or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Cash for clunkers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cash for clunkers - Page 6

post #201 of 337
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
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #202 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

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

It is if you ignore the total cost for procuring that black stuff out of the ground. Oil has some of the highest usable energy densities around which is why replacing it has been a challenge.

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. A win-win. Any downsides are IMHO outweighed by the positives if it increases the average MPG for the US car population.
post #203 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

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.

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.
post #204 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

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.

Two Republicans introduced a bill called The Parents' Tax Relief Act, H.R. 1421, that only got so far and no further, that would have offered the following-

"A simplified flat rate office-in-home deduction of either $2500 or the total profit from your home-based business, whichever is less, in place of the current red tape, complexities and record-keeping nightmare of the deduction for the expenses related to a portion of a home that is used exclusively for business.
An employer's tax credit of $2400 for each employee who begins telecommuting during the tax year.
Excluding the value of any telecommuting equipment provided by an employer, including computers and broadband Internet access equipment, from a work-from-home employee's taxable income."
~ http://homebusiness.about.com/b/2007...-from-home.htm

Even if your an employee, so long as your employer doesn't offer you work space, there are other deductions you can get-

"If you meet all the requirements to claim a home office, some of the expenses you can deduct include a portion of your real estate taxes, deductible mortgage interest, rent, utilities, insurance, depreciation, painting and repairs. The total amount you can deduct depends on the percentage of your home used for business."
~ http://www.bankrate.com/finance/mone...me-office.aspx
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #205 of 337
Oh look...too bad jamac isn't here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/940088ae-8...44feabdc0.html
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #206 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

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


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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #207 of 337
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
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #208 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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

post #209 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

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

That is pretty awesome.
post #210 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinkbug View Post


Please read the article. He was all about the program, but it's got flaws. Then, there is this:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #211 of 337
It seems that because their intentions are good, then unintended consequences are negligible:

http://cafehayek.com/2009/08/just-sa...sequences.html
post #212 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

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!

yes congratulations on another government failure
the dealers aren't being paid, NY dealers are pulling out of the program
my local toyota dealer did the same, can't trade in a car and stick the "evil"
dealers with this bag of crap
my friend at the toyota dealer says the government site keeps accepting then denying the trade
people have driven home and been called back

we need more stimulus for foreign branded cars, thank goodness my local steel mill provides for honda and toyota
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #213 of 337
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.
post #214 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinkbug View Post

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.

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.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #215 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

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.

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."
post #216 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinkbug View Post

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."

Are you kidding us with this post?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #217 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Are you kidding us with this post?

No, just you.
post #218 of 337
New stats

A 58% fuel economy improvement on close to 700,000 cars. Nice.
post #219 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinkbug View Post

New stats

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

Putting Cash for Clunkers Sales Numbers in Perspective

700,000 cars represents 0.28% of the 250 million cars and light trucks in U.S. vehicle fleet.

Was $3 billion of our taxes (borrowed from China because we're flat broke) worth a 58% fuel economy improvement on 0.28% of the vehicles in the U.S.?

Was it worth borrowing from future sales, which will now lag as a result?

In my opinion, it was not.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #220 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

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.

The real numbers


jamac was off by 0.4 mpg (about 0.6%)
overall error approximately -2%
in statistics one would call this exact.
post #221 of 337
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.)
post #222 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

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.)

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.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #223 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

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.)

You already get tax breaks to put up solar panels and a current boom in solar energy is already helping many companies and their employees. Several car manufacturing plants have been idling or using much less energy due to no car sales. To calculate a net energy effect of this program is difficult if not impossible, however most dealers still burn electricity if they sell cars or not. You are not proposing to artificially create a depression in order to save energy, are you? That means Bush was the greenest president ever. If you buy your car online you already have your dealer utopia. Most dealers are "DealerX Ford, Chrysler, Chevy, Isuzu" and so on...?
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.
post #224 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

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.

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.
post #225 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinkbug View Post

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.

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?

There are plenty of other opportunities too. The united states is addicted to disposable products and buying new things. This has certain merits, but it should at least be recognized as a genuine phenomenon. Our entire construction industry is based upon cheap products installed by unskilled labor. This is incredibly detrimental to society due to what it does to the distribution of wealth. Replacement window corporations have advertising budgets while local contractors don't. When people have bad windows in their home, they are fairly unaware of the alternatives. Repair is not only more economical, it is also environmentally friendly and produces a more equitable distribution of wealth. Instead of paying corporations which have highly paid executives and low paid workers, we could be paying hundreds of thousands of skilled laborers and achieve a flatter distribution of wealth.

There really are opportunities beyond throwing away cars. The cash for clunkers program is the equivalent of paying people to bulldoze their home and build a new home!

