Comments on: The Cash for Clunkers Program http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2009/06/19/the-cash-for-clunkers-program/ A premiere personal finance blog, established 2003. Within, Flexo discusses his own experiences with money, and he and other authors comment on a wide range of personal finance topics. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:42:00 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Pat http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2009/06/19/the-cash-for-clunkers-program/#comment-196444 Pat Mon, 03 Aug 2009 02:13:38 +0000 http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/?p=6884#comment-196444 The cars can't be over 25 years old. This ~ 1965 Barracuda (I owned one) is a bit old and it would get over 18 mpg when tuned up. They didn't have large engines. The cars can’t be over 25 years old. This ~ 1965 Barracuda (I owned one) is a bit old and it would get over 18 mpg when tuned up. They didn’t have large engines.

]]> By: Jim http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2009/06/19/the-cash-for-clunkers-program/#comment-195252 Jim Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:06:23 +0000 http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/?p=6884#comment-195252 I know its just an example photo BUT.... The so called "clunker" in the photo is a circa 1964-1966 Plymouth Barracuda. The body looks straight, its parked on the street and has shiny hubcaps so its probably in driving order so it may just need a paint job. Even in that condition that car is probably worth around $4,000 to $5,000 or more as a collectible. You'd be better off selling it to a collector than trading it in for a new car. I know its just an example photo BUT…. The so called “clunker” in the photo is a circa 1964-1966 Plymouth Barracuda. The body looks straight, its parked on the street and has shiny hubcaps so its probably in driving order so it may just need a paint job. Even in that condition that car is probably worth around $4,000 to $5,000 or more as a collectible. You’d be better off selling it to a collector than trading it in for a new car.

]]> By: Olivia @Independent Beginnings http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2009/06/19/the-cash-for-clunkers-program/#comment-195236 Olivia @Independent Beginnings Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:43:36 +0000 http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/?p=6884#comment-195236 I didn't realize that only brand new cars counted in this act when I first commented. That completely ruins the act for me. I do not see the value in buying a brand new car just to watch the value depreciate dramatically in the first year. I didn’t realize that only brand new cars counted in this act when I first commented. That completely ruins the act for me. I do not see the value in buying a brand new car just to watch the value depreciate dramatically in the first year.

]]> By: Steve http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2009/06/19/the-cash-for-clunkers-program/#comment-195222 Steve Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:51:30 +0000 http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/?p=6884#comment-195222 This is just another way to funnel taxpayer dollars directly into the pockets of the auto industry. If we need to get more fuel efficient cars on the road, we increase the gas tax and let nature take its course. Actually that would have another benefit as well - in addition to getting more fuel efficient cars, people would also drive less, the other side of the reduced fossil fuels coin. I would love to take advantage of this, but my wife seems to have a sentimental attachment to our existing truck. I wonder if we can buy a barely running clunker off someone and immediately trade it in? +1 to "14 to 24 is a 60% improvement". On the other hand, $4500 is only 28% more than $3500, and all you need to do to get that is upgrade by 4 MPG. This is just another way to funnel taxpayer dollars directly into the pockets of the auto industry. If we need to get more fuel efficient cars on the road, we increase the gas tax and let nature take its course. Actually that would have another benefit as well – in addition to getting more fuel efficient cars, people would also drive less, the other side of the reduced fossil fuels coin.

I would love to take advantage of this, but my wife seems to have a sentimental attachment to our existing truck. I wonder if we can buy a barely running clunker off someone and immediately trade it in?

+1 to “14 to 24 is a 60% improvement”. On the other hand, $4500 is only 28% more than $3500, and all you need to do to get that is upgrade by 4 MPG.

]]> By: Oldcheme http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2009/06/19/the-cash-for-clunkers-program/#comment-195170 Oldcheme Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:11:07 +0000 http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/?p=6884#comment-195170 Wise up Smithee, there aren't any non compact gasoline cars that get 30 combined in the new EPA ratings. Even the 4 cyl camry and malibu only get 25 and 26 respectively. So the list is reduced to Yaris, Corolla, Cobalt, Aveo etc. Not a family car in the bunch. You would have to go to a hydrid or diesel to get 30 in a mid size. Wise up Smithee, there aren’t any non compact gasoline cars that get 30 combined in the new EPA ratings. Even the 4 cyl camry and malibu only get 25 and 26 respectively. So the list is reduced to Yaris, Corolla, Cobalt, Aveo etc. Not a family car in the bunch. You would have to go to a hydrid or diesel to get 30 in a mid size.

