By on April 3, 2020

With social distancing measures throwing automotive sales straight into the dumpster, Ford is reportedly getting ready to float some interesting ideas by the U.S. government. It’s vying for a stimulus deal aimed at giving the industry a jump start after the health crisis posed by the novel coronavirus subsides.

One of the models Ford’s pushing is unsettlingly familiar. 

According to Bloomberg, Mark LaNeve — Ford’s vice president of U.S. marketing, sales and service — is fondly reminiscing about Cash for Clunkers and thinks it’d be a great way to bolster auto sales after COVID-19 takes a hike.

“We think some level of stimulus somewhere on the other side of this would help not only the auto industry and our dealers, which are a huge part of our overall economy, but will help the customers as well,” LaNeve explained to the outlet over the phone. “We’re in discussions about what would be the most appropriate.”

From Bloomberg:

Those discussions are internal at Ford for now, but are eventually expected to involve the federal government, LaNeve said a day after automakers reported their slowest monthly pace of U.S. sales in a decade. One model being considered is the 2009 “cash for clunkers” program that helped stimulate auto sales following the global financial crisis by encouraging drivers to turn in an older car in exchange for thousands of dollars toward buying a new one.

“Cash for clunkers was very effective at that time,” LaNeve said. “It would be nice to think we could have something equally as effective for 2020 when we get out of this because it was a great program.”

Let’s reexamine the recession-era Car Allowance Rebate System (aka Cash for Clunkers) the government enacted in 2009 to see if LaNeve has his lid on straight. Intended to provide economic incentives (money vouchers valued between $2,500 and $4,500) to encourage U.S. residents to purchase new vehicles with greater fuel economy amid the Great Recession, provided they had something older to trade in. But stimulating a weak economy was only half the equation; the Obama administration also hoped it would reduce pollution and put more Americans into safer cars.

In terms of participation, the program was a success. Within a month of being introduced the appropriated funds were exhausted, forcing Congress to approve an additional $2 billion (bringing the grand total to $3 billion). That first month saw a significant increase in auto sales (mostly for Japanese brands). While there are conflicting studies regarding what happened afterward, sales were noticeably down in the proceeding months. A study published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2012 framed it as a wash, saying “the effect of the program on auto purchases is almost completely reversed by as early as March 2010 — only seven months after the program ended.”

Subsequent studies backing up those claims, few of which bother dive into the high number of used vehicles that were destroyed or failed to become charitable donations to local organizations. Depending upon who crunched the numbers, Cash for Clunkers was either economically neutral or resulted in short term gains that ultimately resulted in a net loss. The popular public presumption embraces the latter scenario and echo countless articles written after 2009. Those that came before tend to have a comparatively optimistic opinion of the scheme.

From an environmental standpoint, the program seems to have worked slightly better. Most studies peg Cash for Clunkers as reducing anywhere from 5 to 30 million tons of carbon emissions from vehicle tailpipes. That’s quite the spread, however, and most experts agree that the recession, in addition to abnormally high fuel prices, was already pushing consumers into smaller automobiles with superior fuel economy. The Car Allowance Rebate System was unlikely to be the contributing factor here, with even its advocates suggesting the environmental improvements were minimal and costly.

With the above in mind, we are hoping Ford has other ideas it’s willing to float by the federal government — because a re-do of Cash for Clunkers seems undesirable when viewed broadly. It’s understandable why the company would be interested in a stimulus deal of some kind. Ford reported a 12-percent decline in first quarter U.S. deliveries on Thursday. With its core rivals undoubtedly enduring similar losses, we expect other automakers to embrace whatever help the government can offer.

[Image: Paul Brennan/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

73 Comments on “Ford Fondly Remembers Cash for Clunkers...”


  • avatar
    Lie2me

    I remember a lot of good old cars were destroyed unnecessarily as a result of “Cash For Clunkers”, serviceable cars that people of lessor means could use to like, go to work. All and all I pretty much agree with the article. Results were a mixed bag

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Nobody forced anyone to part with their vehicle.

      If people of lesser means got rid of decent cars, it was a poor choice on their part, but it was because they were fooled into thinking that a small government check would alleviate the risk of new debt.

      There were probably a few people who benefited by parting with heaps they couldn’t sell, like the Maserati in my link below.

