REPORT: Escape puts Ford back atop Cash For Clunkers sales pileup

[RangerM]

See what's on that top 10 list that's missing on the other top 10 lists?

Yes and no. In that list is the "Ford Focus fwd" Is the Focus available in anything other than a front-wheel-drive?

 

And I do see where they list the "Ford Escape fwd", so yes it does differentiate in that regard. Now here's a question for you.

 

Which Toyota Corolla is #1? Is it the 1.8L or the 2.4L, 5-spd or AT, or are they being lumped together?

[tzach]

I don't think people complaining about the scrapping of these cars realize, that, in bulk, they are bottom of the barrel used cars.

 

Most used cars on the road today get better gas mileage than mid/late 90s SUVs & trucks. All those 3.8L V6 GM sedans--all of them get better gas mileage than SUVs and trucks, ditto the Vulcan Tauruses and Sables of that vintage, not to mention all the Accords and unsludged Camries. Those 90s sedans don't qualify for CARS--their mileage is too good. Therefore there's no incentive to trade them in on late 90s SUVs.

 

About the only beneficiaries to such a program would be owners of even older SUVs and trucks and how many of them are there?

 

----

 

BTW, The Escape is undoubtedly the most popular vehicle because it's in general terms about the same size as the mid 90s Explorer (the most popular C4C trade-in), but gets something like 50% better gas mileage. And is screwed together better with better safety equipment. What's not to like?

 

Depends on what you call bottom of the barrel. Yes 90's sedans get better gas milage, and where you are those are probably the oldest you see in general. By me, northern nj you barely even see anything before 2000. But in many poorer parts of the country you can bet there are a lot of 80's and even some 70's cars still on the road. And even if those get about the same milage as mid- 90's explorers and the like I bet the emissions are no where near as good. And even besides all those good environmental things don't you think someone driving a 77 ltd that is a pos and can't afford anything better would love to get a 98 explorer for free or at least a very low cost. Much better than scrapping prefectly good cars.

[RichardJensen]

are they being lumped together?

I can't tell you because I can't find the whole dataset, nor the accompanying explanation of the NHTSA methodology.

[RichardJensen]

in many poorer parts of the country you can bet there are a lot of 80's and even some 70's cars still on the road. And even if those get about the same milage as mid- 90's explorers and the like I bet the emissions are no where near as good

1: Define 'a lot'. Also explain to me how someone driving an '84 Cutlass will be able to AFFORD a '98 Explorer? Or is it your idea that the government should some how or another -give- these cars away? How would you propose doing that in a manner that wouldn't result in riots, lawsuits, and tons of negative press?

 

2: Justification of the program is as follows:

 

a ) stimulate the economy

b ) reduce fuel consumption

 

There's nothing in the mandate about better emissions, so......

[RangerM]

I can't tell you because I can't find the whole dataset, nor the accompanying explanation of the NHTSA methodology.

That's why I can't discount the "stupidity" or the "ulterior motive" possibilities.

 

It makes no sense to produce a list at all if the bases for it aren't established. There must be a motivation.

[tzach]

1: Define 'a lot'. Also explain to me how someone driving an '84 Cutlass will be able to AFFORD a '98 Explorer? Or is it your idea that the government should some how or another -give- these cars away? How would you propose doing that in a manner that wouldn't result in riots, lawsuits, and tons of negative press?

 

2: Justification of the program is as follows:

 

a ) stimulate the economy

b ) reduce fuel consumption

 

There's nothing in the mandate about better emissions, so......

 

1. more than 1

2. the justification would still be there but since they said nothing about emissins it doesn't matter, more government crap that we should care only about what they tell us. The cars are being destroyed so what off the car can be sold, I don't know but can it approach the market value of the car. The cars could be sold for a greatly reduced price that would mirror what the dealer cluld get out of the car in parts.

Edited August 9, 2009 by RichardJensen
added missing bracket

[RichardJensen]

It makes no sense to produce a list at all if the bases for it aren't established.

Actually, you can't have a list at all without having a qualifying basis--even if it's only 'stuff I want on the list.'

 

Secondly, absent any kind of list from the NHTSA, there's no way of being able to discern if gov't fiddling is going on, or if reporter fiddling is going on.

