var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
shepd
August 25, 2009 8:33 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Although 9 out of 10 are Japanese companies, how many of the top ten cars themselves are manufactured in North America? I know the number 1 position is, being I pass the plant myself every once and a while.

Reply
15 replies
\"user-pic\"
djsyndrome
August 25, 2009 10:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: if I'm not mistaken, point of assembly is as follows:

1. Toyota Corolla - Japan and USA*
2. Honda Civic - USA and Japan
3. Ford Focus - USA
4. Toyota Camry - USA and Japan
5. Hyundai Elantra - South Korea
6. Toyota Prius - Japan
7. Nissan Versa - Mexico
8. Ford Escape FWD - USA
9. Honda Fit - Japan
10. Honda CR-V AWD - USA, Mexico and Japan

*Although the article doesn't say, Toyota often classifies the Matrix as a Corolla for sales reporting purposes. All Matrixes are built in Canada.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LastError
August 25, 2009 11:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@djsyndrome: Well, it is sold as the \"Corolla Matrix\" in other countries. It's really just the Corolla station wagon version. But they don't call it or sell it that way here because wagons are not sexy.

There are a lot of \"Corolla _______\" variants running around. It's almost a brand all by itself, and all of those models are counted as Corolla sales. Kind of a fudge really but that's how Toyota has always done it.

Anyway it's only in North America where the Corolla name itself is reserved for use on the single type of car.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
yentaleh
August 25, 2009 9:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd:

9 out of the 10 are Japanese? Don't tell my dealership where I bought my Hyundai Elantra. (We all know that they're Korean)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
balthisar
August 25, 2009 9:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: Which of the Ford Focus and Ford Escape is Japanese? That's 20% of the trade-ins (also written as 2 out of 10). That's actually positive for Ford, in that they have less than 20% of the market share.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
August 25, 2009 9:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: Nissans are also made in the US. There's a plant in Mississippi.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
neilb
August 25, 2009 9:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: Actually, it is 8 of 10, not 9 of 10. There are two Fords.
Regardless of the specific number, it is a huge shift--almost too large to believe.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
weber.356
August 25, 2009 9:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: According to the government, only 54% of the top ten new cars list were made in the United States. Considering that the only two American car company vehicles on that list are both built in the U.S., that means a lot of U.S. taxpayer dollars going to workers overseas, or at least to the profit margins of foreign companies (even if some of the foreign company cars are built here).

Because the Escape has a Mazda twin doesn't make it Japanese. It's built here in the United States for an American company. Ford, by the way, did all of this without taking money from the government, filing for bankruptcy, or getting free health care for their workers from the government (like the Japanese companies ). I think they deserve a round of applause from Americans. They have some pretty good cars too.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JeromeEso
August 25, 2009 9:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: I think most of them are made in the US. The Prius I believe is mostly made overseas though. And I'm not sure about the Ford (could be mexico)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
August 25, 2009 8:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd:
Looks like 8 out of 10 are foreign - there are 2 Ford cars on the list.

On the other hand it looks like all the turned in cars are American.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
August 25, 2009 8:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: I thought most of them were manufactured here. IDK though, I might be wrong.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
August 25, 2009 9:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: It costs A LOT to ship cars over...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
August 25, 2009 9:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Con Seannery: And that is an actual statement or a jab?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Alex Chasick
August 25, 2009 8:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: I know they're manufactured here; I remember passing the giant Hyundai plant in Alabama on my way into and out of New Orleans. I realize that buying one of these cars still helps some American jobs and businesses (maybe even more than buying a Big Three car that was made in Mexico); I was just noting PR implications of all but one of the most popular cars being from a foreign manufacturer (and, conversely, having the ten biggest clunkers be from American car makers).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LastError
August 25, 2009 11:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alex Chasick: The plant in Alabama makes the Hyundai Sonata and Santa Fe. I own a Sonata that was made there. Awesome car. Met the people who made it. Awesome people too. Amazing factory.

The Elantra, however, is made in South Korea.

Of the cars on this list, the Camry, Corolla, Fit, CR-V, Civic, Focus, and Escape are made in the US. The Elantra, Prius and Versa are the only ones made overseas.

Some Corollas sold in the US are made in Canada. Some Fits and Civics sold here are made in Japan.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become
August 25, 2009 9:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alex Chasick: AFAIK the Alabama plant actually makes the new Sonatas. I believe the Elantras are still manufactured overseas. You can double check! Each one has a sticker that states where it was assembled.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
August 25, 2009 9:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alex Chasick: Haha yup, I was having a similar conversation with a friend here around the time of detroit bailouts. He mentioned that probably a big reason what a lot of congressmen fron the south were against it was because of all the Toyota/Hyundai etc plants were down south.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
August 25, 2009 8:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd:

Hyundai is Korean. But I believe the cars are made in the U.S.

We love ours. Both hubby and I drive them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pax
August 25, 2009 10:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: My dad and stepmom have been driving Hyundais (a Santa Fe and an Elantra) for five years now with exactly one problem between the two cars. Not bad.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
August 26, 2009 3:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pax:

That's great! Hubby and I both drive Santa Fes (I'm on my second one). Love them. I'd like to downsize eventually to something like the Elantra, now that our kids are drifting away to college and Real Life. But it's cheaper right now to just keep my Santa Fe, which is only a few years old and drives like a dream.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
August 25, 2009 8:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why does that not surprise me that the Explorer is #1. I traded mine in a couple of months before this came out. 12 MPG...and a 22 gallon tank...ugh.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
lmarconi
August 27, 2009 4:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville: Funny that most the top choices for small new cars are produced by foreign companies (though, yes maybe manufactured partially or entirely in the US) while all the top big, gas-guzzling \"clunkers\" are American-made. Shouldn't this send a big message to the American auto manufacturers?

Side note - I'm surprised the Honda CRV was eligible as an energy-efficient new car under the program. I drive a friend's very frequently and although it's a small SUV, I would still characterize it as an SUV. I had thought only small cars, sedans or station wagons were eligible.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ExtraCelestial
August 25, 2009 8:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville: MSN had a link a few days ago on their main page with the make/model/year breakdown of vehicles and 4 of them were different years of Jeep Cherokee. The bf has a late 90s Cherokee and it's ridiculous how much gas he plows through.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
chinadoll724
August 25, 2009 8:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Not to be nitpicky, but since when is 8=9? There are 2 Fords on the top 10 list.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
b612markt
August 25, 2009 9:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It seems like Consumerist needs a car nut on staff to get facts right before making a post like this. Consumerist, you must still have some pals at Jalopnik, right? :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
August 25, 2009 8:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chinadoll724:
Plus, Hyundai is not Japanese. It's Korean.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
heltoupee
August 25, 2009 8:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chinadoll724: Ford Escape is manufactured by Mazda. It's a rebadged Mazda Tribute.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PølάrβǽЯ
August 25, 2009 9:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@heltoupee: \"Ford Escape is manufactured by Mazda. It's a rebadged Mazda Tribute.\"

You got that backwards. Mazda's line of trucks/SUVs are rebadged Fords (or were, until the Bs and Navajos were canceled). The B-series are Rangers, Tributes are Escapes, Navajos are Explorers. Look at the drivetrain components (enginem transmission, transfer case) on any of these - Ford Motorcraft stamped all over 'em.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Vandelay Import Export
August 25, 2009 8:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@heltoupee: But Ford owns a good chunk of Mazda, so it is kinda sorta a Ford.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Adhominem
August 25, 2009 10:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Vandelay Import Export: Not anymore they don't. They sold their shares.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
scootinger
August 25, 2009 8:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@heltoupee: The Escape (along with its Mazda version, the Tribute) is actually manufactured at Ford's Kansas City plant. But it was jointly developed with Mazda and is based on a platform originally designed for one of Mazda's vehicles.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Mr.Duke
August 25, 2009 8:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

8 of 10 foreign. meaning profits going overseas. some u.s. workers were helped by building some of these in the u.s. but... was it really worth it? And where does the car industry from here? The incentive is done for now.

