Anyone know for sure what they did with the Cash for Clunkers cars?

[RU482]

A thought just occured to me. After the cash for clunkers sales program ended, the subject pretty much went off the radar. What did they actually do with the cars?

I know it was stated that the cars were to be demolished...but were they? And by who?

 

[Demon-Xanth]

The engines were effectively destroyed on the lot. Then they spend about 90 days on a junkyard where they can be picked apart. After that, crushed. In the junkyard they can be spotted because they often are sprayed with a pink paint so you know that the engine is a brick.

 

[woodie1]

Along the same line - has anyone seen or heard if all the dealers have gotten their money from the C4C program yet?

 

[Ronstang]

The engines were effectively destroyed on the lot. Then they spend about 90 days on a junkyard where they can be picked apart. After that, crushed. In the junkyard they can be spotted because they often are sprayed with a pink paint so you know that the engine is a brick.

This. I was in a junkyard last week getting some wiring plugs and there were junkers from the CARS program all over the yard painted in pink letting you know the engines are toast. In fact the engines were completely sprayed pink from the top. There were a lot of these cars on the lot too.

 

[dawp]

I wonder if you can purchase one of those,yank the engine and convert it to electric power.

An suv would have loads of room for batteries.

 

[thedarkwolf]

they have to crush the chassi

 

[StageLeft]

I wonder if you can purchase one of those,yank the engine and convert it to electric power.

An suv would have loads of room for batteries.

Interesting idea and I bet you could if you were inclined.

 

[boomerang]

Along the same line - has anyone seen or heard if all the dealers have gotten their money from the C4C program yet?

I saw some Senator or Congressperson on the tube within the last few weeks saying that no, it has not all been disbursed yet. True or not, I don't know.

I guess I was wrong, but my understanding was that these cars were not to be parted out. The reasoning was that the .gov didn't want to contribute to keeping older cars on the road. If they're sitting there, I must be wrong.

 

[LTC8K6]

Nope, the law says the cars can be parted out, except for the engines. So, these clunkers will be contributing to keeping the rest of their kind on the road.

 

[jlee]

Nope, the law says the cars can be parted out, except for the engines. So, these clunkers will be contributing to keeping the rest of their kind on the road.

Which I believe to be, all in all, much more efficient than building new cars with new materials..

 

[exdeath]

All the environmentalists got together and threw them all in a big bonfire that produced more pollution and smog and hazardous substances than the controlled burning of the gasoline they would have used for 20 years, and they patted each other on the back for saving the planet.

 

[exdeath]

I wonder if you can purchase one of those,yank the engine and convert it to electric power.

An suv would have loads of room for batteries.

Whats the point? Power, weight, work, and energy are still all at play. An electric motor is still going to use the same amount of energy to haul a 6000 lb SUV with two tons of batteries in it. Nothing is free, just offset or transferred somewhere else, out of sight, out of mind. That's what all these eco nut swingers don't understand.

When it comes to high density portable cheap energy source, nothing beats gasoline (or fossil fuels in general). Anything else costs more and has a bigger impact and takes more energy and fuel to produce than is ever recovered, even if the end user doesn't see it in his/her mpgs. You have to consider the energy, fuel, and environmental impact over the entire life cycle, not just the extra MPGs.

PS remember when smog and acid rain and ozone layer and hydrocarbons were all the eco rage? When cars were cleaned up and made nearly perfect by electronic fuel injection and catalysts and emitted just carbon dioxide and water and there was nothing else to whine about, suddenly now CO2 and water are dangerous pollutants and a huge epidemic...

 

[Demon-Xanth]

I wonder if you can purchase one of those,yank the engine and convert it to electric power.

An suv would have loads of room for batteries.

No, the law said that they have to be crushed. They can be parted out aside from the drivetrain. But in the end the chassis has to be destroyed as well. Currently after 180 days, but they're proposing adding another 90 days to it. They cannot sell it as a vehicle.

 

[LTC8K6]

The law pretty clearly says the chassis can be parted out and don't have to be crushed or shredded:

(2)
DISPOSITION OF ELIGIBLE TRADE-IN VEHICLES(
A)
IN GENERAL- For each eligible trade-in vehicle surrendered to a dealer under the Program, the dealer shall certify to the Secretary, in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe by rule, that the dealer-
(i)
has not and will not sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise dispose of the vehicle for use as an automobile in the United States or in any other country; and
(ii)
will transfer the vehicle (including the engine block), in such manner as the Secretary prescribes, to an entity that will ensure that the vehicle-
(I)
will be crushed or shredded within such period and in such manner as the Secretary prescribes; and
(II)
has not been, and will not be, sold, leased, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of for use as an automobile in the United States or in any other country.
(B)
SAVINGS PROVISION- Nothing in subparagraph (A) may be construed to preclude a person who is responsible for ensuring that the vehicle is crushed or shredded from-
(i)
selling any parts of the disposed vehicle other than the engine block and drive train (unless with respect to the drive train, the transmission, drive shaft, or rear end are sold as separate parts); or
(ii)
retaining the proceeds from such sale.

