Americans Love Clunkers
[Guest post by DRJ]
Many Americans responded to the recent Car Allowance Rebate System, more commonly known as the Cash-for-Clunkers program, by trading in their old inefficient pickups for new slightly-more-efficient pickups:
“The single most common swap – which occurred more than 8,200 times – involved Ford F150 pickup owners who took advantage of a government rebate to trade their old trucks for new Ford F150s. They were 17 times more likely to buy a new F150 than, say, a Toyota Prius. The fuel economy for the new trucks ranged from 15 mpg to 17 mpg based on engine size and other factors, an improvement of just 1 mpg to 3 mpg over the clunkers.
Owners of thousands more large old Chevrolet and Dodge pickups bought new Silverado and Ram trucks, also with only barely improved mileage in the middle teens, according to AP’s analysis of sales of $15.2 billion worth of vehicles at nearly 19,000 car dealerships in every state. Those deals helped the Ford F150 and Chevy Silverado – along with Ford’s Escape midsize SUV – climb into the Top 10 most-popular vehicles purchased with the government rebates. The most common truck-for-truck and truck-for-SUV deals totaled at least $911 million.”
The AP requested CARS data and conducted the first extensive outside analysis of the program. The investigation showed the program paid $562,500 in rebates for vehicles that got “worse or the same mileage as the trade-ins — in apparent violation of the program’s requirements.” Most of the CARS trade-ins were in California followed by Texas and then New York. The Honda Civic was the first choice in California but 7-in-10 Texans traded in old pickups for new ones.
— DRJ
Can’t blame ’em. The F-150 is a good vehicle. Compared to every other American car I’ve owned over the years, it’s obviously superior in quality and reliability.
If the cash for clunkers had really been a green program, it would have only been applicable for purchases of used cars. Most of the pollution a car produces, whether it’s a Hummer or a Prius, is produced during manufacture. That’s why Priuses, which require parts from all over the world and great efforts to build, are worse for the environment than buying a used POS.
Getting people to destroy thousands of cars that were otherwise going to be recycled through sales, or kept in use, was a terrible decision from every single angle.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/4/2009 @ 9:17 pmOur little country is run by inept pansies. Lots and lots of Republicans voted to extend this clunker scam too. Probably the same pansy Republicans that want to extend the welfare program for buying houses. Because we need less economic mobility right now, especially young first-time homebuyers.
Idiots.
happyfeet (f62c43) — 11/4/2009 @ 9:22 pmGee, and if the gov’t had just stayed out of it, & reduced the tax burden on the auto-makers, they could have sold the same car for less money — which might result in selling more cars — and then put the extra dollars earned (through the combination of lower taxes and higher sales) into R & D that might produce practical, quality cars, sooner rather than later.
Gee . . .
Icy Texan (71e58b) — 11/4/2009 @ 9:38 pmComment by Dustin — 11/4/2009 @ 9:17 pm
Good point. According to one study the manufacture of a new Prius takes 113 million BTUs. This means that if I buy a brand-new Prius and you buy a used car that gets 35 mpg, I would have to drive my Prius for 100,000 miles before I catch up to your energy-saving consciousness in purchasing the used vehicle. I have three friends who own Priuses (Prii?); two of them are pretty cool about it, but one is a holier-than-thou green. You have no idea how much I loved telling him about this study. He only drives about 15,000 miles per year, so he doesn’t like the fact that it will take him 7 years to cancel out his energy debt.
JVW (d32e06) — 11/4/2009 @ 10:54 pmBut what about that great argument I heard so often a few months ago – how can you be against a program that gets people new, more efficient cars and helps the auto industry?
How can you be against their fantasy of the government giving people expensive stuff and there being no consequences?
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 11/5/2009 @ 5:26 amDon’t confuse facts with intent. Our Federal Government is doing the best it can, given the severe lack of brain-power available.
My goodness, just yesterday the Speaker of the House (who also puts the ‘O’ in Zeroooo) Pelooooosi, smiled and exclaimed how wonderful the election results were for her party. For someone nearly as smart as a car airbag, you can understand how successful the cash-for-clunkers plan appears.
Corwin (ea9428) — 11/5/2009 @ 5:27 amThe sad thing is that the gov’t blew billions, was a late payor to the dealers, and the real clunkers ARE STILL ON THE ROAD!!!!
If this program had taken off the road all those cheap econoboxes like Escorts, Caviliers, Neons, old Civics, etc. that you see going down the road like they are going to disintegrate as soon as the next bug hits the cracked windshield, then it might have been a worth while program.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 11/5/2009 @ 5:35 amSo C4C was not a 100% success at greatly improving mileage rates even though the government got to set the rules.
Well that means we have to turn over our health care system to our betters in D.C. After all, I bet Congress will learn from their mistake and come up with a tight, concise and easy to understand health care bill.
MU789 (897b57) — 11/5/2009 @ 6:05 amWell, if people don’t buy our wonderful fuel-efficient cars by choice on the free market, let’s just raise gas taxes until they cry uncle!
How to boost fuel efficiency? Raise taxes, executives say
Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:56am EST
By Scott Malone
DETROIT (Reuters) – There’s a simple way to get Americans to drive fuel-efficient cars, according to auto executives, but they are not going to like it — sharply hike the gas tax.
While politically unpalatable, gasoline that costs at least $4 a gallon would have a far greater effect on American fuel usage than Washington’s $25 billion loan program meant to spark investment in new technologies, executives told the Reuters Autos Summit in Detroit. . .
