cash for clunkers... or cleaner car rebate ...

You only get $2000 for a pre 1985 car... that you have had registered in Your name for at least 2 years..

---THAT SHOULD BE 1995 PRE-CARS --

the car is then scrapped.... so ONLY $2000 for Your car...

You can then only buy a NEW specified car that is on the Governments list... Holden Cruze was one mentioned.
New imported cars may be banned ... not on the list..

Large engined cars will NOT be on the New car list..

Only fuel efficient cars....

so, it doesn't sound as good as it did... lol

and You cannot rort the scheme...

LEE

hmmm.... $400 old early 80's ford laser or toyota crown, Use spares and bodgeys to pass rwc, mechanical doesn't actually have to be good, $400 rego, its only another $1000 off really once u try to milk the system.

I spose what they try to intice, is at that age of a vehicle, you'd probably easily spend $2000 just fixing up all the suspension components along (on something besides a vw), let along engine, transmission etc. I dunno if i really like the proposal though.

LCA doesn't support it...

Lee, I have to say that in my opinion what you have written here is confusing and some points are wrong. I would suggest people go to the actual goverment statement regarding this topic.

http://www.alp.org.au/agenda/Connecting-Renewables/Cleaner-Car-Rebate/ 

You can read all the details there.

My Mistake

pre 1995 cars...

info was from drive in the SMH..

I can't see it making that much difference...
many people drive a pre 1995 car because they cannot afford a new car...
also, if their pre 1995 car breaks down...
they usually leave it where it is...
as they cannot afford to get it towed or repaired....

Your car [which You must have owned and registered for at least 24 months] MUST be scrapped....

In Germany with a similar scheme... scrapped cars were shipped to South Africa and sold...

LEE

you cant rort the scheme????? cant be one introduced by the government then.

This is another half baked idea from a bunch of half wits trying to make crap up on the fly to win some votes and make up for the fact they achieved jack all after 3 years in government. In a pathetic attempt to win some green votes they devise/copy a scheme that may appeal to the ill-informed and will like the insulation batts scheme see more of our money go offshore.

And like Lee said, most people driving old cars can't afford new ones, even with $2k rebate which will be nullified by a convenient price rise that will mysteriously appear when the program starts, if it starts.....ala first home buyer grant.

Nice try Julia and co, how about you head back to the drawing board or stick to doing Women's weekly photoshoots.

Great post Cam, couldn't agree with you more.

The NSW CMC's parent organisation, the Australian Historic Motoring Federation, stated their position in a letter to the Prime Minister's senior advisor. Read it here:

http://www.councilofmotorclubs.org.au/docs/clunkers1.pdf 

The two biggest industries in the world is mining and energy (whether it be power plants or fuels/oil).

They are also the two biggest environmental 'manipulators'....

I can't see why they can't put their focus, time and money on that. Not stop it... but just think of other ways (cause we need it, our basis of society is based on it, let along economy).

Even the greens should focus on it... not piddly little shit like banning recreational fishing or stopping backburning... Add a few more colours to the greens and u got urself a packet of fruit loops...

I'd like to see them get it passed, and then make me comply.

Would have to host a classic car show on the doorstep of parliament house in protest

We already do - the NRMA Motorfest is held in Macquarie St every Australia Day. And the Canberra German Autofest this month is on the grassy lawns near the National Library.

There'll never be any threat to classic cars - the industry is too large and too powerful (thankfully) and it would be political suicide for any party thinking otherwise. The problem is the crappy, ground-scraping, rusty smoke blowing shit-boxes that give classic cars a bad name. We should all make the effort to ensure our old VWs are rebuilt, restored and maintained properly. And one reason why I hope the 'rat look' disappears.

Can you elaborate on "ground-scraping" Phil?

How about this over-lowered example?

Trouble with baning "gas guzlers" is what do you use the car for? cant see too many vw golfs towing double horse floats around or two wheel drive Hiluxs' towing a boat along Stockton beach.

Cam, unfortunately registration is not a good check (nation-wide) as not all states have annual road-worthys for old cars. NSW is probably the toughest and we do seem to have fewer POS driving around than say QLD or SA. But there are still plenty of 'clunkers' out there. The British MOT seems to be stricter than our NSW pink slips.

