Cash for Clunkers | 06/18/2009 10:05 am

Cash for Clunkers: To Help Mother Earth, Detroit and You?

A federal program that may pass through the Senate any day now will give consumers up to $4,500 for their old clunker of a car.

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

A "Cash for Clunkers" federal program, which gives consumers a tax break for trading in their old car for a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle, is making its way through Capitol Hill.

The Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save and Act, aka "Cash for Clunkers," if approved by the Senate and signed by President Barack Obama, will offer vouchers that allow consumers to save up to $4,500 on a new-car purchase. The plan could temporarily fix a few problems. For one, the newer cars will be more fuel efficient — and therefore easier on your pocketbook and kinder to Mother Earth. Second, it aims to stimulate the faltering automobile industry. Lawmakers foresee that the program will boost between 500,000 to one million new-car purchases; however, the car industry analyst website Edmunds.com thinks the figures are inflated.

"A program intended to stimulate new-car sales should target people in the market for a car, but the program does not," asserted Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl. "The only people who qualify are those willing to take no more than $4,500 for their current car and immediately buy a new one — quite a narrow profile."

Anwyl makes a good point that Uncle Sam will only be providing a max of $4,500, which might not be worth it for some consumers. Edmunds provides a breakdown of how Congress priced the vehicles, based on size and miles-per-gallon. (See chart below.) Edmunds also compiled a list of all eligible trade-in vehicles, which you can find by clicking here (pdf).

Summary of Cache for Clunkers Agreement
	Minimum Fuel Economy for New Vehicle	$ 3,500 Voucher	$ 4,500 Voucher
Passenger Car or minivan	22 mpg (EPA Combined)	Mileage improvement of at least 4 mpg	Mileage improvement of at least 10 mpg
Light-duty truck	18 mpg (EPA Combined)	Mileage improvement of at least 2 mpg	Mileage improvement of at least 5 mpg
Large Light-duty truck (6,000-8,500 pounds)	15 mpg (EPA Combined)	Mileage improvement of at least 1 mpg or trade-in of a work truck	Mileage improvement of at least 2 mpg
Work truck (8,500-10,000 pounds)		Trade-in must be at least pre-2002

Honk if you like the proposed legislation! Or, rather, spare us the noise pollution and just tell us below.

51 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

After an engine is broken in properly oil changes are recommended every 5,000 or so miles which, incidentally, matches up nicely with recommended tire rotations, though I have let mine go longer. Synthetics are not the answer to putting off maintenance, especially since most engine problems aren’t due to off-the-shelf oil problems but rather are due to other mechanical issues that go unaddressed and would likely be noticed by an observant tech during an oil change e.g. anti-freeze or gasoline leaking into the oil due to bad gaskets or excessive ring wear. Tune-ups involve the fuel and electrical systems, nothing to do with oil.

By Karen R on 06/19/2009 4:36 pm

e-mail alert

Incidentally, I never needed any oil between changes, only replaced my valve cover gasket three times, never had any leaks or ring wear. I was getting 32 mph on my normal city/hwy driving, and on straight hiway if going tops 55 , got 38 mpg. Early on my son sent the oil in to a place doing extensive analysis of used oil, and the info he got back convinced him that once a year was sufficient to maintain excellent protection. You didn’t mention what kind of driving you did.

By albert miller on 06/20/2009 12:03 am

e-mail alert

I do a mix of city and highway.

By Karen R on 06/20/2009 12:16 am

e-mail alert

Is nothing too stupid for these guys to spend our tax money on?

This is nothing more than shoveling more money to the auto manufacturers and the unions.

Speaking of unions, did you know that the primary reason for the increase in the minimum wage is because that number is basis for union contracts?

If the minimum wage goes up, so do union wages.

By Martha Vinyard on 06/19/2009 8:41 am

e-mail alert

Once again, there is no requirement that the purchased vehicle be from a domestic automaker. If you want to run out and purchase a non-union built vehicle you are free to do so.

By Karen R on 06/19/2009 12:10 pm

e-mail alert

Why should our tax money be spent on this? Is this the role of state or federal goverment?

By Martha Vinyard on 06/19/2009 1:20 pm

e-mail alert

National industrial and energy policies are the role of the Federal government. For too long the US government has been ignoring the realities of globalization, foreign trade policy, and the world’s energy situation.

That said, this program is a combination of economic stimulus and energy policy - give some a chance to upgrade to a more energy efficient vehicle while promoting sales for US auto dealers. There is no requirement that the car be built in the US or even from a US based manufacturer so to argue it’s to benefit GM or Chrysler is uninformed. The program is entirely about improving the fuel efficiency of the vehicles on US roads which, theoretically, will reduce US demand for oil.

The reality, though, is that not many are expected to take advantage of the program and few will be eligible for the full voucher amount available.

By Karen R on 06/19/2009 2:17 pm

e-mail alert

Absolutely Martha!

Obama’s policies are paybacks to his supporters. Lot of voters and money in unions….now they own part of the company that they drove into the dirt with their union demands…gee…just where is Jimmy Hoffa?

