Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Lies for Clunkers??

Old 09-03-09, 01:01 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,054
Lies for Clunkers??

This article suggests the administration's accounting of the top sellers in the "cash for clunkers" program is (more than) a little deceptive.

By counting 2WD and 4WD models of a pickup or SUV as two entirely different vehicles, it downplays the sales of trucks and SUVs in the ptogram, boosting (politically correct) cars to the top. Edmunds list is QUITE different.

So, has anybody seen the FULL list of sales by model??

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/edm...gets-it-wrong/
Edmunds: DOTís Cash for Clunkers Top Ten List Gets It Wrong
By Robert Farago
August 7, 2009

The autoblogosphere is abuzz with debate over the Department of Transportationís (DOT) list of the top ten Cash for Clunking vehicles. To say the least. 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 youíre Edmunds (or any one else with an ounce of common sense), you combine all the model variantsí sales totals into one stat. And if you do that, you get a horse of a different color. The implication making the rounds: the DOT manipulated the data to hide the fact that a brace of SUVs and pickup trucks made the top ten; the Cash for Clunkers program is supposed to be about saving the environment. Yes, well, high margin pickup trucks offer the best chance of saving the domestics. So, letís compare the DOT list (as of August 7) with Edumundsí take . . .


Rank DOT, Edmunds
1. Toyota Corolla, Ford Escape
2. Ford Focus, Ford Focus
3. Honda Civic, Jeep Patriot
4. Toyota Prius, Dodge Caliber
5. Toyota Camry, Ford F-150
6. Hyundai Elantra, Honda Civic
7. Ford Escape (FWD), Chevrolet Silverado
8. Dodge Caliber, Chevrolet Cobalt
9. Honda Fit, Toyota Corolla
10. Chevrolet Cobalt, Ford Fusion
OldDude is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 01:11 PM
  #2  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,141
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

Not terribly unexpected... BTW I thought the environmental aspect was being downplayed even while the program was running. It seemed to turn more into a bail out for local car dealers... assuming they ever get their money from the Gov't
nemein is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 01:24 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

NO WAY!!!!
<i></i>
kvrdave is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 01:28 PM
  #4  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,854
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

Originally Posted by OldDude View Post
This article suggests the administration's accounting of the top sellers in the "cash for clunkers" program is (more than) a little deceptive.
But is it any more or less deceptive than the way the government has always classified automobiles?
Edmunds [via CNN] reports that the DOT counted vehicles EPA-style
So what's the big deal here?
wendersfan is online now  
Old 09-03-09, 01:46 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

Originally Posted by wendersfan View Post
But is it any more or less deceptive than the way the government has always classified automobiles?So what's the big deal here?

The big deal is that they would say that a bunch of fuel efficient cars were sold, which is part of what the program was about. It would look bad for the program if everyone knew that the Ford F-150, the Jeep Patriot, and the Chevy Silverado were in the top 10.

Don't you think?
kvrdave is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 01:48 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,422
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

Well if the gov't wanted to do this auto-bailout thing properly they should have just said the program only is for the purchasing of the following make and models.. and had a even distribution of choices from among all the top car dealers (Not just ones made by Government Motors).
General Zod is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 01:56 PM
  #7  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,854
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
The big deal is that they would say that a bunch of fuel efficient cars were sold, which is part of what the program was about. It would look bad for the program if everyone knew that the Ford F-150, the Jeep Patriot, and the Chevy Silverado were in the top 10.

Don't you think?
I think that, if I cared enough, I would replicate the sales numbers using the pre-existing EPA classifications, and then compare with what the administration reported. If there was a difference, and if that difference made it seem that more people were buying fuel efficient cars, then I would be upset. Otherwise I wouldn't think this was a bad thing.
wendersfan is online now  
Old 09-03-09, 01:59 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,054
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
The big deal is that they would say that a bunch of fuel efficient cars were sold, which is part of what the program was about. It would look bad for the program if everyone knew that the Ford F-150, the Jeep Patriot, and the Chevy Silverado were in the top 10.

Don't you think?
Agreed, and to add to the deception, cars to be eligible needed to have pretty good mileage. Trucks were eligible with MUCH lower mileage (18 mpg, I think) and "work trucks" (medium duty light truck, like an F250) didn't have ANY mileage standard. So the "efficiency boost" is largely a lie.

I was pretty shocked by the lack of standards for trucks. It was much more of a "trade your old truck, get a nice new truck and $4500 coupon." Nice deal, but perhaps not what was advertised.
OldDude is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 02:01 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 12,246
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

A US Government run program deceptive? Imagine that!
Brian Shannon is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 02:09 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

You guys are too much.

The program was about giving a boost to the American economy as much as it was about some environmental issue. And even still, a 2009 Ford Escape is going to be a hell of a lot more efficient than the clunker traded in in most cases. If it was primarily about the environment, those trucks and SUV's (if you want to call a Jeep Patriot or Ford Escape an SUV ) would have been ineligible.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 02:16 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,054
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
You guys are too much.

The program was about giving a boost to the American economy as much as it was about some environmental issue. And even still, a 2009 Ford Escape is going to be a hell of a lot more efficient than the clunker traded in in most cases. If it was primarily about the environment, those trucks and SUV's (if you want to call a Jeep Patriot or Ford Escape an SUV ) would have been ineligible.

That isn't what you would be saying if it were Bush's C4C program. But I forgot, the Messiah can do no wrong; I retract my criticism (no, I don't).
OldDude is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 02:17 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

Oh please. OldDude has suddenly fallen in with the "The Messiah" crowd. How tired already.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 02:19 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,614
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
You guys are too much.

