Sodium Silicate.
The government mandates that cars traded in under the "Cash for Clunkers" program be permanently disabled and specifies that the method used is to replace the oil with Sodium Silicate then run the engine until it freezes.
This has caught the suppliers of the substance by surprise. One company that sold maybe 150 gallons of the stuff a year has already sold 15,000 gallons!
From the Wall Street Journal:
It may have caught some by surprise, but it has "stimulated" others into action:
Heh! Find a need and fill it, I always say.
I'm guessing that the first few times a mechanic gets to do this to a car could be fun.
After years of getting filthy and frustrated making old clunkers run, it must feel good to exact a little revenge and rev them up until they seize solid and die, while he sits there evilly rubbing his hands together and laughing maniacally.
I'm not exactly what you would call a die hard "green" kind of a person, but having learned the ways of thrift and economy from grandparents who survived the great depression of 1929, I can't help but see this as a total waste of otherwise useful resources.
Jon
This also feeds the greed of today's citizen. They forget that it is there own tax money that's being spent. We will all pay for it later. How many of the buyers actually can afford the new cars they are buying? Remember all the homes that they bought and couldn't keep. Will they be working next week or next month. I doubt it. Party on!!!
A letter in our local paper suggests that even-older gas-guzzlers should be able to be traded in -- with some kind of bonus -- on these not-quite-so-horrible "Clunkers."
Perce
if (("Reduce, re-use, recycle") != ("Destroy a perfectly useable vehicle")) { call ("crinkle_nose"); return ("I don't get it."); }
You might think it's funny but when I think of where these funds are coming from it makes me sick. I'm sure our president will spin this waste of money into an economic stimulus.
Gordon Shumway
They aren't doing anything that fancy here. The paper has an article showing the whole car going into a chipper. All they are doing is draining the fluids. They showed a Mercedes SEL going in and coming out as kibble and bits. I am really surprised that they didn't take off the body parts that were OK. All the clunker law requires is that they destroy the engine and the VIN plate, everything else can be salvaged
Unless the vehicles are DESTROYED, there is nothing the government can do to prevent less scrupulous dealers and other shady profiteers from double-dipping by collecting the CARS rebate, then turning around and selling the trade-in clunker for Kelly Blue Book price. Heck from some accounts, vehicles from the CARS program are showing up on auction lots, running and driving under their own power already. Anything but the total destruction of the tradeins leaves that loophole.
I laughed at the "code". I agree about waste of money, etc.
This worries me, even more.
Video: 0 - 4:25
re: "Heck from some accounts, vehicles from the CARS program are showing up on auction lots, running and driving under their own power already"
Cite please.
re: "Unless the vehicles are DESTROYED..."
The program requires that the engine be destroyed and the vehicle labled attesting that fact. If the dealers are getting around that requirement, then what will stop them from getting around the requirement that the entire vehicle be destroyed?
But really, please provide a cite for the "some accounts" you mentioned.
Dunno.
"Federal inspectors will review dealer records and vehicles for violators of the rules, who would face a $15,000 fine per infraction."
Yep. I can see the grin on his face as he watches a 1970 Corvette with 2
4-barrel carbs go through the death-rattle.
Cite what? I read it on a forum site in a thread with more ignorant whining about the whole CARS program. It was one of those "I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy" situations.
I dunno if the claim is legitimate. That's why I said, "by some accounts." You can't deny that it is plausible. I have no doubts that it is actually happening somewhere. Remember you can tell that a car dealer is lying, because his lips are moving. What's stopping them from trying to double-dip?
At this stage of the game, I have no doubts that some dealers are TRYING to get around the requirement. Whether they manage to get away with it will remain to be seen. All we can do is watch the news for the headlines, "Auto Dealer Fined for Double-Dipping on CARS Program."
No cite, but it's obvious you only need the VIN and motor from an identical, totaled, vehicle and you're good to go.
re: "I dunno if the claim is legitimate. That's why I said, "by some accounts.""
So you are using a rumor that you read in a thread similar to this one to bolster your argument that dealers are double-dipping?
If I made a claim and followed it up with "I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy", would you put a lot of faith in what I said? I doubt it...yet you are willing to use something you read in a forum, something you admit you can't verify, as part of your argument that they have to change the requirements of the program.
re: "You can't deny that it is plausible."
I won't argue that your claim of double-dipping is plausible, but when you toss in rumors and unsubstantiated information, your argument loses credibility.
re: "Remember you can tell that a car dealer is lying, because his lips are moving"
Old jokes and derogatory generalizations don't help either.
True, but that really has nothing to do with the double-dipping argument, in the strictest of terms. You could always take parts from one car and put them in another.
The engine from the totaled vehicle was always available for use in a car with a decent chassis. It wasn't traded in under the program and therefore is still available for use. The program doesn't require all existing engines to be destroyed and it doesn't state that you have to destroy the entire "clunker". In fact, the program, as I understand it, allows recycling yeards 180 days to remove usable parts after the clucnker's engine is rendered inoperable.
I won't claim to have read the entire 163 page document detailing the program, but if the rest of the clunker vehicle was usable, and the engine from the totaled vehicle did not come from an official clunker, then the combination of these 2 objects sounds perfectly legal.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.