Cash For Clunkers final numbers: 690,000 vehicles sold; $2.8 billion used; 24.9 mpg average for the new cars
C.A.R.S. ended Monday night and the numbers are in. At first blush, things look positive. First, 690,114 vouchers were submitted asking for $2.877 billion (just under the program's $3 billion limit). There was also $100 million used for administration costs (as Autoblog calculates, about $144 for every claim processed) and there is $23 million or so left over. Flash analysis by the White House Council of Economic Advisers says the program boosted economic growth in the 3Q by 4/10ths of a percent and created or saved 42,000 jobs that still remain, at least for the near future.
How did the overall fuel economy change because of the new 700,000 vehicles on the road? Only two of the top 10 vehicles purchased were from the Big Three – the Ford Focus FWD came in fourth and the Ford Escape FWD was tenth – while the Toyota Prius was seventh. In fact, the Big Three got less of a boost from Cash For Clunkers than would be expected given their market share. Only 38.6 percent of the vehicles sold through C.A.R.S. were Ford, GM or Chrysler models but their market share through July this year was 45.3 percent.
The top three vehicles sold using C.A.R.S. were the Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic and Toyota Camry. As for the vehicles being clunked, every single one of the top ten were big honkers from the Big Three: Explorers, F-150s, Blazers, etc. This resulted in an overall fuel economy increase of 58 percent. The clunkers averaged 15.8 mpg; the new vehicles averaged 24.9 mpg. You can find out detailed numbers, including rebate requests by state, after the jump.
The next big question: how will auto sales fare in September?
[Source: Detroit News, Automotive News (subs req'd), Michigan Radio, Autoblog]
Photo by dno1967. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.
C.A.R.S. Program Statistics
Dealer Transactions
Number Submitted: 690,114
Dollar Value: $2,877.9M
Top 10 New Vehicles Purchased
1. Toyota Corolla
2. Honda Civic
3. Toyota Camry
4. Ford Focus FWD
5. Hyundai Elantra
6. Nissan Versa
7. Toyota Prius
8. Honda Accord
9. Honda Fit
10. Ford Escape FWD
New Vehicles Manufacturers
Toyota 19.4%
General Motors 17.6%
Ford 14.4%
Honda 13.0%
Nissan 8.7%
Hyundai 7.2%
Chrysler 6.6%
Kia 4.3%
Subaru 2.5%
Mazda 2.4%
Volkswagen 2.0%
Suzuki 0.6%
Mitsubishi 0.5%
MINI 0.4%
Smart 0.2%
Volvo 0.1%
All Other <0.1%
Top 10 Trade-in Vehicles
1. Ford Explorer 4WD
2. Ford F150 Pickup 2WD
3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD
4. Ford Explorer 2WD
5. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan 2WD
6. Jeep Cherokee 4WD
7. Chevrolet Blazer 4WD
8. Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2WD
9. Ford F150 Pickup 4WD
10. Ford Windstar FWD Van
Vehicles Purchased by Category
Passenger Cars: 404,046
Category 1 Truck: 231,651
Category 2 Truck: 46,836
Category 3 Truck: 2,408
Vehicle Trade-in by Category
Passenger Cars: 109,380
Category 1 Truck: 450,778
Category 2 Truck: 116,909
Category 3 Truck: 8,134
84% of trade-ins under the program are trucks, and 59% of new vehicles purchased are cars. The program worked far better than anyone anticipated at moving consumers out of old, dirty trucks and SUVs and into new more fuel-efficient cars.
Average Fuel Economy
New vehicles Mileage: 24.9 MPG
Trade-in Mileage: 15.8 MPG
Overall increase: 9.2 MPG, or a 58% improvement
Cars purchased under the program are, on average, 19% above the average fuel economy of all new cars currently available, and 59% above the average fuel economy of cars that were traded in. This means the program raised the average fuel economy of the fleet, while getting the dirtiest and most polluting vehicles off the road.
