The news was a-twitter (no, not Twitter, the old-fashioned a-twitter) this weekend that the “Cash for Clunkers” program from the Stimulus is apparently so popular that it blew through the available funding in 5 days and Congress is tripping over itself to approve another $2B in funding (or as we say around here, one-half of a CRC).
Is this good or bad?
Good: Total fuel economy of fleet will improve
Bad: Standards for improvement of fuel economy are not high
Good: Sell more fuel efficient cars
Bad: Makes cars cheaper
Good: Turned in cars must be scrapped
Bad: Scrapping turned in cars wastes the energy that when into building them
Good: Extended program may include higher fuel economy improvement standards
Good/Bad??? Funds to extend the program are apparently being take from ethanol subsidies
My head is spinning…
53 responses to “Cash for Clunkers, What’s a Sustainable Transportation Geek Supposed to Think?”
This’ll make it spin some more: Some are spinning the program as being a complete failure.
Sen. James Demint (R – South Carolina) was quoted today as saying the government ran the program into bankruptcy:
Setting aside for the moment any debate about the merits (or lack thereof) of the program, this strikes me as maximum reality distortion coming from Sen. Demint. Whatever the motivations, the goal of the program was to put a bunch of money out there and get people to trade in a bunch of used cars meeting specified criteria. The program did that, and it did it in a very, very short period of time.
Whether the program should be extended or not is up for debate. Whether its environmental goals were worthwhile or properly ambitious is up for debate. And even whether or not the government should be intervening in the automotive marketplace in such a manner is up for debate.
But whether or not the program accomplished its practical objectives in terms of sales numbers and public participation is beyond dispute. Limited to that measure, it’s an overwhelming success.
In general, I do not support the “cash for clunkers” program. It’s almost certainly not going to make a meaningful impact on fleet MPG, and some of that money that is injected into the economy (that’s what this is all about) is being skimmed by several layers of management, from the dealerships to the automakers.
However, this has nothing to do with health care, the system was not “run in to bankruptcy” by the government or anyone else.
It is extremely frustrating:
* The government can’t pay for highways with the gas tax, so they’re taxing everyone (not just motorists) via general fund.
* The government bails out car companies that can’t turn a profit, again taxing everyone.
* The government subsidizes new car purchases for private citizens to the tune of $4500? That buys a mighty nice bicycle.
“But whether or not the program accomplished its practical objectives in terms of sales numbers and public participation is beyond dispute. Limited to that measure, it’s an overwhelming success.”
Oh yeah? As pointed out on Seeking Alpha, the cost per additional car sold is probably around $20,000, not the $3,500 – $4,500 per car scrapped paid out. That is because a lot of these cars would have been scrapped in any case.
Oh yeah?
Yeah. The article you link to makes a lot of assumptions, and is irrelevant to my point.
The program *did* achieve it’s sales goals, and it did so in just a few days. What percentage of those sales might or might not have happened naturally over a period of months as your link suggests is, again, up for debate.
The government isn’t paying the cost per additional car sold, last I checked–it’s basically buying up used gas-guzzlers, scrapping them, and requiring purchase of a new care meeting certain EPA standards.
Regarding Sen. deMint, he pretty much made it clear that the current strategy of his political party is to be as obstructionist as possible, and hope that enough Democrats defect on certain key issues (he might get his wish on health care) that he can do Obama a bit of political damage. At this point, I think that strategy will help the GOP in 2012 about as well as it helped the Republicans in 1936.
A few questions/concerns I have about Cash for Clunkers:
* Is the program mainly an environmental program, or is designed to help Detroit? If the latter, I’m not sure it will succeed at those goals, and the high(er)-mileage requirements for the new car purchase tends to lead autobuyers away from Detroit’s strong suit, and towards foreign automakers.
* If the fleet mileage does go up; what affect will this have on the Highway Trust Fund–which, as pointed out above, is seeing more contributions from the general fund?
* One wonders how much of the money autobuyers get for their trade-in is being “clawed back” by dealers in the form of higher prices, and/or far less willingness to bargain? I suspect the limited budget of the program, and the publicity surrounding that, has resulted in a lot of dealers demanding sticker price if you want a CFC deal.
I’m not much a fan of the “Cash 4 Clunkers” program.
