The Cars Act - Opinions Please...

dd74 · 04-01-2009, 09:56 PM

Do you guys know about this:

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/new-fuel-efficient-vehicles-get-5000-voucher-5094.html

I'd like to hear any and all opinions any of you might have. Seems like a good way to get rid of my not-so-efficient SUV and get into something more economical.

the · 04-01-2009, 10:02 PM

Where does the $5000 come from? The article makes no mention of that minor issue.

dd74 · 04-01-2009, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the

Where does the $5000 come from? The article makes no mention of that minor issue.

One of Obama's funds. I can't remember which one, though.

the · 04-01-2009, 10:05 PM

And if $5,000 is good, certainly $15,000 is better, so they should just make it $15,000.

the · 04-01-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dd74

One of Obama's funds. I can't remember which one, though.

Oh, hot damn, then! The magical, unlimited, imaginary money fund. In that case, let's go to $25,000, why not!

dd74 · 04-01-2009, 10:34 PM

So I guess you're not on board with this, huh?

pwd72s · 04-01-2009, 10:35 PM

Nothing like bribing the people with their own money...

legion · 04-02-2009, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pwd72s

Nothing like bribing the people with their own money...

Yes, when the government has the power to confiscate and redistribute income, the inevitable result is that government will use it to secure its power.

gprsh924 · 04-02-2009, 04:41 AM

I wonder what uses more energy/fuel and does more harm to the environment. Keeping my 16 year old car on the road or throwing my car away every 5 years and buying a marginally more fuel efficient version.

Tim Walsh · Tim Walsh's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by gprsh924

I wonder what keeps the economy going and is the more american way. Keeping my 16 year old car on the road or throwing my car away every 5 years and buying a marginally more fuel efficient version.

fixed that for you.

onewhippedpuppy · 04-02-2009, 05:10 AM

"To benefit from the incentive, except the 8 year old requirement for the used vehicle, consumers must choose to buy a car that is worth at most $35,000. The $5,000 voucher is only valid when buying a North American built car, while the off the continent ones are to benefit from a deduction of only $4,000."

The better question, can the average American who drives an 8 year old or older car AFFORD to spend $35k+ on a brand new one? I'm thinking no.

Note that stupid people like us that choose to play with old cars don't count as the "average" American.

jyl · jyl's Garage

The average car in the US is appx 9.5 years old. The average age has moved up with the collapse in new car sales. New car sales fell appx -36% YOY in the Oct 08-Feb 09 period.

"Scrappage" programs (also called "cash for clunkers") have been used in Europe occasionally. Currently they are in effect in Germany, France, and Italy.

The usual effect is a substantial increase in new car sales, primarily in smaller/less expensive cars, during the life of the program. After the program ends, new car sales fall off significantly, because demand was pulled forward.

The current European program has lifted the European SAAR (seasonally adjusted annualized rate of new light vehicle sales) from 10.8MM in Jan to est 13.3MM in March.

The main purpose of the programs is to help the auto industry get through a severe downturn. Side benefits can include better safety and higher MPG, since the average car becomes newer and more fuel-efficient.

Competing proposals in Congress right now. The House is looking at a scrappage program that is written to benefit the Detroit Big Three. That protectionist language will be a problem for the bill the OP linked to. The $35K minimum price is also going to be a problem for the bill. (EDIT: sorry, i read it wrong - $35K is cap not floor.) The Senate is looking at a scrappage program that would apply to all automakers, but is designed to encourage buying higher-MPG cars. My guess is that, if a scrappage program passes, it will be something closer to the Senate proposal.

Note we're seeing car sales starting to recover off the bottom anyway - Feb SAAR was 9.1MM, Mar SAAR was 9.8MM.

So, combining that recovery with a scrappage program, 2H09 could see a substantial improvement for the auto industry. We may see the US SAAR climb to 12-14MM, from the low of 9.1MM in Feb.

Import car brands would see most of the benefit from a scrappage program, Detroit would see limited benefit (I suspect F would see the most, as it has the best small car lineup), and luxury brands would see little to no benefit.