Requested Voucher Dollar Amount by State:
ALABAMA
$31,251,500
ALASKA
$4,868,500
ARIZONA
$39,542,500
ARKANSAS
$23,402,500
CALIFORNIA
$326,822,000
COLORADO
$37,676,500
CONNECTICUT
$40,114,000
DELAWARE
$11,235,000
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
$67,500
FLORIDA
$146,565,000
GEORGIA
$70,496,000
GUAM
$675,000
HAWAII
$7,333,500
IDAHO
$11,655,000
ILLINOIS
$143,613,000
INDIANA
$65,797,000
IOWA
$37,728,000
KANSAS
$31,496,500
KENTUCKY
$40,246,500
LOUISIANA
$33,376,500
MAINE
$16,579,500
MARYLAND
$74,903,000
MASSACHUSETTS
$64,855,000
MICHIGAN
$132,407,500
MINNESOTA
$73,160,500
MISSISSIPPI
$12,463,500
MISSOURI
$61,271,500
MONTANA
$6,461,000
NEBRASKA
$21,784,500
NEVADA
$14,582,000
NEW HAMPSHIRE
$23,045,500
NEW JERSEY
$103,375,500
NEW MEXICO
$13,941,500
NEW YORK
$156,292,000
NORTH CAROLINA
$78,601,500
NORTH DAKOTA
$8,938,000
OHIO
$136,267,000
OKLAHOMA
$37,422,000
OREGON
$37,531,500
PENNSYLVANIA
$138,651,500
PUERTO RICO
$2,252,000
RHODE ISLAND
$10,690,500
SOUTH CAROLINA
$37,207,500
SOUTH DAKOTA
$10,367,500
TENNESSEE
$50,949,000
TEXAS
$183,776,500
UTAH
$24,102,500
VERMONT
$9,879,000
VIRGIN ISLANDS
$1,553,000
VIRGINIA
$98,523,500
WASHINGTON
$55,927,500
WEST VIRGINIA
$13,477,000
WISCONSIN
$70,165,000
WYOMING
$2,513,000
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Rick 8:01PM (8/26/2009)
... and it turns out the $4500. is taxable income ...... I find it quite amusing that that part has been kept so quiet.
Reply
Nixon 8:46PM (8/26/2009)
It is NOT taxable income to the car buyers. It is only income to the dealerships. Which makes complete sense.
Without the program they would have sold a $24,000 dollar Jetta TDI, and reported that entire amount as income on their taxes (minus expenses, of course).
With the program, they sell the Jetta TDI and get $19,500 + $4,500 from C4C for a total of $24,000 dollars in income. Which they will report as income (minus expenses) just like any other sale they make.
Do you think the Dealerships should get a double-dip??
Do you think they should get sales in their first dip, and then a tax DEDUCTION on top of that in their second dip?? Why should the car industry get an additional 2.88 Billion in tax deductions ON TOP of the 3 billion we already spent?
Rick 8:49PM (8/26/2009)
actually taxable income for the car buyer - as reported here http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/08/turns_out_that_the_4500_cash_f.html
Terry Yeung 9:26PM (8/26/2009)
That article might be specific to South Dakota and I think they are referring to vehicle registration taxes and not income tax. Here in California when we buy a car (new or used) we pay a tax based on the sales price when we register the car. Sounds like in South Dakota they are counting that $4500 towards the sales price and taxing it.
Nixon 10:08PM (8/26/2009)
Rick, your source is spreading disinformation. Now YOU are spreading disinformation.
The rebates will NOT be "taxed as regular income" like your source claims. Buyers will NOT have a "healthy tax bill next year" like your source claims. It is pure idoicy. It is yet another right-wing disinformation campaign.
As far as sales tax goes, every single penny paid this year in sales tax on car purchases is TAX DEDUCTABLE on your federal income taxes. So if your state requires you to pay something like 10% state sales tax on $4500 of a $25000 car purchase (total taxes = $2,500, of which only $450 would be on the rebate. IF you are in a 32% tax bracket, you will get back around $800 dollars of all the sales tax you pay. Or a NET tax rebate of $350 dollars. So enough of the whining already!!!
Try actually knowing something about what you are talking about, instead of just cut and pasting some crap from some right-wing blog.
Rick 11:50PM (8/26/2009)
well okay - but I wasn't just quoting some right wing blog - I was quoting a government official which I thought was safe enough - County Treasurer Pam Nelson
It also appeared in some normally dependable newspapers.
At any rate. This plan was a strange little money spending idea. Wonder whats next.
Tim 10:09AM (8/27/2009)
"Cash for Refrigerators' Debuts in Fall. Really."
http://www.reuters.com/article/mnEnergy/idUS225779891520090825
"So, what do you do when you have a poorly-conceived and ill-managed project winding down (Clunkers expires at 8 p.m. eastern on August 24)? Kick off another one, even more poorly thought out, and gloss it with an equally catchy name: Cash for Refrigerators. Beginning in the fall, consumers will have access - through existing state-level energy efficiency incentive programs - $300 million in stimulus funds made available as rebates for energy efficient appliances."
