After touting the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program as a "runaway success" and "great for the environment," Friday’s CBS Early Show finally reported on problems with the plan as co-host Maggie Rodriguez declared: "And find out why the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program could actually end up costing you long term."
While previous Early Show segments on the plan gave only passing attention to its critics, Rodriguez began Friday’s story by explaining: "Congress has passed a $2 billion extension for the popular ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program, but some critics are being vocal this morning, saying it may not be such a good idea after all." Correspondent Terrell Brown reported: "‘Cash for Clunkers’ is said to be environmentally friendly, but some are trashing the new government program....Recyclers say some salvaged car engines are still valuable. Instead, they’re being needlessly destroyed." One wonders why CBS did not highlight this criticism before the government spent another $2 billion on the program.
Brown went on to describe the car-destroying process: "Dealers are told to destroy the engine by replacing oil with sodium silicate and then running it....With the engine destroyed, many cars bypass the part recyclers and go straight to the salvage yards." The report featured the vice president of the Automotive Recylers Association, Michael Wilson: "We think a much more efficient program would have been to encourage recycled parts usage....All those parts that could have been reused will go right to a scrap processor."
At the end of the segment, Brown activated a car-crushing machine at a salvage yard, excitedly declaring: "That was so cool. Maggie, I could do this all day long....can I do this again? I’ve got to get rid of this remote because I could do this all day." Rodriguez added: "Alright, now that they’ve extended this, they’re going to be very busy doing that kind of thing."
Here is a full transcript of the segment:
7:00AM TEASE:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: And find out why the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program could actually end up costing you long term.
7:05AM SEGMENT:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Congress has passed a $2 billion extension for the popular ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program, but some critics are being vocal this morning, saying it may not be such a good idea after all. CBS News correspondent Terrell Brown is in Elmsford, New York, with more. Good morning, Terrell.
TERRELL BROWN: Hey there, Maggie, good morning to you. We’re at a scrap yard this morning. And all of the cars out here are clunkers. This Ford F150, that Jeep Cherokee, and these three guys over here. So business at this scrap yard is going fairly well. 60 Cars have been brought in since the program got started. And another 15 or 16 came in yesterday. But it’s auto part recyclers that say that this program is putting a dent in their profits. More crushed cars and new scrap metal. ‘Cash for Clunkers’ is said to be environmentally friendly, but some are trashing the new government program.
MICHAEL WILSON [VICE PRESIDENT, AUTOMOTIVE RECYCLERS ASSOCIATION]: We think a much more efficient program would have been to encourage recycled parts usage.
BROWN: Recyclers say some salvaged car engines are still valuable. Instead, they’re being needlessly destroyed.
WILSON: Based on the rule, no part from that engine can be sold.
BROWN: The ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program requires that all cars either be crushed or shredded. Some car parts can be salvaged before that happens, but not the engine. Dealers are told to destroy the engine by replacing oil with sodium silicate and then running it. What’s its value after that?
TIM MALONE [BROOKFIELD AUTO WRECKERS]: After that, it’s just scrap metal.
BROWN: With the engine destroyed, many cars bypass the part recyclers and go straight to the salvage yards.
WILSON: All those parts that could have been reused will go right to a scrap processor.
BROWN: A sad fate, even for a clunker. And the engines in these cars have to be destroyed. One, the government wants to keep these cars off of the road, keep them from being resold. And also it’s an effort to get more fuel-efficient cars on the road. Now, in the process of getting cars recycled, they end up at a place like this, and this is what ends up happening here. Take a look at this, Maggie (activates car crusher by remote control). That was so cool. Maggie, I could do this all day long. Tim, can I do this again? I’ve got to get rid of this remote because I could do this all day. Guys, I’ll send it back inside to you.
RODRIGUEZ: Alright, now that they’ve extended this, they’re going to be very busy doing that kind of thing. CBS’s Terrell Brown. Thanks a lot Terrell.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"We think a much more
August 7, 2009 - 11:54 ET by Camelopardalis"We think a much more efficient program would have been to encourage recycled parts usage....All those parts that could have been reused will go right to a scrap processor."
How is that not common sense?
Far more efficient
August 7, 2009 - 12:11 ET by CobraManAfar more efficient program is to not destroy, or part out, perfectly good automobiles at all. If it works, why destroy it? That's like destroying your entire house just to get a more energy efficient set of windows, or a more efficient gas water heater. If you want better gas millage, replace the engine, not the car. It's a lot cheaper and a lot more environmentally friendly, correct?
