Clunker Questions

[SH3RL0CK]

I would add the following for judgement of the program:

 

5) While the overall intent is stimulus, one of the minor objectives is a reduction of the greenhouse gasses produced. At least, according to some of the media reports I have heard. It would be interesting to compare the CO2 decrease caused by people driving more efficient vehicles with the increase of CO2 caused by more cars being manufacturered, or at least being manufactured at a faster rate (it does take a tremendous amount of energy = CO2 emissions to manufacture cars).

 

6) Safety is always an issue. Smaller cars (which are more fuel efficient) tend to do worse in crash tests than large cars (which burn more gas). But on the other hand, they are installed with more and better safety features. It would also be interesting to compare the impact on injury and fatality rates caused by the program.

Edited August 11, 2009 by SH3RL0CK
re-numbered points to add to Padren's list

[padren]

I would add the following for judgement of the program:

 

5) While the overall intent is stimulus, one of the minor objectives is a reduction of the greenhouse gasses produced. At least, according to some of the media reports I have heard. It would be interesting to compare the CO2 decrease caused by people driving more efficient vehicles with the increase of CO2 caused by more cars being manufacturered, or at least being manufactured at a faster rate (it does take a tremendous amount of energy = CO2 emissions to manufacture cars).

First, we have to account for vehicle life cycles, since while the manufacture takes a lot, those clunkers will have to be replaced - if one dies a year from now, you've delayed the manufacturing of a car for one year by not trading it in. It will last a year longer because it's newer, and may be made with greener technology a year later, but the difference is no where near the full carbon footprint of building a whole car.

6) Safety is always an issue. Smaller cars (which are more fuel efficient) tend to do worse in crash tests than large cars (which burn more gas). But on the other hand, they are installed with more and better safety features. It would also be interesting to compare the impact on injury and fatality rates caused by the program.

 

Yes, but I believe the national consensus has been that it is an acceptable risk to reduce fuel consumption. The safety concern predates this program, so I don't think it really applies - the program was made at a time that the consensus was already in place, so it can't really be faulted for continuing that school of thought.

 

I do agree that the carbon footprint of manufacturing (as well as reclamation) should be accounted for, but I think it is smaller than it may appear for the reasons above. We do need better ways to grow the economy while reducing our carbon footprint though (at least in my opinion) as the two factors seem almost fatally at odds.

[iNow]

Is not the proper measure of success to compare how a program performed against its stated objectives, as opposed to the objectives that we all feel should have been met?

[SH3RL0CK]

Is not the proper measure of success to compare how a program performed against its stated objectives, as opposed to the objectives that we all feel should have been met?

 

 

Well, I think it is worthwhile to judge a program based upon its total effect on society in addition to its stated objectives. We are all aware of the effects caused by unintended consequences.

[padren]

Well, I think it is worthwhile to judge a program based upon its total effect on society in addition to its stated objectives. We are all aware of the effects caused by unintended consequences.

 

For unintended consequences that run counter to the goals, then yes. Those have to be actual unintended consequences though, as opposed to foreseen ones that were considered trivial, and played out to be as such from their point of view. Doesn't mean you find them trivial but if they do it can't really count against their design.

[SH3RL0CK]

For unintended consequences that run counter to the goals, then yes. Those have to be actual unintended consequences though, as opposed to foreseen ones that were considered trivial, and played out to be as such from their point of view. Doesn't mean you find them trivial but if they do it can't really count against their design.

 

Then these goals would have to include unstated (but perhaps obvious) objectives as well as simply the stated goals. A narrowly focused goal can sometimes easily be reached by compromising things which were never originally stated, and which may have been taken for granted by some people who initially supported the goal. But only in hindsight is it possible to see the tangential effects and decide if the end goal was worth whatever costs were incurred (including the unexpected, unintended costs).

[navigator]

The government seems to seldom take unintended consequences seriously.

 

Government data shows that while 54 percent of the top-10-selling vehicles were manufactured domestically, eight out of 10 carry Japanese or South Korean nameplates.

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Cash for Clunkers program, as expected, has been a boon for carmakers — especially those in Japan and South Korea.

 

Government data shows that while 54 percent of the top-10-selling vehicles were manufactured domestically, eight out of 10 carry Japanese or South Korean nameplates. The Toyota Corolla is the most popular car bought under the program. Only the Ford Focus and the Ford Escape cracked the top 10.

 

American automakers are dominating one area — trade-ins. All the top trade-ins were made by U.S. companies, with the Ford Explorer four-wheel-drive leading the pack.

