Cash for Clunkers: Often, new vehicles got about same mileage as old

[Craftsman]

WASHINGTON -- The most common deals under the government's $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program, aimed at putting more fuel-efficient cars on the road, replaced old Ford or Chevrolet pickups with new ones that got only marginally better gas mileage, according to an analysis of new federal data by The Associated Press.

The single most common swap, which occurred more than 8,200 times, involved Ford 150 pickup owners who took advantage of a government rebate to trade their old trucks for new Ford 150s.

They were 17 times more likely to buy a new F150 than, say, a Toyota Prius. The fuel economy for the new trucks ranged from 15 mpg to 17 mpg based on engine size and other factors, an improvement of just 1 mpg to 3 mpg over the clunkers.

Owners of thousands more large old Chevrolet and Dodge pickups bought new Silverado and Ram trucks, also with only barely improved mileage in the middle teens, according to AP's analysis of sales of $15.2 billion worth of vehicles at nearly 19,000 car dealerships in every state.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/nov/05/program-detour/

[customerserviceguy]

1. Cash for Clunkers was poorly designed

On the other hand, it might have been designed to clear showrooms and car lots of big-ass vehicles that dealers felt stuck with. Was it written by congresscritters from Michigan?

[whyverne]

4. They should have added one more level

to get to the real clunkers. So that the working poor like me could have traded in their 1985 van for one of the so called clunkers.

I saw some of the so called clunkers at a dealers. They were freakin' immaculate compared to my old piece of crap.

They could have charged me a couple hundred for the trade so that the dealers could make some money on it. Then they would have had some real clunkers to scrap.

[AndyA]

2. Cash For Clunkers did little to help the environment, in fact it is more harmful

Disabling the vehicles traded in so they have to be towed around from that point on was a stupid, idiotic requirement. Tow trucks don't get good gas mileage. So, instead of driving a perferctly operable vehicle to be dismantled, it had to be towed. Which means the tow truck makes two trips. Smart. Really smart, and about what I expect from people in Congress today.

How much fuel do the tow truck trips alone waste? I guess it depends on how many miles round trip, but when you consider the number of vehicles disabled, it's going to total up a LOT OF MILES. WASTE.

Once the raw parts are assembled for a vehicle, it's impact on the environment in that respect is over. The new vehicles being built to replace them have an immediate impact on the environment.

Bad idea, bad program that benefitted the auto makers, most notably Toyota, a foreign corporation. Once again America puts everyone else first, then wonders why people here can't find jobs. Let's send more jobs overseas! Let's cut taxes on American companies to build new operations overseas! Let's not tax imports the way other countries tax our imports.

Will they ever learn? :eyes:

[Fumesucker]

3. Well, that's a shocker..

People who drive pickups like or need pickups and are unlikely to buy an economy sedan.

I was talking a few weeks ago with a guy that had a diesel powered Ford Excursion with a huge enclosed trailer behind it at the gas station as we were both filling up.. I asked him what kind of mileage he got with the rig and he told me low twenties on the highway with the trailer behind it at supra-legal speeds. This trailer was at least twenty feet long, seven feet wide and seven high, it had one of those bulbous aerodynamic devices on the front at the top.

That doesn't really surprise me, I hauled my 7x12 foot tandem axle flatbed trailer full of firewood yesterday with my daughter's gas powered Expedition and got just over eighteen mpg highway at sixty mph average by using a few simple hypermiling techniques, I got over twenty mpg at sixty mph with it empty going the other way. The trailer with the firewood on it probably weighed almost as much as the truck.

Having an on board real time fuel economy readout has made a huge difference in the way I drive, my daughter averages about twelve mpg in her Expedition while I can easily average seventeen in the same vehicle just by paying attention to the mpg gauge and adjusting how I drive for maximum economy.

[CoffeeCat]

5. I think everyone with functioning neurons...

...understood that Cash for Clunkers was first and foremost an economic stimulus. The possibility that
people would replace their gas guzzlers with more fuel-efficient choices--was a nice warm fuzzy and an
added benefit of the program.

