Cash for clunkers - Page 6

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

We might just find out that the cheapest "solar" energy is that black stuff in the ground.

Originally Posted by vinea

We've saved an amazing amount of oil this year through conservation (mostly driving less but smaller cars too). CARS helps that further and stimulates the economy.

Originally Posted by Taskiss

The government should offer tax incentives to businesses that allow workers to work from home.

A lot of people drive to work every day that could just as easily work from home. I save about 1,000 gallons a year by working from home.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

On sale in US and Europe late next year or 2011. 90 mph all electric.


video- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_257448.html

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Oh look...too bad jamac isn't here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/940088ae-8...44feabdc0.html

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

One down side to an economical vehicle in the US is that you can feel, and are, pretty vulnerable when surrounded by big SUV's and trucks. So look what's being taken off the roads and what's replacing them.

"Top 10 Trade-in Vehicles

1. Ford Explorer 4WD

2. Ford F150 Pickup 2WD

3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD

4. Jeep Cherokee 4WD

5. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan 2WD

6. Ford Explorer 2WD

7. Chevrolet Blazer 4WD

8. Ford F150 Pickup 4WD

9. Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2WD

10. Ford Windstar FWD Van

Top 10 New Vehicles Purchased

1. ToyotaCorolla

2. Ford Focus FWD

3. Honda Civic

4. ToyotaPrius

5. Toyota Camry

6. Hyundai Elantra

7. Ford Escape FWD SUV

8. Dodge Caliber

9. Honda Fit

10. Chevrolet Cobalt"

~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...r-clunkers-suv

Originally Posted by Stinkbug

Originally Posted by jamac

Mr. Barilliant Obamazing got a hit on his hand.
Cars are flying out the lots and less CO2 is produced. Its not much but hey we got to start somewhere.
Maybe it's not always bad to copy socialist democratic countries' ideas. This one is from Germany.

CONGRATULATIONS Mr. President.

booboopi dooo!

Originally Posted by Stinkbug

The end is near

We will never know how many folks did not loose the job at dealerships nation wide. We do know however that several 1000 worker were re-hired by US car companies.
This is horrible how could our government do such a terrible thing. It is not the govs place to help workers or car dealers. Our money goes a wasting.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

And when the program ends and everyone that intended to buy a car over the next couple years has bought one within the span of 2 months, demand will go down and sales will go down.

Short-term gain, long-term loss.

Originally Posted by Stinkbug

500,000 clunkers are no longer available for purchase. A big hole in supply of crap.
People with good credit or cash who were on the side lines, bought new cars.
People who see new cars drive around, feel better about the economy.
The economy will improve simply because people think things are getting better.
Buddha: "With our thoughts we create our world."

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Are you kidding us with this post?

Originally Posted by Stinkbug

New stats

A 58% fuel economy improvement on close to 700,000 cars. Nice.

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

No. We don't have all the numbers. Once we have them then we can do some real analysis. Until then, this is guess work.

Originally Posted by dfiler

I voted for Obama and generally support the liberal agenda... but can't get behind the cash for clunkers program.

Destroying perfectly good automobiles and convincing people to buy an unneeded replacement is not a good idea in my book. New cars typically require monthly payments too. It all strikes me as very similar to how we got into the real estate fiasco, convincing people to buy things that they don't really need.

Producing the new vehicles required a huge amount of energy, energy that I'm not sure will be made back by driving a more fuel efficient car. The program also encourages people to continue driving cars, which is one of the worst things that a government can do to the environment.

Pouring these same resources into other programs would have been a better option. A truly forward looking America would have rethought its transportation agenda rather than encouraging people to take on debt just to buy an unneeded car.

Think about all the human labor and natural resources that went into producing the vehicles that were scrapped. All of that labor was thrown away. We might as well have just burned huge stacks of money and thousands of acres of rain forest.

But I suppose some people got a shinier car to park proudly in their driveway. And I suppose we perpetuated a couple of poorly run and non-optimal industries.

Here's something interesting to consider: The entire structure of automobile retailing is horribly inefficient. Having parallel distribution channels for every brand is a waste of money and human productivity. If every dealer had access to every brand and model of car, there could easily be fewer dealers and we would all pay less per vehicle. Modern, computerized information systems make this a viable model for the industry.

Just one alternative... We could have paid for the training of tens of thousands of people to specialize in weatherizing of homes. We could have offered tax incentives for property owners to have an energy audit and repairs made. Simple weather stripping of windows and doors would have saved more energy and money than the cash for clunkers program. This plan would have provided long-term jobs and also wouldn't have involved the scrapping of millions of hours of human labor associated with perfectly good automobiles. Ensuring that all the building in the nation are well maintained is a simple way to save money in the long run while being environmentally friendly at the same time.

What we did is the equivalent of paying people to burn down their home and buy a new one. Pure idiocy!

