhabit . . . an age of conspicuous virtue.

A trip to the supermarket is instructive. For some time, everyday food has groaned with every sort of moral sentiment: all-natural, sustainable, cage-free, free-range, organic, organic, organic. Foods like these are more than mere sustenance: They commodify values, making them real -- material -- in the world. They are virtuous goods.

To consume a virtuous good is to make a statement. It is not only to do right, whatever that might mean, but to announce that you are doing so.

Thus we encounter the extreme specialization of virtuous consumption. Upscale boutique grocers like Whole Foods Market and Trader Joe's base their identities (and marketing strategies) on giving people a way to eat so that each of us may demonstrate where we rank in the virtue standings. The "holistic thinking" of Whole Foods Market, for instance, could not be fully expressed in a "vision statement," so the store is governed by a posted "declaration of interdependence" as well. Trader Joe's actually makes a point of advertising that it does not kill baby seals in the procurement of seafood.

Only the affluent can afford to align their products with their beliefs.

Take Toyota's hybrid auto, the Prius. Studies consistently show that fuel savings do not justify the price premium of a gasoline-electric power train. People who can afford the gesture continue to buy the Prius anyway, largely because it certifies personal enlightenment in the matter of global warming.

Culturally, it addresses a continuing fussiness, even conflictedness, about materialism in America. Conspicuous virtue offers to those with guilty consciences a way to feel OK about consumerism.

A fine scotch is vulgar. A "fair trade" scotch is righteous.

Yet we also have here a tidy illustration of a robust market economy at work.. If consumers desire the specialized production of goods as evidence of moral strength -- hell, they'll get it. But there may not be any deeper meaning than that.

In closing I attached a photo to demonstrate what I think of the clunker sham. Good night everybody and remember to generously tip your waitresses on the way out.

[aussiemuscle]

Not to mention that a new car consumes a large volume of resources, which and 'older' car has already paid for. to make as much economical/environmental sense out of a car,  instead of buying a new car every three years, you should own it until it's 'end of life'. (those restoring old mopars ARE environmentalists after all!)

as for the opening question, if you have any sentimental attachment, it makes no sense to trade it in as a junker.

[chargergirl]

Had a "greenie" walk...stride actually up to me at the local Wally World and berate me for driving a gas guzzler. I retorted it didn't guzzle gas...it's a deisel. It's a 24 valve Cummings Diesel 6 speed dually. (Yes I have issues with the greenies). She told me how she gets 23 mpg on the highway. I started laughing and she got even madder and asked me what my problem was. I told her that her gas mileage on such a small car was atrocious and we got 22mpg on the highway towing. WHAT! she yelled. I then went in to my car lover tirade...when did you change your oil last, check the air pressure in your tires, change the filters...pick one! My whole life, growing up in Maui, we had these hippies that lived on the beach, went around with no clothes on, and showed up in the welfare line driving their Audi and BMW's. Older ones but so trendy in their eyes. "If God intended us to wear clothes he would have had us born with them", was their favorite excuse for being in your face naked. Ask how they got to Maui they would reply, "I flew". Strange...none of them had wings.

[b5blue]

  NAKED HIPPIES  I think I just threw up a little in someones carbon footprint! 

[Ghoste]

Mike is right, this whole thing is becoming a very profitable way to take advantage of the green guilt much of the public have been fooled into shouldering.  If they didn't believe everything they saw on tv, they could sleep better.  It will all pale though when the government starts handing us the bill for carbon use.  The coming carbon taxes will hit nearly every single aspect of our daily lives. 

[694spdRT]

This whole plan is going to benefit the people out there that have older SUV's and trucks IMO. I have several older cars that are worth much less than what the clunker deal is providing. They are all bigger cars with V8's and guess what, they get better than 18mpg combined according to the site provided by the government. If they are converted to the "new" mpg standards then the might qualify. Regardless, there are not really any new cars that I am interested in owning that qualify anyway except maybe a Calibre SRT4 and they are pricey little things.

The new Challenger doesn't qualify in case anyone was wondering....I checked. 

[PocketThunder]

Mike is right, this whole thing is becoming a very profitable way to take advantage of the green guilt much of the public have been fooled into shouldering.  If they didn't believe everything they saw on tv, they could sleep better.  It will all pale though when the government starts handing us the bill for carbon use.  The coming carbon taxes will hit nearly every single aspect of our daily lives. 

On the radio this morning was a guy that is starting a brokerage company to buy every homeowners carbon credits and sell them to the industrial companies.  You sign up for the program, track your utility bills each month, and when you have improved your energy needs and saved up 1 metric ton of carbon credit you sell it to the broker, who then sells it to the next guy.  I'm sorry but i cant remember the website at the moment, (i'm thinking about lunch right now). 