The program was about giving a boost to the American economy as much as it was about some environmental issue. And even still, a 2009 Ford Escape is going to be a hell of a lot more efficient than the clunker traded in in most cases. If it was primarily about the environment, those trucks and SUV's (if you want to call a Jeep Patriot or Ford Escape an SUV ) would have been ineligible.
Then why not just be honest about the program and the results?
cpgator is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 02:22 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

I don't understand your criticism. Trucks and SUVs were always included and were never hidden under the guise of environmentalism.

The program would not even allow you to trade a clunker for a motorcycle. It was obviously about selling cars.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 02:27 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

The original press release. Shockingly, the economy is the stressed point. But you know THAT MESSIAH. He's out of communize the US of A! Keep track of those precious bodily fluids, boys!

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood: “With this program, we are giving the auto industry a shot in the arm and struggling consumers can get rid of their gas-guzzlers and buy a more reliable, fuel-efficient vehicle,” Secretary LaHood said. “This is good news for our economy, the environment and consumers’ pocketbooks.”
CRM114 is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 02:43 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
You guys are too much.

The program was about giving a boost to the American economy as much as it was about some environmental issue.

Because 800 billion wasn't enough?
kvrdave is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 02:45 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,054
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

Your bold or his bold? Obviously he who controls the bold controls the tone of the article.

I am only pointing that that eligible cars had TOUGH standards, and trucks had NO standards, and the government compiled the figures in a way that misrepresented the ratio of cars/trucks, and (somewhat incorrectly) indicated the fuel efficiency of the fleet was significantly improved.

If customers can buy whatever truck they want, no matter how bad the mileage, they should be allowed to buy whatever car they want too.

The program was sold on the dual goals of helping automakers and the environment. It did "A" and "lied" about "B." If "lied" is too strong, it at least misrepresented. If you can't see the misrepresentation, it is "my guy can do no wrong" myopia, but defend away.
OldDude is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 02:46 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,614
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
I don't understand your criticism. Trucks and SUVs were always included and were never hidden under the guise of environmentalism.

The program would not even allow you to trade a clunker for a motorcycle. It was obviously about selling cars.
"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."

Why do you think they did this?
cpgator is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 02:51 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

Originally Posted by OldDude View Post
Your bold or his bold? Obviously he who controls the bold controls the tone of the article.

I am only pointing that that eligible cars had TOUGH standards, and trucks had NO standards, and the government compiled the figures in a way that misrepresented the ratio of cars/trucks, and (somewhat incorrectly) indicated the fuel efficiency of the fleet was significantly improved.

If customers can buy whatever truck they want, no matter how bad the mileage, they should be allowed to buy whatever car they want too.

The program was sold on the dual goals of helping automakers and the environment. It did "A" and "lied" about "B." If "lied" is too strong, it at least misrepresented. If you can't see the misrepresentation, it is "my guy can do no wrong" myopia, but defend away.
It didn't lie about "B." Obviously, the main goal was to sell cars. And as I've said before, a 2009 Escape is going to be more efficient than the clunker traded in. The program had all sorts of rules about mileage of the car traded vs mileage of the car purchased the rebate was adjusted accordingly.

I think you are just trying to jump on THE MESSIAH and paint him as a failed tree-hugging environmentalist.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 02:53 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

Originally Posted by cpgator View Post
"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."

Why do you think they did this?
Why did the author write this line of bullshit?

the Cash for Clunkers program is supposed to be about saving the environment.
No it wasn't. Only to those post-program trying to paint The Messiah as a failure in yet another one of his initiatives.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 03:01 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,054
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

Originally Posted by cpgator View Post
"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."

Why do you think they did this?
At the finest level of detail, the EPA is required to do that for CAFE computation. Each powertrain option, also any option content (over a certain percentage) that would put the "loaded" vehicle in a different inertial weight class than the base vehicle must be tested, and averaged on a sales weighted basis into the correct imported/domestic car/truck fleet (in general each manufacturer has 4 fleets).
This includes engine options, transmission options, rear axle options, 2WD/4WD/AWD, and at least the weight effects of other option content.

I would suspect many car lines are divided into multiple CAFE models too. However, how one aggregates the details into sensible groups is one of the tools by which a good statistician can lie better than a liar, because he has truth on his side (very technical, not very useful truth, but truth nonetheless).

For reporting 10 Top Sellers, I think it is (highly) misleading.
OldDude is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 03:01 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,996
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

Originally Posted by cpgator View Post
"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."

Why do you think they did this?
Because that's the way the EPA already tracks it? Were they supposed to change from the standard?
WallyOPD is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 03:03 PM
  #23  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,854
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

Originally Posted by OldDude View Post
I would suspect many car lines are divided into multiple CAFE models too. However, how one aggregates the details into sensible groups is one of the tools by which a good statistician can lie better than a liar, because he has truth on his side (very technical, not very useful truth, but truth nonetheless).
Were these car models aggregated at all?
wendersfan is online now  
Old 09-03-09, 03:05 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,422
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

White House announces Cash For Clunkers 2: Children will receive $4500 for bringing elderly parents to end of life counseling.

--

Ok but seriously..

I agree with CRM. That's why I called this an auto bailout. That's really all it was. With a small piece of stimulus thrown in where people won't (in theory) be needing to spend as much for fuel. It had a side effect of being good for the environment but that certainly wasn't the main focus of it.
General Zod is offline  
Old 09-03-09, 03:06 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,614
Re: Lies for Clunkers??

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
Why did the author write this line of bullshit?
No. Why did the DOT tally the cars this way? And what exactly is bullshit about what the author wrote?

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
No it wasn't. Only to those post-program trying to paint The Messiah as a failure in yet another one of his initiatives.
And I support the program and think it was a great plan.
cpgator is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.