Cash4Clunkers Admin Responds To MPG Switcharoo, Says Nothing
In response to the controversy over official MPGs getting upped, disqualifying some car owners from taking advantage of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Cash For Clunkers program, a spokesman says affected consumers should "call our attention to it." They did not, however, say they would do jack about it. [CNN Money]
PREVIOUSLY: EPA Tweaks Official MPGs Prior To Cash4Clunkers, Shafting Some (Photo: morsteen)
Post a comment
Comments:
Another well rehearsed government answer. Never say that you are going to do anything, just tell people to bring their attention to it. Like they didn't already know what they were doing.
The whole thing is a scam to begin with and has a negative environmental effect. Plus it is just more foolish deficit spending of a kind that failed elsewhere. When will these idiots in DC ever learn?
Hasn't the MPG standards been around since the 60's? I would think that the whole rating system needs to be overhauled, I think we would see a decrease in all of our vehicles ratings go down.
Glad it wasn't health care... oh, sorry you had that operation, but we decided not to cover it. Thank you!
@allstarecho: Yeah, I'm pretty sure "Clunker confusion: MPG figures" is not a proper web address. Especially when you don't include http ://, turning it into an even more broken relative link. ;-)
what that means is "get someone with big bucks or media influence to lean on us, because that makes us fix it."
I am surprised that local car dealers are reporting significantly increased business as a result of the 'cash for clunkers' program. I am also surprised that car dealers generally are doing so well. I was in both Honda and Chrysler dealerships recently and they were busy.
The Hyundai of El Paso dealership sold 72 new cars Friday, Saturday and Monday in the first three days of the program. Thirty-five of the sales qualified under the CARS program. The dealership sold 41 cars on the same three days the week before the program began.
Dick Poe Toyota Scion, had sold 16 new vehicles under the program through Tuesday afternoon. The Dick Poe Family of Dealerships, which also include Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge, had about 45 sales that qualified for the rebate program.
We desperately need another czar to oversee this program. There is no problem on Earth that can't be solved by another layer of beaurocracy.
It is my experience, as is undoubtedly everybody else's, that engines do not get better with age. Our 1999 Accord got 29 overall MPG when we first got it, but only around 25 when we traded it in. I am sure a vehicle that got 18 combined in 1988 hasn't gotten any better since then.
@HurtsSoGood: Well they do get better with age, but its something that probably looks more like a bellcurve. They increase for the first couple thousand miles and then have a long trailing loss.
Brand new engines are tight and need to wear in.
That's why I only date brand new engines.
How's that hope and change workin' out for everyone? :D
If McCain and Palin were in the White House we would have at least gotten a free moose trade in.
I am signed up for the CFC newsletter (I traded in my truck on a hyundai). It basically said the program might not last 1-2 weeks at the rate it is going. They only have 1 billion set aside for it, and lots of dealers are already on their 60th CFC trade, and they estimate 12,000+ dealers may participate.
The whole case for clunkers program is a billion dollar handout to the car industry - it has NOTHING to do with pollution. $4,500 on a $15,000 car is 30%. where else are you going to get that?
I replaced by 15 mpg explorer in 2007 for a 28mpg Mazda3 - where was the cash for clunkers then.
Just checked mine...a few weeks ago it was 22, now it's 24.
@The_Gas_Man: If McCain and Palin were in the White House, they'd be too busy blaming everyone else for what is happening around them...instead of taking care of bidness.
The CARS program is absolute idiocy though...it's just a handout (aka bailout) thinly veiled in stupidity.
@HurtsSoGood: Surprisingly enough, my 1994 Olds (EPA rated as 22 combined) gets anywhere from 20-23 MPG, depending on how I drove that tank. 15 years after she rolled off the line, she's still pulling in the gas mileage she was rated for.
That's not to say I wasn't disappointed to learn I couldn't trade her in under the CARS program.
@wrjohnston19283: If you hand a car company a billion dollars and they still have a backlog of cars, then they fire all their workers as they don't need to make anything. The dealers get nothing and car parts manufacturers get nothing.
If you hand the public a billion dollars and they buy cars, the car company makes more and can only get money by building and selling cars. So dealers get saved, workers get saved, car part makers get saved, and the public actually benefits.
The Bush bailout was giving the companies free money for nothing, it was unnatural and helped the direct company stay alive but left related companies and workers screwed. Obama's solution is to give them money while making them work for it and in a way that the auto companies cannot screw over all related businesses and industries.
I think there is that whole "analysis" that shows it costs more environmentally to create a new car rather than just keep one that gets bad mpg. Pretty dubious "study" imo. I traded in my 14mpg truck that smoked, had an oil leak under it, and got a low emission car that gets 32 mpg. Somehow, I think that will help the environment.
I think this whole thing is a boon for junkyards. They have to destroy the vehicle, but it has to run, so they can take whatever usable part off it before they shred it. They pay the dealer "scrap value" and then they sell the parts for 10x as much or more.
Who knew Junkyard Advocates were such good lobbyists.
@IfThenElvis: dick poe is still around? I would have expected them to have gone out of business long ago. To me it will always be known as "dickless poe rent-a car." The one time I left my car for servicing, someone put 543 miles on it. They blamed a lot boy and offered me 9 cents a mile. I hired a lawyer...
@Saboth: but the production of that new car smokes even more and leaks even more oil - For you, it's probably a toss up. For other people, it's definitely better to keep the old car running.
@rbb: I met Dick last week. He's ancient but still going strong despite the smoking. His Toyota dealership was going to expand and move to the west side before "the current economic conditions".
@missdona:
No, part of the deal is the dealership has to immobilize the car by basically running a sodium silicate solution through the engine until it stops running.
@HurtsSoGood: Depends on the car. I've gotten 34 highway mpg (usually 30-33) in a 18-yr-old car that's rated 27.
