Comments on: Congress Calls for Clunker-Culling

By: davey49

davey49 — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:54:40 +0000

Attrition isn’t good enough, people keep their crappy running cars too long.
With the safety regs I figured I’d save the people in the car as well as the people outside

By: Facebook User

Facebook User — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 05:38:43 +0000

davey49,
Are we really to the point where a car without ABS or side airbags is a clunker? I get the emissions requirements to a point; I would try to cull cars that can’t pass emissions tests appropriate for their age. That and plain old attrition will clear out the older, dirtier cars.

The rest is silly.

By: Gunit

Gunit — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 05:30:09 +0000

I read an article stating that more than 50% of the pollution generated by a vehicle over it’s lifetime is created during it’s production. Which makes more sense to me than the 11% stated here when you factor in all the mining, drilling for materials, shipping etc. I’ll see if I can find the link. I suspect the largest influence on the variation in the outcome of these studies is created by those who pay for them…

By: davey49

davey49 — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 04:55:54 +0000

My friend drives a 1986 Plymouth Voyager
EPA MPG rating is 18 MPG combined
what is the CAFE MPG?
He should get a voucher regardless, as its definitely an old clunker he needs to get rid of, and also unsafe. No headrests or airbags.
I’m trying to convince him to get a newish car but he’s afraid to take a loan out. He makes enough money but never saves up enough to get a decent car.
The 18 MPG rating seems ridiculous. I think no cars get under 18 MPG and no one would give up a running truck.
The “Clunker Bill” really should also include
cars without side airbags
cars that received less than 4 stars in NHTSA frontal crash tests
cars with more than Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions
cars without ABS
I also prefer the previous proposal that the new car get 5 MPG better than the old one instead of the hard and fast 18 or less rating

By: Morea

Morea — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 23:08:31 +0000

OK, the report is here:

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/378.pdf

and makes interesting reading.

The 11% figure is based on the assumption that the car will last 160,000 miles, and will get 24.8 mpg over its lifetime.

The results are based on the DOE GREET model which anyone can download and use. Input assumptions can be changed as the user sees fit. Application of this model is the basis of the Hummer-is-more-green-than-the-Prius arguments. Of course, it all depends on input assumptions to the model!

Model download here:

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/GREET/index.html

By: Facebook User

Facebook User — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:31:10 +0000

John Horner: My thought exactly, though I guess they need to provide a bigger credit to entice someone to turn in a newer vehicle. While I agree about losing classic or muscle cars, I wouldn’t mind a $1,500 credit to replace my ‘85 Volvo winter beater with the used Caddy CTS I was going to replace it with anyway.

By: Morea

Morea — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:48:54 +0000

PeteMoran :

From your own the Dept of Energy;

About 11% of the energy used in a car’s lifecycle is used for it’s manufacture

I’d like to learn more, does anyone have a reference for this report? (It would save me the trouble of trying to find it on the massive DOE web site!)

By: DIYer

DIYer — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:59:10 +0000

My daily driving vehicles are two 1993 Pontiacs and a 1995 Chevy truck, each of which were purchased new, have been maintained over the years, and still have a lot of useful life in them. Each gets 20-22 mpg. When I dispose of these vehicles, I plan on donating them to Purple Heart for a charitable tax donation, as I have done with previous vehicles.

This bill reminds me of an failed effort by the US auto manufacturers, particularly GM, to restrict the manufacture and sale of automotive parts for vehicles 10 years or newer to OEM’s and their dealerships only. This would have doubled the price of parts that one normally purchases at an independent auto parts store.

CarnotCycle : You will be pleased to know that Michael Milken is still alive and well and living in his hometown of Encino, CA. He is currently lobbying for a last-minute pardon from President Bush for past securities violations. We’ll know by Tuesday is Mr. Milken is successful in that effort.

By: PeteMoran

PeteMoran — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 04:52:29 +0000

@ golf4me

By your logic the average fleet economy will never improve which is not only untrue, but can’t be sustained.

Even if the new car only lasts as long as the car it replaces, it only has to be about 11% more efficient to recover the energy costs, and it is immediately using less imported fuel, which might be a completely DIFFERENT $$$ value.

By: Phil Ressler

Phil Ressler — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 03:46:45 +0000

Reduced carbon emissions is the least reason for this kind of program, hence of course the economics are completely wrong. We know in California that well over half of the remaining automotive-sourced *noxious* emissions come from less than 10% of the cars on the road. Reducing these emissions, which have an actual, present-day consequence to regional public health, should be the priority so we ought to first be encouraging the removal of the oldest, truest clunkers. Cars built since 2001 aren’t a problem. They’re quite clean by comparison.

Environmentally, we should be giving over-market credits to decrepit clunkers to get those owners into newer, cleaner used cars but of course that route to cleaner air is *politically* unacceptable because, well, someone poor would get an upgrade “free,” irrespective of the greater good to the public at large.

So since this proposed program is impertinent to any real environmental benefit, let’s admit it’s just a new car demand generation program under guise of carbon hysteria. There was a time when a seven year old car was likely a clunker, but vehicle quality has changed dramatically. Model year 2002 and newer cars are not yet clunkers in large numbers, in a manner that’s disproportionately damaging environmentally. Moreover, with a little appropriate lubrication in the credit markets and a bump in economic confidence, owners of these cars are likely able to afford replacement without further assistance.

