Cash for Clunkers

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090505/cashforclunkers.pdf

It doesn't say COMBINED on the current EPA estimates for the clunker. It only says the *new* vehicle must have at least a combined EPA mpg of 22.

The exact wording is as follows:

Consumers may trade in their old, gas-guzzling vehicles and receive vouchers worth up to $4,500 to help pay for new, more fuel efficient cars and trucks. The program will be authorized for up to one year and provide for approximately one million new car or truck purchases. The agreement divides these new cars and trucks into four categories. Miles per gallon figures below refer to EPA “window sticker” values

• Passenger Cars: The old vehicle must get less than 18 mpg. New passenger cars with mileage of at least 22 mpg are eligible for vouchers. If the mileage of the new car is at least 4 mpg higher than the old vehicle, the voucher will be worth $3,500. If the mileage of the new car is at least 10 mpg higher than the old vehicle, the voucher will be worth $4,500.

Summary of Cash for Clunkers Agreement

Passenger Car

Minimum Fuel Economy for New Vehicle
22 mpg (EPA combined)

 

I don't think they can put an America-only provision in the bill, since that would likely violate trade agreements.

 

"They" can do anything they want.

Wouldn't it be a lot more environmentally responsible to just keep using old cars instead of making new ones? It's funny that the "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" crowd wants to encourage people to junk their perfectly servicable cars in exchange for new ones simply because the new ones emit a bit less CO2 (ignoring of course, all the carbon consumed in producing that new car).

 

No, "they" really can't, at least not without consequence. We've paid billions to Canada as a result of improper lumber tariffs. The WTO also recently ruled against the US on a Japanese steel tariff. Probably another billion in penalties for that.

 

In case the question got lost in the shuffle, does any know for certain if they are using the 'new EPA fuel economy' figures for the mileage on the 'clunker', or will they accept the vehicle's current mileage, as many are not near what they were when new?

E.g. '05 Taurus Combined New EPA rating 20 MPG, ACTUAL Mileage 17.m.p.g. Could this car qualify for the $4500 voucher for a new Prius?

 

What if a new car purchaser has a PERFECTLY GOOD vehicle - even low mileage - that meets the standards for the $4500 voucher. The BlueBook is about $3K for the car - and gets that in trade $.

So that "clunker" gets crushed?
It benefits the new car owner - a $$ windfall.
Assume a good % of buyers would have bought that new car anyway (as we're planning).
If it's a foreign mfgd car, as the Prius, only the dealership benefits financially. (not complaining - but doesn't save any auto jobs in North America).
The taxpayer (us) eats the $4500.
The would-be buyer of that perfectly good used vehicle can't buy it.

Lots of what-ifs......

 

I think they will have to go with the the EPA rating because there is no way to verify otherwise. Like any measure, this can't be perfect, and some will unfairly benefit while some will miss out, but for most the bill is fair. I will miss out, even though my car is 15 years old and drives 10,000 miles per year, and someone with a truck rotting on their property for years can get the $4,500.

It is important to note that the number of gallons of fuel saved is not the same as the miles per gallon increase:

A car which gets 15mpg will use 667 gallons of fuel to drive 10,000 miles. If traded in for a car getting only 25 miles per gallon, to drive 10,000 miles now takes 400 gallons of fuel, with a net savings of 267 gallons.

Going from 25mpg to 50 mpg will only save 200 gallons over 10,000 miles, (from 400 to 200 gallons consumed) which is the position I am in and cannot collect on the offer.

 

They were pretty smart to set the bar at *below* 18 mpg. That takes a lot of suvs and vans out of the running. Most minivans of my vintage ('02) for instance are right there at 18 mpg combined; I know mine is, so as much as I'd like to ditch it (though it's still a good, though pricey ride), I wont be able to under the current (house) version. If only they had set the bar at 19mpg.

 

No, AFAIK. It goes by combined EPA rating on the window sticker when new.

Currently, this is really for old SUV,van,truck and large, very large passenger cars.

