backtop

Auto Cash For Clunkers Recap
Michael Barkoviak - August 27, 2009 8:40 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 72 comment(s) - last by Obsoleet.. on Aug 28 at 4:45 PM
Cash for Clunkers was a success, according to government employees, as many dealerships wait for their money

The government-led Cash for Clunkers program officially ended on Monday, with sales numbers and financial results related to the program still trickling in.

To date, auto dealerships have submitted 690,114 vouches -- totaling $2.88 billion -- of the $3 billion allotted for the nationwide program.  Many dealerships are still waiting to receive monetary compensation from the government, but federal officials say they just need to be patient.

The top five cars purchased through the program were the following: Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Toyota Camry, Ford Focus, and Hyundai Elantra.  The top five vehicles traded in for new vehicles:  Ford Explorer 4WD, Ford F-150 Pickup 2WD, Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD, Ford Explorer 2WD, and Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan 2WD.

Furthermore, the average American who made use of the program added 9.1 miles per gallon fuel efficiency in the new vehicle.  The average clunker gas mileage was 15.8 miles per gallon, while the new-vehicle mileage was 24.9 miles per gallon.

Even though the auto industry received a sales spike, the increase is expected to be short-lived, auto analysts claim.  In July, auto sales increased to 11.2 million -- the first month in 2009 when it went above 10 million.  Sales plunged towards the end of 2008, as consumer confidence dropped like a rock, which is one of the reasons Cash for Clunkers was created.

The increased auto sales in July will help increase economic growth in Q3 by 0.3 or 0.4 percentage points, government officials recently estimated.

President Barack Obama's administration applauded the program, saying it has been a success, despite some major setbacks along the way.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Clunker Tax
By Machinegear on 8/27/2009 8:59:56 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The increased auto sales in July will help increase economic growth in Q3 by 0.3 or 0.4 percentage points, government officials recently estimated.


...then tank in early 2010 as buyers struggle with their newly added personal debt and heavier tax burden from the taxable $4,500 buck credit.

http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=0,89...




RE: Clunker Tax
By Hiawa23 on 8/27/2009 10:13:14 AM , Rating: 4
...then tank in early 2010 as buyers struggle with their newly added personal debt and heavier tax burden from the taxable $4,500 buck credit.

I really don't get this mentality. Who says the consumers who bought the vehicles will be struggling, but I am sure some will, as there are risks with anything you buy.

Some act like they just gave vehicles to every poor person who walked into the dealership. I think for the most part many mangage their debt just fine, & I keep seeing comments like these all over, like it's some sort of crutch or something.

In life the individual has to take responsibility for their decisions, & at any given time anything can happen to threaten anyone's livelyhood, & their are programs in place for if someone falls on hard times, then, like anything else in life, iff you don't pay, they come pickup the vehicle.

If someone defaults on a car loan or any loan, I feel for them but not sure why so many use this argument to say, well you shouldn't have bought the car in the first place. I am not bashing, just saying, sometimes things in life change for the worst, & too many want to judge everyone.

Too many like to get on their high horse & bash people. Like I said, hardtimes can hit anyone. Seems like the program did what it was supposed to do.

They got some clunkers off the road, sold more vehicles than they would have, some kept their jobs, & there are always going to be defaults, as peoples financial situations change, but the greater good to me was served, although I think this will be shortlived. If you don't agree, that's fine, but the hateraid some like to cast out on these message boards when they disagree is just not needed.


RE: Clunker Tax
By theapparition on 8/27/2009 10:38:08 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think for the most part many mangage their debt just fine

Hahahahaha......

Sorry, I'm still laughing too hard at this post a reply.

Let's see, subprime mortgages (don't blame it on the lenders, who signed the paperwork?), housing bubble, personal debt, not having 6months worth of savings, etc.

Yeah, most Americans manage thier money real well.


RE: Clunker Tax
By Hiawa23 on 8/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: Clunker Tax
By Hiawa23 on 8/27/2009 11:27:54 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry, I'm still laughing too hard at this post a reply.

I said many, said nothing about most, but your response is exactly what I was talking about. So many on their soapbox. I think I said people need to be responsible for their own decisions, & wasn't talking about blaming anyone. I find absolutely nothing funny about the financial crisis the country the world & many find themselves in today. Nothing at all as alot of good people are having their lives turned upside down for the selfishness of other, many innocent..


RE: Clunker Tax
By Nfarce on 8/27/2009 11:56:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
They got some clunkers off the road, sold more vehicles than they would have, some kept their jobs


700,000 cars & trucks "traded" for this program is not even scratching the surface of the estimated 250,000,000 cars and light trucks (includes SUVs, full sized vans, and minivans) in this nation. That's .28% or roughly one quarter of one percent.

