GM: 1 Million 30 MPG-Plus Vehicle Sales in 2012

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081420_gm-1-million-30-mpg-plus-vehicle-sales-in-2012" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'd say this has far more positive environmental and energy security effect than the miniscule number of BEVs sold, whatever the long-term advantage BEVs have. On a dollar/% of improvement basis, there's no contest.
 
GRA said:
I'd say this has far more positive environmental and energy security effect than the miniscule number of BEVs sold, whatever the long-term advantage BEVs have.
This is obviously true in the short run. In the long run, we clearly have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. Increasing the efficiency of ICE vehicles is a positive step, but it merely buys time.

GRA said:
On a dollar/% of improvement basis, there's no contest.
On this count, good hybrids like the Prius come out ahead of even the most efficient pure ICE vehicle of comparable size. Going from 30mpg to 50mpg is a big jump, and only a small battery is required. Still, hybrids merely buy time.
 
abasile said:
GRA said:
I'd say this has far more positive environmental and energy security effect than the miniscule number of BEVs sold, whatever the long-term advantage BEVs have.
This is obviously true in the short run. In the long run, we clearly have to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. Increasing the efficiency of ICE vehicles is a positive step, but it merely buys time.

GRA said:
On a dollar/% of improvement basis, there's no contest.
On this count, good hybrids like the Prius come out ahead of even the most efficient pure ICE vehicle of comparable size. Going from 30mpg to 50mpg is a big jump, and only a small battery is required. Still, hybrids merely buy time.
Sure, we're buying time, but we're also making the most efficient use of our money to hasten the transition, while making the largest improvement now. As long as battery prices stay high it's more cost effective to switch people to hybrids, because that will have the largest effect soonest.
 
GRA said:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081420_gm-1-million-30-mpg-plus-vehicle-sales-in-2012

I'd say this has far more positive environmental and energy security effect than the miniscule number of BEVs sold, whatever the long-term advantage BEVs have. On a dollar/% of improvement basis, there's no contest.
That's a good number, but I would like to know how many sub-20 MPG vehicles GM sold in 2012.
 
What a bunch of the usual GM PR spin crap. GM issues a press release (http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2013/Jan/0103_million_30mpg.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; "GM Sells 1 Million 30 MPG-Plus Vehicles in 2012") and the press all over the place (not just GCR) picks up on it. :roll: They're referring to 30+ mpg on the EPA highway test. Not everyone lives and works on a highway. Not everyone is able to go highway speeds on their commute. Try going on a highway in a crowded metro area (e.g. LA or SF Bay Area) in the direction of rush hour traffic during rush hour. It's a parking lot w/lots of idling and stop and go.

GM's played this game before. See http://jalopnik.com/150556/gms-30-mpg-claim-a-closer-look-at-the-numbers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/playing_with_pe.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

It should be illegal to cherry pick and advertise only the highest mpg #. If they're going to state only 1, then it should be combined. Otherwise, state all 3 (city/highway/combined) in equal prominence.
From the press release:
Four Chevrolet cars – the Spark, Cruze, Sonic and Volt – achieve 30 mpg or better in EPA combined city and highway driving.
Even the above isn't totally true... a bunch of engine and transmission choices of the above don't achieve 30 mpg combined like these: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32545&id=32692&id=32709&id=33317" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, for example.
abasile said:
On this count, good hybrids like the Prius come out ahead of even the most efficient pure ICE vehicle of comparable size. Going from 30mpg to 50mpg is a big jump, and only a small battery is required.
Yep... the vast majority of the GM's so-called "30+ mpg" (on the highway vehicles) don't even get 30 mpg combined on the EPA test, vs. the Prius' 50 mpg combined.

