Opinions?

Good. People upgrading to more efficient cars while boosting the economy is a good thing.

Bad. I'm getting ready to buy a new car and my 1996 Nissan Altima doesn't qualify.

So go on Craigslist and buy the oldest junker you find for $300 and trade it in.

Unfortunately, that won't work. The car has to be in your name for a specified amount of time. A year, I think.

My Nissan is rated at 23 mpg, which is actually pretty good for a car that old, so I'm not surprised really. And I was leaning towards a used car anyway, might have splurged on a Focus or a Hyundai though.

Good for consumers, horrible for dealerships who are sitting and waiting for the checks to roll in. We did a story on it, and the local dealerships are all bemoaning the fact that the gov is slow going.

They should be reminded that "slow going" is better than "nothing"

On the one hand, "good" to get safer / more efficient cars on the road in lieu of older ones, assuming people trade in the "more efficient" direction, which may not always be the case.

On the other hand, "bad" if people trade in a perfectly functional car just to get a new one, considering the resources and energy it took to make the new car (that they didn't strictly need.) It would take something like 5-7 years of MUCH better gas mileage to offset the production pollution of that new car, if memory serves from all those Prius discussions.

One of the biggest (and most often overlooked) tennets of sustainability is durability. It may not be the cleanest or be made of the most friendly materials, but if it lasts a fucking LONG time once it's in use, it can be better for the environment than buying something "greener" more frequently.

It probably does more bad than good because of all the tax dollars lost. Inventories are already really low due to the closed dealerships, so production is due to pick up anytime soon.

It is good to give people incentive for environmental aspects. Boosting sales, boosts production and helps people keep jobs. This is probably the best $3 billion the government has spent so far.

It sounds like you meant to reverse your first sentence.

?

Don't know if this applies to Prius & the other recent hybrid launches from the company, but aren't Toyota vehicles known for their longevity, getting as much as 300.000 miles, in some cases.

my first car was a toyota corolla and it was the most durable car i've ever owned

Yeah, of course (thinking of my old 94 Corolla, and 93 civic). But the point is, if you have something that runs perfectly ok now, Option A ought to be "keep it." The nicest newest whatever in the world still took a lot of resources to make, and when you buy it, you gave them a reason to make it. Now if you do really have to replace your car, then yes, the most durable / efficient thing is ideal. But I guess the question I was asking was, "do you really need something new?" The economy sure hopes you do, which is another matter entirely.

Nope. I just added a return to seperate my bad verse good argument. Saying it is the best $3 billion the government has spent so far isn't saying much though.


My 2000 Ford Focus has 103,000 miles and still gets 32-ish miles per gallon.

I just checked the tire pressure and they were all low and I could instantly feel the better handling and notice the better mileage. If more people checked their tire pressure, I can't imagine how much gas we'd save.

and got made fun of for it?

There are rules. I by no means know all of them but it's my understanding that the vehicle must be less than 25 years old and get a combined city/highway MPG of 18 or less. To keep these vehicle off the road, the "clunker" must not be resold. It has to be scrapped. Body, engine, everything.

My only questions would be are there rules for the kind of car they are buying? I know they have to be fuel efficient but couldn't someone just take the $4500, spend a couple extra grand and just upgrade to a car about 5 years newer but only get about 4-5 MPG better? The benefit to the economy and the environment would be minimal.

On the other hand, if they require you to get something new (or within 3 years of current year or something) that's another story. I mean, if qualifiers were given their $4500 and they all bought cars for $15,000. They just pumped about 3 billion back into the economy and gotten polluting clunkers off the road. (that's based off the 250,000 people who have qualified for the program so far).

Is that oversimplifying?

You know as much as I.

I think its funny that we have a government program that actually exceeds expectations and that freaks everyone out so people start asking if there is something wrong with the program.

This debate should have happened before the program was implemented if people had issues with its purpose or methods. But no, everyone wants to bitch now just because the program has actually been wildly successful at doing exactly what it was supposed to do.

It's generally a shitty program based off a good idea. They pour something into your old cars engine to make it completely worthless and most of the people buying cars were already going to be purchasing cars. Also most of the vehicles being purchased really aren't that much better for the environment than your supposed clunker.
It's probably saving the automotive industry, especially Ford who didn't take bail out money, so that's positive in some respect.
Plus, we were making planned obsolete vehicles for years, so a vehicle recycling program had to bite us in the ass at some point.

My girlfriend's parents received $10,000 total for a 1990 Ranger that still drove fine (there are apparently some extra qualifiers after the $4500). That just seems a little excessive to me.

sounds like a perfectly reasonable assessment.