Zapata

No Red Herring here. Statistically (from actual traffic accidents) SUV's are more dangerous than cars. Simple physics........

USMCFLYR

I did learn that this money was part of the 787 billion dollar stimulus package. It seems to be one small part of the whole process that is giving something back - and if some of the talking heads are to be believed (and it is fact in my personal case), there is some green to it. It seems to be the only part of the package that helped me on a personal level. I got a $1,000 back of the $1,600+ I paid last year.

There have been lots of talking heads on TV debating the pros and cons. Both have good points. One part that might have even made it better is if the program only applied to American made cars. I heard one talking head on Fox call it the South Korean incentive plan - since many of the cars being bought are Kia's and Hyundais - of which I looked at one if you remember.

It is OK if you don't agree with me though KC10. I didn't offer up this info looking for vindication of my purchase. It was time for me to buy a new car and at this time it was a good deal. As I said in the previous post - if you had bought a new car and refused the rebate/incentive then good on you.

USMCFLYR

ufgatorpilot

I definitely think that this is a huge waste of taxpayer money; however, if the program is there, I don't think anyone should be giving you a hard time for taking advantage of it. I would have if I was in the market for a new car this year. At least this one didn't have an income limit on it. Those always irritate me b/c I never qualify.

Winged Wheeler

Any evidence besides your opinion? A website, perhaps?

Winged Wheeler

?Cash For Clunkers? Doesn?t Utilize Junkyard Efficiency | Newgeography.com


My father owned and operated a junkyard in Tucson for a number of years, and I learned a lot about the auto recycling industry helping around the office and as a delivery driver. So as a junkyard enthusiast, the “Cash For Clunkers” program naturally caught my interest lately. Though it looks to be the product of good intentions, I don’t think the legislation understands that junkyards already comprise an efficient, well developed recycling system for salvaging vehicles, with a beneficial result for the environment overall. I’m skeptical that quickly scrapping so many government-defined “clunkers” and replacing them with new, fuel-efficient models will have a substantial environmental benefit, because the plan has the potential to waste many useful materials in these cars.



A junkyard may appear to be little more than a landfill for old cars if you’re just driving by, but in fact, to succeed, it must function as a highly efficient recycling operation. Junkyards sell parts to other junkyards, mechanics, and directly to consumers, and attempt to make as much of a profit as possible from each part on every car in their inventories.



There is also a network of scavengers who travel around to junkyards gathering large core items, like alternators and starters, and a number of precious metals in small amounts that most don’t even recognize as in our cars. (Catalytic converters, for example, contain platinum and palladium, which are quite valuable when salvaged.) But a car needs to sit on the lot for a considerable period of time for this recycling process to work itself through. Parts from a car are usually sold one at a time over a period of months or even years; scavengers work on their own schedules. A scavenger may only come by a junkyard a few times a year to core out a particular metal or gather the useful components. Meanwhile, the junkyard needs to be selling parts off the car for it to be financially worth keeping in the inventory. A car is only sent off to be crushed for scrap metal when it no longer retains enough value to justify filling the space on the lot.



If the Cash For Clunkers program is successful, it has the potential to throw a wrench into the system. The program’s rules require that the engine of a trade-in car be destroyed with an injection of sodium silicate so that the car won’t be resold and put back on the road. The rules seem to encourage the immediate crushing and shredding of the trade-in cars, but should they remain on junkyard lots, their inventory value would take an immediate hit with a non-functioning engine (the most valuable part of the car). To what degree the value decreases depends on the extent of the engine damage, the demand for the particular engine, and the age of the engine.



A genuine old clunker would be likely to have a well used, and therefore less valuable engine, but then, the “clunker” program nickname (its official title is the “Car Allowance Rebate System”) is something of a misnomer. To be eligible for the program, cars must fall into certain categories of fuel inefficiency, be less than 25 years old, and worth less than $4500. This includes a number of models from the nineties. A working engine in many of the models targeted for the program is likely to have fewer miles on it, and therefore a higher inventory value, than a more traditionally defined clunker.
But engine issues aside, if the program succeeds in taking a large number of particular models off the road, it could have an even more drastic effect on the junkyard value of those models, simply by lowering the demand for their parts. If there are only a few of a given model on the road, few consumers will buy parts for them from junkyards. Many junkyards are picky about which models they purchase for inventory, and won’t even bother with a model if there is little or no demand for its parts. So if Cash For Clunkers leaves some car models without junkyard value, those models would start going directly to the crusher, taking many of their valuable components with them. The scrap metal from crushed cars is used to make things like rebar and fence posts, so it isn’t as though the scrap winds up in the landfill. But it’s still a waste for precious metals and other valuable components to be crushed down with the low-end materials for low-end product.



