Toolsview all

David Stanley Ford

Clunker: Saving the earth didn’t quite happen

The Oklahoman Editorial    Comments Comment on this article34
Published: November 9, 2009

The government’s Cash for Clunkers program was designed to boost auto sales and help save the environment, by replacing aging gas guzzlers with new, more fuel-efficient vehicles. So much for best-laid plans.


A portion of the more than 400 cars that G&R Auto Parts has taken in after the Cash for Clunkers program on Friday, Sept. 18, 2009, in Oklahoma City, Okla. Photo by Chris Landsberger

Multimedia

We already knew that, as expected, sales of new cars plummeted after Cash for Clunkers expired. Now an Associated Press analysis of trade-ins shows that saving the planet wasn’t exactly a priority for consumers.

The most common Cash for Clunkers swaps involved customers who traded in old pickup trucks and drove off in trucks the same size. Ford 150 drivers, for example, were 17 times more likely to buy a new F150 than an economy car, AP reported. The difference in gas mileage? Perhaps 1 to 3 miles per gallon compared with the clunkers.

Likewise, owners of Chevy and Dodge pickups most often bought new Silverado or Ram trucks. The F150, Silverado and midsize Ford Escape SUV were among the most popular vehicles bought with the government rebates, which ranged from $3,500 to $4,500 depending on what sort of clunker was traded in.

AP looked at 677,000 trade-ins processed as of mid-October and found that about one in seven got less than 20 mpg. "If we’re looking for an environmental story here, we’re going to be disappointed,” said a top executive at Edmunds.com.

Another discovery: The government spent $562,500 in rebates for new vehicles that got the same or worse mileage as the trade-ins, which is the opposite of what the program was supposed to do. The government is looking into those reports. That’s good to know.

Toolsview all

David Stanley Ford





Obama Gives $31 Billion for Student Aid
Get Your Degree Now. Financial Aid & Scholarships are available.
www.ClassesUSA.com

Obama Backs Insurance Regulation
Drivers Pay $44/mo on Avg for Car Insurance. Are you paying too much?
Auto-Insurance-Experts.com


Leave a Comment

Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online

Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.


Log in below or sign up (it's free).





Joe, if you pay taxes, you are helping pay for the government's business venture regardless what you drive. GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to fail without the government forcing the taxpayers to "rescue" them. It wasn't that no one wanted the autos they built, their expenses were more than their income, just like the federal government, only the government will just print more money driving inflation upward.
Phil, Yukon - Nov 11, 2009 at 9:24 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Phil
Hey Phil - I don't give a crap about GM or Chrysler being partially owned by the US Govt. I drive a Toyota, and I'm under no threat of penalty from the government to buy from anyone. I have a choice. Not very socialistic of them, huh? If GM/Chrysler didn't want to be forced into bankruptcy and rescued by the taxpayer, then they shouldn't have driven their business into the ground by making cars that no one wanted.
Joe, Oklahoma City - Nov 10, 2009 at 11:36 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Joe
The point is ....? You mean it wasn't perfect? Oh nooooooo. I am sure some people who needed newer,hopfully safer vehicles were able to get them, enabling dealers to sell some vehicles that otherwise would be sitting in the lot still. By the way, how is it that this program is labeled by you as an attempt to "save the earth"? Like, ha,ha earth is doomed because you think (wrongly) that the cash for clunkers program is a failure. If you were at all interested in saving the earth, you would be talking about air pollution, water shortages, fighting poverty and starvation, preserving critical habitat, promoting species diversity, and quality of life. Uh-oh, that would be counter to the "doctrine" of say no to Obama (no matter what), that human suffering is acceptable, that torture is acceptable, that unnecessary war is acceptable, and the destruction of our planet for profit is acceptable. By the way, are you still getting those "we need to support the President, right or wrong" letters? No? Maybe some give this elected President a chance to clean up the mess left by the last President and his cronies" letters? Oklahoma too smart? No-just too many people enjoying the dirty bloody mess and wanting more of it.
Jamie, Lexington - Nov 10, 2009 at 8:51 am
Ma, I story on the clunkers showed them with something put in the crankcase to ruin the engines only. Then salvage companies stripped them and the rest was crushed and ground for the metal to make new cars. Very little went to landfills. I used to buy Sheriff sale cars, strip them then let a salvage company drive over them with a D-8 Caterpillar track loader to take to be ground.There was little waste.
Floyd, Oklahoma - Nov 10, 2009 at 8:29 am
(Pssst, Joe. Don't look now but the federal government has been violating the Constitution since the 1850's, led by democrats and republicans alike and it worsens with each administration regardless political affiliation)
Phil, Yukon - Nov 10, 2009 at 8:02 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Phil
Bryan's got it. It was a way to entice the public into buying 'Govco Motors' products and oddly enough, occurred right after the government bought into automobile manufacturing. The difference between this and the average auto sales gimmick is that this one cost each of us, even those who don't drive.
Phil, Yukon - Nov 10, 2009 at 7:58 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Phil
By "corrupt, criminal administration" I assume you're talking about GW Bush and his fellow felonists.
Joe, Oklahoma City - Nov 10, 2009 at 7:57 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Joe
Like everything else associated with this corrupt, criminal administration, cash for clunkers was a political payoff to the labor unions. It never had a chance to be anything other than a massive boondoggle. Where are all these old cars going to go: to landfills. Thus, creating a bigger environmental disaster than the 1 mpg the trade achieved. Indict, impeach. It's the only way out of this mess the liberals have gotten our country in to.
Ma, Oklahoma City - Nov 10, 2009 at 6:57 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Ma
This program never had a chance to help the environment. The fuel saved even if you traded in a 98 Expedition for a new Prius over remaining life of the Expedition would not even come close to the energy expended in the manufacturing process of the new Prius. To claim that C4C was of some environmental benefit is simply disingenuous.

