Cash for Clunkers Study: Dump American, Buy Asian

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

very nice.

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/aut...Ec2VjA2ZwLXRvZGF5BHNsawNjbHVua2VyLXRyYWRlcw--


Autoblog adds, "White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says the average fuel economy increase so far is 9.4 mpg; a 61% increase." Based on the first 80,000 sales, "83% of the vehicles traded in have been trucks, while 60% of the vehicles purchased under the program have been cars."

The Top Ten Cash for Clunkers Trade-Ins:

1. 1998 Ford Explorer

2. 1997 Ford Explorer

3. 1996 Ford Explorer

4. 1999 Ford Explorer

5. Jeep Grand Cherokee

6. Jeep Cherokee

7. 1995 Ford Explorer

8. 1994 Ford Explorer

9. 1997 Ford Windstar

10. 1999 Dodge Caravan

The Top Ten Cash for Clunkers New Cars:

1. Ford Focus

2. Honda Civic

3. Toyota Corolla

4. Toyota Prius

5. Ford Escape

6. Toyota Camry

7. Dodge Caliber

8. Hyundai Elantra

9. Honda Fit

10. Chevy Cobalt

 

[Tyler_Hansbrough]

I would trade my truck in for a Prius.

 

[barfo]

Well, that's no surprise, since most of the low mileage vehicles on the road are US brands, and most of the popular high mileage new cars are foreign brands.

barfo

 

[mook]

Actually, a 9.4 mpg increase is pretty decent. It's not as high as I'd like to see, but far better than I expected. I've been pretty critical of this program, but I'm starting to come around a little.

 

[barfo]

Actually, a 9.4 mpg increase is pretty decent. It's not as high as I'd like to see, but far better than I expected. I've been pretty critical of this program, but I'm starting to come around a little.

Yep, 9.4 mpg is a very pleasant surprise. And as far as stimulus goes, this isn't bad. That sector of the economy really did need some stimulus.

But instead of destroying the traded-in cars, why not send them overseas? There are a lot of cars in regular use in 3rd world countries worse than those being traded in and scrapped here. Why not trade our clunkers to foreigners for their even worse beaters - straight up if necessary. Then shred the 3rd world beaters. Then the average mpg gain would be even higher.

Or maybe just have a local used-car version of the program, for those who can't afford to buy a new car. If your clunker is worse than one of the already-traded in clunkers, you can trade your car for it.

barfo

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

hey man, haven't you heard of this thing called the CARBON FOOTPRINT MAN? its not just going to go away!

 

[mook]

By the way--I'm not surprised to see multiple Ford Explorers on the list of clunkers. People bought the hell out of them in the 1990's, and they pretty much sucked. I could never figure out why people would choose one over a Pathfinder or a 4Runner.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

I think they were cheaper and people were wary of japanese SUVs...For Explorers and Jeep Cherokees were big back then..people like the style.....

 

[crowTrobot]

there aren't many non-american vehicles that qualify as clunkers and are worth less than $4500. what is being dumped is no surprise.

focus as #1 is a pleasant surprise for ford. they are showing a profit for the first time in years.

 

[mook]

I think they were cheaper and people were wary of japanese SUVs...For Explorers and Jeep Cherokees were big back then..people like the style.....

Yeah, I never got that. The Toyota Landcruiser has been a great 4x4 for decades.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

wonder if this will have any long term affect on car sales. I'm thinking not.

 

[mook]

wonder if this will have any long term affect on car sales. I'm thinking not.

I dunno. In the 1980's, it seemed like an early surge of Chrysler minivan buyers ushered in a massive wave of minivans by all the major manufacturers. In the 1990's it was all about the SUV thanks to the early success of cars like the Explorer.

I think we were already headed down the road of the dominance of more fuel efficient vehicles, but this program seems to be pushing it along faster.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

I dunno. In the 1980's, it seemed like an early surge of Chrysler minivan buyers ushered in a massive wave of minivans by all the major manufacturers. In the 1990's it was all about the SUV thanks to the early success of cars like the Explorer.

I think we were already headed down the road of the dominance of more fuel efficient vehicles, but this program seems to be pushing it along faster.

The thing is, that people who are looking for new cars AFTER the program is exhausted may feel that they are not getting the best possible deal with the lack of a $4500 trade-in rebate....and hence, may justify that with a less fuel efficient car. Its all intricacies in psychological thinking and consumerism but people like getting the best deal over other factors when shopping.

 

[hasoos]

The thing is, that people who are looking for new cars AFTER the program is exhausted may feel that they are not getting the best possible deal with the lack of a $4500 trade-in rebate....and hence, may justify that with a less fuel efficient car. Its all intricacies in psychological thinking and consumerism but people like getting the best deal over other factors when shopping.

You can all it that, or be like me and call them critically stupid. Only a dumb ass would make one problem worse by compounding it by buying a gas guzzler with that logic. If they do that, they deserve what they get.

The other thing that bothers me about your statements is you are suggesting that it is better for folks to keep their american gas guzzler over getting a fuel efficient vehicle just because many of the cars they buying are foreign. It's the "Us vs them" mentality that just doesn't cut it with me. If USA car companies want to compete, then put out a better product. Also you never mention the fact that many of the cars listed on that list are manufactured in the USA. Toyota is currently building a Prius plan in Mississippi. The Nissan Altima Hybrid is produced a a plant in Tennessee. Those are american jobs being protected. The end profit may end up in the hands of a foreign company, but many jobs are still american.

 

[mook]

The thing is, that people who are looking for new cars AFTER the program is exhausted may feel that they are not getting the best possible deal with the lack of a $4500 trade-in rebate....and hence, may justify that with a less fuel efficient car. Its all intricacies in psychological thinking and consumerism but people like getting the best deal over other factors when shopping.

Or they may feel more inclined to get a fuel efficient car, because their neighbors all got in on the deal and they are the last ones in the neighborhood with some crappy old gas guzzler, and they are tired of everyone looking down their noses at them.

Car purchases seem to be all about the herd mentality. Minivans are trendy (yeah, they were once), so everybody buys one. SUV's are cool, so everybody buys one. Fuel efficiency shows you are more sophisticated, so everybody buys one.

People generally don't make major purchases like this purely based on price. A lot more of it has to do with self perception.

Am I a minivan soccer mom?

Or am I a rugged individualist SUV owner (even though I've never actually even used the four wheel drive)?

Or am I a cool dude (who happens to be 50 and bald) and so I need that Porsche?

The Prius seemed to usher in the "I'm a (self-satisfied) conscientious environmentalist type" segment. This program seems to be pushing that movement along a little, with a little added "I'm a patriotic American trying to create more jobs" thrown in.

Eventually I suppose it'll wear off and something else will be trendy. But I doubt the eventual removal of the subsidy will really harm the trend much.

 

[MARIS61]

Yep, 9.4 mpg is a very pleasant surprise. And as far as stimulus goes, this isn't bad. That sector of the economy really did need some stimulus.

But instead of destroying the traded-in cars, why not send them overseas? There are a lot of cars in regular use in 3rd world countries worse than those being traded in and scrapped here. Why not trade our clunkers to foreigners for their even worse beaters - straight up if necessary. Then shred the 3rd world beaters. Then the average mpg gain would be even higher.

Or maybe just have a local used-car version of the program, for those who can't afford to buy a new car. If your clunker is worse than one of the already-traded in clunkers, you can trade your car for it.

barfo

Nearly all cars in 3rd world countries already get better MPG than anything here.

An enormous downside economy-wise will be the elimination of millions of jobs formerly filled by mechanics, as used Explorers and Jeeps are to auto mechanics what rice is to China.

 

[hasoos]

47% of the cars sold were from the USA's big 3.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090803/AUTO01/908030384/1148/rss25

Which, by the way, is higher than their normal market share.

See what happens when you put out a top 10 list with no context about the total numbers of actual vehicles sold? It has very little meaning. For all we know, 90 percent of the cars could have been a Ford Focus, with each of the other cars listed selling one car.


But, now we know better.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

You can all it that, or be like me and call them critically stupid. Only a dumb ass would make one problem worse by compounding it by buying a gas guzzler with that logic. If they do that, they deserve what they get.

The other thing that bothers me about your statements is you are suggesting that it is better for folks to keep their american gas guzzler over getting a fuel efficient vehicle just because many of the cars they buying are foreign. It's the "Us vs them" mentality that just doesn't cut it with me. If USA car companies want to compete, then put out a better product. Also you never mention the fact that many of the cars listed on that list are manufactured in the USA. Toyota is currently building a Prius plan in Mississippi. The Nissan Altima Hybrid is produced a a plant in Tennessee. Those are american jobs being protected. The end profit may end up in the hands of a foreign company, but many jobs are still american.

Americans are stupid consumers.

And in regards to your second point...fuel efficient vehicles are fine for some...and when gas prices are high and the economy is bad, they are popular. However, if America gets prosperous again, its back to excessive living, big SUVs, etc. Like I said, cyclical.

 

[Sug]

So you are saying that our car consumption is matching the rest of our consumption. We hardly make anything in the United States anymore, so this is not a big shock. When you become a nation of consumers, you become a cash cow for other nations.

BTW Bush had a "Cash for guzzlers" (I know that sounds bad)

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/bushs-version-of-cash-for-clunkers.html

Here is the Cash for Clunkers program that was in place during the Bush Administration. The bonus depreciation provisions put in place after 9/11 provided a 50% immediate tax deduction for the purchase of Large SUV’s. So when my boss purchased a $100,000 Range Rover he wrote off $50,000 on his taxes. Assuming a 35% federal tax bracket – this resulted in an immediate tax refund of $17,500 on the purchase of the Range Rover (even though the down payment may have been $10,000). $17,500 cash for the purchase of a 12 mpg Range Rover.
Now that’s “Cash for Clunkers” we can believe in.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

47% of the cars sold were from the USA's big 3.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090803/AUTO01/908030384/1148/rss25

Which, by the way, is higher than their normal market share.

See what happens when you put out a top 10 list with no context about the total numbers of actual vehicles sold? It has very little meaning. For all we know, 90 percent of the cars could have been a Ford Focus, with each of the other cars listed selling one car.


But, now we know better.

Well, didn't the american automakers also match the government incentives dollar for dollar? I thought I saw something about that.