Got a clunker?

[Duffster]

The average fuel economy improvement on the trades is stated as being 66% (from 15-25mpg). I personally had an improvement of about 127% (going from 18mpg to 41mpg). Doing about 20k miles/yr, I will save about 870 gal of fuel per year at a cost of about $2300 at current prices. All raise their hands who think that gas prices are not going up in future ?

My clunker was a good car that served us well, but it had close to 160k miles on it, a KBB value of about $3k, had an expensive ZF transmission that was starting to act up and it needed a timing belt change (major service).

There are plenty people out there who are still employed, who are still bringing home decent pay, but who have been holding back on buying a new car. I think this program is the first thing the government has done since the start of the financial crisis that has had ANY tangible benefit for taxpayers.

Lets remember that the republicans gave the banks the $1 trillion, after being in denial for years. Bush had taken just as much tax money off me as anyone else, but republicans feel that it is somehow justified if you are hitting shacks in the desert with stealth bombers @ $100k/hour. But spending is not justified if one is trying to ween the population off their gasoline addiction ?

People who take advantage of this program and buy a vehicle that is downsized, economical and FUN are unlikely to return to their old ways. And all those who complain about not buying american: The fact is that FORD, GM and Chrysler sell fuel efficient vehicles in other countries, just not here. If people buy products from competitors, and I might add, first world competitors - not chinese sweatshops - they are sending a message to the big 3 that they had better not ignore.

As of this summer, you can get a turbo diesel passenger vehicle from VW, Audi, BMW, and Mercedes. Chrysler dropped the ridiculously overpriced Grand Cherokee with the mercedes engine and the others have nothing. Shame on them, when manufacturers in foreign countries have to build vehicles to meet more stringent emission regulations than their own and start selling them here in the US when the Big 3 have nothing to offer their own people.

Do you honestly think that the cash for clunkers is going to make any difference in weening "the population off their gasoline addiction"?

The amount of fuel saved will be a drop in the ocean.

 

[_RaT_]

Do you honestly think that the cash for clunkers is going to make any difference in weening "the population off their gasoline addiction"?

The amount of fuel saved will be a drop in the ocean.

Of course you are correct. I would love to cash in my clunker 93 Ford F250 4X4 diesel, but not sure they take that truck. I'm not sure I can convince myself that I'm doing something that goes against my grain as well. I don't want the government but the government I know wants me.

 

[westcliffe01]

Its about changing a mindset. Like turning a supertanker to a new heading. It starts small (just like the $2 billion is small compared to other stuff that is going on). To make the turn, one just needs to keep nudging in the right direction. 5 years ago, you may not personally have known anyone who drove a prius. There probably wasn't one in the company parking lot, or if there was, it belonged to some nerd. I have sat in launch presentations and conferences hosted by the big 3 and heard them claim, confidently, that hybrid vehicles will never make more than 1% market penetration. Fast forward 5 years: How many priuses do you see now ? How many VW TDI's ? Considering that they have only sold about 20k of them since re-introducing them last year.

Many of the extrapolations regarding future energy use make some major assumptions: Continued population growth and the expectation that people will consume at least as much energy as they do today. If the population started applying measures to conserve energy (use compact flourescents, insulate to 2x code requirement (move the code requirement), drive a hybrid or turbo diesel or a vehicle with a small gas engine (600cc to 1.4l) like in the rest of the world) it would be unbelievable how much our needs would be reduced. And the portion which could be met by renewables would be much more significant. And one would disempower some of the worst dictatorships in the world. Farm people and those with large acreages will still own trucks. They may just not want to drive them every day to go to the grocery store. I was amazed how many trucks and SUV's were parked when gas hit $4/gal.

The population growth issue is probably the biggest taboo topic world wide since it is absolutely clear that quality of life will suffer and even survival may be at stake because of resource depletion and overcrowding and poisoning of water sources through pollution.

 

[Duffster]

Its about changing a mindset. Like turning a supertanker to a new heading. It starts small (just like the $2 billion is small compared to other stuff that is going on). To make the turn, one just needs to keep nudging in the right direction. 5 years ago, you may not personally have known anyone who drove a prius. There probably wasn't one in the company parking lot, or if there was, it belonged to some nerd. I have sat in launch presentations and conferences hosted by the big 3 and heard them claim, confidently, that hybrid vehicles will never make more than 1% market penetration. Fast forward 5 years: How many priuses do you see now ? How many VW TDI's ? Considering that they have only sold about 20k of them since re-introducing them last year.

Many of the extrapolations regarding future energy use make some major assumptions: Continued population growth and the expectation that people will consume at least as much energy as they do today. If the population started applying measures to conserve energy (use compact flourescents, insulate to 2x code requirement (move the code requirement), drive a hybrid or turbo diesel or a vehicle with a small gas engine (600cc to 1.4l) like in the rest of the world) it would be unbelievable how much our needs would be reduced. And the portion which could be met by renewables would be much more significant. And one would disempower some of the worst dictatorships in the world. Farm people and those with large acreages will still own trucks. They may just not want to drive them every day to go to the grocery store. I was amazed how many trucks and SUV's were parked when gas hit $4/gal.

