• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Updated list of eligible/ineligible Cash for Clunkers

F

fbrdphreak

Lifer
How do they render the C4C vehicles inoperative? I'm glad you asked!

The official process for killing the condemned engine sounds as simple to perform as it is deadly. A deadly cocktail of Sodium silicate, or liquid glass, is used to render the engine inoperable. Dealers are instructed to replace the car's oil with the solution, then run the engine at 2,000 rpm until the engine stops working. The process supposedly takes three to seven minutes, after which, the dealer is supposed to start up the vehicle again. If the clunker starts up, the process must be repeated until it's confirmed dead.

Once the engine takes a dirt nap, the dealer must add a sticker that reads: "This engine is from a vehicle that is part of the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS). It has significant internal damage caused by operating the engine with a sodium silicate solution (liquid glass) instead of oil." The vehicle is then sent to a disposal facility that crushes or shreds the vehicle. Gruesome and kinda sad...
Click to expand...

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/0...to-kill-a-c4cs-engine/

****************************************************************

http://jalopnik.com/5324978/fu...h-for-clunkers-refresh

My favorite is the last one on the "newly qualified" cars: 2004 Mazda RX-8. I remember when I once got into an argument on a forum with someone who thought the rotary in the RX-8 was just the shiz. The damn thing has no torque, is as fuel efficient as a 3-ton truck, and had a recall to replace the engine. The RX-8 has to be one of the slowest "sports cars" ever.

His argument: "But it makes really good torque for only being 1.3L and the torque curve is flat..."

I'll give him that. The curve is flat. But when it makes like 100 ft-lbs to the wheels, flat is nothing special.

And now you can get $3500 for trading in a 2004 "clunker" RX-8. Classic.
 
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
http://jalopnik.com/5324978/fu...h-for-clunkers-refresh

My favorite is the last one on the "newly qualified" cars: 2004 Mazda RX-8. I remember when I once got into an argument on a forum with someone who thought the rotary in the RX-8 was just the shiz. The damn thing has no torque, is as fuel efficient as a 3-ton truck, and had a recall to replace the engine. The RX-8 has to be one of the slowest "sports cars" ever.

His argument: "But it makes really good torque for only being 1.3L and the torque curve is flat..."

I'll give him that. The curve is flat. But when it makes like 100 ft-lbs to the wheels, flat is nothing special.

And now you can get $3500 for trading in a 2004 "clunker" RX-8. Classic.
Click to expand...

So is that a rant about your hate of the RX-8 or something about the article. I'm a little confused.
 
You can clearly see the difference in the google cached pages on July 22nd to the current pages. I think this is a major screw up on the EPA's part.
 
Originally posted by: CptCrunch
You can clearly see the difference in the google cached pages on July 22nd to the current pages. I think this is a major screw up on the EPA's part.
Click to expand...

Like that's anything new? The EPA screws up on a regular basis.
 
Yeah the rotary engine is bullsh*t marketing gimmick. I drove one and its torque curve was flat, but it was way too slow for what it pretended to be.

Surely its trade in is worth more than $3500. I imagine nobody will use cash for clunkers for it.
 
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak

And now you can get $3500 for trading in a 2004 "clunker" RX-8. Classic.
Click to expand...

The NSX, 300ZX and Porsche 968 are on there, among many other respected cars, your argument fails.
 
I planned to trade my 300zx in, but when it got bumped down to 3500, I figured I could find a Z Enthusiast who would take it off my hands and give it the TLC it needs.
 
Originally posted by: geno
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak

And now you can get $3500 for trading in a 2004 "clunker" RX-8. Classic.
Click to expand...

The NSX, 300ZX and Porsche 968 are on there, among many other respected cars, your argument fails.
Click to expand...

Well, the NSX, 300Z, and 968 were all very well-rounded vehicles. The RX-8, while admittedly more affordable in adjusted dollars when new, is sort of a travesty. The same-priced Speed3 dominates it.

The chassis is brilliant, and while styling is subjective at best, IMHO it's very well styled. The vehicle would have been epic with a decent set of motor choices. Say a 260HP N/A 3.0L V6, and a 335hp Turbo version. Both would have delivered far superior fuel economy and torque. I've driven the RX-8, with the manual it's doable, with the auto it's just an abomination.

Getting stomped in a straight line by V6 Accords / Camrys is no way for a 'sports' car to live.
 
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: geno
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak

And now you can get $3500 for trading in a 2004 "clunker" RX-8. Classic.
Click to expand...

The NSX, 300ZX and Porsche 968 are on there, among many other respected cars, your argument fails.
Click to expand...

Well, the NSX, 300Z, and 968 were all very well-rounded vehicles. The RX-8, while admittedly more affordable in adjusted dollars when new, is sort of a travesty. The same-priced Speed3 dominates it.

The chassis is brilliant, and while styling is subjective at best, IMHO it's very well styled. The vehicle would have been epic with a decent set of motor choices. Say a 260HP N/A 3.0L V6, and a 335hp Turbo version. Both would have delivered far superior fuel economy and torque. I've driven the RX-8, with the manual it's doable, with the auto it's just an abomination.

Getting stomped in a straight line by V6 Accords / Camrys is no way for a 'sports' car to live.
Click to expand...
Yep it's a POS. I think it has 198 hp in the auto variant, or at least it did; auto tranny couldn't take the high rpm so they had to limit it. Sad. There was a nice shiny RX8 at my stealership a few months ago getting its engine replaced after an oil leak. Rotary engine tech in consumer cars just sucks crap.

