Who knew? Turns out Americans just needed a little nudge to visit their car dealers, but the promise of an extra $3,500 or more in incentives was enough to push car buyers over the hump and get them to trade in their clunkers.
And how. As we reported Friday on our sister site TheCarConnection.com, the Car Allowance Rebate Systems (CARS) program, usually called "Cash for Clunkers," has been so successful that it may have run through its allocated $1 billion in funds in just one week.
That led the US House of Representatives to vote to transfer $2 billion to the CARS program from an energy-loan guarantee fund. Yesterday, Republican Senators announced that they would oppose any extension of the program.
Nonetheless, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) said they expect the Senate will ultimately vote to allocate the money. They had opposed an extension because they felt the current program did not require high enough mileage increases.
A Senate vote could occur tomorrow or Thursday.
But is it working?
Yet in some respects, partisan posturing seems to have overshadowed basic data analysis. Now the early reports are in from last week's sales. So let's consider the basic question: Is the program doing what it was supposed to do?
As enacted, the Clunkers program was something akin to the definition of a camel: a horse designed by committee. It had two goals that weren't always aligned: It had to increase the average gas mileage of cars on the road, but also encourage new car sales, period.
First, do the vehicles that have been sold get better mileage than the ones traded in? Yes, they do. But they were always going to raise average mileage; the interesting data comes in how much better the fuel economy actually is.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said that as of yesterday at 4 pm, almost 134,000 vehicles had been traded in, earning rebates of $564 million.
That's an average rebate of more than $4,200--meaning that the mileage increases were far higher than the minimum necessary to earn the base rebate of $3,500.
In fact, the US Transportation Department data showed a mileage gain of nearly 10 miles per gallon overall on the vehicles purchased as compared to the ones traded in, from 15.8 mpg for the trade-ins to 25.4 mpg for the new vehicles. That is far higher than the minimum requirement of a 4-mpg increase for cars and a mere 2 mpg for light trucks.
From trucks to cars
Moreover, the program is significantly shifting the new vehicle mix from light trucks to cars. While 83 percent of the vehicles traded in were sport-utility vehicles and pickup trucks, six out of 10 of the new vehicles purchased were cars.
UPDATE, Aug 5: Revised data from the Department of Transportation indicates that the five most traded-in models under the clunker program are: Ford Explorer (4WD), Ford F-150 (2WD), Jeep Grand Cherokee (4WD), Jeep Cherokee (4WD), and Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan (2WD).
Following the top-five list are: Chevrolet Blazer (4WD), Ford Explorer (2WD), Ford F-150 (4WD), Chevrolet C-1500 (2WD), and finally Ford Windstar (4WD) bringing up the rear. Of these 10, five are sport utilities, three are pickup trucks, and two are minivans.
In fact, the Ford Explorer--that quintessential sport-utility of the 1990s--occupied no fewer than six of the top 10 trade-in slots. Explorers from model years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 were in the top 10, with EPA mileage ratings of 14 to 18 miles per gallon depending on drivetrain.
Have an opinion?
Kelly Reardon Posted: 8/4/2009 12:36pm PDT
http://kellyreardon.dyndns.org/kelly/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers-vs-nationalized-healthcare.html
Dave Posted: 8/4/2009 12:38pm PDT
Cotie Posted: 8/4/2009 2:49pm PDT
Annie Posted: 8/4/2009 3:08pm PDT
Am I missing something here?
rationalthinker Posted: 8/4/2009 3:37pm PDT
Joe Posted: 8/4/2009 3:57pm PDT
Their conclusion: After the first 70,000 miles (far lower than the lifetime mileage of an average vehicle), the new car saves energy even accounting for its manufacturing (and, I suspect, the small amount of energy used to dismantle or crush it).
See:
http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1020481_cash-for-clunkers-bill-cuts-greenhouse-gases-but-only-after-70000-miles
http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1033857_killing-your-clunker-correctly-how-a-dealer-disables-it
Brian Edwards Posted: 8/4/2009 10:14pm PDT
Zach Posted: 8/5/2009 8:23am PDT
mike Posted: 8/5/2009 8:29am PDT
And the reason this is not restricted to US-built cars, as I understand it, is because that would violate pretty much every trade agreement the US has ever signed.
Jeff Posted: 8/6/2009 7:32am PDT
phred Posted: 8/6/2009 9:16pm PDT
The thought that there's anything remotely "green" about a program specifically intended to stimulate consumption makes me LOL. Wanna be green? Ride a bike. I'm just sayin'...
Chris Braden Posted: 8/6/2009 9:30pm PDT
disqualify vehicles over 25 years old? Aren't older vehicles, in general, less fuel efficient than newer ones?
Cameron Posted: 8/7/2009 12:42pm PDT
Hugh Posted: 8/11/2009 3:26pm PDT
Almost half the carbon from the use of an automobile is generated during construction. Older cars are used as second or third cars and get lesser miles per year. Many new cars are totalled early taking their carbon deficit with them. A 'whole life' analysis would almost certainly indicate that 'cash for clunkers' results in more carbon in the atmosphere not less.
Duke University studied when clunker tradeins become carbon-beneficial:
http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1020481_cash-for-clunkers-bill-cuts-greenhouse-gases-but-only-after-70000-miles
Your point about clunkers being low-mileage because they're second or third cars, however, may be one to consider. I'm not aware of any data being collected on that.
SEO Videos Posted: 4/18/2010 8:22pm PDT
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!