Reader comments
Some clunkers didn't trade for higher mpg

Anonymous | 10:41 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

My ford Ranger got 13.4 mpg in town with a 4 liter V6 putting out 160 hp. I replaced with a Toyota with a 3.4 liter V6 that has 180 hp and gets 18.5 around town. My Ford went through three transmissions, AC and brakes every 20k. My Toyota has never lost a transmission and goes 60k on a set of brakes. You bought Fords?

Omar | 10:52 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Huge waste of money! Taxpayers should be outraged!

Joe Moe | 11:08 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

1) The average fuel economy increase in these swaps was a 9 mpg improvement (great, but won't save the world)

2) The government says this is costing the US taxpayers three billion dollars (divide that by our population, and it's about $1,000 each by my math...man, woman, and child). I hope my neighbor appreciates the money my family and I have so generously "donated" to him for his new truck.

Comments continue below

Greetings from Japan! | 11:14 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

We auto workers in Japan are very happy to get your money! Please keep sending more!

Missing the point | 12:32 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Really, why was the program put in place here and now? Duh, it was for the economy. It pumped more money through the system and pushed volume through the factories that paid out salary and increased the purchases from auto suppliers. Really do you think this was about evironmental awareness? OK during the second most dire economic period in the last hundred years and people are worried about 34 deals here and 15 deals there? The real reason it existed was for stimulus and HEY the average increas was 9 MPG. Will that save all the starfish? No but it will not burn more gas than before the program AND!!!!! we saw a big bump in the economy that tricled down through the banking and auto industries. Two of the hardest hit areas. Success? Yeah I think so.

The intent. | 5:02 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

From what I have read, the dealers in america were given government calculated charts of vehicles and the gas mileage ratings for dealers to go by and use this program.

Really though, I think the intent of this program was to bolster the auto industry in sales and put more americans in debt to also help the banks and financial industry with some cash flow. At the time this program was initiated the auto industry was falling flat on its face and about to go bankrupt. It was a very clever plan to help both industry's and not so much as fuel mileage driven to save gas and oil dependence. The federal government set the standards and mileage ratings of older vehicles and baseline new vehicles so the disparity was very broad in scope.

Our government and the rest of the world all base its economy on the american consumers and how much debt they carry. They don't want to see a cash scoiety, they want a debt riddled consumer again, even if they can't pay for it. That is the intent of all the programs being fostered and supported by government. Sound familiar?

JMT | 5:39 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

And the same rocket scientists who gave us the completely mismanaged and non-working Cash 4 Clunkers now wants to run your health care. They can't get the car salesman right but will get your doctor right.

Holy freaking cow!!!

Greetings from Royal Families | 6:13 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

We Royal Families of the Middle East do not like hearing about your so-called "global warming" or "cash for clunkers" programs. We depend on America to send us $$$$$ for our oil and natural gas. Please GOP, help us out and stop any more energy conservation initiatives. Stop developing renewable energy and electric cars. We like having President Bush hold our hands or President Obama bowing to us! We like having the U.S. Military (paide by U.S. taxpayers) escort oil tankers out of our rich Persian Gulf to ship our oil around the world. The U.S. colonies were designed to serve British Royalty 300 years ago, but today, you serve us Mideast Royalty. Royalty deserves such honor!

Complain, Complain, Complain | 6:45 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

First the auto dealers complained the rebate money was slow coming in. Now we complain that a few dealers tried to pull one over on the government. Next you will complain that the government is making the slick car dealers that cheated the government pay back the rebate that did not match the deal.

We were headed into a depression. Now the economy is headed in a positive direction. Unemployment always lags a year or two behind the stock market, but even that is coming. We need more "little orphan Annie" and less whiners.

As for the guy whose Ford ranger went through three transmissions every 20K miles, wow, what a driver!

dave | 7:08 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

IS missing the point missing the point about this joke of a program! the next to the last sentence says it all "A big bump in the economy that tricled down". I thought the Trickel down economy of the Regan era didn't work OR DID IT!