Reply
13 replies
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
August 26, 2009 12:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mr.Duke:

Lol some people have no idea how our current economy works. Most of those cars are manufactured in america now, and provide american jobs.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
milrtime83
August 25, 2009 9:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mr.Duke: Look at it from another point of view...why are American's buying all these foreign brand cars? Is it because they are less expensive? more reliable? Whatever the reason is, I would say it is a sign that American car companies weren't worth \"saving\" with the billions of dollars in bailout money.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tdatl
August 25, 2009 10:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@milrtime83: Go look at what economists were saying when all this was going on -- that the US economy probably couldn't have handled the blow if both Chrysler & GM had been forced to liquidate. It would have devastated the foreign producers, since many of their parts suppliers would have gone under.


The further removed we get from last fall/early this year, the more people forget: the auto bailouts weren't about the worth of the auto manufacturers, they were about avoiding a depression. The Republicans voted against them because they could politically -- when it came down to the wire, Bush did it himself because, as he said, he didn't want to be known as another Hoover. He kept them alive long enough to push the problem to Obama, and Obama did what he needed to do. I suspect whoever was in charge at the time would have made the same decision, regardless of ideology.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PølάrβǽЯ
August 25, 2009 9:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mr.Duke: Ugh, that is such an ignorant statement. We've been through this before: the major auto manufacturers are global corporations. They build cars and employ people all over the world. Doesn't matter which company you buy from (GM, Chrysler, Ford, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia) or where their headquarters are, you are supporting the US workers that built the car here in the US.

So please quit bitching about which car companies are what nationality and just buy the vehicle that suits your needs best.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
weber.356
August 26, 2009 3:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@aaron8301: I agree with you on your global point. It's just irritating hearing people justify buying their Japanese vehicles because they're built here. Just come out and say you bought it because it's a better car for you. But American automakers employ more Americans than Japanese companies do.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
August 26, 2009 12:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@weber.356:

Hey, I wont' lie. Japanese make a better car than GM, Chrysler, Jeep, etc. Ford has moved up, and is almost equal on several models. Why would I pay the same price for something that depreciates 2x faster, and has less quality? That's just common sense. When I see people riding around in a 15k cobalt or aveo when they could have had a civic or fit, and could have had something that will be running 10 years from now and worth 5-6k instead of 2k like the aveo, I just scratch my head.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
frank64
August 25, 2009 9:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mr.Duke: Well Consumerist's are not concerned with where the profits go! More concerned with the jobs I would expect. Also many US stock holders of the foreign brands too. That there are foreign corps that invest manufacture and hire in the US is better than a US company building in Mexico, isn't it. Except maybe it is better for Mexicans to have legal jobs in Mexico instead of illegal jobs here? The world is too complicated!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
weber.356
August 26, 2009 3:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@frank64: American automakers employ more American workers than Asian automakers do.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
drrictus
August 26, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@weber.356: Isn't that how Detroit got into the mess they were in? More man-hours to produce the same product?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
August 25, 2009 9:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Per@Mr.Duke: A heck of a lot of US workers were helped, considering that Nissan, Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai employ millions of workers. There's a lot to be said for their vehicles and how their manufacturing has helped the South.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
weber.356
August 26, 2009 3:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Please show me some facts on the Asian automakers employing \"millions\" of US workers.

Fact: US Automakers directly and indirectly employ many more Americans than the foreign automakers do

Fact: Just because a car is *built* here doesn't mean that all of the aspects of that car's design and production took place here. Or that all of the company's profits stay here and are taxed by our government.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
August 25, 2009 9:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mr.Duke: Tell it to Canadian and Mexican workers building \"US\" cars.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become
August 25, 2009 9:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mr.Duke: Think about how many cars they just destroyed, which means they lessened the available pool which means they basically just stabilized car prices. Now if only they could systematically go around destroying housing to get the prices back up... hmm..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery
August 25, 2009 9:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese misses her boyfriend who's in michigan: Except what it does is inflate the beater market for a short time, then drag that back down, pull new car prices back up, which will again fall, and the rest has little effect on it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
August 25, 2009 9:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese misses her boyfriend who's in michigan: Bill Gates is working on a Hurricane Control thingy. Guess who he supported during the elections.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
August 25, 2009 8:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Eight of the top ten, actually. Ford Fusion (#3) and Ford Escape (#8).

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
heltoupee
August 25, 2009 8:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: Ummm... the Focus was #3. The Escape is actually a rebadged Mazda Tribute, so, technically Japanese.

I remember reading that Lotus had something to do with the design of the Focus, so maybe 9.25 out of 10 were Japanese?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MentallyRetired
August 25, 2009 9:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@heltoupee: The Escape isn't technically Japanese. Mazda has let Ford build Mazda trucks for a few decades starting with the Mazda B-Series pickup trucks which are rebadged Ford Rangers, and the short-lived Mazda Navajo which was a rebadged 2-door Ford Explorer.
Until this year Ford had controlling interest in Mazda with 33% ownership. Ford sold off 20% interest in Mazda to raise capital and Ford now owns 13% of Mazda with no controlling interest.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
balthisar
August 25, 2009 9:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@heltoupee: Or you can equally say that the Tribute is a re-badged Escape. They're jointly developed. Like the new Fiesta, the current and new Focus, and even the Fusion and Edge.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
neilb
August 25, 2009 9:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@heltoupee: But Lotus is Malaysian now, but when the design was done it was still British.
How many \"Japanese\" does that count for? Uhh...
Let's just give up.

A Ford is a Ford is good enough for me--though domestic (and US) parts content is another interesting issue entirely.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ExtraCelestial
August 25, 2009 8:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"the most-popular new cars bought through the program all offer very good fuel economy\"


I thought that was the point?

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
August 25, 2009 8:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TinkishDelight: Yeah, but humans are well known in their ability to defeat the point.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
scootinger
August 25, 2009 8:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TinkishDelight: No, its main purpose is a bailout for automakers...although evidently it didn't help domestic manufacturers too much. There are far, far better places to spend the money if they truly wanted to have an environmental impact.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SacraBos
August 25, 2009 10:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@scootinger: I think it was both, actually. The \"Green\" movement to move to higher milage cars, with a double-bonus-win of helping lagging auto sales.

I don't think it really significantly did either, but has ended up hurting dealerships more. I mean, it's only resulted in a 3 week burst of sales - not enough to solve the auto makers woes. The dealerships have been carrying the debt on these $4500 \"rebates\" and haven't been paid by the Gov. yet.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ExtraCelestial
August 25, 2009 9:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@scootinger: I agree, but there were mpg rules and restrictions on the trade-in as well as the new car. In fact, a larger mpg improvement even yielded a larger check. Why act like it's a surprise the cars people bought had better fuel economy when that was a stipulation they put into place?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Wombatish
August 26, 2009 11:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TinkishDelight: Because there were big scare tactic stories about how people were using the program to buy Hummers and stuff.

