Talk:Car Allowance Rebate System

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cost[edit]

We should put in a cost section. Edmunds said in yesterday's paper that they expected 200,000 CARS eligible cars to be traded in during the next 3 months (that's their baseline average I guess), and that since CARS has a cap of 250,000, the $4B the government is spending is only increasing the cars purchased by, at most, 50,000; and realistically 25,000. So the government is spending $160,000 to facilitate each purchase. --Mrcolj (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest[edit]

Take a look at this [1] and look at who did it. Is this a problem? I don't like the formatting but I'm not going to take the responsibility.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user was at least fairly upfront about who they were. There may be a potential CoI, but it would be better to judge the material on its own merit.--76.214.144.81 (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the conflicting text awaiting for independent reliable sources to back the claim as a condition to restored it.--Mariordo (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy concerns[edit]

The issue of privacy has been raised because the government website for this program states:

"This application provides access to the Dot CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the U.S. Government. Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign."

This should be mentioned in the article. I cannot add it, as I am under a topic ban on political articles.

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a better source: President Obama in ‘snooping’ row over US car scrappage scheme, Chris Ayres, The Times, August 7, 2009. -- Dmeranda (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debate??[edit]

As far as I can tell the "Debate" section is all Original Research. If you are going to put this in, and the carbon necessary to make a new car, then lets put in 1) the average mileage loss due to older cars being more inefficient than the government rating 2) the gain in productivity of those not relying on older cars 3) the cost-benefit analysis of the other 2 reasons for the "tripartite purpose" of the program. --128.146.33.130 (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so the Science article actually would support the program. This is hardly a "Debate" section. Maybe it should be relabeled "Motivation". It's just so poorly written, that I can't make sense of what the argument is.

--128.146.33.130 (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements of new car?[edit]

Is the new car someone purchases actually required to be more efficient than the old car? Could one purchase, say, a Hummer under this program? If there are restrictions, it should be listed in the Eligibility criteria section; if not, I think it's worth mentioning that there aren't. 70.90.176.206 (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the new vehicle has a combined fuel economy that is at least 4, but less than 10, miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If the new vehicle has a combined fuel economy value that is at least 10 miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500.
If the new vehicle is a category 1 truck that has a combined fuel economy value that is at least 2, but less than 5, miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If the new category 1 truck has a combined fuel economy value that is at least 5 miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500.
If both the new vehicle and the traded-in vehicle are category 2 trucks and the combined fuel economy value of the new vehicle is at least 1, but less than 2, miles per gallon higher than the combined fuel economy value of the traded in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If both the new vehicle and the traded-in vehicle are category 2 trucks and the combined fuel economy of the new vehicle is at least 2 miles per gallon higher than that of the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500. A $3,500 credit applies to the purchase or lease of a category 2 truck if the trade-in vehicle is a category 3 (work) truck that was manufactured not later than model year 2001, but not earlier than 25 years before the date of the trade in.--76.214.144.81 (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Less efficient than a free market"?[edit]

Honestly, does this belong? Not only is it complete opinion, but it cites another wikipedia article as it's source! I'm not sure who added that/keeps adding that, but I haven't a clue how including such a broad and unsupported declaration such as "the program is bad because government spending is less efficient than the free market" is appropriate for an encyclopedia. 75.117.229.240 (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came in here to say exactly this. This sentence is completely arbitrary and offers no proof whatsoever. 65.204.30.126 (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the only problem, but it is the absolutely the most bias and seems a clear violation of NPOV or perhaps Chicken Little rhetoric of absolutely not valid evidence except that someone is able to repeat a particular talking point. I would have the same issue with the left Greenpeace twits who don't understand basic ecology as with right wing folks who after the extremely "efficient" collapse of our financial markets at least partially because the key checks and balances to avoid the paper ponzi schemes were all eliminated...yes by Clinton too via Glass-Steigall (kept the real banks separate from the gambling investment banks).
It looks like this whole article is being slanted via some right-wing or libertarians and like most things continues to refuse to separate opinion from fact. This comment may be gone, but the entire tone of the article smells like this and I call violation of NPOV with no evidence and a refusal to separate opinion from evidence and facts. For the above statement which appears gone I will say this. By any measure of economic efficiency done of services or programs provided in 100s of countries and not just the USA that public programs can be more cost effective and efficient in their goals in many cases, as can private ones and that is not the determining factor. Corruption and bureaucratic bloat in any program always creates cost inefficiencies and can be common to either public or private. Look up the history of firemen as a service, health care in other countries, etc. And for my right-wing friends let me rind them that both Hitler and Mussolini had many "efficient" programs and it was said that in Mussolini's Italy, "all the trains ran on time". Any discussion of valid efficiency concepts must first define the type, and the measure or metric, but that still doesn't mean it is good or bad intrinsically. I wish I saw this comment in context;)
Thehighlndr (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
why does everyone on wikipedia accuse everyone else of being extremists? It is however a fact that people believe that it is bad because of government inefficiency. however, that comment is not bad because libertarians are bad people(how nice of you to be their friends). Rather it is bad because it is simplistic. something like "the program has been criticized for inefficiency, compared to the free market." better yet would be an explanation of these inefficiencies. For example, if the government had not required the destruction of the trade ins, there would be more resources in the economy broken window fallacy. also, you might want to look up godwin's law. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top-selling new cars[edit]