If I search for 35+ mpg COMBINED gasoline, diesel and e85 powered vehicles at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=PowerSearch&year1=2012&year2=2013&minmsrpsel=0&maxmsrpsel=0&cbftreggasoline=Regular+Gasoline&cbftmidgasoline=Midgrade+Gasoline&cbftprmgasoline=Premium+Gasoline&cbftdiesel=Diesel&cbfte85=E85&city=0&combined=35&highway=0&mpgType=0&minMPGSel=&maxMPGSel=&rowLimit=50&YearSel=2012-2013&MakeSel=&MarClassSel=&FuelTypeSel=Regular+Gasoline%2C+Midgrade+Gasoline%2C+Premium+Gasoline%2C+Diesel%2C+E85&VehTypeSel=&TranySel=&DriveTypeSel=&CylindersSel=&MpgSel=0350&sortBy=City&Units=&url=SearchServlet&opt=new&minmsrp=0&maxmsrp=0&minmpg=0&maxmpg=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, how many GM cars come up? 2, the '12 and '13 Volt. Then, look at how many there are from other automakers. Change that to 40 mpg and the result is 0 from GM.

Look at where GM falls at http://blog.truecar.com/2012/12/14/average-fuel-economy-for-new-cars-sold-flat-for-fourth-straight-month-at-23-2-mpg-in-november-2012-according-to-truecars-truempg/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; or in terms of CAFE performance at http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/Oct2012_Summary_Report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; from http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I love how they bring up in the Camaro and Terrain in their claims of "Thirteen GM vehicles have at least one high-volume model that achieves 30 mpg highway or more."

Ok... I think I found only a single engine and transmission combo where the Camaro gets 30 mpg highway. Combined mileage? 22. How about this other combo I brought up? See below. 14 mpg combined. Sure, there's GMC terrain that gets 32 mpg highway. How about this one I brought up? 23 mpg highway, 19 mpg combined.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33237&id=31348&id=32393" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
GRA said:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081420_gm-1-million-30-mpg-plus-vehicle-sales-in-2012

I'd say this has far more positive environmental and energy security effect than the miniscule number of BEVs sold, whatever the long-term advantage BEVs have. On a dollar/% of improvement basis, there's no contest.
The environmental impact depends on what these cars replace. Without that, we won't know the real impact.
 
GRA said:
Sure, we're buying time, but we're also making the most efficient use of our money to hasten the transition, while making the largest improvement now.
With respect to higher-mileage ICE vehicles and hybrids, it's not really "our money" unless you count the auto industry bailouts. For the most part, public funds aren't really involved in making the ICE more efficient. Government mandates have been a part of this, however.

GRA said:
As long as battery prices stay high it's more cost effective to switch people to hybrids, because that will have the largest effect soonest.
It is probably true that if the federal and state EV subsidies were cancelled and the funds were instead used to subsidize the purchase of a larger number of hybrids, with a total subsidy per car of perhaps $2000, the overall, short term reduction in petroleum usage would be greater.

On the other hand, the current EV subsidies and mandates do seem to be stimulating the development of EV and battery technology and pushing the envelope further than we'd see with plain old hybrids. Pure R&D by itself isn't good enough; to really push the technology forward, we need to continue getting real EVs on the road. The goal is to hasten the day when EVs are far and away the most cost effective choice, without subsidies. And that, combined with cleaner electricity generation, will make a bigger difference than hybrids ever will.

Also, on the topic of subsidies, let's not forget about our substantial military presence in the Middle East to keep the oil flowing...
 
abasile said:
GRA said:
Sure, we're buying time, but we're also making the most efficient use of our money to hasten the transition, while making the largest improvement now.
With respect to higher-mileage ICE vehicles and hybrids, it's not really "our money" unless you count the auto industry bailouts. For the most part, public funds aren't really involved in making the ICE more efficient. Government mandates have been a part of this, however.
In that particular case, I was using 'our' in the widest possible sense, including both individual choices as well as government loans, bailouts, incentives etc.

abasile said:
GRA said:
As long as battery prices stay high it's more cost effective to switch people to hybrids, because that will have the largest effect soonest.
It is probably true that if the federal and state EV subsidies were cancelled and the funds were instead used to subsidize the purchase of a larger number of hybrids, with a total subsidy per car of perhaps $2000, the overall, short term reduction in petroleum usage would be greater.

On the other hand, the current EV subsidies and mandates do seem to be stimulating the development of EV and battery technology and pushing the envelope further than we'd see with plain old hybrids. Pure R&D by itself isn't good enough; to really push the technology forward, we need to continue getting real EVs on the road. The goal is to hasten the day when EVs are far and away the most cost effective choice, without subsidies. And that, combined with cleaner electricity generation, will make a bigger difference than hybrids ever will.
No major argument with any of this, although I do think that government subsidies that encourage production and sales are generally a poor choice as they distort the market far too much, leading to boom and bust cycles when technologies that are only marginally marketable _with_ subsidies, suddenly lose them.