The thing was, the minimum improvement for a truck to truck trade (SUV = truck, officially, at least in Texas) was much lower, only like 3-4 MPG difference. So you could trade an old Hummer (7 MPG) for a new Hummer (10 MPG) ((just an example, I'm not well versed in Hummer MPG)) and still use the program.

Still, glad to see that most people just used the program and didn't try to pull a fast one :D.

I know my Mom traded ancient 2WD Expedition > CR-V. She was going to go with an Accord but she still has two kids at home and wanting something that could tow, even at a diminished capacity (she tows for work sometimes, but enough that it was a consideration). Still, 10 MPG upgrade on paper, probably actually even better :D

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Mr.Duke
August 25, 2009 8:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

#3 and #8 Fords. What about GM (government motors)?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
jamar0303
August 26, 2009 4:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mr.Duke: I'd say GM's biggest market right now is ... China. People here are snapping up Buicks and Chevys like nobody's business (the Park Avenue is still available here, and people buy it). Heck, they even have their own pavilion for Expo 2010 (YA RLY!!!).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
August 25, 2009 8:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mr.Duke: Word has it that some poor schmuck actually DID buy a GM in the past 6 months. According to reports he is kicking himself.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
johnva
August 25, 2009 8:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hyundai is not Japanese, so it's actually 7 out of 10.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Koinu
August 25, 2009 8:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@johnva: I was just about to post that myself, Hyundai is Korean aren't they?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Consumer01
August 25, 2009 8:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Who says this program was a success? Cato analyzed it and here is what they discovered:
*A few billion dollars worth of wealth was destroyed. About 750,000 cars, many of which could have provided consumer value for many years, were thrown in the trash. Suppose each clunker was worth $3,000 at a guess, that would mean that the government destroyed $2.25 billion of value.
* Low-income families, who tend to buy used cars, were harmed because the clunkers program will push up used car prices.
* Taxpayers were ripped off $3 billion. The government took my money to give to people who will buy new cars that are much nicer than mine!
* The federal bureaucracy has added 1,100 people to handle all the clunker administration. Again, taxpayers are the losers.
* The environment was not helped. See here and here.
* The auto industry received a short-term \"sugar high\" at the expense of lower future sales when the program is over. The program apparently boosted sales by about 750,000 cars this year, but that probably means that sales over the next few years will be about 750,000 lower. The program probably further damaged the longer-term prospects of auto dealers and automakers by diverting their attention from market fundamentals in the scramble for federal cash.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
August 26, 2009 12:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Consumer01:

#1:3k? that'd be a big stretch for most of those cars traded in. My truck was worth $1,200.

#2. I'm a taxpayer, and I benefited from the program. I don't have kids, yet I bet you do, so I was ripped off that your kids go to school on my dime.

#3. So they created 1,100 jobs when unemployment is at a high. Seems good to me.

Nevermind the fact that's 750k people that reduced our oil consumption. My truck got 14 mpg...my new car gets 30 mpg.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Consumer01
August 26, 2009 5:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: #2 No in fact I am a single college student

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hobz
August 26, 2009 12:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Consumer01: After further analysis...

*750,000 cars worth less than $4500 of which 84% were trucks. How much combined fuel savings does that amount to? What was the scrap value of the vehicles? How many would have gone to the scrap yard regardless? This would certainly cut into the above quoted value of $2.25 billion.
*The removal of 750,000 cars from the used car pool will not drive up the cost of used cars. The price would only go up because of increased demand. Not to mention that with the threat of increased gas prices, low income families would be more inclined to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle than the clunkers.
*\"The government took my money to give to people who will buy new cars that are much nicer than mine!\" I believe this is what most people have a problem with. But I would much rather have the money go to people that have paid taxes than to bailout a failing company by just throwing the money at them.
*People are being employed, where's the problem in that? Would you much rather that they would be collecting unemployment?
*The environmental impact is more long term than anything.
*The program enticed individuals that would have most likely waited for the economy to bounce back (if at all), to buy a new car now. It's all a matter of time. Ask the automotive industry if they would rather have the sales now (to help them stay alive) or later (when they are not in such dire straights).

It's hard to focus on market fundamentals when the ONLY thing dealers and makers are concerned about is staying alive. Right now there really isn't a good market for new cars. Consumers are to worried about jobs, health care and the economy to think about buying a new car. So why waste the resources to market to people that won't buy?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jwinston2
August 26, 2009 2:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hobz:

Two points,

The environmental impact will most likely be a net negative. Something everyone ignores is that behavior will not stay the same once someone has a higher mpg car. Someone driving a 10mpg car would drive less than someone driving a 20mpg due to the cost difference in gas. In the end the 20mpg car driver will drive more because it is cheaper for him to drive more than the 10mpg driver.

A very old saying in economics \"you cannot make wealth by destroying wealth.\" Employees for car companies will keep the jobs they have but at the expense of employees in other sectors, i.e. mechanics as an example.

I would recommend you read the broken window fallacy, as this adequately explains why this whole program is a joke.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
August 26, 2009 4:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jwinston2:


Yes, but driving won't NEARLY double. Price elasticity of demand on gas is <<<<<1, and that works both ways.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ebriosa
August 26, 2009 1:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hobz: *The removal of 750,000 cars from the used car pool will not drive up the cost of used cars. The price would only go up because of increased demand. Not to mention that with the threat of increased gas prices, low income families would be more inclined to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle than the clunkers.


? The demand can stay the same, but if supply is lesser than it would have been, then the price goes up. Come on, seriously! (it wouldn't have been by 750,000, but we can assume some large % would have been sold used if traded in or by owner.)


*People are being employed, where's the problem in that? Would you much rather that they would be collecting unemployment?


Yeah, let's not get into that argument. If people being employed is so great, why don't we just get the government to hire all the emplyoed? Etc. Do not go down that road, for it is full of bad politcal arguments! ;D Really, if the program was a success or not the costs should include employment, like any business does. It is not an end unto itself.


And, well, time will tell if this venture was worth the cost. I personally think, like most of the stimulus, that emotionally it is a win, but really was kind of ineffective.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hobz
August 26, 2009 1:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ebriosa:

\"The demand can stay the same, but if supply is lesser than it would have been, then the price goes up. Come on, seriously! (it wouldn't have been by 750,000, but we can assume some large % would have been sold used if traded in or by owner.)\"

Your assuming there was a big demand for $4500 gas guzzling cars/trucks to begin with? Given the fact that many people traded in there much newer gas guzzling cars/trucks when the price of gas went to $4 and the price of those cars have gone down. From what I have read, used car dealers are having a hard time getting rid of cars that meet the cash for clunker requirements (old with low mpg) let alone newer ones.

\"If people being employed is so great, why don't we just get the government to hire all the emplyoed?\"

You missed my point... Isn't it better to have people employed (government or private) than to have them unemployed?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
meske
August 26, 2009 2:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hobz: Your assuming there was a big demand for $4500 gas guzzling cars/trucks to begin with? Given the fact that many people traded in there much newer gas guzzling cars/trucks when the price of gas went to $4 and the price of those cars have gone down. From what I have read, used car dealers are having a hard time getting rid of cars that meet the cash for clunker requirements (old with low mpg) let alone newer ones.

You can't make the assumption either way. Many people, especially those of low income, think of here and now. They are not going to spend twice as much now for 10 extra MPG. It's a cash flow thing.