      • 0 avatar
        dukeisduke

        That’s not his point – his point is that those cars could have ended up on BHPH lots, or sold by individuals to other individuals that needed decent running cash cars. It’s about cars that poor people could have bought, not cars that poor people traded in.

        One side effect was that lots of rust free sheet metal (like doors) came off of cars junked here in the Sunbelt, and shipped to the Rust Belt.

    • 0 avatar
      SSJeep

      CFC gutted the low end of the used car market. Dealers were forced to destroy perfectly serviceable cars that were traded in by dumping sand in the engine block, etc. This caused a run on the remaining low end used cars, and hurt those of lesser means the most.

      Ill tell you what Ford (and GM, and FCA). Close your plants in China and Mexico, start sourcing your parts from American vendors, and then maybe we will give you another CFC program. But not now. No way.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Dealers chose to kill a lot of serviceable cars too. Of course a lot of the vehicles that made it to youtube were the nicer cars that had a lot of life left. However I saw way too many that the dealer would have given the $2500 or $4500 or more in trade in before C4C. So when the guy came in with the immaculate low mile Ranger the dealer could have said if you buy a Focus the Gov’t will give you $4500, but I’ll give you $4501 and you can buy any car on the lot. Then turn around and put that Ranger on the lot at $6999. Meanwhile they might have sold a vehicle that was more profitable than a Focus and they would have made a decent profit on the Ranger too. That Ranger then could have replaced an older vehicle, taking out the true clunkers on the road.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          I guess the rational was that the true beaters would die on their own, soon enough.

          But most mainstream ’80s/’90s cars and trucks can live several lives thanks to their simplicity and aftermarket/used parts.

          Remember when you could swap out your tattered seats for newer (junkyard) sports buckets or even Recaros? Try that stunt on anything ’00 an newer and the dash will light up like a Christmas Tree. You’re lucky if it doesn’t go into Limp Mode and call The Feds on you.

          • 0 avatar
            PandaBear

            “I guess the rational was that the true beaters would die on their own, soon enough.”

            This is why the last CFC had an age limit, and the on going CFC in California for emission requires it to have all doors, light, can move, won’t overheat, doesn’t have check engine light, etc. It is to get rid of a working clunker not a dead car.

    • 0 avatar
      PandaBear

      Currently a lot of good old cars are destroyed every day because they are out of fashion or barely good enough for people to keep. You can either stop making new cars and lay off everyone so they don’t have to destroy barely running old cars (Chrysler with questionable engine or transmissions, Ford with ticking time bomb transmission, etc) that is worth more than $2k, or you have to destroy the bottom of the food chain to make room for new cars.

  • avatar
    thelaine

    Meh. The government pisd away another 3 billion dollars and hurt poor people in the process. Whatever. Print more.

    After all, it’s nothing compared to what they spend on….

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Probably right. Some higher income people certainly utilized CFC and bought a new vehicle, but it’s the people who couldn’t afford the debt who mainly took advantage of it.

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        No, many cheap cars that poor people could buy were crushed. How is it that you don’t understand this?

        • 0 avatar
          PandaBear

          If people will buy them it would be worth more, or exported.

          Seriously, if you don’t drive a $1k car with 200k miles that the check engine light goes on as soon as you get off a 30 mins highway drive, you have no idea what is “many cheap cars that poor people could buy”.

  • avatar
    SaulTigh

    I have a 24 year old Mercury Sable that belonged to my grandmother. I love puttering around in the thing and it has just under 72k on the clock. However, the book value on it is virtually worthless, even in relatively excellent condition. If I could get $4,500 for it, the practical part of my brain might overrule the emotional part.

    As much as I love having it, it won’t last forever, and she’s been gone for 12 years now. I have other things of hers that I cherish too. Would be a tough decision.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      My 91 year old mother has a 2001 PT Cruiser she bought new. It has 44K miles on it and looks and drives like new. She was offered $700 as a trade in, which really ticked her off :)

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      My late mother’s Sable is 28 years old. Way more miles than yours but almost everything still works, including the A/C. If you still feel that emotional tug, keep it. In the big picture $4,500 is nothing. And once its gone, it’s gone for good.

      I now have another car coming my way. Two days ago COVID19 took my father’s life. Now I have a Toyota Avalon.

