Exotic Clunkers also got the Crunch Under C4C

That's because it's BS. Some of the cars on that list don't even qualify. I dare you: go ahead and look for the 2006 350Z Roadster on cars.gov.

 

The is completely BS, the engine of the Bentley worths more than $4500 by itself.
It is false that 37 less than one year model car are junked because you must own and insured the car for more than one year.

 

If someone turned in a car worth more than $4500, for $4500, then they are the clunker. Nobody made people turn in anything. If it was worth more than $4500, they should have sold it privately.

 

Looks like you didn't go to the source (cars.gov) and realize that some lazy journalist decided to write a BS "story" about the exotics supposedly on the list. That "journalist" most likely basically looked at the same list (link below) and wrote a (complete BS) narrative involving a person who has not actually been tracked down and talked to in real life.

The actual list of trade-ins:
http://www.cars.gov/files/official-information/trade-in-vehicles.pdf

 

I agree with the comments (especially the one about any vehicle less than a year old not qualifying) but when it comes to things like exotic Mercedes, if someone trashes one it can basically have a negative value (especially with a blown engine or transmission). The cost to repair an AMG (or even my old '91 560SEL, for that matter) far exceeds the value of a very nice one at wholesale. I've seen some late model Bentleys and Mercedes that were absolutely trashed - some people definitely have more disposable income than sense.

What I'd like to see is the same list except of the cars that were purchased with these clunkers. There's a lot of talk that the majority of the sales were "foreign." It would be interesting to see the real numbers.

Still, it was nothing but a sensationalist fluff piece and not journalism, so why am I bothering to respond?