The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > is this a good idea or grab for cash?

is this a good idea or grab for cash?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
The car industry wants people to be paid to crush their cars and use the money to buy new, more efficient vehicles.(ABC news on line)
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 9:10:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear examinator,

We've got two cars. A Holden Statesman, and an old Ford
Fairmont (- which we use for shopping et cetera). We'd happily
get rid of the old Ford - but, $3,000 won't buy us another car,
as this program is to get rid of the old, and buy new -
and we don't have that extra cash to be able to buy a new car.

I don't think this program is going to work because the people
who drive the old cars can't afford new ones. Whereas the
rich replace new cars every few years. A large business exists
in second-hand car dealerships and this proposal would affect
many of them adversely. My understanding is that
this proposal is to stimulate the new car industry (at the
expense of the used car industry).

We would gladly replace our Ford for the $3,000 because for the
money we would get a better second-hand car. Unfortunately,
we could not afford to buy a new car - therefore we would not
qualify for the $3,000 - as part of this proposal seems to be
that you crush your old car in exchange for buying a new one.

It seems that this a way of re-vitalising the new car industry -
but in these difficult economic times - how many people are
really going to be able to afford to do it?
Although getting rid of the really old bomb polluters off the
roads is a good idea.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 10:09:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator, we are hearing much about what the car industry “wants”. Yes it could be seen as a grab for cash. Some might see this as a grab for jobs and to save the industry in Australia.

Successive governments have been convinced to pour public money into this and other industries. How effective might that be? I’m not convinced it’s a good financial plan.

I tend to look at the bigger picture and over the longer term. I think our entire manufacturing industry under threat. Due to FTA’s, the WTO and globalised industries, Australia is losing tariff and preferred supplier protection. Many developing nations can do the job cheaper, not just because of labor costs, but also because of minimal infrastructure and regulatory factors, which in many cases outstrip base labor costs.

As for our automotive industry, we have seen public money given to Honda to locally produce a Hybrid that they intended to “assemble” in Australia anyway? We are investing in Holden to develop an Australian Hybrid? And we continue to invest in plants that produce engines and component parts. At the same time, the new mid sized Holden’s are made where? Oh yes I remember, South Korea!

As part of the Obama car industry bailout for GM (Holden), the US government will own all GM assets worldwide. As the “dummies” we are, we will now invest even more public money to breathe life into failing and foreign government owned assets.

Grab for cash? Yes. More to the point, political blackmail, give us more public money or wear the redundancies.
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 10:19:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
if they were serious about selling cars they would give intrest free loans for say 18 mths ,in that time all payments pay off the loan, after that time nominal intrest applies ,nominal not normal ,see that normal for car loans is un-reasonable ,

thanks to the marketeers grosly selling over priced cars to anyone stupid enough to pay their rip off intrest rates[who funny enough now hold the low intrest govt cash to lend at the same old gross profiteering ursury rates

but those who have no voice know the demon atocracy is seving its own elites, and the poor let them have work for food ,and pay the rest for the subsidised landlords income offsets ,and their subsidised super top ups

its all a great scam man demon mockery,
run by the beauro roc rats, as the 2 party line scam
using the party machine ...to do as the lawyers advise... no media wont explain it

[no lawyer will explain it , still you believe wages is income , the tax players chew up the spoils ...while the tax payer pays as they earn] its not earnings tax, its not wage tax] ,its income tax time you learnt what 'income 'really means [profits earned by no value adding]
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 10:23:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good idea but only if upgraded vehicles are environmentally friendly. The reluctance of Australians to utilise public transport has resulted in heavy traffic in major cities and urban areas and is impacting on human health.

Motor vehicle emissions desecrate the environment and kill humans! An increase in population will see an increase in automobiles on our roads.

Sooner than later we will need to think beyond our pockets. We're way behind compared to several other countries in mitigating traffic pollution.