Now, government subsidies for R&D, I'm all for. I think most of us here agree that we need to get off fossil fuels eventually, the question is what is the best way to do that that we can realistically afford? I have great difficulty supporting the current federal tax credit for EVs, as the way it's structured it essentially subsidizes people to buy a niche gimmick car, when the vast majority of them have sufficient income to afford them without subsidy. It really needs to be changed to a straight, means-tested rebate. Of course, judging by the informal polls taken here, it appears that even among those most committed to buying EVs, perhaps 50% of them would balk at buying one if they had to pay full freight. To me says that BEVs and to a lesser extent PHEVs are still far too expensive for what they provide, and our money and emphasis should for the moment be directed more towards high mileage ICEs and HEVs. For instance, this article:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081452_one-third-of-all-u-s-hybrids-live-in-just-15-city-areas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

indicates that we've still got an enormous way to go before HEVs reach mainstream acceptance. I think it's far more important to us as a nation and as a member of the world community to boost our average mpg in ICEs and HEVs significantly in the next few years, than it is to sell tiny numbers of BEVs through massive government subsidies and perks. In short, a case of the best being the enemy of the good.

Of course, whenever I think that HEVs, PHEVs, BEVs or what have you are going to make a significant dent in GHGs and other pollution, I remember that China has been bringing online an average of just over 1 MW [Edit: should read "1 GW"] of coal-fired electricity _every week_ for the past three or four years running, and I'm realize that ultimately nothing we do here is going to matter in the slightest if we can't get them to clean up their act.
 
Worldwide? hmmm, better than nothing i guess but why am i so unimpressed? i guess its because there really should not be a passenger car on the road today that gets less than 30 mpg... but that is just me
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
Worldwide? hmmm, better than nothing i guess but why am i so unimpressed? i guess its because there really should not be a passenger car on the road today that gets less than 30 mpg... but that is just me
No, it's just you and me. ;)
 
Stoaty said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
Worldwide? hmmm, better than nothing i guess but why am i so unimpressed? i guess its because there really should not be a passenger car on the road today that gets less than 30 mpg... but that is just me
No, it's just you and me. ;)
Add me as well. And, it ought to to be 30+ mpg COMBINED, not just the dumb highway rating.
 
cwerdna said:
Stoaty said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
Worldwide? hmmm, better than nothing i guess but why am i so unimpressed? i guess its because there really should not be a passenger car on the road today that gets less than 30 mpg... but that is just me
No, it's just you and me. ;)
Add me as well. And, it ought to to be 30+ mpg COMBINED, not just the dumb highway rating.

was it not KIA that coined the phrase "40 MPG, its the new 30 MPG?" or is that just wishful thinking (on both Kia and my part? :shock: )
 
GRA said:
I have great difficulty supporting the current federal tax credit for EVs, as the way it's structured it essentially subsidizes people to buy a niche gimmick car, when the vast majority of them have sufficient income to afford them without subsidy. It really needs to be changed to a straight, means-tested rebate. Of course, judging by the informal polls taken here, it appears that even among those most committed to buying EVs, perhaps 50% of them would balk at buying one if they had to pay full freight.
While I agree that a rebate would be preferable to a tax credit, I think means testing would be counterproductive. A great many high-net-worth folks appreciate good deals just as much as anyone else (maybe more so - you don't build wealth by spending everything you have). The goal of the EV tax credit is to get people to buy the cars by making the bottom line price competitive with conventional vehicles. Many of us required this "nudge" to take the plunge, even though we could have afforded to pay full price.

GRA said:
I think it's far more important to us as a nation and as a member of the world community to boost our average mpg in ICEs and HEVs significantly in the next few years, than it is to sell tiny numbers of BEVs through massive government subsidies and perks. In short, a case of the best being the enemy of the good.
But are these goals mutually exclusive? What do you think should be done to improve sales of HEVs? Hybrids are already cost effective. Would you favor a return to subsidies to make them even more attractive? Or just more education? I tend to think education should be enough. Gradually increasing fuel taxes would also make sense if any politician could survive doing that.