The list of top-selling new cars that has the Ford Focus at the top is actually government spin. Please read http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/autos/cash_for_clunkers_sales/index.htm . The short version is that the government counts 4WD and 2WD versions of vehicles separately. There aren't very many 4WD cars, so the numbers of trucks and SUVs get diluted. According to Edmunds, if you don't count them separately, the Ford Escape is the #1. I don't think Wikipedia needs to take a position in this debate - we should, however, report both counting methods and both #1's. --B (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with your observation. I do have the original Edmunds analysis, they used a different methodology so both tables are not comparable as vehicles are grouped under different criteria. I will work on this issue immediately, showing Edmunds results and explaining the differences in methodology, so NPOV is preserved.--Mariordo (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done! Now I will add some details in both rankings.--Mariordo (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should these rankings go into a separate section or a subsection within Results?--Mariordo (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the rankings look fine how they are now, but what is the for? Also, on the US government list, the #6 seller is listed as "Ford Escape/Escape Hybrid". I don't think that's correct - the text below it says that the escape and escape hybrid are counted as two different vehicles by the government method. So I'm guessing that it should just be Ford Escape but I'm not 100% sure on that. --B (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the º mistake (it is used in Spanish for rankings, my mind used it by default). I do have a similar doubt, but look at the CNN source. There is a column saying that hybrids are included, so it seems a contradiction by the EPA definition, and in the other hand, it is also CNN saying in the other article that they are counted separately. I Google but couldn't find the original government source. If someone finds it we can fix it.Mariordo (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there is a complete list somewhere and we can validate the numbers ourselves. Something isn't right if the government number is counting them together. --B (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, let us know if you find the original DoT or NHTSA ranking to confirmed and make the correction. One plausible explanation could be that for the purposes of the CARS program they added up hybrids, if the first CNN piece is correct.-Mariordo (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am updating the DoT ranking showing cumulative sales for two weeks, but the source does not mentions if hybrids are included, so, I will leave that way (at least now the table will be consistent with the text, but the doubt persist, I Google again and can not find the original DoR o NHTSA ranking.-Mariordo (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable claim[edit]

It has been reported that the program costs $9,594 for every $4,500 rebate awarded,[1] which leads to speculation whether the program is economically viable.

The reference says that "an independent estimate" concludes that the entire $1B initial disbursement was used up in administrative costs alone. This seems highly implausible, and the original source for this claim is not identified so I could not verify it. The reference also appears to be a political blog, making its claims somewhat suspect. So, I have removed the above text from the article. -- Beland (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Political Lore: Cash For Clunkers: Helping or Just Another Bailout?

Criticism, controversy and debate[edit]

I will be quite busy until Sept 1st, so here I will leave some links to news articles (a couple already used as refs in the article) I was planning to use for my next edits, so I leave them for any of the regular editors interested in expanding the sections dealing with the controversial issues and criticism. There is plenty, and please do not forget to follow NPOV and avoid OR. See A Clunker of a Program, Unintended Consequences of Clunkers Law, Doing the ‘Clunker’ Calculus, Mom and Pop Used-Car Dealers Left Without Clunkers, $3 billion buys not-so-green vehicles, Obama administration withholds data on clunkers, Swings and roundabouts, and particularly 5 Downsides to 'Cash for Clunkers' and `Cash for clunkers' effect on pollution? A blip.-Mariordo (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of this program?[edit]