  • avatar
    Imagefont

    I thought Ford’s business plan was selling ever larger, more powerful and expensive pickup trucks – that most people don’t need? And eliminating more affordable and economical alternatives that their customers don’t seem to want. Of course, building inferior and uncompetitive cars and then blaming your customers for not wanting them is the kind of circular reasoning that left Ford flat footed the last time gas prices sky rocketed. But I’m sure that could never happen again…. Can’t argue with confirmation bias!
    No wonder they’re getting worried and looking for a little government handout to push people into more cheaply made, unreliable and overpriced junk.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Perhaps Ford is banking on the fact that since their trucks are their dominant product, people will trade an old truck for a new Ford truck.

      However, IIRC, CFC required the new vehicle to get substantially better fuel economy (was it a 12 mpg bump?). Not sure if any Ford truck would qualify, since CAFE has flattened out lately.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        New F-150s were eligible with just a 2 MPG improvement over the trade-in. Or $3.500 with a 1 mpg improvement.

        Or HD work truck for HD work truck with no MPG requirements and $3,500 max C4C. Also HD work truck for any 1/2 ton truck and $3,500 only.

  • avatar
    Flipper35

    It was part of the reason used cars prices went so high for a while. I think one of the unintended consequences was it drove people out of the market when all they could afford would have been a used car. Or they bought crap cars in private sales because that is all they could afford when prices shot up.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      Exactly.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      CFC would have been a lot better if the serviceable used cars were given to those people who were in the bottom half of the economic food chain and presently had a true POS. Take the POS and junk that. Then give them a decent car collected from CFC. They could have gotten a safer, cleaner car that didn’t drain them of money to keep going. A lot of energy and resources goes into building cars. Throwing them away when there is plenty of useful life is a stupid idea.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Yup sure the real clunkers that were traded in initially should have went straight to the scrap yard, but an exchange program where you could trade in your truly dirty, gas guzzling clunker straight across if you met certain income or other need guidelines would have helped people who were actually poor and actually reduced emissions and fuel use now and over the long term. Instead it put cleaner more efficient cars out of the reach of the poor leading to more pollution and fuel use over the long term than if C4C didn’t exist.

      • 0 avatar
        PandaBear

        The on going California CFC is like that. They let you scrap a car that will go waiting on a junkyard that anyone can buy for the trade in price. This way the good cars won’t get crushed and people can buy it back for the price. The money will go back to California for another car to buy that nobody wants. They do that for emission reason (all OBD1 cars, those who fail SMOG for OBD2, etc).

        The fed program is to get rid of cars to create demand, so it may not do the right thing.

  • avatar
    KevinB

    I imagine Cash for Clunkers was a majestic windfall for dealerships. Imagine having a $2,500 – $4,500 cushion above the sticker price to work with, especially with a customer who saw this “free money” as a golden opportunity to get the vehicle they normally could never have.

  • avatar
    rpol35

    It only makes sense that Ford would favor such a program considering all of the “clunkers” that they are responsible for building in the first place.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    CFC left some lasting memories:

    * A Maserati Biturbo was taken: “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiORhKnwXF4”

    * Contests to see which engines lasted the longest and shortest when given their lethal dose of sodium silicate: “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0IcIxhd8ks”

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Good riddance to the biturbo. I was bothered by the GNX that was junked. Even the VIN on that car would have been worth more than $5K

    • 0 avatar
      dukeisduke

      I had a hard time watching those C4C videos (they’re like horror films to a gearhead like me), like the five-cylinder Volvo whose engine caught fire at the end, and the 200,000-mile clean Olds Aurora whose 4.0 Northstar grenaded on the sodium silicate.

      • 0 avatar
        DweezilSFV

        Plus, not only was the engine destroyed but IIRC under this draconian program none of these cars were allowed to be parted out but sent directly to the crusher, destroying sheetmetal, soft parts, usable items that could have kept something else on the road.

        Hardly environmentally positive, but an extreme waste for dubious benefit except to make political and industry bung holes look concerned and pro active.

        F*** them and the same to Ford.

        • 0 avatar
          -Nate

          In California they were allowed to sell anything *but* the engine parts, this drove me crazy as I found many good vintage cars with the engine spray painted orange….

          Couldn’t even buy the unobtanium exhaust manifolds or oil pan .

          -Nate

  • avatar
    Vanillasludge

    Basic economics shows that knocking the bottom end out of a market only drives up the price of the middle, double screwing the poors.

