- Connect
- Login
- Print Subscription
|
Welcome,
| |
| |
- Most Commented
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Most Emailed
- Popular
- Popular
« Opinion
Program aims to get driver into fuel efficient vehicles
Program aims to get driver into fuel efficient vehicles
“Cash for Clunkers,” the buyer incentive plan approved by Congress last week isn’t for everyone. Basically, it will only be of advantage to people whose current trade-in is worth less than $4,500 and gets less than 18 miles per gallon. And buyers have to be in the market for a new fuel efficient car.
But its a program that everybody in the Mahoning Valley can be enthusiastic about, because anything that spurs the sale of fuel efficient cars will have a beneficial effect on the Lordstown General Motors plant, where Chevrolet Cobalts and Pontiac G5s are produced.
The Cobalt and G5 automatics are rated at 23 or 24 mpg city; 32 or 33 mpg highway. Manual transmission models get 22 or 25 mpg city and 35 or 37 mpg on the highway. The EPA average for Lordstown products, based on 45 percent city and 55 percent highway, ranges from 25 mpg to 29 mpg.
Of course there is no guarantee that today’s clunker owners will be tomorrow’s Cobalt drivers. There was no way to write a buy-American provision into this legislation. A similar program in Germany resulted in a majority of the new cars purchased being imports.
U.S. manufacturers are simply going to have to be aggressive in marketing their products and winning over buyers.
The cash received for clunkers is in addition to any other buyers incentives provided by the manufacturers or bargains offered by local dealers.
End of the road
One cautionary note, if you’ve developed a sentimental attachment to your clunker, know that it won’t be going to another owner who will give it a good home. It will be going directly from the dealership to the scrap yard. One of the objects of the program is to spur vehicle sales and give the economy a boost. The other is to get older gas-guzzling, carbon-spewing models off the road.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that the majority of auto emissions come from older vehicles that are not designed to meet later emissions standards, even when running at their best. A poorly maintained older model can emit more pollution than a dozen new cars.
The clunkers bill provides $1 billion for the auto sales program from July through November, although details and implementation won’t be worked out until early August. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the there will be enough money to spur 250,000 sales. The incentives are $3,500 or $4,500, depending on a number of factors.
Because the vehicles will be scrapped by the dealers, the program will be of no advantage to buyers with high-value trade-ins. The buyer will be getting the $3,500 or $4,500 payment in lieu of any trade-in value.
And perspective buyers can forget trying to pull off a fast one by running to the junkyard for a trade-in vehicle. The buyer must have owned the trade-in for at least a year and the car, truck or van must be in running order.
But anyone who has, say, a 10 year-old gas guzzler with a trade-in value of $1,000, might be able to do more than just dream about buying a new car.
More details about the program will be coming out of Washington and from a dealer near you in coming weeks.
- Requires free registration.
Comments
Unfortunately the way the bill is written it will not give alot of incentive for owners to trade in. First, from what I read its money that is replacing what the dealer would have given, not on top of. So the only people that would trade in on this point alone are people that could not get $3500 or $4500 otherwise. I suspect these are consumers that would be apprehensive on buying a new car, no matter the fuel efficiency. But the car mpg difference has to be 4 mpg greater. Cars that are older, lets say from the early 90s, may actually be pretty good on gas vs a new one. Why? Because cars are heavier these days (partially b/c of increased safety equipment - not bad per se but it hurts fuel mileage). So if your in the Valley and you have an older mid-size car, it may be that the 'clunker' gets better mileage.
Congress took a good simple program started in Europe and worked an incredible job in making it ineffective.
Thankfully the Valley should disproportionately benefit from it, as not only are Cobalts good on gas but they are affordable.
Why are we even using tax dollars for this purpose. Ok, I'm going to a junk car yard, buy a piece of rust for a few hundred dollars, get it running, put tags on it, and then go to a dealer and buy another car and collect $4500, then turn around and sell it. No bad....$4500 profit from the taxpayers thanks to another OBAMUNISM social engineering program. It's interesting to see the Vindicator editorial writer actually believes this is good for the country to the tune of another $5 billion dollar worthless program. Things are really getting pathetic.
Hey Clarkkent, You're a RETARD! The legislation says that the vehicle must have been owned and insured for at least one year leading up to the trade in of the vehicle. So you CAN'T pull a fast one! Perhaps had you read the article or educated yourself on the issue you would know this. But you obviously didn't. Go spew your anti-Obama BS elsewhere.
This is really detrimental to the collector car market. Cars that could very easily be fixed and/or restored will be scrapped. Many of the cars that will go to the junkyard will likely the teen's car or a car that's driven the least of the family's vehicles, and won't impact carbon footprints all that much. As far as improving fuel mileage, most people would see a direct increase almost immediately by checking the air pressure in their tires. For those of us who enjoy car culture, car design and that whole world, this is devastating news. Used car prices are going to increase, hurting the poor and car collectors.
To Katie...maybe this is an attempt to rebuild the slumping collector car market...have you seen the prices in Hemmings lately? Why, you could pick up a $90,000 Pontiac GTO for about $59,000 now! Or a '57 Chevy for less than $100,000!