 

However, I would point out that there is definite proof that data has been altered by media outlets, whereas assertions of government fudging are purely speculative.

[RichardJensen]

1. more than 1

2. the justification would still be there but since they said nothing about emissins it doesn't matter, more government crap that we should care only about what they tell us. The cars are being destroyed so what off the car can be sold, I don't know but can it approach the market value of the car. The cars could be sold for a greatly reduced price that would mirror what the dealer cluld get out of the car in parts.

Two things:

 

1) Nobody is impartial, but it's rather counterproductive to make groundless claims like "more government crap"--at least try to understand what's going on instead of calling it crap and displaying no further curiosity about it.

 

2) 'sold for a greatly reduced price' as in what, exactly? Some guy trades in his '98 Explorer for the $4500 and then turns around and buys it back from the dealer for $3500? Or has his kid buy it back?

 

The problem is you have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise you have people trading in some seriously bad automobiles for C4C trades, and those cars are getting scrapped instead of being sold to people that have rusted out wrecks. I mean how many generations do you want to go back? And furthermore, if you're morally opposed to the program, why would you argue that it be extended back n generations?

Edited August 9, 2009 by RichardJensen

[syrtran]

I don't think people complaining about the scrapping of these cars realize, that, in bulk, they are bottom of the barrel used cars.

True, but nobody put out a youtube video for a 1998 Explorer in its death throes like someone did for the S80.

 

(and the Aurora - future collectibles should never be allowed to be scrapped, except if they've been totalled in an accident.)

 

 

BTW, The Escape is undoubtedly the most popular vehicle because it's in general terms about the same size as the mid 90s Explorer (the most popular C4C trade-in), but gets something like 50% better gas mileage. And is screwed together better with better safety equipment. What's not to like?

I parked the Tribute next to an older Explorer Sport once. They were almost exactly the same size.

[RichardJensen]

True, but nobody put out a youtube video for a 1998 Explorer in its death throes like someone did for the S80.

 

(and the Aurora - future collectibles should never be allowed to be scrapped, except if they've been totalled in an accident.)

I had a buddy with a first year S80. You can probably pick it up for $5k right now from a really low-rent car lot a few blocks from my apt. And then spend $3k on it over the next year fixing all the crap on it that breaks.

 

Also, I had a buddy with an Aurora. That silicate didn't do anything to the Northstar V8 that the engine wasn't in the process of doing to itself already. That engine is not known for its long-term reliability.

 

Besides, the more 'collectible' cars that are scrapped, the more collectible they become, eh? :P

[tzach]

Two things:

 

1) Nobody is impartial, but it's rather counterproductive to make groundless claims like "more government crap"--at least try to understand what's going on instead of calling it crap and displaying no further curiosity about it.

 

2) 'sold for a greatly reduced price' as in what, exactly? Some guy trades in his '98 Explorer for the $4500 and then turns around and buys it back from the dealer for $3500? Or has his kid buy it back?

 

The problem is you have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise you have people trading in some seriously bad automobiles for C4C trades, and those cars are getting scrapped instead of being sold to people that have rusted out wrecks. I mean how many generations do you want to go back? And furthermore, if you're morally opposed to the program, why would you argue that it be extended back n generations?

 

I work in government locally and see these thing first hand, and have to deal with the state and see the stupidity there. Groundless claims, open your eyes to what goes on for political gain that we can see just from therre actions. both sides. I do understand whats going on needless destructionof good cars. As far as price I don't know but how much can the dealer be making off the parts. No engine or trans and the 4500 they are reimbursed for out of our pocket.

 

why do you have to draw the line somewhere and what is the problem with seriously bad autos being traded in. I thought that was the point to get the worst cars off the road. And why can't emmissions and safety be part of determining that.

 

I never said I was morally opposed to the program, I just think that there are ways it can be improved and run better.

[RangerM]

Actually, you can't have a list at all without having a qualifying basis--even if it's only 'stuff I want on the list.'

 

Secondly, absent any kind of list from the NHTSA, there's no way of being able to discern if gov't fiddling is going on, or if reporter fiddling is going on.

 

However, I would point out that there is definite proof that data has been altered by media outlets, whereas assertions of government fudging are purely speculative.

Regardless, that's why I don't discount either side's point of view. But I would point out the media outlets' revised list (that includes all versions of a model, that are presumably eligible) is more in line with what common sense most people would apply to a "top 10" list.

