I read in the paper today that when you turn in a clunker under the program, the dealer has to pour something into the engine to destroy it and prevent its reuse.
What could that be? Where could I get some?
(I’m guessing an epoxy.)
(FWIW, I Googled “cash clunkers how destroy engine”)
Wow. That’s hard to watch. What a waste.
Why not dismantle the engines and use them for parts? Why not save the V8’s and use them when a schoolbus needs a new motor? Why not melt 'em down and make new metal (whatever they’re pouring into them will make that difficult). This is so wasteful no matter how you look at it.
I understand there should be some incentive to get rid of that full size Hummer when all you do is drive around by yourself and you never haul anything and an economy car will suffice, but there are some uses for (some of) the big gas guzzlers that won’t ever go away.
They will melt down the metal for recycling. What the program is designed to do is prevent the car from being resold. The stated purpose is go get clunkers off the road. If the engine is destroyed, you can probably assume it is off the road.
It is allowed under the rules to scavenge some parts off the car, but not the engine and trans.
My dealership did a CFC deal, I am waiting for the stuff to come in and then I get to destroy an engine. this will be a first for me.
Thank you all.
I second that.
Deliberately ruining a perfectly good engine. That’s disturbing.
Presumably it’s not a “perfectly good engine.” It’s an engine that uses more gas than the newer one.
Right. But if it was perfectly good, they would destroy it anyway. I find this to be wrong and disturbing.
I understand the reason for destroying the engines, but it’s still quite difficult to watch.
Dad is considering buying a new car under the CFC program. He now owns a fully loaded 1993 Mercury Sable with about 50,000 miles on the clock. Its normal trade-in value is far less than what he would get under CFC, so it makes sense. However, to destroy an engine with only 50K when there’s similar engines sitting in the junkyard with far more mileage on them … yeah, it seems wasteful. Also, they’ve had the car for nearly 17 years, and … well, I know cars are inanimate objects, but it seems like putting a perfectly healthy but old dog to sleep, just because you’re getting a new puppy.
Why buy a new car to begin with? Mon died earlier this year, and Dad doesn’t need such a large car. Unlike most seniors who find themselves increasingly drawn to large Buicks and other land barges, Dad wants something smaller and easier to drive and park. The reliability of cars has also improved dramatically in the past two decades; even though Dad doesn’t drive a lot, the car still needs a bit of work thanks to its age.
AFAIK, The car needs to get 18mpg or less. Dad’s gets more than that, at least based on the mechanically identical 1993 Taurus that I looked up on USA website.
One of my strongest objections to the program is any claim that it’s better for the environment. Are we really meant to believe that the differential in fuel economy between an old car and a new car offsets the energy and natural resources that went in to producing that new car? There’s just no way.
Call it economy stimulus, that’s fine. Don’t call it beneficial to the environment.