The more I see them the more I like them. Still ugly, but not as bad as they used to be. Chassis is a huge improvement though. They really do drive great compared to the NA and NB. Interior is a whole lot nicer too.

Pretty funny though. They look like they must be 4wd. Looks like 4" of clearance between the tire and fender. If my 94 is at 11.5" ride height, those must be at 15-16"!

Socialism FTL. It's about the first time I've seen the Gov't do a hand out that helps us middle to upper middle guys. Everything is usually for the ultra rich, ultra poor or ultra stupid.

While I'm not for it and think it's a ridiculous program, that money is there and will be spent. Might as well be me as some other jerkwad. I'm more of a pragmatist than idealist when it comes to money coming my way.

You sure its brand new and not slightly used? The program doesnt apply to cars that have previously been registered unfortunately.

Most dealers remove any special pricing when using the clunker discount. That way they get lots more money. Full price car plus the extra $4500 from the Gov't and they don't have to deal with the trade in.

It creates zero jobs, adds tons of credit/income debt, makes the earth a full 0% cleaner, hurts a lot of used car/junker business.

I'm just waiting for the home appliances program. I need a new stove, so hopefully I should be able to trade my POS in, for more than it's worth, for a brand new SS energy star stove! Of course like the engines out of cars, these stoves have to be destroyed so others can't benefit from them!

Saves fuel, "displaces" foreign oil dependency?

uh huh. Those 18mpg Mercedeses and Lexuses that people are buying are really displacing the dependency. A true program would subsidize real fuel efficient cars and alternative fuel cars/vehicles or public transportation.

I mean take advantage if they are offering it and you can benefit. I'm just saying.

um scot the program subsidizes depending on the dif in gas mileage i highly doubt any 18 mpg mercedes or lexus will qualify for more than a grand and even then if that is your sticking point on one of those wich would be a 30+ k dollar car anyway then you should realy look at something cheaper. I suggest you realy read through the bill. I do agree though it doesn't do shit to help me the way it is written now or anyone i know.

I don't read bills, nor does congress.

Good one, I like it! But it's probably more true that we would like to admit.

there's a preapproved list of cars you can dump and cars you can buy. it's all there.

Cash for Clunkers Eligible Trade-In Vehicle List - Edmunds.com
Cash for Clunkers Eligible New Cars

I just let Acorn write my bills, I trust them. Then I fast-track them through congress in the most unAmerica way possible. I also use clever titles on Bills so people think they are getting something better than delivered.

I'd first think of an acronym, then figure out a clever way to make you think the bill would be getting rid of noobs. But by getting rid of noobs I just meant giving them turbos.

Something like L.E.A.V.E. or G.T.F.O.

The average congress faces over 11,000 bills. The typical bill has nearly two hundred pages of law with many running well over 1000 pages in length. You think the average congressman can read and comprehend around 2 million pages of law in a single term?

A truly good program would be the government getting the fuck out of legislating anything to do with automobiles at all. People will buy cars that are as efficient as they want them to be, safe as they want them to be, and just as hippy-dippy green as they want them to be, without the government exerting illegal control over them. This is another means of controlling people's actions unconstitutionally to further a social/economic agenda through the use of the monetary carrot and stick.
[/soapbox]

The early VW rabbit diesel got an easy 40+mpg. The mid 80's Metro got an easy mid 40mpg. The 70's corrolla got mid 30's easily. Why is the most efficient non hybrid 2009 Honda or Toyota only rated at 36mpg freeway? They had cars that efficient 30 years ago! Crash ratings add weight and mean manufacturers are constantly upping hp and size. This has played a big part in keeping cars from becoming more efficient.

So true, too bad "America" is not what it once was.

There aren't many Hondas on that list. My 1989 CRX isn't on it.

I do wish I had a car I could use.... alas all my cars I've ever owned have gotten 28+ mpg.

I found my 2000 Audi A6 on the list, but it books for more than $4500

It really is a program to get people to ditch old to moderately old crappy cars. Great chance to get rid of something with little or no value that gets piss poor mileage.

Of all the things they can waste money on, I admit that I like this program the most so far.

My mom owns a 86 Chevy S10. it uses a 1/4 tank making 2 trips to the local dump like 5mi away. It would qualify since it is within 25yrs old. But its in my moms name and there is no chance she can afford a car or that she would qualify for a loan. If only it was in my name for the last yr. I would be driving a Toyota Tundra right now....

There's a couple reasons. First off, you know how the EPA recently redid their method for calculating MPG? No doubt similar changes to the strategy have been made in the past. On top of that, cars 30 years ago didn't have 5mph bumpers, impact beams, air bags, heavy bullshit and they didn't need as much power to move themselves. Oh hell, let CNN tell you why:
Twenty-year-old Civics got 57 miles per gallon - Dec. 19, 2007
Bottom line: 58 hp in a 1800 lb car.

I know huh. Bet you still curse the day women got the right to vote and stuff.