(Whoops, posted in wrong subforum. This probably get moved to Other Cars.) SPIN METER: $3 Billion Buys Not-So-Green Vehicles- Yahoo! Autos Article Page This isn't so surprising given how skewed C4C is in favor of trucks and SUVs.
Very interesting. I hope more investigation goes into this. side note: with gasoline at $3.05 per gallon right now, and an economic recovery approaching in the future (which always boosts oil demand and prices even higher), who in the hell would actually want to buy a gas guzzler???
{Buyers must have trade-ins that qualify for such deals — comparable vehicle types with at least 2 mpg less in fuel efficiency than the new purchase. And the new vehicle can't cost more than $45,000.} I thought the minimum increase in fuel economy was 4 mpg. Granted, it should have been more, and the max price less, but the replacement vehicle is getting better fuel economy than the old one, and is likely cleaner and safer to boot.
The low 2 mpg bar (for trucks, 4 mpg for cars) was the only way we could get the Republican Senators (read: Big Oil puppets) to vote the Cash For Clunkers bill through the Senate. I'm hoping - and confident - that with gasoline at $3.05 per gallon right now, statistics will favor the large majority of new car purchases to be small and midsized cars instead of SUVs.
Don't mind the SUV part as long as they are getting efficient. Hell, the new Chevy Equinox is as efficient as an Accord, Camry, and Mazda6.... if not more.
No, it's not. Depending on the vehicle type, it could be as little as 1 mpg better or NA (if the vehicle was exempt from fuel economy testing and the smaller/similar size vehicle is also exempt). See table at Cash for Clunkers Car Buying Stimulus Program. Other examples of GVWR >8500 lb. vehicles include the Ford Excursion and Hummer H2.
Come on now this is America! Land of the Free and the home of the Brave! This is the greatest country on the face of the earth, for goodness sakes! Lets all stand up and cheer that SOMETHING was done in these times of uncertainty instead of constantly focusing on the negative!
The issues that some people have with C4C is why we taxpayers should subsidize people who made bad decisions before (buying a guzzler) while giving nothing to those who didn't. What's worse is that some turn around and use it to buy another guzzler. <=18 mpg combined vehicles ought to be virtually illegal to the general public and only for legitimate business/commercial use. After all, they're already considered "clunkers". Why is it that "clunkers" can continue being sold? Either that or there should be SEVERE disincentives for having them such as huge gas guzzler taxes on them at time of purchase, much higher registration fees, mandatory regular driver retraining, having to abide by lower speed limits (due to the danger that monstrosity class SUVs are to others on the road), etc.
1) I would have really prefered that all the new cars be required (REQUIRED!) to achieve a certain MPG rating. Somewhere north of 25 would be nice. 2) There are two ways to measure the success of a political initiative: - It was as successful as anticipated in which case the other party can claim big government and invasiveness. - It was not as successful as anticipated in which case the other party and poke holes in your legislative skills. Whatever, if it stimulated some purchasing and got people from low to not-as-low I guess I can take some solace in that.
That's what happened when Hitler came to power ... no one stood up for right/wrong ... folks simply said, "oh quit focusing on the negative". History repeats itself. "oh who cares if people use their $4,500 to buy a hummer ... quit being so negative". ok. life is good. .
I heard of the idiocy of not being able trade in a cat 3 truck (F-350) for a cat 1 (Ranger). While it is disappointing that the required increase is for trucks is less, it isn't fair to exclude business owners who actually need such trucks to spite the posers. Overall, the program may not have been as abuse as the originally OP states. Cash for Clunkers Drives Consumers to Fuel-Efficient Choices, Edmunds.com Reports - Auto Observer
Paternalism isn't an answer though. I just don't want to hear the whining when they suddenly come to realize that capitalism's "invisible hand" is giving more of a bitch slap than a nudge. I can only hope those people remember the power of Adam Smith's pimp hand from $4.50/gal gas.* * this is supposed to be funny, for the (many) people with no sense of humor
I'd given up on GM ... but if someone gives any of GM's models a thumbs up, well heck I'll read up what others say. So here's what I find with the Equinox: From popular mechanics - 2010 Chevrolet Equinox Test Drive: 32-MPG Crossover Hit for GM? - Popular Mechanics 18 MPG is good? hummm ... I don't know about that. And from real world drivers ... a whole page of disapointe owners ... the first person sums it up: Chevrolet Equinox Real World MPG - CarSpace Automotive Forums I don't mind an SUV if it's efficient either. Our Lexus hybrid SUV (AWD - and built on the Camry platform, as is the hy-hi) gets great mileage for an SUV: Even my lead foot "better half" gets 27.5mpg drag racing from red light to red light ... short trips and all. So with our extra heavy SUV body, it's no wonder the camry hybrid does much better. That said, I'm missing the point of Equinox getting great mpg's ... unless your just looking at GM's claims. They never have been famous for telling the truth. BTW, the OP's link is now dead - so in case anyone is wondering what we're talking about, you can find it here: $3 MILLION BUYS NOT-SO-GREEN VEHICLES But yes, spin will always be spun. It's like when the "nay-sayers" whine about EV's. Who hasn't heard this "spin" for example: "... well you know, EV's are just as dirty as ICE cars, because 1/2 of all electricy comes from coal ... so your just moving the tail pipe to another source" Funny thing is, you never hear the nay sayers acknowledge that 1/2 of all GASOLINE and DIESEL fuels are refined with electricy made from coal... even BEFORE they create their own polution ... just as COAL is refined with electricy that gets mined with coal fired electricity. some how THAT doesn't matter. And of course, there's that troubling issue of more & more renewable sources coming on line ... many of which are nearly pollution free ... that gets their shorts in a bind too - I love the spin .
I post my rant about the fuzzy definition of "crossovers" (of which the Equinox apparently is) at http://priuschat.com/forums/other-cars/80651-rise-fall-large-suv-small-new-black-2.html#post1127012 and them being described as "fuel efficient" and "fuel sipping" by the press. Back to the Equinox, I dug up http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/why-the-chevy-equinox-epa-mileage-numbers-dont-add-up/ where they said I found the brief C & D review at http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q3/2010_chevrolet_equinox_lt-short_take_road_test. I wonder if the EPA has tested the Equinox themselves to validate GM's claims and how close they came. If they were dead on, I guess we should give hats off to GM for really optimizing well for the EPA test. I don't recall how long the original article was but there's a longer version at SPIN METER: $3 Billion Buys Not-so-green Vehicles - TheStreet.