"The growing body of international and Australian scientific evidence confirms the increasing risks to the public posed by toxic fossil fuel exhaust emissions....:"

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3861&page=0
http://kats15blog.blogspot.com/
http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=449581
Posted by Protagoras, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 2:03:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Would you trust a car sales man?
Thats the hands the money would end up in.
We would see wrecks towed into car yards for the cash.
But you can just bet the price of the new car would be inflated so both us and the government paid full value.
A cash reward for crushing the car?
Yes but not that much, after all we pay for it in the end.
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 6:00:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for your comments.
It is clearly a grab for cash as it has more holes than street persons under wear.
The interesting part of the idea was tangible encouragement for obsolete technology. I wonder if the government should draw a line under levels of technology in a staged time frame i.e.
• To eliminate normal registration on with certain below minimum old levels of technology brakes, crash crumple zones, pollution levels etc.
• All those with special purpose need enhanced safety cert. before each reg.
• Classic/ vintage cars have limited driving reg plates as now.
• Registered Cars assessed as being beneath the combined level can go to a used car/new car dealer lot of choice (reg dealers) and either exchange or get a voucher for a car that meets the technology up to a value of $3-4 this could be on top of any dealer discounts etc. The dealer must apply for the rebate.
• Private sales and commercial of below these technological levels are banned. No sales of unregistered or “as is vehicles”.

The target market here is the mobile polluting death traps. It needs work how about some blue sky lateral thinking. What do YOU think?
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 9:35:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What rubbish. Has any one heard of Mitsubishi? How much tax payer money went on trying to save those jobs. Get used to it, we will not have a motor industry in 10 years, & quite possibly 5 years. Of course, with these idiots in Canberra, we will not have any industry by then any way.

Then we have the bull dust about modern "efficient" cars.

I could drive a 70s Holden, or Falcon, in good tune, for 10 years & produce less polution than is produced manufacturing one "modern" buss box, & I could drive it for 14 years, producing less than those stupid hybrid things. These so called clean cars, with all their high tech gear, & excessive weight, have produced more pollution, before thay turn a wheel, than my 1980 car has to date, including manufacturing, & 100000 Km of use.

Our neighbour is most upset with his hybrid. It uses more fuel to get to town, & back, [65Km], than my wife's new buss box, or my 1980 sports car. It's all a con. They built the things to comply with a laws that California was going to introduce, then conned the simple into buying them, world wide.

That 29 years old sports car of mine uses less than a litre per hundred Km more than my wife's new small modern, & produces only 3% more emitions. It actually uses over a litre less than the hybrid, for similar usage.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 1:35:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...but, $3,000 won't buy us another car..."

and

"It needs work how about some blue sky lateral thinking. What do YOU think?"

-- -- --

The simple answer to these questions might have been on the news the other night. The Indians have just created a small car called the Tata Nano that sells for, you guessed it, $3000.

Maybe similar types of low-cost and presumably low-emission vehicles could be mass produced here one day. Or is that just a pipe-dream?
Posted by RobP, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 1:49:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, feel better now.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good bash the government rave.
Your buzz box is probably less safe technologically and emissions are higher than the neighbour’s hybrid.
Besides which the care doesn’t need to be a hybrid .
You are correct that the idea as put up by the industry is BS IMO anyway.

RobP,
You’re right about a new car hence I suggested the swap or upgrade option.
The death traps are often those care beyond 20 YO bangers that are worth less than $3-4 k. They are often clapped out death traps. The worry is that these ilks of cars are uninsured and are used to ferry the children in. According to the RAC they often have retreads etc to save money and dad drives the updated vehicle.
My idea is to gradually upgrade our fleet . Also some youngsters have cars hotted up beyond their intended safety levels eg an EH has discs lousy suspension, no anti-roll bars, no crumple zones etc. They sell around the traps for $1500 if it looks clean. This car is well beyond its safety emission use by date.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 2:39:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know. I really think it's pretty hard to generalise on underwear. Some of mine are pretty holey, and I don't live on the street. I just bet a lot of street people have decent underwear too.