Was it worth the $3,000,000,000 of taxpayer dollars to take care of one quarter of one percent of alleged hoopties? The jury is still out on that. But what is not debatable is that taxpayer dollars were used to assist people buying a new car or truck and artificially stimulate new vehicle movement. Further, as others consistenly remind us, this has driven up the used car prices and is expected to drive up the cost of auto repair due to fewer parts being available. And I've said it more than once here on this topic: not all of the vehicles listed as clunkers were clunkers.

For example, there is absolutely nothing wrong with my 2000 Nissan Frontier pickup with 121,000 miles on the clock. It will easily double that if continued to be taken care of. If someone can explain to me why a pickup truck that gets 25mpg on the highway and 22mpg around town is a clunker, I'd sure like to know - irrespective of the fact that it faithfully passes stringent metro Atlanta emissions every year.

Finally, someone who owns a vehicle worth $1,500 sees free money when getting a $4,500 discount on a new $17,000 Corolla. Just about anyone can get a car loan out there, and you can bet there were a lot of high risk 5-7 year 10-15% APR loans sold out there. How that pans out for them in the next year, especially if jobs continue to be shed, will have to be seen.


RE: Clunker Tax
By sigmatau on 8/27/2009 1:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For example, there is absolutely nothing wrong with my 2000 Nissan Frontier pickup with 121,000 miles on the clock. It will easily double that if continued to be taken care of. If someone can explain to me why a pickup truck that gets 25mpg on the highway and 22mpg around town is a clunker, I'd sure like to know - irrespective of the fact that it faithfully passes stringent metro Atlanta emissions every year


Um, a Frontier DOES NOT qualify for the program. They were targetting cars under 20mpg mostly.

By removing the most polluting vehicles, the statistics you posted get skewed. They removed the worst of the worst, not below average vehicles. Your .28% is much larger as those .28% accounted for a lot more than .28% of the pollution.

Banks aren't giving loans to high risk people anymore. If they can't afford what's left over after the discount, they probably won't get a loan. Some will. But it won't be a huge amount as you would suggest.


RE: Clunker Tax
By Nfarce on 8/27/2009 2:39:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Um, a Frontier DOES NOT qualify for the program. They were targetting cars under 20mpg mostly.


Uhm, fact check much? What, you think I just make everything up here or something?

http://www.edmunds.com/cash-for-clunkers/eligible-...

Now use that little mousie thingie of yours and scroll ALLLLLLL the way down to where you see "Nissan Frontier." Now if you need help with that bro, you are in the wrong forum.

quote:
Banks aren't giving loans to high risk people anymore.


Oh yes they are. If you put at least 20% down, which this government plan essentially did. How do I know this? A coworker got one with 2 charged off credit card balances and 1 outstanding balance. But she's paying for it.

quote:
Your .28% is much larger as those .28% accounted for a lot more than .28% of the pollution.


Where in my post did I ever mention "pollution" there? Facts are facts. It sounds to me like you just don't like them.


RE: Clunker Tax
By sigmatau on 8/27/2009 5:10:12 PM , Rating: 3
Um you lied about the vehicle's fuel economy. The program doesn't go by what you get by driving like an old lady. That's why I said you vehicle didn't qualify as the program works best for vehicles under 20mpg... I couldn't imagine you'd get anything for 22+mpg.

Your vehicle is rated at 21mpg or less combined. You probably would get $3500 or less. The vehicle is actualy worth more so you are better off not going by the program. Also, this would work best if the car wasn't taken care of well.

I personaly wouldn't use it unless the vehicle was about gone and was getting under 20mpg.

You didn't mention pollution, but I did. That is the whole purpose of the program. They remove the .28% of the worst offending vehicles and may get a couple of percentage points less pollution. $3 billion is a drop in the bucket for making the auto market more efficienct.


RE: Clunker Tax
By Nfarce on 8/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: Clunker Tax
By Nfarce on 8/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: Clunker Tax
By Exirtis on 8/27/2009 10:37:30 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, man. Just... chill.


RE: Clunker Tax
By sigmatau on 8/27/2009 11:16:46 PM , Rating: 1
Wow! Look in the mirror. Why did you get so worked up over that? LOL!

You said Frontiers get 22-26+mpg. The government doesn't go by what YOU get. Do you understand this? They have tested the vehicles a certain way and get 21mpg or under. If a Frontier did get rated by the government, NOT YOU, at 22-26mpg, then yes, YOU WOULD NOT GET ANYTHING. I based this upon what you stated a Frontier gets. My bad for believing you.

Second, even at 21mpg, which is the most economic Frontier btw, you wouldn't get the $4500 you said you would. You get that on vehicles of 19mpg or less.

Everything else you just began to foam at the mouth so I won't bother to explain again.