I'm more curious of the wholesale value of the vehicles traded in. That would be a really good metric to see how much the government premium was on these \"clunkers.\"

The other thing is now those people that did not have a car payment with their clunker _do_ have a monthly payment, and I'm sure their fuel offset is not going to make up for their new financial liability. It would be interesting if in a year you find the default rate skyrocket on these new vehicles and cause further harm to the economy. I don't believe you can call it a success or failure at this point... it's a wait and see.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
earlclemson
August 25, 2009 8:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What's telling is that all of the top 10 trade ins were US cars - 5 of which were Fords. It just says the auto industry hasn't been listening to the consumer for a long time in this country...

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
Ghosx
August 25, 2009 11:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@earlclemson: No, the auto industry listened loud and clear.

Soccer moms and Republican dads wanted a vehicle with enough size to crush any car foolhardy enough to run into it, enough power to climb over traffic, and enough room for the Brady Bunch. Detroit happily listened.

Then the days of gas at $1.25 per gallon ended.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
incident_man
August 25, 2009 10:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@earlclemson: Actually, until recently, the buying public actually wanted vehicles they felt safer in, not the ultra-compact econoboxes that the Japanese cranked out. How else can you explain the explosion of SUVs on the road during the earlier part of this decade? The high demand for gas-sippers as only been a result of the gas gouging of 2-3 years ago and the facts regarding climate change.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OneBigPear
August 26, 2009 2:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@incident_man: It is interesting that \"feeling safer,\" and \"being safer\" are so different.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
drrictus
August 26, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OneBigPear(formerlyWendelWindies): It's also interesting that my insurance adjuster friend once told me, \"My company wishes every policy holder had a SUV!\" Because they held up better in a crash.


But that's when I asked him (I had been shopping for insurance), \"Then why do you charge more for SUV policies?\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OneBigPear
August 26, 2009 6:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@drrictus: The sources I've read and insurance company reports I've seen say exactly the opposite. Well, they say that SUVs are in more accidents and those accidents result in more deaths... maybe the vehicles themselves don't sustain as much damage?

I will admit, there's some seriously conflicting info out there.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SacraBos
August 25, 2009 9:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@earlclemson: Wow, what was a jump in logic. All those cars were already being made, so if people wanted them, they could just as easily have bought them.

@Radi0logy: You can't even make that assumption, since you've essentially bribed the people with up to $4500 strictly to buy a new car. Note the new cars may not be long-term desirable, either, you've artificially created a short-term demand.

As it turns out, the Liberals have created a \"Welfare for the Rich\", since people with even older, less valuable, cars did not qualify for the program - or may not have been able to afford these new cars and associated payments. And they are destroying the cars that would have done well on the used market to people of limited means. Glad our government is thinking of the little people.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
August 26, 2009 6:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SacraBos: It's so adorable when you guys pretend to care about the welfare of working families.
So cute!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
August 25, 2009 9:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@earlclemson: That isn't exactly what it means. It would be more accurate to say that American car makers didn't have the vision to create cars that would be desirable for a long term, but seeing as how there were so many cars to trade in with American badges on them, they clearly sold in the first place

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Powerlurker
August 25, 2009 9:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy:

The Windstar was a godawful piece of crap that my parents had the misfortune of owning at one point. The head gaskets on that motor were a well known problem, but the recall only affected up through '95 (my parent's '96 ended up needing one at the cost of $1500 in parts and mostly labor). I'm just surprised that enough of them are still around in drivable condition to let it be the 10th most traded in vehicle.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SacraBos
August 25, 2009 9:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Powerlurker: Our 2000 Winstar is on it's third transmission. Replaced twice, fortunately under warranty. First time I'd every bought an extended warranty for a car, too. Lucky me?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Vandelay Import Export
August 25, 2009 8:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I just heard on the radio it is expected that the automobile industry will be cutting back production soon, so this really didn't work other than expanding the budget deficit.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
breese524
August 26, 2009 1:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Vandelay Import Export: Production has already been cut back. What this did was help clear out inventory so production can be ramped back up sooner.


@HiPwr - How is this suddenly a political statement. It's a statement of fact. The USA has not had a balanced budget since the Clinton years. I to lament the fact that we as a country are continuing to deepen the public debt. Apparently both mainstream parties like to spend other people's money at an ever increasing rate.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PLATTWORX
August 26, 2009 1:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Vandelay Import Export:


He is not perfect, but must be trash EVERYTHING Obama has tired to do??? He inherited a train wreck and has been trying to plug holes as fast as he can with new ideas, etc.


No, I don't agree with all of his ideas, but must some people throw rocks at the guy 24/7? Would not have had to add so much to the deficit if those before him didn't run the country into the ground. Was there no President before January 20??

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HiPwr
August 25, 2009 9:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Vandelay Import Export: Setting aside the fact that the vast majority of dealerships have only seen a fraction of what was promised to them from the governmnent, they sold a ton of cars. Many to people whom were a few years away from considering new car purchases.


So, the profits are up for this quarter. As for the next quarter, well, we'll just deal with that later.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Black Bellamy
August 25, 2009 8:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So Consumer Reports just regurgitates the official government propaganda figures that purport to show that people traded in for small economy cars?

The real story is that the top five cars bought were trucks and crossovers

[money.cnn.com]

Creating accounting FTW.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
theyoungandthebetrayed
August 25, 2009 11:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Black Bellamy: This is what I was wondering and your link answered it. I compile sales statistics from the DMV as part of my job and there's a big discrepancy between how many different models there are for domestic trucks (4x2, 4x4, 4x4E, 4x2E, 4x4C, 4x2C etc...) when compared to imports (just Camry, just Carolla, etc...). When I roll all these engine/drivetrain models into one, domestic trucks like Chevy 1500s, F150s and Chevy Colorados actually have higher sales than popular imports like Accords, Civics, Prius' and Altimas. Camry and Corolla still beat all though. (Of course this is for my local market, YMMV)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
August 26, 2009 2:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@theyoungandthebetrayed: So it's not some vast conspiracy, then. It's simply reporting differences.
Weird, tho.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Powerlurker
August 25, 2009 9:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Black Bellamy:

The CR-V gets pretty good gas mileage. My parents regularly get about 30 mpg on the highway which is about what my Mazda3 gets.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
friendlynerd
August 25, 2009 8:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@earlclemson:
Wouldn't it say the opposite? People bought them new at some point, and I doubt they were forced at gunpoint.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
friendlynerd
August 25, 2009 9:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@friendlynerd:
How did this get down here? crazy commenting system

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
meechybee
August 25, 2009 8:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Any data on how many of the Ford Escapes were hybrid? Otherwise, it doesn't seem like too much of an MPG upgrade.

(Also, Ford's dirty secret is that they license their hybrid technology because they didn't push their own programs, so part of every hybrid ends up going to Toyota, anyway.)

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
MentallyRetired
August 25, 2009 9:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@meechybee: None of Ford's hybrid technology was designed or manufactured by Toyota. Ford and Toyota entered into a patent-sharing agreement in 2004 because Toyota had patents that covered technology Ford was developing and Ford had patents covering technology Toyota was developing.

[www.businessweek.com]

Besides Toyota the only automaker using hybrid equipment designed and built by Toyota is Nissan with their Altima Hybrid but the hybrid technologies in the next Altima Hybrid will be fully developed in-house.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
August 25, 2009 8:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Is it really all that hard for American automakers to produce cars as efficient and well made as the Hondas, Toyotas, VWs, and Hyundais people want today? I just don't get it.

The bread and butter of the Japanese automakers has been, for at least 35 years, reliable, nonflashy but attractive subcompact and compact vehicles that get good gas mileage, are relatively easy to repair, hold up well over time, and retain decent resale and trade-in value. Meanwhile, over the same period Detroit has gone berserk with bigger, faster, flashier, more gimmicky and steroidal vehicles that appeal to people's worst (IMO) consumer instincts and instantly become dodos in tough economic times or when fuel prices inflate insanely.