Many dealerships were treading water. Cash for Clunkers was a life preserver, intended to stimulate car sales.

It was a success, in that respect.

I guess the media wants to spin it otherwise. Watch--the right-wing-loony brigade will be pushing this talking point.
They'll position CfC as a failure, because the newly purchased cars weren't that more fuel efficient. Yup, people who
have kow towed to the oil companies and people who insist that global warming is a fairy tale will use this argument
to thrash about against the CfC program and denigrate its success.

Don't cha love the ironical faction in this country?

CfC was an raging economic success.

[bushisanidiot]

6. That's not what Edmunds or the CARS websites say

http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers-drives-consumers-to-fuel-efficient-choices-edmundscom-reports.html

"Before CARS, the top two vehicles purchased after trade-ins were the Ford F-150 and Chevrolet Silverado 1500 pickup trucks. The top 10 list was rounded out by SUVs, crossovers, minivans, trucks and only two cars. Specifically, in order, the F-150 and Silverado were followed by the Ford Escape, Dodge Ram Pickup 1500, Ford Edge, Honda Odyssey, Chevrolet Traverse, Toyota Tacoma, Toyota Camry and Ford Fusion.

By comparison, of the top 10 vehicles purchased to replace a clunker in the government's program, six were cars. The rest of the list includes a couple crossovers and two pickups. Specifically, the Ford Escape topped Edmunds.com's list of vehicles bought to replace clunker trade-ins, followed by the Ford Focus, Jeep Patriot, Dodge Caliber, Ford F-150, Honda Civic, Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Chevrolet Cobalt, Toyota Corolla, Ford Fusion. "

Also, the CARS website indicates that 85% of the trade-ins for the CARS program were truck/SUV's and 59% of new vehicles purchased under the CARS program were cars. It sounds like your source has things really wrong.

http://www.cars.gov/files/reports/summary-statistics.pdf

[NJmaverick]

7. Edmunds doesn't have the Associated Press's anti Obama/Dem agenda

so they don't get in line with the BS story

[Igel]

28. It's quite possibly the same numbers.

I don't know if the numberes are right, but there's no necessary conflict with your sources' numbers, at least none that I can see from a superficial glance. They're look at different subsets of data and aggregate them a bit differently to say something that each finds interesting. That's what we do with data, which are absurdly mute and seldom, if ever, actually speak for themselves.

If the most common replacement for old F-150s was was F-150s, that means just that. It's not saying that F-150s were the most common replacement for anything else, nor is it saying that F-150s were the most common replacement. There's nothing misleading about it, assuming that you read it for what it says, not for what you think it might be saying.

Perhaps the writer assumed you'd misconstrue what he was saying. Perhaps not.

Even as it is, were CARS constructed even just a little bit differently you'd have gotten rather different results.

For an another example of misreading stats--which aren't misleading, just easily misread--look at standardized test scores like SATs over the years. They're relatively flat, but that masks all kinds of interesting trends among different subsets of data. So there were far more students taking them, which pulled the average down--many of the students wouldn't have taken them 30 years before. At the same time, the top achieving groups achieved even more, pulling the numbers up. So--which is it? Were average test scores up, down, or flat? Answer: Depends on which subset of data you look at: The whole set, the lowest 25%, or the top 25%.

[Statistical]

29. Still the information provided was selective and misleading.

The INTENT was to mislead.

More F-150 owners bought F-150 however the most purchased vehicles were highly efficient.
The average fuel economy gains were 58%.

None of that was covered in the article. When you selectively pick only the stats that support a viewpoint and then present only those with an implied claim that "most vehicle were not much more fuel efficient" that is misleading.

[Arkansas Granny]

8. I don't have time to research it right now, but wasn't part of the program

designed to reduce emissions over the life of the newer vehicles? I seem to recall hearing that discussion.

[Statistical]

9. I call BS. 1 to 3 mpg improvement .... WOULDN'T QUALIFY.

The program required 4+ mpg improvement for $3500 credit and 10+ mpg improvement for $4500 credit.