Good Luck!


RE: Clunker Tax
By Nfarce on 8/27/2009 11:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, I flew off the handle. I apologize. You set me off telling me what I do NOT get in MPG on that thing which I know from basic fill-up math (ie: drive from a full tank 350 miles on an interstate, fill up at a stop with 14 gallons = 25 mpg). You also set me off telling me I "lied" and that my truck was not on the list for clunkers (which you ignored). BUT, the FACTS are what they are. My truck is NOT a "clunker" as are many other millions of vehicles on the road not purchased in the last 5+ years.

And no, as stated in another post on this same topic a few days ago, trading in that truck for a new one would be a waste of money. That is also another point brought up by many here: how many who bought a new car really NEEDED one?
The government artificially created a "need" out there - and yes, lots of junk needed to be removed.

And more to the point, EPA ratings are artificially set low. I see you are one who only believes government and that is your right of course. And I again apologize for getting riled up over something rather trivial.


RE: Clunker Tax
By Nfarce on 8/27/2009 11:54:28 PM , Rating: 1
And by the way...

quote:
Second, even at 21mpg, which is the most economic Frontier btw, you wouldn't get the $4500 you said you would.


You have a bad habit of putting words in other people's mouths. That $4,500 mentioned was the maximum allotted. Nowhere did I state that my truck would qualify for that.


RE: Clunker Tax
By Soldier1969 on 8/27/2009 1:00:00 PM , Rating: 1
What's not needed is obamaites like you agreeing with this garbage being doled out. Those top 5 car choices I wouldn't take for free. Bail outs and handouts are not what this country is about. It's individiualism the drive to do for yourself. Stop taking hand outs. Work hard het off your lazy ass and work for a living. 2012 can't get here fast enough to get this country back on track.


RE: Clunker Tax
By sigmatau on 8/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: Clunker Tax
By Nfarce on 8/27/2009 3:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
Now your sheer stupidity is showing. Shoulda known...

So you, brainiac, tell the rest of us idiots two things:

1) How our Founding Fathers founded this nation on "handouts."

2) How claiming a tax deduction is "taking" taxes in a "handout."

I'll be waiting, bro.


RE: Clunker Tax
By Obsoleet on 8/27/2009 4:30:09 PM , Rating: 1
"Bro"-

Your answers.

1. The freedom of this country solely depended upon the French delivering us a hand(out).

2. Someone else is going to have to give the gov't more money for the deduction you received. That's taking a handout from someone else while you enjoy the same public services.

Fox News lied to you.


RE: Clunker Tax
By sigmatau on 8/27/2009 4:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
Thank You.


RE: Clunker Tax
By Nfarce on 8/27/2009 5:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. The freedom of this country solely depended upon the French delivering us a hand(out).


You mean the same France who's ONLY interest in helping the Colonies was because they were revolting against the British, WHO WAS AT WAR WITH FRANCE AT THE TIME? Is that all you got? What is this, Anandtech Blog Idiot Day?

quote:
2. Someone else is going to have to give the gov't more money for the deduction you received.


I love how you idiot tardboys say "give" the government and the government "gives." Do you mouth breathers understand that people PAY THE GOVERNMENT? Finally, the fact that the top 50% of income earners pay 97% of all income taxes, and the fact that the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all income taxes means that only those who PAY THE MOST in taxes will suffer the most for any tax BREAK.

Next....


RE: Clunker Tax
By Obsoleet on 8/28/2009 4:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You mean the same France who's ONLY interest in helping the Colonies was because they were revolting against the British, WHO WAS AT WAR WITH FRANCE AT THE TIME? Is that all you got? What is this, Anandtech Blog Idiot Day?

You're speaking to France's intentions. They don't matter. If they do matter in this discussion, it'd been worth noting they did sincerely sympathize with the cause of liberty in the States and their kingdom was already financially stressed before their entry with 0 additional allies in Europe who would also assist the effort. Contrary to your claim, they also were not in open warfare with GB prior to their entry into the war. Many Frenchmen joined the direct effort assisting the Americans selflessly, including LaFayette. You may have heard of him.

To the fact of the matter: the USA would have never won the war had it not been for France. Winning without their aid was impossible. The patriots knew that.

quote:
I love how you idiot tardboys say "give" the government and the government "gives." Do you mouth breathers understand that people PAY THE GOVERNMENT? Finally, the fact that the top 50% of income earners pay 97% of all income taxes, and the fact that the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all income taxes means that only those who PAY THE MOST in taxes will suffer the most for any tax BREAK.

This is all excess, extra information.
Bottom line is that their is a budget that needs or should be met, the money has to come from somewhere. When you receive a tax break for any reason, that gap needs be filled or there's a budget deficit whether it's through foreign loans or increased taxes on another party.


