I had written a long comment but it got deleted before I could post but Basically...the AP is sensationalizing the govt numbers. They use the term "swap" to say more swaps were for the F-150 than anything else, meaning straight up, model for model. Well duh. Per the program rules you couldn't trade a Camry for a Camry!
The fact is avg MPG went up 9.2 mpg per transaction.
8200 F-150 "swaps" vs 700,000+ transactions.
100,000 more cars bought than trucks (which included light CUVs like Escape).
The AP should print a retraction and apologize for sensationalizing something that was mentioned from the earliest reporting of the program. #cashforclunkers
@Rabbi Dave: Indeed, the story can't see the forest for a handful of truck swaps. Towards the end: The data show the average fuel economy was 15.8 mpg for the old vehicles and 24.9 for the new ones. Overall, the program worked extremely well as a stimulus measure and environmental benefit; anyone who think the economy didn't need stimulus is pretty divorced from reality.
And people's fake concern about the pollution from all that manufacturing is unwarranted. 11 tons CO2 to manufacture a car vs. avoiding 19 lbs CO2 for every gallon not burned saves tons of CO2 overall. To increase the fuel economy of the US fleet you have to swap old cars for new, unless you're proposing engine swaps, EV conversions, and adding lightness. #cashforclunkers
@skierpage: How exactly does one add lightness... helium or hydrogen in the tires?
Just because the average fuel economy went up doesn't mean that it's all good. I'm not just talking about saving the penguins and tree hugging. I'm talking about my money that went to other people and I got zero benefit because I own a car that wasn't "clunkery" enough.
We have no idea how these cars will be used. Daily drivers, secondary cars, bought it just to have? People could drag whatever they wanted in irregardless of whether they drove it. They could be driving a 30+MPG appliance (Corolla) daily, but traded in an old Cadillic Fleetwood that used to be their grandpa's for another 30+MPG appliance. The government just threw our money out the window.
In my father-in-law's case there is a net loss in CO2 emissions. He traded in a full size pickup that hadn't run in 2 years and was barely worth scrap metal cost. Now that he has a new shiny pickup, he drives it constantly and stopped driving his car, which gets 50% better MPG.
@torreys71004: None of what you say refutes what I said. This was a stimulus program that increased the fuel efficiency of the US auto fleet. Give us your better proposal. A gas tax would get people driving less (I support one phased in over a long period), but is probably not a good idea in an economic downturn. #cashforclunkers
Building a new, mid-sized car apparently uses up 6.9 tonnes of CO2 (Ford numbers) or up to 14 tonnes (Toyota's numbers). If one assumes the average 10.5 tonnes (presumably also averaging SUVs and compacts) we could expect some savings in about four years time. For now, the environment is decidedly worse off, but the median age of US cars is 8.9 years. The total remaining savings would be 9.5 million tons of CO2, equivalent to 12 hours and 45 minutes of total US CO2 emissions.
So that, and an unnatural blip in car sales, is what your $3 billion bought you. #cashforclunkers
If I had the energy, I would dig up all of my old posts filled with doubt and despair and say "told you so".
The article says that 1.87 million tons of CO2 will be saved yearly (sounds more impressive than it is). Could someone find out approximately how much CO2 is released by building the 677,081 new vehicles involved? Then we'll find out if any possible reduction was worth $3 billion, or if they could have been better spent elsewhere. #cashforclunkers
In response to the fact that Cash for Clunkers wasn't as good for the Earth as was originally thought, I will cut my hair, wear black all through the rest of the year, and change my cell ringtone to a funeral dirge in order to mourn the passing of the Maseratis, the TVR 280i, the Buick GNX, the Bentley Continental R, the Astons, the Taurus SHOs, the LaForzas, the rest of the enthusiast-type cars, and even the Zimmers and Excaliburs, ugly things that they are. Yes, really. I will. #cashforclunkers
I was for the Cash For Clunkers program. Get rid of old crappy cars-- you know, Tauruses and minivans and other stuff I don't like-- and stimulate the economy. It seems like a clumsy, ham-fisted way to prop up the Big Three and reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but I assumed it was better than nothing.
Then, today, I walked past a car dealership with a bunch of condemned clunkers waiting in the side lot. There was a late '80s Mustang with a 5.0 and a five-speed, and-- dear God, no! a '93 Jaguar XJS convertible.
Is there a list of all the trade-ins and thier ranking or trade-in counts? Not just a top-ten? Can we see exactly how many Alfa Romeo Milanos were traded in, or Peugeot 505 or LaForzas, for instance?