True, the cars at dealerships cost money, energy, and labor to produce as well. But I wasn't proposing scrapping them instead of the clunkers. The correct thing to do is to not pay people to scrap cars. That is, unless a sound environmental case can be made for that scrapping. I don't think the cash for clunkers program qualifies as such.
post #226 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

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

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.
post #227 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

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.

Unfortunately the home construction industry got bloated with over production. The last thing we need to do is have welfare for developers, or auto dealers or ...

This is basically corporate welfare for the auto industry. Liberals used to be against that. What's changed? The unions own the auto industry now. How quickly principles are compromised for special interests.\
post #228 of 337
This conversation reminds me of a part of one of my favorite movies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krcNIWPkNzA

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #229 of 337
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.

The program has pro's and con's. Look at it this way- the times they are a changin, soon everyone going to want to plug and play at infinite mpg's. These old Suv's are the first to meet their maker, then it'll be the low mileage cars and until were all in hybrids then all in electric, hydrogen etc. Was three billion worth it? Probably more so in the US than any other contry in the world, as US consumers have had low gas prices and a thing for big vehicles (that independant spirit!) for a long time. People need vehicles, so the boom and bust theory is on shakey ground and that's a handsome giveaway for the auto makers/dealers/suppliers etc, who need it and need to be successful moving forward.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #230 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

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

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.
post #231 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

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.

Labor already invested? Energy already invested? Sunk cost. It's in the past, already happened.

Going forward?

2,300 gallons of gasoline not used for every 100,000 miles driven, new versus old MPG.

700,000 low MPG vehicles removed from ~260,000,000 vehicles in the USA today.

It's not nearly enough, but it is a very small start, it's better than doing absolutely nothing.

My heating costs would be equally low if I were to live much further north. I will admit that my situation is fairly unique and would not apply to most others. 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.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #232 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

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?

Isn't this part of Obama's plan as well. However since gov wheels turn slowly it will take a few month to come to your neighborhood. Weatherizing houses is adding value to private real estate. Cars are not real estate and loose value swiftly, however they currently still consume oil. We must therefore help the development of alternative energy source cars as much as we can.

How do you feel about the cash for your old fridge program that is being discussed? Refrigeration takes a lot of energy, more than your old windows. It's not hot or cold all year round but the fridge is always on.
post #233 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

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.

Second you on that! My windows are gas filled, double pane. Most my lights are LED.
post #234 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

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.

You could opt for some guys new invention giving a Mustang 0-60 in 4 secs and about 140 mpg. He says it works. Google it I'm on an iphone at the moment so can't provide the link. Tesla cars too are worth considering 0-60 4 secs ish and 200 miles on a charge or 3 can't remember and tons of mpg's. They have a cheaper version priced about £45,000 so maybe about $65,000 that's still very fast, that due out very soon.

Those should be fun and you can always plug in earphones of formula 1 racing for the total experience, but if you can get the Mustang thingy you might get the whole package.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #235 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

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.

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.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #236 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

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.

Ah, that's right, my bad. (my a6 quattro avant 2.8 in the US got 20mpg on average and was a '98, so i might have been tempted to get the very sweet and high mpg mini clubman) i think I'll wait till there's a fully elec in 15 months or so.

Oh, thanks, my first diesel. I better write on the fuel cap in big letters diesel or I know I'll forget and put petrol in!



I think the program is still running here and I think it's a little different from the US. £2000 ($3000) similar to the US with ten plus yr old car.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #237 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

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.

Yea, right. Ones that got at least ONE extra mile per gallon. Brilliant.
post #238 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

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

From the CARS rules:
Quote:
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.

and later in the same document

Quote:
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.

And then it goes on to state:

Quote:
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.

So yes, trucks were 1MPG or better, but the passenger cars had to have at least 4MPG or better to even qualify, and 10MPG or better to get the $4500 back. So the trucks saved less fuel than the cars, but in Hands case the car would not have even come close to qualifying. Passenger cars were the greatest fuel savings out of the entire program.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #239 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

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

Grossly misleading statement. It's misleading because it appears to suggest that the net improvement in MPG, across the entire ~700,000 vehicles sold, could be as low as one MPG.

The actual in situ numbers speak for themselves and have already been posted in this thread.

9.2 MPG improvement or 58% improvement over the entire data set.

9.2/1 ~ O(10) not O(1)

In military parlance, there are several lessons learned here, in going forward with a 2nd (or several) CARS installment(s).
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #240 of 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.

It seems likely that electric cars will be for just about everyone within about five years. Doesn't Tesla already have cars that do 300 miles per charge?
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Cash for clunkers