(Which reminds me, I need to have storm windows built to fit my 100 year old window frames. Properly made wood storm windows will last 100 years or more and are just as efficient as vinyl windows that last a mere couple of decades. The same is true for original double hung windows. We need an army of contractors that know how to do maintenance instead of ripping things out and replacing them with short-lived petroleum based products. It would help the environment, level the distribution of wealth, save home owners money... everyone wins! That is, except for replacement window manufacturers, corporations with advertising budgets being used to convince us that local laborers can't fix those old windows.

Yep, if I were president, I would have started a national program for the training of contractors. We should be fixing things instead of throwing them away. Fixing things provides jobs, good paying highly skilled jobs. Throwing things away and buying new tends to support corporations with less-well compensated employees.)

Originally Posted by dfiler

I voted for Obama and generally support the liberal agenda... but can't get behind the cash for clunkers program.

Destroying perfectly good automobiles and convincing people to buy an unneeded replacement is not a good idea in my book. New cars typically require monthly payments too. It all strikes me as very similar to how we got into the real estate fiasco, convincing people to buy things that they don't really need.

Producing the new vehicles required a huge amount of energy, energy that I'm not sure will be made back by driving a more fuel efficient car. The program also encourages people to continue driving cars, which is one of the worst things that a government can do to the environment.

Pouring these same resources into other programs would have been a better option. A truly forward looking America would have rethought its transportation agenda rather than encouraging people to take on debt just to buy an unneeded car.

Think about all the human labor and natural resources that went into producing the vehicles that were scrapped. All of that labor was thrown away. We might as well have just burned huge stacks of money and thousands of acres of rain forest.

But I suppose some people got a shinier car to park proudly in their driveway. And I suppose we perpetuated a couple of poorly run and non-optimal industries.

Here's something interesting to consider: The entire structure of automobile retailing is horribly inefficient. Having parallel distribution channels for every brand is a waste of money and human productivity. If every dealer had access to every brand and model of car, there could easily be fewer dealers and we would all pay less per vehicle. Modern, computerized information systems make this a viable model for the industry.

Just one alternative... We could have paid for the training of tens of thousands of people to specialize in weatherizing of homes. We could have offered tax incentives for property owners to have an energy audit and repairs made. Simple weather stripping of windows and doors would have saved more energy and money than the cash for clunkers program. This plan would have provided long-term jobs and also wouldn't have involved the scrapping of millions of hours of human labor associated with perfectly good automobiles. Ensuring that all the building in the nation are well maintained is a simple way to save money in the long run while being environmentally friendly at the same time.

What we did is the equivalent of paying people to burn down their home and buy a new one. Pure idiocy!

(Which reminds me, I need to have storm windows built to fit my 100 year old window frames. Properly made wood storm windows will last 100 years or more and are just as efficient as vinyl windows that last a mere couple of decades. The same is true for original double hung windows. We need an army of contractors that know how to do maintenance instead of ripping things out and replacing them with short-lived petroleum based products. It would help the environment, level the distribution of wealth, save home owners money... everyone wins! That is, except for replacement window manufacturers, corporations with advertising budgets being used to convince us that local laborers can't fix those old windows.

Yep, if I were president, I would have started a national program for the training of contractors. We should be fixing things instead of throwing them away. Fixing things provides jobs, good paying highly skilled jobs. Throwing things away and buying new tends to support corporations with less-well compensated employees.)

Originally Posted by franksargent

Nothing was thrown away, 100% of the steel will be scraped and reused, we don't have to dig it up as iron ore, big savings right there.

Burning down one's house is a very poor analogy indeed. It's like saying someone gave me $4.5K to burn down a few square miles of Amazon rainforest.

700,000 individuals tops purchased new more fuel efficient cars under the CARS program.

$3 Billion tops, that's a roundoff error compared to a $3+ Trillion annual federal budget.

My electric bill this month? $31.14 July in Mississippi! What you're talking about above is nothing compared to what I've invested with a sum total of $20 and my most excellent engineering know how.

Originally Posted by Stinkbug

We are fixing things everywhere, streets, bridges, freeways at least where I live. Many of the things you want are already in progress, I am not sure what you would like to add?
The cars which sat at harbor parking lots and at parking lots at GM and Ford are now thinned out. Every car sitting there doing nothing cost money and energy as well.

Originally Posted by dfiler

The cash for clunkers program is the equivalent of paying people to bulldoze their home and build a new home!

Originally Posted by Taskiss

Yes, it is. And in building the new home, the entire home construction industry is engaged, when they wouldn't have been otherwise. Since "priming the pump" of the construction industry (automotive industry) is the focus of the program, your example highlights the benefits towards that goal.

I'm a backer of the program, but the worry I have is that no new cars will be sold for the next year or so. Feast and famine makes a lousy business environment...I grew up in a farming community and have some experience with that.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Look at it this way- the times they are a changin, soon everyone going to want to plug and play at infinite mpg's.

Originally Posted by dfiler

Nothing was thrown away? How about the labor invested in building those cars? There is also the energy that went into manufacturing.

You're right that the program was only a small portion of the total budget. But this thread is about the cash for clunkers program. Were we not supposed to comment on the cash for clunkers program in this thread?

