Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg Left completely out of the program are car owners who might want to trade in an old car that gets, say, 20 mpg for a new one that gets 35 mpg or greater (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db20090618_131460.htm?chan=top+news_special+report+--+auto+bailout+2009_special+report+--+auto+bailout+2009)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/2009_Cadillac_Escalade_2-Mode_Hybrid_Platinum.jpgDavid Kiley - BUSINESSWEEK (http://www.businessweek.com) - June 18, 2009

Completely undermined the reason for the program --Ed.

Senate Democrats defeated a Republican effort to kill a $1 billion "cash for clunkers" program that provides government incentives of $3,500 to $4,500 to car buyers who trade in old gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient vehicles.

But in passing the bill on June 18 as an add-on to funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Democrats also defeated the "green" wing of their own party, who wanted to do much more to favor the purchase of passenger cars over pickup trucks and SUVs. The bill, which President Barack Obama is expected to sign, will enable many consumers who take advantage of the program to buy trucks that are barely more fuel-efficient than their old guzzlers.

"This is an emergency for families and small businesses—for an industry that has been the backbone of our economy for a generation," said Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who sponsored the Senate bill. ... http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db20090618_131460.htm?chan=top+news_special+report+--+auto+bailout+2009_special+report+--+auto+bailout+2009

Hi Chuck:

___I was expecting the president to sign the bill on Friday but noting showed up on the Whitehouse.gov site or S-Span so apparently he did not. We will probably do our story on Monday after the signing.

___It is too bad this garbage addition was so watered down to keep us hooked to the junkie when it could have been used for a measure of good :(

___Good Luck

___Wayne

I wish it was by percent instead of a set MPG. Say 20% increase, that way someone with a 18 MPG car would have to go up to 22(21.6)MPG, and I could go from 24 (based on EPA) to 29 (28.8)MPG. That would be a much better improvement as it would include more people.

Perhaps a car that is 10 years old would go by the 20% rule.

Just throwing out random thoughts.

In the end, the bill was written to help companies, especially in Detroit, sell more pickups and SUVs, which earn the struggling automakers more profit than smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles.

Would someone please explain the difference between Democrats and Republicans? The Democrats are acting more like Republicans, and we are all getting royally screwed. My tax dollars will now be used so Bubba can trade up to a new gas hog pick-em-up, or blingmobile gas-hog SUV. What a disgrace!

I'll have to look at the globe and see what country I can emigrate to.

Harry

I think to receive so much money for upgrading your car, you should have to get a significant increase in FE: something like 50%. So someone with a 18mpg car would have to get a 27mpg car. This is way too much money for such a small upgrade.

I'll have to look at the globe and see what country I can emigrate to. - HarryYou're not acting like today's Limbaugh Republicans....supposed to suggest secession, insurrection, or pray for the death of the President. :rolleyes:


___________________________


Moving on from my sarcastic remark, 18 to 25mpg would be just enough to start weaning people from FSPs, even if 25mpg is modest. Detroit does not have much to offer that gets about 25mpg, esp when compared to the Asian cars.

It gets twisted from a getting rid of guzzlers program to clearing the inventory of new guzzlers. {sigh}

The earlier proposals would have made more sense if expressed in gallons saved per 100 miles. $3500 for an exchange that saves 1 gallon per 100 miles (18-->22 mpg), $4500 for saving 2 gallons (18-->28 mpg).

Unfortunately, most Americans cannot think in those terms, so the requirements were written as mpgs, thereby excluding many potential exchanges that save the same amount of fuel.

Now it has been bastardized to the point that someone exchanging an old truck or SUV for a new one can qualify while saving as little as 0.56 gallon/100mi ($3500, 18-->20mpg) or 1.2 gallon ($4500, 18-->23).

But car exchanges are still held to the higher figure above, and most car exchanges don't qualify at all, despite saving even more fuel. My Accord to Prius exchange saves 2.17 gal/100mi, for which I get only the tax bill to pay for an SUV owner's incentive to save a quarter as much fuel. :-(

America's innumeracy is costing me real money this time.

i just dont get it.do you have to buy a detroit car? or can you get a honda that gets 50 mpg.very confused

Another boondoggle. So they'll gladly help put more "Carolina Special" giant pickups on the roads, but not let me get a new efficient car.

Here's the vital question that I STILL have not seen answered:
Can people trade in their FS truck/SUV and buy an efficient CAR that fits their needs.

If there is no ability to do that, these people are all a bunch of phony environmentalists and they need to be kicked out of office post haste!!!

The "Cash for Clunkers" is just a reformulation of Bush's guzzler credit. Obama's first term is thus far indistinguishable from what a third Bush term would have been like.

The "Cash for Clunkers" is just a reformulation of Bush's guzzler credit. Obama's first term is thus far indistinguishable from what a third Bush term would have been like.

WTH is the point of "Cap and Tax" if you pass a bill like this??? Never mind, I answered the question - TAX REVENUE!!!

