[The Godfather]

It should be a no brainer for anyone with an ineficcient truck, in the market for a new car anyways. Even if you didn't vote for the redistribution of wealth, why not make it rain on you, right?

The savings might add up for the cost of ownership of several Macbook Pros, or even 1 PC

Is anyone taking advantage of this program. And if so, are you finding car dealers jacking up new car prices in response to this? How are you handling this opportunity to make it work for you, but not for the salesmen? What would be the cheapest new car you could buy with this rebate?

[64stang06]

Not to mention, I believe Chrysler is doubling the offer, essentially saving you up to $9000.

[mduell]

My clunker gets 22mpg. Broken suspension reduces the whole value to 0 (parts value is higher).

Already bought a used replacement that gets 17mpg.

I guess this program just isn't for me.

[ort888]

My current car isn't clunky enough.

That's my punishment for buying a car with good gas milage.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by 64stang06 

Not to mention, I believe Chrysler is doubling the offer, essentially saving you up to $9000.

Since it's a Chrysler, you'll easily lose that much in repairs.

[torsoboy]

my 1991 corrola is a clunker for sure, but the government mpg rating is too high, so i don't qualify.

i wouldn't do it anyway though... i don't buy new. if they offered the discount on cars less than 4 years old, I would do it. it wouldn't give a boost to new car makers, but it would be a boost to a LOT of car dealerships, which employ a lot of people.

[design219]

My boss took his Mazda pickup to the local Ford dealership Friday and quoted him a new Ford Ranger for $8000. HIs truck only has 87,000 miles on it, and the deal with this is the "clunkers" have to be destroyed. That seems like a terrible waste for a vehicle with potentially many more miles left. It is a small truck and the mileage can't be all that bad.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by design219 

My boss took his Mazda pickup to the local Ford dealership Friday and quoted him a new Ford Ranger for $8000. HIs truck only has 87,000 miles on it, and the deal with this is the "clunkers" have to be destroyed. That seems like a terrible waste for a vehicle with potentially many more miles left. It is a small truck and the mileage can't be all that bad.

The point is not that you could wring a lot more miles out of the older vehicle. It's that the older vehicle is not as fuel efficient or nearly as clean as a newer car. I've seen a LOT of really well kept up older vehicles around here, and the only thing bad about them is their 1970-vintage engine; before the oil crisis of '73, and with barely any (if any at all on trucks) emission reduction hardware.

Beautiful cars aren't what the program is about, anyway. It's about those that are held together by Bondo and duct tape and with engines that apparently actively burn oil and piston rings for power. THOSE are "clunkers" that desperately need to be taken off the road, and the fuel economy and emission levels of these vehicles are to me a secondary concern. What happens when the suspension just plain FAILS in traffic? I've seen the after math of that sort of thing, and it took a lot of work to clean up just the vehicle debris-and months to fix the damage to the pavement.

[design219]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The point is not that you could wring a lot more miles out of the older vehicle. It's that the older vehicle is not as fuel efficient or nearly as clean as a newer car.

Well, I think the point is to get people to spend money. But I understand the purpose. The problem is when you look at the environmental impact overall, this seems just wasteful. The cars have to be destroyed. It looks like the eligibility is 17 mpg or less for the clunker, and in the case of the Ford Ranger, the new mileage is only 24 mpg. That doesn't seem like enough improvement to me.

I hope at the very least they are going to recycle the materials in these cars.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by design219 

Well, I think the point is to get people to spend money. But I understand the purpose. The problem is when you look at the environmental impact overall, this seems just wasteful. The cars have to be destroyed. It looks like the eligibility is 17 mpg or less for the clunker, and in the case of the Ford Ranger, the new mileage is only 24 mpg. That doesn't seem like enough improvement to me.

I hope at the very least they are going to recycle the materials in these cars.

Older Trade-In Vehicles:
* Must be in drivable condition;
* Have been continuously insured to the same owner for at least one year immediately prior to trade-in;
* Manufactured in model year 1984 or later; and
* Have a combined fuel economy of 18 mpg or less.

