Is a 91 Accord a Clunker?
 

Apparently not. It does get around 20mpg and the Clunker program seems
to require that it get 18 or less. Oh well. I very well might have
gotten a new Civic.

Re: Is a 91 Accord a Clunker?
 

"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:ra1085lnml3pkvif52jcol7v5cf3gtgv8i@4ax.com...
> Apparently not. It does get around 20mpg and the Clunker program
> seems
> to require that it get 18 or less. Oh well. I very well might have
> gotten a new Civic.

If you have a 91 Accord that gets 20mpg, you have a clunker, no matter
what the program specifies.

Re: Is a 91 Accord a Clunker?
 

Stewart wrote:
> "dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:ra1085lnml3pkvif52jcol7v5cf3gtgv8i@4ax.com...
>> Apparently not. It does get around 20mpg and the Clunker program
>> seems
>> to require that it get 18 or less. Oh well. I very well might have
>> gotten a new Civic.
>
> If you have a 91 Accord that gets 20mpg, you have a clunker, no matter
> what the program specifies.
>
>

indeed - that thing should be getting in the 30's.

Re: Is a 91 Accord a Clunker?
 

"jim beam" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:7fmdnSwSkLrkTB3XnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> Stewart wrote:
>> "dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:ra1085lnml3pkvif52jcol7v5cf3gtgv8i@4ax.com...
>>> Apparently not. It does get around 20mpg and the Clunker program
>>> seems
>>> to require that it get 18 or less. Oh well. I very well might have
>>> gotten a new Civic.
>>
>> If you have a 91 Accord that gets 20mpg, you have a clunker, no
>> matter what the program specifies.
>
> indeed - that thing should be getting in the 30's.

Easy 30's. My old 79 hatchback was in the low to mid 30's.

Re: Is a 91 Accord a Clunker?
 

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:45:37 -0700, "Stewart" <stewartg@american.org>
wrote:

>
>"jim beam" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:7fmdnSwSkLrkTB3XnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@speakeasy.n et...
>> Stewart wrote:
>>> "dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ra1085lnml3pkvif52jcol7v5cf3gtgv8i@4ax.com...
>>>> Apparently not. It does get around 20mpg and the Clunker program
>>>> seems
>>>> to require that it get 18 or less. Oh well. I very well might have
>>>> gotten a new Civic.
>>>
>>> If you have a 91 Accord that gets 20mpg, you have a clunker, no
>>> matter what the program specifies.
>>
>> indeed - that thing should be getting in the 30's.
>
>Easy 30's. My old 79 hatchback was in the low to mid 30's.
>

I don't drive it a whole lot. Sometimes I drive it to the nearby
Park-N-Ride lot but usually I commute by bike. I think I average 5500
miles per year, almost all of it local driving. Now that I really
think about it though, I probably get around 22 mpg. I'll check the
next time I fill up.

It is a great car but it has significant rust and badly needs a paint
job. I just don't see putting in more money than I have to though -
it's only got 115k on it but it's gone through an awful lot of NY
winters. If I could get $4k for a trade-in I'd likely get a new Civic.

Re: Is a 91 Accord a Clunker?
 

Looks like no, it does not qualify, the average epa rating for this car
(modified) is 22 mpg, the average driver gets 22.8. so while your mileage
is very average, especially considering, short trips, city driving and cold
winters, it is not "bad enough".
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm

and http://www.cars.gov/faq#category-07

"How do I know if my car or truck is an eligible trade-in vehicle?

There are several requirements (but you also have to meet certain conditions
for the car or truck you wish to buy). Your dealer can help you determine
whether you have an eligible trade in vehicle.

Your trade-in vehicle must

have been manufactured less than 25 years before the date you trade it in
have a "new" combined city/highway fuel economy of 18 miles per gallon or
less
be in drivable condition
be continuously insured and registered to the same owner for the full year
preceding the trade-in
The trade-in vehicle must have been manufactured not earlier than 25 years
before the date of trade in and, in the case of a category 3 vehicle, must
also have been manufactured not later than model year 2001"



"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:ra1085lnml3pkvif52jcol7v5cf3gtgv8i@4ax.com...
> Apparently not. It does get around 20mpg and the Clunker program seems
> to require that it get 18 or less. Oh well. I very well might have
> gotten a new Civic.