Those who’ve lost jobs or homes or are low-income are in the market for a new car. Thus, the program is aimed at upper-middle and upper-class people primarily. Secondarily, there’s a trickle-down effect to car-related business and industry, “A rising tide floats all Cadillacs.”
I’d rather see hybrids rather than merely ‘better-mileage’ cars get this subsidy. The car industry should be rapidly converting existing models to hybrid and plug-in hybrid drivetrains. Their inherent safety features alone justifies a legislative mandate for their production. Plus, plug-in hybrids will undoubtedly become fundamental to national energy policy.
Correction:
Those who’ve lost jobs or homes or are low-income are “NOT” in the market for a new car.
This would have been a much better program to run than bailing out the car companies. I would rather see money go into the consumer level than than directly in the corporate level. We don’t need a company to be bailed out so their leaders can keep riding in private jets or getting raises.
This is definitely not an environmental issue – just from the math:
1) As has been demonstrated earlier, a large number of clunkers will be vehicles that either don’t run at all (and are repaired just enough for that ‘last job’) or aren’t being used. Again, the people exercising these ~$4000 vouchers for a new car are middle and upper-middle class people who aren’t exactly driving clunkers in the first place – they are trading in grandpa’s old car to buy a new car and hand-me-down their current vehicle as a 2nd or 3rd family car. Either way, the program will actually increase the capacity of Americans to drive, and will not affect driving demand. It may have a net positive impact on emissions if the MPG increase increases greater than the VMT of the cars they are replacing. A 1982 Chevy Suburban that sits unrepaired in the garage pollutes even less than a Chevy Volt.
2) $3 billion (the initial $1m and the additional $2m being authorized) equates to about 750,000 vouchers. From what I can gather, there are roughly 150,000,000 cars on the road. If every penny of the program goes to vouchers (which won’t happen), we’re talking about replacing 0.5% of the U.S. fleet. Even if we assume that the replacement vehicle pollutes 50% as much per gallon as a clunker and gets 25% better gas mileage, we’re talking about a 1.2% reduction in emissions. At a cost of $3 BILLION
Think of how much we could do in transit improvements or encouraging a mode shift (perhaps to non-polluting bicycles), and imagine if we could reduce auto-emissions by even 2% that way. While I think we need to support trucks and work vehicles and maintain the ability of rural folks to get around; we ought to be aggressively promote cycling and transit as the default mode of transit in urban american cities. I think for 2 billion we could recruit enough Americans to wage war on three fronts, we ought to be able to convince some people to ride bikes.
This is definitely not an environmental issue – just from the math:
It’s economic stimulus that has a side effect of environmental benefits. Also I’m not really sure $2-3 billion would do much at all for getting people to switch transit modes from a private auto to bikes/transit. Spread out nationally it’s $50 million per state (assuming they all get an equal cut), so maybe a few miles of dedicated bike lanes per state.
Unfortunately, $3 billion doesn’t buy very much transit infrastructure.
The interesting question: Will CFC increase the total vehicle miles travelled? Even under the scenario you imagine–where a seldom-used hunk-o-junk (but one which meets the drivability, registration, and insurance requirements) is traded on a nice new car with that new-car smell, and a less-clunky primary car is relegated to backup duty–that still seems to be a good thing, assuming overall miles don’t increase. Given that no (net) new cars are added to the fleet, this seems reasonable.
Of course, there probably are cases where the traded-in clunker was seldom driven because it was obnoxious or expensive to operate, and after being replaced by a nicer vehicle, VMT increases.
It would be nicer, I guess, if your clunker could be traded in to Tri-Met for a lifetime transit pass–assuming such a thing were to be offered.
Anything that actually helps any American citizens you can always count on the republicans to vote:
NO!
They only vote yes on WARS and BAILOUTS.
They cater to the “stupid” Americans, about 75% of the population.
al m wrote:
“Anything that actually helps any American citizens you can always count on the republicans to vote:
NO!
They only vote yes on WARS and BAILOUTS.
They cater to the “stupid” Americans, about 75% of the population.”
I try to not fall for the BS from either major Party. And there is plenty of it to go ’round. So what percentile does that put me in? At least I am not in the group that automatically infers from certain statements that a person is either a D or an R.
