The Clunkers We’ll Miss

Great old cars en route to the crusher.

Posted Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 4:30pm
  • Matthew DeBord has written about the auto industry for the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Huffington Post, and Car Design News.
  • Comment Comment
  • RSS RSS

Comments

  • 8 Total
  • • Pending Comments 0
  • Login or register to post comments

Volvo??

Just some facts for the writer/site.  The rules of the CARS program were simple: trade in your old car/truck with a combined mileage (rated on the EPA website) of less than 18 mpg, built in '84 or newer, and purchase a new vehicle which had a combined mileage at least 2 mpg greater (for $3500 rebate) or 10 mpg greater (for $4500 rebate) than your trade-in.

There are only a few Volvo 240s built in '84 and '85 that qualified for the rebate:  the '84 and '85  turbocharged sedans and wagons (17 and 18 mpg combined, respectively).  On the CARS website it indicates that a total of 11 were traded in, along with several other Volvos that may have been improperly accepted as trade-ins.  Keep in mind, the database only depicts the vehicles that dealers accepted as trade-ins, not necessarily those that qualified.  There is a validation process that takes place before any dealer receives a rebate voucher.  I think you'll find a great many of the vehicles traded in may not qualify for the rebate upon validation.

Huh?

"Essentially worthless as vehicles, their time has drawn to a close."

This statement makes no sense. A low-mileage Volvo is not "essentially worthless": it still drives, dagnabbit! These cars are not, by any reasonable use of the term, "clunkers." The problem with "Cash For Clunkers" is its corruption of language for political goals. After all, "Cash To Destroy Perfectly Good Cars" would probably not be as popular - but at least it would be honest. Shame on you for blindly parroting the administration's talking points!

Don't You Fact Check?

The Volvo 240 shouldn't be included as it got too good of mileage to qualify. I know because I've got a '92 240 Wagon that I would've been more than happy to trade in.
Doesn't anyone fact check your writers? 2 glaring errors and counting in one single article. I guess you guys were too busy trying to be clever to get the fact correct.

Hardly...

On cars.com the avergae price of a Porsche 928 is in the vicinity of $20,000... The high is $49,500.

Even the low ($3,900) for a probable basketcase with an automatic transmission (and missrepresented as having AWD - all wheel drive) suggests both a depserate and foolish seller.

Anyone who turns in a 928 under this program has got an absolute dog - which is rare - or is flatout dumb.

"For a car or truck to

"For a car or truck to qualify, it must be worth less than $4500 or $3500..."
This is not true. The value of the vehicle has NOTHING to do with whether it qualifies or not. The only qualification is the difference in MPG between the old vehicle and the new.

"clunkers" must get 18 mpg or less

This is a great list, but at least the BMW 325, the diesel Mercedes and the 1st generation Miata (of which I am a proud owner) should not be on the list because they get combined fuel economy above 18 mpg, and therefore do not qualify for CARS/cash for clunkers.

Thanks, we fixed

Thanks for pointing this out. We've corrected the slide show.

325i's Sadly are eligible

I did not catch this article before you removed the BMW 325 from the list. Sadly, if you were referring to the E30 325i models they are eligible for the CARS program (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/CarsResult1.jsp?column=1&id=6454).
The older BMW E30's with ETA engines (325 or 325e) have a more fuel efficient engine and do not qualify for the program.

Read more comments