Your utility bill is envious! Keep in mind that households in the colder parts of the nation can easily have $500/month heating bills.

Originally Posted by dfiler

You're not sure what I was proposing to add? Were you not replying to my tirade about fixing windows and weatherizing houses? I can see people disagreeing with that post. That's perfectly reasonable. But did you really miss that part about weatherizing and windows?

Originally Posted by franksargent

I'm sort of an energy saving miser, simply because it means more money in my pocket, and not in the pockets of the fossil fuel club.

Originally Posted by Taskiss

Noooooo... not "everyone". I've got a mid-life crisis scheduled to begin in 2 years and one of the things my wife is allowing me to buy to alleviate said "crisis" is a new Corvette.

HP > mpg.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

OK, yippee!

Today i put down a deposit of £150, that's about $220 on a Seat Cordoba, 120hp, diesel, yr1999 estate. It's official fuel consumption is 52 mpg city, 58 combined and 64 highway ( that's in Uk gallons which are 4.5 litres to a gallon as to a US gallon which is 3.7 litres.

Anyway, Thank god (or some unknown spiritual phenomenom) that it wasn't clunked as I checked it out pretty thoroughly and test drove it, and will get plenty of miles out of it.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Nope, never would have been taken for the Clunkers program. The program was designed specifically to take low MPG cars in for trading to Higher MPG cars. Congrats on your new/used car though.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Nope, never would have been taken for the Clunkers program. The program was designed specifically to take low MPG cars in for trading to Higher MPG cars. Congrats on your new/used car though.

Originally Posted by FloorJack

Yea, right. Ones that got at least ONE extra mile per gallon. Brilliant.

http://www.cars.gov/files/official-information/rule.pdf

The CARS Act establishes four criteria for an eligible trade-in vehicle. The trade-
in vehicle must:
(1) be in drivable condition;
(2) have been continuously insured, in accordance with State law, and
registered in the same owners name for the one-year period immediately
prior to the trade-in;
(3) have been manufactured not earlier than 25 years before the date of trade-
in9 and, in the case of a category 3 vehicle, also be from a model year not
later than model year 2001; and
(4) have a combined fuel economy value of 18 miles per gallon or less, if it
is a passenger automobile, a category 1 truck, or a category 2 truck.

In addition to the definitional categories, the new vehicle purchased or leased
under the program must achieve a minimum combined fuel economy level. For new passenger automobiles the combined fuel economy must be at least 22 miles per gallon,
for category 1 trucks it must be at least 18 miles per gallon, and for category 2 trucks it
must be at least 15 miles per gallon. Category 3 trucks have no minimum fuel economy
requirement.

1. Vehicle Categories and Credit Amounts
The preceding section described eligibility requirements for the trade-in vehicle
and for the purchased or leased new vehicle. Under the CARS Act, a transaction does not
qualify for a credit unless the trade-in vehicle and the new vehicle, considered together,
satisfy all requirements. In addition, the amount of the credit (either $3,500 or $4,500) is
dependent on the category and fuel economy of the two vehicles making up the
transaction.

For example, in a transaction involving a trade-in vehicle that is a passenger
automobile, a category 1 truck, or a category 2 truck and a new vehicle that is a passenger
automobile, each meeting the eligibility criteria discussed in the last section, if the new
vehicle has a combined fuel economy that is 4 to 9 miles per gallon higher than the trade-
in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If the new vehicle has a combined fuel economy that is at
least 10 miles per gallon higher than the trade-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500.
If the transaction involves a trade-in vehicle that is a passenger automobile, a
category 1 truck, or a category 2 truck and a new vehicle that is a category 1 truck each
meeting the eligibility criteria, a gain of 2 to 4 miles per gallon results in a credit of
$3,500; a gain of at least 5 miles per gallon results in a credit of $4,500.
In the case of a new category 2 or category 3 truck, the trade-in vehicle categories
are different. For a new category 2 truck, the trade-in vehicle must be a category 2 or a
category 3 truck. If the transaction involves two category 2 trucks each meeting the eligibility criteria, a gain of 1 mile per gallon results in a credit of $3,500; a gain of at
least 2 miles per gallon results in a credit of $4,500. A category 3 truck that is traded in
for a new category 2 truck is entitled to a $3,500 credit, without fuel economy restriction.
(Category 3 trucks are not rated for fuel economy by EPA.) A category 3 truck that is
traded in for another category 3 truck is entitled to a $3,500 credit if the new vehicle is
smaller or similar in size.

Originally Posted by FloorJack

Yea, right. Ones that got at least ONE extra mile per gallon. Brilliant.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I saw that. Looks really well-done to say the least. Of course, I don't think electric will take off until it has similar range to gas powered...say 300 miles. And there will need to be a way to charge quickly on the road. People aren't going to wait 30 mins.

I know..."urban drivers will buy one....what about commuting?" Electric will sell, but it won't make a dent in gasoline for a long time. The demographic is going to be the limiting factor. Urbanites, environmental crazies and people that have another car for longer trips will buy one. Single males, suburban families, longer-distance commuters will not.