Special Interests For Clunkers
Wonder why true clunkers -- like a 1980 Cutlass with a broken air conditioner and rusty fenders -- weren't on the list for the rebate? Special interest lobbies, of course! Ralph Vartabedian and Ken Bensinger write for the LA Times of how the classic car lobby kept the most polluting cars on the road:
Nearly 5 million of the nation's most polluting vehicles were quietly excluded from the popular "cash for clunkers" program after lobbyists for antique auto parts suppliers and car collectors persuaded the government to shut out cars built before 1984.The restriction has prevented consumers nationwide who own older cars and trucks from cashing in on the $3-billion federal program even though many don't consider their jalopies to be collectors' items.
When the federal government announced the rebates of up to $4,500, Chris Hurst said, it looked like the perfect time to unload his gas-guzzling 1981 Ford F-150 pickup. Hurst, who lives in the Sierra foothills north of Fresno, was surprised to discover his truck was too old to qualify.
"If we could have gotten that rebate, it would have worked perfectly for us," said Hurst, who is now trying to sell the vehicle, equipped with Ford's biggest V-8 engine, for $1,600.
The restrictions were pushed by lobbyists for the Specialty Equipment Market Assn., a Diamond Bar group that represents companies that sell parts and services to classic and antique car collectors. The group, as well as classic car enthusiasts, have opposed cash for clunkers because they don't want older vehicles to be destroyed.
When the proposals for a clunker buyback program surfaced early this year, the specialty equipment association opposed the entire concept because such a program could shrink the size of the market for aftermarket parts. The association eventually got lawmakers to adopt the age limit.
"We are very pleased that Congress was able to include that in the program," said Stuart Gosswein, director of regulatory affairs at the association.
Having had to replace a rear windshield on a classic car myself (my son broke it), I don't really have a problem with this exclusion, even though it makes it hard on people who merely have older cars, rather than restored collector's items, for this reason: If they had AT LEAST sent all the cars to salvage yards and merely required that they had to be sold for parts only, they would not have had to include the exclusion at all.
Another reason is because the existing fleet of pre-1984 automobiles on the road today is vanishingly small. How many people actually own (and drive on a regular basis) a car that's over 25 years old? Yes, there is one who parks his classic Mustang in the parking lot where I catch my bus to work, and I saw another one this morning, but the number is vanishingly small, so they no longer account for a significant blip on the radar of the Clunker initiative.
WayneB at August 14, 2009 6:50 AM
An understandable exemption for a program that shouldn't even exist!
Tyler at August 14, 2009 8:31 AM
The clash-for-clunkers program shouldn't exhist at all, and this shouldn't be an issue.
We have a 1963 Lincoln Continental, and a 1970 El Camino. We drive the Lincoln, and are having the el camino rebuilt right now. Last year we sold our 1976 TR6. Our daily drivers are newer cars, though. We would never have turned in any of the old cars for a tax rebate. I don't think that many collectible cars would have been junked, because if the vehicle really is a collectible, it's worth more than the rebate, anyway.
ahw at August 14, 2009 8:40 AM
Where do you draw the line?
It's less of an impact on the environment for one fellow at work to drive his 1969 GT-A Mustang - or Hemi 'Cuda convertible, yes, one of those - than it is to buy a new Insight. They're not daily drivers.
In another forty years, he'll have burned a couple thousand gallons of gas, bought a few tires, done two brake jobs... and never, not once, thought of his car as disposable.
I can show you another car in a different class - not a rare piece: a '65 Malibu, with a 190-inch straight six under the hood. It's a gem. Get in it - just look at it - and you'll wonder why so much crap that won't carry anyone is on the road today. It's airy, holds five people, has a real trunk, and it's quiet. Body-on-frame quiet is one of the many reasons people buy pickups. You can see out, it doesn't radiate "cheap" from every plastic attachment and ALL of it is rebuildable.
What, again, will be done with your hybrid's battery when, not if, it dies?
If you have a car that you think is to be used up and then thrown away, you have the mindset that is the trouble today. New cars are simply not necessary when a design is good, but if you're the typical person I've spoken to about this, you've never thought of such a thing.
What the hell is going on here, anyway? The clunker program's not all that good an idea, but let's expand it?
Radwaste at August 14, 2009 8:53 AM
Oh, by the way - if the fellow with the "gas guzzling F-150 pickup" actually visited one of the SEMA member Web sites, like Jegs.com, he would find that it is cheaper, by far, to fix his existing ride up than to buy another truck. Don't pretend a small car is actually the replacement here.
