rehmwa 2 #101 August 21, 2009 It's funny how all the arguments are back and forth about whether the requirements are realistic from a green perspective. what about a poorly thought out and executed program that subsidizes commercial purchases at the expense of the rest of the citizenry? we did it with houses, and look how well that worked out what's next - the taxpayers subsidizing purchases of chewing gum? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #102 August 21, 2009 Quote IMO, since the gas and pollution savings are far bigger going from 10mpg to 14mpg than from 25mpg to 35mpg, you should not be hung up on the 4 vs 10 argument. The savings are far greater going from 10 to 20. Better yet, let's make 26 or 27mpg (the current average), the standard to meet. If you won't purchase a car that is average in efficiency, no free money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #103 August 21, 2009 QuoteQuote IMO, since the gas and pollution savings are far bigger going from 10mpg to 14mpg than from 25mpg to 35mpg, you should not be hung up on the 4 vs 10 argument. The savings are far greater going from 10 to 20. Better yet, let's make 26 or 27mpg (the current average), the standard to meet. If you won't purchase a car that is average in efficiency, no free money. And if you need a truck?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydived19006 4 #104 August 21, 2009 Quote The savings are far greater going from 10 to 20. Better yet, let's make 26 or 27mpg (the current average), the standard to meet. If you won't purchase a car that is average in efficiency, no free money. Here's my situation. My primary daily back and forth to the airport/work car is an 1989 Honda Civic, which gets 33 to 35 mpg. It doesn't qualify for trade in. My wife drives a 1997 Toyota Camery, which also does not qualify. I'm 6'8" and believe me, nobody wants to ride behind me in either of these cars, since the front seat is pushed all the way back, and reclined. We have two children 5, and 7 years old, and they are constantly growing for some reason. So, what we need is something like John Sherman invented, a mini van. Guess what, from what I understand a mini van getting 18 mph would not qualify. From reading the arguments here, my 1989 Civic with 330,000 miles on it is the best damn car on the road! The pollution created in it's manufacture has long been "paid for", and it gets good gas mileage. It costs me, with fuel, maintenance, insurance, taxes, deprecation, etc., around $.10/mile to drive. Maybe the government should have given $1000 in a maintenance rebate for anyone driving a car in excess of 15 years old, which gets over 25, or 30 mpg. That way, we're not polluting the planet building new cars, and we're making these old super green ones live on! Don't tell anyone that I'm going to pump over 200 gallons of fuel this weekend, and burn it off as fast as I can, going nowhere but up and down!!! I burn 6 to 7 gallons to get two miles (up) in my Cessna 182. Let's all hope the Greenies don't find out!!! Martin Oh yeah, I also have a 1970 Volkswagen Beetle, which is not very fuel efficient at all. Don't qualify, too old.Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #105 August 21, 2009 QuoteQuote The savings are far greater going from 10 to 20. Better yet, let's make 26 or 27mpg (the current average), the standard to meet. If you won't purchase a car that is average in efficiency, no free money. Here's my situation. My primary daily back and forth to the airport/work car is an 1989 Honda Civic, which gets 33 to 35 mpg. It doesn't qualify for trade in. . Going from 10mpg to 14mpg saves more gas in a typical 10,000mile year than exchanging your 35mpg Civic for a 200mpg moped. IMO the emphasis on the most inefficient vehicles was correct.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #106 August 21, 2009 Oh yeah, I also have a 1970 Volkswagen Beetle, which is not very fuel efficient at all. Don't qualify, too old. Quotewouldn't it be nice if the cars that really need to go (like your vw) would qualify? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #107 August 21, 2009 Quote Going from 10mpg to 14mpg saves more gas in a typical 10,000mile year than exchanging your 35mpg Civic for a 200mpg moped. IMO the emphasis on the most inefficient vehicles was correct. You're still hung up on rewarding waste. Amazing. If we're paying for it, I'd want to pay for the option where he uses 50 gallons of fuel a year afterwards, not 714! Of course, we know this bill had nothing to do with green, was only about selling cars. But just pretending it was really about progress, your solution is the reason why Americans will never move on. You wish to enable the same behavior as before. 14mpg for a single occupant vehicle is not going to get us into the latter half of the century. Money spent subsidizing that choice is money that can't be spent making 35mpg cars that people want to buy. Or money that could be spent making electric battery technology more mature for vehicle use. He's right - if this really is about green and fuel efficiency, he should be getting a credit for using a highly efficient, old Civic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #108 August 21, 2009 Quote And if you need a truck? Pay for it? Go diesel? Get a truck that does better than 14mpg? They do exist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #109 August 22, 2009 QuoteQuote And if you need a truck? Pay for it? Go diesel? Get a truck that does better than 14mpg? They do exist. "Better yet, let's make 26 or 27mpg" Suggest a full-size truck that does this.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #110 August 22, 2009 QuoteQuote Going from 10mpg to 14mpg saves more gas in a typical 10,000mile year than exchanging your 35mpg Civic for a 200mpg moped. IMO the emphasis on the most inefficient vehicles was correct. You're still hung up on rewarding waste. Amazing. If we're paying for it, I'd want to pay for the option where he uses 50 gallons of fuel a year afterwards, not 714! Of course, we know this bill had nothing to do with green, was only about selling cars. But just pretending it was really about progress, your solution is the reason why Americans will never move on. You wish to enable the same behavior as before. 