Free trip to the Grand Prix
Don't miss your chance to win a trip to the Formula 1 Grand Prix in Monaco for you and a plus-one.
good trade in if they have anything at all.
And the car manufacturers keep recycling their very low financing or cash back sales.
I've even thought about trading my 2009 Sonata in.
The only thing I really would buy though would be a basic pickup truck and would probably get rid of the old 2000 compact instead of the Sonata. But trucks aren't really the bargain a lot of good cars are.
Have two foreign cars, though in a round about way, an Accent and a Sonata. Weird thing, the 09 Sonata, half again the size of the 00 Accent, gets the same gas mileage.
A pickup truck is impractical as a daily commuter, but is so handy occasionally. Would hate to drive the "good car" (09 Sonata) to work every day because of the dirt and other things at work but driving any truck would cost so much more in gas even with my short commute.
even with my small motor, the Sonata is supposely rated for 1000 lbs tow, trailer included. That would be enough with a 4x8 light trailer to handle a lot of hauling needs, like taking a mower, tiller, etc somewere for work and even small lumber loads.
don't need a minivan, about the only time now anyone is riding with me is my parents, or giving someone a ride to work or to drop off / pick up their car.
The Sonata is quite comfortable for 4, and gets 30 mpg.
At times I do have all 3 children at home and we all go the same way. Mostly just the 3 of us now, the older two living on their own.
One distinct advantage is if I go on a trip by myself that takes a day or two, I can toss a light mattress in the back after leaving the seats at home, along with my sleeping bag I always keep in it just in case I break down someplace in bad weather, and pull into rest areas to take a nap in the back. My remote control start can be set to turn the car on twice per hour to warm things up, so it's fairly comfortable napping that way. Of course one can lay the front seat back, but I don't find that too comfortable for more than a short 15-20 minute nap.
In my previous van I had dark tint 5% I'd slap up on back and side windows, and a tension curtain rod across the front with black curtain, just behind the front seats. That was very private napping. The window tint on current van is less dark, but still good enough at night for privacy. The main problem is it becomes "stuffy" as breathable air is used up so leaving a front window cracked helps with that some, but not always enough.
Sometimes I think it might be nice to have a larger "custom" type van, but they wouldn't get 21-25mpg (ethanol vs gasoline) on the interstate.
supply of used cars. I don't recall anybody mentioning that as a priority when the whole American Auto Industry was in danger of tanking. Clearly it was a dreadful oversight when so many were shouting about "What about the resale market in 4 years !!" and he should be impeached forthwith for failing to see it coming. It's funny that I don't remember any people shouting that though..
"and the virtual disappearance of new-car leases during the financial crisis." So Obama didn't cause that disappearance, did he? It was the leasing companies cutting back on leasing because of the economic downturn. Some people may have bought cars but a lot more just hung on to whatever they had because they weren't secure enough even to start a new Lease.
"Another factor is a change by the three Detroit U.S. auto makers. To keep factories humming, they once leased tens of thousands of new cars to rental car fleets and then moved them onto dealer lots as used models after a few months. There are fewer of those vehicles because manufacturers cut excess production capacity in recent years." So it's the car manufacturers who restructured the market place for their own good who contributed to this change. When did Obama become a CEO of a Car Company? I know that you'll attribute anything to him for any reason, but how do you get him creating a conspiracy of Car Manufacturers to withhold used cars from the Market Place without at least giving a nod to the Financial Crisis which Obama didn't cause but which he attempted to address with Cash for Clunkers at the same time as he bailed out the US Auto Industry from a situation that could have killed it stone dead.
"The scarcity has pushed up used car prices, often to the point that consumers who finance a purchase with subsidized interest rates can get brand new vehicles for about the same as a monthly payment required for a late-model used car. " Were I in the market, I'd be quite happy. Incentives so good that I'll bite the bullet and buy a new car rather than an overpriced old one. Gee, what a hard decision to make. "I'll take the nice shiny new one rather than the one some idiot driving it as a rental car hasn't completely eviscerated by over-revving the engine during the breaking-in period."