]]> By: Mike http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2009/06/19/the-cash-for-clunkers-program/#comment-195165 Mike Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:18:39 +0000 http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/?p=6884#comment-195165 I bought a new Honda Fit in 2007 and have tracked my mileage every tank. It was rated (old EPA estimates) at 31/37 but my average for over 2 years has only been 24 mpg (mostly urban driving). However, on a recent 300+ mile (nearly) all-highway trip, I got 36 mpg. 30 mpg is still a very high number to achieve. I bought a new Honda Fit in 2007 and have tracked my mileage every tank. It was rated (old EPA estimates) at 31/37 but my average for over 2 years has only been 24 mpg (mostly urban driving). However, on a recent 300+ mile (nearly) all-highway trip, I got 36 mpg. 30 mpg is still a very high number to achieve.

]]> By: Apex http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2009/06/19/the-cash-for-clunkers-program/#comment-195159 Apex Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:26:26 +0000 http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/?p=6884#comment-195159 All the details of this plan are exactly the same as i saw proposed 1 week ago and in that proposal you only qualify if you buy a new car. This is supposed to be an incentive program for the automakers wrapped in a green ribbon. So your argument about used car mpg turns out to be moot because buying a used car doesn't qualify. In addition the law requires the old car to be demolished even if its in perfectly fine working condition. The reason is to get poorer mileage cars off the road. However the environmental impacts of building a new car to replace the used car prior to the used car running its useful life are debateable. The pollution and emmisions of the factory and production system are far from minimal. In most ways this is likely another example of doing something that might sound good on the surface but when you look under the hood, the tradeoffs probably don't make this bill amount to any net environmental improvement. There are tradeoffs to everything and building a new car has lots of affects on the environment. All the details of this plan are exactly the same as i saw proposed 1 week ago and in that proposal you only qualify if you buy a new car. This is supposed to be an incentive program for the automakers wrapped in a green ribbon. So your argument about used car mpg turns out to be moot because buying a used car doesn’t qualify.

In addition the law requires the old car to be demolished even if its in perfectly fine working condition. The reason is to get poorer mileage cars off the road. However the environmental impacts of building a new car to replace the used car prior to the used car running its useful life are debateable. The pollution and emmisions of the factory and production system are far from minimal.

In most ways this is likely another example of doing something that might sound good on the surface but when you look under the hood, the tradeoffs probably don’t make this bill amount to any net environmental improvement. There are tradeoffs to everything and building a new car has lots of affects on the environment.

]]> By: *flash* http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2009/06/19/the-cash-for-clunkers-program/#comment-195158 *flash* Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:25:49 +0000 http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/?p=6884#comment-195158 My clunker gets 40 mpg now, so this program seems quite useless. A few clunkers had smaller size, useless luxuries extra smog equipment not yet built in, no passenger air bags and no bracing added for imaginary passengers, no power this or that; but mine is one. Those useful clunkers will be left out of any benefits. Getting a 35 mpg vehicle would be reverse math. A 60 mpg vehicle is available, but I doubt people would smile at a 40 mpg trade-in. Doesn't make too much sense. My clunker gets 40 mpg now, so this program seems quite useless. A few clunkers had smaller size, useless luxuries extra smog equipment not yet built in, no passenger air bags and no bracing added for imaginary passengers, no power this or that; but mine is one. Those useful clunkers will be left out of any benefits. Getting a 35 mpg vehicle would be reverse math.

A 60 mpg vehicle is available, but I doubt people would smile at a 40 mpg trade-in. Doesn’t make too much sense.

]]> By: Flexo http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2009/06/19/the-cash-for-clunkers-program/#comment-195157 Flexo Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:00:03 +0000 http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/?p=6884#comment-195157 The EPA mpg estimates don't translate to real-world, actual mpg, but they provide a basis for comparison between brands and models. The EPA mpg estimates don’t translate to real-world, actual mpg, but they provide a basis for comparison between brands and models.

