Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?

4110 messages, Last post on Nov 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Legislation, Truck, Sedan, Wagon, SUV

For questions about how the program works or to discuss program details, please visit our discussion titled, "Cash for Clunkers - Does it Work for You?"

Outline

Messages Page 402 of 412: 1; ...; 399; 400; 401; 402; 403; 404; 405; ...; 412; Prev; Next; Last

#4006 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [hpmctorque] by steve_ HOST Nov 04, 2009 (9:03 pm)
Replying to: hpmctorque (Nov 04, 2009 8:47 pm) The next question I think is whether we do it again next year. My guess is that the votes are there to do it again, at least until the 2012 mid-terms. Boxer may require and get better mpg standards the next time. Replies to this message: gagrice (Nov 04, 2009 10:03 pm) srs_49 (Nov 05, 2009 3:56 am) hpmctorque (Nov 05, 2009 6:17 am) kdhspyder (Nov 05, 2009 7:27 am) plekto (Nov 05, 2009 12:19 pm) ateixeira (Nov 05, 2009 1:05 pm) and 2 more... kdhspyder (Nov 05, 2009 7:23 am) dodgeman07 (Nov 05, 2009 1:56 pm) ateixeira (Nov 05, 2009 2:45 pm) and 9 more...
#4007 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [steve_] by gagrice Nov 04, 2009 (10:03 pm)
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 04, 2009 9:03 pm) If Boxer and the Greens get their way the program will flop. $4500 for a junker is what really sold the program. And a lot of those Explorers were used to purchase a slightly smaller Escape SUV. The green dreams of cutting the oil usage by a large margin just did not happen. I would guess with a new car to drive getting 10 MPG better, the average person will end up using more gas than they did with a old POC they hated to drive anyway. It was great for the opportunist with cash to spare. If they do it again they should raise the anti up to $5500 for a 15 MPG improvement. Without the goofy rules about not trading a large PU for a small car. Replies to this message: srs_49 (Nov 05, 2009 3:56 am) hpmctorque (Nov 05, 2009 6:17 am) kdhspyder (Nov 05, 2009 7:27 am) plekto (Nov 05, 2009 12:19 pm) ateixeira (Nov 05, 2009 1:05 pm) andre1969 (Nov 06, 2009 5:36 am) and 1 more...
#4008 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [kyfdx] by newdavidq Nov 05, 2009 (3:46 am)
Replying to: kyfdx (Nov 04, 2009 4:48 pm) The point of the article was simply to present some information about the program and in that I think they succeeded. I guess you were referring to my point that the program was not a good expenditure of taxpayer money. I think the bottom line on that one is if you got some direct benefit from the program you might think it was a good idea. Its another example of the government taking a little money from a lot of people (read: taxpayers) and directing it to a select few (selected by politicians). Its easy to dismiss 14000 fraudulent transactions as "okay" because they were only 2% of the total (there were probably a lot more). If you earned $60K a year would you be so casual about getting $1200 stolen from you? BONUS Learned that Edmunds' CEO is one of the good guys.
#4009 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [gagrice] by srs_49 Nov 05, 2009 (3:56 am)
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 04, 2009 10:03 pm) If they do it again they should raise the anti up to $5500 for a 15 MPG improvement. Without the goofy rules about not trading a large PU for a small car. That rule never did make any sense, except from the point of view of the D3 who were having trouble getting rid of their new PU trucks and SUVs. Prohibiting the PU-for-small-car trade essentially forced anyone for a clunker F-250 to buy another big vehicle.
#4010 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [gagrice] by hpmctorque Nov 05, 2009 (6:17 am)
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 04, 2009 10:03 pm) How about not requiring a trade-in? I would prefer no second round, but if there's going to be one anyway, then the single change that I would favor most would be deleting the trade-in requirement, especially if its engine is to be destroyed. As for the environmental concerns, many people are choosing more economical vehicles than just a few years ago, and in multiple vehicle families the newest, most economical vehicles are frequently the ones that are driven the most.
#4011 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [newdavidq] by kdhspyder Nov 05, 2009 (7:04 am)
Replying to: newdavidq (Nov 04, 2009 2:30 pm) Because the writer is just that a writer, not part of the industry and apparently not very astute when it comes to math, the whole article is faulty. His premise is that 'OMG a truck owner traded a truck for a truck. Why wasn't this truck owner forced to buy something really efficient like a Prius?' Well that would be better but trading clunker truck for new truck is better than almost any other similar trade up. First this bill was formed and negotiated and structured for the benefit of the auto industry, the entire auto industry. Primarily it helped the dealers, their workers and their suppliers. Secondarily it helped the vehicle makers, their workers and their suppliers. Trucks are a huge part of the auto industry, especially the product lineups of the detroiters. So what!! Is it a sin to stimulate truck sales? Apparently in the writer's mind it is. But this is where the writers lack of knowledge about this program and his apparent lack of math skills ruins his argumentation. First. He wasn't involved in the program, he's a writer. If he had been involved in the program he would have seen the junk that was being traded in. Mid-90's F150s and Explorers and JGC's were the most popular tradeins. Most were 10-15 years old. All had EPA ratings of 16 mpg or less. However none of these clunks got anywhere near this number if the traders were to be believed. It was more likely that the 13 y.o. F150 with 157K on the clock was barely getting 12 mpg on its best days and 10 mpg or less normally. So this sinner now trades his clunk for a new F150 that must get at least 2 mpg better FE according to the rules; i.e. 18 mpg minimum. However all new vehicles are getting at least this number if not 5-10% higher in real world driving; i.e. 19-20 mpg Here's where the writer, apparently not a math whiz, ruins his whole argumentation. He doesn't understand the math concept of 'harmonic mean'. Essentially you can't do any math calculations using averages. The average FE of two cars, one getting 20 mpg and the other getting 10 mpg, is not 15 mpg!! It's 13.3 mpg. A clunker trader that was getting a daily 12 mpg on his old vehcle used 8.5 gallons to go 100 miles. In his new vehicle he is now getting 19-20 mpg or 5.2 gallons to go 100 miles. That doesn't sound like much until you put it in context. This trader is saving himself and the country 495 gal /yr every time he drives 15000 miles. At $3 a gal that's $1500 he keeps. Which trade-up saves the most fuel for the owner and for the nation? Clunker F150 to new F150..... saves 3.3 gal to go 100 mi driver or 495 gal / 15000 miles driven. '04 Camry I4 to '10 Prius ( 24 mpg vs 50 mpg ).... saves 2.2 gal to go 100 mi or 330 gal / 15000 mi driven '02 Taurus 3.0L to '09 Focus ( 20 mpg vs 27 mpg )....saves 1.3 gal to go 100 mi or 195 gal / 15000 mi driven The ones who do planning at the deepest levels of the government have already decided that the strongest way to get the nation to save fuel for our future use is to get older trucks and SUVs off the roads. Replace them with more efficient vehicles. It's much better for minimizing fuel usage to get a truck owner to kill off his old clunker and get a new one than it is for a Camry owner to trade up to a brand new 2010 Prius getting 50 MPG!! Replies to this message: andre1969 (Nov 05, 2009 7:28 am) gagrice (Nov 05, 2009 7:48 am)
#4012 of 4110 Good news lately... by ateixeira Nov 05, 2009 (7:18 am)
Ford and GM announced profits. Ford stopped burning cash. GM said it's even keeping Opel. Positive side effects of C4C, perhaps?
#4013 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [steve_] by kdhspyder Nov 05, 2009 (7:23 am)
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 04, 2009 9:03 pm) I agree simply because every single congress person has multiple small businesses in his or her district called auto dealerships. These small businesses are the heart of our nation ( or so we are told by the CoC ) and will be the engine that drives the recovery. The dealerships loved the program. They will make their voices heard. Since the apparatus is already in place a once-a-year program like the annual bulk trash pick up in most localities might be an event to look forward to see. [cue: groans throughout the galleries] Replies to this message: dodgeman07 (Nov 05, 2009 1:56 pm) ateixeira (Nov 05, 2009 2:45 pm) dodgeman07 (Nov 05, 2009 2:52 pm) and 8 more...
#4014 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [gagrice] by kdhspyder Nov 05, 2009 (7:27 am)
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 04, 2009 10:03 pm) Yes I concur on that goofy stipulation. I think that was put in there by the detroiters to accomplish exactly what the writer is complaining about. The detroiters wanted old truck owners trading in their trucks for trucks....not cars. But prohibitting the trading of trucks for cars is just dumb.
#4015 of 4110 Re: AP CFC analysis [kdhspyder] by andre1969 Nov 05, 2009 (7:28 am)
Replying to: kdhspyder (Nov 05, 2009 7:04 am) His premise is that 'OMG a truck owner traded a truck for a truck. Why wasn't this truck owner forced to buy something really efficient like a Prius?' Well that would be better but trading clunker truck for new truck is better than almost any other similar trade up. Yeah, that kind of thinking annoys me, too. Heck, if you got me out of my 10 mpg Silverado and into something that only got 15 mpg, over the course of 12,000 miles that would save 400 gallons of fuel. Enough fuel to allow a 30 mpg car to go 12,000 miles. I think people just get too hung up on EPA numbers, when they really need to focus on how many gallons of fuel per year the thing uses. And it's easy to get hung up on those numbers...I've been guilty of it myself. When the current Civic came out, it was rated 30/40, which I thought sounded really impressive. At the time the Corolla was rated at 30/38, but IMO, that 40 mpg just sounded more impressive. But the reality is, I drive locally much more often than I go out on the highway, so it's a moot point. And even if all my driving was pure highway, and presuming I got those numbers, over the course of 12,000 miles, 40 mpg versus 38 saves a whopping 16 gallons (300 versus 316)