Quote :

"on replacing a 15mpg car w/ a 20mpg car. it still sucks, and it's hardly a net benefit"

do i need to do the math again?

replacing a 15 mpg car with a 20 mpg car is the same as replacing a 20 mpg car with a 30 mpg car

8/10/2009 8:24:46 PM

you still have a gas guzzler, no matter how you shape it. but, only you could cheer taking a compact car off the road and replacing it with a Toyota Tundra

8/10/2009 8:26:41 PM

i'm not saying that at all? who is?

8/10/2009 8:27:00 PM

given that that is what is happening, that is what you are cheering

8/10/2009 8:29:18 PM

Quote :

"only you could cheer taking a compact car off the road and replacing it with a Toyota Tundra"

because that's happening pretty regularly and has been just as regularly documented.

btw, link?

also, here is edmunds take on the top 10 C4C purchases:

..........................................combined mpg
1. Ford Escape....................... 20
2. Ford Focus..........................27
3. Jeep Patriot.........................21
4. Dodge Caliber......................24
5. Ford F-150......................... 16
6. Honda Civic.........................29
7. Chevrolet Silverado..............15
8. Chevrolet Cobalt..................27
9. Toyota Corolla.....................30
10. Ford Fusion ........................21

so, two trucks. here are the top ten trade ins

1. 1998 Ford Explorer...................14
2. 1997 Ford Explorer...................14
3. 1996 Ford Explorer...................14
4. 1999 Ford Explorer...................14
5. Jeep Grand Cherokee................15
6. Jeep Cherokee.........................16
7. 1995 Ford Explorer...................15
8. 1994 Ford Explorer...................15
9. 1997 Ford Windstar..................17
10. 1999 Dodge Caravan..............18

clearly compact cars are being replaced by gas guzzling trucks and SUVs. yep, that's exactly what's happening

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 8:48 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 8:30:07 PM

^^that's a given i'm not willing to accept without some proof.

8/10/2009 8:30:59 PM

it's kind of been shown in the link on the last page. The top selling model is what, an SUV? What else is in the top ten, you ask? two full-size trucks. come on, dude. quit fellating who ever is commander in chump

8/10/2009 8:32:38 PM

burro, go back to chit chat and make boobie threads. All you're doing here is throwing around stupid arguments.

8/10/2009 8:35:24 PM

and where does it say that it is replacing a car that gets better gas mileage as you claimed? as i said, replacing a 15 mpg vehicle with a 20 mpg vehicle is a big improvement in what really matters (gallons required per mile)

8/10/2009 8:36:33 PM

so, you cann definitely cheer on putting more gas-guzzling cars and trucks on the road. way to go. geniuses., all of you

8/10/2009 8:38:06 PM

you're willfully missing the point because you're badly wrong. improved fuel efficiency of the cars on our roads is at least one goal of this program. not getting rid of trucks or SUVs necessarily.

Quote :

"putting more gas-guzzling cars and trucks on the road. way to go"

nope because a car that uses more gas is destroyed before the new one goes on the road.

of course, there's something to be said about destroying a perfectly good car and what sorts of pollution that causes. but that's an entirely differently (and fairly respectable) point.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 8:40 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 8:39:18 PM

Quote :

"putting more gas-guzzling "

you mean putting cars that may still guzzle gas, just less so? I mean, if you're going to debate at least attempt to be intellectually honest.

I take the lack of reply that you gave up on the whole "this will create a depression in the automakers when it is done" argument after the owning I did of you on the last page.

8/10/2009 8:40:34 PM

Quote :

"nope because a car that uses more gas is destroyed before the new one goes on the road."

assuming that the dealer actually destroys the car. Something which has also been shown not to be done.

Quote :

"you mean putting cars that may still guzzle gas, just less so"

Well, when someone says we are putting "fuel efficient cars on the road," let's be honest. We didn't call them fuel efficient then. Why are we gonna do so now? oh, it's for Obama! Hot damn!

Quote :

"I take the lack of reply that you gave up on the whole "this will create a depression in the automakers when it is done" argument after the owning I did of you on the last page."

you did no such thing. but thanks for tryin.

8/10/2009 8:44:52 PM

so you're admitting that compact cars aren't being replaced with toyota tundras with a gov't rebate?

8/10/2009 8:47:20 PM

nope. Unless you can show that no compact car has been replaced with a truck.

8/10/2009 8:48:17 PM

shit, most compact cars don't meet eligibility requirements in the first place

here is the list of eligible cars. please refer me to the eligible compact cars.

http://www.edmunds.com/cash-for-clunkers/eligible-vehicles.html#h

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 8:55 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 8:50:25 PM

^^you're saying that it is happening. without showing any sort of proof for that claim. "IT MAY HAVE HAPPENED SO I BELIEVE IT" is what you are saying.

