cash for clunkers "not so green"

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Well, the "Clunkers" program is officially over, but my confusion continues. Maybe the secret to stimulating the economy is quick-hits like this one, that come and go before people start asking too many questions.

My question is, why was there a limit on cars newer than 1984? Cars older than that often didn't even have catalytic converters, and are known to pollute a great deal more than newer vehicles. If part of the reason really was environmental responsibility, shouldn't we encourage the oldest cars to go first?

I've heard a theory about collector cars, but I don't buy it. Not many older cars are in good enough shape to be restored economically, and those that are probably are worth more than the rebate.

From the LA Times:

The restrictions were pushed by lobbyists for the Specialty Equipment Market Assn., a Diamond Bar group that represents companies that sell parts and services to classic and antique car collectors. The group, as well as classic car enthusiasts, have opposed cash for clunkers because they don't want older vehicles to be destroyed.

When the proposals for a clunker buyback program surfaced early this year, the specialty equipment association opposed the entire concept because such a program could shrink the size of the market for aftermarket parts. The association eventually got lawmakers to adopt the age limit.

"We are very pleased that Congress was able to include that in the program," said Stuart Gosswein, director of regulatory affairs at the association.

The association represents more than 7,000 companies that make all manner of auto-related products, including reproduction Model T tires and AMC Gremlin upholstery. The powerful interest group has won legislative battles nationwide to protect owners of classic cars and hot rods from laws covering vehicle noise, emissions tests and much else.

Consumer and environmental groups reluctantly went along with the provision because they were fighting for any rule that would push consumers to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles than the ones they were trading in.


So it was pressure from an industry group. Pointless, IMO, because any true classic or antique is worth more than $4,500 anyway.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[riddler 0]

Thanks! That explains it. And I agree - collectors are worth more than the rebates. But part of their market it geared toward people that can't afford any new or used car, as well, and will pay for a short-term fix.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[skybill 22]

Quote

Quote

"Better yet, let's make 26 or 27mpg"

Suggest a full-size truck that does this.

Toyata Hilux, or tacoma as they are called in America.

Quote

Toyota already makes a diesel version of the Tacoma (known as the Hilux). The Hilux offers two turbocharged diesel engine options. These vehicles get 30-35 mpg, can tow 5,000lbs., and will last 300,000+ miles. If you want it in the U.S., then go to the Toyota website and contact them, via email, and request it. Let them know you want the Hilux (with the diesel option) available in the U.S. as soon as possible. I contacted Toyota and they said they are considering bringing the Hilux to the U.S., but were gauging customer demand.

source

These vehicles, have been available for over 20 years in lill'ol New Zealand.

Your problem is that what is considered full size, in USA, is considered Behemouth in the rest of the world.

The attitudes of the US consumers have to change first, which, (using the metric system as an egample) will take a very long time.

Just put the gas prices to over $4 a gallon like everone else pays and then it might be a little faster!

Hi rh,
I wouldn't give you 1 I-O-TA for a Tai-O-Ta!! Had a '78 Tia-O-Ta SR5 (Hilux) small truck with the 4 banger should'a got great mileage "HAHAHA!!!" First tank I got 20mpg and never got better than 18mpg at 55mph!! 110K miles later the thrmostat broke, over heated and warped the head. Traded it for a grand on a brand new Ford Econoline 150, long bed, 300cubic in. 6 wh/ 4 speed stick!! Never got worse than 23/24 mpg around town and 26/27mpg on the road at 70MPH!!! Lotsa' trips from so.cal to Ghoulidge and back!! Letz cruize!!!!

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

So it was pressure from an industry group. Pointless, IMO, because any true classic or antique is worth more than $4,500 anyway.

Although nearly all of those classic, antique, and specialty vehicles can use junk-yard parts as-is or at least as the start of a rebuild.

For example, old GM cast iron bell housings are nearly bullet proof, have a convenient sheet metal inspection cover, and don't need any more than rust removal. Muncie SM420 and SM465 truck transmissions with 7:1 and 6.5:1 crawler gears are perfect for off-road use.

Availability of such used parts keeps cars affordable as a hobby. While I couldn't spring for a new $2000 transmission on my third vehicle, a used one for $175 worked great.

And restorations need to start some where.