[Old Moparz]

Doesn't bother me much at all, but it would if I sold something cheap to someone as a favor, & they turned around & flipped it right away for a profit. In this case, 12 years is a long time, & an '85 is pretty old, so it doesn't seem unreasonable at all. If the vehicle was mint, then it makes no sense, but if it's worn & will need all kinds of things replaced in the near future, then it might make a lot of sense to trade it in.

It's easy to say that it can be salvaged or restored, or used as a parts source to fix other cars, but anyone who's parted cars out before, knows that you will sit on things forever before you sell them. As much as I'd like to snag a few vehicles for parts I need & maybe make a few extra bucks on the leftovers, I won't do it anymore. I have no time to tinker with an older daily driver & don't want the hassle of hearing "Sorry, we don't stock old crap like that."

What bothered me more, was the pollution credits deal that big companies took advantage of by crushing old cars that weren't on the road anyway, so they can continue polluting.

[my73charger]

Had a "greenie" walk...stride actually up to me at the local Wally World and berate me for driving a gas guzzler. I retorted it didn't guzzle gas...it's a deisel. It's a 24 valve Cummings Diesel 6 speed dually. (Yes I have issues with the greenies). She told me how she gets 23 mpg on the highway. I started laughing and she got even madder and asked me what my problem was. I told her that her gas mileage on such a small car was atrocious and we got 22mpg on the highway towing. WHAT! she yelled. I then went in to my car lover tirade...when did you change your oil last, check the air pressure in your tires, change the filters...pick one! My whole life, growing up in Maui, we had these hippies that lived on the beach, went around with no clothes on, and showed up in the welfare line driving their Audi and BMW's. Older ones but so trendy in their eyes. "If God intended us to wear clothes he would have had us born with them", was their favorite excuse for being in your face naked. Ask how they got to Maui they would reply, "I flew". Strange...none of them had wings.

This reminds me of when I was a kid in the early 70's.  We had a hippie couple living down the road from us in a tiny cabin.  They didn't believe in owning a car, but they sure were glad my dad owned one on cold days.  They frequently stopped in and asked him for a ride to town.

[Todd Wilson]

The owner of the shop I work at part time cashed in his 1990 Jeep GC on the deal for a new Minivan.    The clunker deal has a lot of guidelines to go by.  The clunker has to meet a certain MPG rating to qualify. If you trade it in on a small econo car you get 4500$. If you trade it in on a lesser MPG vehicle you get 3500$.   Little cars dont qaulify as a clunker. My 1986 Honda Prelude is not a clunker and I could not trade it in under the plan.  A guy at the shop has a Ford Escort he commutes in and it approaching 300000miles. Car still runs fine but its getting up there. He was gonna clunker it but it didnt qualify.

There are no incentives or wheeling and dealing.  Its sticker price minus the clunker cash and thats how it works.  The program is really only for select situations and not as good of a deal as we all originally thought.


Todd

[LeadfootBob]

Am I the only one who instantly associated "carbon credits" and "emission rights" with something the church did way back when, where you could just mail the pope a couple of bucks and have your sins forgiven? Green guilt just makes me nauseuous, whatever the manifestation...

[mauve66]

the problem with this clunker deal is that MOST of the people that have older cars that are worth less than $4500 can't afford a $300 per month car payment when they turn in their PAID OFF car to go green, don't htink the government cares about their monthly bills do ya

of course you can go get a kia rio for $4500 after the clunker money but who in the $$$$ wants one of those?? not people with 5 kids and a paid off car that still runs fine

[bearbqd]

Am I the only one who instantly associated "carbon credits" and "emission rights" with something the church did way back when, where you could just mail the pope a couple of bucks and have your sins forgiven? Green guilt just makes me nauseuous, whatever the manifestation...

It makes me so sick I'm seriously considering having my wife's shop make me some magnetics to stick on the back of my musclecars when I drive them. They would say "I Kill Trees!"

[Todd Wilson]

the problem with this clunker deal is that MOST of the people that have older cars that are worth less than $4500 can't afford a $300 per month car payment when they turn in their PAID OFF car to go green, don't htink the government cares about their monthly bills do ya

of course you can go get a kia rio for $4500 after the clunker money but who in the $$$$ wants one of those?? not people with 5 kids and a paid off car that still runs fine

You are exactly right.  My boss bought his GC brand new. It was completely wore out,rusted out and barely running. He's got the $$$ to go buy what ever he wants. Wife has a car thats getting to be 6-7 years old but still in fine shape. He's having health issues that will eventually put him in a wheel chair so he traded the GC in for a real nice T&C minivan. It made perfect sense for him to do it.  He is one of the few that really should and could trade every 3 years but he's nto that type. The clunker deal wont do those people a bit of good. I think they will find out this clunker deal isnt gonna do a whole lot but make some officials feel good.


Todd

[jb666]

I can kind of understand something like that. If the car is beat, belching smoke and using a quart of oil everyday, and it's not a restorable classic, then I can see turning it in to the hippies to crush. But I just don't see the logic in smashing perfectly good cars just because they get 18 mpg.

