Cash for Clunkers Petition to improve vehicle fuel efficiency and reduce pollution

[madnessspirit]

No Jay, I'm not disagreeing with the fact that many of the cars turned in under C4C didn't really have anything wrong with them. It made the used car market suck too. Worst of all, it didn't help the people who really could have used the help.

Trollbait, no, there was not that big of an exemption for trucks. They had to get better mileage. Furthermore, they could only buy vehicles under the program that had a retail value of under $45,000 (although there were some notable exceptions). Also, the credit varied based upon the difference in fuel economy between the old and new vehicle.

It does stand, that the average fuel economy of a vehicle that was turned in was 15.8, and the average fuel economy of a vehicle purchased was 25.3mpg, and this is including truck trade ins.

83% of trade-ins were trucks, and 60% of purchases were new cars. There were pickup for pickup trades, but they still showed an improvement in fuel economy, despite the less strict rules.

[GasSavers_JoeBob]

Sign a petition to reinstate Cash for Clunkers? Uh, no. I think I'll pass. Before C4C, it was possible to pick up a usable car for around $400 or even less. Now, from what I have seen, pretty much dead cars are nearly $1000. Bring it back again, and it will make used cars even more expensive.

Ditto the "Accelerated Retirement" programs like we have in California. Just watched a perfectly good Geo Metro go to the crusher because someone could get more selling the car to the state, to be destroyed, than to someone who could have probably driven it another couple hundred thousand miles.

I could say more, but I'd better shut my mouth now.

[bowtieguy]

funny how we agree politically JB, when our (yours and mine) money is at stake!

[madnessspirit]

Originally Posted by JoeBob

Sign a petition to reinstate Cash for Clunkers? Uh, no. I think I'll pass. Before C4C, it was possible to pick up a usable car for around $400 or even less. Now, from what I have seen, pretty much dead cars are nearly $1000. Bring it back again, and it will make used cars even more expensive.

Ditto the "Accelerated Retirement" programs like we have in California. Just watched a perfectly good Geo Metro go to the crusher because someone could get more selling the car to the state, to be destroyed, than to someone who could have probably driven it another couple hundred thousand miles.

I could say more, but I'd better shut my mouth now.

THIS^^^

[trollbait]

Originally Posted by FIND

No Jay, I'm not disagreeing with the fact that many of the cars turned in under C4C didn't really have anything wrong with them. It made the used car market suck too. Worst of all, it didn't help the people who really could have used the help.

Trollbait, no, there was not that big of an exemption for trucks. They had to get better mileage. Furthermore, they could only buy vehicles under the program that had a retail value of under $45,000 (although there were some notable exceptions). Also, the credit varied based upon the difference in fuel economy between the old and new vehicle.

It does stand, that the average fuel economy of a vehicle that was turned in was 15.8, and the average fuel economy of a vehicle purchased was 25.3mpg, and this is including truck trade ins.

83% of trade-ins were trucks, and 60% of purchases were new cars. There were pickup for pickup trades, but they still showed an improvement in fuel economy, despite the less strict rules.

You just had force me to strain my fingers at Google didn't you.

For light duty trucks, the ones with EPA fuel ratings, CforC worked as you and I have said. With small trucks(Ranger, Tacoma), it worked the same as for cars, with the new vehicle needed to +5 mpg to get the higher voucher. I didn't spell it out because I was focusing on Work Trucks, and was hazy on the details of the large light duty trucks.

Large light duty trucks(F150, Silverado, any 1500 class) had mpg limits for the program, but they were lower than for cars. The trade in limit was 15mpg, and only +1 and +2 for the $3500 or $4500 credit. Our Sable wasn't eligible, but a large light truck owner could trade in their truck for a vehicle with the same or even worse economy than the Sable with a $4500 voucher. Fair? Sign of lobbyist power? Eh, large trucks have poorer fuel economy, and some people need them. So they couldn't be excluded, but couldn't have the same limits as cars. Many people became honest with themselves, admitted they didn't need truck, and got a car or other vehicle type. That's one positive of the program.

I was focusing on the work truck class. It overlaps with the large light duty class in gross weight, but the important thing is they do not require fuel economy testing. Without a fuel economy rating, other factors were needed. So the trade in just had to be older than 2002. The exemption wasn't big. $3500 was the max credit amount, and CforC funds for them were limited to 7.5%. The new vehicle had to be a work or large light duty truck. While, they were few, those that wanted to downsize even further couldn't under the program.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/06...kers-bill.html

The first comment there also pointed out the effect CforC had on car donations.

[GasSavers_JoeBob]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

funny how we agree politically JB, when our (yours and mine) money is at stake!

How 'bout that...

Edit:

Wow! I just saw...post #777! Shouldn't I get a buttload of quarters pouring out of my computer now?!?