Cash for Clunkers
08-05-2009, 11:52 AM
#31
Member
Squid
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 75
53% of the new purchases are foreign brands. Most of the trade-ins are domestic. The top 10 on several sites I looked at are all domestics. I bet the number's about 90%.
Which means they just put a helluva lot of domestic car owners into a foreign make. That should bode well for the big 3 down the road.
Which means they just put a helluva lot of domestic car owners into a foreign make. That should bode well for the big 3 down the road.
And it's working out better for energy consumption than I would have thought, given the wimpy standards for eligible new cars. Those traded in got an average of 16 MPG, those being bought, an average of 25 MPG.
Lower oil consumption - lower world prices - less money for Chavez and Ahmadinejad, etc. And lower gas costs mean more money for the American economy in other areas. Energy conservation is actually the cheapest source of energy we have these days.
08-05-2009, 12:51 PM
#32
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
The number one car being bought is the Ford Focus. The fact that the Focus has a hybrid option no doubt helps. If this sticks a pin in the old fogies at the car companies (I can't believe GM brought back Bob Lutz), and gets them to make what people want now, rather than what they made 30 years ago in their glory days, it WILL be a good thing for the US car companies.
And it's working out better for energy consumption than I would have thought, given the wimpy standards for eligible new cars. Those traded in got an average of 16 MPG, those being bought, an average of 25 MPG.
Lower oil consumption - lower world prices - less money for Chavez and Ahmadinejad, etc. And lower gas costs mean more money for the American economy in other areas. Energy conservation is actually the cheapest source of energy we have these days.
And it's working out better for energy consumption than I would have thought, given the wimpy standards for eligible new cars. Those traded in got an average of 16 MPG, those being bought, an average of 25 MPG.
Lower oil consumption - lower world prices - less money for Chavez and Ahmadinejad, etc. And lower gas costs mean more money for the American economy in other areas. Energy conservation is actually the cheapest source of energy we have these days.
08-05-2009, 01:01 PM
#33
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
Here's Obummer bowing deeply before the premier tyrant supplier of "foreign oil".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY
08-05-2009, 01:44 PM
#36
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 3,451
With new technology they can drill offshore with much less risk or negative impact on the environment than was possible 30 or 40 years ago.
And the caribou on the North Slope just love those heated pipelines.
08-05-2009, 03:07 PM
#39
Senior Member
SuperSport
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 987
Sorry, but destroying 750,000 used cars and building 750,000 new cars is not energy conservation.
20% of a car's total energy usage is spent during manufacture. That's the equivalent of 3-1/2 years of use. Even if the new cars are 50% more efficient, it will take 5 years just to break even with the total energy needed to just keep those older cars on the road. (If you consider '98 old)
08-05-2009, 03:55 PM
#40
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 111
I agree, at least the so called "clunkers" are PAID FOR! I guess alot of people still don't ******* get it yet. If people would buy what they can actually afford instead of trying to front and struggling to make payments on things they can't afford we wouldn't have this problem. "I've got a great idea honey-we're not deep enough in debt yet, let's tack on ANOTHER payment."
08-05-2009, 04:06 PM
#41
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 111
Sorry, but destroying 750,000 used cars and building 750,000 new cars is not energy conservation.
20% of a car's total energy usage is spent during manufacture. That's the equivalent of 3-1/2 years of use. Even if the new cars are 50% more efficient, it will take 5 years just to break even with the total energy needed to just keep those older cars on the road. (If you consider '98 old)
20% of a car's total energy usage is spent during manufacture. That's the equivalent of 3-1/2 years of use. Even if the new cars are 50% more efficient, it will take 5 years just to break even with the total energy needed to just keep those older cars on the road. (If you consider '98 old)
I think the answer is building/changing cities and towns so that people don't have to drive everywhere. That system arose when energy was dirt cheap and no one really noticed human effects on the environment. A lot of we're doing now is designed to perpetuate a system that was designed in a world that's long since gone. Our continued insistence on living a lifestyle fueled by huge amounts of oil is like going to a bar where the drinks are cheap, getting drunk, and then insisting on staying drunk for the rest of your life, no matter how expensive the drinks get.
08-05-2009, 07:15 PM
#43
Senior Member
SuperBike
SuperBike
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles ish
Posts: 1,031
08-05-2009, 09:36 PM
#44
Senior Member
SuperSport
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 987
3.4% of 3.62% of 2% is 0.00002
It's the equivalent of 3 hairs on your head. And cars make up such a small percentage of that CO2 production, so it's more like cutting 1/4" off one of the hairs on your head.
It's the equivalent of 3 hairs on your head. And cars make up such a small percentage of that CO2 production, so it's more like cutting 1/4" off one of the hairs on your head.
08-05-2009, 11:00 PM
#45
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
08-06-2009, 01:02 AM
#46
Member
Squid
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 75
"The Toyota Corolla is the top model purchased by “cash-for-clunkers” buyers through Wednesday, surpassing the Ford Focus, which had been number one, according to the Transportation Department.