I agree with you completely, and you're going to see more and more of this. My City has a billboard up that says "Scrap your old car (pre-1994) and get $3000 tax credit for it regardless of it's condition! Do something good for your community!!"

So a 1992 Chevy Impala is a load that needs to be crushed??

I did something good for my environment, I sold my black smoke spewing diesel truck... That's as far as I'll go.

[Todd Wilson]

I wonder what those folks that are driving old beaters will drive when their current beaters give up. There wont be any 90's cars left to buy for 800$ if this clunker deal and tax credit thing pans out like they hope.


Todd

[bull]

There are no incentives or wheeling and dealing.  Its sticker price minus the clunker cash and thats how it works.  The program is really only for select situations and not as good of a deal as we all originally thought.
Todd

So what's to stop the dealers from jacking the prices in anticipation of this? If they know there's no negotiating then why not pad the already-too-high price by a 2-3 G's or more? I could see where someone using this "rebate" program might actually spend more money on a car than they would have otherwise. It's like Vegas, the house always wins.

[jb666]

I wonder what those folks that are driving old beaters will drive when their current beaters give up. There wont be any 90's cars left to buy for 800$ if this clunker deal and tax credit thing pans out like they hope.


Todd

Right. We just bought my youngest daughter a 1999 Chevy Impala for her first car. Got it from a friend for $500, and it runs like a top, passed inspection right away, has every option possible and best of all? It's safe for her..

But, by their standards, it should be crushed and put out of it's misery.

[Todd Wilson]

There are no incentives or wheeling and dealing.  Its sticker price minus the clunker cash and thats how it works.  The program is really only for select situations and not as good of a deal as we all originally thought.
Todd

So what's to stop the dealers from jacking the prices in anticipation of this? If they know there's no negotiating then why not pad the already-too-high price by a 2-3 G's or more? I could see where someone using this "rebate" program might actually spend more money on a car than they would have otherwise. It's like Vegas, the house always wins.

Thats a good question and I really dont know the answer for sure. They do have MSRP or sticker price on a vehicle and its always a lot higher then you can usually get them for if you wheel and deal. At least on bigger cars. Smaller cars I think they are right on the edge.  I  was told Dodge dealers a year or 2 ago had roughly 6-8 grand to deal with off the sticker price on a new diesel ram 40000$ could maybe be had for 32000$ if you played your cards right or the dealer needed to move the vehicle.   WIth the clunker  it would be 40g's  - 3500$.   Far less then if you were to wheel and deal.  Now the smaller cars like Caliber and so forth dont have much in the way to play as far as dealing but sticker price - your clunker money would be a good deal and the dealer puts full profit in their pockets.

Lots of dealers lately are hungry and are probably selling stuff close to invoice price on most vehicles. I wonder if they would clunker off invoice or sticker. Probably depends on the dealer, the vehicle and how hungry they are.


Todd

[Old Moparz]

There are no incentives or wheeling and dealing.  Its sticker price minus the clunker cash and thats how it works.  The program is really only for select situations and not as good of a deal as we all originally thought.
Todd

So what's to stop the dealers from jacking the prices in anticipation of this? If they know there's no negotiating then why not pad the already-too-high price by a 2-3 G's or more? I could see where someone using this "rebate" program might actually spend more money on a car than they would have otherwise. It's like Vegas, the house always wins.

Dealers have been doing that already. They brag about how much you're saving on a factory rebate & make it sound like they are the ones discounting the MSRP when in fact they aren't discounting much at all. Also when you tell them you have a trade in vehicle, (regular trade, not pollution credit, clunker trade) they deduct the trade value from the MSRP so it's no different than getting a small discount on the new car & giving them your old car for free.

[bearbqd]

Well, I 've never bought anything from a dealer and I don't plan to.

[chargergirl]

I wonder what those folks that are driving old beaters will drive when their current beaters give up. There wont be any 90's cars left to buy for 800$ if this clunker deal and tax credit thing pans out like they hope.


Todd

I just got a postcard in the mail. Hey Lyn turn in that gas guzzler and receive UP TO $4500! Doesn't that sound great! Truck is valued at more than $12,000 and we'll give you up to...I've got an up to I would like to relate! There is also fodder about taxing you on the amount of mileage you drive every year. So not only will we tax you to death on gas/diesel we now will tax you on your driving. That will teach those that quit driving so much when gas prices went up. Remember that? We were told that gas was so high because of our demand...THEN...we were told gas prices were going up again since we weren't demanding as much oil. What Todd said above is exactly the plan. Crushing the cars that would be purchased by those could not afford a new car will MAKE one have to buy a new car. That will make the, badly managed, car makers happy and lucrative once again. Ah and the news today stated Obama wants to pay the Opium dealers to not plant opium anymore. WHAT!?! And we pay again! I have no more money!

