Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game

[Goobieman]

Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- What are people trading their clunkers in for? It depends on who you ask.

The government's results showed small cars as the top choice for shoppers looking for Cash for Clunker deals. But an independent analysis by Edmunds.com disputed those results, and showed that two full-size trucks and a small crossover SUV were actually among the top-ten buys.

The discrepancy is a result of the methods used. Edmunds.com uses traditional sales measurements, tallying sales by make and model. The government uses a more arcane measurement method that subdivides models according to engine and transmission types, counting them as separate models

Reality check: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game - Aug. 7, 2009

So, when gas prices go up again, are the liberals going to blame The Obama for all the new trucks and SUVs on the road, driving up demand?

Or will they still blame Bush and Cheney?

 

[Smoke[MaxX]]

Reality check: Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game - Aug. 7, 2009

So, when gas prices go up again, are the liberals going to blame The Obama for all the new trucks and SUVs on the road, driving up demand?

Or will they still blame Bush and Cheney?

Care to prove that the trucks being put on the road will have a lower mpg than the vehicles being taken off the road? Otherwise, your argument is shot.

 

[apdst]

Care to prove that the trucks being put on the road will have a lower mpg than the vehicles being taken off the road? Otherwise, your argument is shot.

How 'bout you post some info proving the article wrong?

 

[Goobieman]

Care to prove that the trucks being put on the road will have a lower mpg than the vehicles being taken off the road? Otherwise, your argument is shot.

I dont have a thing to prove, as I haven't stated a position.

I did, however, ask two questions.
Care to answer them?

 

[Joe1991]

CARS.gov - Car Allowance Rebate System - Helpful Q&As for Consumers - Formerly Referred to as “Cash for Clunkers”

clunker rule: have a combined city/highway fuel economy of 18 miles per gallon or less

the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 22 miles per gallon

 

[Goobieman]

the new vehicle must have a combined fuel economy value of at least 22 miles per gallon

Aside from the fact this is not true, how does this answer my questions?

A vehicle may get as little as 15 MPG and qualify under the program.

Cash for Clunkers Car Buying Stimulus Program

This means you can trade in your 'clunker' and get a 4x4 Suburban or 3500 Silverado.

 

[sam_w]

Aside from the fact this is not true, how does this answer my questions?

A vehicle may get as little as 15 MPG and qualify under the program.

Cash for Clunkers Car Buying Stimulus Program

This means you can trade in your 'clunker' and get a 4x4 Suburban or 3500 Silverado.

Q&A: How the 'cash-for-clunker' plan would work

Q: What about trucks?

A: It's more complicated.

For standard-duty models — most SUVs, vans and pickups:

1. The old one must be rated 18 mpg or less.

2. The new one must be at least 2 mpg better for $3,500 or at least 5 mpg better for $4,500.

For heavy-duties (6,000 to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating):

1. The old one must be rated 15 mpg or less.

2. The new one must be rated at least 1 mpg better for $3,500, or 2 mpg or more for $4,500.

Work trucks (8,500 to 10,000 lbs.) don't have mpg ratings, so age is the criteria. The old one has to be a 2001 model or older. And only $3,500 is available.

 

[Goobieman]

Q&A: How the 'cash-for-clunker' plan would work

Yes. I know. That's what I posted.

I -still- dont see any answers to my questions.

 

[disneydude]

Yes. I know. That's what I posted.

I -still- dont see any answers to my questions.

Your questions cannot be answered when they start from a flawed premise (which is typical of your questions).

Logic will tell you that there are not more large trucks and SUV's on the road...and that those on the road under the program are required to get better gas mileage than the ones turned in.

Perhaps if you want answers to your questions, you'll start with an honest question that doesn't base itself on false ideas.

 

[Joe1991]

...and that those on the road under the program are required to get better gas mileage than the ones turned in.

boom. there it is.

 

[Bootsavich]

Is it any surprise that more trucks are being purchased? All the actions Obama has made thus far have benefited trucks sales.

CAFE regulations are threatening the existence of bigger, powerful trucks. People who want one cheap need to buy now or sacrifice for the more fuel efficient ones, which may not be up to their standards.