Re: Is a 91 Accord a Clunker?
 

dgk wrote:
> Apparently not. It does get around 20mpg and the Clunker program seems
> to require that it get 18 or less. Oh well. I very well might have
> gotten a new Civic.

Well, it's definitely a clunker (at least, mine is with all the rust and
dented body panels it accumulated after 5 years in college parking
lots). But, perhaps sadly, it's not eligible for a CARS rebate.

BTW, with 115K on it, there's LOTs of life left in it. Mine's at 214K
now. And it gets about 32 highway and high 20's around town.

--
JRE

Re: Is a 91 Accord a Clunker?
 

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:55:26 -0400, JRE <nothing@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

>dgk wrote:
>> Apparently not. It does get around 20mpg and the Clunker program seems
>> to require that it get 18 or less. Oh well. I very well might have
>> gotten a new Civic.
>
>Well, it's definitely a clunker (at least, mine is with all the rust and
> dented body panels it accumulated after 5 years in college parking
>lots). But, perhaps sadly, it's not eligible for a CARS rebate.
>
>BTW, with 115K on it, there's LOTs of life left in it. Mine's at 214K
>now. And it gets about 32 highway and high 20's around town.

There's mileage and then there is hard living. NY winters and roads
account for much. Still, I'm not aware of any major problems looming.
It has cost between $500 and $1000 each of the past few years for
various ailments. I would be cheaper if I knew how to diagnose and fix
some of this stuff but I'm definitely better with software than
hardware. I did replace the computer on it once.

Still, even at $1000 per year, it's cheaper than buying a new car. And
insurance is much lower than for a newer car. I do miss airbags
though, and ABS.

It would look much better if I had it painted.

Re: Is a 91 Accord a Clunker?
 

dgk wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:55:26 -0400, JRE <nothing@nowhere.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> dgk wrote:
>>> Apparently not. It does get around 20mpg and the Clunker program seems
>>> to require that it get 18 or less. Oh well. I very well might have
>>> gotten a new Civic.
>> Well, it's definitely a clunker (at least, mine is with all the rust and
>> dented body panels it accumulated after 5 years in college parking
>> lots). But, perhaps sadly, it's not eligible for a CARS rebate.
>>
>> BTW, with 115K on it, there's LOTs of life left in it. Mine's at 214K
>> now. And it gets about 32 highway and high 20's around town.
>
> There's mileage and then there is hard living. NY winters and roads
> account for much. Still, I'm not aware of any major problems looming.
> It has cost between $500 and $1000 each of the past few years for
> various ailments. I would be cheaper if I knew how to diagnose and fix
> some of this stuff but I'm definitely better with software than
> hardware. I did replace the computer on it once.
>
> Still, even at $1000 per year, it's cheaper than buying a new car. And
> insurance is much lower than for a newer car. I do miss airbags
> though, and ABS.
>
> It would look much better if I had it painted.

Mine has been in NYS all its life, except for about 6 months in PA.

Why did you have to replace the computer?

--
JRE

Re: Is a 91 Accord a Clunker?
 

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:48:05 -0400, JRE <nothing@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

