(08-12-2009 04:42 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(08-12-2009 03:06 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Also, that 240 mpg for the Volt was for city driving, and it's based on a formula to try to equate hybrid efficiency with a gas vehicle. Actual drive testing to come up with real mileages will not occur until later.

And you can expect your electric bill to go way, way up.

And if enough of your neighbors buy them, you can expect brownouts on a regular basis.

(08-12-2009 04:42 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(08-12-2009 03:06 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Also, that 240 mpg for the Volt was for city driving, and it's based on a formula to try to equate hybrid efficiency with a gas vehicle. Actual drive testing to come up with real mileages will not occur until later.

And you can expect your electric bill to go way, way up.

If you are paying increased electric bills because of increased carbon taxes, (Cap and Trade) to recharge a Chevy Volt... doesn't that defeat the purpose of the vehicle (other than to pay the government more taxes)?

What is the maximum range on a charrge anyway... like 50 miles?

(08-12-2009 11:10 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(08-12-2009 04:42 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(08-12-2009 03:06 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Also, that 240 mpg for the Volt was for city driving, and it's based on a formula to try to equate hybrid efficiency with a gas vehicle. Actual drive testing to come up with real mileages will not occur until later.

And you can expect your electric bill to go way, way up.

If you are paying increased electric bills because of increased carbon taxes, (Cap and Trade) to recharge a Chevy Volt... doesn't that defeat the purpose of the vehicle (other than to pay the government more taxes)?

What is the maximum range on a charrge anyway... like 50 miles?

40

(08-12-2009 11:10 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(08-12-2009 04:42 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(08-12-2009 03:06 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Also, that 240 mpg for the Volt was for city driving, and it's based on a formula to try to equate hybrid efficiency with a gas vehicle. Actual drive testing to come up with real mileages will not occur until later.

And you can expect your electric bill to go way, way up.

If you are paying increased electric bills because of increased carbon taxes, (Cap and Trade) to recharge a Chevy Volt... doesn't that defeat the purpose of the vehicle (other than to pay the government more taxes)?

What is the maximum range on a charrge anyway... like 50 miles?

Quote:The Volt, which is scheduled to start production in late 2010 as a 2011 model, is expected to travel up to 40 miles on electricity from a single battery charge and be able to extend its overall range to more than 300 miles with its flex fuel-powered engine-generator.

Other impacts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32334931/ns/business-autos


The program might end up hurting poorer people. Of course, helping poorer people was not a goal of the program but I doubt hurting them was considered - an unintended consequence.

A couple of Toyota dealers in Atlanta pulled out of the program today- they have 250 deals "pending approval".. haven't been paid in over a week, and can't get anyone in the CARS program to give them a stauts update on either the deals pending or when they will get the payments that have been approved.

This is the same government that you want running our health care?

(08-16-2009 01:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This is the same government that you want running our health care?

But they can save a lot of money by eliminating ineffciencies and fraud.

(08-16-2009 01:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-16-2009 01:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This is the same government that you want running our health care?

But they can save a lot of money by eliminating ineffciencies and fraud.

without increasing the deficit in the slightest

I was never a fan of the program from the economical or environmental standpoint but have recently really started to dislike it when I started looking to buy an old truck. The clunker that is really worth about $1000-$1500 is suddenly is worth $4500. This is killing the used car market, at least the bottom end of it.

Lou brings up a good point.... How about people who can only afford a clunker? There won't be any...

With 40 million used car sales recorded per year, I think there should be plenty to choose from, even with the loss of 600K autos getting less than 18 MPG. Fortunately Ford alone was selling nearly that many Explorers each year from 1999-2004.

(08-19-2009 10:13 AM)At Ease Wrote:  With 40 million used car sales recorded per year, I think there should be plenty to choose from, even with the loss of 600K autos getting less than 18 MPG. Fortunately Ford alone was selling nearly that many Explorers each year from 1999-2004.

The 600K comes from just one segment of the used car market - those valued at under $4500. If you are looking for an '06 Lexus, that part of the market will be unaffected.