 

[dawp]

Whats the point?

Because I can. A project. And every thing I read says electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion and for short hauls such as the daily commute it would be fine. the only real drawback would be batteries as any worth a damn tend to be expensive. put up a solar panel to charge during the day (I work nights) and I would be all set.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Nope, the law says the cars can be parted out, except for the engines. So, these clunkers will be contributing to keeping the rest of their kind on the road.

Well, there are fewer of them on the road at least.

 

[Zap]

All the environmentalists got together and threw them all in a big bonfire that produced more pollution and smog and hazardous substances than the controlled burning of the gasoline they would have used for 20 years, and they patted each other on the back for saving the planet.

Got a LOL outta this post. 😀

 

[Demon-Xanth]

All the environmentalists got together and threw them all in a big bonfire that produced more pollution and smog and hazardous substances than the controlled burning of the gasoline they would have used for 20 years, and they patted each other on the back for saving the planet.

Sadly... http://www.mindfully.org/Heritage/2003/ELF-FBI-$2_5M-SUVs23aug03.htm

...that's happened. Multiple times.

 

[exdeath]

Because I can.

Best reason for anything. :beer;

 

[HannibalX]

All the environmentalists got together and threw them all in a big bonfire that produced more pollution and smog and hazardous substances than the controlled burning of the gasoline they would have used for 20 years, and they patted each other on the back for saving the planet.

hehehe 😀

 

[Billb2]

And every thing I read says electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion

Yes, they are more efficient in converting one source of power (electricity) into another than internal combustion is. But you still have to buy the gas and electricity.

At the present time, total cost of ownership for electrics is a loosing proposition.

About 270,000,000 gallons of gas are burned in the US per day for transportation. The cost of building all the new power plants needed to replace that isn't figured into the "efficiency" of electric motors.

 

[jhu]

Whats the point? Power, weight, work, and energy are still all at play. An electric motor is still going to use the same amount of energy to haul a 6000 lb SUV with two tons of batteries in it. Nothing is free, just offset or transferred somewhere else, out of sight, out of mind. That's what all these eco nut swingers don't understand.

What econut is advocating anything to do with a full-size SUV? With that in mind, an all EV full-size SUV will be more efficient than one with an ICE since the electric motor is much more efficient than an ICE. With regard to EVs in general, what you need to understand is that it's much easier to clean the emissions from a powerplant than millions of ICEs. Switch that coal plant to nuclear or fusion (when that comes) and you've cleaned up the air significantly.

When it comes to high density portable cheap energy source, nothing beats gasoline (or fossil fuels in general). Anything else costs more and has a bigger impact and takes more energy and fuel to produce than is ever recovered, even if the end user doesn't see it in his/her mpgs. You have to consider the energy, fuel, and environmental impact over the entire life cycle, not just the extra MPGs.

That's true up until it starts running out. Hopefully something else will take its place by then.

PS remember when smog and acid rain and ozone layer and hydrocarbons were all the eco rage? When cars were cleaned up and made nearly perfect by electronic fuel injection and catalysts and emitted just carbon dioxide and water and there was nothing else to whine about, suddenly now CO2 and water are dangerous pollutants and a huge epidemic...

Sorry but smog, acid rain and the ozone layer are still important whatever your feelings on the matter are. Just go to LA or Houston to see how bad the smog is. Yes, cars are cleaner now than ever before, but they're still emitting tons of NOx, CO, and unburnt hydrocarbons into the atmosphere.

 

[canadageek]

What econut is advocating anything to do with a full-size SUV? With that in mind, an all EV full-size SUV will be more efficient than one with an ICE since the electric motor is much more efficient than an ICE. With regard to EVs in general, what you need to understand is that it's much easier to clean the emissions from a powerplant than millions of ICEs. Switch that coal plant to nuclear or fusion (when that comes) and you've cleaned up the air significantly.



That's true up until it starts running out. Hopefully something else will take its place by then.



Sorry but smog, acid rain and the ozone layer are still important whatever your feelings on the matter are. Just go to LA or Houston to see how bad the smog is. Yes, cars are cleaner now than ever before, but they're still emitting tons of NOx, CO, and unburnt hydrocarbons into the atmosphere.

THANK YOU

A powerplant is far more efficient than any ICE, except maybe giant 2-stroke ship diesels.
Transferring electricity is more efficient than transferring oil from arabia to refineries to you.
Electric motors are at least twice as efficient as ICEs, and can go up to 90%

the only real issue with E-cars is batteries. we need faster charging batteries with much higher capacity. oh, and they should be easily (and cleanly) recyclable.