    This has occurred in multiple economic models going back to the great plague and will happen again with cash for clunkers.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    Ironically the one car I need to replace is the EV in the fleet. My kid was just graduated from High School. He will be starting Tech School at some point and the EV lacks the range for that run. It may get handed down to his brother, but ideally I’d love to get 4500 for it because it was wrecked, patched together and is basically scrap and that is more than we paid for it. Makes me want to go pull something out of the weeds in case this happens.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    And somewhere, Sajeev is crying over that picture.

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    Cash for clunkers would be a good idea if it were implemented properly. The previous one should have been named “Cash for Your Older But Perfectly Serviceable Vehicle”. They didn’t want your twenty-year-old, smoking rust bucket even though it was exactly the kind of rolling wreck that needed to go to the junk yard.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Have to slightly disagree. CFC had rules related to the age of the car and its fuel economy with respect to what your next car would be.

      IIRC, I think the thresholds were 9 years and a 12 mpg jump, respectively. So you couldn’t leave a 5-year-old Cavalier just because you couldn’t afford the payments, and you couldn’t jump into a Raptor with low fuel economy.

      There were many goals, but getting old polluting cars off the road really was one of them.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        It wasn’t about getting old cars off the road as the limited the age of cars that could be traded in. For example my 92 Crown Victoria didn’t qualify since they removed it from the MPG ratings. The essentially unchanged 93 qualified. So it wasn’t really about pollution as they would have picked years of cars that were from when the emissions standards were the same. IE cars older than 1996, the last significant change in emissions laws.

        What it did was raise the price of used cars, took out a lot of perfectly serviceable vehicles while keeping older, less efficient cars that polluted more on the road longer.

        I watched enough of those videos to see some excellent vehicles that would have been perfect replacements for the true clunkers and high polluters on the road.

        The thing that really surprised me is how many dealers went along with scrapping cars they could have turned a good profit on.

        One in particular that blew my mind, considering the demand for such a vehicle at the time was a very low mile Ranger. At least around here it would have retailed for $7,000 in a heart beat. They could have told the buyer that they would give them $1 more than it would have qualified for in C4C money and made a nice profit quickly.

        That also would have meant that the funds would have lasted longer and they might have got another customer that had something worth less than the C4C money, that truly wouldn’t have been able to make the deal w/o that big bump in the value of their vehicle.

        • 0 avatar
          SSJeep

          The whole thing was ridiculous. Dealers were forced to render the engine inoperable upon trade in. Many just dumped sand in the block or water in the gas tank and ran the car until it died. Some resorted to abrasive compounds, concrete, etc.

          These cars were perfectly serviceable and would have made good stock for the very low end of the market.

          CFC scr3wed the poor twice. Once because it gutted the used car market below $5000. Second because there could have been a plethora of serviceable parts – but they couldn’t be removed and were often rendered unusable.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            The wrecking yards were able to sell parts off of the cars, just not engines but they were toast anyway. It was a real boon for the Jeep guys, 3.73 traction lock rear ends with disc brakes, for your Wrangler or Cherokee and good front brakes for your Cherokee, cheap, thanks to the flood of Explorers.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            True but junkyards don’t usually strip then inventory/warehouse parts. It seems wasteful, but it’s what’s most efficient, constantly buying, crushing and sending the steel to China.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    Most of the old, pollution spewing vehicles that would be removed in a new cash for clunkers scheme are long gone from the roads.

    The remainders are survivors or collectibles. And in numbers that would not seriously impact environmental concerns.

    So any ‘net benefit’ achieved from the previous program would now be negated.

  • avatar
    2manycars

    I would tell the filthy government dirtbags the same thing I told them with the last cash for clunkers travesty – go to bloody hell. (I had then, and still have, vehicles that would qualify. No way would I turn them in for government cheese.)

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    IIRC, old Ford F-150s and Explorers were the most traded in cars in the C4C program.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    When will people realize that programs like CFC distort market demand, increase the cost of cars for sale and hurt the poorest of the poor the most?

    Carmakers will be fine, and if they won’t, they’ll get bought up by another company. Hurting poor people and then pretending it doesn’t is immoral and we ought to stop spreading the bs around as though it’s just another harmless government giveaway. It’s not.