>dgk wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:55:26 -0400, JRE <nothing@nowhere.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> dgk wrote:
>>>> Apparently not. It does get around 20mpg and the Clunker program seems
>>>> to require that it get 18 or less. Oh well. I very well might have
>>>> gotten a new Civic.
>>> Well, it's definitely a clunker (at least, mine is with all the rust and
>>> dented body panels it accumulated after 5 years in college parking
>>> lots). But, perhaps sadly, it's not eligible for a CARS rebate.
>>>
>>> BTW, with 115K on it, there's LOTs of life left in it. Mine's at 214K
>>> now. And it gets about 32 highway and high 20's around town.
>>
>> There's mileage and then there is hard living. NY winters and roads
>> account for much. Still, I'm not aware of any major problems looming.
>> It has cost between $500 and $1000 each of the past few years for
>> various ailments. I would be cheaper if I knew how to diagnose and fix
>> some of this stuff but I'm definitely better with software than
>> hardware. I did replace the computer on it once.
>>
>> Still, even at $1000 per year, it's cheaper than buying a new car. And
>> insurance is much lower than for a newer car. I do miss airbags
>> though, and ABS.
>>
>> It would look much better if I had it painted.
>
>Mine has been in NYS all its life, except for about 6 months in PA.
>
>Why did you have to replace the computer?

It was in a deep puddle after a big downpour. The water was two inches
deep in the passenger side. It was fine until I drove it home and
pulled down a steep hill - then the car died and wouldn't start. After
a week it still wouldn't start.

Folks here told me that I had likely shorted out the computer since it
is under the passenger's feet. Sure enough, a $60 junkyard replacement
and the car was alive.

I ended up using a few buckets of cat litter to really dry out the
carpet and that worked very well.

I'm a bit nervous that more damage was done by the flooding but it
isn't like the motor got submerged and it's been about 3 years since
it happened.

Re: Is a 91 Accord a Clunker?
 

dgk wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:48:05 -0400, JRE <nothing@nowhere.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> dgk wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:55:26 -0400, JRE <nothing@nowhere.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
<snip>
>>>> BTW, with 115K on it, there's LOTs of life left in it. Mine's at 214K
>>>> now. And it gets about 32 highway and high 20's around town.
>>> There's mileage and then there is hard living. NY winters and roads
>>> account for much. Still, I'm not aware of any major problems looming.
>>> It has cost between $500 and $1000 each of the past few years for
>>> various ailments. I would be cheaper if I knew how to diagnose and fix
>>> some of this stuff but I'm definitely better with software than
>>> hardware. I did replace the computer on it once.
>>>
>>> Still, even at $1000 per year, it's cheaper than buying a new car. And
>>> insurance is much lower than for a newer car. I do miss airbags
>>> though, and ABS.
>>>
>>> It would look much better if I had it painted.
>> Mine has been in NYS all its life, except for about 6 months in PA.
>>
>> Why did you have to replace the computer?
>
> It was in a deep puddle after a big downpour. The water was two inches
> deep in the passenger side. It was fine until I drove it home and
> pulled down a steep hill - then the car died and wouldn't start. After
> a week it still wouldn't start.
>
> Folks here told me that I had likely shorted out the computer since it
> is under the passenger's feet. Sure enough, a $60 junkyard replacement
> and the car was alive.
<snip>

Well, it certainly sounds like the computer had a reasonable excuse to
retire.

Once the car payments were over, I have yet to spend $1K per year on
this car at any stage of its life, though the year it needed tires,
brakes and rotors, and an axle came close (grin).

From memory, the car's service history:

I thought I would have to replace the starter at about 38K but found
cold solder joints in the bendix unit (I wondered why it failed so
young) and reflowed them at no cost and just replace it at 205K or so
because the contacts had worn out and I could not find a piece of copper
plate on a weekend to replace them with.

It's had two 90K services with timing belt, water pump, etc. I'm not
sure the body of the car will last to #3 at 270K but I think the engine
will.

I had to replace the sway bar bushings this year, as there was air where
they were supposed to be (I had just gotten the car back). I think they
were something like $20 for both sides.

The gas lines rusted out and the low-cost alternative was a junkyard
fuel tank two years ago for about $100.

I reflowed the solder joints on the main relay about 3 years back to fix
intermittent staring problems. Another $0 fix.

The brakes have been done about 5 times, usually in the driveway. The
exception was when my son had to have them done at school. I need to
replace the caliper and wheel cylinder on the left side next time as a
employees of a national chain overtightened the bleed screws something
fierce, breaking one and screwing up the thread on the other. Sometimes
it just pays to do it yourself...every brake change I've done has also
included a complete fluid change so calipers and wheel cylinders are
original. Both front brake hoses were replaced a few years ago, and the
master cylinder ($65 or so) this year.