[DanG 1]

The modern Toyata Hilx is fucking awesome. It was the vehicle of choice for US troops in Afghanistan until they made us start using Fords supplied by KBR. They are indestructible, and got incredible mileage.

Was your '78 a diesel? The modern diesels are tough, simple to repair, and very fuel efficient. I'm going to write to Toyata and request they be made available in the US. I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

- Dan G

[skybill 22]

Quote

The modern Toyata Hilx is fucking awesome. It was the vehicle of choice for US troops in Afghanistan until they made us start using Fords supplied by KBR. They are indestructible, and got incredible mileage.

Was your '78 a diesel? The modern diesels are tough, simple to repair, and very fuel efficient. I'm going to write to Toyata and request they be made available in the US. I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

Hi Dan,
No, mine was a gas engine. Thing is that small 4 banger shoulda got "AT LEAST" 28 to 30 mpg!! 18 mpg sux even at '78 prices!!! In the Econo, Big 300 cube 6, 23 -24 city and 27-28 mpg hiway "AT 70MPH" !!!! I don't care how you cut it, that's good!!

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[rhys 0]

Quote

Hi rh,
I wouldn't give you 1 I-O-TA for a Tai-O-Ta!! Had a '78 Tia-O-Ta SR5 (Hilux) small truck with the 4 banger should'a got great mileage "HAHAHA!!!" First tank I got 20mpg and never got better than 18mpg at 55mph!! 110K miles later the thrmostat broke, over heated and warped the head. Traded it for a grand on a brand new Ford Econoline 150, long bed, 300cubic in. 6 wh/ 4 speed stick!! Never got worse than 23/24 mpg around town and 26/27mpg on the road at 70MPH!!! Lotsa' trips from so.cal to Ghoulidge and back!! Letz cruize!!!!

I take it you are saying that you had a hilux and didn't get good milage with it?

You probably had a petrol (gas) model.

1st point is that the gas in the USA has a very low octane rating, in NZ the lowest grade is 91 octane and the premium is 98 octane. you guys have shitty watered down shit.

2nd point is that that my post was referring to turbo diesel hilux's, probably 90% of hilux's are diesel and turbo diesel.

So not only do you get more, kpl (mpg) you pay less per litre (gallon).

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You probably had a petrol (gas) model.

1st point is that the gas in the USA has a very low octane rating, in NZ the lowest grade is 91 octane and the premium is 98 octane. you guys have shitty watered down shit.

Octane has nothing to do with fuel economy.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

You probably had a petrol (gas) model.

1st point is that the gas in the USA has a very low octane rating, in NZ the lowest grade is 91 octane and the premium is 98 octane. you guys have shitty watered down shit.

Octane has nothing to do with fuel economy.

Higher compression ratio most definitely does, and is enabled by higher octane.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You probably had a petrol (gas) model.

1st point is that the gas in the USA has a very low octane rating, in NZ the lowest grade is 91 octane and the premium is 98 octane. you guys have shitty watered down shit.

Octane has nothing to do with fuel economy.

Higher compression ratio most definitely does, and is enabled by higher octane.

if you jacked up our gas to 98 octane tomorrow, there would not be an improvement.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You probably had a petrol (gas) model.

1st point is that the gas in the USA has a very low octane rating, in NZ the lowest grade is 91 octane and the premium is 98 octane. you guys have shitty watered down shit.

Octane has nothing to do with fuel economy.

Higher compression ratio most definitely does, and is enabled by higher octane.

if you jacked up our gas to 98 octane tomorrow, there would not be an improvement.

We ARE lower than the UK and, apparently, NZ. Probably others too. Hence Toyota can sell more efficient vehicles in those countries than here. Which is, I think, his point.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

"Better yet, let's make 26 or 27mpg"

Suggest a full-size truck that does this.

Toyata Hilux, or tacoma as they are called in America.

That's not a full-size truck. They *have* gotten a lot nicer over the years, though.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You probably had a petrol (gas) model.

1st point is that the gas in the USA has a very low octane rating, in NZ the lowest grade is 91 octane and the premium is 98 octane. you guys have shitty watered down shit.

Octane has nothing to do with fuel economy.

Higher compression ratio most definitely does, and is enabled by higher octane.

if you jacked up our gas to 98 octane tomorrow, there would not be an improvement.

