93 Roadmaster Junk or sell

[electricmanbob]

Looking for opinions. My 1993 Roadmaster is super clean. One owner - me. The front end is getting a little loose, + needs alignment. Other than that no problems. 72,000 miles, new tires, brakes, exhaust, looks and runs like new. I can sell for around $2000-$2500 OR use the cash for clunkers and Get $3500 or $4500 depending on what I buy. Should I fix the front end + keep it for another year, or junk it and let a BEAUTIFUL car get crushed for the extra money? Could you junk something that you've had and babied for 17 years(I bought it in Sept '92) Or would you take the $$$ loss to see it stay on the road?

['97ventureowner]

These cars last a long time and it's not uncommon for them to go beyond 200,000 miles.Your RM is still young at 72,000 miles.You already have put some money into it fixing some of the major components. I personally would spend the money and fix'er up and enjoy it. Enjoy it I say because it's the last of the great GM full sized full framed RWD cars produced.

Whatever you do just realize that there is a demand for these cars, especially one with only 72,000 miles on the clock. You should have no problem selling it if you choose and getting a fairly good price for it. I've seen some discussions on the Internet that say this "clunker" program could increase the value of cars like this because after the program is over there will be fewer of these cars on the road.

[HotZ28]

"Cash for Clunkers" is out of cash and dealers are now making deals with the stipulation if they don't get their money from Obama in a timely manner, you will have to pay the difference, or return the car and pick-up your old car. Most of the dealers are holding the "Clunker" trades until they get their money. If they allocate more funding and you want a new car, the additional $2500.00 will help you forget the Roadmaster being crushed much sooner. Remember, no one makes anything like a Roadmaster anymore! BTW, have you looked at the new cars that qualify? Click Here A new qualifying car must get must get at least a combined 22 MPG to qualify. This stipulation sorta narrows down the selection!!

[electricmanbob]

Thanks for the encouragemnet 97 ventureowner. I'm starting to worry about relability after 17 years. My wife drives the car --WOW! 800 miles in the last 9 months. I'm getting tired in checking and inspecting too. If It was mine to drive all the time I wouldn't care. HotZ28 - the Senate just passed another $2 Billion for the klunker program. They expect it to be enough to last until Labor Day, they'll be more 2010 models available as the month goes by. I've been looking at an Impala or a Malibu. Other choice may be a FFFFFFFord Escape. I've never had anything but V8 GM's. for the last 42 years. It's hard to change.

['97ventureowner]

One thing the RM has going for it is the parts are generally less expensive than those on the newer cars, plus it's much easier to work on them than the newer cars, even if you take it to a garage. Also in many states the inspection procedures are less because the vehicle is not OBD II,.I am a member of another community where there are a lot of RM owners. and they can attest to the reliability of these vehicles as many date back to 1991 and are still going strong. These vehicles tend to have fewer "issues" in my opinion looking at other models. Items such as the Opti- spark, window rollers, are known issues, and the engines are strong V8s, with good suspension and braking systems.
Some members refer to their RM as driving the living room couch around town and with a full frame, a safer vehicle. ( add to that air bags that come with the vehicle and no need for collision/comp coverage because of vehicle age, ) that makes the RM even more appealing. Good luck with your decision.

[HotZ28]

A typical Impala will not qualify for the full $4500.00.

[maxwedge]

Also the RM has a popular street rod engine.

[HotZ28]

HotZ28 - the Senate just passed another $2 Billion for the klunker program. They expect it to be enough to last until Labor Day,

Not a done deal yet!

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday moved closer to approving a $2 billion extension for the popular "cash for clunkers" program that gives consumers up to $4,500 for trading in an old vehicle for a more fuel-efficient one. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he already had enough votes to pass it and was warning opponents that he would keep them beyond Friday's start of August recess if they didn't clear the way for a floor vote.

Bribery!

Now, some interesting statistics:

Cash for Clunkers: How Green Is It?

The environmental gains achieved by getting clunkers off the road are small, critics say, while other programs are getting short-changed

By John Carey

• Reid Pushes 'Clunker' Vote
• Clunkers Law an Equal Opportunity Incentive

On July 27 the federal government launched a cash-for-clunkers program. Trade in your old gas guzzler for a higher-mileage new car, and Uncle Sam will give you up to $4,500.

The program has been a huge success—at least in terms of giving a boost to automakers. The response from consumers has been so swift that the initial $1 billion allocated for the program—scheduled to run into November—has nearly run out. Economists say the money is giving the economy a quick stimulus.