 

I'm not sure I think I read somewhere that it would likely us the new calculation even on the older vehicles. For those of you wondering you can look up both the new and old EPA mpg combined estimates here:
Find a Car

At least I am hoping it is the new because my van gets 18 combined which wouldn't qualify since it has to be "less than 18". Under the new mine gets 16

G

 

So *is it COMBINED MPG* to be the determining factor on the existing/old vehicle? The text of the pdf doesn't say 'combined,' it says "under 18 mpg" though it does specify combined of at least 22 mpg on the new vehicle, to qualify.

Anyone know for sure?

 

Is this a stimulus bill or enviornmental bill?

They should take the mileage ratings and drop them several MPG, a few more for older cars and a few less for newer. No car get's it's sticker mileage 20 years later, it's ridiculous and isn't it the point of the bill?

A previous poster is correct, it should be the differnce between what the old car and new car get. If you're going to more than double your mileage from 22 to 50 I guess that doesn't qualify? How much oil is that saving. Ridiculous.

Here's the real problem. Let's say I look at the criteria and I qualify. Unless the goverment is going to give me some proof that they have reviewed my stiuation and approved the payment I just know that when I submit for my "voucher" (whatever that is) there will be some reason I don't qualify. We all know the entire deal won't be in some nice chart. It will be a hundred pages of crap that nobody will understand.

 

sshaw, Good question and I believe the answer is that this is a stimulus bill. Like it or not, that seems to be the case.

 

commenting -in red- above...

 

It's a stimumental bill.

It's mostly going to benefit people who were planning to buy a new car anyway, fraud will be rampant, and production of new cars to replace working old cars will have little, if any, environmental benefit. In short, this is exactly what you would expect from a government program.

:cheer2:

 

Amen - well stated.

Also, leaves one to wonder.

The majority of owners with true clunkers (that should be junked) - must still have them for a reason. One big one may be that they can't afford a new vehicle. Sure the voucher $$ will help, but they will still need a hefty loan. Can they get one....do they really need to be strapped with more payments in a still very difficult economy facing unemployment.

Fear not. We'll bail out the bank for the now-defaulted car loan, and we'll be certain that the broke consumer has government programs to get them through. Including tokens for the bus because their old car is now a condensed box o' metal - on an oil-sucking ship to China to be recycled into new sheet metal by a polluting coal furnace. The circle of life.

 

I have looked through all the bills and none of them have any restriction on how long you have to have owned the car for. The real upshot of the deal is that anyone can go by a $500 clunker and crush it in for the $4500 voucher. I predict that there will be a serious shortage of affordable cars in the future. I might even keep my clunker and sell it, then go buy an even cheaper clunker and crush it.

Here are the bills. Keep in mind that these are not the final compromised (i mean that in both senses of the word) versions.;

HR 520
WashingtonWatch.com - H.R. 520, The Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act of 2009
HR 1550
WashingtonWatch.com - H.R. 1550, The Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009
HR 1606
WashingtonWatch.com - H.R. 1606, The New Automobile Voucher Act of 2009
S 247
WashingtonWatch.com - S. 247, The Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act of 2009

 

Good find! I did see this in S. 247 though, seems like there must be such a provision included:

• • (6) ELIGIBLE HIGH FUEL CONSUMPTION AUTOMOBILE- The term `eligible high fuel consumption automobile' means a high fuel consumption automobile that, at the time it is presented for participation in the program established under section 3--
  • (A) is in drivable condition; and
  • ( B ) has been continuously registered and licensed to operate in any State for a period of not fewer than 120 consecutive days for operation on public roads

 

So...NO minimum ownership requirements /proof? (B) does not state - by the same person as purchasing the new vehicle...

On the way to sign the new Prius purchase agreement, stop at a sleazy used car lot and pick up the cheapest thing on four wheels.

You can bet when that Bill passes (if it has loopholes as that) these clunkers will be in high demand. I may shop for my clunker tomorrow.

 

I must continue venting:

In California my car is labeled a "gross polluter" yet I won't be able to trade in my "gross polluter" for a Prius under this program?

AAAAAHAHHHHHHAHAHHAH