    • 0 avatar
      -Nate

      @ Jkross ;

      Everyone knows this, they just DON’T CARE .

      -Nate

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      @jkross22:

      I don’t completely disagree with you, but try naming any government program that actually helps the poorest of the poor.

      CFC probably helped a few ‘poor’ people by getting them one step up in vehicle. In these cases it wasn’t a bad thing.

      Sure, lots of affordable cars were removed from the market, but many of them were money pits that would have been worse for a new owner. And it’s not like the entire used car fleet disappeared; it was something like 665k cars – a small fraction of the older fleet.

      • 0 avatar
        -Nate

        I was here at ground zero in So. Cal. so I get to see what the lower classes are doing (or not) every damn day .

        I’m in junkyards often and saw many many perfectly good old cars, not beat up or anything, get ‘klunkered’ .

        yes there were lots of 454 equipped trucks and 500 C.I. Cadillacs too but in the big picture the program only helped the middle class and more than a few Tradesmen who moved up to a new truck getting far more than their old worn out if still working O.K. rig could have ever gotten before , essentially cutting the new trucks price sharply .

        As far as the lying coward who said no government programs ever helped any poor people, that’s B.S. .

        Look at SNAP, medicare, training to get out of the Ghetto rut and i could go on .

        Be honest : you don’t like non whites, that’s O.K., just stop lying about it because you’re afraid .

        I’m afraid to walk many areas of my town after dark too but I’m not afraid to say so .

        -Nate

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          Old age pension plans have been proven to have greatly reduced the number of seniors living in poverty.

          Universal medical care, eliminates bankruptcies induced by medical bills and increases access to medical care for the working classes.

          Of course there is also public firefighting, public policing all of which replaced inadequate private companies.

          Also public sewage, water and roads.

          Free mandatory public education was one of the great social levelers in North American society.

          Unfortunately some people have relatively little historical perspective.

          Visionary science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov signaled to the Dunning-Kruger effect with his famous observation in 1980: “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.\'”
          Quoted from Chauncey Devega from Salon Magazine, April 2nd 2020

          • 0 avatar
            -Nate

            Well said Mr. Daily .

            My own son is an anti – vaxxer and nearly die this past December .

            Hard to imagine a A.P. 4.0 GPA student going off the rails like that but life is strange .

            Now his infant son is struggling to live with bad cough, we’ll see how it all works out in the end .

            Feeding poor children, WIC, the list goes on and on .

            Sadly it’s the alt rights easy plan to get people to look down upon others no matter how ignorant/poor you may be, that keep them in the cat bird seat .

            Anti science is incredibly stupid .

            Polio and the bubonic plague are rising again, mostly because of the mouth breathers you described .

            -Nate

  • avatar
    Funky D

    As is the usual case when government intervenes in a market, it creates artificial distortions that, more often than not, have unexpected negative side effects. As pointed out repeatedly here, this didn’t help the poor who were in need of cheap, but serviceable transportation. Let’s not do this again.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I saw some real clunkers when I went to several dealers with a friend who needed a car during 2009. Many were very rusted and had extensive body damage. To say that all these cars that were clunkered were good cars is misleading. I know a couple of guys that rode the bus with me that had cars that needed extensive mechanical work that well exceeded their value. If I got enough money for my oldest vehicle I would seriously consider exchanging it for a smaller more efficient truck like a Ranger, Colorado, or Tacoma 2 wheel drive base model.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Agreed.

      Many of the CFC cars were money pits, and would have impoverished the next owner. Junking them for a handout was opportune for many drivers who didn’t know how to get out of their clunker and into something better.

      I don’t favor govt handouts, but this one did help some people.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Sure some of the cars were really money pits and it was a blessing for a number of buyers. However those people were in the minority. It was mainly a bonus for people with money. Fact is most of the people driving an old car do so because they can’t afford a new car. So yea they could get actual money on their trade in and for a handful that might have made the difference in them being able to get into a new car. For those who could afford a new car even with a few thousand from the gov’t now a newer, cleaner and more efficient car was now put out of reach.

  • avatar
    CobraJet

    I remember the dealership’s back lot lined with CFC cars that were serviceable. Here in the south rusted out bodies are a rare sight. None on the lot were in that condition. I owned two vehicles that would qualify for the program, a 1994 Silverado and a 2002 GMC Safari. I could have traded them in during that program but still own them today. Both continue providing reliable transportation. It would have been a shame to have destroyed these vehicles.