[my73charger]

chargergirl makes reference to the gas mileage tax.  My rep, James Oberstar, the Chair of the Transportation Committee, is pushing this idea.  He wants to put a GPS in everyones cars to track their mileage.  Not only will this plan cost a rediulous amount of money to institute but it will add a whole new layer of government.  Plus, who wants the government to be able to track every move you make with a GPS?  Talk about invasion of privacy!  I have already written every rep I have including Oberstar to express my thoughts and feelings on this garbage.

[694spdRT]

Lots of dealers lately are hungry and are probably selling stuff close to invoice price on most vehicles. I wonder if they would clunker off invoice or sticker. Probably depends on the dealer, the vehicle and how hungry they are.


Todd

If the dealers don't treat these as an outright buy without trade this whole plan is worthless. Unless the dealer is willing to move off of window sticker, include rebates, etc. and then deduct the $3500 or $4500 you may as well keep your car or sell it outright and then buy what you want.

[Go Hogs Go]

At the dealership I sell cars for the clunker price will be treated as cash down. The Government is buying the car, not the dealership. It will not effect the purchase price of the new vehicle. Right now you can buy almost any GM vehicle at supplier pricing less rebates. Any clunker money will come off that bottom line price. Someone is feeding you a load of bull on the MSRP no negotiations stuff. Right now we cannot even register for the program until July 24, and it will be the 27 before we can even submit a deal to the goverment. You have no ideal what a headache this thing is going to be.

[Ghoste]

It's going to be a headache?  C'mon, who are you trying to kid?  After all, it's a government program so there is no way it could be any more complicated than say, income tax for example.

[Go Hogs Go]

From what we are seeing right now, I think we'll be killing a lot more trees with the paperwork and required forms than we are saving crushing cars.

[694spdRT]

From what we are seeing right now, I think we'll be killing a lot more trees with the paperwork and required forms than we are saving crushing cars.

No doubt about that.  I wonder how many dealers will decide to just pass on it altogether.

I was thinking maybe a new Caliber SXT 5 speed for $12,900 less the $3500 or $4500 might be an option for a run around car.

[bull]

Some noteworthy provisions in the rules:

Only new-car dealers can issue the credit, and they must have an active franchise agreement with the manufacturer. That means used-car dealers can't issue the vouchers. Neither can a new-car dealer that has lost its franchise, as several thousand Chrysler and General Motors dealers have recently.

Dealers are required to disclose to the consumer the scrap value of their trade-in and can keep $50 of that amount to cover their administrative costs.

Though all trades must be in drivable condition, dealers are required to disable the vehicles' engines before scrapping them. Regulators' accepted procedure: Drain the oil, then run several quarts of sodium silicate through the engine. As engine heat evaporates the solution, deposits of dehydrated sodium silicate line the engine's lubrication system, abrading all the moving parts and causing the engine to seize.

The dealer must stamp the title "Junk Automobile, Cars.gov" before submitting it for reimbursement. And the dealer must have clear title before doing so.

Scrap facilities can sell any part of the car except the engine block or whole drivetrain, but ultimately the car must be taken off the road.

Violators of the rules face civil penalties of up to $15,000 per incident.

[b5blue]

So now if your buying a new car your nuts not to buy a POS to trade in first! 

[bull]

So now if your buying a new car your nuts not to buy a POS to trade in first! 

Exactly what I was thinking. Used car sales just might go up.

[mauve66]

but you have to own the clunker for a year BEFORE trading it in, if they don't resell the engines and trans then where are all the aftermarket re-manufactured blocks going to come from in 5-15 years ??  are those businesses just going out of business??

[b5blue]

Next will be insurance on "clunkers" will go through the roof.

[Todd Wilson]

I just had a meeting this afternoon with the Gm of our Chrysler dealership. We talked about the clunker deal. Its going like wild fire here at our dealership.   Chrysler is now matching the 4500$ clunker cash. The right situation you could get 9000$ off the purchase of a new vehicle. Clunker cash and all factory rebates/incentives apply. You got some old 1990 gas guzzling pickup truck and trade it in on a new economy car you could get a new car for real cheap. Depending on your MPG rating on your clunker and new unit will decide on 3500$ or 4500$ rebate.



Todd

[Todd Wilson]

chargergirl makes reference to the gas mileage tax.  My rep, James Oberstar, the Chair of the Transportation Committee, is pushing this idea.  He wants to put a GPS in everyones cars to track their mileage.  Not only will this plan cost a rediulous amount of money to institute but it will add a whole new layer of government.  Plus, who wants the government to be able to track every move you make with a GPS?  Talk about invasion of privacy!  I have already written every rep I have including Oberstar to express my thoughts and feelings on this garbage.

Theres been a radio ad playing on one of our stations that the College of Iowa is looking for people to participate in a deal where they put a GPS/computer on your vehicle and track your miles driven. Its a test that could help provide us with better roads for driving in the future! Thats what they say anyways. Gonna pay people 800$ to do it.  They are already trying to get things in place to  tax us via GPS.   Wonder if they will have a 6volt positive ground unit for my old 47 Dodge! HA!