I see where a lot of dealers are dropping out of the C for C program due to delays in getting their money from the government.

Looks like Monday is the end of the line for Cash for Clunkers.

Well, it's over, and some are hailing as an example of an Obama success because of the volume of the trades. There were 690,114 sales, cost to US, 2.9 billion.

I think it had three main objectives, and the way to judge if something is a success to see if it achieved those objectives.

It was to reduce emissions and reduce dependence on imported oil. Without question, it did that. You cannot take 690,114 cars off the road and replace them with newer, more efficient cars with out an effect. But the real questions, in my mind, is how much did it achieve and was the cost worth the results. My opinion is that it achieved only a little bit and the cost was too high, but both of those are subjective judgements and someone else mght find that the achievements were in fact considerable and well worth the money spent.

The third objective was to help the auto industry. There is an article in the Thursday, Aug 27 edition of USA Today. Since I am reading the print edition, i don't have a link, but i am sure that you can find it if you try. It is titled "With clunker program over, some fear sales drought".
It quotes the car shopping service Edmonds.com as saying half as many people are researching a new purchase as were looking during the frenzy, and the number is 10% off June levels. Edmonds CEO J. Anwyl is quoted, saying "Cash for clunkers distorted the market in a way the benefitted the industry fior four weeks. Now the payback begins." Certainly at least some of the sales were at the expense of future sales, the question remains how much?

A CNW Marketing Research survey foiund a buyer's remorse level of about 17% (normally 6-8%). Most said their regret is about now having a monthly car payment.

So, was this a good thing or not? If it was good, should we do it annually?

(08-28-2009 03:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, it's over, and some are hailing as an example of an Obama success because of the volume of the trades. There were 690,114 sales, cost to US, 2.9 billion.

I think it had three main objectives, and the way to judge if something is a success to see if it achieved those objectives.

It was to reduce emissions and reduce dependence on imported oil. Without question, it did that. You cannot take 690,114 cars off the road and replace them with newer, more efficient cars with out an effect.

I don't know if this can be stated so flatly. A friend of mine traded in his 3rd car (SUV) which rarely gets used for a newer model. he only picked up a few MPG, and because the new truck is bigger and a little less fuel efficient than the car he used to use more regularly, he will drive it more than he drove his "beater"... and drive his 4yr old sedan less.

His overall MPG will probably go down, not up.

Not disputing the general overall improvement... just that you have to consider that many of the trade-ins aren't what you might expect.

Quote:But the real questions, in my mind, is how much did it achieve and was the cost worth the results. My opinion is that it achieved only a little bit and the cost was too high, but both of those are subjective judgements and someone else mght find that the achievements were in fact considerable and well worth the money spent.

Agreed. I'd like to see how much we improved things... and see if it was worth $2.9byn... or whether that $2.9byn would have been better served converting city busses, trucks and taxi cabs to NG or something.

Quote:The third objective was to help the auto industry. There is an article in the Thursday, Aug 27 edition of USA Today. Since I am reading the print edition, i don't have a link, but i am sure that you can find it if you try. It is titled "With clunker program over, some fear sales drought".
It quotes the car shopping service Edmonds.com as saying half as many people are researching a new purchase as were looking during the frenzy, and the number is 10% off June levels. Edmonds CEO J. Anwyl is quoted, saying "Cash for clunkers distorted the market in a way the benefitted the industry fior four weeks. Now the payback begins." Certainly at least some of the sales were at the expense of future sales, the question remains how much?

A CNW Marketing Research survey foiund a buyer's remorse level of about 17% (normally 6-8%). Most said their regret is about now having a monthly car payment.

So, was this a good thing or not? If it was good, should we do it annually?

I would like to think that we could do more by investing $3byn/year NOT in unproven technologies or whatever... but in doing the simple things... like converting more cars to run on e-85 or Nat Gas. Most people already have gas at their homes... and if we went from e-10 or 15 like we currently use to e-85, we'd (potentially) multiply the amount of available fuelstock five-fold.