The SAAR recovery won't be great for everyone. Chrysler may not make it, and GM is likely to spend some time in BK and emerge at half the size. But I think F could do pretty well. When the Dodge RAM is gone, and Chevy/GMC are in bankruptcy court, wouldn't some of those buyers move over to F-series trucks?

Tim Walsh · Tim Walsh's Garage

am I reading it wrong? I'm seeing the 35K limit as a cap, not a minimum? aka a 36K car won't be eligible, but a 34K car will.

"To benefit from the incentive, except the 8 year old requirement for the used vehicle, consumers must choose to buy a car that is worth at most $35,000. Th"

dd74 · 04-02-2009, 08:04 AM

You're reading it correctly. $35K cap., which leaves a lot of mid-level well-built cars out of the mix. What one is left with are smaller, less well-engineered cars - at least IMO - that will need replacing every 5 yrs.

So, as I drive a 9 yr. old Mercury Mountaineer that has everything but the kitchen sink in it, and struggles to get 13 mpg., a new Ford Fiesta or a Ford Escape Hybrid would be the perfect trade off/trade in. I could probably get a nicely-equipped Escape for at least $7K less than MSRP, maybe even more in re. to the Fiesta.

GM doesn't seem to have much to offer in this category.

The Senate's bill makes sense for Chrysler if Fiat teams up with the company. Only at the point of such a partnership would I consider a Chrysler product.

So anyway, sham or not?

varmint · 04-02-2009, 08:11 AM

pure bullcrap until i can get a $5000 subsidy on a $15000 motorcycle. the eco communists should reward me for getting 50mpg.

dd74 · 04-02-2009, 08:20 AM

I think it's bullcrap if the Senate gets its way and allows "any" car company to be involved in this. I mean, at that rate, what's the incentive behind the Cars Act? Buy American/Protectionism or stimulating the economy?

This program can't extend to Honda or Toyota who don't have interest in any American car company, right? Or can it because they have assembly plants in the U.S.? And hands-down, Honda and Toyota build some of the best sub $35K vehicles.

afterburn 549 · 04-02-2009, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gprsh924

I wonder what uses more energy/fuel and does more harm to the environment. Keeping my 16 year old car on the road or throwing my car away every 5 years and buying a marginally more fuel efficient version.

In truth if you want to be environment / green friendly ,an old beater 1969 Suburban is better then buying a new vehicle of any kind. !!!
(That catches a lot of peo by surprise )
I always thought this ....... But to confirm it, there was brake dwn of all things.
From the manufacture of the new car to scrapage of old cars because people trade them in
So the energy to make a new car from scratch, ship it to you and you drive it.
Better off keeping the beater energy wise

dd74 · 04-02-2009, 08:22 AM

Personally, I'd rather get the $5K incentive toward a new road bike.

varmint · 04-02-2009, 08:32 AM

the purpose is for politicians to gain influence and power by taking money from one group of people and giving it to another.

lowering taxes on fuel efficient cars would be the smart way to encourage them. but government needs to have the money pass through their hands. like making sure the dog/citizen know that you're the source of treats.

dd74 · 04-02-2009, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afterburn 549

In truth if you want to be environment / green friendly ,an old beater 1969 Suburban is better then buying a new vehicle of any kind. !!!
(That catches a lot of peo by surprise )
I always thought this ....... But to confirm it, there was brake dwn of all things.
From the manufacture of the new car to scrapage of old cars because people trade them in
So the energy to make a new car from scratch, ship it to you and you drive it.
Better off keeping the beater energy wise

I've heard this before as well.

Also consider the weight of old vs. new and size.

Green is not dependent solely on efficiency, but also on size. A Hummer that gets 40 mpg, but is as long as a tennis court, will not be deemed as environmentally conscious simply because it takes up so much space, particularly in traffic.

That's how Smart markets the efficiency of their cars. It's a space issue as well as a fuel issue.