Is it the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) or is it the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program (the CARS Program)? Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's many things.
  • The official name of the federal law (The Act) is "Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009".
  • The law requires the NHTSA to establish a program called the "Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program".
  • The working name of the implementation of the law (e.g., the program and related official website) that the NHTSA runs is called "Car Allowance Rebate System". From the NHTSA rule announcement: "The agency also has decided to use the name Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) for its program implementing the Act."
Dmeranda (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biased POV[edit]

The entire article smells of a biased POV. It mostly promotes the benefits of the program with unquestionable positivity. It is assumed that the program is "good for the environment" (which most people seem to just think means reduced CO2 emissions -- hint, it's not), good for the economy, and a win-win situation for everybody on the planet. All of the criticisms are delegated to the bottom of the article, many of which were reverted because they did not "cite" anything -- even though the majority of the content already in the article which praises the program is uncited as well.Mac520 (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of materials from the RS I provided above precisely to improve NPOV, just be careful to avoid OR and your opinions aside. Also check on any of Wiki's controversial articles, the criticism, controversy or debate always goes after the main topic is presented. When I have more free time I will do it myself if anyone has not done it before.-Mariordo (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These three news pieces provide some materials for the debate regarding economic effects 'Clunkers' Lifts Consumer Spending, Cash for Clunkers Was Fun While It Lasted, But Here Comes the 'Hangover', and August Auto Sales Up for a Change? We'll Know Soon.--Mariordo (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who pays the tax[edit]

Does the buyer have to pay income tax on this Stimulus check like we do on the other stimulus check? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.184.223.136 (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your tax remains the same. The original $1 billion dollars were directly appropriated, while the $2 billion were transferred from the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program. Guy0307 (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DoT to Edmunds ranking[edit]

The primary rankings of top sellers should be Edmunds before DoT. Replace the Corolla at the top of the page with the Escape. The DoT used an unconventional method for counting sales which was intentionally chosen to to back up their agenda of advertising foreign, compact cars. Edmunds uses the universally accepted method, and should be taken first.Mac520 (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I agree with most critics (the government is trying to greenwash the results), the fact is that DoT is using an existing method previously established by EPA, and it is the official source. Furthermore, Edmunds' analysis, as the article states, corresponds only to the first week of the program, and DoT results are for the entire program, so at this point they are not comparable. In the meantime we can include all the criticism available from RSs, similar to your last edit, but DoT data is official, so I strongly disagree with your proposal. We have to preserve NPOV and exclude our interpretations and believes. This of course might change as more statistical analysis is performed by RSs. The Associated Press requested the row data three weeks ago, and so far DoT has not make the database public, so we will have to wait.-Mariordo (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle Type Shift[edit]

There is missing analysis on motivation affecting the shift of vehicle type traded in and purchased. The unsupported assumption is a desire to "go green" and reduce fuel costs. No information is given on changed vehicle needs such that many people did not simply buy a more efficient version of what they traded in.

No one has noted that child car seat laws encouraged purchase of gas guzzling SUVs and mini-vans for their relative ease when securing and freeing children. Years later, when the owners' children have outgrown legal requirements to use car seats, compact sedans like the Toyota Corolla better serve their needs [once again?]. --Mark Kaepplein (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When such analysis becomes available from reliable sources, then it can be introduced in the article. Let's us know if you find any sources supporting these arguments.--Mariordo (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such analysis will become available following analysis of positive effects of illegal drugs. No one in the traffic safety industry will fund studies showing their lack of foresight and negative results, including parents backing up over their own children. The industry is biased towards statistical analysis, not causal analysis and envisioning consequences.

Mark Kaepplein (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another anecdotal argument in favor of my theory on car seats is the death of the station wagon. The long, low station wagon has space to accommodate kids and car seats, but requires too much bending over to insert and extract children. Vehicles like the Subaru Forester are popular with parents for their high seat heights despite poorer aerodynamics and roll-over potential.

Mark Kaepplein (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SUVs are higher up, which makes the driver feel safe. station wagons are seen as uncool, so are mini-vans, and none of this is relevant. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top Ten Sellers - Disagreement: Viewpoint from Edmunds.com[edit]

1. According to Edmunds AutoObserver [2], Edmunds.com collected a sample of actual trade-in and new-car sales transactions that occurred under the Cash for Clunkers program from its July 24 launch to July 31. (a) The Edmunds analysis covers only transactions in the first week of the CARS program, though the press release is dated Aug. 6, 2009; (b) The Edmunds analysis is based on a sample of sales transactions under the program, there can be scope of sampling error (depends on sampling size and sampling method and how scientific the samples are selected - Edmunds does not give out any info on its sample size and margin of error est.)

