Funky Cars > Cash For Clunkers Upgrades Fuel Efficiency 58% · Environmental ...

[Environmental Leader] Before Cash for Clunkers began, critics said that the trading of trucks for purchase of a new light truck, which only required a net fuel economy gain of 5 mpg versus 10 mpg for cars, would be a drag on the effectiveness of the program.

Previous [Previous] Porsche to offer proper paddle shifters on all models? R...

Next [Next] Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information Labeling Program Fro...

Some related posts from Technorati and Google.

[NBC Auto Show] Clunker Over: Sales and Fuel Efficiency Up - NBC Auto Show: September 1, 2009 --- About 700,000 taxpayers benefited from the Clunker program, which kept trying to end and finally succeeded on August 25th at 8 pm. The U.S. Transportation Department says that applications submitted by the deadline would amount to $2.88 billion just under the $3 billion budget.

[Climate Crossroads Blog] BriFo's Blog | Looking Under the "Cash for Clunkers" Hood: The 9.2 mpg difference means that the average consumer increased the miles per gallon of their .To clarify the trucks vs cars point, 84% of the vehicles traded in were trucks or SUVs, but only 41% of the vehicles purchased were trucks or SUVs, right?

[Autoblog Green] Cash For Clunkers final numbers: 690000 vehicles sold; $2.8 ...: the new vehicles averaged 24.9 mpg. You can find out detailed numbers, including rebate requests by state, after the jump.

[Compass] Compass: Looking Under the "Cash for Clunkers" Hood: With 250 million vehicles on the road that, on average, get only 20.8 mpg, we have a long way to go to transforming the fleet, but Cash for Clunkers shows that when it comes to the benefits of efficient vehicles - reducing oil consumption, cutting global warming emissions and saving money at the pump - consumers get it.

[The Truth About Cars] New York Times: Gas Tax Better than Cash for Clunkers | The Truth ...: “The $3 billion cash-for-clunkers program that ended last week worked well as a jolt of economic stimulus. Nearly 700,000 people used the rebate to buy new cars in July and August ”” adding about 0.3 to 0.4 percentage points to economic growth in the third quarter, at an annual rate.”

[Foundation for Economic Education] Cash for Clunkers is a Loser | Foundation for Economic Education: President Obama cheerfully termed the program “successful beyond anybody’s imagination.”  Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, who administered the program, said the effort was “a lifeline to the automobile industry, jump starting a major sector of the economy and putting people back to work.”  LaHood quickly added that while all this happened, “[W]e’ve been able to take old, polluting cars off the road and help consumers purchase fuel-efficient vehicles.”  Economist John Lott surmised that “Only in Washington could a program that is spending money 13 times faster than was planned be labeled a ”˜success.’”

[The Cynical Economist] The Cynical Economist » Blog Archive » What Government Define as ...: According to DOT Statistics webpage as of November 2008 in the USA there were 247264605 Automobiles, .What Cash for Clunkers was supposed to do was to get rid of the inefficient and polluting vehicles.

[Consumer Reports Cars Blog] Cash for clunkers: Top 10 most popular new cars and trade ins ...: Thus far, 84 percent of trade-ins under the program are trucks and 59 percent of new vehicle purchases are cars. The most-popular new cars bought through the program all offer very good fuel economy, contributing to the significant fuel savings.

[The Foundry] Cash for Clunkers: This is What We Call Success? » The Foundry: Spending more of the taxpayers` money to acquire a service or product that`s available at a cheaper price somewhere else is poor stewardship. I have higher standards of our elected officials than to tell me that destruction of perfectly good automobiles is a benefit to our Nation and economy.

[The Daily Score blog - Sightline Daily] Too Much Cash For Clunkers? ”” Sightline Daily - Northwest News ...: Which isn't to say that swapping 16 mpg vehicles for 25 mpg ones isn't a good thing. As one of my colleagues pointed out in an early blog post, you do get some real bang for those bucks. And of course the prime purpose of the $2.88 billion ... So if we at least got some fuel efficiency gains, perhaps we should be grateful for that. That said, Alan has a point: how much genuine new demand did this stimulate, as opposed to merely pulling purchases forward by a year? ...

[Green Inc.] High Carbon Cost for 'Clunkers' Program - Green Inc. Blog ...: In many cases, if the difference in gas mileage is only 5 mpg, sticking with the used car can actually prove more cost effective and more carbon efficient than upgrading to a new car. As the fuel efficiency improvement increases, the new car’s costs are offset more quickly, but I’d bet that it takes 2-5 years of driving the new car, or maybe as much as 100k miles of driving, before the initial carbon footprint of the new vehicle is offset.

Reflected tags on Technorati: Blog, , , , , ,