Does anyone know the full details about this new law, or where I can find the full explanation?  If what I've read is correct, I could trade in my '97 Dodge Ram on an '09 Corvette and get $3500!!  I can't see any way I would get that much $ for it otherwise?  According to a site I checked, the truck gets an average of 13 mpg rating (that's high) and the Vette gets 18.  What I saw said that 4mpg or greater gets you $3500, 10mpg or greater difference between new and old gets you $4500.

The original bill held that the trade-in vehicle would be crushed...period...no parts salvage, nada...
The "Cash-for-Clunkers" bill is BAD for the old/vintage/antique car hobby, no matter HOW they word it.
I haven't gotten thru all of the "newest" version that passed, but it is a little better than originally planned....it's still not good for us, as enthusiasts, or for the repair business....

I had thought I heard something about a mileage limit on the vehicle being turned in to be crushed.  Also, it sounds like I could pull parts off of the truck as long as it still runs.  With 263K miles, one part I know I want would be the speedometer/odometer!!

Man I hate that I'm in the market for a clunker too..... but not for $3500.00.

Shesh GW (Good Will) is gonna have a hard time competing with that!

This kind of stuff is starting to pi** me off!!

The "law" also limits the "clunkers" to 1984 and up.  Last i had heard the car had to be scrapped and couldn't be parted out, but then again my local news agency probably doesn't think this line of inquiry is news-worthy enough for their audience.  I know Haggerty sent out something a while back on this but i have a bad case of CRS so I could be wrong.

It's been ing me off for several years now....
Dallas has also been trying for several years to enact city ordinances concerning how many vehicles you can own, and where you can store them. Even if you park the car in the back yard, with a 10' wood fence, if it is visible to anyone, they can haul it off with NO notification. They're still attempting to shove this one down our throats.
The clunker bill was originally intended to get the older cars(ours!!!) off the road, siting excessive emissions/safety concerns. What they failed to recognize was the fact that most of the cars like ours, and others, were rarely driven on a daily basis, are more well kept than most NEW cars are, and are always worth more than the silly "vouchers" they promise for trading them in.... Friggin politicians....(and the insurance yeah-whos)....

I have a clunker, 1996 Ford Aerostar thats worth about $500 which I had bought new. Still runs good but beat up a bit from my kids and Julia. I though about taking advantage of the bill but even at a $4500 savings I still can't justify spending $30K plus on a new car. I perfer to buy a 2 to 3 year old, low mileage car so I don't take the big depreciation hit. So I guess the clunker will be our winter beater and back-up vehicle.

Suncountry has hit it on the head, I think.  Feds want us to trade in our clunkers (bought and paid for) for $4500, but stipulate that we must purchase a new car, and new car prices for anything that is worth purchasing are outrageous!  Now, if they said trade in your clunker for a quality used vehicle that gets better than 22 MPG, then I could see being able to do that.  Not only would the payments be a lot less than for a new car, but I might even be able to scrape up the extra cash to cover the difference and remain with no car payment.  You would think after the debacle that has caused our current recession that the Feds would not want a bunch of people overextending their credit again so soon.  I just don't get it, period.  I would rather drive my clunker 12-15 MPG vehicle than be saddled with a monthly payment.  I win out in the long run since I only drive about 20 miles a day.