Paul I don't have anything against lowering; I've done it myself. Up to a point it improves the handling. Modified cars look and work great with a sensible, reasonable lowering. The exact amount you can lower would depend on the make and model, so regulators saying '50mm and no more' is too blinkered. But I mean, within reason! That example above is just ridiculous and gives ammunition to those seeing to ban lowering and/or old cars. Seeing an over-lowered VW crunch and grind in a shower of sparks at the first rise or dip, or rub their tyres on the guards, is not a good look. And whether it's someone's pride and joy is irrelevant if it is unroadworthy and unsafe, which I would suggest that example above would be.

I know a lot of people like the 'rat' look, and fair enough. They might look kewl or whatever, but I think they send the wrong message to those who know little about cars but get to make the rules (ie pollies)

Banning so-called gas guzzlers won't work, as Donn says some of them serve a purpose. The trend overseas is to apply an extra sliding tax based on fuel consumption or CO2 emissions. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar is introduced here in years to come.

Something more akin to the US based smog laws?

I have a car that some would say is a big guzzler. Its 1600kg of ford with an auto trans. I dont think it is using much more if any more fuel than my kombi did. I dont have 3 kids so I dont need a car that big. I bought it because 4 years ago I wanted late model comfort, long warranty, with towing capacity and a budget of only $20K. Would have loved a caravelle but it didnt go anywhere close to the budget. I drive it 40km city cycle every day. Not because I want to but because there is no alternative. (tried the train but car got broken in to at the station) A bus takes over an hour for the 20 minute drive.

I still think a driver should be registered and insured and not a car. I would like to buy another car to drive to work. I thought about a scooter, but I dont have the death wish on the heavy industrial roads of wollongong. Another small car would be ideal. I just dont have the money for another rego and insurance year in year out. The initial purchase expense is OK. The ongoings are not. Currently when you insure a car they ask the age of the youngest driver. Why dont they insure drivers and ask the maximum value of the car you will drive?

Tell the pollies to stop arsing about and remove rego and stamp duty for cars under a capacity limit. 1600 or maybe even 1300cc. The same for motorbikes under some cap. You'll never keep people out of big cars in this country, but you have a good chance of reducing the kms travelled in them if there is an achievable alternative.

Better still why don't they do something about all these other industrial processes that spew forth smog and other pollutants. I tell you why because they are effectively in bed with them. So they have no choice but to hit the small people like all of us!

What percentage of cars on our roads really fall into the category or environmentally unfriendly? Maybe Julia can tell us how much energy goes into making the new cars, and then let's see if it offsets what the clunkers produce.

If the government was really doing stuff for our best interests, they would do somthing like supporting solar energy (or something similar), give someone an incentive to build a solar cell manufacturing plant in Australia and then given us a stimulus grant to install solar or this new technology. That way they boost Oz industry, money says on shore, we reduce emissions and people cry less when the elctricity companies put up their prices. Who know, we may even be able to export the stuff and make more money for the country, imagine that!

As it is, we we dig up iron or ore bauxite, send it overseas and get someone else to make it into cars that get sent back and we buy them again. Then Julia and her chronies want to impose a super mining tax on them. Let's see where that hits us. I'll bet car prices go up, but hey Julia doesn't care coz we buy her cars for her.

She may also lmove to Kirribilli house soon, and I'll bet she doesn't pay the lectricity bill theer either!

Nuff said.

Oh yeah, and if they bring in the cash for clunker scheme, who will oversee it? Maybe an aging rock star with a questionable political track record? Hmmmmm that sounds like a winning recipe.

Mr. Garret, stick to singing, at least you were reasonsbaly good at that......

He was a better singer than he was a dancer!

The UK's CO2 tax on new cars has been in place since the late 1990s. A sliding scale of tax is worked out, depending on how much CO2 that model of new car emits. They have adjusted the categories and amounts of tax a few times over the years, but for 2010/11 the categories are:

2010 - 2011 Car Tax Bands (diesel and petrol)