Progressivism aka Crony Capitalism masquerading as the free market is a mental disorder. Thing swould be much better had the maket been truly free, but that has NOT been the case since the Woodrow Wilson breathed life into the Federal Reserve monster in 1913.
jpm 8:05PM (8/26/2009)
OMG! 25 mpg!! Wow!!! My car got that back in 1998 :(
MORE wasteful squandering of money that the govt never had in the first place.
Reply
Derek 10:42PM (8/26/2009)
Well, I'm kinda curious. The EPA says my car "should" get 20mpg. Meanwhile, I actually gets 28ish mpg despite my right foots' best effort to meet the EPA number. I think the cost of the traffic tickets required to actually meet the EPA number would be prohibitive...
So, what I'd really like to know is: what was the average EPA MPG of the cars turned in?
Chet 11:48AM (8/27/2009)
Average Fuel Economy
New vehicles Mileage: 24.9 MPG
Trade-in Mileage: 15.8 MPG
Remember, these are "combined" figures (city & highway), and that 24.9 is reflective of the newer (lower) EPA method introduced for MY2008.
As for that 1998 car getting that mileage, is 25mpg a real-world 55% city / 45% highway figure? And does that old car perform as well, emit as few pollutants, and provide as much protection as a new car achieving the same mileage?
wincros 8:39PM (8/26/2009)
The $4500 is not taxable income for the new car buyer. The car buyer never sees it. It is a payment to the car dealer. You need to get your head out of Rupert Murdoch's..., well never mind his anatomy. You probably know what you are saying is not true, but are just doing your little right wing tool talking point from Fox News like a good right wing soldier.
As for the 25 MPG hand wringing. It nearly doubled the efficiency of the clunkers taken off the road. Oooh, how horrible. Plus it provided a big stimulus to the sick economy, much better than the tax cuts that people have hoarded in their bank accounts. Every car maker has called back employees taking people off unemployment. Parts suppliers are busy again. Oooh. Terrible. It might help the economy.
Reply
Y2Jared 8:49PM (8/26/2009)
not to mention the amount of gas and oil being saved in the deal. 10 MPG for that many cars i think will help everybody out in the long run--even if insane amounts of money were poured into doing so.
Rick 8:52PM (8/26/2009)
try the link above dude
dialing_wand 9:12PM (8/26/2009)
Has anyone calculated the net cost per mpg increase of this whole project? We would need the average mpg of all the vehicles turned in I guess... even then the math would be pretty shaky, but hey, it would probably be as good as the math that got us here. ;)
Reply
GoodCheer 10:53AM (8/27/2009)
Well, they say the average turn-in was 15.8 mpg (actually, they say that right there in the second paragraph... low marks for reading comprehension my friend).
690,114 * (24.9 - 15.8) = 1.65 billion mpg
total cost $2.977 billion
cost per mpg (whatever that means) $1.80.
A more meaningful metric is (as usual) flipping the number over.
24.9mpg = 9.4 l / 100k
15.8 mpg = 14.9 l / 100k
Fuel savings of 5.5 l / 100k
Time 690,114 vehicles for $2.977 billion = about $0.001 per liter/100km.
Or looking at annual vehicle use and fuel imports
5.5 * 690,114 / $2.977 billion * 20,000 km/year = ~$0.25
We taxpayers paid $0.25 to avoid importing 1 l of gas EACH YEAR, or we paid a bit less than a dollar to avoid importing 1 gallon EACH YEAR. And that is a non-recurring cost.
That seems like a pretty good deal to me.
jrnyjunk 9:30PM (8/26/2009)
Rick, you really need to find more reliable sources. The CARS rebate is not taxable to the car buyer as expressly provided in the federal statute. See these sites for confirmation:
http://www.cars.gov/faq#category-06
CARS Act § 1302(h)(2): FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION- A voucher issued under the program or any payment made for such a voucher pursuant to subsection (a)(3) [the CARS program] shall not be considered as gross income of the purchaser of a vehicle for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
http://www.cars.gov/files/official-information/law.pdf
Reply
eb 10:24PM (8/26/2009)
and how many of the new cars purchased were alternative fuel vehicles? any NEVs?
Reply
kcmurphy88 1:47AM (8/27/2009)
For $2.8 billion, we got people to do what they pretty much were already going to do a few months later. Now they won't because they already did.
Reply
KK 12:00PM (8/27/2009)
Perhaps. But thanks to the program, auto makers and car dealers (and their employees) have money NOW. And they'd spend at least some of it NOW, which means other people will get more money. That's the whole idea of a stimulus.
kcmurphy88 1:40PM (8/27/2009)
Might as well drop the money from helicopters, then, if that's the whole point.