Phil

By: ihatetrees

ihatetrees — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 03:07:51 +0000

200k-min:
What about the guy that wants to upgrade his 1989 Civic for a “more fuel efficient” model….oh wait, the new one gets worse MPG’s you say?

“The guy” who owns a well maintained “1989 Civic” isn’t a person to the current congress.
“Real people” are those earning 30K who drive ‘06 Avalanches financed for 72 months… They’re suffering and need need a Cobalt.

By: golf4me

golf4me — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 02:22:04 +0000

Thanks Pete, you made my point. By REPLACING cars that already exist with MORE CARS, you’re just adding more unecessary energy usage, and that’s not even taking into account the use of new raw materials, and the related pollution, etc. , which is what I wrote about anyway. Plus a lot of 1998 cars are as or more efficient than their 2008 replacements. Maybe not as clean, though, but hardly clean enough to make up for their manufacture, and additional landfill, etc etc.

Good & interesting stats to know though!!

By: eggsalad

eggsalad — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:08:12 +0000

Hm, so my 25-year-old station wagon that gets 35 mpg around town should be scrapped in favor of a (what?) that gets 25mpg around town??

By: brentalan

brentalan — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:58:28 +0000

“So if I have two beaters to trade in for the Prius of my Nancy Pelosi’s dreams does that mean I get $9k of Sugar back? ”

I believe it is only 1 vehicle per person.

I had also heard you have to have owned the car for some time for it to be eligable. And further, that you cannot own several cars to be able to participate.

By: PeteMoran

PeteMoran — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:39:46 +0000

@ golf4me

From your own the Dept of Energy;

About 11% of the energy used in a car’s lifecycle is used for it’s manufacture. The remaining 89% is used over it’s lifetime INCLUDING about 30% of that in the provision of the fuel (ie recovery, refining, transport), not the fuel itself.

Buying a used car is NOT the most efficient, nor the most environmentally friendly choice, especially with cars lasting longer. You only need a small increase in efficiency to have an ROI.

By: threeer

threeer — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:37:18 +0000

Sounds like a great way to artificially prop up our flagging automotive manufacturers while piling on more debt to those least in position to handle it. BRILLIANT! I’ll keep my 1997 Tercel running for a few more years, thank you. It’s paid for (what a foreign concept in this country), gets above-average MPG…and, oh yeah…it’s paid for!

The biggest and best incentive to get people to buy new cars (here’s lookin’ at you GM and Chrysler…)? BUILD CARS THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT TO OWN!

By: golf4me

golf4me — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:10:21 +0000

The greenest car you can buy (besides a nuclear powered, invisible, warp-drive whatever) is a USED car. Granted it should be “newer” say less than 7 years old. Just think of all the stuff that has to be made, from the raw materials, the energy it takes in the factories, transport, etc, to make a new car from ground to showroom. Hybrids are even worse in this regard. Then consider that older cars are hardly recyclable aside from thier metal, and this is hardly going to be good for the earth overall…

By: 200k-min

200k-min — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:51:15 +0000

What about a 1998 or older model that gets better than 18mpg? What about the guy that wants to upgrade his 1989 Civic for a “more fuel efficient” model….oh wait, the new one gets worse MPG’s you say?

By: Samuel L. Bronkowitz

Samuel L. Bronkowitz — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:45:07 +0000

Government can fix anything and most of their programs are efficient, effective, and well administrated…

By: Robstar

Robstar — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:27:23 +0000

I think the 10% number depends on too many variables to calculate in a public internet forum. How big is the vehicle? What does it NORMALLY give off in emissions? What is the lifetime ? etc etc etc.

By: George B

George B — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:24:51 +0000

If the real goal is to increase car sales, do something about the crazy per-vehicle fixed cost of insurance. I’d own more cars if I didn’t have to pay so much for insurance on each one, even though I can only drive one car at a time. The high cost of insurance skews the car market toward larger swiss army knife vehicles that can tow a boat on the weekend, etc. along with provide transportation to work. I’d gladly buy a spare depreciated out older car, taking it off the market, if I didn’t have to pay so much for insurance for car redundancy.

By: rpn453

rpn453 — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:22:11 +0000

Building the car in the first place accounts for around 10% of lifetime emissions. You can do the math on trading one individual car for another, but clearly gains in reducing carbon emissions can be made if the bill is done right.

Where does the 10% number come from? I think it’s a little low, and that they probably ignored a lot of energy inputs to get that number. People tend to ignore most of the energy and resources that go into developing and manufacturing a product.

By: findude

findude — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:15:56 +0000

Actually, this might be my opportunity to get rid of that old driveway eyesore that barely runs and is worth less than $2,000.

Does the bill apply only to cars manufactured since CAFE came into existence? What about older junkers?

By: geeber

geeber — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:05:40 +0000

John Horner: Another strange effect is that the market value of pre-1998 low fuel economy vehicles would suddenly have a floor of $2k.

And the price of new vehicles will go up by $2,000.

By: gslippy

gslippy — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:04:20 +0000

For me, the greenest car is the one that is PAID FOR.

This bill will only further raise people’s debt load, and have the effect of raising car prices. It will have no impact on the environment.