“Anything that actually helps any American citizens you can always count on the republicans to vote:
NO!
They only vote yes on WARS and BAILOUTS.
They cater to the “stupid” Americans, about 75% of the population.”
The Republican Party that I wish we could have back, wanted a balanced budget amendment a mere 15 years ago. I can’t even imagine how different things would be right now if that one was on the books…
So what percentile does that put me in?
I’m just making my usual broad sweeping generalizations.
I regret the comment about them catering to the stupid Americans, although there are plenty of stupid Americans you are most definitely not one of them Ron!
And my actual belief about the “two” party system is that there is not a two party system in the country.
There is a one party system with two factions within that party, the factions call themselves democrats and republicans.
As far as I am concerned there is so little difference between the two that it is hardly noticeable.
They talk different talks and pander to different segments of the population, but behind closed doors they actually believe the same thing.
Once again with notable exceptions, such as Dennis Kucinich for example.
I guess this is a good time to say this, not that it has much to do with the cash for Clunkers program.
Both parties have vested interest groups that are pulling them in self serving directions. There are also Cultural Trends that tend to congregate with one Party… but at times cross lines. (Note: The only party I have been registered with is the D.party. but have been independent for 25 years) I think that an underlying cultural trend among Democrats is that Western Civilization has been abusive to many people, and we need to do some heavy duty reparation–which will be achieved through the political process. Self-expression and “rights” rank very high in the D’s, also. I think they are aiming at a new version of LBJ’s Great Society, but now with more international overtones. The D’s have achieved a lot in the way of being corporate watchdogs.
A big Cultural Trend among the Republican Party (which saved it from extinction in the 1980’s) was the switch of conservative evangelicals from the D. party to the R. Party. These people emphasize international involvement through their religious institutions, which, for them, takes the place of any global governance imposed through a political process. This is a kind of conservative populism, but in the R. party it is fused in with the corporate interests and the military shills. This International involvement has progressed much over the last few decades and is very intelligently constructed, yet gets little media attention.
The D’s have achieved a lot in the way of being corporate watchdogs.
Uh, I don’t see that at all, no sir!
Chris: Bad: Makes cars cheaper
JK: Why are cheap cars bad??
Cheap cars allow more people to get cars which improve their standard of living by reducing the time they waste on transportation. Faster travel allows more choices in finding a job over a wider area and that translates into a higher income.
Why are so many progressives against things that help people?
Why is destroying a perfectly good assets a good thing? Should we rip out a few condo towers in the SoWhat and rebuild them to make work? Maybe you would like to pay for that.
Thanks
JK
Cheap cars allow more people to get cars which improve their standard of living by reducing the time they waste on transportation. Faster travel allows more choices in finding a job over a wider area and that translates into a higher income.
Makes sense to me!
Why are so many progressives against things that help people?
Jeez, just when you are making sense you had to go on and make a comment that is so ridiculous that you now ruin your credibility!
Why are so many progressives against things that help people?
Rightly or wrongly, it was progressives who, by and large, supported this program and got it passed in the first place.
I knew if we waited around patiently enough, we’d run into a subsidy that JK supports. ;-)
Why is destroying a perfectly good assets a good thing?
Funny, I don’t see the government showing up with guns and forcing people to give up their clunkers. It is consumers who are choosing to accept this subsidy.
Cash for clunkers is but another program that demonstrates the government promotes irresponsible waste. Although some of the vehicles eligible for the program are truly clunkers, undoubtedly many of them are not just disposable vehicles and still have a useful life left in them. As an example, I have seen a fairly nice looking Jaguar in one of the line ups on TV.
Given the cost and energy to build and transport a new vehicle, retiring an older vehicle before it is worn out is simply reckless consumption. If the vehicles turned in were required to be parted out instead of scrapped – thereby contributing to an economical used parts supply for people of modest means and the owners of other older vehicles – the program would make sense
Additionally, since the cash for clunkers program will also reduce money for roadways – and yes I have said this before – it is time for a bicycle tax to be implemented so bicyclists pay their own way instead of poaching the fuel taxes motorists pay to fund bicycle infrastructure.