Surely we can do better.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
August 26, 2009 2:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: Don't forget, hundreds of billions of dollars went into shaping public opinion that a truck, or a truck with an enclosed enclosure, was something that a typical consumer would need. It's unnatural.
So it's ironic that the US auto industry shaped an environment that led to its eventual subjugation. Had they not gone for the easy fix of Bigger BIGGER BIGGER , they'd have been well-positioned to make high margins off of reasonable cars that consumers don't need to be brainwashed into buying.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Powerlurker
August 26, 2009 4:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep:

The truck thing came about largely because of CAFE regulations. Since big station wagons (the previous preferred people mover) would have trouble making mileage requirements, they started pushing minivans and SUVs, which are light trucks and thus subject to different mileage requirements, to meet their CAFE numbers.

Incidentally, this is part of why CAFE is such a horrible way of managing the gas mileage of America's cars. Since your average fleet mileage is determined based on vehicle sales, meeting your numbers typically requires encouraging a nontrivial number of customers to buy cars that, absent other economic pressures, they would prefer not to buy, usually by making them very cheap.

I have to disagree with your last sentence. The typical American car buyer (heck, most buyers in general) would, ceteras paribus, prefer a larger car to a smaller car. Second, the fixed costs of designing and manufacturing small cars aren't that much lower than for larger cars. This becomes a problem because Americans typically expect compact cars to be cheap above all else. What little market exists for premium, compact, non-sports cars, is pretty much limited to the Mini and it isn't clear that there's that much more room in the market. The reason the Europeans get such nice compact cars is because heavy fuel and other car taxes encourage European buyers to spend their marginal dollar getting a nicer car within the size class, where America's low gas taxes and ownership costs encourage them to go up a size-class. Sure, American car enthusiasts SAY they'd like to buy the European Focus, but how many actual car buyers would be willing to pay an extra couple thousand dollars over the cost of a Cobalt or even a Corolla? Those that would are already driving a Mazda3.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
August 26, 2009 6:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Powerlurker: Ironically, Detroit would have been better off had I been the Car Czar a decade ago (or any Progressive types: we share power easily). The exemption was so working trucks wouldn't be treated the same as ones sold to consumers. It became a loophole for Detroit to avoid the hard, necessary work of cracking the hard nut of figuring out how to produce small cars profitably and reliably. They found that, rather than invest in engineering brilliance, they'd simply pack bigger and bigger engines in to compensate. The same with their sporty cars: crappy engineering with a honking big motor to compensate, versus what the Japanese and Euro sports sedans do: smaller, faster, smarter and better around curves.
And these behemoths ripped consumers off: higher margins than sedans. So it's a lose for consumers and for Detroit.
Inevitably, the chickens would come home to roost. And they have. And they're cast adrift without any recourse, instead of having a decade-odd window to transition to the reality we face today.
I agree that there is (well, was) demand for Bigger-Is-Better, but it came not from need, but from tens of billions of ad dollars to convince suburbanites that a Hemi truck with stretched cabins were a sensible, \"fun\" default.
Don't get me wrong: I like fun. But it's smart, fast, barely-in-control fun. Packed into a small, maneuverable form factor. It's a shame that Detroit ceded that market to others since now it's probably too late.
So yeah, they fought strenuously to keep the CAFE exemption designed for working trucks to avoid the hard work they needed to do, and to sell the rubes poorly made, high margin vehicles. A sugar rush, essentially. What a waste of talent.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Powerlurker
August 26, 2009 7:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep:

The way you make small cars profitable in the US (or anywhere) is by encouraging people to pay more for them or finance them at interest rates greater than 0%. The Corolla is a fine car and Toyota sells a lot of them, but their margins are far higher on the Tundra. If you really want American consumers to buy more profitable and more efficient small cars in greater numbers, the least horrible way to do that would be European-style gas taxes (or other similar fees and taxes such as on vehicle weight or engine displacement). That way you let economic incentives do the work for you instead of the US solution of letting the companies sell all the steak they want as long as they can convince enough consumers to buy a (not terribly appealing) salad to offset it. Also, I wasn't talking about the CAFE exemption for work trucks. The trucks that were exempt entirely are not the ones most people were buying (you'd have to go up to F-250 size or an actual, full-sized passenger van for that). I was referring to the fact that light trucks have separate mileage requirements from cars which caused all the Big 3 to move their large, \"people-mover\" vehicles from full-sized wagons to minivans and SUVs. It's also why they've all been building \"crossovers\" lately in an attempt to make big vehicles that are more car-like in ride and handling without actually being cars.

I'm also confused as to your assertion that they kept trying to compensate for poor engineering with bigger and bigger engines. The mainstream cars and trucks they were selling in the 80's and 90's used modestly powered 4-cylinder and V-6 engines and weren't that much more powerful than their Japanese and German counterparts, if at all, and certainly no sportier with the exception of performance models. Heck, the American companies have made some pretty decent compact cars anyway. The Ford Focus was a Car and Driver 10Best car when it came out. Ford and GM's European operations have some great compact cars, but they're too expensive for the US market for the most part (see sales figures for the Saturn Astra). Regardless, at the end of the day there is no way you can sell a compact car for anything remotely approaching the margins of a pickup truck or even a midsize sedan unless you drastically change the incentives surrounding the purchase, assuming you're ultimately going to allow consumers to choose the car they want to purchase for themselves.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
August 26, 2009 5:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Powerlurker: A great discussion, by the way. We're at somewhat different ends of things, but this is quite nice. :)

But why are Toyota, etc. able to charge a premium for smaller cars? Quality and features in an attractive price with decent margins. From a company that 50 years ago was a small light-goods manufacturer in a country lacking natural resources with a surplus of rubble and ashes. Weird, huh?
There's an excellent book (highly recommended!) called The Machine That Changed The World that explains how it happened. It's not their cars that revolutionized the industry, it's their lean management and production methods that did it. Removing the execs from heaven and placing them on the floor. Sharing responsibility down the line, instead of clinging onto it jealously. Letting customers' needs reshape the firm rather than brainwashing them into buying ridiculous features to the firm doesn't have to adapt.

Saturn made a go of it, and almost did it, until GM execs killed it. (If they'd had pulled the former Saturn founders in to run the new GM, I'd feel much better).