RE: Clunker Tax
By knutjb on 8/27/2009 9:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
You need to learn a little more about what happened. The French waited to jump until the war looked liked it was going to hurt the British. They were promising help from the beginning but waited till the end to jump in, our proposed political system went against their soon to collapse monarchy. They "did" help, but to give them sole credit is simply ludicrous.

Your uber liberal education lied to you.


RE: Clunker Tax
By Nfarce on 8/27/2009 11:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
Thank YOU!


RE: Clunker Tax
By mdogs444 on 8/27/2009 3:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you really are a moron.

First off, this country wasn't founded on handouts. In case you don't really recall - the majority of the people who came and started this nation didn't have any money to hand out. They earned it on their own backs. It's hard to take a handout when your government hasn't even instituted the policy of taxation yet, idiot.

If you are taking a tax deductions from citing your kids as dependents, that only means you are paying taxes to begin with and reducing your tax liability. Thus you are still paying, just not as much. A handout is welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, getting a stimulus check when you didn't pay taxes, etc.


RE: Clunker Tax
By sigmatau on 8/27/2009 5:00:35 PM , Rating: 1
So getting several thousands of dollars off your taxes each year just beacuse you had kids isn't a hand out? It's a tax deduction? LOL!!!!!

Sorry buddy, but I'm paying for your kids so you ARE taking a hand out from me. Why do people get tax breaks for kids? Well not everyone does, but some people that meet certain income levels do. Why? To help them out since they have an extra expense. What if everyone paid at the income that maximized this deduction and also had kids at the same time? It wouldn't work. So basicaly some of us have to pay for your slack if you get a large deduction for having kids.

Got it yet?


RE: Clunker Tax
By Hiawa23 on 8/27/2009 5:05:16 PM , Rating: 3
What's not needed is obamaites like you agreeing with this garbage being doled out. Those top 5 car choices I wouldn't take for free. Bail outs and handouts are not what this country is about. It's individiualism the drive to do for yourself. Stop taking hand outs. Work hard het off your lazy ass and work for a living. 2012 can't get here fast enough to get this country back on track.

You don't know me from Adam or who I voted for, so not sure how you can label me an Obama anything. I went to college got my degree & run a company, so life is good for me, I am a prime example that if you work hard get an education the skys are unlimited. 2012 can't here fast enough to get this country on track, LOL, come on, the country was off track before many even heard of OBAMA. Some of you are hilarious with this. Lazy ASS , wow, some of you go way overboard, but you are certainly welcomed to your opinion, & there is a certain segment of the population that are looking for a handout, or need some help, & those that need help should be hleped.

As far as the program goes I think it did what it was supposed to, whether or not you agree is moot. For those who took advantage of it worked, & all I said was It was good to see cars moving, if just shortlived. That's all I said. It's ashame many are spewing this poison all across this country, but again you are certainly welcomed to your opinion.


RE: Clunker Tax
By xprojected on 8/27/2009 10:16:52 AM , Rating: 1
This isn't like the housing bubble - people aren't buying cars way more expensive than they would've bought otherwise (among the top buys are the Corolla, Focus, and Civic). Financing is the same as before, no "subprime" or interest-only loans or anything. And being taxed for the full price of a car they're already buying isn't going to break the economy. With the massive dealer closings, this at least helps some of them keep jobs.


RE: Clunker Tax
By Hiawa23 on 8/27/2009 10:23:03 AM , Rating: 1
This isn't like the housing bubble - people aren't buying cars way more expensive than they would've bought otherwise (among the top buys are the Corolla, Focus, and Civic). Financing is the same as before, no "subprime" or interest-only loans or anything. And being taxed for the full price of a car they're already buying isn't going to break the economy. With the massive dealer closings, this at least helps some of them keep jobs.

I agree 100%. It's like I said I look at the greater good, although it may be shortlived. I agree.


RE: Clunker Tax
By rippleyaliens on 8/27/2009 12:15:04 PM , Rating: 1
Not a housing bubble, but still something wrong..
My biggest rant about the cash-clunker idea, is that people actually RAN out and traded -0- dept for new DEPT. Meaning, that yah they got a much more fuel efficient vehicle but their monthy bills just went up >300 a month. Even with the 0$ apr car loans, adding a $300-400 a month expense all in the name of saving $90 a month in fuel, and that was if you had a 15mpg tank and got a fuel sipper..

Sweet the Govt, to the rescue of all the soccer moms buying suv's, or people who had cars collecting dust.. (looking at video at the clunkers it seems that those were second cars ANYWAY, )..