My family has a LEAF, a Prius, and a 25-30 mpg car that we keep around because it has all wheel drive. We do "need" three vehicles (admittedly because of our desire to live in a semi-rural area), though the AWD car isn't used frequently. Short of replacing the Prius or the AWD car with a Tesla S or Tesla X, which would be more car than we should be buying at this time, our motor vehicles are about as efficient as they can be. This wasn't an either/or choice between a BEV and an HEV; it was "both of the above".

GRA said:
Of course, whenever I think that HEVs, PHEVs, BEVs or what have you are going to make a significant dent in GHGs and other pollution, I remember that China has been bringing online an average of just over 1 MW of coal-fired electricity _every week_ for the past three or four years running, and I'm realize that ultimately nothing we do here is going to matter in the slightest if we can't get them to clean up their act.
With respect to GHGs, our primary responsibility is to try to clean up our own act. China's responsibility is to clean up theirs. China's failings do not give us an excuse to neglect our own responsibilities. Besides, what moral standing would we have in getting China to clean up their act if we aren't take action ourselves?

As for reducing local pollution, EVs are helpful regardless of what China does.
 
GRA said:
I have great difficulty supporting the current federal tax credit for EVs, as the way it's structured it essentially subsidizes people to buy a niche gimmick car, when the vast majority of them have sufficient income to afford them without subsidy.
The goal is to speed up the adoption of these vehicles, and I would say it is having the intended effect. Perhaps in your neck of the woods the Leaf is a "niche gimmick car", but it works perfectly for 80% of my driving needs, and my guess is that it would work well for a large number of the 10 million residents in the Los Angeles basin. Even more so for the Volt. Ten years ago the Prius was a "niche gimmick car", now it is mainstream (at least it is in L.A.). EV are coming out of the gate faster than the Prius, which is what we need to happen.

Of course, whenever I think that HEVs, PHEVs, BEVs or what have you are going to make a significant dent in GHGs and other pollution, I remember that China has been bringing online an average of just over 1 MW of coal-fired electricity _every week_ for the past three or four years running, and I'm realize that ultimately nothing we do here is going to matter in the slightest if we can't get them to clean up their act.
Yes, but you also have to remember that China can turn around on a dime just by government decree. It will take us more time to make changes.
 
cwerdna said:
What a bunch of the usual GM PR spin crap. GM issues a press release (http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2013/Jan/0103_million_30mpg.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; "GM Sells 1 Million 30 MPG-Plus Vehicles in 2012") and the press all over the place (not just GCR) picks up on it. :roll: They're referring to 30+ mpg on the EPA highway test. Not everyone lives and works on a highway. Not everyone is able to go highway speeds on their commute. Try going on a highway in a crowded metro area (e.g. LA or SF Bay Area) in the direction of rush hour traffic during rush hour. It's a parking lot w/lots of idling and stop and go.
<snippagio>
Of course it's PR. But would you prefer that they sold NO cars that got 30 mpg city, highway or combined? A few years ago, that would have been the case, with GM and virtually every other U.S. automaker - would a PR release saying "GM sells 1 million cars that get 25 mpg" be preferable? Is it as good as a Prius? Of course not, but the majority of customers aren't willing to drive Prii, or any other hybrid for that matter. As it is, the monthly fleet average MPG of all U.S. LDVs was 24.1 mpg a couple of months ago, which was a new high IIRR. Considering the large percentage of pickups that make up U.S. LDV sales, we need every 30+ MPG car sale we can get, city, highway or combined.
 
evnow said:
GRA said:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081420_gm-1-million-30-mpg-plus-vehicle-sales-in-2012

I'd say this has far more positive environmental and energy security effect than the miniscule number of BEVs sold, whatever the long-term advantage BEVs have. On a dollar/% of improvement basis, there's no contest.
The environmental impact depends on what these cars replace. Without that, we won't know the real impact.
True, although an awful lot of Leaf buyers seem to have replaced a Prius, so the % improvement is minimal for them (but hopefully somebody buys their Prius and replaces something that gets a lot worse mileage). The uncertainty in the above is why I'd be much happier to can the EV subsidy and replace it with a 'Cash for Clunkers' subsidy; the old car has to be drivable (but will be scrapped), and the size of the rebate (not tax credit) is scaled on the difference between the mpg (owner's choice of city, highway or combined) of the old and new car, with a minimum improvement of 5 mpg up to say 20 mpg - not sure how to handle PHEVs.

