Americans are dumping American. Ford’s SUVs and trucks top the list of most traded-in vehicles:
1. Ford F-Series
2. Ford Explorer
3. Chevrolet C/K/Silverado
4. Jeep Grand Cherokee
5. Dodge Ram
6. Chevrolet Blazer
7. Jeep Cherokee
8. Dodge Grand Caravan
9. Dodge Dakota
10. Ford Ranger
These are the by and large the same fuel inefficient vehicles that the fossil friendly Republican administration paid Americans to buy with tax credits for gas guzzlers.
According to ABC News in 2003:
“Thanks to a generous tax credit, Karl Wizinsky is driving a very large vehicle these days — a 2002 Ford Excursion.
“It doesn’t hurt to have a larger vehicle, but I wouldn’t say it’s a requirement of my business,” he said on a cell phone while driving the Excursion. “But I ended up saving $32,000.”
So what the Republicans so foolishly gaveth, the new administration now relieveth us of.
If it cost taxpayers $32,000 to pay for these clunkers; it only costs us $4,500 to get rid of them again. By comparison; that’s a bargain for the U.S. taxpayer.
And a bargain for other drivers, too, many of whom have felt pushed to buy bigger cars for fear of being killed by even bigger cars on the roads. But the big winner is the environment, as Ford points out:
PDF 
About Susan Kraemer
People just aren’t into the gas guzzling trucks anymore.
People just aren’t into the gas guzzling trucks anymore.
the introduction to this piece seems to take a random shot at doctors, lawyers, and real estate agents. does the author have an axe to grind with these particular professionals? are these three professions more likely than others to drive wasteful, polluting SUV’s? Just curious, because i’m one of the more green people i know. i admittedly drive a 1998 Ford Windstar (didn’t qualify as a clunker under CARS, it gets 19 mpg), but these days i’ve been leaving it in the driveway and commuting to the office by bicycle.
Richard Harding M.D.
the introduction to this piece seems to take a random shot at doctors, lawyers, and real estate agents. does the author have an axe to grind with these particular professionals? are these three professions more likely than others to drive wasteful, polluting SUV’s? Just curious, because i’m one of the more green people i know. i admittedly drive a 1998 Ford Windstar (didn’t qualify as a clunker under CARS, it gets 19 mpg), but these days i’ve been leaving it in the driveway and commuting to the office by bicycle.
Richard Harding M.D.
I still love trucks!
And go Ford; I bleed Blue Oval.
I still love trucks!
And go Ford; I bleed Blue Oval.
It looks like the posters who said they wouldn’t buy from “Government Motors” meant it.
It looks like the posters who said they wouldn’t buy from “Government Motors” meant it.
I need a truck. No car can legally tow my “ultra-Lite” travel trailer. It has to do with the car makers saving law suits by underrating the actual capability of the cars.
I really miss the mileage capability of my old 5.0 Mustang. It was at least 50% better.
I need a truck. No car can legally tow my “ultra-Lite” travel trailer. It has to do with the car makers saving law suits by underrating the actual capability of the cars.
I really miss the mileage capability of my old 5.0 Mustang. It was at least 50% better.
Owning a truck because you need one and owning it because you want to drive the biggest thing you can find are two different things.
Owning a truck because you need one and owning it because you want to drive the biggest thing you can find are two different things.
@ Technology Slice
As long as the latter is true, we still live in America.
@ Technology Slice
As long as the latter is true, we still live in America.
Sorry Dr. Richard,
I was quoting a piece that cited those 3 professions as examples of business owners who could qualify for that SUV tax credit to write off giant SUVs as business expenses – yet did not need them the way an electrician or a plumber or a handyman might genuinely need them for their business.
Sorry Dr. Richard,
I was quoting a piece that cited those 3 professions as examples of business owners who could qualify for that SUV tax credit to write off giant SUVs as business expenses – yet did not need them the way an electrician or a plumber or a handyman might genuinely need them for their business.
Reading the title “Detroit Captures Market Share of Dumped Clunkers” led me to think this is good news and I assumed that would be discussed. Yet the first sentence makes this a hit piece on the prior administration. Only later is Ford sales touched on but no hard information is provided for all three of the Detroit manufacturers. Why even write this? Perhaps the title should have read “President Obama’s Cash for Clunkers program rights the wrongs of Bush’s 2003 policy”.
