How successful is the cash for clunkers so far?

[zoiks]

It's sad to see them kill all those cars but I think it had to be done.

 

[LTC8K6]

Wait and see how many F-150's were bought. 😀

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: zoiks
It's sad to see them kill all those cars but I think it had to be done.

Yeah. I think the whole point is to get and keep such cars off the road (even though many gas guzzlers are still sold all the time). If you don't get rid of it, then there's a chance it could be used again.

Either way, the government is paying for it...well, with our tax dollars, of course (so you might as well use it). My dad is making roughly $3000 more with this program than he would have trying to trade the car in.

If you don't like that they're destroying a car, then don't do it. Otherwise, I say good riddance to cars that get terrible gas mileage.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: zoiks
It's sad to see them kill all those cars but I think it had to be done.

Yeah. I think the whole point is to get and keep such cars off the road (even though many gas guzzlers are still sold all the time). If you don't get rid of it, then there's a chance it could be used again.

Either way, the government is paying for it...well, with our tax dollars, of course (so you might as well use it). My dad is making roughly $3000 more with this program than he would have trying to trade the car in.

If you don't like that they're destroying a car, then don't do it. Otherwise, I say good riddance to cars that get terrible gas mileage.

So in order to save a few gallons of gas per year, you're going to destroy one that runs?

Do you have any idea what the energy required to build a new car is?

I'm willing to bet that destroying a perfectly good used car to replace it with a brand new one that gets a few more miles per gallon is actually an ecological disaster, when looking at total emissions over an autos lifetime, from construction to junkyard. Or do you think building a car is energy and resource free?

 

[marincounty]

This program is garbage. It is rewarding the people that bought vehicles that get lousy mileage, and the smart people that bought better mileage vehicles get nothing.

I am anxiously awaiting the food subsidy program for fat people like me.

 

[Dman877]

Originally posted by: marincounty
This program is garbage. It is rewarding the people that bought vehicles that get lousy mileage, and the smart people that bought better mileage vehicles get nothing.

I am anxiously awaiting the food subsidy program for fat people like me.

Well said. I know a couple people driving around in beaters that would use this but they bought cars in the mid 90's that got mid-high 20's so they get nothing. Their cars probably spew a lot more garbage into the air than newer gas guzzlers too.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: marincounty
This program is garbage. It is rewarding the people that bought vehicles that get lousy mileage, and the smart people that bought better mileage vehicles get nothing.

It's real easy to make this statement... when it can be argued that most people don't buy SUVs or other guzzlers because they never wanted to spend extra money on gas in exchange for practicality or just thought their sports car was cooler to begin with. People made a choice with the guzzlers, and would've lived on with them if this program never came to be. If someone has a 10 year old guzzler they didn't want because it was such a strain, they could've gotten rid of it on their terms long ago. Reward people for poor decisions? You think it was a poor decision, not necessarily them.

This is more a huge sale than a bailout. Bailouts don't make people pay $30k.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap...9/08/03/ap6731539.html

DETROIT -- The federal government's "cash-for-clunkers" program, which turned out to be more successful than automakers dreamed it would be, likely will boost July's auto sales to the highest level of the year when figures are announced Monday.

Sales overall should decline about 16 percent from July of last year, when the economy was much stronger, according to the automotive Web site Edmunds.com. For the first half of the year, U.S. sales were down 35 percent...

All major automakers are expected to report sales drops when compared with July of last year except for Hyundai Motor Co. and its Hyundai and Kia brands, which were expected to ride some new products, clever marketing, incentives and the clunkers program to an 8 percent increase, according to Edmunds.

Hyundai and Kia sales combined could beat Chrysler Group LLC and Nissan Motor Co. ( NSANY - news - people ) in July for the first time, Edmunds said...

---------------------------------------------

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...01087&sid=am1mj6R6tAcg

Four of Top ?Clunkers? Model Purchases Are Foreign

Aug. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Four of the top five models sold so far under the U.S. ?cash for clunkers? program, aimed at boosting the auto industry, are made by foreign automakers, according to Transportation Department data.