BTW, how much CO2 is being created to power those crushers and recyclers? Those things don't run on good will, you know.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
How dare they
August 7, 2009 - 11:55 ET by cwnelson79How dare these traitors question a plan used by the King of the universe! Who the hell do they think that they are? Do they not know that the clunkers program is saving both auto dealerships and the environment in one swoop? I am going to have to report them to the snitch address at the white house. This cannot stand.
Am I wrong in speculating that if we let these
August 7, 2009 - 12:01 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltnitwits run helathcare, in two years we'll see something akin to how this C for C program played out:
-huge confusion at all healthcare facilities, doctor's offices, etc. No one knows exactly what's covered or how to file or what it will cost or who needs to approve treatment
-massive cost overruns
-incredible backlog of documentation and filings at the government level
-crashing web sites, lost data, hacks and security problems
...and yet, just like C for C, the idiots who wrote the plan will then call it a huge success and demand that we fund it more to the tune of 200% more than originally budgeted.
It will happen just as surely as night follows day.
getting rid of the clunkers - a running theme
August 7, 2009 - 12:16 ET by mom_roxThe Obama Administration wants to rid the country of clunkers because they are not efficient.
It seems that they have the same opinion of the elderly. (Pres. Obama says they should probably just take a painkiller.)
~~save your tea, dump congress~~
Trucks Win!
August 7, 2009 - 12:05 ET by slickwillie2001I saw some dipstick on local Atlanta news refer to the engines being destroyed as 'the bad polluting engines', which illustrates the ignorance of the media on this topic. Some of these engines that come from qualifying vehicles at worse than 20mpg, when put into a lighter vehicle like a car or light truck could get better than 20mpg. It's even conceivable that one might trade in a clunker for a qualifying new vehicle and find the same engine under the hood.
Another point being lost, the typical story being sold is that these folks are buying fuel-efficient little cars like the Ford Focus. Not true, the best-selling vehicle being bought under C4C is the Ford Escape SUV. Ford F-150 trucks and Chevrolet Silverado trucks are also big sellers. Data can be looked at any way you want to spin it:
Trucks Win in Cash for Clunkers Game: http://money.cnn.com
The Big Lie
August 7, 2009 - 12:29 ET by CobraManThe Big Lie being promoted by the Cash For Clunkers proponents is that you need to replace your car or truck to achieve greater gas mileage, but that's not true. Something as simple (and cheap) as replacing your old tires with newer ones can add several miles per gallon to your existing vehicle.
You can also tweak the computerized setting for any fuel injection systems and achieve better gas mileage.
For even greater mileage improvement , replace the engine, as that is what is actually giving you your mileage. The car and truck frames will still be the same, as well as the bodies, windows, drive trains, ect.
What most people fail to understand is that they only real improvement comes from changes in the ENGINE and the TIRES! The part that GENERATES the power and the part that TRANSFERS that power to the road itself. THAT'S what determines gas mileage.
There's no need to replace the entire car for just a 10-15 mile per gallon improvement. That's the Big Lie.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Sorry, CM, you're not going to improve your mileage
August 7, 2009 - 12:50 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltby several miles per gallon by replacing tires...unless your old tires were made of wood.
And don't think you can take a 1990 town car and just swap in a smaller v6 and save gas. First of all, it can't be done without a lot of specialized attention. Cars are built to accomodate specific motors, and shoe-horning another motor in there won't work without lots of tweaking, to say the least. I know, I've done it on a couple of custom cars, and it requires engineering and resourcefulness. If I had to pay someone for the labor and head-scratching and trial and error that it took me to swap out the old carbuerated 302 with a newer 5.8 efi in my '76 Bronco, it would have cost a small fortune. Motor mounts, transmission adapting, rear end gearing, electronics mismatch problems, hose routing, coolant system redesign, , etc., etc. It hasn't been that simple for years, if it ever was.
And lastly, you still wouldn't save that much in gas mileage, because your performance would suffer greatly. So you'd end up using the new, small motor way beyond what it has the capacity to produce, meaning that you'd not be seeing how fuel efficient that small motor is when you've got the pedal mashed to the floor just to get to highway speed. After all, it takes a certain amount of energy to move a 4,000 lb car, regardless of what engine produces that energy. Your small savings would be gained at the expense of performance and longevity of the motor. Why do you think they don't put four cylinder motors in Town Cars?