 

The government data show that fuel economy of vehicles bought under Cash for Clunkers is now 25 miles per gallon, while the mileage of trade-ins stands at 15.8 miles per gallon.

 

Meanwhile, dealers across the country are reporting that reimbursement issues continue to stall the wildly popular incentives program. They have submitted requests for rebates on 338,659 vehicles sold, at a cost of about $1.4 billion to the government, according to sales data summarized by Transportation Department officials.

 

David Wilson, a Toyota dealer in Orange County, Calif., told Automotive News that he has been paid for only three of 92 claims he submitted before Aug. 2, leaving him on the hook for about $374,000. In total, he has 450 unpaid claims filed for $1.9 million.

 

“I’m worried the government will run out of money before we get paid,” he told the publication.

 

[iNow]

Government data shows that while 54 percent of the top-10-selling vehicles were manufactured domestically, eight out of 10 carry Japanese or South Korean nameplates.

 

Yeah, and here is data with a little less spin attached to it:

 

http://www.cashforclunkersinformation.org/

• Clunker consumers are getting an average 69% MPG improvement, which will result in an average savings of $750 in gas bills per year
  
  
   
  
  
• During the week that the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program was launched, GM’s small car sales increased 54.8 percent over the preceding week
  
  
   
  
  
• The leading Ford vehicle being purchased under the program is the 28 mpg Ford Focus at nearly 30 percent of all Ford sales
  
  
   
  
  
• Toyota reports that 78% of their Cash for Clunkers volume were the Corolla, Prius, Camry, RAV 4 and Tacoma, with a resulting average of 30 mpg
  
  
   
  
  
• Hyundai is reporting a 59 percent increase in fuel economy compared to the old vehicle—which averaged 140,000 miles
  
  
   
  
  

 

 

As for the Toyota dealer in California being worried that the government will run out of money, he should note that the funds which they used to extend the program are coming from a clean energy fund appropriated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, so there is plenty and it's already available.

Edited August 15, 2009 by iNow

[Pangloss]

Aren't most Toyotas sold in the US also made in the US, with something like 95% of the money involved in the transaction staying within the border?

 

Just something I've heard. I'm not sure how accurate it is.

[swansont]

The government seems to seldom take unintended consequences seriously.

 

Government data shows that while 54 percent of the top-10-selling vehicles were manufactured domestically, eight out of 10 carry Japanese or South Korean nameplates.

 

I'm not clear on what the unintended consequences are here, or is the lead-in statement unconnected to (and unsupported by) the rest of the post?

[iNow]

Aren't most Toyotas sold in the US also made in the US, with something like 95% of the money involved in the transaction staying within the border?

 

Just something I've heard. I'm not sure how accurate it is.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

While most vehicles sold in the US were manufactured by the Big Three, foreign corporations such as Japan's Toyota Motor Company have starting manufacturing in the US and are now an integrated part of the US automobile industry.

 

<...>

 

Toyota Motor Company now operates twelve manufacturing plants in the US, producing 1.55 million vehicles, 61.66% of the roughly 2.5 million vehicles the company sells in the US each year.

 

 

http://www.toyota.com/about/our_business/operations/manufacturing/

[Pangloss]

Thanks. I checked on the Prius specifically and apparently it's manufactured in Japan, but I think those decisions are made based on sales, so if they sell more of them they'll eventually build them here. The Camry is made in Georgetown, Kentucky, according to the Wikipedia.

 

Actually Navigator's article appears to answer my question, if I just widen his quote a bit:

 

Government data shows that while 54 percent of the top-10-selling vehicles were manufactured domestically, eight out of 10 carry Japanese or South Korean nameplates. The Toyota Corolla is the most popular car bought under the program. Only the Ford Focus and the Ford Escape cracked the top 10.

 

Which is not as good a statistic as I was hoping to hear, but it's certainly more relevant than the namebadge question. Who cares what it says on the name badge? Let's fix the economy first, and worry about how to pronounce "Hyundai" later.

[iNow]

I think one thing that particular statistic shows is that US manufactured cars are not generally noted for their fuel efficiency, while Japanese and S.Korean manufacturers have been playing in that particular space for quite some time now already (and were ready to meet the demand for higher MPG vehicles which resulted from the clunker program). [/2cents]

Edited August 15, 2009 by iNow

[swansont]

I think one thing that particular statistic shows is that US manufactured cars are not generally noted for their fuel efficiency, while Japanese and S.Korean manufacturers have been playing in that particular space for quite some time now already (and were ready to meet the demand for higher MPG vehicles which resulted from the clunker program). [/2cents]

 

One might think that in times of high gasoline prices, this might place the US companies under some economic duress.