  • avatar

    Yes.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    The US used car inventory is wildly different today. Back then Mexico was still accepting all US junk on 4 wheels, no matter how nice or rough. They put a stop to all (legal) grey market imports from the US about 10 years ago.

    Currently (and before COVID-19), there’s never been a better time to shop for used vehicles, if that’s what you’re into, right down to crapped out beaters.

    Don’t cry for early ’00 midsize to large vehicles swept off the market. With every new generation, they get harder to DIY, lots more processors/sensors/airbags and if it’s not very mainstream, could get totaled just by lack of factory/aftermarket support.

    Their parts aren’t worth saving/hoarding either, from a business standpoint. Crush 100,000 Explorers and it kills demand for Explorer parts by at least that much.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Agree DenverMike with each generation of vehicles it is much harder to DIY and I would add much more expensive to replace parts. Many newer vehicles it takes just an airbag or two to total an otherwise serviceable vehicle. Also putting time chains and water pumps in places where they require extra labor to replace make them not worth replacing for most people. Vehicles have become harder and more expensive to work on. Many large modern salvage yards do not hold onto junk vehicles as long as they use to because they are constantly getting new salvage vehicles and after a while most of the parts on a salvage vehicle that customers want they have already gotten and what remains can be sold as scrap steel.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      If everyone is so dang concerned with the poor pop, limited income, etc, don’t put them in an $800 2005 era, probably a gas guzzler that they can’t afford to fix. Even just a timing belt.

      Thank god someone crushed that frackin’ Maserati. Imaging your just graduated daughter or grandson pulls up in something like that…

      Or an English car/truck. At least currently there’s about a million Crown Vics, and same engine/trans Marquis or F-150s for sale right now that are crazy cheap to fix and parts are absolutely everywhere. Anyone can fix those.

      Yeah yeah, 15 mpg, I know. But an empty tank usually doesn’t send it to the crusher.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Maserati is an endless money pit. As for Crown Vics and Marquis on the highway they get in the 20s. They are built like a tank and a teenager is not going to do burnouts in them. Scotty Kilmer has a beautiful original 98 Grand Marquis that a teenager bought for 5k with about 73k miles from an elderly lady. Really nice car and looks brand new.

  • avatar
    DweezilSFV

    HA! 10 years later Cash For Clunkers 2.0 would have to un-azz double the original C For C $2500-4500 incentive to make a dent in the prices of these current PsOS.

    There’s nothing FOAD Motor Company makes that would be worth the bother of going into debt, period.

    Don’t need a truck. Mustang not practical for anything more than two people. Eco Spurt 3 cyl gives mediocre gas mileage. I don’t need a truck. Ranger too big fat and still relatively gas hungry unless one compares it to an F 350. I don’t need a truck.Escape: meh. I don’t need a truck.

    Go buy back your stock for more cash and prizes for your bung nose executives FOAD. It’s what you do best for your stockholders and your real purpose in life.

    BTW:Domestic manufacturers only got 37% of that C for C government cheese. The other 60 odd % went to non domestic manufacturers.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    A teenager can even kill a Toyota Corolla or Camry. As for Ford you can still get remaining Fusions which are not bad cars.

  • avatar
    HotPotato

    Don’t confuse us with facts, there’s baseless and ill-informed outrage to indulge!

  • avatar
    PandaBear

    This time around, a lot of the clunkers off my head are:

    1. Nissan with CVT problems
    2. Hyundai with engine problems
    3. Honda with auto transmission problems
    4. European with all sort of reliability problems
    5. GM with lower intake manifold problems

    etc etc

    Those middle age cars with reliability problems, we will get rid of them. Those nuclear war proof little cars will live.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Old_WRX: @slavuta, “Any way. Biggest “Disinformation Bureau” as I see it, is located in US schools, colleges...
  • Old_WRX: @Lou_BC, The point I was trying to make is that a mask without an exhalation valve (a simple mask) will...
  • Lou_BC: Old_WRX – wrong. Simple face masks are worn in operating room theatres. Why? So the wearer does not...
  • Lou_BC: @stuki – exactly.
  • slavuta: Old_WRX, here is the thing. In Europe, Russia does support certain parties one way or another. Over there...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber