Cash for Clunkers Program

[TheMercenary]

The most over priced cars:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/01/ove...ner=yahooautos

[jinx]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The most over priced cars:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/01/ove...ner=yahooautos

I can't believe the Wrangler and Liberty are on the list but the Commander isn't... and they have the Wrangler msrp at $28,000 but they start at less than $22,000. Hmmm.

[sugarpop]

I didn't go to the link yet to read it because I'm in a rush, but I watched the session in Congress on CSPAN when they first passed it in committee, and it is a bad bill. First of all, you have to buy a new car, you can't get a used one. Second, if you're getting rid of a gas guzzling SUV, you only have to buy a new one that gets ONE MORE MPG, and if it's a car, FOUR MORE MPG. That is seriously fucked up. If they were going to do it, it should have been for much better gas mileage, and you should be able to get a used car. This is just another giveaway to the auto companies.

Dianne Feinstein and Olympia Snow were working on a much better bill. I hope some of their ideas got incorporated into this one before it passed the full Congress.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Second, if you're getting rid of a gas guzzling SUV, you only have to buy a new one that gets ONE MORE MPG, and if it's a car, FOUR MORE MPG.

Remember what those who would pervert any soluton want. More SUVs. Why does an SUV have a large engine compartment? Then the world's crappiest cars can still use 1968 technology engines. Then the vehicle need not be an 'integrated' design.

Congress is a cross section of many opinions. Some want vehicles that even a bean counter could design. That is an SUV - designed by bean counters - no innovations - 1968 technology engines. SUV have minimal engineering and exemptions from many design and safety requirements.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I didn't go to the link yet to read it because I'm in a rush, but I watched the session in Congress on CSPAN when they first passed it in committee, and it is a bad bill. First of all, you have to buy a new car, you can't get a used one. Second, if you're getting rid of a gas guzzling SUV, you only have to buy a new one that gets ONE MORE MPG, and if it's a car, FOUR MORE MPG. That is seriously fucked up. If they were going to do it, it should have been for much better gas mileage, and you should be able to get a used car. This is just another giveaway to the auto companies.

Dianne Feinstein and Olympia Snow were working on a much better bill. I hope some of their ideas got incorporated into this one before it passed the full Congress.

paraphrasing:
'i didn't read the link, but i DID want to misquote some information'

(mean comment deleted before posting)

The value of the credit for the purchase or lease of a new passenger car depends upon the difference between the combined fuel economy of the vehicle that is traded in and that of the new vehicle that is purchased or leased. If the new vehicle has a combined fuel economy that is at least 4, but less than 10, miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If the new vehicle has a combined fuel economy value that is at least 10 miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500.

it really depends on what you think the objective of the action is. I think it will definitely stimulate some sales. it will have a minor positive effect on emissions, too. what is more important today?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

paraphrasing:
'i didn't read the link, but i DID want to misquote some information'

(mean comment deleted before posting)

AS I SAID, I was quoting WHAT I HEARD while watching the bill go through committee. THEN I WENT ON TO SAY... Dianne Feinstein and Olympia Snow were working on a much better bill. I hope some of their ideas got incorporated into this one before it passed the full Congress.Geez.

[lumberjim]

THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID:

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I didn't go to the link yet to read it because I'm in a rush, but I watched the session in Congress on CSPAN when they first passed it in committee, and it is a bad bill. First of all, you have to buy a new car, you can't get a used one. Second, if you're getting rid of a gas guzzling SUV, you only have to buy a new one that gets ONE MORE MPG, and if it's a car, FOUR MORE MPG. BLAH BLAH BLAH.

An SUV is like JEEP.....a Class 2 Truck is like an F350

most people here don't drive heavy pickups

(3) the term `category 2 truck' means a large van or a large
pickup, as categorized by the Secretary using the method used
by the Environmental Protection Agency and described in the
report entitled `Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel
Economy Trends: 1975 through 2008';

you do this repeatedly. i've told you about it before. you form an opinion in a blink and then immediately begin to spout it as fact. I don't want you to do that in this thread if you wouldn't mind.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID:

I didn't go to the link yet to read it because I'm in a rush, but I watched the session in Congress on CSPAN when they first passed it in committee, and it is a bad bill. First of all, you have to buy a new car, you can't get a used one. Second, if you're getting rid of a gas guzzling SUV, you only have to buy a new one that gets ONE MORE MPG, and if it's a car, FOUR MORE MPG.

you do this repeatedly. i've told you about it before. you form an opinion in a blink and then immediately begin to spout it as fact. I don't want you to do that in this thread if you wouldn't mind.

