No Really Old Clunkers -- I'd Wondered Why

[MaryS]

Now, the rest of the story...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... 8269.story

AUTOS
Why 'clunkers' program won't take some of the most polluting cars

The classic car lobby pushed to exclude vehicles made before 1984, protecting the market for parts. Consumer and environmental groups, too busy fighting for fuel efficiency, went along with it.

By Ralph Vartabedian and Ken Bensinger

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 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.

The association represents more than 7,000 companies that make all manner of auto-related products, including reproduction Model T tires and AMC Gremlin upholstery. The powerful interest group has won legislative battles nationwide to protect owners of classic cars and hot rods from laws covering vehicle noise, emissions tests and much else.

The cash-for-clunkers legislation was sponsored by Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.). Neither returned calls seeking comment. The final wording of the bill, including the provision requested by the interest group, was ironed out in a legislative conference committee and attached to a military spending bill.

Consumer and environmental groups reluctantly went along with the provision because they were fighting for any rule that would push consumers to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles than the ones they were trading in....

Lots more at the link,

[PrivateSmiles]

I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to this issue because I'm keeping my car but I've wondered why they didn't write it to include all cars, ones not considered genuine antiques and classics, that use carburetion and not electronic fuel injection. Cars w/out electronic feedback systems. Wouldn't carburetors contribute far more to pollution that EFI? I really have no clue about this but it seems to me....

I don't know when car manufacturers completely stopped using the old-style (non-feedback, non-EFI) carbs but it was possibly sometime in the later 80s.

[AlphaGaijin]

I don't know when car manufacturers completely stopped using the old-style (non-feedback, non-EFI) carbs but it was possibly sometime in the later 80s.

Not sure either, but I had a 1987 Toyota Tercel back in the day & it had a carburetor. Thing was a POS too.

[PrivateSmiles]

Not sure either, but I had a 1987 Toyota Tercel back in the day & it had a carburetor. Thing was a POS too.

I know Subaru - my make of choice - started putting single-point FI in all its cars in the latter half of the 80s.

[Lurker]

I wonder how many people are getting into bad loans that they really can't afford the new $300+- monthly car payments.

Also wonder about the car dealers, did they find everybody to have an acceptable FICA score, or did they do some gouging on the interest rates in addition to probably making a bunch of window sticker priced sales?

[Marat]

Kind of interesting how a caring, feeling government has managed to screw the poor through this program.

How so?

Well, let's say you're poor and the car you own is worth, maybe, $1200. It ain't much but it's all you got.

Cash For Clunkers doesn't do YOU a darn bit of good - there's no chance in hell you've got the scratch to trade your beauty in for a new car, taxpayer subsidy or no taxpayer subsidy.

No, Cash For Clunkers does you no good, whatsoever.

But, boy, does it screw you. You know that fifty bucks you'd try to scrape together, Mr./Mrs./Miz Poor Person, to buy a serviceable part at the junkyard to keep your beater going? ('Cause, Lawd knows, you sure don't have $150 for a new part from the dealer.)

Well, now that part's not going to be available any more. Why not? Because the car (at the junkyard) that part would have come from NO LONGER EXISTS. It's been DESTROYED, as MANDATED BY THE NEW LAW.

Oh.

Well, have fun with that two-hour bus ride, with three transfers, to-and-from your low-paying job, because you can no longer afford to keep your car running.

Darn that pesky Law Of Unintended Consequences.

[Marat]

And, oh! By the way. . . .

Can anyone tell me what the environmental cost is of producing all those new cars to replace perfectly serviceable used cars?

Hmmm. That pain-in-the-azz Law O' Unintended Consequences is starting to get on my nerves. . . . .

[Marat]

Maybe the gummint can pass a law to OUTlaw the Law O' Unintended Consequences. Doesn't seem right that it should be allowed to exist, somehow.

[Turfenator]

This is fast becoming a pandora's box that's spinning unrecognizably out of control. Gosh dear heavens!

[Kermit]

A little over 50% of ALL pollution a vehicle will produce was already produced building it.

The 1984 rule (interesting date, that...) isn't just about saving old cars. Look, the gummit ain't got no money of their own, and that 3,500 / 4,500 rebate comes directly
from taxes. Now a 2003 full-size Ford MIGHT be worth $3,500, I know a 1985 Plymouth K-car isn't, and a 1973 Volvo darn sure isn't. It is already disgusting Socialism now,
and giving $4,500 to people for $150 cars would just send me (and many others) over the edge. Also, factor in the cost of the Fed Bureaucracy and it's about $6,500 a car tax hit.

BTW, the rule doesn't look at what you replace your car with, except it has to get a certain MPG above your clunker. So... you can get $4,500 for your 1990 Chevy work truck (12 MPG)
for a 2009 Chevy truck (24 MPG), but you can't get any money for your 1983 Cadillac (10 MPG) toward a Toyota Prius (50 MPG).

I guess that makes sense.