Saab Link Forums banner

Cash for Clunkers

3.7K views 25 replies 17 participants last post by  nowhereman  
#1 ·
In my opinion it's not a good idea at all. If you know anyone that works for a big GM dealer ask them what they're soppose to do with the cars. If you already know what they do its sucks because theres less Saabs in the scrap yards now. Not like there was alot in the first place.

For those who don't know what is being done, heres some info. The goverment makes the GM dealerships take in "old beat up cars" doesnt matter if it a little work is needed to fix it or a major restoration. The give 4000 bucks towards a newer model car ( thats good) after they get the clunker (heres the bad part) they drain the oil and pour liquid glass in the engine and run it till the engine blows. Once the engine has kicked the bucket they take it to a yard that has a crusher and the thing gets eaten. The Cash for clunkers contract helps the people that don't like old cars at all but it doesnt help us enthusiast out at all because the contract doesnt allow the dealers to fix minor problems with the "CLUNKER" and resell it. SO the person that is sick of having to fix SAAB problems is probably happy about it because he can get a new car but for us he may have parts that we could use to keep our saabs running for or that one special part that we need to complet a genuine saab restoration is long gone because that damn government contract.

Well can't win them all so I'm making a request since I cant find these too anywhere where I am, Does anyone have a 91-92 9000 harness from engine to ECU to APC Box as well as a single 16" super aero wheel???;-)
 
#2 · (Edited)
The EPA recently revised their MPG ratings, making several cars ineligible for this program. If there were a couple Saabs eligible prior to the revision, there are even less now. If any at all...

Edit: The later c900 autotragic turbo and non-turbo convertible is the only one I can find right now.
 
#3 ·
Sigh. It's not just GM. Also, the cars have to be crushed, not sent to junkyards. And, under the federal program the engine has to be destroyed. Texas has a much better state program where their "clunkers" are sent to yards but the engines are marked as not for resale.

Little Red, my 1992 c900 base model, was eligible under the first iteration of the list but her year and several other models of Saabs got pulled off during the revision.

For all the people completely losing their shit over this program, doesn't Europe do something similar? And isn't everything Europe does awesome?
 
#4 ·
i don't think it's that bad of a deal.

my buddy's dad took in his old shitty '91 ford f150 to the local chrysler dealer, got $4500 for the truck and then the extra $4500 that chrysler matches, and was able to buy a brand new 2010 dodge avenger for $9000.

a brand new car for $9k, i think that's an awesome deal, nobody cares that an f150 got crushed.


this also raises the prices of our used cars, not by much, but it does.
 
#6 ·
This is gonna be like the post 9-11 financing deals. When everybody that couldn't afford a new car has one, then who will buy new cars? The industry will be strapped for buyers again in about a year or two time.
 
#7 ·
My issue is crushing perfectly good cars to be honest. I read the New York Times and on the front page there was a picture showing stacks of cars from Cash for Clunkers waiting to be chewed up and they werent really junkers. I saw 2000 MY or new Volvos, BMWs, a 2005 9-5, and a few Audis.

What happens to the cars after they are traded in? Are they property of the US gov?
 
#8 ·
My issue is crushing perfectly good cars to be honest. I read the New York Times and on the front page there was a picture showing stacks of cars from Cash for Clunkers waiting to be chewed up and they werent really junkers. I saw 2000 MY or new Volvos, BMWs, a 2005 9-5, and a few Audis.

What happens to the cars after they are traded in? Are they property of the US gov?
Well then they fucked up, at least on the Saab.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/CarsResult1.jsp?column=1&id=20926

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/CarsResult1.jsp?column=1&id=20927

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/CarsResult1.jsp?column=1&id=21059

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/CarsResult1.jsp?column=1&id=21060
 
#9 ·
What a waste.

Where is the conservation?

Does anyone think about the raw materials and energy used to produce new cars versus what it takes to keep an old car running?

I thought that environmentalists were about conservation, you know using something for as long as feasibly possible? But no, lets trade them and crush them so that no one will be able to use parts off them. That doesn't seem like an environmentally conscious thing to do? Also, I see that new gas guzzling SUV's are still for sale.

Why should taxpayers flip the bill for someone to get a new car?

/rant
 
#10 ·
i love the goverment, so the poor smart people who get an old, good on gas car see no benefit, but the ******** with pickup trucks and yupies get to sell out and get something better get a new car

just one more way we reward the stupid


this bears the question,, if we make our old cars get bad enough fuel millage, do they qualify??
 
#19 ·
Your car should get a combined rating of 19 MPG unless someone did the math wrong. which would not qualify. I am fairly certain NO saab qualifies, not even an automatic V6 9000. Don't think we have to worry about this one ;)
 
#18 ·
My dad may be traveling to Portland, Maine tomorrow to trade in our 98' Mercury Grand Marquis that gets awful gas mileage and needs an all new suspension for an 09' Nissan Versa for my little sister for around $8K all through the Cash for Clunkers program.
 
#20 ·
did anyone have a link to the stats?

the most traded in car was a ford exploder

the most bought car was some ford little truck thingy with really good mileage and available in flex fuel, along with the prius.

the whole point was not to just stimulate the market, ut also to start getting cars like the exploder that suck down gas off the road, which needed to be done a long time ago.
 
#25 ·
I can see the 91 & 92 9000's because of their low gearing which pulls their highway MPG down by 1 MPG, though by my math they still do 19 MPG but huu... 1996 NG900 manual transmission, turbo models only?! That makes no sense what so ever.