By looking at craigslist, the number of junk cars for sale just went through the roof... I would like to see more detailed records on the next 24-36 months, of Re-poed cars, that were cash /clunker deals.. And with our economy set for yet ANOTHER round of ARM loans to flip, from 2010-2012.. AS 2007 was still a SELLING Frenzy year to home sales.. and with many people getting 1/3 and 1/5 year arms.. next few years will be even more roll backs..


RE: Clunker Tax
By Cerin218 on 8/27/2009 1:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
You assume that those buying new cars had zero debt. Look at it from another standpoint, the car loan itself may be payed off, but you still have maintenance and repair of your older vehicle. Once the monthly maintenance and repair cost of your current car equals a new car payment, then it is time to buy a new car. Just because you have payed off the loan, it doesn't mean that you are free and clear of any cost. My truck is 10 years old with 175k miles on it and I just spent 2300 for a transmission replacement. Which is equal to six months worth of car payments when I was paying them. With a new car you trade the monthly payment for lower repair cost as the vehicle is newer. I have been thinking about buying a new truck simply for the reliability of a new vehicle. My tranny went out and I was on the side of the road in the winter waiting for a tow. I am starting to weigh the no car payment versus the reliability of a new vehicle.

You assume you know the motivations for all people that took advantage of the program. And as far as the repo's, businesses are being more careful of who they give loans to in light of the recent economic troubles, where this just wasn't the case two years ago. I had to prove my ability to pay the loan back when I took out a line of credit recently. No more NINJA loans.


RE: Clunker Tax
By Hiawa23 on 8/27/2009 5:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
Not a housing bubble, but still something wrong..
My biggest rant about the cash-clunker idea, is that people actually RAN out and traded -0- dept for new DEPT. Meaning, that yah they got a much more fuel efficient vehicle but their monthy bills just went up >300 a month.

& why is someone's bills any of your business?


RE: Clunker Tax
By OoklaTheMok on 8/27/2009 11:47:31 AM , Rating: 3
The $4,500 credit is not taxable. It does not count as income.


RE: Clunker Tax
By xprojected on 8/27/2009 4:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
My guess is that they meant it was included in the price for figuring out sales tax (which would be nowhere near income tax). They wouldn't *add* it to your gross income for fed taxes. I don't know, maybe some people thought they could deduct it from their income tax? Anyway, yeah, the keloland article is pretty vague, and doesn't really say where they got the information from.


Top Vehicles Bought
By microAmp on 8/27/2009 8:57:35 AM , Rating: 5
I wonder what the official top vehicles bought were, not cars, but vehicles.

Older article about Edmunds Top Ten Vehicles
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/autos/cash_for_clu...




RE: Top Vehicles Bought
By xprojected on 8/27/2009 9:58:17 AM , Rating: 3
http://www.cars.gov/files/official-information/Aug...

That is vehicles, but because they split FWD/AWD, many trucks/SUVs with both drivetrains are pushed down the list.


RE: Top Vehicles Bought
By knutjb on 8/27/2009 12:10:34 PM , Rating: 1
They split up vehicle types they didn't want to display such as trucks and SUVs because they want to show people when given a choice will only buy greener and smaller cars. So they skewed the numbers. Nothing like the facts...

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Disraeli

What do those who have to pay for other peoples cars think about it? The funny part to me is the government may end up putting a few dealers under because of failure to pay and since the cars had to be destroyed first whatever value they had is gone. Nothing like a money grab for post dated checks.

These are the same people who you want to run your health care?


RE: Top Vehicles Bought
By Donovan on 8/27/2009 1:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
They split them up because they get very different gas mileage, and because that's how the www.fueleconomy.gov system has them listed. If you search their listings or use the CARS eligibility wizard you'll see that 2WD/4WD/AWD are part of the names, while engine and transmission (which also affect mileage) are not. A quick search for images archived on the net confirms it has been that way since long before Cash for Clunkers existed.

I appreciate the desire to look for sinister fudging of statistics, but in this case it also happens to be the most obvious and natural way to have listed them. They just dumped the counts of all vehicles with the same name in the system.

And if you bothered to look at page 2, you should have seen that 59% of new vehicles were cars while 84% of trade-ins were trucks. The top 10 lists look exactly as you would expect given that.


RE: Top Vehicles Bought
By Spuke on 8/27/2009 2:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I appreciate the desire to look for sinister fudging of statistics, but in this case it also happens to be the most obvious and natural way to have listed them.
It IS sinister because NO ONE counts cars sales like that. If you post sh!t like "Top 10 New Vehicles Purchased", one would expect to see the Top 10 New Vehicles Purchased!!! The fact that the government cherry picked the data and came up with some BS way show a simple count the cars sold like EVERY damn car manufacturer does EVERY damn month, that makes me extremely suspect of their motivations. And before anyone puts me in the RepublicanAntiObamaRushLimbaugh list, look at my past posts and you will see that I simply despise BS regardless of whose mouth it comes from. Plain and simple, the gov BS'd us, yet again.


