The Truth About the Feds' Decision to Suspend Cash for Clunkers?

by Robert Farago

Published: July 30th, 2009

the truth about the feds decision to suspend cash for clunkers

The federal government has put the Cash for Clunkers (a.k.a. C.A.R.S. program) on hold. Supposedly, they’ve run out of money. The MSM is all abuzz with talk of extending the program, allocating more funds and the bummer of a congressional recess (no action ’til after Labor Day). But there’s talk that the number of clunkers hitting car dealers’ lots or the logjam on getting paid isn’t the real reason for putting Cash for Clunkers on hold. Do the math. The program is good for about 200k to 250k rigs, depending on the average rebate qualification. No way there were that many clunkers traded in over the six days since the program went live (official D.O.T. stats after the jump). The real story is that C.A.R.S. over-stimulated the market for new cars (even without a clunker trade); dealers are running out of new vehicles to sell. Or, more to the point, cars that consumers want to buy.

The car manufacturers took a summer holiday; the inventory on the ground is getting too thin (even for Chrysler and GM). Good news for the manufacturers: demand is outstripping supply by a wide margin. Bad news for the manufacturers: demand is outstripping supply by a wide margin.

Will the market still be there when the C4C program restarts, or will the feds create enmity amongst frustrated car buyers? And what of the tens of millions spent by carmakers and dealers advertising the program? How do you put an ad campaign on hold? Foot meet .45. [thanks to Ken Elias for the heads-up]

UPDATE: Automotive News [sub] claims “conflicting reports” on the reason for the moratorium. The news org reports that “U.S. officials had surveyed automakers Thursday about the advisability of a moratorium on the program, said Alex Fedorek, a spokesman for Kia Motors America.”

Official press release:

OFFICIAL D.O.T. CARS PROGRAM STATISTICS

At July 29, 2009 (4:00 PM)

Dealer Registrations:

Number Submitted 23,005

Number Approved 19,328

Dealer Transactions:

Number Submitted 22,782

Dollars Submitted $95.9M

Hotline Contacts:

Latest day (July 28) 56,430

Cumulative (July 3-July 25) 98,481

Website Visits:

Latest day (July 28) 652,380

Cumulative (June 22-July 28) 5,735,202

Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 36 comments

Anonymous on Jul 31, 2009
don’t take my word for it, see a Nobel Prize winner’s analysis. Al Gore won the Nobel Prize...that award means nothing

Like Reply
John Horner on Aug 04, 2009

Actually the program was never put on hold, that was just an unsubstantiated rumor.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Mebgardner I test drove a 2023 2.5 Rav4 last year. I passed on it because it was a very noisy interior, and handled poorly on uneven pavement (filled potholes), which Tucson has many. Very little acoustic padding mean you talk loudly above 55 mph. The forums were also talking about how the roof leaks from not properly sealed roof rack holes, and door windows leaking into the lower door interior. I did not stick around to find out if all that was true. No talk about engine troubles though, this is new info to me.
Dave Holzman '08 Civic (stick) that I bought used 1/31/12 with 35k on the clock. Now at 159k.It runs as nicely as it did when I bought it. I love the feel of the car. The most expensive replacement was the AC compressor, I think, but something to do with the AC that went at 80k and cost $1300 to replace. It's had more stuff replaced than I expected, but not enough to make me want to ditch a car that I truly enjoy driving.
ToolGuy Let's review: I am a poor unsuccessful loser. Any car company which introduced an EV which I could afford would earn my contempt. Of course I would buy it, but I wouldn't respect them. 😉
ToolGuy Correct answer is the one that isn't a Honda.
1995 SC Man it isn't even the weekend yet