You're not getting a 10-15 mpg improvement in a car by replacing the engine, at least not a car that anyone would want to drive.
I'm no fan of this stupid C for C program, but let's not drift off into fantasyland...
Yes, you will
August 7, 2009 - 13:15 ET by CobraManYes, you will get an improvement b replacing your tires. You see, tires lose rubber as you drive, due to the friction with the road. This decreases their diameter. It's not much, but losing just one millimeter makes the tires work that much harder to move a given distance as those tires need to rotate more than when their diameter is bigger. More rotations means more gas required to move that given distance. This adds up, the older the tire, the more rotations they need to move a given distance, and the tires are still decreasing their diameter as you drive.
They also change their tread patterns as they deteriorate. As those tread patterns changes, so does their abuility to transfer power to the road surface. The more they change over time, the less power their able to transfer. This also lowers gas mileage.
Also, the newer tires are constructed with more advanced materials than just a few years ago. They're stronger, resist wear better, and have better adhesion to the roads than older tires, thus transferring more rotational power to forward motion, reducing the mileage requirements. This increase gas mileage over previous models.
I know this is true as watched my gas mileage increase last year AFTER I replaced my 5 year old tires with new one.
So, yes, there is an improvement. Like I said, it may be just a few miles per gallon, but those miles add up.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Re Tires
August 7, 2009 - 15:08 ET by slickwillie2001True, but as you said it's not much of a change. You can get a much more significant effect by looking at your tires when it's time for a change and going to a tire with a bigger diameter or greater circumference. There are websites that can tell you the circumference of any tire size. This assumes you have enough power in the engine to still get it up to speed; most engines would with the exception of a little putt-putt. You might not think that there is a difference in circumference between a (example) 245/50-16 and a 255/50-16 but there is because of the strange way those numbers are calculated. (See http://www.discounttire.com)
This is not unlike changing your rear-end ratio for a lower numbered gearset. I remember when the first gas crisis hit and aftermarket overdrive units were available which does something similar. Within a few years most manufacturers came out with five-speeds where fifth is effectively an overdrive. I've also changed out rear ends for higher numbered gears (easy in a Ford) which makes the car come alive but kills gas mileage. All this messing around screws up your speedo though.
You don't need a smaller motor
August 7, 2009 - 13:24 ET by CobraMan"And lastly, you still wouldn't save that much in gas mileage, because your performance would suffer greatly."
You don't need a smaller motor, just a more efficient one. The 350 horse power engine of today is far more efficient than a 350 horse power motor of just 10 years ago. By UPGRADING the engine, you get better gas mileage without sacrificing performance. As a matter of fact, you may even see an INCREASE in performance while achieving better gas mileage!
I'm not suggesting the people change to a less powerful engine, just a more efficient one.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Not to worry, I knew
August 7, 2009 - 13:27 ET by billbNot to worry, I knew exactley what you meant, and I agree totally. Information today must be spoonfed to most people. That's why political sound bites are so popular.
BTYW, failed assumption.
August 7, 2009 - 13:28 ET by CobraManBTW, you're operating under a failed assumption, and that is that most of the people taking advantage of the CFC program are trading in their 20 year or older models for new one, and that's not true. Most of the models being traded are less than five years old.
Oh, and for those 20 year old models, try an overhaul. The new parts,( like new bearings, valves , headers, piston rings, and the like) can almost DOUBLE your gas mileage, and as less than 25 percent of the cost of a new car.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
DOUBLE your mileage???
August 7, 2009 - 13:37 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltYou're out of your mind.
Dude!
August 7, 2009 - 13:45 ET by CobraManDude, think it through! What happens to an engine as the parts wear out? It loses POWER and EFFICIENCY! By replacing old parts with new, you REGAIN that lost power and efficiency!
Just a small loss of piston ring diameter alone can VASTLY effect gas millage as more gas vapors will ESCAPE around those worn rings than new rings, and more OIL will enter the combustion chamber (which, btw, also reduces gas mileage). By replacing old parts with new ones, you can DOUBLE your gas mileage over what you had before.
So, mister "expert," who's "out of your mind?" Me or you?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Um..."dude"...
August 7, 2009 - 14:36 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltYour first paragraph is correct, but your numbers are so far out as to be laughable.
Let me give a real-world example. Last fall my wife's 95 town car was burning oil to the tune of a quart of oil in 500 miles. For those unfamiliar...that's a LOT of oil. That's enough oil to get you some dirty looks on the road. You look like a cropduster burning that much oil. The car had 195,000 miles on it, compression was low and the valve guides were original, as was the entire motor. It was getting 26mpg on the highway and about 17 around town (worn tires too). I took it out and rebuilt the motor; new rings, valve guides, did a poor man's valve job (ground the old valves in).