I heard Hybrid cars are less environmentally friendly when you take into account the full lifecycle of the car including the battery disposal, manufacturing methods etc...
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 2:58:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator, our buss box is one of the latest, high efficeincy, variable valve timing, low emission, buss boxes on the market. It has all the BS that seems to be required in the white goods, that pass for cars today.

It has the acres of plastic required in "modern" cars, & has electric motors all over the place, to do the things I manage to do for my self, in my old car, even if I am a crotchety old sod.

I don't know of course, of your special qualifications that make you believe you know more about mechanical contrivances than I or some others here, perhaps you will enlighten us some time. However I can assure you my pollution figures for cars, & their manufacture have been produced by a number of bodies.

As for my qualifications in this area, I am an engineer, with a special interest in the internal combustion engine, & the motor car. An engine I built in 1967 set a Bathurst lap record, which was never beaten. The fact they have since changed the circuit means it can now never be beaten.

The car that engine was in, which I maintained, was voted the most reliable racing car in Oz, by the professional racing mechanics club. This must have been somewhat galling to them, as I was an amateur, doing it as a hobby.

None of this means I have any special insight, but my knowledge comes from a deep interest in the subject, more than a little studdy, & the ability to be able add up some of the figures involved in these things.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 4:11:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Has been
I don't doubt your car is impeccably maintained or that it’s significantly cooler than mine but my point was a little wider than one or 1000 enthusiasts.
See my post to RobP.
Neither did I impugn you engineering skills et al.
Your post didn’t seem to be anywhere on topic but focused on your opinion of the current government and how terrific your car is in comparison with the neighbours.
Hardly relevant.
BTW in context how is your buss box racer or what ever it is stand against crash test crumple zones, safety and emission comparisons etc.
i.e. the XU1 was a hairy beastie but if it come to modern driving around the city and likely to be involved in a prang my preference is for surviving in my Subi.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 6:58:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear examinator,

A few more thoughts...

1) Upgrade the road worthy certification standards
for used cars.

2) Police polluting cars by issuing citations -
fix it or get rid of it.

3) Slowly phase out old cars of designated years.
(Other then vintage or "collectors" cars - covered
by special conditions).
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 7:18:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This whole issue reeks of stupidity and double standards.

If the Automotive Industry and the money hungry government weren`t so greedy in their grab for profit and revenue, there wouldn`t be half of the so-called wrecks driving around the countryside, as folk could then afford to buy a new vehicle!

Because of the ridiculous Import Duties and added on taxes, we suckers here in Australia are paying nearly double the price of a vehicle in the US, and nearly three times the price of a vehicle in Japan!....As well we are constantly being creamed by Fuel Excise Taxes, toll roads, increasing Registration Fees and Insurance Premiums!

Lets face facts as they are now!.... you buy a brand new vehicle ( after paying for all the add-ons, lose between $5000 and $7000 as soon as you drive it out of the Showroom. If you wish to retain your Warranty ( which you would be either very rich or very stupid not to!) you are required to get regular Dealership Servicings carried out, again at a much inflated cost for both parts and materials and adding $1000`s to your new car price!

You then have the ongoing worry of day to day driving in a "survival of the fittest" environment, where one has to have eyes swivelling constantly in a 360 degree arc to avoid contact with "budding Kamikaze pilots", who seem intent on destroying themselves and as many other fellow travellers as is humanely possible!

You park your new vehicle in any parking area and must NOT get upset to return to your vehicle after shopping to find that some inconsiderate yobbo with a beat-up 4WD has ricocheted down the side of it,....all unnoticed by other shoppers!