I had to replace the passenger side interior door handle, which
disintegrated, for $35 a month or so ago. The driver's side is on its
way out but still hanging in there.

It's on battery #5 and exhaust system #5 or so. I think.

Most of the exterior bulbs have been replaced along with the interior
dome light, most more than once. The instrument cluster ones, turned
down most of the way since new, remain fine.

It needed a new front spring (I replaced both) at about 90K. A
thrown-up rock appeared to have nicked the spring causing it to fail.

I did the clutch at 130K, because it was fall and I didn't want to have
to do it in the winter, for what turned out to be no good reason as the
original was only 40% worn. At least I won't have to do it next year or
the year after...

Outstanding issues:

It needs a new front main seal. I might get to it before the next 90K
service. Or not. At least it's not the rear main.

The 3rd gear synchro is worn, so one has to shift into 3rd slowly. I
have no plans to fix that.

The shocks in the struts on all 4 corners need to be replaced, but not
urgently. I will probably do them in the fall.

The A/C condenser blew a few years ago. I'm not converting it to new
refrigerant, so the A/C will remain inoperative.

I need to take apart the dash again to fix the heater control valve
cable (again). I might do it in the fall or wait for next spring.

The cruise control has gone intermittent. I have yet to diagnose but my
first action based on history will be to reflow the solder joints on the
control module.

The driver's window seal has started leak a bit (air, not water) but
it's usually fairly quiet.

The rear door handles stick. I'll probably fix that this weekend for free.

Other than that...it's rusty and looks like crap but it's fine. Even
the seats are still comfortable!

It is truly difficult to believe how long this car has lasted, not that
I'm complaining. If it died tomorrow I'd still have gotten much more
than I expected when I bought it.

Airbags would be a plus, but so far I've been able to steer this car
around trouble. ABS would be nice, but as long as I remember to steer
and *then* stomp, etc., it's not really necessary. The biggest danger,
really, is that in my other car with ABS I might give up some ground I
could use to avoid an accident.

--
JRE

Re: Is a 91 Accord a Clunker?
 

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:06:49 -0400, JRE <nothing@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

