Cash For Clunkers: The Data On Why It's Working Page 2

 
Follow John

Two more Top 10 trade-in slots were sport utilities as well--the Jeep Cherokee and Jeep Grand Cherokee--with two minivans, the 1997 Ford Windstar and the 1999 Dodge Caravan bringing up the rear. All 10 of the top trade-ins were domestic vehicles.

So what replaced the SUVs? Mostly small sedans from a mix of domestic and foreign carmakers. Of the first 80,000 trade-ins, according to the Transportation Department,  47 percent of the replacements came from US automakers General Motors, Ford [NYSE: F], and Chrysler.

That's marginally higher than the US carmakers' current overall market share of 45 percent. Among foreign brands, Honda [NYSE: HMC] and Toyota [NYSE: TM] particularly benefitted as well.

2009 Ford Focus S

2009 Ford Focus S

Enlarge Photo

The single highest-selling vehicle in that group was the 2009 Ford Focus. Beyond that, in order, were the Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, Toyota Prius, Ford Escape, Toyota Camry, Dodge Caliber, Hyundai Elantra, Honda Fit, and Chevrolet Cobalt.

Just one of the 10 was a hybrid; nine were compact or midsize sedans or hatchbacks, and one was a crossover sport utility. It's also worth noting that one of every three Volkswagens sold in July was a Jetta TDI clean diesel, though its sales didn't reach the Top 10.

Of all the new vehicles purchased, initial data suggests that far more than half were built in North America, whether by domestic or foreign carmakers--including six of the top seven, with only the Toyota Prius manufactured exclusively in Japan.

Winners and losers

But to the program's second goal, the annualized sales rate for the last week of the month rose well over the watermark 10-million number, to a rate perhaps as high as 12 or 13 million by some estimates.

Ford even managed a year-over-year sales gain for the month, its first since 2007, as it continues to benefit from being the only one of the Detroit Three not to enter bankruptcy and be bailed out by the Federal government.

The Administration's view: "This is the one stimulus program that seems to be working better than just about any other program," US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood said to CNBC. "It's a lifeline for automobile workers and automobile makers."

And President Barack Obama chimed in as well, saying: "This program has been an overwhelming success, allowing consumers to trade in their less fuel efficient cars for a credit to buy more fuel efficient new models ... [it] has proven to be a successful part of our economic recovery, and will help lessen our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving the quality of the air we breathe."

Clunkers

Clunkers

Rules: 22 mpg or more for cars

Under the program, owners of 1984-2002 vehicles with a combined EPA mileage rating of 18 miles per gallon or less qualified for a $3,500 voucher towards the purchase of a new car rated at 22 mpg or better. The maximum voucher of $4,500 was available to those who bought cars rated at 10 mpg (or more) higher than the trade-in.

There's a different scheme for trucks: The new vehicle must be rated at 18 mpg or better, and it also has to be 2 mpg more efficient than the truck traded in to qualify for a $3,500 voucher. Boosting the mileage by 5 mpg or more gets you the full $4,500.

On the other hand...

To be fair, we should say that the CARS program is working only if you accept the notion that the US government can legitimately place incentives on certain types of behavior by its citizens--in this case, buying more fuel-efficient vehicles.