Band A: CO2 (g/km) 255 g/km
1st year £0 Std rate £0

Band B: 101-110 g/km
1st year £0 Std rate £20

Band C: 111-120 g/km
1st year £0 Std rate £30

Band D: 121-130 g/km
1st year £0 Std rate £90

Band E: 131-140 g/km
1st year £110 Std rate £110

Band F: 141-150 g/km
1st year £125 Std rate £125

Band G: 151-165 g/km
1st year £155 Std rate £155

Band H: 166-175 g/km
1st year £250 Std rate £180

Band I: 176-185 g/km
1st year £300 Std rate £200

Band J: 186-200 g/km
1st year £435 Std rate £235

Band K: 201-225 g/km
1st year £550 Std rate £245

Band L: 226-255 g/km
1st year £750 Std rate £425

Band M: >255 g/km
1st year £950 Std rate £435

There are two Volkswagens in the lowest category, the two and four-door versions of the Polo BlueMotion. Because they emit less than 100g per km, they pay zero CO2 tax. At the other extreme are cars like VW Touaregs, Hummers, most other big SUVs, Ferraris and Bentleys. For Band M you therefore pay (at today's exchange rate of 0.584) $1,626 CO2 tax in the first year (on top of everything else), and $745 extra every year after that. So you can buy a big car if you want - but you pay for it.

This applies to NEW cars - not old classics - it's not retrospective.

Browse the categories, and see what some models of cars in the UK must pay, here: http://www.carpages.co.uk/co2/ 

Since you've brought up road tax Phil, I'd just like to point something out. Taking an example from the UK, let's say you want a 3 door Polo to be as economical as possible. You have the choice of the 1.2 Petrol or the 1.2 Bluemotion diesel.

The petrol engined car is estimated to use an extra 3 pence per mile in fuel, and costs 90 quid a year in CO2 tax, compared to the tax-free Bluemotion. But the Bluemotion costs an extra 4,700 pounds to buy new.

So, assuming equal insurance and servicing costs (although the diesel would be more expensive to service), how long does it take to get your 4700 quid back? If you assume an annual use of 10,000 miles, the extra fuel and road tax costs 390 pounds per year for the petrol, meaning that the diesel will make your investment back in just over 12 years. Very few people keep a car that long, and the added costs of diesel servicing would probably stretch the payback period out to 15 years or more, which is virtually the entire life of the car. If you're paying extra interest on a loan amount for the additional cost of the car, then the payback period is even longer. As much as 'saving the planet' is a lofty goal, it just doesn't make economic sense, even with the UK's stratospheric fuel prices. Here in Australia where petrol is about half the price, super-efficient cars simply aren't economical.

For the ultimate local example, the RAA calculated that the Ford Fiesta 1.6l petrol costs $125.87 per week to run, compared to the Econetic diesel version at $146.33 per week. The Econetic diesel is cheaper on fuel and tyres, but the extra $9256 premium on the showroom pricetag takes it's toll through more than $21/week of added depreciation and $7/week of extra loan interest, based on the RAA calculations.

Similarly, the Prius is over $50/week more expensive than a Corolla and the Honda Civic Hybrid is $24/week more expensive than the petrol Civic.

http://www.raa.com.au/page.aspx?TerID=651 

Of course you would need to factor in a higher resale price for when you dispose of it but it would need to be a bloody lot higher to make it worthwhile $ wise.

Yes you make some good points, and I think it shows that (as usual) Governments might not have thought the whole thing through. I did notice that the taxes from A to M don't go up in a linear sort of way. A to D have no up-front costs and very little between them on a yearly basis, then from E on it starts to mount up.

I guess in practical terms, you aren't really paying that much more to drive a Band B, or C, than the top Band A, and the cars in B and C are the more mainstream models rather than the expensive supergreen BlueMotion-style cars. Therefore 90% of people would go for the normal 1.2 Polo and live with paying a few extra quid each year rather than fork out extra for the Bluemotion.

And your point about Australia is spot on. We have zero chance of getting the Bluemotion here as its extra cost wouldn't cover its extra fuel economy. Ford does sell the EcoNetric Fiesta here, almost as green as the BlueMotion, but I bet they don't sell many.

Now that the Greens are in coalition with Labor, and the Tasmanian independent has also gone with them, I reckon they will start proposing something like the UK scheme in the not too distant future. These things will never 'save the planet'; they only raise money.

Open up the wallets boys, it will be a free for all TAX to save the reef,rescue the polar bears, save the brooding frog.
Can anyone tell me the exact amount of carbon we (australia) add to the carbon footprint of the planet. Last figure I saw was 1.5% is the correct.

The american cash for clunkers removed a lot of older cars from the roads,but a lot more people are stuck with loans that they didn't need because they were conned about it being enviromental.