14mpg for a single occupant vehicle is not going to get us into the latter half of the century. Money spent subsidizing that choice is money that can't be spent making 35mpg cars that people want to buy. Or money that could be spent making electric battery technology more mature for vehicle use. He's right - if this really is about green and fuel efficiency, he should be getting a credit for using a highly efficient, old Civic. Civics don't make good trucks. You really wriggle and contort to make a point. Why not just come out and say you oppose the program, period, instead of all the wriggling.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #111 August 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote IMO, since the gas and pollution savings are far bigger going from 10mpg to 14mpg than from 25mpg to 35mpg, you should not be hung up on the 4 vs 10 argument. The savings are far greater going from 10 to 20. Better yet, let's make 26 or 27mpg (the current average), the standard to meet. If you won't purchase a car that is average in efficiency, no free money. And if you need a truck? ?? Really? Then they buy the truck without the rebate? Geesh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #112 August 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote IMO, since the gas and pollution savings are far bigger going from 10mpg to 14mpg than from 25mpg to 35mpg, you should not be hung up on the 4 vs 10 argument. The savings are far greater going from 10 to 20. Better yet, let's make 26 or 27mpg (the current average), the standard to meet. If you won't purchase a car that is average in efficiency, no free money. And if you need a truck? ?? Really? Then they buy the truck without the rebate? Geesh. Why do you hate truck owners? Eliminating old inefficient trucks saves more energy and pollution than cars. If you bothered to do the math you would know that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #113 August 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote IMO, since the gas and pollution savings are far bigger going from 10mpg to 14mpg than from 25mpg to 35mpg, you should not be hung up on the 4 vs 10 argument. The savings are far greater going from 10 to 20. Better yet, let's make 26 or 27mpg (the current average), the standard to meet. If you won't purchase a car that is average in efficiency, no free money. And if you need a truck? ?? Really? Then they buy the truck without the rebate? Geesh. Why do you hate truck owners? Eliminating old inefficient trucks saves more energy and pollution than cars. If you bothered to do the math you would know that. Yes I hate truck owners I thought this thread was about the cash for clunkers program. If the vehicle doesn't qualify for the program, then you use your own money. And the few previous comments were about the vehicle you purchase, not the one you trade in. Just typical kallend. Hyperbole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #114 August 22, 2009 Quote You really wriggle and contort to make a point. Why not just come out and say you oppose the program, period, instead of all the wriggling. I've been pretty clear about opposing this program. The only saving grace for it would be if it resulted in real oil savings. It's curious what your motivations for support are. We already know from the Edmunds dealer data collection, as well as the government summary of unknown origins, that the full size truck is not the majority case example for this program. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #115 August 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote IMO, since the gas and pollution savings are far bigger going from 10mpg to 14mpg than from 25mpg to 35mpg, you should not be hung up on the 4 vs 10 argument. The savings are far greater going from 10 to 20. Better yet, let's make 26 or 27mpg (the current average), the standard to meet. If you won't purchase a car that is average in efficiency, no free money. And if you need a truck? ?? Really? Then they buy the truck without the rebate? Geesh. Why do you hate truck owners? Eliminating old inefficient trucks saves more energy and pollution than cars. If you bothered to do the math you would know that. Yes I hate truck owners I thought this thread was about the cash for clunkers program. If the vehicle doesn't qualify for the program, then you use your own money. And the few previous comments were about the vehicle you purchase, not the one you trade in. Just typical kallend. Hyperbole. Trucks do qualify - your comments are meaningless. MY point is that the greatest savings ARE with clunker trucks, something that kelpdiver doesn't seem to understand.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #116 August 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote IMO, since the gas and pollution savings are far bigger going from 10mpg to 14mpg than from 25mpg to 35mpg, you should not be hung up on the 4 vs 10 argument. The savings are far greater going from 10 to 20. Better yet, let's make 26 or 27mpg (the current average), the standard to meet. If you won't purchase a car that is average in efficiency, no free money. And if you need a truck? ?? Really? Then they buy the truck without the rebate? Geesh. Why do you hate truck owners? Eliminating old inefficient trucks saves more energy and pollution than cars. If you bothered to do the math you would know that. Yes I hate truck owners I thought this thread was about the cash for clunkers program. If the vehicle doesn't qualify for the program, then you use your own money. And the few previous comments were about the vehicle you purchase, not the one you trade in. Just typical kallend. Hyperbole. Trucks do qualify - your comments are meaningless. MY point is that the greatest savings ARE with clunker trucks, something that kelpdiver doesn't seem to understand. I said vehicle not truck. You are meaningless. I don't think you every have a point, just BS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #117 August 22, 2009 Quote Trucks do qualify - your comments are meaningless. MY point is that the greatest savings ARE with clunker trucks, something that kelpdiver doesn't seem to understand. I said vehicle not truck. You are meaningless. I don't think you every have a point, just BS. Last time I checked, trucks WERE vehicles. If you do the math (assuming you are capable) you WILL see my point.