WASHINGTON - The most common deals under the government's $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program, aimed at putting more fuel-efficient cars on the road, replaced old Ford or Chevrolet pickups with new ones that got only marginally better gas mileage, according to an analysis of new federal data by the Associated Press.You can read the rest of the story at the StarTribune. This program was a temporary bailout of the auto companies, and anyone who views the improvement in Ford's most recent quarterly earnings as a signal of an sea change in the national economy needs to take off their rose-colored glasses.
The single most common swap -- which occurred more than 8,200 times -- involved Ford 150 pickup owners who took advantage of a government rebate to trade their old trucks for new Ford 150s... The fuel economy for the new trucks ranged from 15 mpg to 17 mpg based on engine size and other factors, an improvement of just 1 mpg to 3 mpg over the clunkers...
06 November 2009
Your tax money at work
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You nailed it.
ReplyDeleteNow, if we can just get more Americans to see that government involvement in lots of things is usually counter-productive, expensive, and a waste of time and money.
A 3 mpg increase on a pickup is a 20% improvement in fuel efficiency. It would be like me buying a 34 mpg car since I already get 28. Not everyone can drive a Prius.
ReplyDeleteBesides, the "Cash for Clunkers" program wasn't for improving fuel efficiency. It was put in place to stimulate the vehicle market. The environmental aspect of the program was only a guideline so there would be some limits on the number of vehicles sold.
What Scott said. Miles per gallon is a terrible way to measure fuel efficiency because you have to take its reciprocal, gallons per mile, before you can compare improvements across different parts of the fuel efficiency spectrum. Going from 15 to 18 mpg really is a vast improvement compared to going from, say, 30 to 33 mpg.
ReplyDelete