Now cash for clunkers targets a very specific group of people- those with older cars or trucks who have the means to buy a new car. Most people driving older cars on a daily basis do not have the means right now to buy a new car. But IMHO, I think a lot of these clunkers being traded in are auxiliary vehicles, not being driven daily. People are deciding to ditch the old 350 and trade in for a new 150- perhaps an improvement, but not by that much. Whats more, with gas prices still reasonable, I think these trucks will become the new daily drivers, replacing that mid-age civic that previously held the spot.

 

[Goobieman]

Your questions cannot be answered...

Actually, they can - your post is nothing more than a lame attempt to avoid doing so.

 

[Redress]

Actually, they can - your post is nothing more than a lame attempt to avoid doing so.

Have you stopped beating your wife? The question can be answered, but that does not make it a worthwhile question to answer.

 

[Goobieman]

Have you stopped beating your wife? The question can be answered, but that does not make it a worthwhile question to answer.

Except that your example here - 'have you stopped beating your wife' - is a logical trap.

My questions are not, and so rather than avoid them, how about addressing them?

 

[Redress]

Except that your example here - 'have you stopped beating your wife' - is a logical trap.

My questions are not, and so rather than avoid them, how about addressing them?

Actually, yours are logical traps, as they start from a flawed premise.

 

[Goobieman]

Actually, yours are logical traps, as they start from a flawed premise.

Do tell.

Question 1:

So, when gas prices go up again, are the liberals going to blame The Obama for all the new trucks and SUVs on the road, driving up demand?

The premise:
1: Gas prices will go up
2: Liberals will blame someone
The question asks if liberals will blame The Obama.
Where is the flaw?

Question two:

Or will they still blame Bush and Cheney?

The left blaming Bush/Cheney and their connections to big oil are well documented.
So, where is the flaw?

 

[RightinNYC]

Q&A: How the 'cash-for-clunker' plan would work

So the cash for clunkers program allows people to turn in old trucks/SUVs and replace them with trucks/SUVs that are 1-2 MPG better?

Funny, because this isn't the part of the program that's being hyped.

 

[Redress]

So the cash for clunkers program allows people to turn in old trucks/SUVs and replace them with trucks/SUVs that are 1-2 MPG better?

Funny, because this isn't the part of the program that's being hyped.

That is a 5 to 10 % increase in millage, which is not bad.

 

[RightinNYC]

That is a 5 to 10 % increase in millage, which is not bad.

But not quite as good as the 20%+ increase in mileage that applies to cars, which is what's being hyped.

How long do you think it will take for the savings in fuel to equal the energy cost and damage to the environment incurred in making that new car and destroying the old?

 

[Bootsavich]

That is a 5 to 10 % increase in millage, which is not bad.

That's true. But irrelevant.

The program was hyped as getting gas guzzlers off the road. Which.... this truck bit doesn't really help.

 

[Harshaw]

:roll:

The OP's questions didn't have a THING to do with the relative fuel economy between the vehicles traded in and the vehicles purchased, only the types of vehicles being purchased, especially as contrasted with White House claims about the types being purchased.

Red herrings. Strawmen. Non-sequiturs. Some of you understand that that's what you're employing. Some of you don't. I'm not entirely sure which is worse.

 

[Goobieman]

That is a 5 to 10 % increase in millage, which is not bad.

Still avoiding the questions, eh?

 

[Redress]

Still avoiding the questions, eh?

I will tell you what, I will answer your question as soon as you answer one based on your premise: How will increasing the fuel millage of vehicles result in an increased demand for fuel?

 

[Goobieman]

I will tell you what, I will answer your question as soon as you answer one based on your premise: How will increasing the fuel millage of vehicles result in an increased demand for fuel?

You've already claimed the questions were logical traps based on a flawed premise, an assertion you have failed to support -- and so no, I will not do anything with your red herring.

You simply do not want to address the questions asked of you and you're doing all you can to avoid having to do so.
Telling.

 

[winston53660]

You've already claimed the questions were logical traps based on a flawed premise, an assertion you have failed to support -- and so no, I will not do anything with your red herring.

You simply do not want to address the questions asked of you and you're doing all you can to avoid having to do so.
Telling.

Seems like both of you are at a Mexican standoff.