The execs couldn't switch to Lean Production since, with its flatter hierarchies and power sharing with labor, it's hard to justify 100x higher exec salaries and related perks and prestige. A classic Agency problem. So sad for all of us.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Powerlurker
August 26, 2009 6:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep:

If you want a good book that looks at things from the other side of the issue, check out Car: a Drama of the American Workplace. It provides a sobering look at the generally dysfunctional management and labor relations culture and infrastructure that the American car industry in general, and Ford in particular, had to deal with. It does a pretty good job of helping to explain why exactly the Big 3 did business they way they did.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Powerlurker
August 25, 2009 9:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD:

The bigger problem with an utter lack of competitive compact cars until Ford first released the Focus is that, even if you don't make much money off of them, you still need one in your lineup to get new customers to look at your brand. The first new car that most people buy is usually a compact or subcompact, and if you can't get people in your door to sell them their first car, what's the likelihood that they'll even think to come to you for their second? They'll say \"My Civic ran pretty good, now that I have a kid, let's check out that Accord.\"

My parents' first new car was a Ford Escort, and because of their experience with that car, Ford later sold them two Tauruses and a Windstar (which was the straw that finally broke the camel's back). A large aspect of the car buying experience is trust. Your customers need to trust that the second largest expense in their life won't leave them stranded on the side of the road or looking at a $2000 bill from the mechanic. If you can sell them a good, reliable car the first time, they'll be more likely to trust you and your brand when they come back to buy their subsequent cars. The Japanese worked hard to cultivate that reputation, while the big three have, until recently, spent the last 20-30 years pissing away all of their accumulated consumer goodwill.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
August 26, 2009 4:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Powerlurker:

Great summary, Powerlurker. I drove my late mom's Ford Escort wagon for five years after she died, and I loved it. That little car drove really well and handled beautifully. I think some of its parts were made by Mazda -- the transmission, maybe? At any rate, it was a singular success for Ford in our normally all-Asian-car household. Did Ford stop making it? If so, fie on them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
August 25, 2009 10:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Powerlurker: yes, we are a ford family....well my mom had a chevy cavalier for an eternity, til it died. she bought a used taurus wagon from the local dealership that we trusted. they were always a tad pricier but they had STRICT QC. used cars bought from them weren't money pits (like the other ford dealership we bought the second taurus wagon from).

i drive my uncle's old 2001 escort sedan. gets between 30 and 35 MPG (depending on if I speed). i will drive it til it dies, then probably buy a focus.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
outlulz
August 25, 2009 9:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: Because back then gas was cheaper and consumers bought the cars, and long term outlook means nothing when you can make a quick, gigantic profit and then retire with a golden parachute before your company goes under.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Vandelay Import Export
August 25, 2009 9:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: Ford seems to be going in that direction, GM and Chrysler have not which is part of the reason we are all paying to prop their failed business model up.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
August 25, 2009 9:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What were the most popular cars actually purchased by people trading in their clunkers? To me, the post is not all that clear. Is this a list of the most popular cars in America or the most purchased cars by people who traded in clunkers? And what were the rules governing how the credit was to be spent? Was the government was adding a provision that people trading in cars under this program had to get a certain mileage to buy the car? A friend of mine was getting his car fixed and was talking to a salesperson who said he had seen a ton of people coming in looking to buy Camaros and Chargers and the like.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
August 25, 2009 9:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: From what someone else mentioned earlier, apparently there were rules about the new minimum mpg to qualify for the rebate.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ExtraCelestial
August 25, 2009 9:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: The list is referring to those purchased by people doing CARS trades. Though the title of the list is a little vague, it explains it in the article.


Here's the answer to the second part


[www.edmunds.com]


I believe the new car cap was at $45k

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
August 25, 2009 9:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is a good moment: the US public's taste for overwrought tankmobiles has shifted to more practical cars with a smaller footprint. Granted, CARS pushed the inflection point a half-decade earlier, but it's still good to see.
I'll bet those low mileage SUVs that remain will be thought of as owned by people too slow 'n stupid to junk them when Cash for Clunkers was running and are stuck with them. Not a pretty picture.
Now, the only people likely to buy SUV/Trucks are those that have a real need for them, or guys with small winky-dinks desperately trying to compensate.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
nstonep
August 26, 2009 1:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: No. The manufacturers just need to find creative ways to increase the mileage on big vehicles because they're going nowhere (especially in the southwest...can't haul a boat with a kia soul). The main problems are 1)Engine size (usually v8) and 2)Weight. If they axe the v8's for a turbocharged v6 (or n/a v6) the output will be close (not with the n/a v6) and the mileage will increase, more so if they cut 500 pounds.

American manufacturers have just been hesitant to use turbos and (to some extent) superchargers in cars/trucks in favor of higher displacement engines. Remember, Dodge decided there was a market for a v-10 VIPER Dodge Ram...granted it's an awesome truck but still not necessary unless you feel the urge to murder yourself every time you need to fill it up (9 city, 12 highway).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
August 25, 2009 10:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: yeah..or they are owned by people who didn't want to assume NEW debt because you could only buy NEW cars not pre-owned. there is a significant chunk of the population that is content to buy a used car...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheFlamingoKing
August 25, 2009 10:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: \"the US public's taste for overwrought tankmobiles has shifted to more practical cars with a smaller footprint\"

Not at all. The US public has been artificially incentivized to purchase more practical cars. In reality, as others pointed out, the most popular models were all trucks and SUV's when you consider all option types as one vehicle (2WD and 4WD are considered separate in the governments false statistics.)

[money.cnn.com]

Top 5:
1 Ford Escape
2 Ford Focus
3 Jeep Patriot
4 Dodge Caliber
5 Ford F-150

When there's no incentive, and while gas is still relatively cheap (not $100s per barrel), watch as people continue to consume the same trucks and SUV's they've been purchasing. This really is basic economics, the study of incentives in the market.

Another case of the government selling the people a failure as a great success.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
August 25, 2009 10:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheFlamingoKing: You dead-enders don't get it.
The culture's changed. People snicker at Hummer drivers now. It's jammed into everyone's head that $1/gal gas is gone and will never, ever, EVER come back.
This just bumps it up by a couple years, is all.
@sponica: No argument, actually. In normal times, I'd prefer to let nature take its course and have the US slobmobiles expire naturally. But these aren't normal times. Darned shame. But I like the results, and it's a life-saver for the car industry here, as well as increasing the velocity of capital. So, all in all, not too bad.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
god_forbids
August 26, 2009 12:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: And you peak-oilers don't get it. The hippy culture never changed, and neither did the average Detroit-lovin' red-blooded truck-drivin' beer-swillin' American culture. You may live in a chardonnay bourgeoisie infested ivory tower and drive a smugmobile but \"people who snicker at Hummer drivers\" sound too unbelievably childish to be real.

The program was a complete failure on all fronts and you do yourself a disservice by continuing to parrot the government's falsified propoganda on the issue. If you are so sententious as to pull out \"velocity of capital\" improvements in this discussion you should have the decency to note that your broken window fallacy has long been a dead idea in economics.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SteveBMD
August 25, 2009 9:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Wow, stereotype much?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
neilb
August 25, 2009 9:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Management needs to hear that people want small vehicles. For years, the Detroit 3 made tons of money off demand for SUVs...the same SUVs that were just junked.
If you want to blame then blame the Detroit 3 for chasing fads into the low-mileage territory, not for technical incompetence. Look at Ford's European lineup, it is great and it is headed this way. I saw my first Transit panel van on the road today!

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
nstonep
August 26, 2009 1:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@neilb: Um...the point is that they don't want small vehicles. That's why a Tahoe Hybrid exists with it's pathetic self.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SacraBos
August 25, 2009 9:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@neilb: You mean Management needs to hear that people want small vehicles with the government pays them $4500 to do it. These small vehicles were already on the lot before CARS, but these people bought something else.

Now that CARS is over, let's see what the sales of these little cars do now. CARS created an artificial demand for the existing supply.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
August 25, 2009 9:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'd like to see the age ranges for the people who traded in their cars. I'm sure it was mostly younger, single or coupled with small kids, between 25 and 40. You can't fit parents and two teens comfortably in a Fit, but you can in an Escape.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
August 26, 2009 4:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265:

Ha ha. This comment made me remember a week I spent in Sicily in the 1980s. The tiniest Fiats were crammed with entire big families (how? beats me!), and went whizzing around the narrow stone streets of the town we stayed in. For those families, it was all about simply getting there, cheaply.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corydon
August 25, 2009 11:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: I have to call BS on this excuse. Families have been, if anything, getting smaller over the years. Meanwhile, the family that would have gotten by with an AMC Pacer station wagon 30 years ago now has two SUVs and has convinced themselves that they can't possibly survive on any less.