Overall, General Motors Co. sold the most cars under the program, with 18.7 percent. Toyota had the second-most vehicles with 17.9 percent of the sales, the data said. Ford was third with 16 percent."
http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/1367303.html
Last edited by Redone; 08-06-2009 at 01:05 AM.
08-06-2009, 08:34 AM
#47
Member
Squid
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 75
"Originally Posted by Liquidogged
I'd like to see the figures on the environmental benefits of this - I'm sure they're not insignificant, but still...
If your talkin' CO2, I think it is insignificant. Considering humans contribute about 3½% of the world's CO2, this is like a molecule of the drop of water in the bucket."
I've got figures. Lots of them.
But I don't want to hijack this thread. As I said above environmental effects aren't the most important thing about cash for clunkers, which are its' economic and energy conserving effects. Just a nice bonus.
So I'm starting another one about why manmade CO2 is the important bit. Cash for clunkers will make a very small dent in it. And a larger dent in conventional pollutants, by replacing cars with ones which emit less of those. Environmentally, it's more like the drop of water than the molecule.
Back to the thread. The Senate votes today to expand cash for clunkers. There'll be sound and fury from conservatives, but the outcome is not in doubt. The House voted 316-109 to expand the program; most of the 109 opponents were diehard conservatives, who despise any government action in the economy.
I'd like to see the figures on the environmental benefits of this - I'm sure they're not insignificant, but still...
If your talkin' CO2, I think it is insignificant. Considering humans contribute about 3½% of the world's CO2, this is like a molecule of the drop of water in the bucket."
I've got figures. Lots of them.
But I don't want to hijack this thread. As I said above environmental effects aren't the most important thing about cash for clunkers, which are its' economic and energy conserving effects. Just a nice bonus.So I'm starting another one about why manmade CO2 is the important bit. Cash for clunkers will make a very small dent in it. And a larger dent in conventional pollutants, by replacing cars with ones which emit less of those. Environmentally, it's more like the drop of water than the molecule.
Back to the thread. The Senate votes today to expand cash for clunkers. There'll be sound and fury from conservatives, but the outcome is not in doubt. The House voted 316-109 to expand the program; most of the 109 opponents were diehard conservatives, who despise any government action in the economy.
08-06-2009, 10:30 AM
#48
Senior Member
Superstock
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: North Central Indiana
Posts: 416
GM Has Sold the Most Cars Under 'Cash for Clunkers' Program
General Motors Co., the largest U.S. automaker, has the most sales under the “cash-for-clunkers” program, according to Transportation Department data released [Wednesday]. Detroit-based GM sold 18.7 percent of the cars purchased under the plan. The top three U.S. automakers had 45 percent of the sales so far, with the Focus being one of four vehicles made by U.S. automakers in the top 10 types sold. The average fuel economy of the vehicles purchased is 25.3 miles-per-gallon, a 60 percent improvement over the 15.8 miles- per-gallon average of the trade-ins.
Source: Bloomberg News
This just came from the NADA news letter
General Motors Co., the largest U.S. automaker, has the most sales under the “cash-for-clunkers” program, according to Transportation Department data released [Wednesday]. Detroit-based GM sold 18.7 percent of the cars purchased under the plan. The top three U.S. automakers had 45 percent of the sales so far, with the Focus being one of four vehicles made by U.S. automakers in the top 10 types sold. The average fuel economy of the vehicles purchased is 25.3 miles-per-gallon, a 60 percent improvement over the 15.8 miles- per-gallon average of the trade-ins.
Source: Bloomberg News
This just came from the NADA news letter
08-06-2009, 11:26 AM
#49
Senior Member
SuperSport
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Delmar NY
Posts: 805
It doesn't matter who has profited the most from this program. If a bank is robbed and the loot is distributed among various charities does that make it right? do we discuss which charity deserved what?
My taxes (umm I take that back - Chinese investment on our debt!) are going towars destroying instead of creating.
The end NEVER justifies the means.
I believe Honda generally makes a better product than GM and I have voted with my dollars - In any case, if Rick Wagoner could have found the ***** to tell the congressional hearings to **** off, that GM is a private company and he'll run it the way he thinks it should be run, I seriously might have purchased a GM product. Now I never will.
My citibank visa is cancelled too.
My taxes (umm I take that back - Chinese investment on our debt!) are going towars destroying instead of creating.
The end NEVER justifies the means.
I believe Honda generally makes a better product than GM and I have voted with my dollars - In any case, if Rick Wagoner could have found the ***** to tell the congressional hearings to **** off, that GM is a private company and he'll run it the way he thinks it should be run, I seriously might have purchased a GM product. Now I never will.
My citibank visa is cancelled too.
08-06-2009, 11:54 AM
#50
Senior Member
SuperSport
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 987
08-09-2009, 02:00 PM
#52
Senior Member
SuperSport
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 987
This Corvette lasted almost 5 minutes before the engine siezed! Good thing they got that healthy running engine off the road.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTYL-...layer_embedded
Bambi and the rest of the environment will also be thankful they killed off all those damn mosquitos with that $4500 smoke bomb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTYL-...layer_embedded
Bambi and the rest of the environment will also be thankful they killed off all those damn mosquitos with that $4500 smoke bomb.