 

The government list is incomplete.

[tzach]

Regardless, that's why I don't discount either side's point of view. But I would point out the media outlets' revised list (that includes all versions of a model, that are presumably eligible) is more in line with what common sense most people would apply to a "top 10" list.

 

The government list is incomplete.

 

If you really think about it what possible reason could there be for seperating models out than to get trucks out of the top spots. They are the only ones effected. A car model is a car model. And if you don't think a group would hand pick evidence to support their versionof things just look around you everyone does it. The politicians both dem and rep are the most guilty.

[RichardJensen]

I work in government locally and see these thing first hand, and have to deal with the state and see the stupidity there.

Conversely, it's been a while since I worked for the state, but I still have friends and family that work for various levels of government, and while it's true that politics are often injected, it's also been my experience that individuals with the longest tenure and greatest respect/authority among employees (as opposed to appointees) are those who have a reputation for presenting data and carrying out assignments -regardless- of external pressure--for supporting the data itself, in instances like these (or, say the NIH/WHI study that killed hormone replacement therapy)

 

Now, again, we don't have the NHTSA's principles of organization at hand, but I would be extremely surprised to discover that the NHTSA is fiddling with the data--if, OTOH, the information is being released by the White House....... that's a different story.

Edited August 9, 2009 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

the media outlets' revised list (that includes all versions of a model, that are presumably eligible) is more in line with what common sense most people would apply to a "top 10" list.

1) That's Edmunds' own list, compiled from the same sources apparently available to everyone else--but which they post-processed (which every other media outlet could have done). Therefore it's not something that belongs to 'media outlets', plural, but to Edmunds, singular. It's not a generalizable instance, as opposed to the rehashing of the CNN filtered NHTSA list that most outlets used.

 

2) What does common sense have to do with government data? Gov't data is, in principle, processed/supplied in accordance with certain rules. Those rules need not have any relationship to how things exist in the real world. (For instance, why is Hispanic/Latino origin given special treatment on census forms?) But once in place, those rules are pretty rigorously followed by professionals.

Edited August 9, 2009 by RichardJensen

[Noah Harbinger]

Not really, The program is working at getting sales started and helping dealers, but the dems wouldn't be able to say it's working when the number one vehicle is a SUV and number three and seven are full size pickup trucks. The Republicans would have had a field day with it and there would have been even more backlash with the program which already isn't popular with voters.

 

To be fair, the Escape is much more efficient than the Explorers and Expeditions that are probably being traded in. Even the full sized trucks purchased under the program will have to meet the required fuel economy improvements set forth by the program; it's not like these buyers are somehow getting around the law.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Noah Harbinger

[RangerM]

1) That's Edmunds' own list, compiled from the same sources apparently available to everyone else--but which they post-processed (which every other media outlet could have done). Therefore it's not something that belongs to 'media outlets', plural, but to Edmunds, singular. It's not a generalizable instance, as opposed to the rehashing of the CNN filtered NHTSA list that most outlets used.

 

2) What does common sense have to do with government data? Gov't data is, in principle, processed/supplied in accordance with certain rules. Those rules need not have any relationship to how things exist in the real world. (For instance, why is Hispanic/Latino origin given special treatment on census forms?) But once in place, those rules are pretty rigorously followed by professionals.

1. Point taken, although I didn't think Edmunds was the only source.

 

2. And people wonder why some may have little or no faith in Government. Even worse, there are people who share this lack of trust, and either don't care, or continue to look to the Government for answers/solutions.

[RichardJensen]

And people wonder why some may have little or no faith in Government.

My experience is that railing over 'bureaucratic incompetence' misses the point. Your typical rank and file gov't employee has no more say over his/her work assignments and evaluations than someone in the private sector.

[RangerM]

My experience is that railing over 'bureaucratic incompetence' misses the point. Your typical rank and file gov't employee has no more say over his/her work assignments and evaluations than someone in the private sector.

Having worked for a Fortune 100 Company, I can agree with that. That's why I prefer my work with a company of fewer than 20.

 

Common sense has an inverse relationship to the size of the community.