The population growth issue is probably the biggest taboo topic world wide since it is absolutely clear that quality of life will suffer and even survival may be at stake because of resource depletion and overcrowding and poisoning of water sources through pollution.

All talking points. This is my favorite, "insulate to 2x code requirement". Do you know how little it takes to heat and cool a modern house already? You will use more energy making more insulation then you will save heating/cooling the house.

 

[Double Orange]

Its about changing a mindset. Like turning a supertanker to a new heading. It starts small (just like the $2 billion is small compared to other stuff that is going on). To make the turn, one just needs to keep nudging in the right direction. 5 years ago, you may not personally have known anyone who drove a prius. There probably wasn't one in the company parking lot, or if there was, it belonged to some nerd. I have sat in launch presentations and conferences hosted by the big 3 and heard them claim, confidently, that hybrid vehicles will never make more than 1% market penetration. Fast forward 5 years: How many priuses do you see now ? How many VW TDI's ? Considering that they have only sold about 20k of them since re-introducing them last year.

Many of the extrapolations regarding future energy use make some major assumptions: Continued population growth and the expectation that people will consume at least as much energy as they do today. If the population started applying measures to conserve energy (use compact flourescents, insulate to 2x code requirement (move the code requirement), drive a hybrid or turbo diesel or a vehicle with a small gas engine (600cc to 1.4l) like in the rest of the world) it would be unbelievable how much our needs would be reduced. And the portion which could be met by renewables would be much more significant. And one would disempower some of the worst dictatorships in the world. Farm people and those with large acreages will still own trucks. They may just not want to drive them every day to go to the grocery store. I was amazed how many trucks and SUV's were parked when gas hit $4/gal.

The population growth issue is probably the biggest taboo topic world wide since it is absolutely clear that quality of life will suffer and even survival may be at stake because of resource depletion and overcrowding and poisoning of water sources through pollution.

And your point is ?

 

[Dargo]

All talking points. This is my favorite, "insulate to 2x code requirement". Do you know how little it takes to heat and cool a modern house already? You will use more energy making more insulation then you will save heating/cooling the house.

Of course it's been buried but is simple to figure, this clunker program costs more than it will ever save. It's sort of like the E85 debacle where it has been proven that it takes about 1.3 gallons of fossil fuel to produce 1 gallon of E85. Really saving the planet there. Figure all the costs that go into production of a new vehicle, transporting it to a dealership, time, money and materials to drain, destroy and disassemble the 'clunker' and to dispose of it and you'll never make up the lost energy or carbon footprint created in the whole deal. The clunker is a clunker on the taxpayers; nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Duffster]

Of course it's been buried but is simple to figure, this clunker program costs more than it will ever save. It's sort of like the E85 debacle where it has been proven that it takes about 1.3 gallons of fossil fuel to produce 1 gallon of E85. Really saving the planet there. Figure all the costs that go into production of a new vehicle, transporting it to a dealership, time, money and materials to drain, destroy and disassemble the 'clunker' and to dispose of it and you'll never make up the lost energy or carbon footprint created in the whole deal. The clunker is a clunker on the taxpayers; nothing more and nothing less.

I say the same thing about all these new windmills.

 

[westcliffe01]

Dufster, it is no secret what it takes to heat homes built to code. In my case it is $600 this season (for 5 cord of firewood). My utility bills are about $75/month which is the annual average including running the air conditioner. Last year we had a particularly hot summer and the air conditioning bill ran close to $150/month for nearly 4 months. But if I ran the natural gas furnace (cheapest "conventional" source of heat) it would be on the order of $1300 per season minimum and that would be with the thermostat set to 65. Those in rural areas are on propane and looking at more than $2500 per season. Perhaps you have been to hearth.com and read what people are going through the last couple of winters.

Did you notice Hugo Chavez donating heating oil to low income americans 2 years ago ? It seems to suggest that people cant afford to keep their homes warm. That seems to suggest that some will benefit from more insulation.

People who insulate beyond code requirement and apply passive solar techniques when the home is built will typically save over $1000/season in utility bills assuming they are on natural gas. That amount will increase if it includes a "cold roof" providing a benefit in summer. That doesn't sound like much now, but that is without taking inflation into account. And as we know, amortization on the insulation in your home runs over a very long period, typically several mortgage terms.

 

[Dargo]

I say the same thing about all these new windmills.

I will concede that the intentions are good. It's just that the execution and end result isn't worth the cost/effort.

 

[westcliffe01]

Dargo, as my own example shows, I can save $2300 a year at current fuel prices. I recieved $4500 from the clunker program, so it will be amortized in just less than 2 years if we have no inflation (like thats going to happen). I will likely keep driving the car for the next 8 years after that, just like I did with the vehicle I traded in. Again, assuming no inflation (ha ha) the payback is going to be $18400, which appears to be a pretty neat Return on Investment. If we have 10% inflation starting after the first 2 years, that payback becomes $28 000. I didn't even own a REAL gas guzzling suv in the first place, just an awd wagon with a 2.8 V6. Apparently Ford Explorers are the #1 traded in vehicle. Depending on the choices those folks make, their payback numbers will make mine look silly.

So mathematically, your story is BS. It sounds like party line retoric, repeated verbatum.

this clunker program costs more than it will ever save. .