2. CARS released its latest info on new vehicles purchased under the program, based on info submitted by car dealers, as of Sept 9, 2009, see [3]. (a) According to CARS's 9/09 info, under the program, Escape (FWD+4WD+hybrid) sold a total of about 21,000, significantly less than that of Corolla (about 29,000 sedan) or Civic (about 27,000 excluding CNG/hybrid model), (b) Jeep Patriot (ranked #3 on Edmunds list) sold (2WD+4WD) a total of about 7,000; Dodge Caliber (ranked #4 on Edmunds list) also sold about 7,000, both significantly lower than vehicles on the top 10 list on DOT's Aug 26 release (Honda Fit, ranked #9 on the list, sold over 12,000).

3. To consider delete or rewrite the whole section of Disagreement. North wiki (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is more updated and comprehensive data from a reliable source go ahead and updated/rewrite that part of the section. I suggest you leave a short reference to Edmunds analysis, highlighting any shortcomings, include these new info and use the existing table to show the CARS data.-Mariordo (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am very confused by the terms used by Edmunds, "Share of sales with clunker trade-ins" - what exactly does it mean? Does it mean the share of sales of total sales of which clunker trade-in are involved or just the percentage of sales of individual models that involved clunker trade-in (i.e. 4.8% of total Escape sales surveyed by Edmunds involved clunkertrade-in)? There's little in Edmunds' press release available for one to decipher. North wiki (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since much of the important points of Edmunds' analysis is already contained in the 2nd last para. of "Program results", I think that's sufficient and to duplicate it will be quite clumsy. North wiki (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it seems I have some difficulty in removing the last column of the table inserted. Would be grateful if anyone can help me remove it. North wiki (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I fixed the table. I think it is confusing for readers to have the two tables from official sources with slightly different results but no explanation for the differences. I suggest you write at least a short paragraph explaining about the CARS results and why they differed from USDoT (purged data afterward?).-Mariordo (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Thanks for fixing the table.
2) Short para. added.North wiki (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more questions. Out of curiosity I checked the reference you provided, but the data is disaggregated. Did you did the arithmetic to come up with the ranking? If that is the case, after a quick review, the Silverado seem to have sold much less units than the other models you ranked thereafter. If the math is yours, I believe the table will be more accurate if you specified the characteristics (year model, hybrid, FWD, etc) for each of the models ranked and the total number of units sold for the generic model (thus avoiding doubts regarding the ranking). In the other hand, if the ranking comes directly from other page in the CARS website then the ref in the table should direct readers to it, and the disaggregated data should be mentioned (and referenced) in the short paragraph you edited.-Mariordo (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Without the Silverada the ranking looks like too much like the USDoT?
I couldn't find one that aggregates drivetrain, hybrid or not. Therefore, I have to look into the only one available but it disaggregates. Regarding the figure of Silverado, do you separate Silverado vs. Silverado Classic(s)? I go back to the news story (in NYT) that reports August 2009 U.S. auto sales, the table provided by NYT lists Silverado ranked #6 (32,421 sold). The release from GM also only list 32,421 which, I believe, combines that of Silverado and Silverado Classic. In view that the media didn't separate sales figures of Silerado from that of Silverado Classic (or vice versa) (may be the burden is on GM), I think the best way (for me, and for the general readers)to go is to combine the sales of Silverado and Silverado Classic.North wiki (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The least of my concern is whether the ranking looks like the USDoT. I just want to know how factual is the table of Edmonds (compare with that of USDot).North wiki (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but since you did aggregated the data from the source, to make it more transparent and clear to the reader I would recommend you add a column with the total for all the variations for each model, and include in the description column something like xxx 2WD/FWD, or Focus/Focus Hybrid, etc. (in the article history you will find a table like that, it was the first I did with DoT, I guess one week after the program started), so that anyone can trace back how you did the accounting.-Mariordo (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me take a step back. Actually I'm quite hesitant to put out such a table tabulating the top ten or sth like that because: the report I refer to is accounting for the submitted info.; the info. submitted may not be accurate or complete; and it probably includes transactions that are rejected by CARS. To tabulate each model with a column of total may mislead readers to assume the total figure in the table is final and accurate. I may have to explain why I refer to the report, I use it because: 1) I can't find a better source; 2) I use it only to compare the outcome with the info of Edmunds, for that purpose, I only need a rough guide to see how truthful the est. from Edmunds is. There are further possible pitfalls: to reproduce a total column, one have to consider whether to aggregate that of Corolla with Matrix. It's because Toyota release monthly sales figure combining the two and media usu. pick up that figure. And I have no way to know if the USDot figure combines the two (though I'm a bit doubtful of that), or that of Edmunds. If you are unsatisfied that, I suggest you to consider deleting the table altogether.North wiki (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree that it might be confusing instead of helpful.-Mariordo (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel Efficiency[edit]

