I find this to be absolutely irresponsible. I'm sure most everyone has seen the goofy dodge commercials proclaiming "I can drive whatever dumb and unnecessary vehicle I want now for three years at 2.99/gallon gas. Why you ask? Because dodge is desperate and I'm a dumbass." (paraphrased ) I'm reminded of the whole mpg/emissions requirements levied in the late 80s and early 90s. The joke at the time was that while Japanese car makers got their engineers to start redesigning to meet the new spec, American auto manufactureres readied their lawyers to fight the legislation - dooming themselves to playing catch-up for the next 20 years+. Seems again that these morons are fighting a losing battle, and poorly at that. Tim Shriver wrote the following in an essay: and Thomas Friedman made the astute analogy that this program was the "moral equivalent of Phillip Morris discounting cigarettes for pre-teen buyers". I agree with this assessment. And it ties in nicely with the previous discussion on this board regarding tax plans under Obama or McCain and my assertion that the problem is not the progressive tax system, but people too stupid to realize how to manage their money frugally. I found the latest editorial from David Brooks quite interesting in this regard. He writes: Anyone have a different take?
That it's a marketing ploy that's not nearly as good a deal as some are convinced. My uncle came out of retirement to sell Dodges for a while, and he said that if you take the deal, you give up thousands of dollars in rebates. His claim is that you would have to drive an awful lot, or gas prices would have to really increase further to come out ahead by taking the deal. And even then, you're stuck driving a Dodge. (Kidding. Before gas prices headed north, I was looking at used Chargers.)
I always thought it was fishy in a sense that does Chrysler know something we don't? Is gas going to be above $2.99/gallon forever now? What happens when it drops below $2.99, if it ever does again? I never thought about it the way it is portrayed in the original post but those are some good points.
It sounds like much ado about nothing. If I understand the program, I think it only covers the first 12,000 miles of driving in each of the 3 years. Assume 20 miles to the gallon. At current gas prices, you save about $600/year. Regardless, so what? I doubt this will prevent Chrysler from designing more fuel efficient cars.. Why is it so awful for Chrysler to offer this program? Folks are going to buy cars. Anyone that does their homework should realize this isn't that great of a deal. People have differing opinions about the quality of cars. I'd rather have a $2000 rebate.
Well of course that's the case. My point was more in regard to the ideology that would make such an incredibly stupid purchase seem viable.
BTW, I read a news article the other day that the deal hasn't been utilized by many buyers as Chrysler is hurting more than the other automobile companies.
Because it's only further feeding the root cause of the whole problem - people buying wasteful and unnecesary items. It's become a common refrain that gas prices are hurting the "working" american. (I hate that term). I'd argue it's not gas prices, but a general lack of knowledge regarding how to manage one's money. What chrysler is doing is milking this idiocy, while simultaneously prolonging and worsening the inevitable crash. If I was a shareholder I'd be furious that the focus was not on getting out of the "stupidly-huge-vehicle" market. Instead, Chrysler has opted to milk what Dilbert creator Scott Adams calls the "stupid poor". Scott correctly predicts that marketing to this group will lead to your downfall - they cannot sustain a business model indefinitely, even with the American preference for over-indulgence-on-credit.
So if Ford (or GM, or Toyota, or whoever) offers a $2500 rebate, is that a bad thing as well? A rebate by any other name is still a rebate. I highly doubt too many folks are sitting around thinking that if they go out and spend $15000 dollars they can save a buck a gallon. If folks are looking for a new car, it's simply a marketing stunt.
The difference between your rebate argument and Chrysler's 2.99/gallon program is that a rebate can apply to any situation whereas this gas deal is designed solely for an antiquated business model centered around stupidly huge vehicles. It's not like Honda needs to advocate a 2.99/gallon deal for their hybrids... Yes, it's a marketing stunt (and a stupid one - see weslinder's post). But it's a stunt that champions exactly what Tim Shriver laments in my original post. Stubborn stupidity is not a virtue.
This one is a little worse because it provides an incentive not only to purchase a less efficient car than you might otherwise, but also to use more fuel once you have the car.
To each his own. I just think you guys are reading way too much into this. Since the gas savings is capped at 12,000 miles you are almost "encouraged" to drive less. Also, you can opt for a rebate in lieu of the gas savings which will probably be a better deal. Ford is currently offering a $4000 rebate on an Explorer. Is that a bad thing?
I understand the sentiment, but these auto manufacturers have to get rid of the vehicles currently on the lot. this doesn't prevent them from changing strategy going forward
I am not sure if there are still any left. But there use to be gas banks, where you buy gas at today's price and in the future you get to refill for free for the amount you purchased. If anyone still have 1.99 gas left man!
Sounds fine to me as a short-term strategy if they are also changing their long-term strategy for future years. I can see it being an effective marketing tool and they need short-term cash to live to see another day. I'd be more interested to hear what they will do long-term to react to the change in buyer habits resulting from high fuel prices. If this is it, they're doomed anyway.
The card provides an incentive to drive more up until 12,000 miles, at which point it stops having an effect. There's no way it encourages you to drive less. That's why this is worse for the environment than the rebate on an Explorer (which is itself bad for the environment). I think it would be funny for the gov't to levy a $1/gallon tax on gas purchased with such a card.
Does this mean that you think car companies should encourage people to NOT buy their product? I seriously doubt that this has any impact on manufacturers' developing more fuel efficient cars. Incidentally, I think the average household drives more than 12,000 miles annually.