Math Prof | 7:09 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Joe Moe, I agree it was a was of money, but your math is off.

3 billion / 300 million = $10 per person.

Anonymous | 7:17 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

It helped the economy. Period. There was a definite bump, easily seen in the numbers. So stop complaining and let's move on.

What Point? | 7:21 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Dear Missing the Point (how apt). Please come to my restaurant for lunch today and I will charge you $240.00 for a six dollar hamburger and fries.

Success? Yeah I think so.

Paul | 7:58 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

First we (the Government) buy the automobile companies, then we pay to have the people come in and buy our trucks and cars. Wow what a way to do business. I wonder why all businesses don't operate this way.

Craig | 8:21 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

The next idea to stimulate the economy will be to have teenagers break a bunch of windows so that taxpayers can pay to replace them. That will have the same economic benefit of the clunker program. Replacing the cars consumes more energy than the higher gas mileage will save, you have to factor in the energy consumed to build the car. Fixing older cars uses less energy.

Responsibility | 8:36 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

The government put out very clear guidelines of what the qualifications were for trading in vehicles under the cash for clunkers program.

If certain dealerships did not follow those guidelines, that is hardly the fault of the government - it is the fault of the dealerships.

These dealerships should be held accountable by having to return any money they received for vehicles they should not have accepted.

Joe Moe proves... | 8:52 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

We should have dumped that money into education.

Earl | 8:56 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

The program was a payoff to the auto unions for voting Democrat. What more do you need to know?

Stimulating | 9:07 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

The economy grew by 3.5% last quarter. Clunkers and the $8K home buyer spiff accounted for much of that. So, is that real growth?
Sure, borrowing creates new money in the system, but was it worth it.
Speaking of our money system, isn't it ironic that we talk about sustainability all the time but our banking system is not? Hmmmm.

Roscoe | 10:22 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

About 10 years ago, in Arizona the state instituted a program where the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles were subsidized by taxpayers. The intent was to get vehicles on the road that required other than gasoline or diesel. Seems innocent enough on the outside. What happened was that people bought Suburbans, Expeditions, Yukons and the like that were outfitted with a small propane fuel system. The program didn't stipulate that the new vehicle had to run solely on the alternative fuel, so you had these massive SUVs with a 10-gallon propane tank and these people received incentives in the form of tax credits. It was extremely popular and just about bankrupted the state, and the intended goal was never realized. Cash for clunkers was poorly thought out and poorly executed. Just what one would expect from a government program.

lost in DC | 10:41 a.m. Nov. 5, 2009

Greetings from Japan, those Toyotas were most likely built in California. So while the profits from those Toyotas went back to Japan, a few of Japan's serfs toiling in CA did get paid.

It was still a bad idea, a bad deal, and poorly executed.

Fuzzy Math | 1:12 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

This article is using simple statistics to get people riled up. I'm not a fan of the program, but I do understand basic math. A change from 14 MPG to 16 MPG is a 14% change. If this vehicle drove 12000 miles per year, that's a savings of 107 gallons per year. This is the same % of change in going from 20 MPG to 24 MPG, but that car only saves 100 gallons per year. It's the gallons of gas used every year that matters much more than the miles per gallon. There was a great article in USAToday a few months ago to this effect - gallons per mile is the figure to look at when comparing apples to apples with gas mileage.

Joe Moe | 4:39 p.m. Nov. 5, 2009

My bad. It seemed a surprisingly big number, but my bias against the whole thing had me jumping too quickly. Next time I shall pause longer before shooting off numbers like that!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.

2 photos

Michael Dwyer, Associated Press

In this Aug. 23, 2009 file photo, an old pickup truck is displayed outside a car dealership in Norwood, Mass. The most common deals under the government's $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program, aimed at putting more fuel-efficient cars on the road, replaced old Ford or Chevrolet pickups with new ones that got only marginally better gas mileage, according to an analysis of new federal data by The Associated Press.

Gallery (2 photos)