This is the last thing I will post about this. This is from the FAQs page from the link you posted:
If both the new vehicle and the traded-in vehicle are category 2 trucks and the combined fuel economy value of the new vehicle is at least 1, but less than 2, miles per gallon higher than the combined fuel economy value of the traded in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If both the new vehicle and the traded-in vehicle are category 2 trucks and the combined fuel economy of the new vehicle is at least 2 miles per gallon higher than that of the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500.

The value of the credit for the purchase or lease of a new passenger car depends upon the difference between the combined fuel economy of the vehicle that is traded in and that of the new vehicle that is purchased or leased. If the new vehicle has a combined fuel economy that is at least 4, but less than 10, miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If the new vehicle has a combined fuel economy value that is at least 10 miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500.

[monster]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

it is a bad bill. First of all, you have to buy a new car, you can't get a used one.

Why does that make it bad? it's only very recently that manufacturers here have really been attempting to reduce the MPG, so a new car is likely to be more fuel efficient than a used one. Also, surely, we're only guessing at the MPG of a used car. Which is fine if you're getting rid of a probable gas-guzzler, but to be certain you're replacing it with something significantly more efficient surely it needs to be new which a known mpg? I suspect if the scheme were opened up to used cars, there would be much shennanigans afoot.

Also, you poo-poo the 1mpg improvement required for trucks, and yet if they are only getting 15mpg, that's 6.7% which is not insignificant. Plus clunkers are probably getting far less than that which of course increases that percentage. From what I could tell from the tables linked to in the OP, the mpg for these vehicles does not appear to have improved that much. I would say it's pretty safe to assume that most of these vehicles are on the road because either (a) they are needed for what they are used for -in which case if they are replaced it's going to be with much the same thing which is going to be impossible if you make the required mpg change much higher, or (b) they are vanity vehicles in which case their owners likely have more money than sense and are not likely to be interested in replacing them with smaller vehicles for a few grand discount -which is the only way you'll get a bigger mpg reduction. So although it doesn't sound much, maybe it's the best that can be realistically effective, and is enough that it's better than nothing? I agree that on the surface 1mpg seems like a measly figure, but i think it's a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss it out of hand. 1% is often insignificant, 1 elephant is usually not. It's all relative. and I could be stupid.

. . .

as an addendum, I may not have Jim's finesse, but I do agree that it's somewhat rude to post that you don't have time to read the link but then take the time to give your opinion on what you think it probably says, especially when your opinion -valid though it may be- is about the worth of the program and not it's workings, which was the point of the OP. It's almost trolling. You're not the only one who does it by a long way, but I generally expect better given the usual quality of your posts. Just sayin'

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by monster

Why does that make it bad? it's only very recently that manufacturers here have really been attempting to reduce the MPG, so a new car is likely to be more fuel efficient than a used one.

I think you meant increase.

Also, surely, we're only guessing at the MPG of a used car. Which is fine if you're getting rid of a probable gas-guzzler, but to be certain you're replacing it with something significantly more efficient surely it needs to be new which a known mpg? I suspect if the scheme were opened up to used cars, there would be much shennanigans afoot.

They use the EPA estimated mileage that's been published for every make/model sold in the US for the last 35 years.

Seems to me, the family driving a 1980 land-yacht getting 12/14 mpg because they can't afford to trade up, and could with the help of this program buy a 2 or 3 year old car that gets 24/26 mpg, would be a good thing.

I suppose they are trying to reduce the manufacturers inventories and get the factories/employment moving, with the new car restriction. But I think they are missing an opportunity to get some of the real clunkers off the road.

[monster]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Seems to me, the family driving a 1980 land-yacht getting 12/14 mpg because they can't afford to trade up, and could with the help of this program buy a 2 or 3 year old car that gets 24/26 mpg, would be a good thing.

What car did you have in mind here?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by monster

What car did you have in mind here?

None in particular, just an example why used cars should be included, even it they stipulate a larger gain for them to qualify.

[TheMercenary]

The program in a nutshell.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/fresh-gr...-clunkers.html

The costs and potential pitfalls.

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/c...009-06-10.html

[lumberjim]

i was just pointing out that you're stupid.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

i was just pointing out that you're stupid.

Do you enjoy being an asshole or is it just a gift?