So not a single vehicle in the c4c program resulted in a 1 to 3 mpg improvement. Not one.

Almost 35% of the credits were the $4500 one which means consumer gained 10+ mpg in fuel economy.

[Craftsman]

10. I beg to differ, I bought a new 2009 Ford Ranger to replace my 2001 Heep

Cherokee, it got 1 more mpg then my Heep. I got $3500 and would have bought it anyway.

[Statistical]

11. Then either you or dealership committed fraud.

Govt funds under false pre-tenses. If you were aware your vehicle didn't qualify or you signed something falsified by the dealership then you are complicit.
If not then likely the dealer committed fraud behind the scenes. Took a qualifying purchase from a "non-clunker" purchase and forged paperwork to make it look like your clunker resulted in that sale.

The $3500 "cars" credit require the replacing vehicle to have 4mpg+ greater fuel economy than the trade-in. Fuel economy as determined by EPA.
If you feel guilty about stealing taxpayer funds then please contact cars program.

http://www.cars.gov/faq

Are there different CARS credit amounts for the purchase or lease of a new passenger car?

YES. The amount depends on the fuel economy of the new passenger car and the fuel economy of the trade-in vehicle. If the new vehicle has a combined fuel economy that is at least 4, but less than 10, miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If the new vehicle has a combined fuel economy value that is at least 10 miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500.

Since you are so concerned I am sure you will be refunding the $3500 in taxpayer funds you took but were not eligible for.

Of course the other more likely scenario is that despite your person fuel economy being virtually unchanged (which varies depending on driving style, conditions, and environment) the official fuel economy rating by EPA between the two vehicles was 4mpg or more.

[JVS]

21. That's if you are buying a CAR. For trucks and SUVs the rules change

Look at the question after the one you just quoted

"YES. The value of the credit given for the purchase or lease of a category 1 or 2 truck also generally depends on the difference between the combined fuel economy of the vehicle that is traded in and that of the new vehicle that is purchased or leased. If the new vehicle is a category 1 truck that has a combined fuel economy value that is at least 2, but less than 5, miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If the new category 1 truck has a combined fuel economy value that is at least 5 miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500.

If both the new vehicle and the traded-in vehicle are category 2 trucks and the combined fuel economy value of the new vehicle is at least 1, but less than 2, miles per gallon higher than the combined fuel economy value of the traded in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If both the new vehicle and the traded-in vehicle are category 2 trucks and the combined fuel economy of the new vehicle is at least 2 miles per gallon higher than that of the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500. A $3,500 credit applies to the purchase or lease of a category 2 truck if the trade-in vehicle is a category 3 (work) truck that was manufactured not later than model year 2001, but not earlier than 25 years before the date of the trade in."

[Gold Metal Flake]

18. Statistical is correct. Will you be contacting the police or the FBI?

Do keep us informed as to how the fraud case goes.

[gatorboy]

37. Heh! Typical freeper material.

Complains about the program but has no problem taking advantage of it.

You forgot your government cheese, sir.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

19. The only 2009 Rangers which qualified were the RWD 4 cyl. 2.3L ones

Which has an air pollution score of 6 on a 0-10 scale with 0 being the worst and 10 being the best.

The qualifying 2001 Jeep Cherokees all had an air pollution rating of 2 on the same scale.

Sounds like a fair trade off to me.

I am curious if you are getting the estimated 19-24 mpg on the Ranger though, and if you got more than the 14-20 or 16-21 (depending on which model you traded in) out of your Jeep Cherokee?

[Craftsman]

20. Mine is a V6 supercab

The dealers here in Houston could not keep them in stock they were C4C'ing them as soon as they hit the lots.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

22. That explains the reason it doesn't have better gas mileage.

It wasn't on the list of approved new vehicles for purchase. A lot of dealers gave the $3500 trade in value just to turn vehicles even if they weren't getting the money back from the government.

