I know I know... It's not like he did not try to sell it. I encouraged him to keep trying to sell the car. He was getting no-where.
He is a good guy and it just came down to plain economics.

 

Double post

 

Yes, the distance is what set me back. I ended up picking up one in MI as I was working in IL and trailering it back down to Philly. Unfortunately, I could only buy one.

Is is tempting to have a fleet, but the cost of owning, registering, and ensuring multible vehicles starts to add up. I already have my daily driver (which is costly), my tow/winter vehicle (Ford always in need of repairs), my trailer, and my RX-7 (which is now undergoing a TII swap as it is a track car. Did I mention I live down town? I have to keep the trailer and RX-7 at a friend's house. I would love to have that RX-7 as a weekend/fun vehicle

 

no actually they are crushing them complete. no junk yard nothing.

 

the rx8 is ON the clunker list!

 

That is what I thought, but my room mate told me that his dad's junkyard is filling up with the cash for clunkers cars. Do you have a reference for them being crushed?

I think we should sell them to developing nations or donate them to an international charity in Africa or something less wasteful.

Well, if you want to think positively, at least this may cause the value of your car to go us as it is now more rare thus desirable?

 

haha... rx7s especially fbs are pretty rare here. yet they are way too cheap

 

that is actually a great idea, we should send em all to north korea or cuba or something.

that way they can roll around in 750il BMW's and s class mercedes like the rest of us*

*local VW dealer had a lot full of jeeps, 7 series bmws and s class benzes, all clunkers

 

The 1984 12A RX-7 cars did not quality for CFC. They didn't meet the date and combined mileage requirements.

 

I work for Car and Driver, and a video went around the office one day for what can be saved from a C4C vehicle. I *think* it was on cnn.com. Basically they can recycle the radiator and the tires, and that's it. The rest of it gets crushed.

 

Yes it does/did.

 

Not exactly. The production date has to be 8/84 or later. That is what I was saying in my earlier post. The FAQ on the CARS site says production date of 25 years or newer based on the trade-in date.

BTW: I checked. 6/84 was the start of the '85 models based on the parts fiche. VIN FB33 ****850001+ = '85 model,

 

His car did....must be a late 84...
If it does not....the subie dealer is getting fukked...

 

Subie dealer failed. See my post above. Only would qualify if an '85 model.

 

Is your friend a member of this forum? if so,I think he should be banned

Not to sound mean but i look forward to karma Kicking his @$$

 

its too early but perhaps, THE 7 WINS AGAIN?

the vw dealer stopped taking clunkers when they hit $200k. up to last week the govt had not paid for anything yet.

 

You know...I feel like a semi-dumass now. Went back through my emails with him. His car is an 1985 GSL....not an 84. I guess I was thinking about mine which is an 84....


Oh well.....I failed...

Anyhow check out Dave Ramseys thoughts about the CFC program. For those who don't know Dave Ramsey and his program, he is an expert in getting people out of the cycle of being completely BROKE for life. His program worked for me!! Following his program for years has dropped my debt load by 90%!!

I value his opinion.....

With all the buzz about Cash for Clunkers, it’s easy to think that it was a great way for people to get a better set of wheels. But was it really? No way! Cash for Clunkers was simply a way for broke people to buy cars that they really couldn't afford. It was a bad idea on multiple levels. But before digging into that, let’s take a little history lesson.

About a decade ago, a fair housing program was started, called a sub-prime lending market. The idea behind it was that everyone “needed” to own a home—including broke people. The government decided to start a program to reinvest in communities, which allowed pretty much anyone to borrow money to buy a house. Lending companies charged high interest rates, causing already struggling families to go even further into debt.

Basically, this was a program designed to encourage broke people to buy houses. Most people didn’t even know it existed until it unraveled and became the number-one cause of our recent recession. The government took those stupid loans back and securitized them, which created the financial mess last fall. Helping broke people buy houses didn’t turn out to be a great government program. Guess what? Helping broke people buy brand-new cars—and now home appliances—will turn out just as bad.

The Cash for Clunkers program was designed exactly for people who should not take advantage of the program. You trade your $2,000 clunker in for a brand-new, shiny $20,000 car, and the only way you can afford it is with a high-interest payment. That just means you really couldn’t afford it to begin with. Doesn’t this sound like the sub-prime mortgage problem all over again?

When you drive that new car off the lot, you’re immediately going to lose $4,500. The worst car accidents happen on the showroom floor. New cars go down in value like a rock. The government thinks it’s going to save the American auto industry by putting broke people into cars they can’t pay for. It’s going to come back to bite them—and the rest of us—in the form of taxes galore.

