Was Cash For Clunkers A Success?

Far from failing, the CARS Program may have been the highest ROI investment made by the Federal government in years.

The passage of time has brought much ridicule to the Cash For Clunkers program, which was intended to boost auto sales and raise the average fuel efficiency of American vehicles. The data show that the program led to a temporary spike in automobile purchases, prompted by a subsequent decline. This has led most to conclude that the program was a failure, as it did little to jump-start economic recovery.

But what about the other goal? Did Cash For Clunkers raise the average fuel efficiency of the American auto fleet? How much less gasoline have Americans purchased as a result of the program, and does this savings outweigh the program’s cost?

Here are some statistics from the Department of Transportation’s CARS Report to Congress:

  • 677,842 vehicles were turned in under the CARS program
  • $2.85 Billion was paid out in rebates for these vehicles
  • New vehicles purchased had an average MPG of 24.9
  • Old vehicles turned in had an average MPG of 15.7
  • $2.8 Billion in fuel savings based on the early retirement of less efficient vehicles

The report also estimates that roughly half of the sales spurred by the program were incremental sales that would not have occurred otherwise. Edmunds.com performed a more conservative analysis showing that only 125,000 incremental sales occurred as a result of the program.

Using Edmunds’ more conservative 125k number, and an average sales price (after rebate) of roughly $25,000, Cash for Clunkers generated $3.125 Billion in incremental vehicle sales. These incremental sales added directly to US GDP, and this more conservative analysis shows less than half the economic impact of $7 Billion estimated by DOT.

Combining the fuel savings and GDP benefit yields a total benefit to American taxpayers of roughly $6 Billion for a program that cost the government roughly $3 Billion to operate! If only more government programs could fail like this! Even using the more conservative fuel savings calculations provided below, the program would have provided over $5.5 Billion in benefit against a $3B investment. Far from being shut down, the Cash for Clunkers program should have been expanded.

Alternate calculation of fuel savings from junking old vehicles:

0. By junking an old vehicle and taking it off the road, you are permanently increasing the fuel economy of the American vehicle fleet – this is the source of savings for the American economy. Since 100% of marginal US oil consumption is provided by foreign sources, a dollar of oil saved is a dollar added to GDP (since imports actually subtract from GDP as we send money overseas).

1. Assume that the old vehicle would be driven for an additional 50,000 miles over its lifetime (CARS survey respondents said they averaged 10k miles per year on their old vehicles, so even with gradual declines this is reasonable).

2. The old vehicles got an average of 15.7 MPG, requiring roughly 3200 gallons of gasoline over that 50k miles.

3. The new vehicle got an average of 24.9 MPG, requiring 2000 gallons of gasoline over the 50k miles that they replaced.

4. The difference of roughly 1200 gallons of gasoline equates to roughly $3600 per vehicle (assuming $3 per gallon excluding taxes). With roughly 680k vehicles in the program, this equals a fuel cost savings of $2.5 Billion – a slightly more conservative estimate than that computed by DOT.

7 thoughts on “Was Cash For Clunkers A Success?

  1. owner Accurate Engines Inc
    as i have gone down this path of life i bought the machine shop in 2005 a nd we did very well till 2008 when economy went away but i think we would have recovered if not for cash for clunckers but i look back and see the dollar amount we all paid for these cars to diapear
    is mind boggling
    i have lost the building for machine siop i was trying to buy and 50k i had down on it and as it got worse nowi will loose my house if i dont get a different job and did the govrnment ever look who the affected set gaols at 20 own machine shop by 40
    43 bought not bad close 5 year loan to buy paid off in 2008 before our banks took all our money
    and partying
    think the bank give me a break on being late on payments
    nope for closure on the way i did it right i had it handled the economy i would have made it but take away all the clunkers in all usa
    did not have a chance one of the best engine machinist in the arae 30 years to get were i was and very good at it
    so good and now why
    what for
    lost every thing just about to give up i worked so hard to keep it going
    i wish they would help the lil guys i need alot less money to help me
    Mike Kolbet

  2. “Cash for Clunkers” destroyed 700k cars. They weren’t recycled, the mirrors, the glass, the seats etc were land filled. Our nations goods decreased. The price of used cars obviously increased because 700k of them were destroyed. We were all taxed to benefit a few, whom may or may not have deserved a hand out. This type of government “help” is applauded only by fools.

  3. This report fails to include the carry cost for the cost of money by the dealerships waiting for the rebates. Some dealers waited nearly a year to get their money back and some larger dealers were owed millions of dollars each. This calculation also does not take into account the disposal costs for the turned in vehicle, which was often well in excess of what the dealer made on the deal. If this program had been expanded, it would have bankrupted many dealers. The program also took many cars off the available parts list such that now parts are scarce for restoring many older cars. Your enthusiasm for the face value benefit of the program is well noted, but the total cost of the program from all sides made this program a failure.

  4. I was so disappointed when i found out the rebate was only for new cars. My husband and I both work and could never afford a new car or a car payment. Most people have an old clunker because that’s all they can afford. And most poor and semi-poor have bad credit and have no business having a car loan to pay.

  5. I believe the “failure” of Cash for clunkers is seen in the effect it had on the used car market, as well as the reduced access to vehicles for less wealthy individuals.
    I for one bought old cars for a long time, paying maybe 1,000 – 2,000 per vehicle.
    While I understand told cost of ownership is more when you consistently drive garbage vehicles, it’s easier to actually get a car.
    I guess it’s the idea that you need mobility for any hope of upwards mobility.
    I agree that the program had lasting impacts that made it a good idea, but it should have allowed for goverment subsidies in auto loans for impovershed families. You can’t cause problems for poor people, benefit only wealthy people, and call it a success for the Democratic party. You’re pretty much kicking your own base on that one

  6. I used to gas up about once a week, and got 14 mpg. Now we get 28.8 mpg city driving, gas up about half as often. Yes, I can see how that could add up to huge savings in fuel costs and usage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s