RE: Top Vehicles Bought
By Parhel on 8/27/2009 3:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
It would have been nice if Edmunds had given a little background as to how they came up with their numbers. Either way, I can't argue with you. The gov't numbers are extremely suspect.


RE: Top Vehicles Bought
By superunknown98 on 8/27/2009 4:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
I am with you on that. Did Edmunds just count all the vehicles sold during the program whether they were bought with the rebate or not? Not that I trust the Government all that much either but someone is lying.


RE: Top Vehicles Bought
By knutjb on 8/27/2009 10:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
You are utterly clueless. I am saying the ENTIRE CARS product is twisting the statistics to meet a political end.
quote:
They split them up because they get very different gas mileage, and because that's how the www.fueleconomy.gov system has them listed.

Why? Is it so hard as to show the sales broken down by maker/model in this day of computer technology? What is there to hide?
quote:
And if you bothered to look at page 2, you should have seen that 59% of new vehicles were cars while 84% of trade-ins were trucks. The top 10 lists look exactly as you would expect given that.

If you bothered to compare Edmund's commentary to the CARS numbers you would plainly notice CARS DOES NOT show how many of each car was sold by model, just a simple top 10. You can't prove to me they don't have these numbers or show where they are providing them, they have them because they have the VIN from every sale to prove if $3500 or $4500 rebate is justified. These numbers are vague for a reason they don't want to show a detailed breakdown, because it won't paint such a pretty green picture.

If the CARS data had shown a wonderful movement to small green cars they would have presented it that way, more positive propaganda!

The CARS product is nothing more than weak political propaganda.

It is rational to question everything government says and does, they are frequently in conflict.


RE: Top Vehicles Bought
By tallcool1 on 8/27/2009 12:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
This web site, following the governments lead is misleading the public because of that. Just to push their agenda to make people think that people just bought small cars with this program. The real facts are that many SUVs and Trucks where also purchased.

The Real Top sellers are:
Rank Vehicle Including 4WD/AWD models

1 Ford Escape
2 Ford Focus
3 Jeep Patriot
4 Dodge Caliber
5 Ford F-150
6 Honda Civic
7 Chevrolet Silverado
8 Chevrolet Cobalt
9 Toyota Corolla
10 Ford Fusion

I'd like to hear a response from the author of this blog/article. Do you deny this Edmunds.com report?


RE: Top Vehicles Bought
By Donovan on 8/27/2009 1:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
What makes that list any more useful than the government one? If, for example, there are fewer eligble truck models to choose from (compared to car models) then truck buyers will be concentrated in a smaller number of models. That would push them up the list. Neither list is useful for determining how many trucks were bought..those numbers are deviously hidden (on the very next page):

Vehicles Purchased
Cars:             404,046 (59%)
Trucks (all):   280,895 (41%)

Vehicles Traded-in
Cars:             109,380 (16%)
Trucks (all):   575,821 (84%)

Yes, many trucks were bought because far more trucks were turned in...the government press release even points this fact out as a positive:

"In addition, the program provides good news for the environment. That’s because 84 percent of consumers traded in trucks and 59 percent purchased passenger cars. The average fuel economy of the vehicles traded in was 15.8 miles per gallon and the average fuel economy of vehicles purchased is 24.9 mpg. – a 58 percent improvement."


RE: Top Vehicles Bought
By Spuke on 8/27/2009 2:43:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
What makes that list any more useful than the government one?
Good Lord, some of you guys live in Bizarro World. LOL! What makes that list useful is that it counts actual cars sold. Wow! What an idea! The exact same "method" that car manufacturers use every month. In the industry, this is called the 1-2-3-4-5 algorithm.


RE: Top Vehicles Bought
By Parhel on 8/27/2009 3:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'll be honest, I have a hard time believing anyone would buy the Dodge Caliber. I know . . . there's an ass for every seat, as car salesmen say, but the Caliber is a tin can on wheels.


RE: Top Vehicles Bought
By superunknown98 on 8/27/2009 3:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
So, the Federal Government Is outright lying on there cars list? Because The Edmunds list does not match up even when adding trucks and AWD vehicles.

CARS says the Corolla was #1 and the Focus was #4. So how does the Focus become #2 and sell more than the Corolla all of the sudden? Adding in a few trucks to the list doesn't make the Corolla sell worse than the Focus.

And besides, Edmunds list shows more American vehicles being purchased, something that many media outlets were scorning the CARS program for not doing. If the whole "point" of the cash for clunkers" was to lift the economy wouldn't it be better to show most of the cars sold were from American companies?