Another bad thing about this program is that we, the taxpayers, are paying for the new cars! It’s morally wrong of the government to take money away from us—against our will—in the form of taxes and give that money to someone else to buy a stupid car they can’t afford in the first place! This is theft, plain and simple.

Cash for Clunkers is a program that redistributes wealth in the name of the environment, and it’s going to be a curse on the car dealer and the manufacturer that carries the paper. It’s going to hurt the broke person who bought a car he couldn’t afford. And it’s already a problem for our country, because it’s adding dollars to the national debt.

There’s always a twist with government programs like this. They try to think of creative ways to help people, but the situation usually ends up worse than it did before they “helped.” In the end, I should decide what to do with my own money. If I want to buy you a car, I will! And if you can’t buy a car without actually paying for the whole thing, then you’re better off keeping your “clunker.”

So good riddance to a really bad program that has done more damage than good.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

hehe..no problem. Although it would have been a bit of sweet revenge if the Subie dealer got screwed out of the CFC payment.

I totally agree with Dave and was going to mention something similar. For the most part, you are getting people to buy cars that they probably can't afford and in a shaky economy to boot. What happens if these people lose their jobs? What if they can't make the payments? Will the CFC rebate drop the principle owed on the car to bellow the depreciated value (which is rapid on a new car)? This might give a short term jolt to the economy, but what about a few months from now? I imagine the new car sales will go crashing back down to where they were..probably even worse.

I know intentions were good, but it probably could have been done better. Instead of crushing the cars, why not give them to charity? There are a lot of charities that provide transportation for seniors, disabled, etc. They could probably use some decent cars. Meals on Wheels and similar could probably benefit as well. How about less fortunate people here or other countries who cannot afford a car? Instead, we destroy perfectly good cars. Very wasteful, IMO.

 

Kent. all I can say is and to anyone who got involved in the CFC program.

 

I know intentions were good, but it probably could have been done better. Instead of crushing the cars, why not give them to charity? There are a lot of charities that provide transportation for seniors, disabled, etc. They could probably use some decent cars. Meals on Wheels and similar could probably benefit as well. How about less fortunate people here or other countries who cannot afford a car? Instead, we destroy perfectly good cars. Very wasteful, IMO.[/QUOTE]

My point exactly. I workd as a missionary before and there are plenty of charities in developing nations and even charities in this country that coule use some of the SUVs and Vans that were crushed. Obviously, there is not much practical use for a two-door sportscar, but is is still a shame to see that amount of waste. I feel bad throwing away small amounts of food as I have seen plenty of people going hungry. Maybe setting up a recycling center where people can be employeed stripping down the rubber and plastic and removing the precious metals like Henery Ford did during WWII. That way, jus are created and people are put to work and they can earn an honest living.

 

i gladly wouldve paid 2500 for it

 

The sad thing is that we are already seen as a wasteful country and this just proves it. "Hey, let's use tax money to help people buy new cars and we can throw their olds cars away!" Seriously, probably only like 5%-10% of the cars traded in were true clunkers. I could see trading in gas guzzlers with shot oil rings that blow blue smoke everywhere...but most cars traded in were not like that.

Anyone ever hear where the 25 year cutoff came from? Does it have something to do with cars older than that being considered "classic" or "antique" by various states? Maybe the lack of cars 25+ years old still on the road? It doesn't make much sense to me as part of this was to get cars with bad gas mileage (and high emissions) off the road and get more efficient cars on the road in their place. What about the old Caddys and such from the 60's/early 70's and similar cars? They sure guzzled way more gas and had much higher emissions than most cars, but these cars do not qualify as clunkers under the program! It seems as it should have been the other way around (cars have to be say 20 years old or older to qualify). That would make much more sense, but fewer people would have been able to take advantage. I never understood this requirement... maybe it is a simple lack of good MPG data on the older cars.

 

Tell that dude that he needs to be raped...****, nice car...should have kept it and done a rebuild, freakin idiot-if he had enough money to spend on a MR2 to get it nicely prepared for Auto X then he should have invested a little bit of TLC to a beautiful FB Rx7. Shame

 

I would have gotten creative if I did cash for clunkers. I understand the car has to be registered for at least a year and running. That being said, I would have traded all the perfect condition parts for some shitty junk yard parts from a real clunker. Basically part out the mint car and trade in an actual clunker. So many 7's get junked no one would really miss one that is no good. It is a shame such a nice one had to go.

 

It needed NOTHING! The car was strong and had a fresh suspension... Hell look, he even traded it off with nice caster/camber plates!!!