08-09-2009, 04:20 PM
#53
Moderate-whore
MotoGP
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Leander TX!!
Posts: 9,049
I think i will need to start another business, "Central Texas Repo".
Alot of the people who have traded in their clunker, were in no position to purchase a new vehicle or the means to provide a down payment before this program. Now they just traded in their clunker that probably had no payment attached to it and now they are looking at a hefty auto payment each month and full coverage insurance to pay. I say in about 5 to 6 months from now, the repo business is gonna be booming!
Yep, that will help the economy.
Alot of the people who have traded in their clunker, were in no position to purchase a new vehicle or the means to provide a down payment before this program. Now they just traded in their clunker that probably had no payment attached to it and now they are looking at a hefty auto payment each month and full coverage insurance to pay. I say in about 5 to 6 months from now, the repo business is gonna be booming!
Yep, that will help the economy.
09-23-2009, 03:22 PM
#54
I could ride in
SuperBike
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, TN
Posts: 1,729
Let's check the math...
A clunker vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.
A more fuel efficient vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that's 224 million gallons / year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's US consumption.
And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl.
So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.
How good a deal was that ???
They'll probably do a great job with health care though!!
A clunker vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.
A more fuel efficient vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that's 224 million gallons / year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's US consumption.
And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl.
So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.
How good a deal was that ???
They'll probably do a great job with health care though!!
09-23-2009, 03:46 PM
#55
Out of my mind, back in 5
MotoGP
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Skurup, Sweden
Posts: 6,109
Let's check the math...
A clunker vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.
A more fuel efficient vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that's 224 million gallons / year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's US consumption.
And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl.
So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.
How good a deal was that ???
They'll probably do a great job with health care though!!
A clunker vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.
A more fuel efficient vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that's 224 million gallons / year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's US consumption.
And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl.
So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.
How good a deal was that ???
They'll probably do a great job with health care though!!
09-23-2009, 07:12 PM
#56
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 3,451
From the OC Register yesterday:
A young couple went to Volkswagen of Garden Grove to buy a Jetta Clean Diesel and use their 01 Nissan X Terra for the $4500 allowance. They were told that the Diesel was not available, so they settled for a Gasoline Jetta, which only qualified for $3500 under the Cash For Clunkers.
Several days later their Nissan is on the Dealer's used car lot for $5995. After checking with the dealer, the OC Register found that the dealer did not submit the Nissan for the program, since it was in such good shape.
The couple was upset, because if they had known that their X Terra was not going to be destroyed, they would have kept it for a couple more years.
So, just how many vehicles ended up being sold as used cars if the dealer stood to make more money, nullifying one of the main purposes of the Cash For Clunkers program?
A young couple went to Volkswagen of Garden Grove to buy a Jetta Clean Diesel and use their 01 Nissan X Terra for the $4500 allowance. They were told that the Diesel was not available, so they settled for a Gasoline Jetta, which only qualified for $3500 under the Cash For Clunkers.
Several days later their Nissan is on the Dealer's used car lot for $5995. After checking with the dealer, the OC Register found that the dealer did not submit the Nissan for the program, since it was in such good shape.
The couple was upset, because if they had known that their X Terra was not going to be destroyed, they would have kept it for a couple more years.
So, just how many vehicles ended up being sold as used cars if the dealer stood to make more money, nullifying one of the main purposes of the Cash For Clunkers program?
09-23-2009, 10:28 PM
#57
Senior Member
SuperSport
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 987
The dealers SHOULD be allowed to resell the cars. Maybe the dealer got sneaky and gave her $3500 instead of filing it with the program. Because the program requires it to be destroyed.
I like this quote, "The couple was upset, because if they had known that their X Terra was not going to be destroyed, they would have kept it for a couple more years."
WTF!!!!????? Read that quote three times and tell me how it makes sense.
I like this quote, "The couple was upset, because if they had known that their X Terra was not going to be destroyed, they would have kept it for a couple more years."
WTF!!!!????? Read that quote three times and tell me how it makes sense.
09-24-2009, 01:48 AM
#58
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
The dealers SHOULD be allowed to resell the cars. Maybe the dealer got sneaky and gave her $3500 instead of filing it with the program. Because the program requires it to be destroyed.
I like this quote, "The couple was upset, because if they had known that their X Terra was not going to be destroyed, they would have kept it for a couple more years."
WTF!!!!????? Read that quote three times and tell me how it makes sense.
I like this quote, "The couple was upset, because if they had known that their X Terra was not going to be destroyed, they would have kept it for a couple more years."
WTF!!!!????? Read that quote three times and tell me how it makes sense.
The morons were too moronic to know what their vehicle was worth. Tough nuggies.
09-24-2009, 08:32 AM
#60
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 3,451
And they could have tried another dealer to find the Diesel Jetta they really wanted. But most people who shop for a new car go to only one dealer.
I think the dealer should have disclosed his decision, but the whole program just seemed stupid to me. I'm paying through my taxes for someone to get a deal on a new car.