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #118 August 22, 2009 Quote Quote Trucks do qualify - your comments are meaningless. MY point is that the greatest savings ARE with clunker trucks, something that kelpdiver doesn't seem to understand. I said vehicle not truck. You are meaningless. I don't think you every have a point, just BS. Last time I checked, trucks WERE vehicles. If you do the math (assuming you are capable) you WILL see my point. And a vehicle is not just a truck. Try to read my previous post and you may understand(but I doubt it). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #119 August 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Trucks do qualify - your comments are meaningless. MY point is that the greatest savings ARE with clunker trucks, something that kelpdiver doesn't seem to understand. I said vehicle not truck. You are meaningless. I don't think you every have a point, just BS. Last time I checked, trucks WERE vehicles. If you do the math (assuming you are capable) you WILL see my point. And a vehicle is not just a truck. Try to read my previous post and you may understand(but I doubt it). Oh, I unsderstand. It's clear we are talking at cross purposes. I guess you weren't following the entire thread when you jumped in.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #120 August 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Trucks do qualify - your comments are meaningless. MY point is that the greatest savings ARE with clunker trucks, something that kelpdiver doesn't seem to understand. I said vehicle not truck. You are meaningless. I don't think you every have a point, just BS. Last time I checked, trucks WERE vehicles. If you do the math (assuming you are capable) you WILL see my point. And a vehicle is not just a truck. Try to read my previous post and you may understand(but I doubt it). Oh, I unsderstand. It's clear we are talking at cross purposes. I guess you weren't following the entire thread when you jumped in. Yep, I didn't think you would understand. I'm done. C-ya Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #121 August 22, 2009 Quote It's funny how all the arguments are back and forth about whether the requirements are realistic from a green perspective. what about a poorly thought out and executed program that subsidizes commercial purchases at the expense of the rest of the citizenry? we did it with houses, and look how well that worked out what's next - the taxpayers subsidizing purchases of chewing gum? +1. "Hey you know all those people that really couldn't afford new homes that we provided risky loans for and they lost their ass? Let's get them into new cars they can't really afford!!!" The worst part is probably the overwhelming majority of the vehicles traded were fully paid for. All they've done is encourage people to take on more debt. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #122 August 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Trucks do qualify - your comments are meaningless. MY point is that the greatest savings ARE with clunker trucks, something that kelpdiver doesn't seem to understand. I said vehicle not truck. You are meaningless. I don't think you every have a point, just BS. Last time I checked, trucks WERE vehicles. If you do the math (assuming you are capable) you WILL see my point. And a vehicle is not just a truck. Try to read my previous post and you may understand(but I doubt it). Oh, I unsderstand. It's clear we are talking at cross purposes. I guess you weren't following the entire thread when you jumped in. Yep, I didn't think you would understand. I'm done. C-ya That's quite OK, feel free to misunderstand the conversation, jump in, make an irrelevant comment, and leave.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #123 August 22, 2009 Quote Quote It's funny how all the arguments are back and forth about whether the requirements are realistic from a green perspective. what about a poorly thought out and executed program that subsidizes commercial purchases at the expense of the rest of the citizenry? we did it with houses, and look how well that worked out what's next - the taxpayers subsidizing purchases of chewing gum? +1. "Hey you know all those people that really couldn't afford new homes that we provided risky loans for and they lost their ass? Let's get them into new cars they can't really afford!!!" The worst part is probably the overwhelming majority of the vehicles traded were fully paid for. All they've done is encourage people to take on more debt. Please present some data in support of your unverified claim.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #124 August 23, 2009 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. QuoteToyota 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!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #125 August 25, 2009 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. And other stipulations prevented real junkheaps from being traded - it must be running, it must be registered to you for at least a year, etc. You people are smarter than I am - does anyone know why the cars were required to be newer than 1984?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