Heck, I had a Neon back in the '90s and I managed to fit my 6'4\" frame into that pretty well, even on those few occasions I ended up in the back seat.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
August 26, 2009 2:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corydon: while families may be smaller, the amount of stuff needed has increased. if you have a baby, a toddler, and a 6 year old, you need a baby carrier, a car seat, and a booster seat. which would be a mighty tight fit in a small car

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
johnarlington
August 25, 2009 9:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Since when is 25 mpg 'good mileage' my CRV gets > 30 mpg... and the corolla get 37ish.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
outlulz
August 26, 2009 5:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@johnarlington: Your CRV gets 30 MPG? I usually don't get more than 19MPG unless I drive only on the freeway.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
johnarlington
August 26, 2009 12:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@outlulz:


?!? I've always averaged about 30. On long trips I get 33ish and with a heavy foot around town I get high 20s. Mileage definitely depends on how heavy with the foot you are. A nice slow acceleration will dramatically improve your mileage.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corydon
August 25, 2009 10:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@johnarlington: Actually miles per gallon is somewhat misleading. It implies that an improvement of 5 mpg is the same regardless of whether you start at 15 mpg or 30.

Moving from a 15 mpg vehicle to a 20 mpg one saves quite a bit more gas than moving from a 30 mpg vehicle to a 35 mpg one.

A better measure is gallons per 100 miles.

15 mpg = 6.67 gal/100 miles
20 mpg = 5.00 gal/100 miles
25 mpg = 4.00 gal/100 miles
30 mpg = 3.33 gal/100 miles
35 mpg = 2.86 gal/100 miles

As you can see, assuming the distance you drive remains constant, you get diminishing returns as mpg increase.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
your new nemesis
August 25, 2009 10:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corydon: Even then, the method used to determine fuel efficiency has changed a few times over the years. Basically, it's a rough estimate, and depends heavily on your driving habits. I've exceeded the highway limit a few times in my chevy malibu, but don't get the projected city limit. For information on how its determined, just follow the link below.


[www.edmunds.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pattiesmart
August 26, 2009 2:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@skizsrodt: \"I've exceeded the highway limit a few times in my chevy malibu, but don't get the projected city limit\"


Same here!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
August 25, 2009 10:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@johnarlington: i was just thinking that, my 2001 escort gets at least 30 MPG

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
HiPwr
August 25, 2009 9:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wonder if people that own brand new cars tend to drive them more often than their tired, old clunkers. I hope not because that would mean that the benefits gained in \"environmental terms\" would be bullshit.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
sponica
August 26, 2009 12:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HiPwr: actually I was just reading that on the US News website. because if you own an older guzzler, you are more inclined to stay close to home....but brand spanking new eco-friendlier car, and voila now you can drive FURTHER without opening the wallet for gas.
not really a case in point, my uncle has an SUV, he basically only drives it around town to do the lugging heavy stuff or when the camry is in the shop. the camry is the one i used to borrow when i needed a car, and i'd drive it to NH from CT.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
DadCooks
August 25, 2009 9:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I drive by several car dealers every day.

The Toyota/Scion dealer was picked clean of all eligible vehicles, and he had a large inventory of eligible vehicles when CARS started. His front/display lot has only a dozen Tundras on it. His backlot of clunkers definately reflected the top-10 trade-ins.

The Honda dealer still has more than half a lot full of eligible vehicles and the Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep dealer looks like he hardly sold anything.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
thefranchise2
August 25, 2009 9:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It looks as though a lot of American made cars still sold:

1. Toyota Corolla - Freemont, CA (also Canada and Japan)
2. Honda Civic - Greensburg, IN (also Canada and Japan)
3. Ford Focus - Wayne, MI
4. Toyota Camry - Lafayette, IN and Georgetown, KY
5. Hyundai Elantra - South Korea
6. Toyota Prius - Japan
7. Nissan Versa - Mexico
8. Ford Escape FWD - Claycomo, MO
9. Honda Fit - Japan
10. Honda CR-V AWD - East Liberty, OH (also Japan and Mexico), engines are from the US

Or even more if using the list which combines the different models:
1. Ford Escape - Claycomo, MO
2. Ford Focus - Wayne, MI
3. Jeep Patriot - Belvidere, IL
4. Dodge Caliber - Belvidere, IL
5. Ford F-150 - Claycomo, MO & Dearborn, MI
6. Honda Civic - Greensburg, IN (also Canada and Japan)
7. Chevrolet Silverado - Fort Wayne, IN, Pontiac, MI & Flint, MI
8. Chevrolet Cobalt - Lordstown, OH
9. Toyota Corolla - Freemont, CA (also Canada and Japan)
10. Ford Fusion - Mexico

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
SacraBos
August 25, 2009 9:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This thing kind of reminds me of the plot of \"Robots\", when the bad guy was pushing \"Why be you when you can be NEW!\". Scrap all the old cars and parts, and leverage everyone into buying only new cars and parts. Since new cars and part are much more profitable.

I guess I watch too animated movies with my kids... Wait, that's not really a bad thing.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
rickinsthelens
August 25, 2009 9:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why is CR using the NHTSA figures? Edmunds, using traditional auto accounting ways (you know, actual sales data) show an entirely different list, with 8 of the top 10 being American auto makers. The NHTSA is dividing the list by engine type, transmissions and such. Put differently, a car with a 4 cylander, 6 cylander, or 8 cylander option is thre different cars according to NHTSA, but one car according to Edmunds.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
henrygates
August 25, 2009 10:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Of course it was a success. They used tax payer funds to bribe people into buying new cars and taking out loans. By destroying the old cars, they further limited the used car market (not that there aren't plenty still out there) and thus pushing even more people into new cars.

Banks: 8
Auto Industry: 5
American Citizen Scum: 0

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PølάrβǽЯ
August 25, 2009 10:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm just going to throw this out there for all the ignorant comments that have been made about the Escape:

The Escape, Tribute, and Mariner are all the same vehicle. They are developed by both Mazda and Ford, but MANUFACTURED BY FORD. The only vehicle that Ford has sold in the last 20 years with a blue oval on it that wasn't manufactured by Ford was the Festiva/Aspire (manufactured by Kia, powered by Mazda).

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
DJFelix
August 25, 2009 10:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A success? If you examine this from a purely \"green\" perspective, the cost per ton of \"carbon\" saved was $500 per ton.

You could buy that same ton on the \"open market\" in Europe for $20. That sounds like a failure to me.

And, once again, the government has produced an artificial bubble in a formerly private industry. Remember when the government produced a bubble in the housing industry? That sounds like a failure to me.

And lets not forget the 675,000 used cars that have been taken off the market and destroyed. Who would have bought those cars you ask? How about the millions of low-income Americans that can't afford a shiny new car, even with a handout from the Government. Now what will they drive? And how many of those cars would have been donated to charity? That also sounds like a failure to me.

It seems to me, that this was another government handout to the auto industry. The bonus for them this time is that they don't have to pay it back.