So, a complete inability to find Obama guilty of anything in this new assault. Again. Doesn't your back hurt when you tie yourself in knots trying to prove an article says something which it doesn't even hint at. I mean, that's a lot of heavy lifting, inventing stuff like that. I use Robaxin, or Robaxacet for that nagging lower back pain. Try it.
He set requirements on the government's short term loan mistakenly called a bailout, like anyone intervening in a failing business would do. But more to the point, the money was all paid back within 3 years, consequently the Government's supposed "stake" in any of the car-makers lapsed. The Government does not still retain a stake in GM. It's over and done. And the US still has 3 functioning car manufacturers with most of those jobs still intact.
And what does Delphi formerly AC Delco have to do with anything? It wasn't part of the deal, raising it as an issue is yet another red-herring, a distraction from the facts at issue.
Now assuming that management can learn, they have the opportunity to earn back more of the car market from the Japanese, the Koreans, the Germans and whoever else by producing more attractive vehicles.
Ford made a massive mistake IMO in not producing the Ka for the American market. It could have been the new Volkswagen beetle and made a massive change to Ford's fortunes, and contributed good things to the economy. It was a great vehicle and had a loyal following in Britain, looked fabulous and was very fuel efficient. Ford UK couldn't understand why the American parent company passed on it either. preferring larger and more expensive vehicles to the nippy, easy to park Ka at about 1/2 the cost of the Smart Car and even less compared to the BMW Mini or the Mercedes A type.
The information about Ford UK came from a Ford executive who was the husband of a colleague of my wife's. He just shook his head when he related the Ford Home Office's reaction to the Ka.
GM STILL owes the taxpayers over $40 BILLION dollars
AND we still own stock in this company....that makes us an OWNER....and BO a silent CEO......except when he's bragging about their success.
>>>GM's stock has plummeted in recent months after stagnant development in overseas markets. It hit a new low on Wednesday, falling to $18.80, a 52 percent drop from its January 2011 high of $38.90.
The rapid decline of the stock price has kept taxpayers on the hook for billions in unpaid bailout dollars. The stock would need to make a quick—and meteoric—turnaround for taxpayers to break even.
"In order to recoup its total investment in GM, Treasury will need to recover an additional $27 billion in proceeds. This translates to an average of $53.98 per share on its remaining common shares in New GM," the IG report concluded.>>>
And GM used GRANT money to repay the little bit that it DID pay back, while BO bragged about how well they are doing.
AND, regarding DELPHI not being part of the 'deal'.......they should have been but were cut loose from it because none of their employees were unionized. This from just a few months ago........
Is it too hard for you to just check the facts first? This is from Dec 2012, just 2+ months ago. Also note the sales are for a loss to the govt. Who is surprised by this? Seemingly, you are.
"The U.S. government plans to sell 40% of its General Motors stock within weeks and to sell the rest of its shares within 12 to 15 months, officials announced this morning.
The plan the U.S. announced today to sell its remaining 500 million shares of General Motors virtually guarantees a substantial taxpayer loss on the $49.5 billion bailout.
The Treasury Department today said that it will sell all its stock in GM within 12 to 15 months and sell 40% of its stake within weeks, starting with a $5.5 billion deal for GM to buy back 200 million of its shares as soon as next month at $27.50 per share.
The government would have needed about $53 per share for its 26% stake to break even on the bailout. The deal negotiated with GM for the 200 million shares will cut the U.S. stake to 19% but raise the price needed to break even on the remaining 300 million government shares to nearly $70."
the disadvantages of taking good used cars off the market, both right here in SE and in tv news talk shows.
It wasn't as severe here as a couple of European countries I suspect, since if I recall correctly two or three of them had only the provision it be over a certain number of years old, no other condition.
If the target was gas guzzlers, as sometimes it was insinuated, the qualifying condition should have been the official mpg of the car being traded in and the car being traded in on.
It probably helped GM and Chrysler stay in business. While not a huge fan of the government buyout of the auto companies, I do fear it would have been worse if GM and Chrysler had gone totally out of business.