Using mpg as the only measure of efficiency may llead to overly optimistic estimated. Since what everybody ultimately cares is how much fuel will the new cars use, recalcuating efficiency into liters per 100 km (or galons per 100 miles if you wish) will show that new cars will use 40% less fuel (article leads you to believe it is about 60%). http://www.pege.org/fuel/convert.htm Vspg (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September auto sales figures[edit]

It would be good to add a paragraph on US auto sales for September. The bottom fell out of that market, and was the major reason that general retail figures were lower for the month. In fact, by taking out the gigantic drop in car sales, the overall retail sales went up. An unintended consequence of the "wildly successful" program that ought to be noted in the article. JackrafuseJackrafuse (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shortage of used Cars[edit]

there is currently a shortage of used cars, obviously there is a relation. Where in the article would I add this? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight[edit]

The word "oversight" does not appear in the article. Who guaranteed that engine disabling actually occurred, as opposed to dealers and scrapyard operators merely reporting such? Any statistical sampling; investigation occurred to validate compliance?

Mydogtrouble (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel Efficiency Improvement?[edit]

I'm not a frequent editor of Wikipedia pages, so I thought I'd just roll this out for whomever might be interested in implementing this suggestion into the article.

The article currently states that the average fuel efficiency of the trade-in vehicles was 15.9 mpg, while the average fuel efficiency of the purchased vehicles was 24.9 mpg. The article goes on to state that this represents a "58% fuel efficiency improvement". This figure is quite flawed in ways both simple and complex.

First, let's see if we can reverse engineer the figure given. (24.9-15.8)/15.8 x 100 = 57.59%. This appears to be the method employed to arrive at the 58% figure.

However, measuring fuel efficiency in miles per gallon makes this kind of arithmetic comparison invalid. This is because miles per gallon as a measure of efficiency is non-linear, which means that 1 mpg is not a constant amount, but rather varies depending on whether it's 1 mpg at 15.8 mpg or 1 mpg at 24.9 mpg. In other words, you cannot subtract 15.8 mpg from 24.9 mpg because they are apples and oranges.

Here is a better way. Translate miles per gallon into gallons per X miles. This is easily performed and will yield figures that can be arithmetically compared. For the sake of familiarity, I will use 300 miles as the target figure.

At 15.8 mpg, it will take 19 gallons to travel 300 miles. At 24.9 mpg, it will take 12 gallons to travel 300 miles.

(19-12)/19 x 100 = 36.84% or 37% improvement in fuel efficiency.

Since gallons per mile is a linear measure of fuel efficiency, this figure is a more accurate representation of the actual increase in fuel efficiency represented by the figures listed. At the same time, though, it points out a new potential source of error - the input. Arithmetic averaging is no more valid for fuel efficiency in mpg for the calculation of the "average" fuel efficiency of the traded-in and purchased vehicles than it is for the calculation just performed. Following the referenced document reveals that much of the information presented on this point is taken directly from the DOT. From this, we learn two things. We learn that the calculation was not performed by a Wikipedia contributor, but rather apparently by the DOT. This suggests that the original inputs may indeed have been calculated by the same invalid method. We also see that the original data are unavailable. Without access to the original data, we cannot peel back the onion any further.

So, we're at an obstacle. Perhaps the original data are available somewhere else, in which case, more research is needed. If the data are not already available, perhaps the data may be available by a FOIA request. Or maybe the best solution is to remove this part of the article entirely.