>dgk wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:48:05 -0400, JRE <nothing@nowhere.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> dgk wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:55:26 -0400, JRE <nothing@nowhere.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
><snip>
>>>>> BTW, with 115K on it, there's LOTs of life left in it. Mine's at 214K
>>>>> now. And it gets about 32 highway and high 20's around town.
>>>> There's mileage and then there is hard living. NY winters and roads
>>>> account for much. Still, I'm not aware of any major problems looming.
>>>> It has cost between $500 and $1000 each of the past few years for
>>>> various ailments. I would be cheaper if I knew how to diagnose and fix
>>>> some of this stuff but I'm definitely better with software than
>>>> hardware. I did replace the computer on it once.
>>>>
>>>> Still, even at $1000 per year, it's cheaper than buying a new car. And
>>>> insurance is much lower than for a newer car. I do miss airbags
>>>> though, and ABS.
>>>>
>>>> It would look much better if I had it painted.
>>> Mine has been in NYS all its life, except for about 6 months in PA.
>>>
>>> Why did you have to replace the computer?
>>
>> It was in a deep puddle after a big downpour. The water was two inches
>> deep in the passenger side. It was fine until I drove it home and
>> pulled down a steep hill - then the car died and wouldn't start. After
>> a week it still wouldn't start.
>>
>> Folks here told me that I had likely shorted out the computer since it
>> is under the passenger's feet. Sure enough, a $60 junkyard replacement
>> and the car was alive.
><snip>
>
>Well, it certainly sounds like the computer had a reasonable excuse to
>retire.
>
>Once the car payments were over, I have yet to spend $1K per year on
>this car at any stage of its life, though the year it needed tires,
>brakes and rotors, and an axle came close (grin).
>
> From memory, the car's service history:
>
>I thought I would have to replace the starter at about 38K but found
>cold solder joints in the bendix unit (I wondered why it failed so
>young) and reflowed them at no cost and just replace it at 205K or so
>because the contacts had worn out and I could not find a piece of copper
>plate on a weekend to replace them with.
>
>It's had two 90K services with timing belt, water pump, etc. I'm not
>sure the body of the car will last to #3 at 270K but I think the engine
>will.
>
>I had to replace the sway bar bushings this year, as there was air where
>they were supposed to be (I had just gotten the car back). I think they
>were something like $20 for both sides.
>
>The gas lines rusted out and the low-cost alternative was a junkyard
>fuel tank two years ago for about $100.
>
>I reflowed the solder joints on the main relay about 3 years back to fix
>intermittent staring problems. Another $0 fix.
>
>The brakes have been done about 5 times, usually in the driveway. The
>exception was when my son had to have them done at school. I need to
>replace the caliper and wheel cylinder on the left side next time as a
>employees of a national chain overtightened the bleed screws something
>fierce, breaking one and screwing up the thread on the other. Sometimes
>it just pays to do it yourself...every brake change I've done has also
>included a complete fluid change so calipers and wheel cylinders are
>original. Both front brake hoses were replaced a few years ago, and the
>master cylinder ($65 or so) this year.
>
>I had to replace the passenger side interior door handle, which
>disintegrated, for $35 a month or so ago. The driver's side is on its
>way out but still hanging in there.
>
>It's on battery #5 and exhaust system #5 or so. I think.
>
>Most of the exterior bulbs have been replaced along with the interior
>dome light, most more than once. The instrument cluster ones, turned
>down most of the way since new, remain fine.
>
>It needed a new front spring (I replaced both) at about 90K. A
>thrown-up rock appeared to have nicked the spring causing it to fail.
>
>I did the clutch at 130K, because it was fall and I didn't want to have
>to do it in the winter, for what turned out to be no good reason as the
>original was only 40% worn. At least I won't have to do it next year or
>the year after...
>
>Outstanding issues:
>
>It needs a new front main seal. I might get to it before the next 90K
>service. Or not. At least it's not the rear main.
>
>The 3rd gear synchro is worn, so one has to shift into 3rd slowly. I
>have no plans to fix that.
>
>The shocks in the struts on all 4 corners need to be replaced, but not
>urgently. I will probably do them in the fall.
>
>The A/C condenser blew a few years ago. I'm not converting it to new
>refrigerant, so the A/C will remain inoperative.
>
>I need to take apart the dash again to fix the heater control valve
>cable (again). I might do it in the fall or wait for next spring.
>
>The cruise control has gone intermittent. I have yet to diagnose but my
>first action based on history will be to reflow the solder joints on the
>control module.
>
>The driver's window seal has started leak a bit (air, not water) but
>it's usually fairly quiet.
>
>The rear door handles stick. I'll probably fix that this weekend for free.
>
>Other than that...it's rusty and looks like crap but it's fine. Even
>the seats are still comfortable!
>
>It is truly difficult to believe how long this car has lasted, not that
>I'm complaining. If it died tomorrow I'd still have gotten much more
>than I expected when I bought it.
>
>Airbags would be a plus, but so far I've been able to steer this car
>around trouble. ABS would be nice, but as long as I remember to steer
>and *then* stomp, etc., it's not really necessary. The biggest danger,
>really, is that in my other car with ABS I might give up some ground I
>could use to avoid an accident.



Yes, but you do the work yourself. If you have to pay someone to do
this stuff, it costs a lot more. Some things I can do. When the brake
reservoir started leaking I did get one at the junkyard and replace
it. That kind of thing. But mostly my problem is knowing what to fix.

Re: Is a 91 Accord a Clunker?
 