Converting most cars to run on e-85 would involve about $200 in filters, hoses and an updated 02 sensor.

I'm not arguing that e-85 or nat gas is as cheap as gasoline... just that it doesn't come from volatile parts of the world... Perhaps if we spent $3byn/year for a few years in conversions and perhaps fuel subsidies... we could save a mutiple of that in military costs and aid to countries that don't like us anyway.

(08-28-2009 06:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-28-2009 03:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, it's over, and some are hailing as an example of an Obama success because of the volume of the trades. There were 690,114 sales, cost to US, 2.9 billion.

I think it had three main objectives, and the way to judge if something is a success to see if it achieved those objectives.

It was to reduce emissions and reduce dependence on imported oil. Without question, it did that. You cannot take 690,114 cars off the road and replace them with newer, more efficient cars with out an effect.

I don't know if this can be stated so flatly. A friend of mine traded in his 3rd car (SUV) which rarely gets used for a newer model. he only picked up a few MPG, and because the new truck is bigger and a little less fuel efficient than the car he used to use more regularly, he will drive it more than he drove his "beater"... and drive his 4yr old sedan less.

His overall MPG will probably go down, not up.

Not disputing the general overall improvement... just that you have to consider that many of the trade-ins aren't what you might expect.

Yeah, I knew we couldn't just plug the new car into the old car's slot - some of the trade ins were probably doing less than 5K/yr as a third, emergency car, and some peole may drive more miles toal than before, because they have more confidence in their car or just because it is fun. But I have no way to quantify the differences, and so just rely on the assumption that less pollution is being pumped into the air and less oil is being imported, without trying to say how much less.

If this was such a good thing, why not do it again? I really don't know how I would vote on that question. I have an intuition that our gains in pollution, imports, and auto industry were not worth it, but I think nobody can show in dollars and sense if it was worth it. I am sure that some people would say any gain is worth any cost. One tree saved...

(08-28-2009 06:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't know if this can be stated so flatly. A friend of mine traded in his 3rd car (SUV) which rarely gets used for a newer model. he only picked up a few MPG, and because the new truck is bigger and a little less fuel efficient than the car he used to use more regularly, he will drive it more than he drove his "beater"... and drive his 4yr old sedan less.

His overall MPG will probably go down, not up.

I was going to make the same point. After I bought a fuel-efficient car my consumption went from zero to non-zero. If we really care about reducing consumption and emissions, we should incentivize NOT DRIVING.

Quote:I'd like to see how much we improved things... and see if it was worth $2.9byn... or whether that $2.9byn would have been better served converting city busses, trucks and taxi cabs to NG or something.

Continuing my above thought: screw conversions, just put the money into more busses, rail improvements, and bike paths. $3B would (and should) go a long way.

(08-29-2009 03:22 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  Continuing my above thought: screw conversions, just put the money into more busses, rail improvements, and bike paths. $3B would (and should) go a long way.

Unfortunately, $3B won't go very far at all. Maybe enough to build one very skeletal system in one mid-sized city.

That's the problem. What we have now is the lowest-cost system, and any alternative is going to be ferociously more expensive.

I've seen studies suggesting that a nationwide European-style rail system, including urban mass transit and high-speed intercity rail, would take all of 3.5% of our cars and trucks off the road. Given that result, there's no financial analysis that will justify the billions--no, trillions--required to do it. And yet, we still have to do it.

Why? Because the costs that cannot be measured in immediate financial terms--environmental, balance of trade, military effort required to protect supplies, depleting resource--are so great that we absolutely have to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, or face extinction as a viable nation. This means we have to do it almost regardless of price, and there's no other way to save the oil saved by getting those 3.5% of vehicles off the road that's even remotely close to being cheaper.

We need to look at it this way. We import 13 million barrels of oil a day. We need to make that number go to zero. How can we get the most bang for the buck in getting there?

Viewed that way, spending trillions to get 3.5% of our cars and trucks off the road is probably no worse than the third or fourth best alternative, and the cumulative impact of doing ALL of the alternatives ranked ahead gets us nowhere near 13 million barrels.