I bet if you check the VIN on your old vehicle you'll find it's still out there someplace, rather than being scrapped.

[Craftsman]

23. There is a reason I call it the Heep Cherokee, It was not worth $1000

Tranny shot, leaking oil, 120k+ miles. Dented. It could not pass inspection that is why I bought something else.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

27. LOL! In that case it may have been sent out to a junkyard and not still be in circulation

I'm glad you got a good trade in value on it. :thumbsup:

[Statistical]

12. Selective statistics at best. Average fuel economy improvement was 9mpg.

Average Fuel Economy
New vehicles Mileage: 24.9 MPG
Trade-in Mileage: 15.8 MPG
Overall increase: 9.2 MPG

Per "Cars" summary report
http://www.cars.gov/files/reports/summary-statistics.pdf

Now how much gas for 9mpg save per year. Take typical 15K annual driving miles.

15,000 / 24.9 = 603 gallons of fuel
15,000 / 15.8 = 950 gallons of fuel
Savings 347 gallons per vehicle on average. A 36% consumption savings.

For the record for the 700,000 vehicles in the program that is a savings of 4,614,534,086 pounds of CO2.

[taterguy]

24. Of course if you have a shiny new vehicle you'll use it more

My anecdotal, and therefore conclusive, evidence is that I've been putting twice as many miles on the vehicle I bought in September as I used to put on the vehicle it replaced.

The new vehicle is more fun and more reliable.

Please adjust your "savings" figures to take this into account.

[Statistical]

26. You drive drive around aimlessly with the goal of turning your new car into an older one faster?

Even if initially mileage goes up the idea of a new car wears off quickly. I just don't see consumers increasing mileage just for fun especially when gas goes back over $5.00 in next couple years.

Show me some hard evidence that people with newer vehicles drive more miles OVER THE LIFE (not just in first couple weeks or months) of the vehicle and I will gadly adjust it.

[taterguy]

31. There's no hard evidence on either side of this debate which is why it's so challenging.

Suppose we took the CFC money and spent it on improvements to mass transit / pedestrian facilities instead.

I know lots of people that say they'd take a train/bike to work "if they could."

However, I have no way of knowing if they're telling the truth.

[Mari333]

13. I still have my clunker

and I will drive it til it falls apart. Dont have the cash for a new car nor could I afford to replace it. I just dont drive much now.

[NNN0LHI]

16. Same here

Hoping to get about five more year out of my ten year old Ford.

New cars meant a lot to me when I was young. Not so much any more.

Don

[Mari333]

17. heh. That reminds me of a story

My poor first husband (Im a widow), used to LOVE cars. When I met him he was in a lowrider Plum colored Hemi engined Challenger. this purple thing that went fast. 1972 or something. He drove practically laying down. He had been thru a number of cars, but he loved this one. He showed it off all the time.
After we had kids, we bought a station wagon. Brand new. He took it to work one morning and came home depressed. He told me he was depressed because he couldnt impress any of the guys at work with his new car, because, after all, it was a station wagon.
ah, how sad. Kids ruin everything.
From then on it was one family car after another.
and so it goes. Now, Im just glad I have something to get me from point A to point B, even if it rumbles and spews. Kind of reminds me of my own body.

[NNN0LHI]

52. My first "new" car was a black Challenger

I really did love that car.

Don

[cark]

14. A Disaster On Every Level

First, the $3b spent replacing cars could have had a bigger impact being spent elsewhere if the enviroment was the primary concerned.

Second, if it was about helping car manf, most of the cars purchased under CFC were most likely just pulled from future quarters.

Third, destroying valuable assets, which working cars are, is economically insane. It is like smashing windows to boost glass sales. Not to mention all the people that could have benefited from driving those cars. Some of the trade-ins were nicer than our car.

IMO this was a poorly concieved and poorly executed idea - not to mention that our country spent another $3b we don't have. We can't just keep dropping billions of dollars on every hair brained notion some politician has.

[gatorboy]

38. Poor baby.

Afraid Halliburton isn't getting enough government welfare this year?