See this chart for info on the new cars: http://jalopnik.com/5322251/cash-for...official-rules

One thing that I think is ridiculous about this is that in order to qualify for the rebate on a new small truck, the new truck only needs to get 18MPG. And for a large truck, it only needs to get 15MPG! Also, you only need to gain 2MPG in order to get bumped up to the $4500 rebate on the larger trucks, and 5MPG on the small trucks. So basically they are taking a truck that gets 14MPG and replacing it with a truck that gets 16MPG, and then destroying the old truck because it isn't efficient enough.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by design219 

Well, I think the point is to get people to spend money. But I understand the purpose. The problem is when you look at the environmental impact overall, this seems just wasteful. The cars have to be destroyed. It looks like the eligibility is 17 mpg or less for the clunker, and in the case of the Ford Ranger, the new mileage is only 24 mpg. That doesn't seem like enough improvement to me.

I hope at the very least they are going to recycle the materials in these cars.

There is very little "virgin" steel used in any manufacturing process anywhere. It's a lot cheaper to refine old steel to make new steel, so steel can be considered to be recycled by default. Much of the rest of what's in a car can be recycled to some extent-nonferrous metal parts, especially. If you put a car in a junk yard, most yards will sell usable bits and pieces until there's not much left but body parts and frame (all steel), which gets sold as scrap steel. That IS recycling.

[design219]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

If you put a car in a junk yard, most yards will sell usable bits and pieces until there's not much left but body parts and frame (all steel), which gets sold as scrap steel. That IS recycling.

Yes, junk yards are great. I've gotten many a part from them.

Here is what the gov site says about the fate of the cars traded in.

What happens to the vehicle I trade in?
The CARS Act requires that the trade-in vehicle be crushed or shredded so that it will not be resold for use in the United States or elsewhere as an automobile. The entity crushing or shredding the vehicles in this manner will be allowed to sell some parts of the vehicle prior to crushing or shredding it, but these parts cannot include the engine or the drive train.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by ort888 

My current car isn't clunky enough.

That's my punishment for buying a car with good gas milage.

I'm with you. My 1992 Camry still gets me 29MPG.
When a 17 year old car gets better mileage than most new cars being produced you see what the auto industry is up to. Imagine if computers progressed this slowly in the past 17 years.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by design219 

Yes, junk yards are great. I've gotten many a part from them.

Here is what the gov site says about the fate of the cars traded in.

What happens to the vehicle I trade in?
The CARS Act requires that the trade-in vehicle be crushed or shredded so that it will not be resold for use in the United States or elsewhere as an automobile. The entity crushing or shredding the vehicles in this manner will be allowed to sell some parts of the vehicle prior to crushing or shredding it, but these parts cannot include the engine or the drive train.

A lot of junk yards simply pull a few of the more sellable parts and then shred the rest. Not to worry, the shreds are then carefully sifted and appropriately recycled. Steel is steel, and that's what most of the carcass of a dead car is, and the engine and drive train are either all steel or steel and aluminum (especially the engine), and aluminum is just as recyclable as steel.

I'd like to see one caveat added to what the recyclers can do with the shredded remains though-I'd like to see it be illegal for them to sell the stuff to overseas companies. Keep it here, put the steel industry back to work-at least a little-and recycle some jobs too.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by design219 

Well, I think the point is to get people to spend money.

BINGO.

From a total environmental and economical perspective, destroying perfectly fine vehicles is absolute non-sense.

This is just one more Obama gimmick to increase consumption spending. It's an absolute waste of resources and money.

-t

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

BINGO.

From a total environmental and economical perspective, destroying perfectly fine vehicles is absolute non-sense.

This is just one more Obama gimmick to increase consumption spending. It's an absolute waste of resources and money.