Green hasn’t worked in other counties, as a matter of fact, it has COST them. Soooo….who stands to make money here on this green push?

GE….who happens to own media that protects Obama….

By Kelly In Texas on 06/20/2009 12:59 pm

e-mail alert

Not really. Obama’s supporters have been driving subcompacts and hybrids and don’t qualify for this. This particular benefit is aimed at pumping money into buying cars, and we all own the car companies now, and increasing the average mpg on the highway by pulling off some of the cars that get less than 18 mpg. However, I wonder if they are really going to take the clunkers off the road? If they are just going to be resold, it doesn’t do much other than put money into the car companies.

By Elizabeth Bennett on 06/20/2009 2:49 pm

e-mail alert

No Elizabeth, Obamas supporters have not been driving hybrids or subcompacts…that would mean that 52.7% of the voters were doing so…and they aren’t. Not even close.

Obama ownes the car companies, not us. He alone has decided WHO is on the board and WHAT is to be manufactured, not us. It is an attempt to get the taxpayers to put MORE money into his pet project.

$4,500 does not a new car buy…not even almost. Where is the balance coming from? Loans? So now…instead of buying homes that they can’t afford…like Freddie and Fannie (which is the one reason that our economy is in the dumper) now…Obama wants for the citizens to get loans and payment on new cars! Ah…no…not a good idea.

It is a stupid and reckless plan. He will just use those stats to prove up that the hybrids were a good idea… it will not work and more money will be wasted on these failing companies.

Why? Because Obama has put Czars in charge that have NO experience with car manufacturing or sales. Obama wants to control the citizens and tell them what they can drive. The companies need to listen to the consumer, not the other way around.

He is an incompetent narcissist, that’s why.

By Kelly In Texas on 06/20/2009 3:22 pm

e-mail alert

Ok so my hubby owns an old pick up truck and as long as it gets 18 mpg he can get $4500 to trade that in on a better, newer, more fuel efficient vehicle? When and where can I take advantage of this? I hate that redneck truck of his but he sure does look sexy in it :)

By C Hardy on 06/19/2009 8:46 am

e-mail alert

Hey C Hardy…sounds like a good country western song…"She thinks my truck is sexy" ;]

I have a chip in my one ton diesel dually, I can get up to 23 mpg empty and near 19 hauling a 3 horse load. Not bad, eh?

By Kelly In Texas on 06/20/2009 3:30 pm

e-mail alert

If I understand this legislation correctly, it only benefits people who own cars that get less than 18 miles per gallon. Those of us who have been driving cars that get 25 or more mpg all these years get no benefit. Sure it is good for the planet, and good for all of us. But sometimes I get a little irritated that folks who buy socially irresponsible vehicles are getting a bailout, just like the bankers who did socially irresponsible lending got a bailout. These days, maybe it helps to be irresponsible if you are irresponsible in the right way.

Still, because it helps the planet, you gotta support it. For years, California has had a cash for clunkers program that no one knew about. http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/avrp/avrp.htm Now I don’t think there is money to fund it.

By Elizabeth Bennett on 06/19/2009 2:08 pm

e-mail alert

How quickly people have forgotten how high the price of oil can go, and how much it can hurt the economy. Prices dropped due to a huge drop in demand and OPEC recognizing that they could deeply hurt the global economy with high prices.

Prices get relatively low again, a few signs of economic stability show, and people start getting complacent. No more “drill, baby, drill”, big oil actually shut down exploration, and it’s 2007 all over again. Almost. There are still some who remember that the clock is ticking on a cheap oil-based economy. For the past few weeks, gas prices have been rising again. OPEC and the speculators, seeing a hint of a recovery, have started trolling for profits again. Will it kill the recovery before it fully takes hold?

Having said that, I do not think that a 1-2 MPG improvement is worth the taxpayer dollars. They should also take a good look at clunkers bought after the program was announced. I have already heard people planning to game the system.

By Zera Lee on 06/19/2009 3:02 pm

e-mail alert

I for one am happy to see a bill like this. My brother is a landscaper and has a really old truck (that’s on the qualified list). He would love to get a more fuel-efficient truck and save on repairs, gas, etc. but with business down hasn’t been able to get a downpayment together that he’s comfortable with. The Cash for Clunkers bill would allow him to take a truck that at best is worth $1,000, scrap it for recycling (getting one more guzzler off the road) and into a safer (for everyone), reliable and fuel-efficient truck. It’s like a small business owner helping hand that he otherwise wasn’t getting.

Me, I have an old wagon that qualifies and for everyone’s sake should be scrapped for recycling. It’s ugly and gets 16mpg to boot! The $4500 would allow me to get into a safer car that gets 34mpg. And no, I’m not looking for a honking SUV because I don’t require it for work or the size of my family. A small sedan or hatchback will do just fine.

I’m tickled pink (or green) to being incentivized to "move up" a purchase that I probably would have held off for another 2 years if I could.

By Sylvia M on 06/19/2009 3:49 pm