I was aggravated that the way the program was set up, your old car had a maximum mpg (18), instead of offering the rebate if the improvement in mpg was past a certain amount -- say +6 mpg -- for the new car or truck. I thought a lot of people would be dumb and just trade in a Suburban for a Tahoe (both gas-hog SUV's).
Part of my pessimism is grounded in the fact that $4 a gallon gas seems like ancient history now, and people have short memories. Part of my pessimism is grounded in the fact that the economy still sucks, so the people willing to take advantage of the program probably already have plenty of money and don't generally worry about gas expenses to begin with. Part of my pessimism is just pessimism.
It looks like, so far at least, I was wrong:
The Transportation Department said Monday afternoon that based on 80,500 cash-for-clunker applications — which officials believe is about a third of the total deals so far — average fuel economy of the new vehicles was 9.6 miles per gallon better than the old ones, 25.4 m.p.g. versus 15.8 m.p.g., an improvement of 60.8 percent. The improvement, the department pointed out, is much larger than the minimum required to be eligible for the government rebate: a gain of four miles per gallon for cars and two miles per gallon for trucks.Maybe we have learned our lessons -- economically, politically, environmentally, whatever. The glory days of the big-ass American SUV are hopefully gone forever.
Part of the reason for the gain was that some people were turning in old trucks for new cars. So far, 83 percent of the “clunkers” were trucks or S.U.V.’s and 60 percent of the new vehicles were cars, the department said.
I don't know enough economics or environmental stuff to say whether or not this program is "worth the money" in terms of stimulating growth and saving gas (criticisms here and here). My feeling is that if the sales continue in the same trend -- trading larger vehicles for smaller ones -- that the program will be a success on both counts.