I know when I looked my mileage up somewhat recently (out of curiosity, not to replace my car), it mentioned that older gas estimates may be wonky because they had changed how they did the estimates. And I think when I looked it up more recently, it said it had updated them to be in line with the new procedures. My guess would be coincidence? I don't think they'd want to restrict it further, since it already has a hard cap of date/funds and the thing is meant to prop up the economy and the car companies...
@admiral_stabbin: Tell that to the UAW worker with 4 kids to feed or the machinist who's only skill is to make number 3 screws used to make the new cars... or the truck driver that hauls parts from the screw factory to the auto factory who shops at the local grocery store on the way home...
People are still focused on how dumb it is... but you'd complain if we had to extend unemployement out two or three years because none of those people could find work.
I'm not talking about "You" in particular stabbin... just... people without answers.
Did it say HOW to let them know about getting the shaft? The CNN link doesn't work, but I'm sure the NHTSA wasn't exactly giving turn-by-turn directions about how to complain...
@Dethzilla: No worries about me taking the comments personally, I have thick skin. Further, I'm glad you point out that these programs...however misguided, misimplemented, and mismanaged...usually do have the spirit of helping people in mind.
The CARS program does not include any protectionist-style policies that I'm aware of though...so, each car sold under the program cannot be fairly considered a success (or even help) for the American auto worker...nor the industry within which they've made their livelihood. I'm not an expert on that industry, but I am under the impression that most foreign automakers that build cars in the US are not employing UAW workers.
Actually, while my comments on the CARS program could lead you to believe that I would complain if unemployment benefits were expanded...you'd find that I would not. I think unemployment benefits should have already been unilaterally expanded. People should be getting more money, and the length limitations should be stretched out for years as you've described...if needed.
The CARS program isn't an answer either...unless it's in response to the questions:
"How can we give money to car makers without making it look like we're giving them a bailout?"
"How can we give the appearance of trying to help the environment?"
I'm with you. This program makes sense to me. Yes, it is a handout, but it is one that meets several problems at once.
#1. Helps auto companies that are struggling.
#2. Helps dealers that are struggling.
#3. Reduces our dependancy on foreign oil by reducing the amount we use (slightly).
#4. Helps Americans that might have broken down cars that are just money pits.
Here's how I see it. Instead of giving GM 15 billion straight up, and working like a welfare prop...at least in this instance, qualifying people get reduced price cars in exchange for their tax dollars. I think we should have been doing this from the start instead of forking over 10, 15 billion directly to the automakers.
@Saboth: I should add to my earlier comments that I'm always a fan of tax breaks. While I think the program is bunk, I don't think that doing nothing is better.
@missdona: The dealership frags the engine so it cannot be resold as a car. Then I am guessing that they will sell it as scrap value which is usually by pounds. Junk yards or auto recyclers will have a boon but probably will be flooded with certain model cars. Recyclers only keep cars around until the cars are stripped down or for a set period of time then they scrap them. One self salvage place I go to (PullaPart) in the southeast buys by the lb., keeps track of the cars by date, scraps by date (or content). I suspect that they weigh the car inbound and then outbound and figure out how much profit they received on average for the time period the car was available. That place also vampires all the fluids and mercury switches from the cars for recycling.
The real people who benefit will be people who need parts (excepting engines) for their same or similar model cars as the majority of cash for clunkers vehicles traded in.
@Corporate_guy: Because it results in a driveable car being shredded, thus requiring the creation of a new vehicle. Making a car uses energy and raw materials and generates polution.
(Without this program, either the original owner could have kept the "clunker", or it could have been resold on the secondary market.)
@HurtsSoGood: I had a 1986 Camry which I bought in 2003 that was EPA rated for 25 or 26 MPG, but which generally got in excess of 30 MPG in my practice. If I did almost exclusively highway driving for a tank of gas, I'd often get 34-35.
it really just depends on the car.
My parents are shopping for a new car. Last week, their old minivan reportedly got 17mpg combined according to the EPA. They were interested in a new small SUV that got 23mpg. This would result in a rebate of $4500. Now fueleconomy.gov says the minivan gets 18mpg and the SUV gets 22mpg. Now they only qualify for a $3500 rebate. The SUV's MPG rating had a note that said "New EPA MPG" but of course the gov't didn't note that the old minivan's rating had changed too.
Okay, I traded in a car right before this asinine program went into effect. Traded a sedan getting 20 MPG (my figure) for a hybrid getting 41 MPG (my figure and EPAs figure). Under this program I do not qualify, even though my car gets double the mileage I got before and the emissions are less than when I pass gas.
BUT a guy with a piece of junk SUV getting 17 MPG can trade up for one making only a few more MPG and get a full credit.
Great thinking guys.
@wrjohnston19283: I heard on the Stuff You Should Know podcast that these figures are based on absurd assumptions/practices:
* Cars tested on rack, not on road (air friction & mass acceleration factored out)
* Cars burned in absurdly properly (non-real world conditions)
* Tests test emissions not miles per gallon (I'd be fine with two tests)
* "City" driving is absurdly simplified 5-minute (again, on rack) series of accelerations
And more niggling points. It needs to be scrapped and realistically test what's supposed to be tested.
@veg-o-matic: Yup. Let's join together and allow Perfect to be the enemy of Good.
And why do I have the feeling that the people railing the loudest against this program drive SUVs or 450 Hemi trucks on their way to their programmer/accountant jobs?
More constructively, I heard a rule of thumb that upgrading your car every ten years is a net gain for the planet: the improvements outweigh the backhand smack producing a vehicle delivers to Ma Earth.
@tailstoo: Why call in the government when the private insurers have developed it to a fine art already?
The [[CNN Money]] link doesn't go to CNN.