RE: Top Vehicles Bought
By Parhel on 8/27/2009 3:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
The gov't list split different drive trains of the same model into two different line itmes. Thus, the Focus FWD and the Focus AWD are considered two different models. When combined, as in the Edmund's list (and as common sense would dictate,) the Focus moves up the list.

Since many SUVs are available in FWD and AWD models, splitting them by drivetrain moves them down the list. They are suggesting (and I'm inclined to agree) that the gov't took advantage of that to make it look like mostly small cars were sold during the program.

Hope that made sense. It confused me as well when I first read it.


RE: Top Vehicles Bought
By superunknown98 on 8/27/2009 4:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
I Understand that part, But as far as I cal tell the Focus does not have an AWD model. How do they explain that? And if they do please let show me a link because I can't find one.


RE: Top Vehicles Bought
By Parhel on 8/27/2009 4:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I was getting the Fusion and Focus confused. Now I understand your original post, and you're absolutely right. These numbers aren't jiving. Maybe it's a an issue with the dates the different sets of numbers were taking into account . . . I don't know.


hehe...
By Breathless on 8/27/2009 8:47:01 AM , Rating: 2
Now lets see how long it takes for these dealerships to get their money.... :)

Lets also see how many dealerships try to reneg on their customers because they didn't get the money from the government and make them pay the difference or return the car (as some of them were making their customers sign a contract for)




RE: hehe...
By rdeegvainl on 8/27/2009 9:02:03 AM , Rating: 3
I'm waiting to see sales plummet now that it's over. If it doesn't I'll be happy, by I really expect it too.


RE: hehe...
By marvdmartian on 8/27/2009 9:31:57 AM , Rating: 2
Although, said contracts guaranteeing the customer would pay if the government didn't, were quite illegal, according to the rules of the program (if I remember correctly).

Honestly, the govt did make the dealerships jump through hoops to get the money, but that was due to two things; govt beaurocracy in it's infinite ability to complicate anything at all, and it was the govt's way to ensure that they weren't getting any (too many) bogus claims. Honestly, I read through the rules of the program, and if the dealerships simply hired 2-4 people that could do the paperwork with some attention to detail, then they shouldn't have had any trouble getting their money.

Shoot, I even helped out my dealership by showing them the part in the rules where it said that proof of ownership didn't have to be 1+ year's worth of registration paperwork (honestly, does anyone save their old registrations??), but instead could be the current year's registration AND a title showing they'd had ownership for over 1 year. Until I showed them that, they were really sweating that detail, and were really happy to see that they didn't have to!


RE: hehe...
By Hiawa23 on 8/27/2009 9:54:27 AM , Rating: 2
Form what I see, looks like the plan was a success, given many dealers were out of stock, or selling vehicles at a level we hadn't seen for some time. I am not political but I do follow what's going on, & I look at the the greater good in things. My only minor issue is I would have liked to see more American vehicles sold cause it appears most traded in the American brabded clunkers for foreign made vehicles, & to me foreign vehicles put together hear doesn't keep the money here in America. Hopfully, dealers will get their money & things can atleast star to move in the right direction, as how the car companies do tie into how the country does as a whole.


RE: hehe...
By bldckstark on 8/27/2009 11:24:47 AM , Rating: 2
Buying an American OEM car doesn't keep the money here either. Toyota and GM are both publicly traded companies. The money goes wherever the stockholder lives. If the vehicle is built in America, then the same amount of money stays here regardless of which company built it.

If you want more of the "foreign" cars money to stay here, buy more stock in that company.


RE: hehe...
By BansheeX on 8/27/2009 12:34:14 PM , Rating: 3
Dude, you're an idiot. How is getting America into even more consumer debt a success? The government is going into even more debt on our behalf and will have to raise taxes or inflate that much more to "afford" this program. It's a shot of heroine for the junkie who badly needs withdrawal. People like you have been brainwashed into believing that consumption is what drives sustainable growth. It's not, it's savings and production. Borrowing to consume is what drives bubble growth, growth with some proportional future payback.

It's obvious logic. If this type of thing works with no future consequence, let's do it for everything: homes, appliances, televisions. If borrowing to consume instead of produce works, let's just do 5 times what we're doing now because that will be 5 times better, right? 20x? 40x? Remember, we can't legitimately afford 1x even, because the way in which the bond market now operates is like a ponzi scheme. We issue new debt to pay old interest. Ponzi schemes end very badly because the pool of savings is finite. Ask Madoff.


Wow, 4/5 top cars were foreign
By tviceman on 8/27/2009 10:53:52 AM , Rating: 3
Saying this as a life long GM customer, if this trend isn't reversed soon then their government-backed bankruptcy bailout will have been a massive, obvious failure.