Edited August 10, 2009 by RangerM

[Anthony]

Personally, I think the breakout by trim sold is exactly how it should be done. This entire bill is predicated by fuel economy. Each trim model that has a different fuel economy (in the realm of this bill) should be (and is) counted as a completely different car. I agree with that. That is exactly the results you should be seeing for this data. In the eyes of the "fuel conscious buyer", a 2WD 4cyl Escape and a 4WD V6 Escape are two entirely different vehicles in this realm.

 

I could understand lumping everything together if this was a sales race.....but it ain't, no matter how the media wants to spin it.

 

If you want to feel better knowing that Ford sold more vehicles because of this.... great. But stop looking for black helicopters.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Intrepidatious

[tzach]

Personally, I think the breakout by trim sold is exactly how it should be done. This entire bill is predicated by fuel economy. Each trim model that has a different fuel economy (in the realm of this bill) should be (and is) counted as a completely different car. I agree with that. That is exactly the results you should be seeing for this data. In the eyes of the "fuel conscious buyer", a 2WD 4cyl Escape and a 4WD V6 Escape are two entirely different vehicles in this realm.

 

I could understand lumping everything together if this was a sales race.....but it ain't, no matter how the media wants to spin it.

 

If you want to feel better knowing that Ford sold more vehicles because of this.... great. But stop looking for black helicopters.

 

I see where you are coming from but the escape is the escape. Yes there is a difference in the fuel economy

between a 4 cyl 2wd and a 6 cyl 4wd but the are still escapes and the 6 cyl 4wd still gets good enough milage to qualify for the program. They don't list the gas milage for each model on the list, so what reason is there to seprate out the models of certain vehicles because they get different milage when they are all eligible. The list seperated out is misleading to the average person, I don't think you could say otherwise.

[stephenhawkings]

I didn't read everyones reply but I remember hearing Friday on the news that the Jap cars made in the US were dominating the sales

 

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display...05/pm-clunkers/

 

although they didn't give any figures.

[tzach]

I didn't read everyones reply but I remember hearing Friday on the news that the Jap cars made in the US were dominating the sales

 

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display...05/pm-clunkers/

 

although they didn't give any figures.

 

That article gets to the heart of the argument, no mention of escape at all. People read that and see besides focus the rest of the top ten cars are foreign. But we all know that is not true, I think it erodes some of the confidence ford has built up and is misleading to the general public. Ironically you would think the government would want to report the list with more american cars on the list at the top to more justify the bailout.

[akirby]

Having worked in a corporate IT environment for 23 years I can almost guarantee this is what happened.

 

The database required to track and qualify C4C sales has to list each model separately because each one has different fuel economy. That's just the way the database has to be laid out. Now if you ask a DBA to run a report to show how many were sold, the default would be to count based on the model that's already in the database - which is how you get separate numbers for each model variation.

 

What SHOULD have happened is the folks producing the original report should have done the roll-up by make and model, but they didn't. So Edmunds did the rollup for them.

 

Was there a conspiracy behind not doing the roll-up? Perhaps - no way to really tell unless you were involved in creating and publishing the report. My guess is nobody thought about it and just published the numbers as they came out of the database. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. Although I'm not totally discounting the manipulation theory.

[tzach]

Having worked in a corporate IT environment for 23 years I can almost guarantee this is what happened.

 

The database required to track and qualify C4C sales has to list each model separately because each one has different fuel economy. That's just the way the database has to be laid out. Now if you ask a DBA to run a report to show how many were sold, the default would be to count based on the model that's already in the database - which is how you get separate numbers for each model variation.

 

What SHOULD have happened is the folks producing the original report should have done the roll-up by make and model, but they didn't. So Edmunds did the rollup for them.

 

Was there a conspiracy behind not doing the roll-up? Perhaps - no way to really tell unless you were involved in creating and publishing the report. My guess is nobody thought about it and just published the numbers as they came out of the database. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. Although I'm not totally discounting the manipulation theory.

 

Thanks for the info. I can see what you are saying, and if no one purposely left the data the way you say it might have been tabulated, it doesn't take a brain sugeon to look down the list and see the same models listed as different cofigurations. That being said I find it a little hard to believe that no one noticed this and at least asked if the models should be combined. Mabee there wasn't a vast government conspiricy b ut I would think someone made the decission to leave the list the way it was knowing that it would at least be misleading if not flat out wrong.