But what is the program doing for the environment, or to reduce American's gasoline consumption? Let's look at some simple numbers:

For that $1 billion, Americans will trade in roughly 250,000 cars and light trucks. The average gas mileage of those "clunkers" (vehicles such as aging Ford Explorers) was 16 miles per gallon, according to data released Aug. 5 by the Transportation Dept. The average mileage of the replacement vehicles (led by Ford's small Focus) is 25 mpg.

Saving a Drop of Gas

Now do some easy math. Let's assume that the average number of miles driven for both the new and old vehicles is 10,000 miles per year. The clunker thus would have burned 625 gallons per year. The new car? Only 400 gallons. That's a savings of 225 gallons per year per car. It's a nice pocketbook boost for consumers. With gas at $2.70 per gallon, they'll save $600 per year, assuming they drive the same number of miles (which actually is a questionable assumption).

And at 250,000 cars traded in so far, that adds up to 56 million fewer gallons consumed in the U.S. per year That sounds like a lot. You could drive 1.4 billion miles on that much gas. But it's only a small percentage of the total gasoline consumption in the U.S. Last year, Americans burned about 138 billion gallons. So cutting that by 56 million gallons is a reduction of only 0.04%. And since auto emissions of carbon dioxide are directly proportional to gasoline consumed, greenhouse gas emissions would also go down a minuscule 0.04%.

In terms of the average fuel economy of the entire fleet, the Cash for Clunkers program is hardly even measurable. With 254 million registered vehicles in the U.S., the fact that 250,000 new cars are more efficient is a mere blip. "We're talking about a tiny amount of cars," says Lee Schipper, project scientist in Global Metropolitan Studies at the University of California at Berkeley, who studies fuel economy issues.

Doubting the Numbers

Expanding the program with an additional $2 billion, as Congress is doing, will presumably triple any fuel savings and carbon dioxide emissions reductions. But the numbers are still tiny. And more importantly, there are good reasons to doubt the numbers.

For one thing, surveys suggest that people are trading in second or third cars that are driven fewer miles than the national average. If they drive their new cars more (which is likely, given the higher fuel economy), the already small fuel savings get even smaller. On the other hand, it's possible that the added miles driven using the new more fuel-efficient cars could mean fewer miles driven on the owners' other cars, which may use more gasoline. The problem is that the U.S. doesn't collect much information on driving habits, so it's hard to know how this will play out.

A trickier question is what people would have done if not for the clunkers program. There's some evidence to suggest that many would have ended up buying a car eventually anyway. And even without the program, people recently have been buying higher-mileage vehicles. "Strangely enough, the average of all cars and light trucks bought in the first half of 2009 was over 28 miles per gallon,"—compared with 27 mpg for 2008 model-year cars and 26.6 for 2007 model-year cars—says Schipper. "We are scratching our heads about that one," he adds. If the trend is toward more fuel-efficient cars anyway, then the environmental and energy savings benefits of cash for clunkers gets even smaller.

It also is worth asking what else might be done with that additional $2 billion, suggests Nadav Enbar of IDC Energy Insights, an energy advisory and consulting firm. If Congress ends up raiding the Energy Dept.'s loan guarantee program for the money, he worries, the effect on the environment could turn negative. That's because many of those loan guarantees are slated to support renewable energy projects—which may not go forward if the money gets spent on new cars instead.

The bottom line: As a stimulus program, cash for clunkers is bringing some new life to the economy. But don't expect it to help save the planet from global warming or reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil. "That doesn't mean it's not helping Detroit in the near term, but I don't think anyone sees any long-term benefits," concludes Schipper.
Carey is a senior correspondent for BusinessWeek in Washington.

Source

['97ventureowner]

"Cash for Clunkers the next Subprime Mortgage Crisis?"

[HotZ28]

Originally Posted by '97ventureowner

"Cash for Clunkers the next Subprime Mortgage Crisis?"

Good point Tom! I have a friend who is a finance manager for one of the largest GM dealers in the southeast and he said that over 50% of those trading in clunkers would not qualify for a loan if the clunker incentive was not applied. The clunker incentive works the same way as a down payment and they can not refuse anyone (especially a minority) from getting a loan with a $4500.00 down payment! This program is "equal opportunity" or for a lack of a better words; "redistribution of wealth" and most of us are going to pay for it one way or the other!