"Justbob30" <NoThank@you.com> wrote in message
news:h5ruqb$h1g$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Looks like no, it does not qualify, the average epa rating for
this car
> (modified) is 22 mpg, the average driver gets 22.8. so while
your mileage
> is very average, especially considering, short trips, city
driving and cold
> winters, it is not "bad enough".
> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm
>
> and http://www.cars.gov/faq#category-07
>
> "How do I know if my car or truck is an eligible trade-in
vehicle?
>
> There are several requirements (but you also have to meet
certain conditions
> for the car or truck you wish to buy). Your dealer can help you
determine
> whether you have an eligible trade in vehicle.
>
> Your trade-in vehicle must
>
> have been manufactured less than 25 years before the date you
trade it in
> have a "new" combined city/highway fuel economy of 18 miles per
gallon or
> less
> be in drivable condition
> be continuously insured and registered to the same owner for
the full year
> preceding the trade-in
> The trade-in vehicle must have been manufactured not earlier
than 25 years
> before the date of trade in and, in the case of a category 3
vehicle, must
> also have been manufactured not later than model year 2001"
>

why does the CFC program seem like it is rewarding the lavish,
the irresponsible or the unwise ?
everyone who purchased economically, responsibly or wisely in
the last 20 years is pretty much exempt from the benefit.

I once owned a now 36 yr old car 335,000 + miles (odometer broke)
w/2 diy- jcwitney engine/head rebuilds and etc. repairs that
would not have qualified the low mpg requirements with even a
stretch and it probably had pretty descent emmision numbers too.

robb

Re: Is a 91 Accord a Clunker?
 

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 00:17:48 -0400, "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote:

>
>"Justbob30" <NoThank@you.com> wrote in message
>news:h5ruqb$h1g$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Looks like no, it does not qualify, the average epa rating for
>this car
>> (modified) is 22 mpg, the average driver gets 22.8. so while
>your mileage
>> is very average, especially considering, short trips, city
>driving and cold
>> winters, it is not "bad enough".
>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm
>>
>> and http://www.cars.gov/faq#category-07
>>
>> "How do I know if my car or truck is an eligible trade-in
>vehicle?
>>
>> There are several requirements (but you also have to meet
>certain conditions
>> for the car or truck you wish to buy). Your dealer can help you
>determine
>> whether you have an eligible trade in vehicle.
>>
>> Your trade-in vehicle must
>>
>> have been manufactured less than 25 years before the date you
>trade it in
>> have a "new" combined city/highway fuel economy of 18 miles per
>gallon or
>> less
>> be in drivable condition
>> be continuously insured and registered to the same owner for
>the full year
>> preceding the trade-in
>> The trade-in vehicle must have been manufactured not earlier
>than 25 years
>> before the date of trade in and, in the case of a category 3
>vehicle, must
>> also have been manufactured not later than model year 2001"
>>
>
>why does the CFC program seem like it is rewarding the lavish,
>the irresponsible or the unwise ?
>everyone who purchased economically, responsibly or wisely in
>the last 20 years is pretty much exempt from the benefit.
>
>I once owned a now 36 yr old car 335,000 + miles (odometer broke)
>w/2 diy- jcwitney engine/head rebuilds and etc. repairs that
>would not have qualified the low mpg requirements with even a
>stretch and it probably had pretty descent emmision numbers too.
>
>robb
>
>
>


Right, I don't get the benefit because I bought a sensible vehicle to
begin with. Nor do I get to rewrite my mortgage because I didn't buy a
house that I can't afford.

Nor did I get to loot the US treasury by making huge bets (with
borrowed money) that real estate prices would climb forever and then
just refuse to pay off when they finally fell. All that money was
siphoned off by the already wealthy - and they get to keep it while we
pay off the bad bets.

The idea of recouping that stolen money by having a tax on wealth
instead of income seems to be a non-starter. I guess it just makes too
much sense.

So, other than that, I don't really see what else Obama could have
done. We need to get the guzzlers off the road, we need to keep real
estate prices from collapsing, and we need to keep the financial
institutions running. We need to keep healthcare costs from swamping
us all. Anyone have a better idea?

Re: Is a 91 Accord a Clunker?
 