[Obamanaut]

15. C4C was a fine program for people in the market for a new vehicle

or nearly in that market - and were able to afford such a vehicle.

For anyone else, or for any other reason, not so much.

[Orsino]

25. "About the same"?

This story makes the case that mileage improved a little bit. Getting Americans into even slightly more fuel-efficient vehicles sounds like a miracle of sorts.

The headline is misleading; often, mileage improved significantly. It improved overall.

[tjwash]

30. Fail. You're about 3 months late for that poor, tired, RW talking point. Try again.

"About the same" :rofl:

Good god...that may have been the most poorly written "news article" I have ever lied eyes on. Most talking point addled, political hit pieces are, but I've seen 14 year olds that write for their high school newspapers do a better job than that piece of crap.

Also, the Dow is up nearly 2000 from the disastrous Bush economy collapse in January, lenders are loaning money again to folks, and banks are extending credit to small businesses.

The Big-three and AIG also got told, that they no longer get an endless flow of bailout money to spend like meth-addled strippers backstage at a Flo Rida concert. Street construction projects, and infrastructure improvements, have been to popping up all over our city here as well.

Oh...oil prices are have also stabilized and sren't forecast to hit $5/gal like the Faux-spews parrots have been screaming about.

All of this in the FIRST NINE MONTHS of Obama's Presidency.

Sorry...you guys are shit out of talking points. Try the birth certificate thing again, at least that's mildly entertaining.

[supernova]

32. My SO traded a 15 yo F150 for a Scion hatchback

So, he did good.

:loveya:

[AllentownJake]

33. So he bought a Japanese Car

With his rebate...great job

[supernova]

34. He chose the one that best suited his needs

I bought a used Honda CR-V three years ago.

[AllentownJake]

35. Thank you for stimulating the Japanese economy.

[Statistical]

36. Pretty sure the CR-V is made in American by Americans and Toyota pays American taxes

Good ole American CRV.

[blue_onyx]

53. The CR-V has been made in the US from 2007 forward.

If it's an older model (which it likely is since it was bought used 3 years ago), it wasn't made here. The CR-Vs that are made here use very little domestic content (10% based on 2008 numbers).

Also, I think the comments were aimed toward the vehicle purchased with the C4C program, the Scion. Scion doesn't make its vehicles here.

[taterguy]

40. Buying an American car just stimulates the Saudi economy

:shrug:

[supernova]

41. LOL!

[Romulox]

44. One of the dumbest things I've EVER read on DU. Kudos! nt

[taterguy]

46. Why is that dumb?

Talk slowly, since, well, apparently I'm dumb

[Romulox]

48. Japanese cars run on petroleum as well. nt

[taterguy]

51. Bicycles are fueled by food, most of which is produced in America

And if the government had been willing to give me 3K I would have been glad to buy an American-made bike.

[supernova]

42. You're welcome

[Romulox]

45. Thank GAWD he got a taxpayer handout to help the Japanese economy.

I salute you.

[supernova]

47. GAWD had nothing to do with it

He bought the car that he felt best suited his needs.

Clearly the American car companies arent communicating with the american public very well.

Perhaps they'll win us back with the new breed of electric cars.

[Romulox]

49. He took a taxpayer handout then spent it selfishly. I heard the first time. nt

[supernova]

50. What would you have him buy instead?

Mr Know it all.

[JVS]

39. I shopped around the week before the program started

I looked at the Pontiac dealer because I figured that a g5 might be cheap enough. The dealers there seemed pissed off and didn't know shit about the CARS program and said to call back when it started. If I had tried to stick with them I would have been one of those that only qualified for a rebate because the government extended the program. The Nissan guys were helpful with all the paperwork and we got things set up so we could wait for the program to start and run the paperwork through before they ran out of money.

[Romulox]

43. C4C was bizarre, ill concieved. Benefited primarily Toyota, Honda, Hyundai... nt

[LaPera]

54. I don't believe a word of any AP story.