Can we keep politics and religion off here!!!

Well, if you had left the political whining tone out of your post I woulda said nought.

Anyway here's what happened over in the US of A, they killed some mighty fine vehicles.

http://www.autoblog.com/...rs-that-deserved-better/

I agree tranx - it will make it hard for car guys, and even cause negative flow-on effects in the aftermarket/restoration/wrecking industry - more unemployment??? I think so. She conveniently forgets that there's a whole industry out there supporting these cars.

Any proposed "cash for clunkers" scheme should allow them to be sent to a wrecking yard (say with a cancelled VIN, never to be rego'd again, like a stat write-off), but the way it is currently in the US is that they get crushed, and I dare say the ranga's plan is no different, and it's simply a hasty last-minute pitch at the green vote.

Tell me how many people driving an eligible "clunker" can afford a $20K brand new car? Now tell me it isn't flawed?

It's a pathetic policy that would only help a SMALL MINORITY of people in the market for a new car, who can afford that new car, and are updating from a 15 year old car. There's not many of those people around is there?

Cheers,

Mick
_______________________________________________________________

Judge a successful man not on how he treats his peers, but on how he treats those less fortunate.

The yanks had a few guidelines in place, seemed to have a 25 year old limit.

http://www.cashforclunke...-qualifying-vehicles.php

I have to agree it will make a difference to access to parts, but most cars of the age of ours are in the 70s or older and most owners are keeping them anyway. Name a road registered car of the 70s or older that is not worth more than $2000, so there is not the temptation.
Anyway the aim is to get more business into the dealers, they will simply lower their tradein prices by that much because they know the grant is there, like the way real estate was pushed up by the home grant.
I do agree that it won't do much for the environment, it will create a lot more green house gases to make a new car than keep an old one on the road.

Yes but no Tranx. Problem is you have to trade them in on a brand new car to get the rebate, or sell them to someone who is going to trade them in, but it's only $2000 rebate hardly worth the hassle. I'll bet they don't have the guts to restrict it to the purchase of an Australian built car.

Edited by user Monday, 26 July 2010 1:36:06 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Hi all,
I for another will be really dissapointed if the so called environmental benefit of crushing old cars comes to pass!

I agree the energy required to make a new car ( which includes heaps of toxic plastics ) would be worse than leaving things alone.

To give you some Idea how the craze to get cars to China went, I saved a V6 Camry from going to China and will be driving it around for the next ten years or so.

This car is a low milage limited manufactured one and is in good condition, the reason it was on its way to China was because a so called mechanic was too USELESS to fix it properly and caused to owner to give it away rather than keep paying out to fix the same fault.

There was nothing really wrong with it other than usual maintaince issues!

I wonder how many good cars are crushed with little wrong with them?

I have noticed the spare parts really drying up so I am trying my best to record as many bits of information as I can for my model before the original cars are not around to studdy, I know some are restored but it is not the same as seeing an untouched one.

My main limitations on saving collectable cars are shed space and money?

Mike

Purpul Police