Oh, and the combined MSRP + dest. charge including all options couldn't exceed $35k: for every dollar or fraction above that, the amount of the rebate would be decreased by the same amount. I fail to see why, when the Federal government is hemorrhaging red ink as far as the eye can see, that we should be subsidizing people to buy $60-$105k Teslas.
 
abasile said:
GRA said:
I have great difficulty supporting the current federal tax credit for EVs, as the way it's structured it essentially subsidizes people to buy a niche gimmick car, when the vast majority of them have sufficient income to afford them without subsidy. It really needs to be changed to a straight, means-tested rebate. Of course, judging by the informal polls taken here, it appears that even among those most committed to buying EVs, perhaps 50% of them would balk at buying one if they had to pay full freight.
While I agree that a rebate would be preferable to a tax credit, I think means testing would be counterproductive. A great many high-net-worth folks appreciate good deals just as much as anyone else (maybe more so - you don't build wealth by spending everything you have). The goal of the EV tax credit is to get people to buy the cars by making the bottom line price competitive with conventional vehicles. Many of us required this "nudge" to take the plunge, even though we could have afforded to pay full price.
And there's the problem I see, that government picks the technological winners and losers. The problem is that government is subject to technological fads, when the current Pied Piper leads them down the subsidy path until disillusionment (read, someone runs the numbers) sets in, and they're seduced by the next group of lobbyists. Just since the 1990s, we've had the BEV fad, the FCEV fad, HEV fad, the Ethanol fad, the PHEV fad, the BEV fad (again), and now it looks like we're going to have another PHEV fad. I happen to think that the PHEV may well move beyond fad status, as the HEV has (if not yet achieving mainstream acceptability), but I could well be wrong. All I know, having worked in the AE industry in the '90s, is that technologies whose demand is driven by government subsidy rather than perceived need tend to fail, because they're pushed into the market too soon, lots of fly-by-night start-ups appear, take people's money and disappear, and once the Gee-whiz wears off everyone realizes that they aren't going to be cost-effective without subsidies anytime soon. The subsidies eventually disappear and the industry implodes, leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth and causing people to overlook the technology in those niche areas where there really is a natural demand.

At the moment, I see just two areas of natural demand growth for affordable BEVs, where they are both cost-effective and extremely well-suited: urban car-sharing, and urban delivery. Everything else will require considerable battery price/density and infrastructure development to open up more mainstream usage.

abasile said:
GRA said:
I think it's far more important to us as a nation and as a member of the world community to boost our average mpg in ICEs and HEVs significantly in the next few years, than it is to sell tiny numbers of BEVs through massive government subsidies and perks. In short, a case of the best being the enemy of the good.
But are these goals mutually exclusive? What do you think should be done to improve sales of HEVs? Hybrids are already cost effective. Would you favor a return to subsidies to make them even more attractive? Or just more education? I tend to think education should be enough. Gradually increasing fuel taxes would also make sense if any politician could survive doing that.

My family has a LEAF, a Prius, and a 25-30 mpg car that we keep around because it has all wheel drive. We do "need" three vehicles (admittedly because of our desire to live in a semi-rural area), though the AWD car isn't used frequently. Short of replacing the Prius or the AWD car with a Tesla S or Tesla X, which would be more car than we should be buying at this time, our motor vehicles are about as efficient as they can be. This wasn't an either/or choice between a BEV and an HEV; it was "both of the above".
See one of my posts above this one, as that explains how I'd structure subsidies if I were dictator.

abasile said:
GRA said:
Of course, whenever I think that HEVs, PHEVs, BEVs or what have you are going to make a significant dent in GHGs and other pollution, I remember that China has been bringing online an average of just over 1 MW [Edit: 1 GW] of coal-fired electricity _every week_ for the past three or four years running, and I'm realize that ultimately nothing we do here is going to matter in the slightest if we can't get them to clean up their act.
With respect to GHGs, our primary responsibility is to try to clean up our own act. China's responsibility is to clean up theirs. China's failings do not give us an excuse to neglect our own responsibilities. Besides, what moral standing would we have in getting China to clean up their act if we aren't take action ourselves?