Moreover, if 18 to 20 MPG is the scrapping standard for light trucks and cargo hauling vehicles, then too should it be the immediate scrapping standard for all those huge government, Secret Service and Portland Police Supervisor Suburbans (all built on the same platform as a hummer); the Presidential limousines which a are basically a truck; and for diesel transit busses like the ones TriMet continues to purchase which get about 6 MPG with or without a load of passengers. Congress needs to step in and increase the fuel mileage standards for all these vehicles – especially the busses. .
Finally, if anyone disagrees that parting out vehicles and reuse is far better than just junking for scrap an entire useable vehicle in decent shape, they should also declare all the dishes in their kitchen as clunkers, immediately crush them and instead use disposable dishes that don’t need to be washed thereby saving a lot of water from going down the drain. The reward will be a cash savings on water and sewer bills – the latter of which is excessive in Portland.
Thanks for the textbook example of Reductio ad absurdum, Terry.
“”””Congress needs to step in and increase the fuel mileage standards for all these vehicles – especially the busses.””””
~~>Not bad Terry!
================================
“””they should also declare all the dishes in their kitchen as clunkers, immediately crush them”””
~~>Dishes DO NOT EMIT greenhouse gases Mr. Parker!
=========================
“”””it is time for a bicycle tax to be implemented so bicyclists pay their own way instead of poaching the fuel taxes motorists pay to fund bicycle infrastructure.””””
~~> You don’t really believe that do you? You just like saying this because there are so many bicylists that hang around in here.
Can you provide one place on earth that actually does that?
i support ANY TAX FUNDED PROGRAM that is of assistance to the working class public, and this is a GOOD PROGRAM!
One area where I would support Terry is that the government could offer cash incentives for transit agencies to step up to more modern, fuel-efficient buses.
Bob: One area where I would support Terry is that the government could offer cash incentives for transit agencies to step up to more modern, fuel-efficient buses.
JK: If you really want fuel efficiency, you should advocate free little cars for all people who need cars. That will save more energy than buses. Even if you run the buses as full as the top ten transit agencies in this county.
Thanks
JK
If you really want fuel efficiency, you should advocate free little cars for all people who need cars.
Seems to me like “cash for clunkers” was a step in that direction. MSNBC is reporting today that the average net increase in fuel economy for cash-for-clunkers transactions so far is 9mpg.
“Free little cars” is a step beyond that, of course, but keep advocating for it JK and who knows what might happen?
I’m really not see what to think of this. I agree with much of what Terry says. I’m glad to hear that the avg increase in mpg is 9mpg but I’m not sure this is going to have any real impact on fleet mpg, emissions, jobs, etc.
Watch the news story, they even got their own version of Karlock and Parker.
CLUNKERS
The republicans are addicted to failure, anything that might look like a success they despise.
They want Bush and company back, since he was such a shining example of failure they love him!
al m made the comment: “They cater to the “stupid” Americans, about 75 percent of the population.”
Obviously congress as a whole (both parties) is a direct reflection of that 75 percent of the population, especially when they act stupidly and require vehicles be scrapped thereby destroying a supply of parts that could be reused. .Consumption, consumption, consumption of product – anything but sustainability as approved by the congress.
As for setting fuel mileage standards for diesel powered transit busses: if congress with their ten dollar internet technological engineering degrees, and/or years of lip service experience in the auto industry can significantly increase the CAFÉ standards for cars and light trucks thereby requiring the industry to comply; then too can they require that diesel powered transit busses obtain 18 to 20 MPG thereby requiring the industry to comply.
Do these “free little cars” that keep getting mentioned also include free drivers for those who cannot drive, such as the blind, epileptic, and those with other physical/cognitive disabilities? What about “free fuel-efficient vans” for those who use scooters and power chairs which don’t fit into the little cars?
Depending on the size of the bus, 18MPG may or may not be a realistic target. Small-to-medium airport shuttles, for instance, might be within shouting distance of that; but such vehicles don’t weigh 30 tons and don’t start and stop every other block.
I’m all for increasing the fuel efficiency of transit (a good way to do that, of course, is to use rail instead of bus on high-capacity routes); on the other hand, setting unrealistic targets does nobody any good. (Of course, unrealistic targets are an excellent political tool if you want to justify getting rid of something… set a goal which cannot be reached, and when it’s not, use that failure as justification for eliminating the thing in question.)
especially when they act stupidly and require vehicles be scrapped thereby destroying a supply of parts that could be reused.