Todd

[68X426]

A little subversiveness would go a long way. I think we all sign up and then drive through every cornfield we can find just to skew the statistics in the "study". Or strap one to a possum and let Big Brother figure out what it all means. 

[Mike DC]

I'm surprised it has taken Congress this long to start pushing for GPS's in everyone's cars.   

[mauve66]

chargergirl makes reference to the gas mileage tax.  My rep, James Oberstar, the Chair of the Transportation Committee, is pushing this idea.  He wants to put a GPS in everyones cars to track their mileage.  Not only will this plan cost a rediulous amount of money to institute but it will add a whole new layer of government.  Plus, who wants the government to be able to track every move you make with a GPS?  Talk about invasion of privacy!  I have already written every rep I have including Oberstar to express my thoughts and feelings on this garbage.

Theres been a radio ad playing on one of our stations that the College of Iowa is looking for people to participate in a deal where they put a GPS/computer on your vehicle and track your miles driven. Its a test that could help provide us with better roads for driving in the future! Thats what they say anyways. Gonna pay people 800$ to do it.  They are already trying to get things in place to  tax us via GPS.   Wonder if they will have a 6volt positive ground unit for my old 47 Dodge! HA!


Todd

bet its a study from the government to determine if they can get enough money from taxing it that way to offset the cost of the program

[Todd Wilson]

chargergirl makes reference to the gas mileage tax.  My rep, James Oberstar, the Chair of the Transportation Committee, is pushing this idea.  He wants to put a GPS in everyones cars to track their mileage.  Not only will this plan cost a rediulous amount of money to institute but it will add a whole new layer of government.  Plus, who wants the government to be able to track every move you make with a GPS?  Talk about invasion of privacy!  I have already written every rep I have including Oberstar to express my thoughts and feelings on this garbage.

Theres been a radio ad playing on one of our stations that the College of Iowa is looking for people to participate in a deal where they put a GPS/computer on your vehicle and track your miles driven. Its a test that could help provide us with better roads for driving in the future! Thats what they say anyways. Gonna pay people 800$ to do it.  They are already trying to get things in place to  tax us via GPS.   Wonder if they will have a 6volt positive ground unit for my old 47 Dodge! HA!


Todd

bet its a study from the government to determine if they can get enough money from taxing it that way to offset the cost of the program

You are exactly right!   Get some college kids to do it so it makes everyone feel good that they are helping kids get an education by participating.


Todd

[chargergirl]

Technically they already have GPS on most of the new cars. It makes it all sound so great and it is...to a degree. It's called low jack and OnStar.

[Steve P.]

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::(Here's a twist on the clunker story. I know someone with a 2002 Honda Insight. 80k miles and the battery needs replacing. It is $5000 for the battery and $1000 or more to install. The Blue Book is $4800. The old battery comes out and Honda gets to recycle it and keep the money. The Insight owner is financially screwed. But she will remain green no matter the waste.  pity

Ironic, that she really does have a clunker.

Where is there anything practical, green, or sensible with this car? Just more consumer waste but that's ok to the greenies because she lowered her carbon footprint. I'll keep my free range, fair trade Hemi Road Runner.)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

To answer your question: (Where is there anything practical, green, or sensible with this car?)

1) This car brand new today is dirt cheap to buy.

2) She spent very little on fuel over the 7 years it's been driven.

3) If she had been making extra payments with the gas savings the car would have been paid for. (I am using it's avg. mileage against MY avg. mpg). My V-10 F-250 gets about 10.5 mpg. It's also a 2002 with nearly 80K on it.

4) It seems that a 2002' should have been paid off 2 years ago or so. Maybe she bought it used and paid too much.

5) Yes, she has made a much smaller footprint when compared to MOST cars.

6) Most people buy a new vehicle and are upside down the day they signed for it. Also most need many repairs starting just about the time they should be paid off.  (Funny how that works, huh)? 


So I don't see your point. This car averages 40 MPG. So in comparison to my truck, she get's very near 4 times as many miles out of the same gallon of gas.

My truck with 80 K at today's pump price = 7,691  Gallons = $18,285.oo
Her INSIGHT w/80K at today's gas prices = 2,000  Gallons = $  4,800.oo

This seems to me she could have saved $13,485 dollars worth of gas. And since the price of a brand new Insite is under $20,000 (base sticker, no extra deals), she should be in VERY good shape...

Or am I missing something??

[bull]

Steve,

I won't argue the fuel cost savings but I will argue the "green" aspect of the hybrid issue in that there is still no environmentally sound way to dispose of the batteries used in these kinds of cars. Basically they're trading one evil (the "eco-horror" that is our dependence on foreign oil) for another (the environmentally hazardous nature of spent batteries) and the nasty methods used to create lithium-ion batteries in the first place. IMO car makers could (and do) squeeze the same mpg out of small turbo diesel engines (read TDI Jetta) with next to no emissions and effectively eliminate the need for hybrid technology at all. Hybrid cars are not nearly as green as some people would like us to believe, and therefore I have to assume they don't factor the battery construction and disposal in to their "carbon footprint" formula.

