Merkurs eligible for "Cash for Clunkers"?

General discussion relating to club happenings and items related to Merkurs in general such as "Merkur sightings". If you just signed on, please feel to start a new thread and introduce yourself here. Posts specifically regarding either the XR4Ti or Scorpio should go in those specific forums. Feel free to make suggestions on improving this forum here as well.
Carlisle 2020
OrangeCrush86
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:47 am
Location: na

Post by OrangeCrush86 » Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:30 pm

I'm still trying to figure out how taking a perfectly fine running car that has been going for the last 20 years at 18mpg off the road, and replacing it with a car that was just built saves anything. Any gains on the MPG are lost in the production of a new vehicle. This program is stupid. Plus as you mention, the dealers are not stupid, the isn't going to save anyone much money.

User avatar
milehighXR
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 2106
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:17 pm
Location: Longmont, Co

Post by milehighXR » Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:45 pm

OrangeCrush86 wrote:I'm still trying to figure out how taking a perfectly fine running car that has been going for the last 20 years at 18mpg off the road, and replacing it with a car that was just built saves anything. Any gains on the MPG are lost in the production of a new vehicle. This program is stupid. Plus as you mention, the dealers are not stupid, the isn't going to save anyone much money.
Ding, ding, ding :bounce We have a winner! If everybody thought like this we'd be a in a better position(as a whole) than we are now. The goals of this program are:

1. get the pollution out of downtown LA, who cares where it goes, we don't want smog

2. gain greater control over the American people, tell them what they can own, what they can do, when and how.

3. increase tax revenue, when you by a new car you pay a boatload of money in ownership taxes.

My friends think I'm crazy driving these 20+ yr old jalopies as they call them. I see it as freedom, I can work on them so I am not relying on someone else(or paying out the nose to get BFed), I pay very little in ownership taxes($3.00 per car), and they get relatively decent MPG. And new cars have higher cost of insurance. The ROI for a new car doesn't make sense to me, regardless of any incentives to buy said car...

Heck they claim this is a green program, but you already have it figured out, it isn't. How can removing valuable parts from the recycling stream for a new car that was built yersterday(and in the case of a hybrid, has a higher cradle to grave impact on the environment than the worst mpg gas burner!)? It isn't green, it's worse, and just to try and create or save one or 2 jobs. Nope, it don't make sense at all...

This is what Nancy wants us to drive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY
Johnny


1 86 XR aka Naomi- my first love, now project car
1 14 black Fiesta SE aka Fiona- my new DD

DCLXVI

CV12Steve
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1473
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:57 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA area
Contact:

Post by CV12Steve » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:30 pm

It's a job bill masquerading as a greening program - an attempt to move us closer to Japan's system of forced obsolescence.
Since the cars in the program are destroyed and not just taken off the road it also removes a supply of parts for the remaining cars.
Stephen

User avatar
whitelx
Level 7
Level 7
Posts: 1204
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 3:01 pm
Location: Riverside, CA
Contact:

Post by whitelx » Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:48 am

It's too bad the replacement I would want for my Ranger gets the same 17mpg combined. I'd gladly take the $3500 for my Ranger, that's more than I paid for it several years back. I just hold on to it because it is paid for, registration is a hell of a lot cheaper ($73 vs several hundred for a new car), and the insurance is only $25/mo (liability instead of full coverage). I hate the truck, but it doesn't make any financial sense to ditch it for a new one. It runs, has cold A/C, and hauls stuff around. I just want something more comfortable, quicker, and isn't in need of repair.
1986 XR4Ti - 294rwhp/315ft-lbs
1992 Mustang 5.0 notch - 434rwhp/445ft-lbs
http://www.youtube.com/user/whitelx

User avatar
leesonic
Level 2
Level 2
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 1:57 pm
Location: Camden County, NJ
Contact:

Post by leesonic » Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:40 pm

Let me start this message by saying I am not trying to offend anyone with my posting.

But you have to question whether or not you are an enthusiast if you are even considering using a Merkur for this "cash for clunkers" scheme. Why would you take a perfectly good Merk (remember, they have to be driven for a year) and have it crushed? Sure, you probably won't get $3500 if you tried to sell it, but why not sell it onto another enthusiast?

Is the $3500 just limited to American cars? Because if it isn't, it should be. The big three are in so much trouble right now, this would be a welcome carrot to get people into the dealers.

Me? I have my silver 88 that I bought with a hole in the oil pan. The next step if I hadn't of bought it would have been the crusher probably. Now it's my daily driver, nice cold air and comfy seats. Focus wheels, a bit of Armor-All on the bumpers, and people think it's a lot newer than it is.

Then there's the mono-white 89 I just bought. No title, bought from a towing company. Now you KNOW the next step for this would have been the crusher. No title, in the possesion of a towing company. I'm trying to get a NJ title for it, when (if?) it comes, I'll do a full write up on the procedures on here in case anyone else wants to buy a car without a title. Some states are easier than NJ, I can't think of any that would be harder, except maybe CA.

Lee.