8/10/2009 8:53:41 PM

again, only you people can cheer on the sales of gas guzzlers while not calling them what they are. good work, though. can't wait to see the unintended consequences of this, though. I'll be laughing all the way to the bank

8/10/2009 8:55:02 PM

all i'm "cheering" is that the fuel efficiency of the cars in this country will be improved. you're missing the "more" part of "more" fuel efficient. and i gotta figure you're being willfully ignorant.

8/10/2009 8:56:36 PM

yes. we'll go from shit to feces. hot damn! and in three months, those cars will be getting the same gas mileage as what they replaced. what an improvement!

8/10/2009 8:57:04 PM

WHAT?

unsubstantiated claims like whoa. this is pathetic, even for burro.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 9:01 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 8:59:25 PM

Stop feeding the troll.

8/10/2009 8:59:48 PM

you do realize that the EPA estimates are bullshit, right? or do you actually expect your car to get the advertised mileage? I've never hit anywhere near 40mpg on the highway. But, hey, ignorance is bliss, so you must be orgasming

8/10/2009 9:00:39 PM

just looked mine up for my 1996 car and i frequently get better than the rating. so one man's anecdote vs. another.

8/10/2009 9:05:37 PM

Quote :

"Well, when someone says we are putting "fuel efficient cars on the road," let's be honest. We didn't call them fuel efficient then. Why are we gonna do so now? oh, it's for Obama! Hot damn! "

Well, look at the list, we are putting fuel efficient cars on the road. I think it's extremely unrealistic to have everyone one of those be Civic hybrids and Priuses. And by the same token, the bulk of the vehicles going on the road aren't Trucks, which is the stance you're traking.

Quote :

"you did no such thing. but thanks for tryin."

Without any sort of rebuttal from you discussing the link I posted which supports my line of thinking and is a well reasoned argument support by facts, I've absolutely destroyed you and the point you were trying to make earlier about car sales. Absolutely destroyed.

Quote :

"you do realize that the EPA estimates are bullshit, right? or do you actually expect your car to get the advertised mileage? "

They have my 2002 Grand listed at 14-15 City and 19-21 highway. On a road trip home averaging 70mph+, I get 22mpgs. I took the backroads once and did a bit of extreme driving and managed to get 29mpg before I started getting bored and impatient and ended up making the overall average for the 2hr20 minute trip about 27mpgs.

8/10/2009 9:13:12 PM

and even if they were mostly trucks/SUVs, the fuel savings on newer trucks are likely better than upgrading a car to a more fuel efficient car.

8/10/2009 9:16:09 PM

Quote :

"And by the same token, the bulk of the vehicles going on the road aren't Trucks, which is the stance you're traking."

no, they are Escapes (an SUV), Patriots (an SUV), Silverados (a heavy truck)... nice try, though.

8/10/2009 9:22:33 PM

escapes and patriots average around 20-25 mpg

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 9:29 PM. Reason : depends on model]

8/10/2009 9:29:07 PM

Quote :

"no, they are Escapes (an SUV), Patriots (an SUV), Silverados (a heavy truck)... nice try, though. "

3/10 equals majority?

8/10/2009 9:31:17 PM

btw the list i posted included the best possible combined MPG for the clunkers and the worst possible combined MPG for the new cars for the most part. some of the models, particularly the F-150 had about 5 different models each with 5-6 different engine/transmission combinations which i didn't feel like sorting through. if there are disparities they're only 1 MPG at most.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 9:36 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 9:31:29 PM

I'm confused, where are these SUVs on the list

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/04/autos/cash_for_clunkers_cars/?postversion=2009080410

I see the escape, but we don't know how many were hybrids.

8/10/2009 9:35:28 PM

so...

a truck getting 16 mpgs is supposed to be cheered on? wow

oh, how bout the 15mpgs of the silverado! hot damn!

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 9:36 PM. Reason : ]

8/10/2009 9:35:42 PM

WHERE ARE THE TRUCKS YOU TROLL DOUCHE FUCKER? You've lost any argument you were trying to make. Please go back to other arguments you could make because all the ones you tried to make have failed in epic ways.

8/10/2009 9:36:50 PM

^scroll up

8/10/2009 9:38:40 PM

Quote :

"1. Ford Escape....................... 20 2. Ford Focus..........................27 3. Jeep Patriot.........................21 4. Dodge Caliber......................24 5. Ford F-150......................... 16 6. Honda Civic.........................29 7. Chevrolet Silverado..............15 8. Chevrolet Cobalt..................27 9. Toyota Corolla.....................30 10. Ford Fusion ........................21"

Or are those no longer trucks?

8/10/2009 9:39:01 PM

^^^if that truck is replacing a less fuel-efficient truck, then yes.