Katie - it shouldnt hurt the collectors market that much. This is trying to give incentive to people to get more for a car than what its worth...collectors cars should be naturally priced higher. I dont know if it will increase used car prices. It may have the opposite effect...people will now consider a new car because its slightly more affordable. But still not a well written program.
What good is a coupon for a car that is overpriced anyway ? To really get good gas mileage you would have to look at the hybrid. They run about 10k more then the standard model (Ford Escape)
Yo, johnbates4, bite me. I didn't read the whole bill. But it doesn't make any difference. It's Obamunism at work. None of this crap should be going in the first place. If you and the other bloggers can't see socialism at work, then you all have a sever problem and don't realize what is happening to the country on a large scale. If you are only interested in Obamamama tossing out cash to get you to trade in your old car, why is that good for other taxpayers who have no intention on buying a car anytime soon. Next well hear of another taxpayer funded give away for the people who use this money to buy cars, and now cry that their insurance bills are too high. Now what? Obama is going to come and give you money for your insurance? The faster this clown in the white house is gone, the better off the nation will be. The problem is that he is quickly wreaking havoc and destruction in the budgets, but hey, most voters are too stupid to understand it or figure it out. After all, they voted for an empty suit with no experience. Just a socialist community agitator, slum lawyer.
ClarkKent - It actually does make a difference that you read up on something before you rant on it. This thread is about a cash for clunkers bill, and not ideology on Obama. By the way, this concept was started in Germany, and is Angela Merkel left leaning?
Funny, Clark Kent is a journalist, right? So I imagine the character actually checks his facts, and if he screwed up I dont think he would say "But it doesnt make any difference."
to clarkkent:
First I'm going to pass on your offer to bite you. Secondly you have proven your ignorance by stating that you didn't bother to educate yourself. Finally you seem to be a torch bearer of the GOP I could be wrong but I doubt it. As opposed to your empty suit I suppose you prefer a chicken-hawk who sends people to find weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. And finaly before you call me out on it I am a proud veteran of that conflict. I will support my country regardless of who was in charge, even if they irresponsibly spend money not on tangible vehicles and reducing polution, but prefer to spend it on death and destruction persuing his ideology.
Veeerrry interesting. Like you, I am a veteran, retired Army Officer who served over 23 years, including 5 in the White House Office of Emergency Operations, and also a year in the OSD. Also had 7 years of command time in Infantry and Intell units with 8 years overseas. Also was a Planning Commissioner for 7 years in Virginia, been a DoD contractor, and worked privately in D.C. for 7 years. So.......been there, done that. I'm no torch bearer for anybody. However, what I said, one more time, is that I didnt read the whole car welfare money give-away. nd, just because it started in Germany, France or anywhere else doesn't make it a good idea, does it? It also doesn't matter what the political ideology of that country's leader is either, so what does that say about your thinking process?
I simply oppose the current administration's irrational and damaging financial policies. I didn't always agree with Bush either, but at least he stood on his principles, whether you agreed or not. You can cut the tired, old "death and destruction" limp wrist, crap any time. You obviously didn't pay attention to world events closely. I.E.: Where is the 500 liters of anthrax that the UN inspectors validated in 1999? All Saddam had to do was comply with at least one of the dozens of UN resolutions he violated and he probably would have gotten away for another ten years. That's enough anthrax to kill millions of people and it can fit in the bed of a pickup truck? Think you can hide that in the desert? Yes you can, and it stays potent for decades. You obviously didn't read the entire 9-11 Commission report either. Why was Abu Nidal, the world's most wanted terrorist, until Bin Laden, living in Baghdad? What was moved from Iraq into Syria's Bekka Valley (Syrian Military Storage and Traning Areas) under constant escort by a special group of Saddam's Republican Guards? Satellite photography showed the vehicle moving from Iraq weapons storage areas and then crossing over into Syria. That stuff move weeks before the invasion. This is not the same stuff that Colin Powell discussed. Maybe you would have just done nothing (again) when he nerved gasses another city. Gee, isn't nerve gas a weapon of mass destruction? Once again, the national welfare program, now finding car purchases, is just that. A federal welfare program with limited if any value, and a waste of taxpayer money. God helps those who help themselves, so they say. Today is seems that there is a quickly growing segment of the society that think that government owes them stuff, as car, a house, etc. Some government assistance is necessary for limited numbers of people who meet the test for true help and support. Just throwing out money to virtually anyone who has an old car is still stupid.
figured I would hit a nerve there. And I did you wrote us a novel! DOD contractor essentially means that war is good for business and your wallet. Multiple reports have said that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq I suppose you didn't read those either. FAct of the matter is the nation spoke and this old school militar-industrial stuff doesn't fly. Typal of the neocons you ignore facts that don't support your oppinion.
clarkkent, you are trying to get through to the sheeples!
For working trucks the rule is not based on the fuel efficieny. As long as it is manufactured before 2001 they all qualify
but cannot be older than 25 years old.
Jhenry
Blogger
www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info