Peace to all these cars. Did anyone notice we cant go on burning fuel they way we are? Maybe the wrong forum but gas guzzlers are out, grab them while you can. In ten years will you want to pay to drive it 100 miles? It maybe more than 1 paycheck by then. I use cars to go. When the go cost is too high I get a better car. These all WERE wonderful to have, but… I gotta pay for college and a mortgage too.
it was not a badge job. they checked the cowl and engine stamps.
Just to point out one facet of this ridiculous program, many large pickups were traded in for another large pickup that got marginally better fuel economy; if any at all.
There’s also the perception that a larger vehicle with a V-8 engine automatically defines it as a gas guzzler and that is not the case at all.
From my posts one can discern that I’m a huge Lincoln Mark VIII fan. The cars are reliable, run fantastic, can be driven for 10 hours at a time while leaving the driver refreshed at the end of the day, and they have a 300 Horsepower engine to boot.
In one CFC case, someone traded in a 57k miles Mark in excellent condition and this make/model of car is often considered a guzzler.
Mine, and other Mark owners I know, routinely get 27-28 MPG and on occasion I’ve even gotten a bit over 30. One gentleman has gotten 32 MPG.
It’s impossible for me to see these cars as gas guzzlers at all and besides; the numbers have been crunched on the program as a whole and it’s been shown that it has accomplished nothing when everything has been factored in.
About 2 or 3 years ago while getting gasoline at a station, an elderly farmer who was also getting gas came over and asked me about my Mark. He stated that he had owned one at one time and had traded it off on a Camry.
He went on to say that the Camry did no better on fuel economy, did not run or ride near as well, and that getting rid of that car was one of the biggest mistakes he had ever made.
One of the most economical cars in the early 1950’s was the Cadillac. Under most conditions, the mileage of the Cadillac was better than the mileage of an early 1950’s Chevrolet equipped with the PowerGlide automatic transmission. The newly designed Cadillac V-8 overhead valve engine coupled to the 4 speed hydramatic was much more efficient than the Chevolet with the PowerGlide that depended completely on the torque converter. Yet, many people assumed because the car was a Cadillac that it had to be a gas hog. In 1959, Studebaker brought out the compact Lark. The Lark could be equipped with either a 169 cubic inch L-head 6 cylinder engine or a 259 cubic inch overhead valve V-8. The mileage on the V-8 was identical under most conditions to the mileage on the 6, and the V-8 was a much more pleasant car to ride in.
I made the mistake of buying a Ford Tempo. The car was reliable, but it certainly wasn’t pleasant for highway driving. Three years later I traded the Tempo for a Ford Taurus. The Taurus had a 3.8 liter engine and I actually achieved better mileage on the highway with the Taurus.
My question would be, would you want to be cramped inside a little Yaris or Focus after driving an F-150 or Explorer
i would’ve traded in for a maserati!!!
damn i wish i could’ve cashed on that deal!!! lol
sadly, i almost peed in my pants hearing reading on all the crown victoria’s that were purchased. at least i know california didn’t buy those for our law enforcement, we’re broke poor!! 
2 '08 Foose F-i50, 2 '06 Roush stage 3 F-150, 24 Lightning trucks.
I dont care who you are, but anybody looking at them would tell you these are not “junk”
The big problem I have with the C4C program was that, a lot of the people who did this, gave up a good running—paid for---- vehicle for a note on a new car. I would imagine that the “free-bee” they thought they were getting is going to back fire when they need that cash for groceries.
Don’t assume that everyone goes into debt when buying a car.
For the past 23 years, I have paid cash for all of my new cars.
All of my relatives, and most of my friends, also pay cash when they buy a new car.
All it takes is some good old-fashioned financial discipline over a period of time in order to marshal your resources in such a way that you can save the money that will be needed to pay for your next car.
I bet most of those Maseratis were Biturbos, terrible cars for the most part, deservedly clunked.
I understand that, sorry for the implication. But not everyone has that sort of discipline. It took me a long time to learn it. Too long. I’m just saying that some people will look at the immediate benefit and not down the road. Then find out that they can’t afford the new car.
Those are probably the same people whose retirement plan consists of buying $50-$100 worth of lottery tickets weekly, rather than saving an equivalent amount of money in an interest-bearing account, or investing it.
Yes, those people do exist, and they probably exist in larger numbers than I suspect, but the bottom line is that they are the big losers in the long run.
Some years back, Consumer Reports had an article titled “Bait the Hook Wiht Merchandise”. The gist of the article was that merchants first objective is to sell credit. An automobile salesperson is to sell the financing, life insurance on the amount financed, paint and upholstery protection, extended warranties and finally the automobile. I’m constantly amazed at the professional people who will go to a dealer and aske “What will my monthly payments be?”
I will only pay cash for a car, and I don’t want it loaded up with accessories. In fact my wife says that if roll-up windows were an option, I would take the side curtains, I would skip the passenger side sun visor, armrests on the doors, etc. In my opinion, it is too easy for people when not having to part with hard-earned cash to purchase the car with all sorts of useless add-on–“it only adds $15 a month”.
the only time a new car should be bought, is if your paying in cash up front. you cant tell what is going to happen tomorrow.
good for you, for paying in cash.
but let us not forget all the Idiots who traded in their paid-for cars, so that they may spend 10s of thousands of dollars, and have debt hovering over their heads.
We basicly have screwed most, if not all the people that took “advantage” of this program.
I’m constantly amazed at the professional people who will go to a dealer and aske “What will my monthly payments be?”
“More money than sense” comes to mind. Too many people try to one up the Jones’. Neighbor gets a nice new 47" flat screen TV, they gotta go get a 60", even if the old one is a year old. Neighbor buys a new Acura, they gotta go buy a new Lexus or Mercedes, etc.
I’m thankful that there are people who have to have the latest and the best,because I can get their cast-off possessions at a fraction of what they paid for them. I recently purchased a pair of stereo speakers for $60 that cost over $350 originally because someone had to have the latest. My brother drives used Cadillacs and Lincolns that were wonderful buys because the original owner just had to have something brand new.
About the Camaros. The IRONIC Z. To replace the IROC Z. Somebody mentioned ironic near Camaro.
I dont get it.
and, that was me. somebody said “nobody has thousands of dollars to fix up a 90s camaro”, giving it a ‘valid’ reason to be crushed. it turns out, I am looking for one of these “clunkers”.
Then the dealer who took the $4500 from the government instead of turning the car around and selling it was being stupid. Do you really think if these cars were actually worth more than the C4C program was offering that the dealer wouldn’t keep it and sell it? They weren’t forced to submit them for the C4C deal if they wanted to take them in as a standard trade-in deal.
I know we live in a society, where everyones opinion is correct, but, your wrong.
when the program was on, how many standard trad-ins happened? with dealerships going under left and right, they cant predict if they can move these “clunkers” tomorrow.
the dealer might have closed the next day, if they didnt get those cars sold. we just screwed all the dealers who took part in the program!
in a trade-in, they would pay cash for the “clunker”. with the program, the government pays the trade-in cost, and the dealer gets cash for the new car.
it may have been cheaper for them to destroy these cars, so they could stay afloat. so, essentialy they WERE forced to crush these cars so they can get money. but that doesnt matter anymore. there are no new cars being sold. they already were sold, during that “shot in the arm”