-t

And again, the program isn't about "destroying perfectly fine vehicles." It's about taking OLD, inefficient, polluting cars off the road WHILE stimulating commerce. Note that the rules say that the car's engine has to be rendered inoperable-as in destroyed. Nothing about the body, the alternator, the tail lights, etc., just the engine. The fuel wasting, smog belching engine. Comparing fuel efficiency and emissions of 10 year old cars with today's is an eye opener-while efficiency hasn't climbed much at all, emissions have shrunk considerably. So reducing the use of fuel (a bit) and the emission of pollutants (a LOT) while getting people out to spend money is a Very Good Thing all around.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

And again, the program isn't about "destroying perfectly fine vehicles." It's about taking OLD, inefficient, polluting cars off the road WHILE stimulating commerce. Note that the rules say that the car's engine has to be rendered inoperable-as in destroyed. Nothing about the body, the alternator, the tail lights, etc., just the engine. The fuel wasting, smog belching engine. Comparing fuel efficiency and emissions of 10 year old cars with today's is an eye opener-while efficiency hasn't climbed much at all, emissions have shrunk considerably. So reducing the use of fuel (a bit) and the emission of pollutants (a LOT) while getting people out to spend money is a Very Good Thing all around.

Well, for most cars, it just means the whole thing gets scrapped. Maybe a few parts are used as spares.

The reasons why this improvement in fuel efficiency is likely negligible or even negative is that it takes a LOT of energy to produce a car, including all the gas / energy used to produce the parts, ship them around the world, assemble the car and then ship it somewhere else.

-t

[ghporter]

I can't argue that it takes plenty of energy to make a car. I've seen the process from scrap iron coming into a plant to finished vehicles leaving-it is energy-intensive. Improving fuel efficiency is not the only benefit from this program though. By retiring older vehicles that put out a lot more pollutants than more modern cars, the total amount of emissions is drawn down drastically, effectively taking many "car-equivalents" off the road. Even if humans aren't significantly impacting the current global climate issues, reducing how much crap we pour into the air has to be a good thing.

Further, more vehicles will be made regardless of this program. So the production end isn't really impacted. It's helping make the end of the road for cars that pollute that's the real sterling benefit of the "clunkers" program.

[nonhuman]

It also helps improve the safety rating of the average car on the road. All other things being equal, I'm in favor of the program because it means my niece's car seat will soon be strapped into a much safer vehicle.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I can't argue that it takes plenty of energy to make a car. I've seen the process from scrap iron coming into a plant to finished vehicles leaving-it is energy-intensive. Improving fuel efficiency is not the only benefit from this program though. By retiring older vehicles that put out a lot more pollutants than more modern cars, the total amount of emissions is drawn down drastically, effectively taking many "car-equivalents" off the road. Even if humans aren't significantly impacting the current global climate issues, reducing how much crap we pour into the air has to be a good thing.

Well, if you reduce the number of new cars made, you reduce pollution and energy use as well.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Further, more vehicles will be made regardless of this program. So the production end isn't really impacted. It's helping make the end of the road for cars that pollute that's the real sterling benefit of the "clunkers" program.

But that's (once again) the governments fault. They keep bailing out companies that don't sell cars, but keep their operations running and produce cars on inventory.

See, perfect example of a problem that the government tries to fix, but the problem only exists because of an earlier government "fix". It goes on and on and on and on.

In the end, there's a huge system of subsidies, earmarks and transfer payments that make no economic and environmental sense.

-t

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

But that's (once again) the governments fault. They keep bailing out companies that don't sell cars, but keep their operations running and produce cars on inventory.

See, perfect example of a problem that the government tries to fix, but the problem only exists because of an earlier government "fix". It goes on and on and on and on.

In the end, there's a huge system of subsidies, earmarks and transfer payments that make no economic and environmental sense.

-t

Companies like GM and Chrysler have cut WAY back on production-and they aren't exactly flooding the market with their current inventory either. There are a lot of auto workers out of work, either temporarily or permanently at the moment. Auto production is based on demand AND on perceived future demand.

Production throughout the US is extremely low at the moment, and that applies to ALL car and truck makers. Toyota has a plant here in San Antonio that is running less than capacity on the single shift they have operating at the moment. Even Ford, that posted a surprisingly good profit for the last quarter, has cut back production a lot. Remember, the reason the industry needed help at all was that they had too many vehicles on the market that weren't selling. One of the economic goals of the clunkers program is to get at least some of those excess vehicles sold.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Auto production is based on demand AND on perceived future demand.

Well, that would be nice, but unfortunately, it's for the most part not true.

It's hard to react fast to the changes in the market, and generally, the automotive industry is always forward looking in terms of production / capacity / investments.