As for reducing local pollution, EVs are helpful regardless of what China does.
Certainly, I'm all for taking measures to improve local air quality and cleaning up our own mess, but on a global basis, ultimately it isn't going to signify. And I think the situation is serious enough that we have to do what works quickest, not throw money at the issue for some ultimate solution that isn't yet ready for primetime, and that we obviously can't afford.
 
One problem with "cash for clunkers" is that to get the benefit, you had to own a "clunker". But if you're replacing a 30 mpg car with a 50 mpg hybrid, or with an EV, that probably wouldn't qualify, even though the fuel savings will be quite substantial. Why should we need to reward people for their previous ownership of gas guzzlers? I'd prefer to reward those who are trying to push the efficiency envelope by adopting the newest technologies. Many "clunkers" end up parked anyway, when their owners tire of paying to fuel them. I'd bet quite a number of clunkers traded in the previous incarnation of that program weren't even being driven significantly.

I do share your concern about the stability of markets that depend on subsidies. To me, that's an argument for using subsidies very, very carefully, not necessarily eschewing them entirely. It would behoove our country to make sure not to yank the EV subsidies prematurely.
 
GRA said:
cwerdna said:
What a bunch of the usual GM PR spin crap. GM issues a press release (http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2013/Jan/0103_million_30mpg.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; "GM Sells 1 Million 30 MPG-Plus Vehicles in 2012") and the press all over the place (not just GCR) picks up on it. :roll: They're referring to 30+ mpg on the EPA highway test. Not everyone lives and works on a highway. Not everyone is able to go highway speeds on their commute. Try going on a highway in a crowded metro area (e.g. LA or SF Bay Area) in the direction of rush hour traffic during rush hour. It's a parking lot w/lots of idling and stop and go.
<snippagio>
Of course it's PR. But would you prefer that they sold NO cars that got 30 mpg city, highway or combined? A few years ago, that would have been the case, with GM and virtually every other U.S. automaker - would a PR release saying "GM sells 1 million cars that get 25 mpg be preferable?" Is it as good as a Prius? Of course not, but the majority of customers aren't willing to drive Prii, or any other hybrid for that matter. As it is, the monthly fleet average MPG of all U.S. LDVs was 24.1 mpg a couple of months ago, which was a new high IIRR. Considering the large percentage of pickups that make up U.S. LDV sales, we need every 30+ MPG car sale we can get, city, highway or combined.

wow... your comment makes no sense at all. GM sold that many 30 MPG cars because they cut prices on them. I know two people driving them that would dump them in a New York second if offered a straight across trade for a Prius.

Its like last year a dictator killed one million dissidents but this year he only killed 100,000 so we should give him a standing ovation because he has "improved so much?"

but in a sense, you are right... it is better than nothing.

True, although an awful lot of Leaf buyers seem to have replaced a Prius, so the % improvement is minimal

cant remember the last time i read something that was so wrong
 
abasile said:
One problem with "cash for clunkers" is that to get the benefit, you had to own a "clunker". But if you're replacing a 30 mpg car with a 50 mpg hybrid, or with an EV, that probably wouldn't qualify, even though the fuel savings will be quite substantial. Why should we need to reward people for their previous ownership of gas guzzlers? I'd prefer to reward those who are trying to push the efficiency envelope by adopting the newest technologies. Many "clunkers" end up parked anyway, when their owners tire of paying to fuel them. I'd bet quite a number of clunkers traded in the previous incarnation of that program weren't even being driven significantly.
The 30 mpg car wouldn't qualify. Per http://www.edmunds.com/car-news/cash-for-clunkers-stimulus-bill.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, if it were a car or category 1 truck, it must get 18 mpg combined or LESS. :roll:

I agree, it was ridiculous. Why reward people who bought guzzlers in the first place?
 
Back
Top