Ford Motor Co.?s Focus was the top seller, followed by Toyota Motor Corp.?s Corolla, Honda Motor Co.?s Civic and Toyota?s Prius and Camry, data from the department showed today.

...

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.edmunds.com/cash-fo...-car-candidates.html#h

List of cars you can buy which seems to have a lot of gas guzzlers included...

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: zoiks
It's sad to see them kill all those cars but I think it had to be done.

Yeah. I think the whole point is to get and keep such cars off the road (even though many gas guzzlers are still sold all the time). If you don't get rid of it, then there's a chance it could be used again.

Either way, the government is paying for it...well, with our tax dollars, of course (so you might as well use it). My dad is making roughly $3000 more with this program than he would have trying to trade the car in.

If you don't like that they're destroying a car, then don't do it. Otherwise, I say good riddance to cars that get terrible gas mileage.

So in order to save a few gallons of gas per year, you're going to destroy one that runs?

Do you have any idea what the energy required to build a new car is?

I'm willing to bet that destroying a perfectly good used car to replace it with a brand new one that gets a few more miles per gallon is actually an ecological disaster, when looking at total emissions over an autos lifetime, from construction to junkyard. Or do you think building a car is energy and resource free?

The main benefit is that this is bringing much needed stimulus to the economy. It's also to change peoples habits of relying on big SUV's and other fuel hungry vehicles. Chances are that in the long run this will prove to be overall beneficial for the environment and for people as they'll be using less gas.
I think its a necessary evil. Sad but necessary.

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: marincounty
This program is garbage. It is rewarding the people that bought vehicles that get lousy mileage, and the smart people that bought better mileage vehicles get nothing.

I am anxiously awaiting the food subsidy program for fat people like me.

The program wasn't really aimed towards any target audience. Sorry if you feel that way however.

 

[LTC8K6]

The list of vehicles you can buy under the program is loaded with fuel hungry vehicles, actually.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: zoiks
It's sad to see them kill all those cars but I think it had to be done.

Yeah. I think the whole point is to get and keep such cars off the road (even though many gas guzzlers are still sold all the time). If you don't get rid of it, then there's a chance it could be used again.

Either way, the government is paying for it...well, with our tax dollars, of course (so you might as well use it). My dad is making roughly $3000 more with this program than he would have trying to trade the car in.

If you don't like that they're destroying a car, then don't do it. Otherwise, I say good riddance to cars that get terrible gas mileage.

So in order to save a few gallons of gas per year, you're going to destroy one that runs?

Do you have any idea what the energy required to build a new car is?

I'm willing to bet that destroying a perfectly good used car to replace it with a brand new one that gets a few more miles per gallon is actually an ecological disaster, when looking at total emissions over an autos lifetime, from construction to junkyard. Or do you think building a car is energy and resource free?

The main benefit is that this is bringing much needed stimulus to the economy. It's also to change peoples habits of relying on big SUV's and other fuel hungry vehicles. Chances are that in the long run this will prove to be overall beneficial for the environment and for people as they'll be using less gas.
I think its a necessary evil. Sad but necessary.

People can trade in a relatively recent truck for a brand new truck.

404 Savings not found

Also, it is creating current productivity by destroying previous productivity. You don't understand wealth, do you?

 

[thescreensavers]

Yea technically if you had an 09 that got 15 combined then its a clunker! lol But its has more value then 4500 bucks I am willing to bet so why do it.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
The list of vehicles you can buy under the program is loaded with fuel hungry vehicles, actually.

The Ten Most Traded-In Vehicles
1. Ford Explorer 4WD
2. Ford F-150 2WD
3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD
4. Jeep Cherokee 4WD
5. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan 2WD
6. Chevrolet Blazer 4WD
7. Ford Explorer 2WD
8. Ford F-150 Pickup 4WD
9. Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2WD
10. Ford Windstar FWD Van

The Ten Most Purchased Vehicles
1. Ford Focus
2. Toyota Corolla
3. Honda Civic
4. Toyota Prius
5. Toyota Camry
6. Ford Escape FWD
7. Hyundai Elantra
8. Dodge Caliber
9. Honda Fit
10. Chevrolet Cobalt

http://jalopnik.com/5329973/te...-cars-updated/gallery/

Domestic sales marketshare is going up, average mpg increase is 9.4. Say what you will about new deal type program, but cash for clunkers works for it's intended mission.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/0...r-clunkers-car-nearly/

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: zoiks
It's sad to see them kill all those cars but I think it had to be done.