In reality my 17 mpg on-a-good-day-Durango is less of an overall polluter than the Prius: http://www.dosomething.org/blog/chatterbox/prius-not-so-green-afterall

"CNW Marketing Research's second annual "Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles from Concept to Disposal" report concludes that the overall environmental impact of the Prius is significantly higher than many SUVs and other nonhybrid cars because the automobile's fuel economy is not the largest factor in its impact.

The study added up all energy needed to design, build, ship, drive and dispose of a vehicle throughout its lifetime. The data is then translated to a dollar figure. According to findings, the Prius costs $2.19 per mile over its expected life span of 100,000 miles. There are 156 cars with lower per mile cost than the Prius, including pickup trucks and SUVs such as the Toyota Tacoma ($.97), Jeep Liberty ($1.11), Ford Explorer ($1.87), Dodge Durango ($1.69) and Jeep Wrangler ($.65).

The top factor in determining a car's environmental cost-per-mile is its recyclability. Because hybrids are newer technology, their parts are less reusable in other makes and models. For example, each Prius battery is made of 32 pounds of nickel. The environmental cost of mining the nickel and the cost of recycling the nickel batteries are significant because there is not a massive industry, as there is for regular batteries.

Overall, the CNW study found that newer technology, while it may be environmentally friendly in theory, can do more harm than good until the technology becomes more widespread. Hopefully other tech can catch up to these superior engines."

[68X426]

 Hi Everyone. This has been an excellent topic and dialogue.

So Steve said.... Or am I missing something??. Nothing personal, really, but here I go.

Yes, you are missing something in two ways:

one is the "morality" component of the posed question,
second is the economics of the matter.

You didn't address the morality. The alleged morality of a green car gets back to my earlier post regarding Conspicuous Virtue. Please check it out. Your take, I think, is that cheap is better and therefore (probably) the morally right thing to do.

I absolutely agree it's a cheap car. She saved a ton on the fuel. It seems like she made a smaller footprint. On the surface only though. Now comes the unintended consequences (conveniently ignored by greens).

Your point one is that the new ones are dirt cheap. Yes, because the current ones are worthless at 80k (mandatory repair is greater than the car value). If the car wasn't a clunker today, the free market (what is that?) would not price the new car as dirt cheap today. The car wasn't intended to be a clunker, but it is definitely a clunker, so the clunker discount is part of the new price.

The difference in the fuel cost is $13,485. I agree it's cheaper by a ton. But now the economic reality: take off $6000 + for the repair. $7485 is still a nice savings. I have to ask: would you do the repair and be under water by $1200 just to save future fuel cost? So now it's down to $6285. Not bad at all, but that's just on the surface.

You have to consider that you can't know how long the new battery will last (I think she said it's a 50k warranty) and all the while the car wears out around you. (I know Hondas are tough but they do wear out). There will be unforeseen costs to keep that car going for 10 years. You simply cannot sell it. Therefore, you could only, reasonably, junk the car because it cannot accomplish anything else (for anyone) except save fuel.

I don't see how it makes a bit of economic sense to replace that battery. It may make moral sense to someone, it is certainly fuel sensible, but it is not economically practical. She, and the soon to be hundreds of thousands more owners, will just dump the car. Society pays the price for her fuel savings. The law of unintended consequences is obvious because Honda didn't mean for it to be worthless (I don't think. That's another subject). But it is worthless.

Quite the paradox: fuel savings for her that then hurts the rest of us human beings when the car is worthless. Her Conspicuous Virtue makes it acceptable to consume ever more energy and materials. And now the clunker bill makes it socially, morally, and politically acceptable to dump ever increasing amounts of our crap into the scrap heap. Dirty secret: recycle has not reached economically sustainable levels and green cars are not green.

I submit that your truck is the equal of her Insight for its carbon footprint and its "morality" and it is superior for its total economic value. (Assuming you use it as a truck). Consider:

You can haul 4 to 6 people, she can do 2 (in the real world).

You can haul maybe one ton of material and tow 5 tons, she can do a couple grocery bags. 

You are likely to keep the truck going forever, and she has a car that has redefined what worthless means.

Replacing her car would include the impact of the new steel, plastic, battery cells, glass, fiber, time, energy, on and on, and no green ever will discuss the total environmental cost of buying, using, and replacing a green car.

Her only green choice is to walk, bicycle or ride a horse. And they have unintended consequences as well.

Most important, if nothing else matters, consider the impact of how she has to make 20 trips to accomplish what you do in one trip. Plus, she has had to either rent a truck to get jobs done, or borrow favors from truck friends, or pay for UPS, et all, for deliveries. So the fossil fuel for her lifestyle is most certainly being spent, just not by her using up her fossil fuel, but her lifestyle is using the fossil fuel. Convenient rational for the greens: my shit is green and I therefore I don't care about the real impact to the planet.