 
Let me ask you this, why is the RX-8 a "travesty" when the RX-7 only made 12 more HP? Why is the S2000 not a POS when it's essentially the same, torqueless, light RWD car the RX-8 is, only more expensive? Why is a Miata godlike when most of them do 0-60 in a time which would get shamed by the RX-8? Believe me, I'm no fanboy, but to see a good car get trashed for no good reason just makes me scratch my head. There wasn't much good competition for a light, RWD, sporty vehicle at the time and it brought what the S2k brought to the table for much cheaper while being way more practical.

And Skoorb, if you're buying the auto version, let's face it, you're not buying it for its speed 😛

Arkaign, what car at its price point does the Speed3 *not* dominate? It's apples to oranges outside of performance numbers, no FWD car can hold a candle to the RX-8's balanced, neutral chassis. And RWD > FWD 😛
 
Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Originally posted by: zoiks
You can check whether your car is eligible or not here.
http://www.cars.gov

My old 240sx is not. Combined mpg is 20.
Click to expand...

More direct link to the car search tool

So my 2005 GTO is a clunker apparently. Go figure, lol. I think they could have come up with a better moniker for this program.
Click to expand...

My 2000 trans am isn't because it's a manual and gets 19mpg. If it was an automatic then it would be a clunker. I support the government's efforts to rid us of automatics. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: geno
(1) Let me ask you this, why is the RX-8 a "travesty" when the RX-7 only made 12 more HP?

(2) Why is the S2000 not a POS when it's essentially the same, torqueless, light RWD car the RX-8 is, only more expensive?

(3) Why is a Miata godlike when most of them do 0-60 in a time which would get shamed by the RX-8?

(4) Believe me, I'm no fanboy, but to see a good car get trashed for no good reason just makes me scratch my head.

(5) There wasn't much good competition for a light, RWD, sporty vehicle at the time and it brought what the S2k brought to the table for much cheaper while being way more practical.

(6) And Skoorb, if you're buying the auto version, let's face it, you're not buying it for its speed 😛

(7) Arkaign, what car at its price point does the Speed3 *not* dominate? It's apples to oranges outside of performance numbers,

(8) no FWD car can hold a candle to the RX-8's balanced, neutral chassis.

(9) And RWD > FWD 😛
Click to expand...

1 - The RX-7 was competitive with the premier non-exotic sports cars of it's day, particularly the FC gen. 202hp at ~2660lbs was awesome for the late 80s. Also the restrictions on emissions/exhaust weren't as severe in the 80's compared to today, which AFAIK hinders the rotary design to a greater degree than conventional motors.

2 - The S2000 gets better fuel economy, and has the typical Honda bulletproof reputation. It also came out years before the RX-8. A lot easier to add a decent amount of power to as well.

3 - Miatas are hugely varied. Any recent Miata should at the very least hold it's own against the RX-8, if not outright win due to power appearing earlier. Current '06+ Miatas with the 2.0 push a solid 170hp/140tq that you don't have to rev to the clouds to hit, all matched to ~2400lb platform. Makes the RX-8 look almost porky at ~3,000lbs. 0-60 times of 6.5 or better are typical with the 6spd, which is right around the RX-8 times :

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2830b.shtml

"In straight line performance, that low torque number translates into no bottom end, and a 6.6 second jog to 60 miles-per-hour. The quarter-mile takes a full 15 seconds at 95 miles-per-hour."

4 - I think the RX-8 is a good car, and haven driven a couple, think it has a genius chassis, very forgiving and tossable. However, the choice of the rotary turns what could have been epic into a muddled, sluggish vehicle against its contemporaries.

5 - The RX-8 is hardly light, but it's less porky than the 350Z and Mustang at least. Pricing was actually pretty close with decently equipped RX-8s.

6 - The Auto RX-8 is simply an abomination.

7 - The Cobalt SS is a dead-even match for the Speed3, at slightly lower cost (and quality most likely). Both handily spank the RX-8, and both can easily be modded into the 300whp range with not much stress or expense. Both are notable for excellent track performance and handling as well, outdoing significantly more expensive RWD vehicles.

8 - What does that matter when the FWD cars (above ^^) spank the RX-8 both in straight lines and on curves / slalom / tracks? Hell the old Focus SVT completely obliterates the slalom time of the RX-8, my guess is that being 500lbs lighter than the RX-8 helps in that regard.

9 - There, my friend, you have my agreement. FWD has it's limits, and modern tech seems to have pushed that close to the 300hp range .. in terms of being able to deliver the goods both in straight lines and around curves, but beyond that, you really need RWD or AWD. RWD is also a lot more fun 😉
 
Anyone else see this:

Sources: Gov't To Suspend 'Cash For Clunkers'
The government will suspend the popular "cash for clunkers" program, sources
tell The Associated Press.

I don't have any more details yet ...
 
Originally posted by: woodie1
Anyone else see this:

Sources: Gov't To Suspend 'Cash For Clunkers'
The government will suspend the popular "cash for clunkers" program, sources
tell The Associated Press.

I don't have any more details yet ...
Click to expand...

According to the news they already have chewed through the billion dollars they put towards it.
 
Originally posted by: Bignate603
Originally posted by: woodie1
Anyone else see this:

Sources: Gov't To Suspend 'Cash For Clunkers'
The government will suspend the popular "cash for clunkers" program, sources
tell The Associated Press.

I don't have any more details yet ...
Click to expand...

According to the news they already have chewed through the billion dollars they put towards it.
Click to expand...

Yep, I see that now. I heard on the evening news that dealers were asking for more funding. Gotta support the car industry. 😉
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
http://www.freep.com/article/2...unkers-to-be-suspended

government plans to scrap C4C
Click to expand...

It's not scrapped. They just want to make sure it doesn't go beyond the $1B allocated budget.
It wasn't meant to be a permanent program.
Click to expand...

it was to be offered from July 1st to November 1st or until funds ran out... the program started monday on its day 1 of the 4 month program, and 3 days later, it ran out of funding... yup... awesome job...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top