On 2009-09-02, dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 00:17:48 -0400, "robb" <some@where.on.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Justbob30" <NoThank@you.com> wrote in message
>>news:h5ruqb$h1g$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Looks like no, it does not qualify, the average epa rating for
>>this car
>>> (modified) is 22 mpg, the average driver gets 22.8. so while
>>your mileage
>>> is very average, especially considering, short trips, city
>>driving and cold
>>> winters, it is not "bad enough".
>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm
>>>
>>> and http://www.cars.gov/faq#category-07
>>>
>>> "How do I know if my car or truck is an eligible trade-in
>>vehicle?
>>>
>>> There are several requirements (but you also have to meet
>>certain conditions
>>> for the car or truck you wish to buy). Your dealer can help you
>>determine
>>> whether you have an eligible trade in vehicle.
>>>
>>> Your trade-in vehicle must
>>>
>>> have been manufactured less than 25 years before the date you
>>trade it in
>>> have a "new" combined city/highway fuel economy of 18 miles per
>>gallon or
>>> less
>>> be in drivable condition
>>> be continuously insured and registered to the same owner for
>>the full year
>>> preceding the trade-in
>>> The trade-in vehicle must have been manufactured not earlier
>>than 25 years
>>> before the date of trade in and, in the case of a category 3
>>vehicle, must
>>> also have been manufactured not later than model year 2001"
>>>
>>
>>why does the CFC program seem like it is rewarding the lavish,
>>the irresponsible or the unwise ?
>>everyone who purchased economically, responsibly or wisely in
>>the last 20 years is pretty much exempt from the benefit.
>>
>>I once owned a now 36 yr old car 335,000 + miles (odometer broke)
>>w/2 diy- jcwitney engine/head rebuilds and etc. repairs that
>>would not have qualified the low mpg requirements with even a
>>stretch and it probably had pretty descent emmision numbers too.
>>
>>robb
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Right, I don't get the benefit because I bought a sensible vehicle to
> begin with. Nor do I get to rewrite my mortgage because I didn't buy a
> house that I can't afford.

Right. So the people that made bad decisions get to steal your money
and mine... That sounds all right, if you're one of the ones that
gets to do the stealing. To the rest of us, it's bad business.

>
> Nor did I get to loot the US treasury by making huge bets (with
> borrowed money) that real estate prices would climb forever and then
> just refuse to pay off when they finally fell. All that money was
> siphoned off by the already wealthy - and they get to keep it while we
> pay off the bad bets.

What do you mean the "already wealthy"? The people that got those
mortgages were people that would never have qualified for them in the
old days. They got ARM's with interest-only payments so they could
buy a $300k house while they were making $50k/year. When the bust
hit, they couldn't pay the mortgage, and we got to bail them out.

>
> The idea of recouping that stolen money by having a tax on wealth
> instead of income seems to be a non-starter. I guess it just makes too
> much sense.

We already tax wealth, as it's made. Why should people who have
succeeded be forced to pay again, because of that success? That
sounds like jealousy, not fairness.

>
> So, other than that, I don't really see what else Obama could have
> done. We need to get the guzzlers off the road, we need to keep real
> estate prices from collapsing, and we need to keep the financial
> institutions running. We need to keep healthcare costs from swamping
> us all. Anyone have a better idea?

You want guzzlers off the road, impose large fees and taxes on the
guzzlers. Don't give the people free money to buy new cars. And the
financial industry was NEVER in any danger. A few large companies
were, and they would have been sucked in by other companies if they
failed. Without the risk of bankruptcy for bad business decisions,
capitalism is doomed.

If you want health care to not swamp us all, the solution is NOT to
give it over to big brother and let him tax you to death for it. The
better answer would be to spur competition in the market. Eliminate
state laws making the sale of insurance from out of state illegal.
And, by all means, lets get rid of the idea that insurance should
cover every hangnail and sore tummy. Health insurance should be
high-deductible, and there for emergencies that could bankrupt you.
Normal doctors visits should be paid out of pocket. It would save you
tons of money each year, and you'd be able to control the costs all on
your own.


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X