What About 19-22 MPG -- Do Those Cars Qualify for Cash-for-Clunkers Bill?
WASHINGTON -- Car shoppers could take advantage of government incentives worth up to $4,500 this summer to send their old gas guzzler to the scrap heap in favor of a more fuel-efficient new vehicle.
President Barack Obama is expected to sign into law the "cash for clunkers" program, which was approved by the Senate on Thursday. For owners of low-mileage models such as the 1994 Ford Bronco, 1998 Nissan Pathfinder or the 1995 Chevrolet Blazer, the plan could give them a reason to visit their local car dealer during an economic downturn.
"I've been sitting on the fence for about a year," said Jim Seegraves, 44, of East Lansing, Mich., who has been looking to replace his 2000 GMC Sierra pickup truck. "This legislation will help me get over the hump and get the car that I want."
Question: If your car current gets 21 mpg and you trade it in for one that gets 24 mpg -- do you get a voucher too? How much?
I keep hearing the car must only get 18 or less mpg. What if it gets 19-22mpg, do these cars qualify too?
Nn, Coonsey, they don't qualify. The funds available are limited, and so the purpose is for them to purchase the largest mileage swap that is practical, in light of the many cars already out there that get 18 mpg or less.
June 19, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's too bad, I know at least two people besides myself that would have taken them up on the offer. More business for dealer/manufacturer. You would think ANY improvement in gas mileage would be to all of our advantage.
Thanks for the info tho.
June 19, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's true, and if more money were available, it would be very reasonable to extend the offer beyond 18 mpg. On the other hand, if one does the arithmetic, an emphasis on low mileage vehicles is the most cost effective approach. Compare, for examples, the savings in cost and CO2 between a 22 vs 26 mpg swap on one hand and a 0 vs 4 mpg swap on the other.
June 19, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
My example, above, was obviously absurdly extreme, but it makes a point that is often overlooked. Consumers don't buy miles, they buy gallons of gasoline, and so for them, the important number is not miles/gallon but gallons/mile - i.e., how much do you have to pay to drive a mile? That puts miles in the denominator, and makes clear that when denominators are very small (e.g. 18 or less), a small change in the actual number leads to a large change in cost (and pollution). On the opposite extreme from the 0 vs 4 mpg I used in my previous illustration, going from 150 mpg to 154 mpg would have only trivial effects.
June 19, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still didn't make the comparison as cogent as I should have, because I used examples with two different percent changes in mileages. Let's fix that.
Let's suppose gas cost $3/gallon, and make two different comparisons: 2 vs 4 mpg on one hand and 50 vs 100 mpg on the other.
For the first, driving 100 miles costs $150 at 2 mpg and $75 at 4 mpg - you save $75 by doubling your mileage.
For the second, driving 100 miles costs $2 at 50 mpg and $1 at 100 mpg. Again, you've doubled your mileage, but this time, you only save a dollar.
The reasoning is the same for carbon emissions and other pollutants.
June 19, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't mean to imply NOT to go after the 18 and under, I just meant it would be nice to include more cars that only get, say 21mpg.
June 19, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink