Cash for clunkers stats...

[skids]

Putting aside the fact that the bill is primarily for economic stimulus purposes, I tried to run down some statistics on what the actual effect of Cash For Clunkers would be on gasoline consumption.

Good stats are not really available yet, but early indicators seem to point to the program not going as horribly as it could have gone. The following is a survey conducted by a pro-CARS lobbying interest:

Early statistics from automotive dealers on the CARS Program, commonly known as Cash for Clunkers, show clunker consumers getting a 69% mile-per-gallon (mpg) improvement

...

79% of clunkers being traded in so far are SUVs, trucks and vans with over 100,000 miles and most are being replaced with new passenger vehicles. The average age of a trade-in model is almost 13 years old, and the average odometer reading is approximately 138,000 miles. The most popular clunker trades are Chevrolet, Ford and Dodge and 84 percent of the new vehicles purchased are passenger cars.

In the sample, 64% of the government funded credits were for $4500 and 36% for $3500. "Lower priced cars have a better chance of qualifying for the larger $4500 rebate because smaller vehicles typically have better mpg ratings," adds O'Connell. The rare exceptions are hybrids that cost more but often qualify for the $4500 because of their higher mpg ratings.

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-29-2009/0005068374&EDATE=

Other sources seem to confirm some of the details roughly:

According to Autobytel.com, which is basing their findings on which vehicles are being searched for, the Top Ten list of clunkers being traded in is made up only of large trucks, save for a minivan, the Dodge Grand Caravan, in eighth place. Whether or not these ten vehicles are the one most often actually being taken to the dealers, it's likely that the reality is at least similar. Last week, Hyundai said that 83 percent of the vehicles being traded in are trucks, SUVs or vans and 86 percent of the new vehicles being bought are passenger cars.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/07/30/report-9-of-top-10-clunkers-being-traded-in-are-large-trucks/


Harder numbers should be in the works:

In a letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Senators Feinstein and Collins today renewed their request for a detailed analysis of how the program has worked to date, including the make and model of the vehicles purchased, the fuel efficiency of purchased vehicles, and the condition of vehicles traded-in.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=d180f748-5056-8059-760a-ad600bd4ae88

Now, it sucks hard that the house took the 2 billion extra money they approved from renewable research.

But it is worth noting that the media frenzy about the clunkers program "running out of gas" and trying to make the program look a failure seems to forget that 4 billion was sought and only 1 billion granted to the program.

I didn't follow the drafting of this legislation very closely, but I have no doubt that lobbyists were in there screwing with tiny details like the mileage requirements. Doubtless they did untold damage, and it would be interesting to see any post-mortem on the program include what would have happened if certain interests had not demanded certain compromises. However it appears that despite the attempt to sell SUVs under the program, consumers aren't biting, and the figures on the average mileage of trade-ins would suggest that mostly the "right" type of car buyer is taking the deal -- people frugal enough to hang onto cars but who were perhaps wooed by SUV ads and are now wiser for the wear.

It remains to be seen whether drivers will continue to cut back on annual mileage even after getting a mileage boost, of course. However most of the battle there is in setting good habits, which can persist for a while after they have been set.

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. Thanks

That all seems like relatively good news.

[phantom power]

2. I read that the program leveraged $4 billion into the economy in a week.

I'm a bit ambivalent that it was $4 billion for more automobiles. And I assume that it mostly took the form of auto loans -- i.e. debt. But by god it must have done some stimulating.