Salvage companies participating in the program are allowed to salvage spare parts from the vehicle, just not the engine or particular drivetrain components.
Again, my point isn’t that the program is the best way to achieve the stated environmental and energy goals, but as a matter of practical implementation, contrary to Sen. Demint’s remarks, it has been implemented exactly as designed, and has been quite successful in attracting buyers.
(Whether the actual goal of increasing fuel economy and decreasing carbon emissions is genuinely met by this program is debatable, but if that is the stated goal, then it is necessary to remove the traded-in vehicles from the marketplace.)
if congress with their ten dollar internet technological engineering degrees
Which congressional representatives have “ten dollar internet technological engineering degrees”? I’d like to see a list.
The article you link to makes a lot of assumptions, and is irrelevant to my point. The program did achieve its sales goals, and it did so in just a few days. What percentage of those sales might or might not have happened naturally over a period of months as your link suggests is, again, up for debate. — Bob R.
The government has made a lot of assumptions also. And that is what I am debating: whether a large amount of those sales would have occurred in any case.
The government isn’t paying the cost per additional car sold, last I checked. — EngineerScotty
No, it isn’t paying the a subsidy per additional car sold: it pays $3,500 to $4,500 for ALL cars sold when another qualifying car is scrapped. But the measure of such a policy’s cost-effectiveness is how many ADDITIONAL car sales it induces over what would have been sold in any case. That is what the $20,000 per vehicle represents. Moreover, even these are not additional over the long run (except to a small degree): they are additional sales during that period, and may result in fewer cars being sold in later periods.
With that kind of cost per additional vehicle sold, it raises the question of whether there might have been cheaper policies to accomplish the ultimate goal of this policy: to maintain the income of people employed in the automobile manufacturing and related industries.
Anybody want super efficient transit buses? They’re called “trolley buses” and have been around for what, a century? Capital costs and speed limits make them unrealistic for lightly used and fast routes, but they make a lot of sense for high frequency lines that never exceed moderate speeds.
TROLLEY BUSES
Anybody want super efficient transit buses? They’re called “trolley buses”
Agreed.
I read that the clunkers traded in had an average of 16mpg for the new cars with an average of 25mpg. I can’t argue with that. But, it still seems the subsidy goes directly to car buyers who are not hurt by the recession. And, I can’t argue with the trickle-down and stimulus effect. I’ll just keep pushing plug-in hybrids. It never ceases to amaze me how much opposition there is to hybrids. Doh!
“Anybody want super efficient transit buses? They’re called “trolley buses” and have been around for what, a century? Capital costs and speed limits make them unrealistic for lightly used and fast routes, but they make a lot of sense for high frequency lines that never exceed moderate speeds.”
I think some form of propulsion using battery or fuel cell technology will pass them up. Why would you want those overhead wires? Incidentally, a lightweight, low floor inwheel motor, electric bus had been developed by OakRidge National Laboratories in 2006. In 2006! Other major cities are using electric or hybrid buses–some even double decker style. Michelin Co. and a few others are refining out the bugs in inwheel motor technology. Next will be battery technology. I would like to see the bus companies have charging stations where the bus would get a new battery pack and cables too if they get overheated. A forklift would R and R them in a few minutes.
Or maybe fuel cells. Stop the overhead wires please—we’re way past the horse-and-buggy era.
Lots of wonderful things will happen, if and when battery and/or fuel-cell technology permits efficient long-distance vehicles without combustion engines or external power systems.
According to Wikipedia, Tri-Met has two hybrid busses. Can anyone comment on when and where they are used, and how they compare to the direct-drive diesel and LNG busses that currently make up the bulk of the fleet?
As a follow-up to the prior comment, I remember reading an Oregonian puff piece on WES which was published before it opened, discussing the Colorado Railcar DMUs. Apparently, these vehicles are direct-drive diesel as opposed to diesel-electric; which I gather is unusual in a vehicle that large. This was being touted as an advantage for Tri-Met, as the direct-drive systems would be more familiar to its mechanics.
Anyone else remember this article?