Example: Bono and Springsteen telling us to save the planet, one private jet trip at a time. Everyday examples: the Prius owner who orders their Victoria Secrets, REI, and Williams Sonoma and waits for UPS and FedEx to just magically appear. Multiply that impact by billions. And while waiting for UPS they drive the Insight to yoga on day 1, then to the tea shop on day 2, then to the organic farmers market on day 3 (instead of growing their own tomatoes). Multiplied by millions

The issue is her, your, mine, and everybody's lifestyle costs and their impacts. Not just the fuel savings. You make every trip count. She makes no adjustments, she just consumes.

I submit that you and your truck accomplish more for society and the environment than the green machine. Your dollar of fuel is also far more economically efficient than her dollar of fuel because you simply can do more and do do more with the truck.

She saved the fuel, but we (you, me, society, and the environment) did not save anything based on that car choice.

Full disclosure, before someone responds about politics or not loving Mother Nature, I am green, long before green was cool. I am also an economist, scientist, and farmer, and love Bruce. I just wanted to point out the complex human behavior we see exhibited by greens and their cars. The paradox of Conspicuous Virtue has no better example than the Honda Insight. She appears to have lowered the carbon footprint but we all pay a higher environmental price for it.

In summary, I say save the planet by using what is already here: get a pound puppy, adopt a child, plant your own veggies, buy recycled, walk, bike, and most importantly restore a Mopar. Be contrarian. These things will save the environment.

Steve, please keep your truck running, you are the efficient one, not the hybrid or electric.

[Mike DC]

   
Educate poor women  --->  lower birth rates

Population reduction  --->  the planet benefits more than the effects of all other greenie efforts combined





Educate poor women worldwide  =  Save the planet

   

[Ghoste]

Mike, the only flaw I see in that argument is that in the parts of the world where the birthrate is most out of control and women are most in need of education (and I'm not so sure the two things can be linked anyway), the poverty rate is so high that no one owns anything to make much difference in anything that would be considered a "green" effort and that in many of those same regions, it has been culturally entrenched for centuries that women are basically sub human chattel (meaning that it may not be the women who need to be educated   ).

I would agree that the resource consuming societies need a huge re-education though.  

[Todd Wilson]

I think I am gonna drive my 74 Dodge truck with a 440 today and increase my carbon footprint a little bit more!



Todd

[694spdRT]

I think I am gonna drive my 74 Dodge truck with a 440 today and increase my carbon footprint a little bit more!



Todd

Just backed my old '76 out of the garage. That is only a little 400 so you got me beat. 

[moparstuart]

I think I am gonna drive my 74 Dodge truck with a 440 today and increase my carbon footprint a little bit more!



Todd

Just backed my old '76 out of the garage. That is only a little 400 so you got me beat.  

I drove the 440 + 6 to work today  and i will drive it to topeka tonight

[Todd Wilson]

I think I am gonna drive my 74 Dodge truck with a 440 today and increase my carbon footprint a little bit more!



Todd

Just backed my old '76 out of the garage. That is only a little 400 so you got me beat.  

I drove the 440 + 6 to work today  and i will drive it to topeka tonight

You getting registered in the clunker deal to dispose of clunker trade ins? Dealership said they have a junkyard thats registered. Lots of paper work and stuff and they come get the clunkers and take care of them.

Todd

[Steve P.]

Thousands of levels to look at with this problem. My main argument is that the cost to her for the vehicle was less than half the cost to me for mine. I have spent many thousands more in fuel. Spent much more fuel period. I do (ON OCCASION) use it as a truck. 95% of the time I wish I also had a GREEN MACHINE for the trips to the grocery store. Runs to and from my kids house to watch the G-Kids. Runs to the dr.s and drug stores.  Fact is, when I was young a truck was NOT wanted by most families. Today they are very versatile.  This is why I have one. I have towed cross country a few times with it. I have been up the East coats towing a few times as well. Lots of short trips around Florida too. BUT, for me it makes sense to have a truck as I cannot get in and out of a small car with my bad back. TRUST ME. If I could drive some little shit box that needed a trip to the gas station once a month and insurance wouldn't kill me, I would have a little shit box for all my little shit box needs.

The moral part of it is argumentative on many levels.  For me and my thoughts, I think for the most part we should have done what Carter said we needed to do 30 years ago.. Brazil did and they are much better for it.

Don't believe for one minute that I am against our beloved mopars. OR our high HP and TORQUE trucks that chase down all our parts, bodies and drive lines. Far from it. I just think that American people in general have given up their fight and just buy what ever that color tv says we NEED. We use to fight for BETTER. Toys that lasted a few lifetimes. Cars that looked bad ass and came with (2-DOORS). Building a better mouse trap is what MADE this country. Defending it as well.. Today everything is made to fall apart in a short time. This means it must be replaced. Spend it again and keep the World spinning.  It's bullshit if you ask me. 