Just more wasting of tax payers money. Cash for clunkers what a bunch of BS. If you can't afford a new or used gas sipper change your way of life. Just stay the hell out of mine. Why should I have to pay for folks that don't run there lifes right! America the worthless is whats happening now.

I won't hold back one punch if I ever meet some POS that brags about using my money to purchase a new car. I also have no respect for those that took money on hybrids. All that hybrid tax break or what ever it was did was keep the prices of already over priced cars high and took money from everybody else.

The "Cash for Clunkers" is just a reformulation of Bush's guzzler credit....

It is ironic that people received tax incentives to purchase the same vehicles that they are being paid to retire, but I can tell the difference between the two programs (i.e. one helped put more bigger SUV's/trucks on the road, the other doesn't. )

From what I've read, the new purchase is always referred to as "vehicle," so apparently people can trade down from SUV's to cars. I poked around on fueleconomy.gov and looking at Ford as an example, the likely result would be owners of large vehicles trading down one size class (e.g. from Crown Vic to Fusion) or from 4WD to 2WD.

The treasury spends money on worse things, but like people mentioned above, there's plenty wrong with the bill.

Yes, it's flawed and yes, it only helps a very small population of potential car buyers.

HOWEVER, let's recognize that it WILL get some gas guzzlers of the road. And 18 to 22mpg increase is still better than no increase.

I appreciate that they passed something.

Cheers, Ian

I wish people would just take the time to learn to drive better. that would save more fuel and without the expense to the tax payers! i am not going to hold my breath though!:rolleyes:
Why go to all the trouble relearning to drive when we can rely on big Gov. to get us a new car?:eyebrow::p

18 to 22mpg is not that much better than nothing...it's what they would probably have done anyway.

I wish people would just take the time to learn to drive better. that would save more fuel and without the expense to the tax payers!

I can see Bubba now, happy as all get out as he roars past me doing 80 mph in his new government subsidized F250.

We live in a wonderful country!

Harry

18 to 22mpg is not that much better than nothing...it's what they would probably have done anyway.

12000/18 = 667 gallons per year
12000/22 = 545 gallons per year

667 – 545 = 122 gallons saved.

12000/40 = 300 gallons per year
12000/50 = 240 gallons per year

300 – 240 = 60 gallons saved

My point is this only speeds up what they would have bought anyway, so I'm skeptical of genuine savings. To add insult to injury taxpayers are subsidizing it. :(

What EPA rating are they using for the traded in car, original window sticker or adjusted?

I'm pretty confused about this cash4clunkers thing, and it's sounding like there's a lot of misunderstanding going on here.

So if your car or truck gets under X mpg and you want a new car, you can go buy a new one and trade in your old car/truck. Normally whatever the dealership will give you for the trade in is what you get, but now you have the option of getting $0 from the dealer and $3500/$4500 from the government if your old car/new car combo qualifies. Also with this bill you'd have to buy a new car or one that's less than 18 months old used right?

I'm not as pissed off about this as Psyshack, but it would be nice to get $10k a year in pell grants instead of $5k. <-- Bragging about getting money from the govt but for school and not a shiny new car. But yeah he's right, we're basically helping other people out with their bad decisions.

Anyways, ultimately this bill helps take some cars off the road that use too much gas, but the replacement cars aren't that much better. I really don't see a good reason for this bill though. I don't think it's going to reduce dependence on foreign oil much, or reduce pollution much either. I guess now that GM is government run, this is how they run car sales specials.

This bill is a disaster in it's purest state. My car on the new epa gets a combine 20mpg. I don't qualify...if I did, i would be more than happy to get a car with double my current vehicle's capability.

I agree with damion about the %age increase. I would personally put it at 50% efficiency increase. After all, the point of the cash for clunkers is to increase overall efficiency is it not?

18-22mpg is nothing in mybook. The mildest hypermiler can do that without even trying to break a sweat. All that requires is for people to air up the tires and drive actively.

It's a bill that allows people that made bad purchases to upgrade to one that's not much better at the expense of everyone. The first car I purchased was $3000 for a 99 Ford Escort ZX2 and after that was totaled by a SUV, which now I hold a greater bias against, the next car I purchased was for $3300 for a 95 Honda Civic. These people are getting $3500-$4500 to upgrade their car. It must be nice to get things for less over the hard work of others.

I'm in with JusBringIt. My cars are EPA 08 combined 20(Lumina) and 21(Grand Prix). A friend has a 1990 Oldmobile Eighty-Eighy (EPA 08 combine 19). How are these not clunkers? They BARELY pass inspection!

The only vehicle that I can find among friends/relatives that qualifies on the car side is a 1995 Cadillac Fleedwood (18 exactly). And he's too poor to afford a car payment!

The Guzzler would qualify I'm sure... and its trade-in value is much lower than the incentive $$$. It looks like the way to make this deal work the best is to determine a 'buy price' with the dealer BEFORE you let them know you are going to do a clunker deal, since that incentive $$$ comes off the top of the deal. Why would the dealer want to take any more off the price once he's taken off the $3,500 - $4,500?

Of course, the money tree in the back yard really needs to start producing or this program won't matter a tinker's d**n to the SlowHands household.