We ARE lower than the UK and, apparently, NZ. Probably others too. Hence Toyota can sell more efficient vehicles in those countries than here. Which is, I think, his point.

We're also lower than Chile, which only got unleaded gas about 15 years ago... (My dad had to run his 1988 Isuzu Trooper he took back with him from the US on leaded gas - then when he sold it it was JUST as unleaded gas became available and he was then able to sell it for more than he paid for it new in the US!)

[rushmc 23]

Yep, a gov program that has yet again been a good deal

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/us_life_after_clunkers/2009/09/13/259518.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Yep, a gov program that has yet again been a good deal

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/us_life_after_clunkers/2009/09/13/259518.html

Do you ever read the stuff you post?

"Even though customers are few now, dealers still are happy that Cash for Clunkers helped them in a difficult year with sales running at an annual rate of around 10 million. As recently as the first half of this decade, U.S. automakers sold around 17 million units per year.

"The clunker sales, though, will help the Upper Peninsula dealership network to keep going if times get even worse."


"Because the CFC program was there, we were able to squirrel away a nut for winter," Mahan said.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Yep, a gov program that has yet again been a good deal

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/us_life_after_clunkers/2009/09/13/259518.html

Do you ever read the stuff you post?

"Even though customers are few now, dealers still are happy that Cash for Clunkers helped them in a difficult year with sales running at an annual rate of around 10 million. As recently as the first half of this decade, U.S. automakers sold around 17 million units per year.

"The clunker sales, though, will help the Upper Peninsula dealership network to keep going if times get even worse."


"Because the CFC program was there, we were able to squirrel away a nut for winter," Mahan said.

Whoosh!!!!!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Ion01 2]

Lets really look at the big picture here.
We, the tax payers, payed, through the government, for the "cash for clunkers program. If we were to recoupe the costs through gas savings one of 2 thing would need to actually happen. The government would need to see some sort of increased revenue due to the program and, in turn, the government would require less, in the form of taxes, from us therefore we saved money. I think its pretty obvious that there will be no increase in revenue or return for the tax payers. The other possibility is savings in some other form for all taxpayers. One might attempt to argue that those who purchased vehicles will at least see the savings however you must first factor in that these people spent more purchasing a new vehicle, and many requiring loans putting interest on top of the cost of the vehicle, than what would be saved in gas. Therefore, it is unlikely that even a small portion of the people that purchased the new cars actually saved or will save money in the near future (next 4-5 years). In addition, the reduced use in gasoline may have an impact on the cost. By simply looking at supply versus demand one would see that the demand for gasoline dropped as a result of the cash for clunkers program. Although the result may be slight or might not even impact the cost of gasoline it certainly will not cause the cost to go down. In addition, the reduced usage of gasoline also translates to a reduction in taxes gained by the government through the taxation of gasoline which equals, once again, a loss not a gain. In addition, and you can research it for yourself as you have a great research team (which is why I like the site) since the vehicles must be destroyed the program has increased the cost of used cars and used parts due to the reduction of available vehicles that would have hit the used cars and parts market had it not been for the cash for clunkers program. In addition, the car sales market has dropped dramatically due to the program. Analysts believe this is due to the fact that most people that would have bought cars towards the end of the rear bought them during the clunkers program. This results in another loss for the car dealers as it is actually more profitable to remain steady in sales than to have a surge and dropoff, and, of course, we don't know how long that drop off may be. Maybe it will be short and the car dealers may come out even or better....I hope they do....but even if they did there is no gain for the people who actually payed for it all, the tax payer. Finally, the government spending for the program also causes inflation which reduces the value of our money. This means the tax payers, who payed for it, looses again.
Maybe, the car dealers are a little better off now but, as you can see we would have been better off just to give the dealers some cash and be done with it. Of course the real answer is that the government had no right to produce such a program. Where was the government given this ability in the constitution? They weren't. As usual government invovlement has done more damage than good. Even if it did more good the government has no right to get invovled in the industry.....period!

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Maybe, the car dealers are a little better off now but, as you can see we would have been better off just to give the dealers some cash and be done with it.

Rubbish!

Quote

Of course the real answer is that the government had no right to produce such a program. Where was the government given this ability in the constitution? They weren't. As usual government invovlement has done more damage than good. Even if it did more good the government has no right to get invovled in the industry.....period!

I guess you haven't bothered to read the Constitution.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.