I hate beating a dead horse, but these numbers need to be released.
besides a large number of cars newer then '05, heres the most mournful:
1, Buick grang National GNX
908 '94-'96 Buick Roadmasters
1,007 Chevy Camaros
506 '95-96 Chevy Caprices (LT1’s are not made any more)
131 Chevy Corvettes
209 Chevy El Caminos
3,842 Ford Crown Victorias and LTDs
24 Ford Lightning trucks
1,611 Ford Mustangs
107 Ford Taurus SHOs
3,060 Ford T birds
571 Pontiac Trans Ams and Firebirds (including 1 20th anniversary car)
Add to the list:
6 Maserati
2 Ford Aspire (which supposedly got 30+ mpg)
855 Ford Crown Vic CNG (Compressed Natural Gas!!!)
6 Porsche 928
6 Porsche 944
2 2008 Foose F-150
2 2006 Roush Stage 3 F-150
Everyone will probably blame this on Obama and the C4C program, but the owners of the cars are also to blame. Couldn’t they sell the cars for more money than C4C gave them?
Say its not true.How come we could not have gotten rid of real clunkers?-Kevin
That’s exactly why I favored the rebates for rubbish program. I regret the destruction of the Chevy V-8 engines because the 4.8 and 5.3 are very popular for transplanting into older vehicles. There are computer kits and adapter kits which make these lightweight, high powered engines into DA-BOMB for fuel saving and money saving power.
While the car names are (many times) desirable, the cars themselves were typically heaps. Who wants to spend thousands to save a junky '90 Camaro or Mustang? The dealers aren’t stupid, if a really desirable car came in they would buy it, not clunk it.
How did the allegations that dealers were not processing these cars but giving the rebate out of their own pockets and reselling ever turn out? were the reports just “rabbel rousing”
Exactly.
If these particular cars were such gems, then why did the owners decide to allow them to be trashed?
If there was a government edict saying that certain cars were too valuable to be included in the C4C program, then our good friends at Fox Faux News would have claimed that the Feds were interfering with the rights of car owners. The bottom line is that the owner of a car can do essentially anything that he wants to with the car, ranging from putting it on blocks for perpetuity, selling it privately, converting it into a planter, fixing it up and continuing to drive it, or turning it in during the C4C program.
ironic, Im in the market for a worn out V6 Camaro.
I harbor no ill feeling towards Obama, I dont mind people trading in cars. I just dont like the “must be destoyed in 180 days” part.
Obviously not…Junk is junk, no matter what the nameplate says…After they go through a shredder, they all look the same…
The list that’s floating around is just the ones that the dealers put in for, not what they actually got trade-in credit for (which is why there’s things like Ford Aspires on there) or actually got crushed, or were actually what they were represented to be (How many GNX clones are floating around out there?).
Since it was the dealers themselves who had to apply for the rebates, why wouldn’t they be able to pay the rebate out of pocket if someone came in with something that was worth more than the rebate? I don’t see what the problem with that would have been.
All the V6 Camaros got 19 MPG combined or better, so none of them should have been crushed.
Incidentally, while double checking the above statement, I noticed you could get a Camaro with the 2.5L “iron duke”! I have a feeling they didn’t need an incentive program to get those crushed…
you think they didnt check to see if it was legit? it could have been too late when they discovered it. have you seen the horrific videos? they have dealership krony’s trashing them like monkeys on meth (maybe they were), before sending them to the Yard where they found out what it was.
these Buick were worth waaaay more then $3500
I’m just saying that that list that’s floating around is the list of cars that the dealers claimed, not the list of cars that actually got the rebate and (presumably) got destroyed. Have you seen any of those videos of them killing a car that didn’t qualify for the rebate?
So in the case of the GNX it could just as easily have been just someone with a junky old Regal with a GNX badge or two and the guy filling out the paperwork didn’t know any better.
It’s a moronic program that should have never seen the light of day and was designed by morons for morons in my opinion.
Many of those cars, even in non-running and sad shape, are worth more than what is being allowed for them, and I’d bet that a careful going over of the transactions would reveal that most of these buyers who thought they were getting a deal based on CFC did not make out near as well as they think they did.
I agree that many buyers who thought they were getting something for nothing probably didn’t do any better under CFC than they would have done before the program started. I have a colleague who had a 1991 Chevrolet shortbed pick-up truck with no equipment and had about 130,000 miles. He used the vehicle for his second car–drove a distance of 2 miles to work and back each day. The body was in good shape–no rust–and it ran well. Under the CFC program he traded for a new Toyota RAV-4. Now I’m certain that the Chvrolet truck he owned would have served him for at least 5 more years and the interest on what he paid difference to buy the RAV-4 over the time period had he saved the money would have been a nice sum of money. Furthermore, had I known that he was going to trade the truck under the CFC, I would have offered to buy the truck from him. I intend to retire in a year or so and plan to do volunteer work for an organization that does volunteer home repair for fixed income people so they can stay in their houses. This truck would have been perfect for local use hauling my tools and building materials. I think that this shortbed Chevrolet with its manual transmission and 6 cylinder engine would have gasoline mileage not much below a compact pick-up truck and had a little more comfortable ride. It seems such a waste to me to scrap a serviceable vehicle.
I can understand the government paying to remove a dangerous piece of equipment from the market. I read where the government is paying $100 for each Servel gas refrigerator taken out of service and scrapped. This makes sense because the burners could become partially plugged, resulting in incomplete combustion and carbon monoxide released into living space. The Servel company has been out of business since 1957 or so, so there are probably few of these refrigerators around anyway. However, many of the vehicles scrapped under the C4C program were serviceable and certainly not unsafe. I just hate to see an automobile scrapped when there is more use to be had from the vehicle.
Because its against the stated spirit of the program, to get cars/trucks that have mileage under a certain amount off the road.