GENIUS

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
jamar0303
August 27, 2009 4:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DJFelix: \"How about the millions of low-income Americans that can't afford a shiny new car, even with a handout from the Government. Now what will they drive? And how many of those cars would have been donated to charity? That also sounds like a failure to me.\"
That's what the rest of the used-car market is for. And if we had a sensible government like Canada they can import used K-cars from a certain other country that get mileage just as good as most \"efficient\" cars on this market. But no... stupid protectionism.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
August 25, 2009 10:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The real story is the decline of vehicles made by the factories under UAW control.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
morganlh85
August 25, 2009 10:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Regardless of where the cars were manufactured, it still benefits the car dealerships, the people who work there, the people who do their advertising, the people who construct the dealership buildings, etc. etc. It all has a ripple effect.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
sponica
August 26, 2009 12:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@morganlh85: only for a short period of time...we saw the same thing just after 9/11. 0% interest, tons of cars bought, and then massive slowdown.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
masterasia
August 25, 2009 10:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If GM, Dodge, and Ford would made decent cars then I would by one. Right now the Japanese and European companies are perceived to make way better cars than the Americans. It's going to take a time, money, and innovation to win back the trust of the Japanese and European car owners.

In my eyes Euro cars are highly innovative and Japanese cars are far more reliable. American cars will be third on my list, then the Korean car makers, which are raising fast in the market. Hyundai gas come a long ways in last decade. Kia is also on the uprise. My brother has a 2003 Kia Spectra with 160,000 miles on it and it is still rock solid. He's never had any problems with it. It still has the original clutch. He bought it brand new and paid $9000 CASH for it and it was worth every penny. Stay away from Daewoo though. I hear some Insurance won't insure you if you own one.

I have owned 2 American cars so far in my life. A Lincoln Continental and a Dodge Dakota Pickup. They both sucked. My Acura Integra with 150K on it is still going strong. I have a Nissan and a Mazda and still have no problems with any of them (knock on wood). The only major maintenance I've ever done on my Japaneses cars was to swap out the clutch.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
AustinTXProgrammer
August 25, 2009 11:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

These lists are pointless. I want percentages of models, and more useful would be the precentage for each manufacturer.

If there are 100 models sold, the top 10 could only make up 10-20% of the market, and GM could still have a huge percentage because they have more models.

I don't know if that is the case, because like I said, this list is useless.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
LastError
August 25, 2009 11:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm visiting my Hyundai dealer in the morning. They also sell Mazda and VW. It will be interesting to see what's still out for sale. I already know they sold a lot of cars at the Hyundai side.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
SammyD1st
August 25, 2009 11:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"In fuel economy and environmental terms, it seems like Cash for Clunkers was a success.\"

NOPE!

\"The total savings per year from cash for clunkers translates to about 57 minutes of America's output of the chief greenhouse gas [AP].\"

[blogs.discovermagazine.com]

But aside from NOT helping the environment, don't forget that it:

1. cost TRIPLE the initial funding,
2. is currently a bureaucratic nightmare ([www.cbsnews.com]), and
3. hurts poor people ([www.salon.com]).

But aside from those things, its a total success.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
aswearengen
August 26, 2009 1:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Someone please do the math to see how much per saved gallon the government has actually spent on this program.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
zerj
August 26, 2009 2:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I read an article on this after the first billion was spent. The NHTSA is all fucked up. Basically every different level of trim counts as a different model. So the Ford Escape FWD is a different car than the Ford Escape AWD, Ford Escape Hybrid etc.


It ended up that the Ford Escape (a small SUV) was the most popular car but becuase it is broken out into several trim classes it isn't nearly as obvious.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
chuloallen
August 26, 2009 3:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Anyone wonder why we have now suddenly inflated the market with alot of people that may not be able to afford the new cars, and will need a bail out themselves next year to make payments?

The reason why alot of people were driving the older cars is because they couldn't AFFORD a new one. So the government comes in... waves some cash, which could be about 25% or less of the total price, and suckers them into buying something they couldnt afford in the first place. Sounds like the housing market all over again.

And dont get me started on what they did with the \"clunkers\"

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Powerlurker
August 26, 2009 7:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chuloallen:

Actually, according to many of the dealers, purchases were frequently made by middle-class people with excellent credit.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Bob Lu
August 26, 2009 3:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe you should also notice that all 10 of the most popular trade-ins are American.

And when will notice another fact that American cars SUCK SO HARD in 12st century?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
weber.356
August 26, 2009 4:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bob Lu: Wow, you sound educated.


In the 1990s, American companies pushed SUVs more than Japanese companies did. Only in recent years did the Japanese catch up in number of SUV models offered. Hell, Honda still doesn't have a full sized truck. And it just so happens that many SUVs and trucks don't get above 18 mpg combined, so that's why so many American SUVs are getting traded in. There just weren't as many 4runners being sold as Explorers and Jeeps in the 90s.


And lumping all the American companies together is like lumping Suzuki in with Toyota and Honda. Ford's cars are now on par with the Japanese in quality, and they have a few models (like the Fusion, for example) that are the best in or among the best in their classes. I don't know anyone who would choose a Camry over a Fusion right now, unless they didn't do any research and were going on reputation of brand alone.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
gtbernstein
August 26, 2009 4:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Perhaps it would help to see if cash for clunkers was really worth it. Take a look at this post from Seth Godin and the explanation links that follow from it.

[sethgodin.typepad.com]

There were better alternatives to getting people to act smarter and help change peoples habits.

But hey, we helped the car industry. Right?

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
MisterE
August 26, 2009 11:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Both of my Toyota's are paid for and get great gas mileage. They were not clunkers to begin with. I've always taken Lee Iacocca's advice to heart: \"If you can find a better car, buy it.\"

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Southern
August 26, 2009 12:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm sorry, but I'm still majorly troubled by the fact that *20 years ago*, we had cars like the Chevy Sprint (which got just over 50mpg on the highway) and the Honda Civic CRX-HF (which got ***61MPG*** on the freeway and about 45MPG in the city!!), but we don't have ANYTHING on the market these days that even compare! The best they can do is the Prius, which is rated at 48MPG??


I'm sorry, but if they could make a car 20 years ago that got 61MPG, they should at least be able to do the same thing TODAY. They just don't WANT to for some reason.


I miss my CRX. :(

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Battlehork
August 26, 2009 1:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Southern: A lot of that has to do with safety regulations, with systems like airbags and various additional bracing adding hundreds of pounds.
You couldn't buy anything new with that little amount of horsepower if you tried either.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Mecharine
August 26, 2009 12:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So the companies who build their cars in the United States are selling more than the companies that build them in Mexico? So much for cost cutting...

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
esc27
August 26, 2009 1:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Place of manufacture according to Wikipedia:
Toyota Corolla - global, including U.S.
Honda Civic - global, including U.S.
Ford Focus - U.S.
Toyota Camry - global, including U.S.
Hyundai Elantra - Korea and Russia
Toyota Prius - Japan
Nissan Versa - global, excluding U.S.
Ford Escape - U.S.
Honda Fit - global, excluding U.S.
Honda CR-V AWD - global, includes U.S.

U.S. Only: 2
U.S. and/or others: 6
Non U.S.: 4

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
nstonep
August 26, 2009 1:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hehe...supercharged...hehe...35 mpg on the highway...hehe...0-60 in 5 seconds...hehe...chumps.

PS...American.

People just don't believe in the 4 banger anymore...they must burn for their beliefs!

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Southern
August 26, 2009 7:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Battlehork: You couldn't buy anything new with that little amount of horsepower if you tried either.


I know, and that's half the problem. The CRX was a peppy little car, and it would easily break 100mph (of course it wouldn't get 61mpg while it was doing it. :D), but it was a light 4 cylinder (around 1,600 pounds curb weight).


Personally, I don't need a \"powerful\" car; I just want the best gas milage possible. I just think that if they could do this 20 years ago, then by gum, they SHOULD be able to do it now.

Reply
","","");