And even beyond the metals, something mundane like a plastic glove box has its own environmental impact. The overall junkyard process, where cars without “street” value become parts donors for cars still in use, prevents a great deal of after-market manufacturing of glove boxes and all the other parts that wear out or get damaged in cars on the road. If entire models are abruptly taken off the road, devalued at the junkyard, and crushed, it means that many new glove boxes must be manufactured – both for the new cars replacing the model, and for any other models and even makes still on the road for which that model of glove box, or stereo, or steering column fits (and many parts are surprisingly versatile this way). That could mean a boost in manufacturing, sure – but it also means an environmental impact that offsets some of the gains from the new fuel-efficient car that replaces the clunker.



Cash For Clunkers is scheduled to end November 1, so it’s unlikely to have a long-term effect on the auto recycling industry beyond burdening it with a glut of devalued inventory. But so far the program is popular, and may be expanded or set a precedent for future programs. If this happens it could take a toll on the junkyards and their ability to recycle effectively. If there are suddenly millions of brand new car models on the road, there would be a period of hardship for the auto recycling industry, as the new cars would be running well, with any repairs done mostly under warranty at the dealerships with new parts. This whole scenario could also, by extension, tax the junkyard consumer base of low income, self-sufficient individuals whose cars are older, skillfully maintained, and perhaps most importantly, paid off.



It’s beyond my pay rate to comprehensively evaluate the net difference in environmental impact between manufacturing and selling new, fuel-efficient cars for these quick “clunker” trade-ins and letting the older models stay on the road. But a legitimate evaluation would clearly involve more complex factors than a simple comparison of fuel efficiencies. Yet it’s clear that the program doesn’t appear to insert any innovative solutions into an already dynamic and effective recycling system. Even if it has some positive outcomes, it doesn’t look like Cash For Clunkers will utilize the industry’s full potential for environmental benefit.



Perhaps its primary motive lies elsewhere, in its attempt to jump-start the auto industry with a “green” marketing gimmick. But in the process we may have reaped some unintended damage on a sometimes unsightly but remarkably environmentally resourceful industry.

KC10 FATboy

No sir, you are wrong. There are several factors that effect the statistics when determining "risk." For example, quality of the cars, the demographic of the drivers who flock to a certain vehicle type, weather conditions, vehicle weight. These are just some of the influential factors.

Quality of the car. Foreign cars tend to have lower risks because they tend to be designed fairly well and are safer on average than their domestic counterparts.

Demographics. Age and sex are going to skew the statistics because certain ages and sexes flock to certain vehicle types. For example, pickups would be driven more by males than females. Males tend to have higher risk factors than females. Therefore, the crash data can be skewed against certain vehicles based on demographics.

Weather. Vehicles that have 4X4 or AWD would be used more in bad driving condititions (that is what they're designed for right?). Therefore, weather will influence the crash risk.

Vehicle Weight. Vehicle weight is usally a concern for the driver of the other vehicle but also may be a factor in rollover crashes.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHSTA) have conducted independent reviews of crash data. And both agree, SUVs are safer than cars. The takeaways are this:

• Midsize and large vehicles have same risk to driver as SUVs.
• The safest small cars have same risk to drive as SUVs.
• Pickups / SUVs impose significantly higher risk to drivers of other vehicles.

However, these results just compare the results of drivers and the drivers of the other vehicles. When you compare passengers, there is no doubt that SUVs offer the greatest overall protection to passengers -- especially in frontal, side, and rear end crashes. And as each new model year is added to the data, SUVs increase their edge over cars. Why? Because the deadliest of SUVs (the very large SUVs), are becoming a thing of the past and less of them are on the highways (its rare to see a Ford Excursion these days).

You can analyze the statistics yourself .. or just go here for the dumbed down version.

A vehicle's size and type can matter - USATODAY.com

USMCFLYR

Winged Wheeler -

That is an incredibly informative post! It took a while to make it through - but I appreciate the effort.

One point though:
I don't remember the value of the car being under $4,500 as one of the conditions listed in the law. It was the maximum amount of trade in value if the new car had a combined MPG rating of 11 or more over the car traded in.

I agree with your contention that certain things about the law - the inefficiency or value of said program - are above your (my) pay grade. The more that the program is debated in Congress, the more talking heads come out to either sing the praises or tell people it is the devil incarnate.

Like most things - the truth probably lies in the middle somewhere. That seems to be standard for most thing gov't.

Again...thanks for post WW.

USMCFLYR

Winged Wheeler

Thanks. I'm glad you liked the article. I, however, did not write it. In my haste to post I put up the link to the site where i found it, but I did not give credit to the author, who is Andrea Gregovich.

By the way, that website has terrific range and I find all sorts of articles of similar quality there.

WW

DYNASTY HVY

Anyone in here have any friends that work at a car dealer ?
Ask them what happens when they log onto cars.gov, I heard on the radio that when a dealer logs onto this site that there is a disclaimer to the effect that the gov.can access their site and all the info in said site.
Maybe I heard wrong on this part.


Fred

DYNASTY HVY

The problem with people and 4x4's is that they try to take turns and corners as they would in a car .

Fred