Reading the title “Detroit Captures Market Share of Dumped Clunkers” led me to think this is good news and I assumed that would be discussed. Yet the first sentence makes this a hit piece on the prior administration. Only later is Ford sales touched on but no hard information is provided for all three of the Detroit manufacturers. Why even write this? Perhaps the title should have read “President Obama’s Cash for Clunkers program rights the wrongs of Bush’s 2003 policy”.
“Washington’s hugely popular cash for clunkers program has boosted all auto sales 16 percent from June to July as desperate and grateful Americans unloaded the gas guzzling behemoths they had been lured into buying with huge SUV tax credits by the Bush administration.”
Any SUV purchased during the Bush administration 2001-2009, would be worth considerably more than $4500, so that little piece of Republican-hatred on your part is just a tantrum.
Most of the SUVs being traded in are from the 90′s when Bill Clinton was President. Get your facts straight and stop the hating. Trust me you’ll feel much better when you let it go.
-Tim
“Washington’s hugely popular cash for clunkers program has boosted all auto sales 16 percent from June to July as desperate and grateful Americans unloaded the gas guzzling behemoths they had been lured into buying with huge SUV tax credits by the Bush administration.”
Any SUV purchased during the Bush administration 2001-2009, would be worth considerably more than $4500, so that little piece of Republican-hatred on your part is just a tantrum.
Most of the SUVs being traded in are from the 90′s when Bill Clinton was President. Get your facts straight and stop the hating. Trust me you’ll feel much better when you let it go.
-Tim
Looks like the Ford Focus is the top gainer in this
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers-numbers-are-in-ford-focus-tops-sales.html
Looks like the Ford Focus is the top gainer in this
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers-numbers-are-in-ford-focus-tops-sales.html
Ford sales increased very little from this program, and it is not clear that the sales were all from C4C anyway. 4,000 vehicles in a month?
Ford sales increased very little from this program, and it is not clear that the sales were all from C4C anyway. 4,000 vehicles in a month?
“So what the Republicans so foolishly gaveth, the new administration now relieveth us of.”
The economy back then was a bit different than it is now, wasn’t it?
Why turn this post into partisan bashing?
“So what the Republicans so foolishly gaveth, the new administration now relieveth us of.”
The economy back then was a bit different than it is now, wasn’t it?
Why turn this post into partisan bashing?
Please … “desperate and grateful Americans unloaded the gas guzzling behemoths they had been lured into buying with huge SUV tax credits by the Bush administration.”
Did you forget that one could also have received a generous tax credit for buying a hybrid or alternate-fuel vehicle under the ‘evil’ Bush administration? Did you notice, as Tim C. correctly pointed out, that the SUV’s being traded under the clunkers program were largely from the 1990′s, prior to Bush even taking office? Did you consider that these desparate and grateful citizens are merely taking advantage of yet another government handout and in most cases probably didn’t really need the help?
The quality of your writing would benefit greatly if you would stop the petty partisanship and just move on. George Bush did not create our dependency on petroleum, and Barack Obama will not cure it.
Please … “desperate and grateful Americans unloaded the gas guzzling behemoths they had been lured into buying with huge SUV tax credits by the Bush administration.”
Did you forget that one could also have received a generous tax credit for buying a hybrid or alternate-fuel vehicle under the ‘evil’ Bush administration? Did you notice, as Tim C. correctly pointed out, that the SUV’s being traded under the clunkers program were largely from the 1990′s, prior to Bush even taking office? Did you consider that these desparate and grateful citizens are merely taking advantage of yet another government handout and in most cases probably didn’t really need the help?
The quality of your writing would benefit greatly if you would stop the petty partisanship and just move on. George Bush did not create our dependency on petroleum, and Barack Obama will not cure it.
Wrong again:
“Back in 1996, in an effort to change tax laws “to encourage business investment,” Congress made it possible for business owners to claim $17,500 in accelerated depreciation on equipment (such as trucks).”
So much for the biased Bush-bashing, maybe you could bash Congress or better yet, Clinton instead.
Wrong again:
“Back in 1996, in an effort to change tax laws “to encourage business investment,” Congress made it possible for business owners to claim $17,500 in accelerated depreciation on equipment (such as trucks).”
So much for the biased Bush-bashing, maybe you could bash Congress or better yet, Clinton instead.
There will always be a need for trucks and other vehicles in the transportation industry. While there is progress being made in providing more efficiency, people and work to become more accountable for the amount of fuel they use and the price. There are many tools that are available to help them do this.