Also, since the US car manufacturers are so bogged down by unions, they can not just cut back capacity easily. Yes, they can (theoretically) stop producing cars, but they can't let the people go, and the fix cost remain. Therefore, the decision is mostly to keep producing cars on inventory, since the cost are fixed, and no gain to be had with stopping production.

Real cuts in capacity (like closure of a whole plant) take so long that it's basically detached from day to day demand, and the decision made (once again) in light of expected future demand.

-t

[torsoboy]

If it was just about getting the old cars off of the road, or if it was just about selling new cars, they wouldn't limit it to just cars that get less than xx MPG. A lot of people do not qualify for this program because their cars were listed as higher than 18MPG 20 years ago, regardless of what they are actually getting today.

I'm guess I'm just jealous that my 1991 corolla doesn't make the cut. After looking at some of the deals going around, I have changed my mind and would like to get in on this action

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, that would be nice, but unfortunately, it's for the most part not true.

It's hard to react fast to the changes in the market, and generally, the automotive industry is always forward looking in terms of production / capacity / investments.

Also, since the US car manufacturers are so bogged down by unions, they can not just cut back capacity easily. Yes, they can (theoretically) stop producing cars, but they can't let the people go, and the fix cost remain. Therefore, the decision is mostly to keep producing cars on inventory, since the cost are fixed, and no gain to be had with stopping production.

Real cuts in capacity (like closure of a whole plant) take so long that it's basically detached from day to day demand, and the decision made (once again) in light of expected future demand.

-t

Obviously you haven't been paying much attention to the automotive news this summer...

All the manufacturers routinely reduce capacity at their plants over the summer. This usually means cutting back on shifts and even closing down plants for short periods of time. This summer, however, the period during which plants are closed was extended to cut costs even further than usual. Auto workers spent far more time than usual off work, in an attempt to keep inventory low.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Obviously you haven't been paying much attention to the automotive news this summer...

An extended summer shutdown is completely different, since this doesn't really reduce capacity, only output.
The summer shutdown is really the only shutdown in a year where the OEMs can cut output short-term. You never see the OEMs just shut down for two weeks in fall, winter or spring.

Any measure beyond the summer shutdown will involve cutting real capacity, which, like I explained, will never be made based on past data, but based on the industry's expectation of the future demand.

And yes, I DO pay attention to the automotive industry, because I work in it.

-t

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

If it was just about getting the old cars off of the road, or if it was just about selling new cars, they wouldn't limit it to just cars that get less than xx MPG. A lot of people do not qualify for this program because their cars were listed as higher than 18MPG 20 years ago, regardless of what they are actually getting today.

I'm guess I'm just jealous that my 1991 corolla doesn't make the cut. After looking at some of the deals going around, I have changed my mind and would like to get in on this action

You're forgetting that governance is the art of compromise. I'm sure some people wanted this to apply to pretty much all used cars. Others probably wanted it to only apply if you were buying a hybrid and/or low emissions vehicle. In the end they compromised and came up with something that still helps a large number of people replace cars that need to be replaced, encourages other to replace cars they might not otherwise have, helps dealerships move inventory, and even stimulates the economy by encouraging encouraging the purchase of new cars over used, buoys the credit industry by encouraging more car loans (something that has been all but frozen lately) while simultaneously helping consumers to require smaller loans thanks to the CARS credit, enlivens the scrap and recycling industry (a much larger industry than you might expect which was also hurting as people are more likely to drag the last vestiges of life out of things than scrap them in a down economy), and who knows what else.

Is this a perfect system? No. Does it help? Yes.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

An extended summer shutdown is completely different, since this doesn't really reduce capacity, only output.
The summer shutdown is really the only shutdown in a year where the OEMs can cut output short-term. You never see the OEMs just shut down for two weeks in fall, winter or spring.

Any measure beyond the summer shutdown will involve cutting real capacity, which, like I explained, will never be made based on past data, but based on the industry's expectation of the future demand.

And yes, I DO pay attention to the automotive industry, because I work in it.