]]> By: KC http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2009/06/19/the-cash-for-clunkers-program/#comment-195156 KC Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:54:09 +0000 http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/?p=6884#comment-195156 MPG is often wrong anyway. When I bought my car (01 Acura TL) it said 22-26 mpg. I never get less than 31 mpg on the highway (even when I go 100 miles or more averaging 80 mph). And I can't get better that 20 MPG in the city unless I get out and push my car up the hill. I'll keep this car cause it's paid for and because it gets great mileage on the highway. For the size and safety of this vehicle it is an excellent bargain. But owning this car has really shown me how much of a misnomer MPG can be advertised on a car. MPG is often wrong anyway. When I bought my car (01 Acura TL) it said 22-26 mpg. I never get less than 31 mpg on the highway (even when I go 100 miles or more averaging 80 mph). And I can’t get better that 20 MPG in the city unless I get out and push my car up the hill. I’ll keep this car cause it’s paid for and because it gets great mileage on the highway. For the size and safety of this vehicle it is an excellent bargain. But owning this car has really shown me how much of a misnomer MPG can be advertised on a car.

]]> By: Ogre_Kev http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2009/06/19/the-cash-for-clunkers-program/#comment-195153 Ogre_Kev Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:30:00 +0000 http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/?p=6884#comment-195153 If increase mileage efficiency is the goal, I don't see why you _wouldn't_ want to entice someone to move from 14mpg to 24mpg. That's better than 60% improvement. Getting someone from 25mpg to 35mpg might have a better wow-factor when looking at the new-and-improved number, but really you've only improved that person's efficiency by 40%. Your argument that there should be a floor on the to-be mileage fails to account for the fact that not all people need their vehicles for the same purpose. Some people only drive a large vehicle for the image; other people drive large vehicles because they need to haul around lots of passengers and/or cargo. Moving the soccer mom from an old Suburban to a new more efficient minivan presents a tremendous emissions-savings opportunity even if the minivan doesn't get hybrid-quality mileage. And even if the person is still hung up on the image, getting them out of their Hummer and into a touring sedan is a notable accomplishment. If increase mileage efficiency is the goal, I don’t see why you _wouldn’t_ want to entice someone to move from 14mpg to 24mpg. That’s better than 60% improvement. Getting someone from 25mpg to 35mpg might have a better wow-factor when looking at the new-and-improved number, but really you’ve only improved that person’s efficiency by 40%.

Your argument that there should be a floor on the to-be mileage fails to account for the fact that not all people need their vehicles for the same purpose. Some people only drive a large vehicle for the image; other people drive large vehicles because they need to haul around lots of passengers and/or cargo.

Moving the soccer mom from an old Suburban to a new more efficient minivan presents a tremendous emissions-savings opportunity even if the minivan doesn’t get hybrid-quality mileage. And even if the person is still hung up on the image, getting them out of their Hummer and into a touring sedan is a notable accomplishment.

]]> By: Olivia @Independent Beginnings http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2009/06/19/the-cash-for-clunkers-program/#comment-195152 Olivia @Independent Beginnings Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:28:41 +0000 http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/?p=6884#comment-195152 The problem I have with requiring at least 30 mpg is that many used cars that are affordable have less than 30 mp3. Maybe someone wants to trade in their old pick-up truck that gets 6 mpg for a used car that gets 26. To me, that seems like a great trade that should be rewarded. A lot of people do not have the money to buy the brand-new over 30 mpg cars (or used but still expensive ones). Because of that, I am glad they only put the amount your car has to increase by instead of the minimum it needs to be (of course, your car your are trading in has to get below 18 mpg to qualify). I also think that attaching the act to the war bill is ridiculous. I hate how the government will sneak things into more popular bills. The problem I have with requiring at least 30 mpg is that many used cars that are affordable have less than 30 mp3. Maybe someone wants to trade in their old pick-up truck that gets 6 mpg for a used car that gets 26. To me, that seems like a great trade that should be rewarded. A lot of people do not have the money to buy the brand-new over 30 mpg cars (or used but still expensive ones). Because of that, I am glad they only put the amount your car has to increase by instead of the minimum it needs to be (of course, your car your are trading in has to get below 18 mpg to qualify).

I also think that attaching the act to the war bill is ridiculous. I hate how the government will sneak things into more popular bills.

]]>