As for Obama being a CEO, while it wasn't perhaps that completely taken over by the government, GM had to give a lot of oversight and approval of operations to the government while it was using the government money. Officially most of that has been repaid, although there is debate about did they pay it back with government money from gants, etc.
A bit like the European countries paying back WWII loans for rebuilding to the US with money the US gave them in out and out grants later.
But your sarcastic criticism that no one foresaw a used car shortage is completely wrong.
the qualifying condition should have been the official mpg of the car being traded in
Generally, trade-in vehicles must get 18 or less MPG (some very large pick-up trucks and cargo vans have different requirements)
It needs to be worth less4,500
In the OP one person claims to have received $5200 for a 13 year old Honda...something smells there...someone is not telling the truth...
that if getting rid of gas guzzlers was the goal, there should have been a minimum percentage of increase in the official mpg of the new car.
Say 25% as an example.
Old car gets 12 mpg, you'd have to trade it in on one that got at least 15 mpg.
Old car gets 20 mpg new one would have to get at least 25.
If you just wanted to boost car sales, you wouldn't have mpg ratings involved, just every care over xx years old would be eligible. There was a provision you had to have own the car and licensed it for at least a year so you couldn't buy a clunker and then trade it in.
The provision that the car had to be worth less than $4500 seems a bit unnecessary, why would anyone trade a car in for less than it's value? Of course book value at the time of the cash for clunker deals might have been hard to get, since everyone was holding back so much right then anyway waiting to see what was coming.
The choices they have are both out of their economic reach. I thought you were supposed to be there for the downtrodden, the low income, those most affected by increased prices. Have you joined the Dark Side?
Also comparing leased vehicle sales to individual owner vehicle sales is like comparing commercial property to residential properties.
but not being sold by dealers who care about maintaining a good reputation or offering anything in the way of a reasonable warranty. From some of my past knowledge, used cars were passed around between family, friends and strangers even more often than they were sold on lots. If you needed a certain type of car at a giveaway price, there was always somebody who know somebody else brother in law who was looking to unload some rattletrap for a couple hundred bucks. Cars within families were also just transferred from one owner to another quite frequently. That got to be so common that, in my state, the tax man wanted to apply some minimum value to any car sold or transferred in order to collect sales tax. This was mainly targeted against private sales in which the seller would write down a much lower selling price than the actual price paid.
He sees used car prices falling this year, and a healthier supply of late-model cars coming off leases by December.
"There is a going to be day coming soon when there a lot of cars are going to be dumped on the market," said Mr. Schwartz. "That is going to put a strain on new cars."
Now, should we start looking at the forum during that time and see how what was said then by those who were opposed to OBAMA'S "Cash For Clunkers" predicted???
go for it...
I recall something about not being able to buy parts for older cars...it appears you can't even buy older cars...never mind the parts for them.
BUT wait Till Dec...then there'll be lots of used cars.....AGAIN.
between used cars coming into the market sometime in the near future and the fact that all those traded in for 'cash for clunkers' being crushed and taken out of the market. That was the rule/regulation that was put into place by this administration in order to force the older 'gas guzzlers' and 'inefficient' vehicles off the roads. Unfortunately there were many vehicles on their 'crush' list that were being traded in that were MORE efficient fuel-wise than what they were being traded in on....people were just looking for a 'deal' and got them. The other side of that coin was that many dealerships weren't reimbursed for those 'refunds' by the Feds in time to keep them from closing up shop......and some vehicles were actually repossessed by the dealerships from the new buyers because they never got that money.
Unfortunately, there will never be a liberal, or even this president, who will admit that 'cash for clunkers' and 'cash for caulkers' were two of the worst programs that taxpayers ate the cost of and they stand just barely behind the 'green energy' wastes of money.
a guy got $5200 for a 13 year old Honda? HE did pretty good...Don't hear him complaining.
two of the worst programs
Yes, Virginia, A $2.98 Hammer REALLY Costs Our Government $100
"worst programs" are a dime a dozen...or should I say $2 million each?
Free trip to the Grand Prix
Don't miss your chance to win a trip to the Formula 1 Grand Prix in Monaco for you and a plus-one.