-t

Assuming that all the plants that were closed reopen, and if so with a full staff. And with luck, it's only a short-term reduction in inventory that's necessary. The economy will (and has already started to) recover, people will start buying more cars again, and hopefully the interim troubles that the auto industry has suffered will have convinced them to pursue a better business model.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Assuming that all the plants that were closed reopen, and if so with a full staff. And with luck, it's only a short-term reduction in inventory that's necessary. The economy will (and has already started to) recover, people will start buying more cars again, and hopefully the interim troubles that the auto industry has suffered will have convinced them to pursue a better business model.

But that has nothing to do with my original point, in response to Glenn.

-t

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

But that has nothing to do with my original point, in response to Glenn.

-t

True. But I do think we have and will see a reduction in capacity. If and when the plants reopen, I doubt we'll see them churning out as many new vehicles as they were before. The biggest obstacle, I think, will be the government. Can and will the Obama administration see fit to allow the manufacturers to close plants and lay off workers? Nothing they've done so far has really shown me any indication that they understand the nature of the problem (or, at least, are willing to address the actual problem). Closing dealerships does nothing to help the manufacturers, but still hurts local economies. Closing plants will hurt local economies more, to be sure (in the short term!), but might actually help the manufacturers transition away from old dates assembly lines and methods (which will help those same local economies in the long term!). Unfortunately no one seems willing to put up with short term losses in the interest of long term survival and profitability. Otherwise we would have let many more businesses fail in the interest of seeing new, more, smaller, and (at least some of them) better ones rise up to take their places.

This is understandable for politicians, who can't afford to think beyond the next election cycle during which the benefits of the long term view will be out of sight and we're still dealing with the initial sacrifices. To take such an action would essentially ensure that they lose their seat and are replaced by someone who will probably try to undo everything they've done, most likely causing even more problem but appearing to help. This is why government needs to stay out of private enterprise where the pursuit of profit can (but doesn't always, sadly) inspire long term planning.

[turtle777]

Yes, I agree with your assessment.

-t

[andi*pandi]

appears my 1996 car doesn't qualify at 22mpg either?

but this site was interesting:

Side-by-Side Comparison

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

You're forgetting that governance is the art of compromise. I'm sure some people wanted this to apply to pretty much all used cars. Others probably wanted it to only apply if you were buying a hybrid and/or low emissions vehicle. In the end they compromised and came up with something that still helps a large number of people replace cars that need to be replaced, encourages other to replace cars they might not otherwise have, helps dealerships move inventory, and even stimulates the economy by encouraging encouraging the purchase of new cars over used, buoys the credit industry by encouraging more car loans (something that has been all but frozen lately) while simultaneously helping consumers to require smaller loans thanks to the CARS credit, enlivens the scrap and recycling industry (a much larger industry than you might expect which was also hurting as people are more likely to drag the last vestiges of life out of things than scrap them in a down economy), and who knows what else.

Is this a perfect system? No. Does it help? Yes.

Very true.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, that would be nice, but unfortunately, it's for the most part not true.

It's hard to react fast to the changes in the market, and generally, the automotive industry is always forward looking in terms of production / capacity / investments.

Also, since the US car manufacturers are so bogged down by unions, they can not just cut back capacity easily. Yes, they can (theoretically) stop producing cars, but they can't let the people go, and the fix cost remain. Therefore, the decision is mostly to keep producing cars on inventory, since the cost are fixed, and no gain to be had with stopping production.

Real cuts in capacity (like closure of a whole plant) take so long that it's basically detached from day to day demand, and the decision made (once again) in light of expected future demand.

-t

You're talking about two different things. Changes to production rates within a model year are very easy to make quickly-shutting down a shift or two, or even shuttering a plant take at most a week or two, and often the limitation is how many vehicles are actually on the line at the time. This is exactly the production capacity adjustment that I was talking about. And a lot of it has already happened-MANY plants are idle right now.

Changing the models that are available is indeed time consuming-but given that there is an enormous impetus to make some sort of change to get these companies (the ones that are actually struggling-GM and Chrysler specifically) back on track, you can bet that they are working overtime in their design departments to make model changes. Typically model change retooling takes place in late summer, and involves a sort of "forced vacation" for assembly workers while the tooling is installed. Even if all they do is improve their better models and scrap the crappy ones, that's progress, it's effective, and it's easy to do.