But people want new things so badly they'll put their own kids on the street before they'll go without. Where did the college tuition go? Into the Lexus. Isn't it pretty?
When you browse the Jegs site, or Summit, or JC Whitney, etc., keep in mind that "performance" does NOT mean "burn as much gas as you can". People make stupid choices buying "performance" parts, just as they do making other decisions, but you can rebuild an amazing number of clunkers into great cars.
Radwaste at August 14, 2009 9:04 AM
The Politics of Pull now govern.
Our political overlords are turning us into squabbling factions fighting for scraps they throw our way.
Jon J at August 14, 2009 10:01 AM
The exemption is rubbish. People aren't going to trade in well running reliable or cars worth restoring. That '81 F-150 may or may not be worth fixing up, but if it's a daily driver, it's worth replacing with something newer, for many reliability, and functionality reasons, IF WE ACCEPT THE WHOLE PROGRAM'S AIM. That truck likely has the carburated 460ci. workhorse of an engine, and likely gets 10 or 11mpg at best. I've had them before, my first truck was a '65 F250... But. Have a families needs changed? Do you no longer do the contracting work you once did. There are lots of reasons to do the change. Even IF you are only buying a newer truck, the base F150 gets better milage, pollutes a LOT less, [fuel inject vs. carb] and is a much better truck all around. More capacity, better handling, much better brakes, more power with a smaller engine, etc.
The argument that the number of older vehicles is too small is also hogwash, especially in the western US. Probably hald the cars on my block in denver are pre '84, including 3 pickups. So... it would be only fair to have the age range NOT have a bottom end. You get the most polluting vehicles off the road, and sell new ones, just the same as if they are an '85
the parts associations are full of it too. I see a cosntant stream of older vehicles go to the crushers intact [and have for years]. The number of junkyards around here has dwindled for years, as people work on their cars less, or let them go more. The parts that WILL be needed will be for those with more modern cars, that last a lot longer. I let my trusty '88 acura legend go with 190K miles on it because it was getting to expensive to replace some of the basic infrastructure parts. Like brakelines @ $150ea. needing 4x of them. There are lots of parts on an old car like that. But. The doors? Bodyparts hurt in accidents? those were intact, and they parted out my car after I sold it.
But now you are crushing those cars, since dealers need to get the paperwork in and done before the money runs out. They didn't even bother to remove the brand new tires on my mom's 4runner when she traded it for a scion. They COULD have done, but a new car dealer would never take the time, and they can't really re-sell the old vehicle for parts EVEN IF they glass the engine. They have to prove it's been done to get money. When it's crushed there is no question.
All that said. The question is why is there some kind of exemption when it makes sense to get the oldest off the road. I dn;t agree with the program, but they didn't ask me. But. They don't even get the lie done based on carving up what qualifies and what doesn't. Had my mom's 4runner been the 4cyl manual model it wouldn't have qualified, because of the arbitrary nature of the milage requirement. The whole thing smack of special interests lining up at the trough, and the political theatre of making it look like you are doing SOMETHING.
OI!
SwissArmyD at August 14, 2009 10:17 AM
You get the most polluting vehicles off the road, and sell new ones, just the same as if they are an '85
There were a lot of states that got nailed for the smog laws in the late 80's through today. A lot of the pre-90's vehicles couldn't cut it anyway and were scrapped to start with.
Also, as you get to the northern tier of the country the life expectancy for vehicles drops significantly when you start talking the rust and corrosion from salt and other de-icing agents.
I agree that the limit is dumb -- but it depends where you live for what the percentage of old to new is anyway.
Jim P. at August 14, 2009 5:16 PM
I drive a 10-year-old vehicle (bought it new, which I will never do again) that probably has another 10 years of life in it. It would qualify for the program, since it's got a V6 and only gets about 18 mpg. But I don't do a lot of driving - I only fill up the tank twice a month, and the 4WD has saved my ass several times during various snowy Iowa winters. The rebate only applies to new cars, and at best would just cover the new-car depreciation. And I'd go from driving a paid-off car to having a car payment. It's insane that people are willing to spend such a huge chunk of their paychecks for a way to get back and forth to work anyway. My boyfriend paid $650 for his old Chevy pickup truck, and it's been reliable for two years.
Pirate Jo at August 15, 2009 9:57 AM
Leave a comment