66.166.41.146 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Motor Vehicle Title Information System[edit]

Would it be appropriate to redirect National Motor Vehicle Title Information System to the same section in this article? —danhash (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I think Vehicle history report is a better target. Senator2029 “Talk” 16:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutrak[edit]

"It led to a gain in market share for Japanese and Korean manufacturers at the expense of American car makers, with only Ford not taking a significant hit." How does the source determine that cash for clunkers changed market share, since market share for the US automakers was already shrinking? Seems like this is negative wording, rather than something which actually happened. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 3, 2013 yahoo.com article titled "Whoops—'Cash for Clunkers' Actually Hurt the Environment"[edit]

http://news.yahoo.com/why-cash-clunkers-hurt-environment-more-helped-024848694.html

Gh82xc56 (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with common sense would realize that the program hurts the environment more than it helps simply because it encourages the purchase of used cars over old ones. The used car industry was significantly hurt for at least 2 years because of this program. The impact of building and transporting new cars is far greater than the difference in impact between 2 different cars. This is all in addition to the content in the article that you posted. The environmental stuff is just marketing. Someone should find some sources and put this under criticism. 71.251.41.233 (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please incorporate the findings of 2013 Brookings Institution Report[edit]

In general, it might work to organize the article in terms of

1. Initial promises and claims

2. Evaluation immediately afterwards

3. Evaluation now when more data is in.

And that should include the results in the reports available at

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/10/cash-for-clunkers-evaluation-gayer

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/10/cash-for-clunkers-evaluation-gayer/cash_for_clunkers_evaluation_paper_gayer.pdf

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/10/cash-for-clunkers-evaluation-gayer/cash_for_clunkers_evaluation_policy_brief_gayer.pdf

  • purchases were pulled forward (earlier in time) from purchases that would have happened later.
  • the small increase in employment that might have occurred came at an implied cost of $1.4 million per job created.
  • Total emissions reduction was not substantial because only about half a percent of all vehicles in the United States were the new, more energy-efficient CARS vehicles.

The program resulted in a small gasoline reduction equivalent only to about 2 to 8 days’ worth of current usage.

this last bit from Li, Linn, Spiller (2012):

  • at a cost of $91-$301 per ton of CO2, whose social cost is estimated by global warming analysts at $38

In other words, the federal government spent $3-10 of tax money (or the equivalent cost of deficit-spending inflation, which hits the poor and middle class) to get perhaps $1 of social benefit. 165.91.13.9 (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Car Allowance Rebate System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Car Allowance Rebate System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Car Allowance Rebate System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Car Allowance Rebate System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should an "enthusiast" subsection be added to Reception?[edit]

Hello, all. I was wondering if there should be mention of the reaction of vehicle enthusiasts to the program. I've talked about the program to many enthusiasts and they all seem to come to the same conclusion that the program is nonsense. I probably wouldn't be the best choice for adding the subsection as I am biased against the program. ShiberuInupreza (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a subsection entitled "Exotic cars crushed under the program" that describes the scrappage of some of what could be enthusiast-related vehicles. This seems to provide the appropriate weight to this viewpoint and it is based on published sources that consist of enthusiast-related works. One problem is that what a particular owner considers to be a clunker may be perceived by someone else to have been a desirable collectable vehicle. An example is the Maserati whose owner could drive it short distances before it was breaking down and nobody wanted to buy it. Moreover, there is no agreement concerning a definition of an "enthusiast" vehicle. Thus, adding a section with (published) opinions of "enthusiasts" may be problematic. A requirement is that: any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. WP articles are not to express opinions. It is most important to follow WP's neutral point of view principle, no matter if some car "enthusiasts" may consider something nonsensical. CZmarlin (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion of units[edit]

In the article, most discussion of MPG includes repeated conversion to other systems, in particular to British and European systems. Is this appropriate for an article entirely concerning the US market? Perhaps do it once, probably at the first mention, and then later stick to US units. I mean, we could convert to furlongs per dram, too, and that's just as likely as the metric system to be useful to a reader of this particular article. (This isn't an anti-metric thing; it's an anti-article clutter thing.) 24.120.176.68 (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"However, the scrapped vehicles could have been sold to developing countries to replace even worse ones."[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong or missing something, but it seems the article cited for this sentence makes no claim about vehicles sold via CARS replacing unsafe(r) ones in developing countries. Still-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Butter (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identifying this problem. Nothing in the citation supports the claim of "exporting" gas-guzzlers to developing nations to help "improve" their pool of vehicles! CZmarlin (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Car_Allowance_Rebate_System&oldid=1214452332"