I didn't check the mileage afterward, but I dare say we didn't get 34/52 mpg. How much more worn does a motor have to get before your numbers ring true? And then if I replaced the tires too, you're saying that I should get what...close to sixty mpg highway?
Really...you're talking through your a**.
Oh, and I hear Autozone has this great new device called a Vortex something-or-other that you just slap on your intake and you can increase your mileage by 25%!!! I think you ought to rush right on down there and buy one!!!!
You're intentionally distorting my statement,.
August 7, 2009 - 15:05 ET by CobraManYou're intentionally distorting my statement. I never state that you'll achieve any mileage greater than a NEW model for any given car, I said you RESTORE your mileage to what it was when you first bought that car.
You need to understand that a RATED mileage for a new engine is what the factory test and reports when that car is NEW. As the car is driven, you're gas mileage will DECREASE with time because wear and tear on the engine reduces efficiency. You do understand this, right?
By replacing old parts with new parts, you're restoring that engine to it's original factory state and you'll notice a return to that original gas mileage figure.
THAT'S what I mean by increasing gas mileage, but you already should understand this as you're not stupid. So, WHY are you intentionally misrepresenting my statements as to imply
I'm telling people they'll improve their mileage better than what a NEW car of that make and model will, or could ever, produce?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Here's another real-world situation.
August 7, 2009 - 15:06 ET by CobraManSince you love 'real-world" situations, let me offer one of my own.
I have a friend who bought a 30 year old Jeep Cherokee and he was complaining about what bad gas mileage he was getting. He said something like "this damn thing is rated at 16 mpg but I'm getting less than 8, more like 6 or 7" I replied: "You probably need an engine overhaul." He replied: "Oh yea, I guess so."
Even though he's not a mechanic, HE understood that his mileage was low do to the wear on the engine and the need to replace the old parts with new ones.
BTW, he GOT that overhaul and he's a lot a happier now that he's getting better than 14 mpg in the city. So that's almost a DOUBLING of his mileage, correct?
So, tell me again how I'm making a mistake or being dishonest with my figures?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Hypocrite, thy name is WhoIsJohnGalt.
August 7, 2009 - 15:29 ET by CobraMan"And then if I replaced the tires too, you're saying that I should get what...close to sixty mpg highway?."
You're doing it again. attributing to me claims I never made. I said that you'll improve your gas mileage by replacing old tires with new. And nothing you given as a counter-argument shows me to be wrong. In case you''re too stupid to figure it out, that's the improvement you'll see over your CURRENT gas mileage.
"Really...you're talking through your a**."
Hypocrite, thy name is WhoIsJohnGalt.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
While you...
August 9, 2009 - 06:56 ET by rightwingidiotWhile you make some interesting points, you are overstating the results of rebuilding an engine. In order to double gas mileage (IE: from 15 to 30 MPG) with a particular system design (and I refer to system as the motor and all related hardware and electronics that contribute to it's function) you would have to start with a 30 MPG system when the vehicle was new.
The difference in engine system design from just from 10 years ago is dramatic. A lot has been put into the systems to gain MPG and the gains have been modest at best. There's a simple answer to why fuel mileage increases only creep upward slowly: the burning of gasoline in an internal combustion engine only nets a percentage of the available power in the gasoline. The rest is wasted as heat.
There's only so much that you can do by using the heat of burning of a fuel (regardless of whether it's gasoline or propane or natural gas or whatever) in an internal combustion engine. There is always going to be heat generated that is simply tossed away.
Rebuilding an engine cannot produce any mileage gains beyond what the vehicle did when new. Doubling isn't realistic because a motor would have to be so worn out to get 1/2 the original mileage that it would probably barely run if it would run at all.
In the "Clunkers" program,
August 7, 2009 - 13:20 ET by billbIn the "Clunkers" program, who pays the income tax on the $4500? Next April should prove interesting.
Bilb,
August 7, 2009 - 13:33 ET by UpNorththat is indeed an interesting question. I'm thinking this is another hidden O tax.
Fools, this program was
August 7, 2009 - 15:16 ET by George S PattonFools, this program was never about improved gas mileage or the environment. The magic negro hoped it would boost GM so he could say he saved the auto industry and buy more votes.