The only thing this program had any hope of doing was to stimulate the car industry. Period. I think it succeeded at that, and gave the car manufacturers a much needed cash infusion. I hope they leverage that into building cars that people want and can afford.
Bryan, Oklahoma City - Nov 9, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Bert and Milkman, I figure they have improved a lot since my Ford, Chevy, GMC, and Dodge days.They were from 66 through 92s.
But my brother in law gave over $32,000 for a 2009 4 door Dodge that I would not trade even up for. The Classified section's test drive of one really liked it.
He has already taken it in twice to have the rear main bearing seal replaced under warranty. I was leaving the City with a new 68 Dodge when the transmission quit. I guess some of us just aren't lucky or some are.
Floyd, Oklahoma - Nov 9, 2009 at 9:21 pm
40 % are hypocrites then B because 99 % of the 40 % will file for and get in line for every Gov't subsidy (including farm) they can get their hypoctite's mittens on! Are Medicare recipients Conservative ? Was the Republicans RX drug plan they pushed through a Conservative plan? Are Conservatives rejecting that RX plan? I'm laughing!
lanny, Tulsa - Nov 9, 2009 at 9:21 pm
My son drives a F250. 4 of my grandsons drive F 150s.
BERT, HENRYETTA - Nov 9, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore BERT
Floyd i drive a 97 model F150 and i have had over the years to only change a battery and a turn signal switch besides tires and a brake job. Still runs perfect and gets about 16 mpg .
BERT, HENRYETTA - Nov 9, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore BERT
Floyd, I'm saying the pickups and suv's should not have been part of the clunker program at all. It should have been cars only and stricter MPG standards to go with that. Instead of increases of 4 and 10, it should have been 6 and 10. Just my opinion.