RE: Wow, 4/5 top cars were foreign
By xprojected on 8/27/2009 3:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
At least GM is trying to shape up and fly right now, killing slow brands and creating new/global models like the Volt, Cruze, Spark, etc. We bailed out Chrysler too, and I didn't see them do a damn thing to their product line, other than sell it to Fiat Group.


By xprojected on 8/27/2009 4:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
I guess this is more of a reply to tallcool1's post below...


By Atheist Icon on 8/27/2009 4:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We bailed out Chrysler too, and I didn't see them do a damn thing to their product line, other than sell it to Fiat Group.


Unfortunately, Chrysler didn't sell itself to Fiat, the US Government, in it's infinite wisdom, GAVE AWAY the company to Fiat. Another reason why the Gov't is inefficient with other peoples money.


By s12033722 on 8/27/2009 10:58:56 AM , Rating: 2
Most people buying cars were going to buy a car anyway. They might have bought a nice used car instead of a new one, but they were customers planning to buy nonetheless. What cash for clunkers did was shift the demand for the next several quarters into the current one, so the numbers for this quarter will look great, but the next few quarters will look much worse than they would have - and we spent 3 billion to do it.

Additionaly, this hurt the used car market, both by shifting demand from used cars to new cars and by removing many perfectly servicable vehicles from the road prematurely. That was 700k cars that would normally have been purchased and used by high school and college students, low income families, etc.

Finally, the way the government counted the models is patently dishonest and intended to skew the numbers to make it appear that more people were buying small cars than was the reality. By splitting vehicle counts based on different drive train configurations, etc. they artificially lowered the count of vehicles which have many drive train options such as pickups and SUVs.




By RU482 on 8/27/2009 12:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That was 700k cars that would normally have been purchased and used by high school and college students, low income families, etc.


To the contrary...sounds like the achieved the goal of reducing foreign oil dependance and removing polluting cars from the road. One way to boost public transportation is to remove vehicles from the option list of the most likely users of said public transportation.

As for hurting the used car market....No, it's a shot in the arm for the used car market. Used car values just went up by law of supply and demand.


By s12033722 on 8/27/2009 7:30:03 PM , Rating: 2
The increase in fuel economy was only enough to save 347 gallons of gas per car per year assuming 15000 miles driven on average, or a total of 239.4 million gallons of gas a year. The US uses 55.1 million gallons of gas per day. We just spent 3 billion dollars to reduce our gas consumption by less than 5 days per year, or about 1.1%. That's not exactly serious progress towards energy independence in my book...

As for making it a shot in the arm for the used car market, how does that work? When prices rise, demand drops... This program just removed a lot of cars that were worth less than $4500 from the road. That's a price hike. In response, less people are able to buy used cars.


By xprojected on 8/27/2009 3:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
Many of the buyers were also holding out, wanting to make car purchases earlier but waiting for that perfect "deal".


Such a deal for taxpayers
By douggrif on 8/27/2009 11:18:36 AM , Rating: 2
OK, I think I understand that we taxpayers got to spend $2.88 Billion to help mostly Japanese and Korean vehicle manufacturers (only Ford is an exception) and a few thousand American vehicle dealers. The clunkers comprised of mostly operational vehicles and a lot of good parts that could have been recycled will soon be destroyed (watch out for increased used part prices?). The 690,114 new vehices will get an optimistic 9.1 more mpg so we should expect 239,440,193 gallons saved (at 15,000 miles driven annually) with 24.9 mpg "Greenies" vs 15.8 mpg "Clunkers"). So at $2.50 a gallon the total annual savings is $59.8 Millon. Wow! What a bargin.




RE: Such a deal for taxpayers
By tallcool1 on 8/27/2009 12:39:44 PM , Rating: 2
Actually Chrysler vehicles made it into the top 5, (read the Edmunds.com report), but GM (Government Motors) didn't do so well even though GM got the bulk of the tax payers money. Also, Ford did not recieve any of the tax payer bail out money. (good for them)


By Lazarus Dark on 8/27/2009 7:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
for a 5.7L V8 Challenger.
14 mpg in town.
lol.

Course I only got $500 for the clunker I traded. It's okay, the Challenger didn't qualify for the program anyway.
I think my Challenger single handedly wipes out the gas savings of all the CFC program cars. Oops.




I thought it was a good idea...
By brandonicus on 8/28/2009 2:47:18 AM , Rating: 2
First off, I like obama, to the point that I will not capitalize his name. Most importantly, I agree with the cash for clunkers. This is due to the fact that it would have been spent either way...a budget is a budget (this makes me upset and irate with the government by the way). It did stimulate the economy...as far as we know...Which in my opinion (as someone who is looking for a job) is a great thing. In the end I am a democrat and I hope obama continues with his recovery plans...personally I just want a job, and with a master's degree in comp sci I feel a bit annoyed at the job market at present.




"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki