Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views 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
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?"
|
Replying to: newdavidq (Nov 04, 2009 2:30 pm) 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!!
|
|
|
Ford and GM announced profits. Ford stopped burning cash. GM said it's even keeping Opel. Positive side effects of C4C, perhaps? |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 04, 2009 9:03 pm) 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]
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 04, 2009 10:03 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Nov 05, 2009 7:04 am) 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) |
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Nov 05, 2009 7:04 am) The flaw in the law did not allow the truck owner to buy a high mileage car for his commute. If the 12 MPG truck was traded for a the 50 MPG Prius the savings over 15k miles would be 950 gallons of gas. I agree that the compromise was to unload a pile of trucks backed up on the car lots. I think you will be hard pressed to get 19 MPG from a Ford F150. Most will buy the 5.4L V8 and get about 14-15 MPG. That will only save about 178 gallons per year. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 04, 2009 10:03 pm) **** The actual Green plan would have been to make it apply only to used vehicles that met the more stringent standard of 10mph and apply it across the board no matter what you were trading in. And it wouldn't have mattered about the MPG, either. You could trade in a 25mpg Civic for a 35mpg Yaris and have been good. That way you really would get people out of trucks and SUVs and into cars. YOu would also re-use older decent condition vehicles instead of wasting resources producing new ones needlessly. The real problem with the entire program was that it didn't let people trade their older vehicles in for certified or similar vehicles and forced you to buy new. Also, it went off of original MPG instead of factoring in age or pollution levels, so my truck for instance got 19mpg officially. Yet I'd have gladly traded it in for a 29mpg used vehicle in a heartbeat. The last time it was smogged as well, it barely passed at nearly 250ppm. A 2-3 year old Civic, for instance, gets closer to 20-30 ppm. So I'm using more gas and polluting more and somehow the program doesn't apply to me... That seems counter-intuitive. Well, it would be if the real goal was to reduce pollution and get older clunkers off the road. Of course, it's clear to anyone that it wasn't. So 3 billion gets flushed down the drain and makes a small blip in the economy.
|
|
|
Replying to: plekto (Nov 05, 2009 12:19 pm) I can see both sides of that argument. On one hand, it's more fair, because it doesn't discriminate against people who bought efficient cars to begin with. OTOH, that Civic would make a good, efficient used car, so why pay to take it out of circulation?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Nov 05, 2009 7:23 am) As with the Home Buyer's credit, expect rules to be "relaxed' somewhat and perhaps a cap on the credit at $3,500. After the 4Q09 sales results are out in Jan10, I expect another C4C bill on the table by February. Me? I'll trade my '06 Lucerne in for 2010 compact sedan that gets 35 mpg hwy if they give me the $3,500. The Lucerne is paid off and I've got cash. No loan here.
|
|
|
Leave it to the guvmint to provide a program which allowed gas hogs to trade up to a NEW gas hog !! HooRay for the GeniSES in ConGreffs !!!! About 1 in 7 of all deals went for vehicles that got 20 mpg or worse. If you think about it, though, 20 mpg really isn’t such a bad rate ... for 1979.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