The unions are on board with GM and Chrysler on this-it's in the interest of the UAW and the subsidiary unions (Teamsters for supply and shipping of products, especially) to keep the companies in business, and they have taken cuts in some of their hardest won concessions (health care and retirement income security) in order to support them.

Your argument really seems to be sort of defeatist. In the current, extremely remarkable situation, everything points to the utility of moving excess inventory so that the manufacturers can start producing and selling new, more desirable cars this fall. Whether their design decisions today translate into improved sales in the fall is up to them, but the mechanism through which we'll find out is in place. Getting those lots cleared out and getting people into newer, more efficient and cleaner cars, is a good first step.

[sek929]

My 2000 GMC Sonoma qualifies, though I'll have to agree with turtle that crushing a vehicle that has less than 100K miles is a waste of resources. Sure, my truck might get a combined MPG of 16, but I've seen Sonomas go 250K miles with very little maintenance. Couple that with no body rust, great paint job, and perfect mechanicals I wonder what the point of destroying the vehicle is.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by sek929 

My 2000 GMC Sonoma qualifies, though I'll have to agree with turtle that crushing a vehicle that has less than 100K miles is a waste of resources. Sure, my truck might get a combined MPG of 16, but I've seen Sonomas go 250K miles with very little maintenance. Couple that with no body rust, great paint job, and perfect mechanicals I wonder what the point of destroying the vehicle is.

The point is that nobody is going to take your Sonoma with an engine that probably could use rings and other work due to its age, and sell it AS IS if the engine is destroyed (as an engine). It doesn't take that much energy to melt down sheetmetal to make new steel, either.

The vehicle is the least of the issue. The engine is the point here, and the rules call for the ENGINE to be made permanently inoperable. There's nothing that says the scrap yard can't sell off the suspension parts, even fenders and doors and "under the hood" works like the water pump and alternator. The engine itself it the key to the whole thing. The body needs to be destroyed because of the VIN, I think, but still it's not like it's being wasted, just recycled.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The vehicle is the least of the issue. The engine is the point here, and the rules call for the ENGINE to be made permanently inoperable. There's nothing that says the scrap yard can't sell off the suspension parts, even fenders and doors and "under the hood" works like the water pump and alternator. The engine itself it the key to the whole thing. The body needs to be destroyed because of the VIN, I think, but still it's not like it's being wasted, just recycled.

Well, that's all very theoretical.

The goal of the government is that ALL old gas-guzzling vehicles get off the road.
If that happens, there is no market for spare parts either, so the whole vehicle is scrap.

-t

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, that's all very theoretical.

The goal of the government is that ALL old gas-guzzling vehicles get off the road.
If that happens, there is no market for spare parts either, so the whole vehicle is scrap.

-t

As sek noted earlier, a lot of vehicles that are properly maintained may qualify for the offer but not "need to be taken off the road." With an owner that takes care of the vehicle, older cars do not "NEED" to be polluters, nor to they need to be particularly inefficient. So somebody like sek needs a Sonoma radiator and doesn't want to pay for a new one (newly manufactured part), maybe someone else's Sonoma that wasn't so well kept up got put in to the clunkers program and wound up having almost everything parted out, so there's a radiator waiting for someone to need it.

Need I point out that the whole program is focused on "clunkers?" Just because a vehicle qualifies by model year doesn't mean it's a "clunker." I got over 9 years out of the first new car I got for me (as opposed to a family car), and it was just as clean and efficient when I traded it in as when I bought it. If the A/C hadn't been going out, I'd probably have kept it for a few more years. It was certainly not a clunker, even though one system was starting to have problems. If it had not been for the fact that it had a freon-based A/C, repairing that system in 2002 would have been my plan anyway.

But a "clunker" is something that is pretty obvious to most people. It's a junker, a beater, a car that "maybe, most days" gets you to work without getting you too wet or dirty. You check the oil regularly because you don't want to run out. Starting the engine is a long, drawn out process involving anything from a step by step process to sacrificing a chicken. You get the picture-a clunker is a clunker; a car you don't want to HAVE to keep.