Ed Lijewski
Level 8
Posts: 7261
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 5:53 pm
Location: The Belly of The Beast

Post by Ed Lijewski » Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:16 pm

"Study: Political leanings drive car choice"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... nds/print/

"White House Auto Team Drives Foreign Cars"

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/23 ... 2071.shtml


YMMV 8)
Descartes: "Cogito Ergo Sum"
Lijewski: "Sum Ergo Drive-O. Mucho!

Teedyo
Level 2
Level 2
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 7:11 pm
Location: Montana

Post by Teedyo » Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:56 pm

I guess that makes Merkur owners staunchly middle-of-the-road.
--
Tim

yottabit
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 578
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Nashua, NH
Contact:

Post by yottabit » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:20 pm

Well it worked out pretty well for one of my co-workers. His wife has driven a Jeep Cherokee that gave her all kinds of trouble (recently overheated due to a blown HG). They talked the dealer down to about 12-13,000 on a new Honda Fit, then brought up the fact that they wanted to make a trade in. So they should be getting it for about 8 grand if all goes well.

America is a consumerist nation whether you want to agree with it or not.

User avatar
DPDISXR4Ti
Site Admin
Posts: 13670
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 11:40 pm
Location: New York

Post by DPDISXR4Ti » Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:49 pm

While it's criminal in my eyes that the engines are being intentionaly seized as a means of disabling them as part of this program, there may an odd positive twist to this for Merkur owners....

My previous assumption, now shown to be incorrect, was that the engines would be removed by the salvage operator, for cars turned in via this program. Given the miniscule parts revenue potential for Merkurs, I feared they'd just crush the whole car as soon as they got it, rather than expend the labor to remove the engine.

Instead, what we'll likely find in the coming months is a vehicle turned in via this program sitting in the yard, with a seized engine. Given a choice, that's a better option than having it go straight to the crusher. Heck, we'd still be able to grab the externally attached engine parts.
Brad

Captainw1990
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:32 pm
Location: Houghton, NY
Contact:

Post by Captainw1990 » Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:30 am


User avatar
DPDISXR4Ti
Site Admin
Posts: 13670
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 11:40 pm
Location: New York

Post by DPDISXR4Ti » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:50 pm

Typical gov't debacle.

And to no surprise, the program is missing it's intended mark. It's not taking the $500 clunkers off the road - those people generally don't have the funds to buy a new car. It's taking the $2-4000 cars off the road, most of which are running just fine. The owners of those cars are just seeing this as an opportunity to get a few extra dollars for their trade-in.
Brad

aaul00
Level 2
Level 2
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 8:50 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by aaul00 » Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:06 pm

Exactly. And from what I've heard directly from a dealership, they don't even want to take some of these cars on trade. They only get so much money per ton of vehicle that they "recycle". Plus, they have to seize up the engines immediately upon receiving the trade. At that point, they often need to have a once fine running vehicle towed to the junk yard which is money out of the dealership's pocket. There's even dealerships around the area that refused to have anything to do with the program...
-Andrew Aul

User avatar
DPDISXR4Ti
Site Admin
Posts: 13670
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 11:40 pm
Location: New York

Post by DPDISXR4Ti » Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:15 pm

aaul00 wrote:Exactly. And from what I've heard directly from a dealership, they don't even want to take some of these cars on trade. They only get so much money per ton of vehicle that they "recycle". Plus, they have to seize up the engines immediately upon receiving the trade. At that point, they often need to have a once fine running vehicle towed to the junk yard which is money out of the dealership's pocket. There's even dealerships around the area that refused to have anything to do with the program...
What you're describing is not how the program works - you've got an assortment of bad data here.
Brad

User avatar
DPDISXR4Ti
Site Admin
Posts: 13670
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 11:40 pm
Location: New York

Breaking news....

Post by DPDISXR4Ti » Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:35 pm

- House OKs $2 billion in additional funds for cash for clunkers program. Senate votes next week.
Brad

Teedyo
Level 2
Level 2
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 7:11 pm
Location: Montana

Post by Teedyo » Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:56 pm

DPDISXR4Ti wrote:
aaul00 wrote:Exactly. And from what I've heard directly from a dealership, they don't even want to take some of these cars on trade. They only get so much money per ton of vehicle that they "recycle". Plus, they have to seize up the engines immediately upon receiving the trade. At that point, they often need to have a once fine running vehicle towed to the junk yard which is money out of the dealership's pocket. There's even dealerships around the area that refused to have anything to do with the program...
What you're describing is not how the program works - you've got an assortment of bad data here.
I think that what he's saying is that if a dealer allows for what a trade-in is actually worth; the dealer may lose a lot of money.

If a car is worth say $8000 and the dealer actually gives that on trade; the dealership won't make up the $3500 difference since the trade has to be scrapped.(assuming the max $4500 clunker money) If the the trade is worth $4500 or less, there's less problem because the dealer can use the clunker money only.

I've heard of a lot of people hoping to get value + clunker funds and that's just not realistic to expect.
--
Tim

Post Reply