Bommy knows best... All hail government efficiency and righteousness. http://www.product-reviews.net/2009/11/05/clunker-pickups-new-analysis/ http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6703126.html According to the latest data, the recent Cash for Clunkers program set up to rid gas guzzling cars from our roads did not do as good a job as first thought. It had been hoped that more fuel-efficient vehicles would take the place of a number of old vehicles, but the new models only have slightly better gas mileage figures. The biggest swap was recorded to be old Ford 150 pickups being traded in for newer models, the old pickups used to get 15 mph whereas the new models achieve 17 mpg, many trucks averaged between 1 to 3 mpg differences, not much in the grand scale of things. The government admitted to spending $562,500 in rebates for new cars that offered worse mileage figures than the old cars being replaced, this was a violation of the requirements of the program. The government is now in the process of investigating the issue. According to the Associated Press, more than 95,000 new vehicles purchased under the program got less than 20mpg. This certainly goes against the intended plan of the program, it seems that the government was not strict enough and should have set stronger guidelines. ----------------------------------------- “If we're looking for the environmental story here, we're going to be disappointed,” said Jeremy Anwyl, chief executive at Edmunds.com, an analyst firm. “It might have started out from the perspective of improving the environment, but it got detoured as a way to stimulate the economy.” Popular high-mileage commuter cars including the Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Toyota Camry and Ford Focus also were among the Top 10 most popular new vehicles bought under the four-week program, with 105,280 of those models sold for a total of about $2 billion. Chris Moss of Smithtown, N.Y., traded in his 1992 white Ford 150 pickup — “it had 5 million miles on it and needed $50,000 in repairs, if you know what I mean” — for a new Chevrolet Malibu hybrid for his wife. When he drove his old truck to the dealership's back lot with the rest of the clunkers, “90 percent of what you saw were old 150s and Explorers,” he said. Moss posted a video on YouTube of his old truck's final day, called “Rust In Peace.” The $3 billion program, known officially as the Car Allowance Rebate System, ran from July 27 to Aug. 25 and generally required that new vehicles get better mileage — at least 22 mpg for cars and either 15 mpg or 18 mpg for trucks depending on class — and that trade-ins get no more than 18 mpg. The trade-ins were required to be destroyed in exchange for either $3,500 or $4,500 rebates. “The value that the customer got for a lot of these vehicles was just a gift, no question,” said Scott Pundt, sales vice president for the Dorschel Group of Rochester, N.Y., the No. 4 dealership in the U.S. with 592 vehicles sold under the program. “We were appraising 220,000-mile vehicles that were really rough, and they were getting $3,500 or $4,500 for them.” Four out of five old cars turned in there exceeded 100,000 miles.
As I understand it, this is against the rules of the problem, which dictated that the swap must include a vehicle that got a certain percentage greater MPG than the "clunker" (something like an upgrade from 12-13MPG must be at least 18-19MPG)... at least that is what the guy at the dealer told me and my dad when we went to trade in his Tahoe. Although I think C4C was a joke of a program, I think this article is incorrect.
Nothing pisses off wingers more than a successful government program. I don't understand why they don't just move to a failed state such as Afghanistan where such things don't trouble them. Or post-Katrina New Orleans. Lack of government = teh r0xx0r2
Sam, so you're a big supporter of the government paying people to borrow money on a rapidly depreciating asset?
How can you not own a vehicle that at least gets 20mpg highway mileage? Hell, even most sports cars can achieve that. Unless you run a farm or are a freight hauler why are you driving cars that only get 15mpg?
Nope, the article is correct: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2009/07/68495326/1 "If a clunker car is traded in for a new car that achieves 4 to 9 miles per gallon better fuel economy, the credit is $3,500. If it gets 10 mpg more, the credit is $4,500. If you're trading in an SUV or pickup and want to buy another similar vehicle, you get $3,500 if it there's only a 1 mpg improvement. If there's a 2 or more mpg improvement, you get $4,500."
The new car you're buying must get at least 22 mpg, a new SUV or small truck must be rated at least 18 mpg and there's no minimum when you're buying an extra-large work truck or van. So how does this jive with being able to trade in a 15MPG F-150 for a 17MPG F-150? Does it qualify as an "extra large work truck"? I doubt it did/should.
While I agree with the sentiment, calling cash for clunkers "successful" is kind of like calling the rockets last game "exciting". They're both true statements technically, but they kind of ignore the larger element.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to rhadamanthus again. Gotta love Congress watering down the spirit of legislation with excrement and calling it "compromise".
Why was it unsucessful? It had two goals, 1) stimulate auto purchasing (obviously successful) and 2) put more fuel efficient cars on the road both in the short term and long term. Number 2 also appears to have been accomplished. Our good buddy Southern Select-ively edited the article excerpt to exclude the fact the 15 for 17 mpg swap appears to be a statistical outlier - the average MPG trade up was substantial: The data show the average fuel economy was 15.8 mpg for the old vehicles and 24.9 for the new ones. Sure, a fair number of people exploited the loophole, but so what? This happens with every government initiative - does that mean that they are all net bad? I disagree. I mean looking at the article, it's talking about examples of questionable trade-in's numbering in the 100's or even less. I'm not going to do the math, but of the ~700,000 or so trade-in's, that's a pretty low %. And as for the argument that it just acclerated car purchases that would have been made anyway - that's kind of the point, the economy needed a shot now, not later when things are going better. (and arguably, would not have happened at all if they did not.)
I didn't realize toyota was a struggling company. The whole premise behind the C4C program was to get old polluting clunkers off the road and secondly, boost the car industry. With the program going broke just after a week, that should have signaled a serious problem, but instead, it was hailed as an overwhelming success. Only democrats would consider wasting money so quickly as a success. 40% of the money went to American companies. FAIL. Toyota and Honda, while not impervious to the economy but certainly doing better than GM and Chrysler, sold 33% of the program AND most of theirs were fuel efficient vehicles. We threw billions to prop up failed car industry and then threw in a couple billion more to encourage people to support these failed companies. Americans gave the finger instead, bought foreign and if they did buy American, they tended to buy more gas guzzlers. But all of that doesn't matter.... we managed to spend all the money. All I know is Im voting for Obama in 2012 because he saved my job at the car factory, gave me a $4500 credit to buy a car and another $6000 to sell my house and buy a new one.
Could you please tell me how you account for foreign-made American vehicles (such as a GM car made in mexico) vs. american-made foreign vehicles (a toyota made in kentucky) in these statistics? Thanks in advance! I'm expecting great things here. Then we get get on to other things, like dealership profit margins, multiplier effects, etc - all well within your range of expertise, I'm sure...
Under your faulty logic, cost is not a consideration in determining whether something is successful or not. Oops.
The wording seems to ignore the "normal" pick up truck. It specifically mentions small and extra large. I'd consider a Ford Ranger to be small, so every other Ford pickup must fall into the extra large category.
Defense spending costs us trillions per annum, yet doesn't make us any money. Under your faulty logic, it's the worst investment in history. Why is this statement faulty?