Yeah. I think the whole point is to get and keep such cars off the road (even though many gas guzzlers are still sold all the time). If you don't get rid of it, then there's a chance it could be used again.

Either way, the government is paying for it...well, with our tax dollars, of course (so you might as well use it). My dad is making roughly $3000 more with this program than he would have trying to trade the car in.

If you don't like that they're destroying a car, then don't do it. Otherwise, I say good riddance to cars that get terrible gas mileage.

So in order to save a few gallons of gas per year, you're going to destroy one that runs?

Do you have any idea what the energy required to build a new car is?

I'm willing to bet that destroying a perfectly good used car to replace it with a brand new one that gets a few more miles per gallon is actually an ecological disaster, when looking at total emissions over an autos lifetime, from construction to junkyard. Or do you think building a car is energy and resource free?

The main benefit is that this is bringing much needed stimulus to the economy. It's also to change peoples habits of relying on big SUV's and other fuel hungry vehicles. Chances are that in the long run this will prove to be overall beneficial for the environment and for people as they'll be using less gas.
I think its a necessary evil. Sad but necessary.

People can trade in a relatively recent truck for a brand new truck.

404 Savings not found

Also, it is creating current productivity by destroying previous productivity. You don't understand wealth, do you?

Sure. You can tear down a perfectly good building to renovate it from scratch. Happens all the time. Just that you don't get the concept.
Maybe you need to be a little less emotional about this.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
The list of vehicles you can buy under the program is loaded with fuel hungry vehicles, actually.

The Ten Most Traded-In Vehicles
1. Ford Explorer 4WD
2. Ford F-150 2WD
3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD
4. Jeep Cherokee 4WD
5. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan 2WD
6. Chevrolet Blazer 4WD
7. Ford Explorer 2WD
8. Ford F-150 Pickup 4WD
9. Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2WD
10. Ford Windstar FWD Van

The Ten Most Purchased Vehicles
1. Ford Focus
2. Toyota Corolla
3. Honda Civic
4. Toyota Prius
5. Toyota Camry
6. Ford Escape FWD
7. Hyundai Elantra
8. Dodge Caliber
9. Honda Fit
10. Chevrolet Cobalt

http://jalopnik.com/5329973/te...-cars-updated/gallery/

Domestic sales marketshare is going up, average mpg increase is 9.4. Say what you will about new deal type program, but cash for clunkers works for it's intended mission.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/0...r-clunkers-car-nearly/

That's pretty much exactly what I thought would happen. People had a 2nd or 3rd car in the household that wanted something more practical but just didn't have the incentive to actually do it. The couple people that I know who were interested in the program were clunking full size trucks with 200k+ miles on them for a Prius and a Fit. They couldn't hardly give the vehicles away, now they are worth $3k-$4k and almost an automatic 25% downpayment on another car.

The "green" aspect of the program was nothing but icing on the cake. The real reason was to clear out dealer/manufacterer inventory. Increase sales taxes for the states/cities. And generate more taxible income for the states through property/registration taxes.

 

[LTC8K6]

Say what you want, but CARS has likely not actually succeeded in it's mission at all, imo.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/re...ticle.aspx?ARTID=35824

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...nmental-impact-debate/

Let's not forget the interest on each of these rebates, either. By the time the $3,500-$4,500 loans come back around to be paid for, they may cost the taxpayers 2 or 3 times that amount.

And now we are going to triple the size of the borrowed amount to $3B...

When you borrow $4,500 from yourself for a long term, you have to pay back a lot more than $4,500...

 

[LTC8K6]

What are people going to do with their new Focus that replaced their clunky old 4wd gas guzzling Jeep that they rarely drove?

