Archives

It appears that a number of old pickups were traded for new pickups - an unintended consequence of "cash for clunkers."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/ap_on_bi_ge/us_cash_for_clunkers

Half tons and smaller had to get better mileage than the clunker they replaced. Bigger trucks just needed to replace something older than 2002.

here (http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/07/reminder-cash-for-clunkers-expected-to-start-july-24.html) is a chart showing what qualified.

I wouldn't say this was unintended. Even +1 mpg for a truck is worth something, although whether it's worth what taxpayers paid for it is a matter of some debate...

Trucks that qualify with those low mileage numbers I would say are probably owned by smaller businesses or individuals that need the trucks in most cases I would presume. Like npauli said, it's debatable whether or not it was worth taxpayers' money. I wouldn't support it from the environmental standpoint.

From an economic standpoint, it would ALMOST seem worth it as it did stimulate the AAM (american auto manufacturer) sales which is good because the gov't just invested a quite a few dollars in them. Those taxpayers that bought into cash for clunkers supported the automanufacturers that are a part of the government and hence owned by every other taxpayer out there. Now if they were buying trucks majority MADE outside the US, that would be a problem.

The environmental side of this however, is that if they weren't supporting the local economy, they were buying fuel efficient makes and models from all makes. Chrysler had two or three ugly crap cars that would qualify for the "environmental" standpoint, but of no comparison or competition. GM and Ford did well in this aspect, so there was an overall benefit.

Except for apparently some deals where people got the money even thought the car vehicle they turned in got better than the new vehicle I don't see how this is unintended. That was the way it was set up intentionally so that the big 2.5 could sell some trucks.

Do we have any real numbers on how many of the new vehicles actually got poorer mpg than the older vehicles??

Weren't 600,000 vehicles traded in/sold? If we are talking about 6000 deals- it is just 1 %, and I have my doubts that it was anything like 6000 deals that got poorer mpg.

Do we have any numbers-EPA numbers showing what the trade in got and what the bought vehicle got?
Not wanting to start a fight here, just curious if this is a pure "urban legend" or maybe something with a tiny bit of truth in it, or even lots of truth in it (say 1 % of deals)?
Thanks
Charlie

Eighty-four percent of the vehicles traded in under Cash for Clunkers were trucks, but only 41 percent of the program’s participants used their rebate to purchase a new truck.

The average fuel economy of the traded-in vehicles, which were crushed, was 15.8 miles per gallon (mpg), while the average fuel economy of the newly purchased vehicles was 24.9 mpg — a gain of 9.1 mpg, or 58 percent.

The results are even starker for heavier vehicles, as 8,134 heavy work trucks were traded in, but only 2,408 new heavy work trucks were purchased, and 116,909 large pickups or vans were traded in, but only 46,838 new ones were purchased. The fuel economy of the newly purchased cars was also 19 percent greater than the average fuel economy of all new cars available in the United States.

This information was taken from a Mother Earth News article. (http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Transportation/Cash-For-Clunkers-Ends.aspx)