“The U.S. allows the price of gasoline to go back and forth across this line where the consumers don’t care about fuel efficiency and where consumers do care about fuel efficiency,” Mike Jackson, chief executive of AutoNation Inc, the No. 1 U.S. auto retailer, told the summit in Detroit on Wednesday.
Gradually raising gas taxes to the point where fuel costs $4 to $5 at the pump will do more to stimulate demand in next-generation vehicles like General Motors Co’s forthcoming Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid than any other policy initiatives, including raising the national fuel efficiency standards know as CAFE, Jackson said. . .
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/5/2009 @ 6:39 amthere’s nothing nothing nothing our fascist gaywad government can do to make me pine for a car made by illiterate dirty socialist inbred UAW thugs. I’d rather drive something made by Tonka.
happyfeet (f62c43) — 11/5/2009 @ 6:57 amThe loser short bus kids what work at Dura Automotive should get their mommies to help them with their resume I think.
happyfeet (f62c43) — 11/5/2009 @ 7:00 amThose buying a vehicle should find out what the owner’s stance is on higher gas taxes, and boycott anyone in favor of it.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/5/2009 @ 7:01 am“the program paid $562,500 in rebates for vehicles that got worse mileage” My guess is that the program paid millions for trade-ins that didn’t even exist. How hard could it be for a dealer and buyer to collude on a sham trade-in, then split the rebate?
gp (72be5d) — 11/5/2009 @ 7:05 amDustin its even worse than you imagine. Do you know how much the program cost, per car?
$24,000.
That is right, it cost $24K per car to give out about $4.5K.
Add that to the fact that this was in essence a destruction of wealth program and you can see how nuts it is. We are literally a poorer nation because of this program.
And the whole thing was ridiculous. my wife’s car got terrible mileage but it was not eligible, and mine got great mileage but it was. huh? And because then both of our cars were totalled (long, bad story), we literally had to shop for car the day after it all ended (yes, my life is proof that God is real and has a cruel sense of humor sometimes). I swear i think i saw tumbleweeds in that car place it was so deserted. Clearly this was artificially moving what would have been 4th quarter purchases into 3Q.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/5/2009 @ 7:08 amgp, that’s almost certainly the case. Obama has no qualms about picking which dealers get to live and which die, based on politics. That’s why fascism is wrong, at the heart of it.
Happyfeet, that sucks about both your cars dying together. That really sucks. I also had an awful car, a true clunker, that was ineligible for the program. I saw great cars on youtube being destroyed with my tax dollars. It’s just so frustrating… this is real damage to our people and our way of life.
It’s nice to know I can take care of myself without freebies, but it is obviously disheartening to know that I’m getting the raw deal. Someone who wasn’t as responsible gets to live in a house for ages after not paying their mortgage… or someone gets a huge assist with their down payment on a house they may not be ready for (and can’t leave during a semi-depression!), or gets a huge check while being encouraged into a new car payment they can’t afford, or gets super easy terms on student loans and credit cards, while someone who plays by the rules gets new fees and higher interest to make up the difference.
The government is actively out to help people who aren’t working as hard. Being poor in America is relatively awesome, so why screw me? Obviously, because that’s how Obama gets his votes. And our kids, their kids too, are going to pay dearly for Obama’s campaign. It’s just plain unnatural to steal from your kids.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/5/2009 @ 7:22 amI said happyfeet when I meant A.W.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/5/2009 @ 7:25 amI agree that the Ford F 150 is a great truck. I have one in Arizona that I bought used three years ago. It needed a new intake manifold and has been great ever since. I would get another one for California but I’m getting talked into taking over my wife’s Tahoe because she wants a smaller SUV. I have a Toyota Highlander that I thought I’d drive 15 years but it may go to one of my kids. We shuffle cars around as kids need one and Dad buys a new one.
I can’t think of one good idea that has come from this government in the past year.
Mike K (2cf494) — 11/5/2009 @ 9:47 amPeople who own trucks do so because a truck gives them value – it serves a purpose. This is a concept that the enviro fanatics can’t understand.
SPQR (26be8b) — 11/5/2009 @ 10:04 amBecause their lives are, for the most part, without any purpose, which is why they believe with great ardor, all that BS that passes for EnviroWisdom.
“Those that believe in nothing, will believe in anything”
AD - RtR/OS! (0a796c) — 11/5/2009 @ 10:23 am[…] Americans Love Clunkers So gas guzzlers were swapped for yet more gas guzzlers. Some day the Fed’s are actually promote a program that works like its billed to work. (Don’t hold your breath) […]
Today’s Tidbits (788229) — 11/5/2009 @ 2:15 pmDustin
Oh lord, it sucked more than you could imagine. one died. the other was totaled. and my wife was in it. on moving day. a very rainy moving day. And i was so upset i manage to dent someone’s car parking the moving van. I can laugh now, but those were some of the most miserable days of my life.
She’s okay, mind you. i can tell you that those saturns are amazing in a wreck. Too bad the company is going kaput, but even used, those cars are great in terms of survivability. and pretty kick ass on mileage.
But its a special moment when the insurance company calls to discuss a wreck on a date certain and you have to ask, “which one?” and the best part, they ask me who my insurance company was, for the moving van accident, and i say, “guess what? you are!”
Like i said, i can laugh about it now.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 11/5/2009 @ 2:23 pmCash for clunkers did not help car manufacturers. It just hurt car repair shops, car donation charities, taxpayers and the poor.
Cars4Charities (b65a8e) — 11/6/2009 @ 1:07 pm