The flip side is that we have had groups of people that went against the grain and made people look at effect. In the early 70's I went on a cross country trip with my parents. Rochester, NY out to the West coast and back. 6 weeks of boredom for the most part. I remember a few girls I met on that trip, but more than anything I remember waking up gagging and asking if we just blew the motor. We had run smack into a wall of smog in LA... I had never seen anything like it. Also I couldn't wait to get out of there.  So some group stepped up and helped to change things. Today is much better there and LA has many times over the amount of trucks and rigs it had back then.  So, my moral to this story is that if we DON'T do something about what we are doing today we stand the chance to leave this world a huge cesspool for our grand kids. Our grandparents started this footprint. Mostly as they had no idea what the effects would be. We have a damn good idea.....

[Todd Wilson]

TRUST ME. If I could drive some little shit box that needed a trip to the gas station once a month and insurance wouldn't kill me, I would have a little shit box for all my little shit box needs.

I have one of those!  They are handy!


Todd

[694spdRT]

TRUST ME. If I could drive some little shit box that needed a trip to the gas station once a month and insurance wouldn't kill me, I would have a little shit box for all my little shit box needs.

Here is a little one for ya that doesn't use any gas.

[b5blue]

This is good! Carbon footprint vs Toxic footprint sort of.......I hate trowing away dead battery's.....I keep thinking these little toxic turds could be recycled some how instead. I shudder thinking about what you do with a huge one, hell they get ya for 2.50 on 1 tire. A friend gave my son 2 computers to mess with, after we figured out they were toast I researched recycling them....ya know there's gold in them. Here's what I found out, drop them off and pay 15.00-30.00 each then they get sent to a plant where basically the crush the chips and soak them in acid then use electrolysis to collect the precious metals, separate the steel for melting down and ship all the plastic to 3rd world country's to dump! Now there's a system for ya! I pay you to shove my old computer off somewhere after you get the gold. My point is the same thing is going on with cars....we just don't know it.   

[68X426]

Good stuff Steve, we are on the same page.

I grew up with horrible pollution in Cleveland Ohio, with the river on fire, and did college in Los Angeles with a wall of smog in the 70's. Both areas are way cleaner now. Great improvements have been made. We are all better off for the rules, the lawsuits, the protests. But LA still sucks (for me, nothing personal LA) which is why I live in the mountains in Northern California. I try everyday to rachet down my consumption and clean up the planet.

What my generation blew was the opportunity to wean off fossil fuel. It's a fact, and we are all at fault. I don't believe it is too late. But green cars are nearly a hoax and fail on the larger societal level. Too early to tell if the clunker program fails too.

If I drove my Hemi off a cliff I don't think it would solve anything. So I do all I can to keep my one little vice going and balance that hedonism with being moderate in all other things.

[Steve P.]

TRUST ME. If I could drive some little shit box that needed a trip to the gas station once a month and insurance wouldn't kill me, I would have a little shit box for all my little shit box needs.

Here is a little one for ya that doesn't use any gas.

No, but I bet it gives off some.. LOL....

Seriously, if any of you ever get the chance to see the movie, (WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR), it is well worth checking out. You may not agree with everything, but they make some DAMN good points and very many of us fall into just who they are talking about.  It's more a question of what we realllllly need and what we are willing to do to help fix things... Nobody is throwing paint or holding up pictures of Bambi with an arrow through her head. But it will make you think.....

[Ghoste]

So I do all I can to keep my one little vice going and balance that hedonism with being moderate in all other things.

Good point.  We share the same vice and myself, I believe it's a better one than smoking crack all day and robbing someone at night to pay for it. 

[bull]

Good stuff Steve, we are on the same page.

I grew up with horrible pollution in Cleveland Ohio, with the river on fire, and did college in Los Angeles with a wall of smog in the 70's. Both areas are way cleaner now. Great improvements have been made. We are all better off for the rules, the lawsuits, the protests. But LA still sucks (for me, nothing personal LA) which is why I live in the mountains in Northern California. I try everyday to rachet down my consumption and clean up the planet.

What my generation blew was the opportunity to wean off fossil fuel. It's a fact, and we are all at fault. I don't believe it is too late. But green cars are nearly a hoax and fail on the larger societal level. Too early to tell if the clunker program fails too.

If I drove my Hemi off a cliff I don't think it would solve anything. So I do all I can to keep my one little vice going and balance that hedonism with being moderate in all other things.

That's fine if you live in the good ol US of A, or many of several other developed countries around the world. What pisses me off is that no matter how many enviro laws are passed the green weenies never stop crying and monaing about the supposed "atrocities" here in the US. Meanwhile they wholly ignore the complete lack of ANY environmental standards in the other 90% of the world.

[Mike DC]

Being a "Greenie" is just the newest world religion. 

[Ghoste]

And like the other religions, extremists of any stripe scare the Hell out of me.