They are going to drive the Focus way more than they drove the clunker.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
What are people going to do with their new Focus that replaced their clunky old 4wd gas guzzling Jeep that they rarely drove?

They are going to drive the Focus way more than they drove the clunker.

I had my Rodeo SUV at the same time we had the Accord. I work at home and for lunchtime trips I'd take the Accord out to the drivethru and back. The Rodeo was much more fun to drive (anything but Honda, really) and I would not care about gas mileage when I'd rather go have fun. Weekends, weeknights, etc. You don't know anything about what people "rarely" drove.

If I trade that in for a Focus, I probably would drive that more but it is a 4banger as usual and I can't possibly classify that as fun. Not for me, not at this stage of my life. As an aside, I also hated having to drive the Odyssey I just test drove, believe me.

The great gov't sale would be worth that (or any) for a brand new car though. Many jumped on it because of the adjusted costs. Notice these top 10 bought / fuel efficient vehicles were the ones that required the least money to get into a brand new car as well. So many smaller cars not practical for families with any gear... likely secondary cars or cars for their kids.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I can't find numbers on it. I heard on NPR you can trade in a 14 mpg clunker though and get a 16 mpg H3 and get the full credit, hehe

oh, adn that's fucking retarded. the whole bill is fucking retarded with the 18 mpg minimum.
what's better, going from 18-22 (say a 4runner to a highlander), or 25 to 50 (camry to prius)?

their goal wasn't to stimulate car sales or clean up the guzzlers. if so, they wouldn't make it so restrictive. they just wanted to say, "we did something. doesn't matter how retarded it was, but we tried".
fucking retarded stipulations....

yea pissed me off, only the most sh*tty vehicles mpg wise were rewarded.

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I can't find numbers on it. I heard on NPR you can trade in a 14 mpg clunker though and get a 16 mpg H3 and get the full credit, hehe

oh, adn that's fucking retarded. the whole bill is fucking retarded with the 18 mpg minimum.
what's better, going from 18-22 (say a 4runner to a highlander), or 25 to 50 (camry to prius)?

their goal wasn't to stimulate car sales or clean up the guzzlers. if so, they wouldn't make it so restrictive. they just wanted to say, "we did something. doesn't matter how retarded it was, but we tried".
fucking retarded stipulations....

yea pissed me off, only the most sh*tty vehicles mpg wise were rewarded.

Well boo fucking hoo. The program was targeted towards vehicles that were high in fuel consumption.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I can't find numbers on it. I heard on NPR you can trade in a 14 mpg clunker though and get a 16 mpg H3 and get the full credit, hehe

oh, adn that's fucking retarded. the whole bill is fucking retarded with the 18 mpg minimum.
what's better, going from 18-22 (say a 4runner to a highlander), or 25 to 50 (camry to prius)?

their goal wasn't to stimulate car sales or clean up the guzzlers. if so, they wouldn't make it so restrictive. they just wanted to say, "we did something. doesn't matter how retarded it was, but we tried".
fucking retarded stipulations....

yea pissed me off, only the most sh*tty vehicles mpg wise were rewarded.

umm, of course, they stated they wanted clunkers off the road right? You do that at the bottom of the barrel first. I have a '96 car in the family that didn't qualify either - it gets 21mpg. If everyone started replacing their 25mpg vehicles, there would be no gov't money to support it. How then, would the worst vehicles be taken off at all?

 

[LTC8K6]

You don't know anything about what people "rarely" drove.

A claim was made, although I can't find it now, and it may have been in the media, that the cars being turned in were second or third cars that were rarely driven because they were well, "clunkers" that guzzled gas. The owners already had newer cars and used the second or third car only when they had to, etc. They kept them insured because they did occasionally use them.

That is what I was referring to. If true, it would likely mean an increase in fuel usage for those folks, not a decrease.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://business.theatlantic.co..._cash_for_clunkers.php

There's evidence that car sales were going to boom anyway.

http://business.theatlantic.co...rs_too_little_cash.php