I worked for a construction company 3 years ago and drove a 1998 Dodge Ram 2500 cummins diesel. When I left there, it had 540,000 miles on it and was still going strong. Only one oil leak and one power steering pump other than regular wear and tear. It was a 5 speed manual and a great truck. I drove it about 1600 miles a week.
--
Milkman, Oklahoma City - Nov 9, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Milkman, When you say pickups and SUVs should never had been included do you mean they should not have been traded in or new ones sold?
I used to buy Ford 250 four wheel drive trucks which only got 6 mpg as did a 250 Chevy. All were junk by 40,000 miles and I sold them for under $1,000 each. Now my Tundra has 170,000 miles and with four wheel drive gets up to 18. It would probably get better if I didn't burn out every time I take off. It is hard to take off easy.
I haven't heard anyone say they didn't approve of the clunker program except some that said some good vehicles were destroyed they would have loved to own. And as a far right wing conservative I sure don't like our troops being in a fuelish religious war.
Floyd, Oklahoma - Nov 9, 2009 at 8:35 pm
It really amazes me how the right wing continues to moan and groan about 3 billion dollars for the Clunkers program. Oh boy, but do they like that 700 billion dollars for defense and almost a trillion dollars for 2 wars.
That's like going into an exclusive restaurant and whining about the price of butter. Do you righties know how foolish you look? Probably not.
--
Milkman, Oklahoma City - Nov 9, 2009 at 8:16 pm
...and Lannys minority status has nothing to offer as he fails to acknowledge that 40% of Americans consider themselves to be conservative, which transcends both political affiliations. Point is, people that support the socialist/liberal/anti-American ideas, like this careless clunkers program, are in the minority. With the countless of topics that point to it's extreme costs, you'd think the left would want to just let this government failure fade off into the sunset.
Brock, Beaver - Nov 9, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Hmm, 20 % of US citizens identify themselves as Republicans, c. Who's whining 24 hrs. a day over a good butt kicking in 08 ?
lanny, Tulsa - Nov 9, 2009 at 7:32 pm
lanny,
listening to you whine. By the way, my rhetoric is my own. In case you haven't noticed, the majority of the people in this country define themselves as conservatives. The smallest contingent define themselves as liberals like yourself. Good day.
c, Noble - Nov 9, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore c
DOK Editorial: Wasn't Quite a Sarcastic Pulitizer-Winner
Mike, Oklahoma City - Nov 9, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Mike
C & b, You 2 spread your Fox-found rhetoric around, what's the benefit to everyone on that ?
lanny, Tulsa - Nov 9, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Baseball is no longer America's past time; it has been replaced by football....Baseball is so boring but I will say that going out to the ole ball park once in a blue moon is worth the effort even if the hot dogs are over priced and not worth eating....I used to follow the TX Rangers with a passion but haven't been to a game or seen a game in many years....not even the vaunted world series....
Don, Calion - Nov 9, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Don
Consider the ex of American sports- by far the most popular successful league practices revenue sharing, while America's once pastime is pure winner takes all rich get richer capitalism and America yawned as the Yankees won another title. Not sure I saw a single pitch. Did you. World Series once was magical.
David, Norman - Nov 9, 2009 at 3:01 pm
"I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody."
Barack Obama
c, Noble - Nov 9, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore c
The editorial parts the hair of the libs and they decry that the writers should have been more leniant to the socialist venue, even after it is easily discarded as a failure. Sorry fella's but you live within the state that finds itself within the largest American ideological group of like minded people that call themselves conservative. Going easy on government failure is not admirable and giving them a pass just because of their supposed good intentions(there weren't any) is brainless.
Brock, Beaver - Nov 9, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Kudo, David. I have yet to read an editorial from this board that included all the facts, was well-rounded, and didn't focus upon anti-Obama rhetoric comparable with the likes of extreme right-wing blogs written by uneducated adults. I sincerely hope this board gets its act together in my lifetime.
Matthew - Nov 9, 2009 at 12:30 pm
If Obama discovered eyesight for the blind dok would critique that he's turning his back on hearing impared. Is this an actual news outlet?
David, Norman - Nov 9, 2009 at 11:58 am
What is this now, the 9th or 10th negative concerning this government failure?
Brock, Beaver - Nov 9, 2009 at 11:27 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brj2UkUPjCI&feature=related
stinkerpants, Oklahoma City - Nov 9, 2009 at 10:37 am
Stinkerpants, LOL.
Amber, norman - Nov 9, 2009 at 9:37 am
Derky-derr, they took our jobs!
stinkerpants, Oklahoma City - Nov 9, 2009 at 9:07 am
Redistribution happened! The government is looking in to it though, I feel so much better!
BILLY, MUSTANG - Nov 9, 2009 at 8:57 am
Pickups and SUV's should have never been included in this program. That happened because Congressmen from states where these vehicles are made pitched a fit to get them included.
__
Milkman, Oklahoma City - Nov 9, 2009 at 8:50 am
So, that old F150 probably belched smoke, dropped oil, and had far more pollutants pouring out of it than the new F150. It's still a gain for the environment, although not exactly what the tree-huggers wanted. Which was of course folks trading in that old pickup for a teenymobile or overpriced hybrid. Pickup truck owners usually have them for a practical reason.
Doug, Midwest City - Nov 9, 2009 at 8:47 am
Report as inappropriate or
Ignore Doug

News Photo Galleriesview all