 
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • Notify me when there are more comments
Comments (23)
  1. I just posted that Cash for Clunkers was working as well. And I also commented on the fact that some in the media are using this to attack government healthcare. *scratches head*
    http://kellyreardon.dyndns.org/kelly/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers-vs-nationalized-healthcare.html
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  2. Wow you almost made it the whole article without sounding like a douche. Too bad you included the next-to-last paragraph. I'm just sayin'...
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  3. Why Dave, because making a logical point is douchebaggery?
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. I am a little confused by the numbers listed. As I am understanding this sofar 134.000 cars were bought under this program. This amounts to $564.000.000 and the total amount for this incentive was $1 billion. There should still be $436.000.000 available for approximately another 103.612 vehicles. So they want to put another 2 billion into this program? Shouldn't they run out of money first? It looks to me like only 56% of the first billion has been used?
    Am I missing something here?
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  5. There is nothing green about crushing a vehicle and replacing it with any new vehicle. The energy required to build the new vehicle far exceeds the "savings" in fuel consumption. These vehicles are not being recycled in any sort of efficient manner, they are to be crushed or shredded. Watch this video of a car being destroyed and think of the stupid stupid waste. Maybe we can burn down some houses in the name of stimulus next. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waj2KrKYTZo&feature=related
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  6. The biggest problem with this program is all the business used car dealers will lose since all the trade-ins for CARS have to be crushed. Also all the other businesses that the used car dealers send there cars to for any work that needs to be done to them.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  7. @RationalThinker: Researchers at Duke University actually studied this issue in some depth.
    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
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  8. @Joe: The trade-ins don't have to be crushed; they can be dismantled. Only the engines have to be disabled. See here:
    http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1033857_killing-your-clunker-correctly-how-a-dealer-disables-it
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  9. I suppose this is a good idea for people who have disposable incomes during this recession. For those of us who don't, it's better to stick with a car that is already payed off. Not to mention the new full coverage insurance policy required on a new car.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  10. Despite the compelling title to your post, you don't actually say WHY the program is working. I'm still not clear how a small incentive relative to the price of a new car is motivating people in such volume.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  11. @Brian: Fair point, actually. I didn't delve that much into the psychology, but there appears to be a lot of pent-up demand. Analysts surmise that the key may have been giving buyers an excuse to get to the dealerships in the first place. Roughly half the buyers, we hear, brought trade-ins that didn't qualify as clunkers--but they bought new or used cars anyhow.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  12. If you bought your brand new car with cash, good job. If you bought it with credit (I'm guessing what, 90% of people did that?) boo. Our economy is in the crapper because of too much borrowing already, and this is the solution? Stupid.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  13. This program should be for American made autos only. Why is taxpayers money going to the importers.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  14. @Mike: As the article says, several of the most popular vehicles from "import" brands are actually built in North America. Those include: Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, and Toyota Camry.
    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.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  15. It's a failure because the $436M Annie refers to isn't available - it's the typical overhead of a government program. About half the money disappears into the abyss. Green cars will eventually make it, but because some entrepreneur or smart business will find a way to make ones that 1) work and 2) people want. Government will never solve our energy problems.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  16. A relative handful of people grabbing money from the Feds in a tightly-constrained program is "significantly shifting the new vehicle mix from light trucks to cars"? How long d'you think this will continue? Will the next $2B (which should've been stimulus funds) even be used?
    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'...
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  17. If the federal government really wanted to get clunkers off the road and help the environment, it would have also looked at emissions, not just MPG to determine what makes and models of vehicles qualify for the Cash for Clunkers Program. And why
    disqualify vehicles over 25 years old? Aren't older vehicles, in general, less fuel efficient than newer ones?
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  18. Trucks and Hummers, are SO far flipped in their "equity" position vehicles it won't help. This program simply takes cars off the road that are PAID FOR, and don't cost people anything to drive, just gas, and these morons are replacing their "debt free" lifestyles with payments and interest again. Why eat 1/2 of a $37.00 entre, only to throw out the rest when you're full? Vanity, and BS advertising is why.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  19. @Chris: Not sure why the 1984-and-after restriction, though perhaps there are so few cars remaining on the roads before that date in regular use that it wouldn't have made much statistical difference? Or perhaps the EPA mileage data pre-1984 wasn't comparable? Good question ....
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  20. @Cameron: You are assuming (incorrectly) that all the new vehicles are financed! Anecdotal reports from at least a couple of dealers say that roughly HALF the people who take advantage of the vouchers are paying cash, though I don't believe statistics are being gathered on this.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  21. More carbon
    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.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  22. @Hugh: Sorry, but that's not accurate. The carbon load from manufacturing a car with a 150,000-mile life is only 10-12% of the total.
    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.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  23. Thanks for great information it’s a wonderful. Your site is very useful for me .I bookmarked your site!
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

Find Green Cars

Go!


 
© 2011 Green Car Reports. All Rights Reserved. Green Car Reports is published by High Gear Media. Send us feedback. Stock photography by Homestar, LLC.