You will probably lose the odd windscreen or two regularly and suffer innumerable stone-hits if driving outside the city limits, while trying to enjoy the fruits of your labour, and wondering all the time why you have wasted all that hard-earned money to buy a brand new vehicle that is probably worth one third of it`s new price as a trade-in after 5 years!
Posted by Cuphandle, Thursday, 26 March 2009 9:42:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator, buss box is the term applied by motor enthusiasts, & many other general public to describe almost all modern/new small cars. EG, smaller Holdens, Mazdas Fords Toyotas, etc.

These cars, designed to comply with current design rules have very little torque, & there for have to employ much higher revs than older cars, to achieve any power. They there for "buss" like a bee.

Their designers deserve considerable credit that they have managed to keep the fuel consumption, & wear rate of these things down as low as they have.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 27 March 2009 1:12:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,
Thanks for your info
Where I come from a "buzz box" referred to high revving (like a bee) small cars of indeterminate age. Separate from maintenance and/or condition. To be honest I haven’t heard that term in years probably because I’m not that interested in cars per see. Although I watch the BBC Top Gear but I avoid the Aussie one as it seems to be aimed at hoons and not entertaining.

The way you described yours it sounded like an MG or a Torana Xu1 in which case my comments were appropriate.
The question doesn't require "in" or “enthusiasts’” knowledge/terms or engineering skills. It was a matter of general policy

Most 20+years old cars on the road are either in bad repair or obsolete safety/emmissions technology. Often owned by invincible hoons, those of dubious driving skills or mum's with the second car status. Most of these cars are better, off the roads. My point was older cars 20+ are GENERALLY in the ‘rust bucket’ (unroadworthy) class.

Other people’s safety shouldn’t be compromised because of shortness of funds by the driver/owner. The drivers’ are entitled to risk their lives but others should be protected from such risky behaviour.

I suggested older cars should have regular safety checks and those that pass, should have premium paid for registration. Apart from your personal pocket, in the context of the question I’m still confused as to what your point was.
Posted by examinator, Friday, 27 March 2009 11:18:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator, my point is, that if I drive my 29 year old car, for the 10,000/13,000Km a year I usually do, it will not produce the same total amount of polution as will the production of the new car you wish me to replace it with. That is before I do a single mile in that new car.

My old car does propduce just a little more nitres oxide than my wifes new car, [buss box], & a fraction more CO2, if that's your worry, but at only 0.35L/100Km greater fuel consumption, the difference is very little. In fact it's nothing, compared to some of the very nasty things emitted during manufacture of those new cars.

If you really want to reduce pollution, & waste of resources, the exact opposite policy would be more effective. If people had to maintain & use their cars for a minimum 20 years, we would use a lot less plastic, steel, other materials.

My 29 year old car is in better condition & than most 2 year old cars, & will still be in better condition than most of the 2 year old cars in 10 years time. This of course is my choice, & no accident, but it could be required for all cars.

To achieve this there will have to be more skilled labour, & less use of resources applied to it, than the mew cars, I could drive in that time. Surely a better plan for the a sustainable future. We could even go back to cars which were repairable in 20 minutes, with a $1,00 bit of rubber, rather than todays cars which always require a $300,00 complete component & 3 hours of pulling bits of plastic off the thing, to even be able to see the offending part.

I wish I could remember which new French car allows 3 hours labour just to fit a replacement light bulb, such is their unnecessary complexity.

Have you noticed that new cars all weigh about 40% more than 20 year old cars of equivalent size. Where is the waste of resources?
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 27 March 2009 12:49:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would never buy a new car - all those lost dollars the second it is driven off the show room floor? Not for me.

Hybrids/alternative fuel cars not really good value or environmentally friendly - YET. However, they will improve.

When that happens I will trade in my ancient, reliable, very fuel efficient Mazda for a late model something.

If you want to know how fuel efficient your car is check out this site - it's American but from memory you can convert to litres. And it is the luxury end of the market that is the least fuel efficient, a fact that I indulge myself with a little schadenfreude. Heh Heh.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
Posted by Fractelle, Friday, 27 March 2009 1:12:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy