Does this math work out?

A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline. A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year. So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year. They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that's 224 million gallons / year. That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's US consumption. And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl. So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million. What a deal!!

Got an email referencing this. I wonder what the profit per unit average for dealers and the automakers was to add into the math, as well as the money running through the financial world...

Well, first of all it's $350 million per year. Also, it's $350 million not in Middle Eastern hands (if you are concerned with such things).

Nothing is ever as clear-cut as it first seems

Greater efficiency always leads to greater demand. People will drive farther in their Prius than they did in their Explorer so the entire premise is false.

Think of all the good things that could've happened with all that money if the government didn't take it from people and corporations that earned it to give to people who previously demonstrated poor choice making. That is the true cost of the program and there is really no way to know what that cost is.

Not only that, I went to a tent sale yesterday to look for a used car for my daughter. They had nothing on the used lot that was more than 3 years old or under about $12,000, and even at that, nothing in the format I wanted.

Right next door was their clunkers storage. Without jumping the fence I saw half a dozen cars I would have bought for her that afternoon. Even the salesman admitted that most of them didn't deserve to be there.

How do they prove the cars all actually get 10 mpg better economy?

Not all cars received the maximum clunker return.

Have they even paid these people for their clunkers?

aussiesmg wrote: How do they prove the cars all actually get 10 mpg better economy? Not all cars received the maximum clunker return. Have they even paid these people for their clunkers?

1: using EPA mileage guidelines

2: no, but ALL of the cars we saw did, 53 of them.

3: we have been paid on 27 of 53. All have been paid in order received We expect to be paid for all of them, our person doing the paperwork is pretty good.

It was apparently possible to do a clunker trade and get a car that got worse mileage. A guy I know looked into clunkering his 3/4-ton diesel, and while he couldn't trade it for a Fit or a Yaris, he could trade it on a new 1/2-ton gasoline truck.

Hi John,

A good rule of thumb is that it takes four times a cars weight in gasoline to produce the energy required to manufacture it. So, if the average new car in the CFC program weighs 3,200 Lbs, that’s 533 gallons and if the delta between new & old is 320 gallons per year, it’ll take 1.67 years just to hit the break even point.

What percent of clunkers are driven 12,000 miles per year and what percent of those would still be on the road 1.67 years from now?

Not so much…

RX Reven' wrote: Hi John, A good rule of thumb is that it takes four times a cars weight in gasoline to produce the energy required to manufacture it. So, if the average new car in the CFC program weighs 3,200 Lbs, that’s 533 gallons and if the delta between new & old is 320 gallons per year, it’ll take 1.67 years just to hit the break even point. What percent of clunkers are driven 12,000 miles per year and what percent of those would still be on the road 1.67 years from now? Not so much…

You haven't seen some of our clunkers...

1999 Honda Odyssey, 1993 Chevrolet Camaro Z28, 1998 Chevrolet Camaro Z28, 1993-2003 Jeep Grand Cherokees (7), 1989-2003 Jeep Wranglers (4) 1989-2000 Chevrolet K1500 4WD (4)

Every one of these would have survived 1.67 years.

You're going to seize an LS1 Camaro? Oooo, that sucks.

I would pay 4500 for a 98 Camaro Zed28...if your stealership hasn't been paid for this one, is there any chance you would take Maroon92 cheese instead of Government Obama Cheese?

Keith wrote: You're going to seize an LS1 Camaro? Oooo, that sucks.

No we SEIZED an LS1 as well as a 5.3L 2002 Chevrolet truck V8

TJ wrote: Greater efficiency always leads to greater demand. People will drive farther in their Prius than they did in their Explorer so the entire premise is false.

I disagree with you. Most peoples' driving habits won't change for the most part. A vast majority of the driving that people do is done during their daily work commute and around town. Sure, maybe a few more people per thousand will decide to take that long trip that they were on the fence about due to gas prices, but I think you may have exaggerated a bit.

Greater efficiency doesn't necessarily lead to greater demand. In fact, in this case, greater efficiency correlates directly with decreased demand.