Ron – I, too, have great hopes for on-board energy based electric buses, but there are a few problems still slowing their development. Once overhead systems are installed for trolley buses, the vehicles can be operated indefinitely without recharge or battery replacement. Trolley buses are heavier than regular buses, but they don’t carry fuel or large heavy battery packs.
Watch China. They may be taking the lead on self-contained electric buses, and perhaps automatic rapid micro-recharging at bus stops.
Scotty – A couple of years ago, a TriMet manager who was involved with the two hybrid buses said that they worked very well, but that TriMet couldn’t justify the hybrid premium charged by bus manufacturers.
@Engineer Scotty Ironically, I saw one of the hybrid buses downtown on Sunday. I tried posting to the open thread, but wasn’t able to do so on my Blackberry (the thread is wayyyyy to long). I heard that the cost was double that of a regular bus.
EngineerScotty said: “Depending on the size of the bus, 18MPG may or may not be a realistic target”
The same can be said to be true when setting CAFÉ standards for light duty trucks and SUVs that are designed to carry cargo. Yet, in many cases, congress has set what can be viewed as unrealistic targets. Even with cars, the CAFÉ standards when applied, appear to reduce overall capacity of the vehicles.
R A Fontes said: “Anybody want super efficient transit buses? They’re called “trolley buses” and have been around for what, a century? Capital costs and speed limits make them unrealistic for lightly used and fast routes, but they make a lot of sense for high frequency lines that never exceed moderate speeds.”
And the City of Portland needs to scrap the financially unsustainable web of streetcars concept that requires producing the steel rails and digging up the streets to put them is which is less than eco friendly and harmful to the environment, and replace it with a less costly and modern electric trolley bus system plan that in its most basic form, only requires purchasing the busses and installing the wires over the streets.
Additionally, with curb extensions eliminated at transit stops, electric trolley busses are more eco friendly than streetcars because they can pull over to the curb when boarding passengers and let other vehicles pass thereby reducing stop and go traffic helping to increase fuel efficiency for motorists. It should also be noted the Federal Transit Administration found Portland streetcars to be slower and more expensive than busses. While streetcar advocates are trying to ignore it, the language is still on the books and can not be rescinded.
1. C-Tran has a fleet of 15 hybrid buses
2. They are more expensive, (by $200,000) since they have two systems like other hybrids.
3. All electric should be cheaper to construct—and major advances are being made faster, I think, in elect. tech vs diesel tech
4. Diesel buses apparently can be converted to use ethanol. I don’t know how many can or cannot be–apparently Scania in Sweden has been doing this. Also the Ford Bobcat engine for trucks, coming soon, will be a high efficiency gasoline and ethanol combination, using diesel-like technology.
5. If a V-8 Bobcat engine can deliver 30 mpg in a truck as claimed, what would a two cylinder small car version obtain in mpg? Better yet what could I equip my future liveaboard catamaran with, to assist the power kite downwind propulsion?
For an economic analysis of C=Trans experiment into hybrid tech, see:
http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/1648-C-Trans-New-Hybrid-Buses-When-Going-Green-Costs-Lots-of-Green!.html
Oops, be careful Bob R! It’s a conservative site!!
Personally, I think the government should scrap the CAFE standards, and simply jack up the taxes on fuel instead. There are, as you point out, different classes of vehicles with different uses; and under the current regimen, there are lots of ways for automakers to cheat. One reason SUVs have been so popular over the years is they count as trucks (at least the larger ones do); even though many SUVs in service seldom (if ever) haul more cargo than a suitcase or two.
Regarding hybrid busses–the question is, are they WORTH the extra cost (over a direct-drive diesel bus, since that’s what they can replace without additional infrastructure?) How much improvement do they offer in terms of things like fuel cost, emissions reduction, acceleration, climbing capability, noise abatement, maintenance costs, service life of the vehicle, etc?
A few more links from various sources (which certain readers may prefer over the transit-hostile Cascade Policy Institute)
* http://www.hybridcenter.org/hybrid-transit-buses.html
* http://www.cleanairnet.org/infopool/1411/propertyvalue-17735.html
The bottom line seems to be that hybrids don’t currently offer a clear-cut advantage over direct diesel (neither are they clear boondoggles). Much depends on how they are used.