C4C... what a friggin' joke.
With the billions of dollars we just put in the pockets of the Big 3, this would have been a prime opportunity to boost their sales and maybe start paying the taxpayers back. There should have been a stipulation that the C4C allowances HAD to be spent on a Big 3 lot.
They also should have based the rebate off of NADA value of the cars traded in, not to exceed $4,500. Giving someone $4,500 for a car that blue books at $2k is just another example of our gov't throwing away money.
@black_bullitt: 1: It's not legal for us to specify the manufacturer of the cars purchased, and if we specified based on nationality (US/Canada/Mexico only) the charts would be nearly the same.
2: If the government had only offered Blue Book value, most folks would have traded in or private-sold their old car. Which might have been a better idea, but wouldn't have made either side happy (no environmental benefit, many old cars are scrapped anyway, government still subsidizing new car sales).
Can we get some Abawkpramie (Spelling help please) updates. That and the European schemes should get a little more press, as the Yurpeans were/are reporting massive increases in some markets.
11/05/09
The fact is avg MPG went up 9.2 mpg per transaction.
8200 F-150 "swaps" vs 700,000+ transactions.
100,000 more cars bought than trucks (which included light CUVs like Escape).
The AP should print a retraction and apologize for sensationalizing something that was mentioned from the earliest reporting of the program. #cashforclunkers
11/05/09
And people's fake concern about the pollution from all that manufacturing is unwarranted. 11 tons CO2 to manufacture a car vs. avoiding 19 lbs CO2 for every gallon not burned saves tons of CO2 overall. To increase the fuel economy of the US fleet you have to swap old cars for new, unless you're proposing engine swaps, EV conversions, and adding lightness. #cashforclunkers
11/06/09
Just because the average fuel economy went up doesn't mean that it's all good. I'm not just talking about saving the penguins and tree hugging. I'm talking about my money that went to other people and I got zero benefit because I own a car that wasn't "clunkery" enough.
We have no idea how these cars will be used. Daily drivers, secondary cars, bought it just to have? People could drag whatever they wanted in irregardless of whether they drove it. They could be driving a 30+MPG appliance (Corolla) daily, but traded in an old Cadillic Fleetwood that used to be their grandpa's for another 30+MPG appliance. The government just threw our money out the window.
In my father-in-law's case there is a net loss in CO2 emissions. He traded in a full size pickup that hadn't run in 2 years and was barely worth scrap metal cost. Now that he has a new shiny pickup, he drives it constantly and stopped driving his car, which gets 50% better MPG.
11/06/09
11/05/09
Largesse! Praise be to the Emperor for our slightly more fuel efficient vehicles! #cashforclunkers
11/05/09
So that, and an unnatural blip in car sales, is what your $3 billion bought you. #cashforclunkers
11/05/09
11/05/09
The Elantra is perfect for NYC. Don't care about the car, don't care about the dings. Still don't want. #cashforclunkers
11/05/09
The article says that 1.87 million tons of CO2 will be saved yearly (sounds more impressive than it is). Could someone find out approximately how much CO2 is released by building the 677,081 new vehicles involved? Then we'll find out if any possible reduction was worth $3 billion, or if they could have been better spent elsewhere. #cashforclunkers
11/05/09
11/05/09
Actually, I did. There's always some ruse to take my money and throw it at someone else. #cashforclunkers
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
And Godspeed, John R. Cash.
11/05/09
08/26/09
Then, today, I walked past a car dealership with a bunch of condemned clunkers waiting in the side lot. There was a late '80s Mustang with a 5.0 and a five-speed, and-- dear God, no! a '93 Jaguar XJS convertible.
I'm just glad the slaughter has ended.
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09
With the billions of dollars we just put in the pockets of the Big 3, this would have been a prime opportunity to boost their sales and maybe start paying the taxpayers back. There should have been a stipulation that the C4C allowances HAD to be spent on a Big 3 lot.
They also should have based the rebate off of NADA value of the cars traded in, not to exceed $4,500. Giving someone $4,500 for a car that blue books at $2k is just another example of our gov't throwing away money.
My $0.02
08/26/09
2: If the government had only offered Blue Book value, most folks would have traded in or private-sold their old car. Which might have been a better idea, but wouldn't have made either side happy (no environmental benefit, many old cars are scrapped anyway, government still subsidizing new car sales).
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09