Nope - I don't think there is an example in history of that happening. You can disagree if you like I was stating my opinion, but if you can show me an example where increased efficiency led to less overall use of something I'll be shocked.

Computers, light bulbs, energy star appliances, CAFE standards, commercial fishing, coal mining, I could go on and on...when we can do something more efficiently it encourages more of it, not less.

I will give you that some individuals will not drive more because they now have a prius instead of an explorer, but the total number of miles driven will only go up as cars get more efficient.

TJ wrote: Nope - I don't think there is an example in history of that happening. You can disagree if you like I was stating my opinion, but if you can show me an example where increased efficiency led to less overall use of something I'll be shocked. Computers, light bulbs, energy star appliances, CAFE standards, commercial fishing, coal mining, I could go on and on...when we can do something more efficiently it encourages more of it, not less. I will give you that some individuals will not drive more because they now have a prius instead of an explorer, but the total number of miles driven will only go up as cars get more efficient.

The thing is, in the case of fuel as opposed to all those other things, is that increases driving miles increases also increases amount of time the end user spends even if it monetary cost in terms of gas is reduced. That makes all those other comparisons pretty much irrelevant.

I'm not going to start driving a whole lot more just because it's cheaper, I don't have the time. I already drive pretty much everywhere I go, my time isn't magically increased if my car burns less gas, so the number of destinations doesn't magically go up with cheaper gas.

I could see maybe moving farther away from work (theeoretically, my current office is ~250 miles from home, and mostly work @ home) but again, for me, the limiting factor on commutes even in other jobs has always been the time I'm willing to spend commuting, not the $$ for gas.

maroon92 wrote: I would pay 4500 for a 98 Camaro Zed28...

Heck, I already did

TJ wrote: Nope - I don't think there is an example in history of that happening. You can disagree if you like I was stating my opinion, but if you can show me an example where increased efficiency led to less overall use of something I'll be shocked. Computers, light bulbs, energy star appliances, CAFE standards, commercial fishing, coal mining, I could go on and on...when we can do something more efficiently it encourages more of it, not less. I will give you that some individuals will not drive more because they now have a prius instead of an explorer, but the total number of miles driven will only go up as cars get more efficient.

You, sir, are not entitled to your own opinions. Only mine.

keethrax wrote: I'm not going to start driving a whole lot more just because it's cheaper,

You may not, but across the country as a whole greater efficiency will lead to a larger demand for gasoline (and foreign oil). Same as the CFL light bulbs. Switching to them may save you personally on your electric bill, but the net effect is a greater overall demand for electricity. Read up on Vermont's green program that is usually hailed as the best in the land. They spent a lot of money to subsidize energy savings, but with a steady population their energy use is growing despite all the greening up they've done.

I both agree and disagree with you TJ.

I do not agree that more miles per car will be driven, but I do agree that more people will get more cars based on the cars are being marketed as GREEN. We have customers that were one car diesel families for years and they are now buying new cars AND keeping the old ones. More cars per family = more miles per family = proving your argument.

I know SUV drivers (lots) who were very careful to avoid extra trips ANYWHERE when they had to shell out $100 to fill the tank. They will DEFINITELY drive further in a more efficient vehicle.

HOWEVER, the high car payments they now have to maintain (which they didn't have before) might mean they have less money to spend, so they might make fewer trips to the mall.

So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.

That's just the public spending.

If the average new car loan was $20K, there was an additional $14 billion spent.

Oh, wait...there would also be something like $2.4 billion in interest payments.

Sounds like $20 billion to save 350 million per year.

^ And I got to sit by the wayside and watch as I had NO vehicles that would even qualify for the program. We (the smart ones who have purchased based on needs and not status) are the ones both penalized monetarily but also by not being allowed to benefit from this program. Double whammy. Thanks.

^ Well said Bobber

That has been the one common thread of all the bailout give aways so far. They have all been rewarding bad behavior and punishing good behavior. I do not see how that can possibly lead to a better country.

Because the lazy will have everything they want and will have nothing left to complain about. DUH! Although the rest of us will be homeless, jobless and penniless..... but the lazy will finally quit complaining.