^and that ford escape number is the mpg for the worst of their line and i'm assuming the sum of the number sold is from all of their makes of escape. so i don't particularly trust that list at all.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 9:40 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 9:39:21 PM

so, again, we go from shit to merely poop. w00t!

8/10/2009 9:40:09 PM

i hate improvements!

8/10/2009 9:42:03 PM

i hate improvements that aren't really improvements!

8/10/2009 9:43:34 PM

in regards to the list

Quote :

"Edmunds [via CNN] reports that the DOT counted vehicles EPA-style, tallying differing powertrain or drive wheel combinations separately. For example, the DOT rates a Ford Escape with two wheel-drive as a distinct model from a Ford Escape with all wheel-drive. If you’re Edmunds, you combine all the model variants’ sales totals into one stat."

and as i already stated, those combined MPGs are the BEST possible for the clunkers and the WORST possible for the new vehicles, other than perhaps a 1MPG disparity on some models because i didn't feel like clicking through 20 combinations of models, engines, and transmissions

8/10/2009 9:43:53 PM

Quote :

"10. Ford Fusion ........................21"

and that's just funny. they have a model that can get nearly double that.

and the lowest CITY gas mileage given of any of their fusion models is 22 mpg. missed the big engine one.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 9:46 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 9:45:09 PM

Edmunds epic fucking failed, and you're a damned failure for not doing one iota of verification or questioning something that seems a bit..off, for yourself

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/edmunds-dots-cash-for-clunkers-top-ten-list-gets-it-wrong/

8/10/2009 9:50:22 PM

I hereby declare this thread

Clown aaronburro from this point forward

All we have to do is let him post, and the work is done for us.

8/10/2009 9:51:49 PM

^^ I don't see how your link supports your conclusion that Edmunds "failed." The link you provide says nothing different than what has already been discussed in this thread.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 9:54 PM. Reason : ^]

8/10/2009 9:53:47 PM

I was about to say. that seems to put you as the clown

8/10/2009 9:54:07 PM

^^^^to be clear, on the last page i posted the DOT's top ten, which burro immediately disputed. so to appease his concerns i included the Edmunds list on this page. neither list particularly helps burro's argument in any way other than, yes SUVs and trucks are being sold under the program.

and the link you posted, which i already quoted from, certainly doesn't lead to the conclusion that edmunds "failed."

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 9:56 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 9:54:57 PM

Quote :

"^^ I don't see how your link supports your conclusion that Edmunds "failed." "

Then you're reading comprehension is...terrible.

Quote :

"The link you provide says nothing different than what has already been discussed in this thread."

I didn't study everything that was posted, I didn't notice that it had been posted before, specifically because no one emphasized how fucking wrong douchenburro was to focus on that list instead of a correct one.

Quote :

"I was about to say. that seems to put you as the clown"

Look, only a douche that would throw a yellow flag and walk the fuck away like a giant pussy would make a comment like this. You lost again. Now run along to newsmax and prisonplanet and leave the real discussion for the adults.

Quote :

"and the link you posted, which i already quoted from, certainly doesn't lead to the conclusion that edmunds "failed.""

Uh, how doesn't it? They created multiple separate buckets for the same damn vehicle.

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 10:01 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 10:01:30 PM

i dunno. their methods don't seem very dishonest or nefarious to me. but, whatever. whether there are 3 trucks/SUVs on the list or one, the net effect is still lower MPG vehicles being traded in for higher MPG vehicles. neither list supports burro's claims that compact cars are being traded in hand over fist for gas guzzlers.

Quote :

"Sales of truck models would tend to be heavily diluted using the government's method because practically each version counts as a different vehicle. The difference in tallying methods would not affect the overall totals of trucks, as opposed to cars purchased under the program, only the sales rankings of individual models. Sales of GM's Silverado truck, under the government's counting method, were divided among five different versions. So were the Ford F-150s. If the different versions of these trucks were considered the same vehicle, as auto sales are normally reported, sales of these trucks would look much heftier."

[Edited on August 10, 2009 at 10:08 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2009 10:05:31 PM

Edmunds explanation doesn't make a lot of intuitive sense to me because under their counting method the Corolla falls all the way down the list well past the Focus, which it is ahead of in DOTs list. If Edmunds is correct in the way the DOT is counting by subdividing models, then it would make sense to see trucks jump into the top ten in their list, but I'd expect to see the same order between the Focus and Corolla ESPECIALLY considering there are more variants of the focus than the Corolla (ok, I don't know if this is correct, I'm assuming). If it were the other way around, with the Corolla still being high on Edmunds with the focus being down, then that would make sense to me.

Maybe this is what you were getting at earlier. I wasn't reading your comments and didn't notice this, I was only focusing on burro and his failures.

8/10/2009 10:11:19 PM

and the Fail Boat keeps on chuggin

8/10/2009 10:19:39 PM