And to lighten the mood, I’ll close with a truly bizarre story out of New York City. :)
“One reason SUVs have been so popular over the years is they count as trucks”
The reason they are so popular is in the name “Sport Utility Vehicle”. The key word is “utility”, basically a pickup with a roof and often a security system that can also double to carry passengers. Mid-size and the large SUVs are trucks are often built on the same platforms (or frames) as light duty trucks thereby having larger payload specifications than cars with lighter components. As for the suggestion that “SUVs in service seldom (if ever) haul more cargo than a suitcase or two” is simply not true.
Terry,
I know quite a bit about SUVs, thanks. I own one (a 96 Jeep Cherokee–and am considering Cash for Clunkers at this moment). Obviously, SUVs do get put into service hauling lots of cargo; but they are not optimized for that use. (Or any particular use, really, other than off-road driving–and many don’t do even that particularly well). If you want a vehicle whose primary purpose is hauling cargo, you’re better off buying a truck or a van; either of which can be equipped with with all-weather driving capability.
Are SUVs useful? Certainly. Do they, as a class, get generally bad gas mileage, compared to more “focused” vehicle designs such as minivans (which can do anything a SUV can, generally, except go offroad)? You bet–especially the truck-chassis variety, which are the ones of interest for this discussion. Should they qualify as “light trucks” for purposes of CAFE? This is often an area of dispute–given that the historical target for such exemptions was farmers and workers who NEED such vehicles for their livelihoods, not suburban dwellers looking for something that can haul the kids to soccer practice, AND tow the boat to the lake in the woods.
But like I said; I’d prefer to deal with gas guzzlers via gas taxes, not producer regulations like CAFE, so the subject of the SUV exemption is kinda irrelevant.
EngineerScotty said: “I know quite a bit about SUVs, thanks. I own one (a 96 Jeep Cherokee–and am considering Cash for Clunkers at this moment). Obviously, SUVs do get put into service hauling lots of cargo; but they are not optimized for that use… If you want a vehicle whose primary purpose is hauling cargo, you’re better off buying a truck or a van; either of which can be equipped with with all-weather driving capability.’
Again I disagree! I too own a mid-size SUV and rarely is the rear seat in the passenger position. When purchased new in 2000, it got as much as 24 MPG on the highway. I would say an average of two and sometimes three weekends a month it is used to carry cargo. When I go of town, it is usually fully loaded with cargo. Other people going to the same destination are for the most part using SUV and/or full-sized pickups and/or vans for the same purpose. I would venture to say that at least over the past seven plus years, the majority of the miles placed on the vehicle occurred when cargo was present in the vehicle. The fact that it is a multi-purpose versatile vehicle has also has allowed me to carry up to three passengers, including for out of town trips. Most people can not afford a second vehicle just for in town travel. My SUV has only been used it off road a couple of times, but I have had to drive from out-of town on ice numerous times – the reason I wanted the safety factor of four-wheel drive that is for the most part driven in two-wheel drive.
In addition to the cargo hauling capacity and flexibility of an SUV, the larger ones that have multi-passenger seating capacity offer a greater safety factor in a crash over carrying passengers in a van or mini-van. Additionally I doubt anyone would want to stuff six or seven kids plus the driver into a Focus or a Prius It should also be noted that all the Prius owners I know also own a much larger vehicle.
As for your suggestion to deal with gas guzzlers via taxes. History demonstrates that will it not affect the wealthy who can afford to weather the increase, but it will be detrimental to consumer spending of the working class and the economy as a whole. The lead in to the current recession was undue speculation in the oil futures market that lead to an excessive increase in price of fuel prices. That in turn shut down consumer spending thereby placing the economy in a tailspin which has yet to recover even though the national debt for subsidies has gone through the roof for which the next several generations will be continuously paying for.
Terry, you do realize that your anecdotal evidence about how you, personally, use an SUV has absolutely no weight, right? Ditto your anecdotal evidence that every Prius owner you know has a “much larger vehicle” or that a Prius is impractical if you want to haul around six or seven kids.
Anyone here could counter that with multiple anecdotes about single occupancy SUVs, people who bought them because they were fashionable and who never hauled anything bigger than grocery bags–or maybe twice a year, they packed five people off to the park.
You need a bigger data sample. And, you know, data.