Toyota biggest beneficiary of clunker cash

[Bakemono]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...f+clunker+cash

Washington -- Detroit automakers continue to lose ground to foreign rivals in the latest tally of "cash for clunkers" sales.
Detroit automakers' share of sales fell from 42.1 percent as of Aug. 14 to just 41 percent Friday in the $3 billion program.
U.S. automakers have been hamstrung by short inventories of more fuel efficient vehicles and have boosted production.
As of 7 a.m. Friday, dealers had submitted 489,269 vouchers seeking $2.04 billion. The program ends at 8 p.m. Monday. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Friday the program cannot be extended a second time.
"There's no way to get additional money with Congress out of town," Gibbs said.Michigan dealers have sought $103 million in vouchers, fourth highest in the United States. California is first with $218 million.
Toyota is the clunker replacement leader: Of all vehicles sold under the program, 19.2 percent were Toyotas. General Motors was in second place, at 17.7 percent.
The Toyota Corolla remains the top-selling vehicle in the program, followed by the Honda Civic, Ford Focus FWD and Toyota Camry.
But the Hyundai Elantra jumped to the top five for the first time, and the Toyota Prius fell to sixth.
Rounding out the top 10 are the Nissan Versa, Ford Escape FWD, Honda Fit and Honda CR-V 4WD.
The Transportation Department noted that 54 percent of the top 10 clunker replacement vehicles were manufactured in the United States: the Corolla, Focus FWD, Camry, Ford Escape FWD and Honda CR-V 4WD.
Hybrid vehicles account for 4.5 percent of new vehicles purchased under the program compared to 3 percent of June's new-vehicle sales.
" 'Cash for clunkers' is a program that has worked," United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger said Friday.

[Jegan_V]

Not bad, the top 10 list does produce some decent cars and none that are truly horrible. I'm surprised I haven't seen the Toyota Yaris on any top 10 list regarding cars sold through C4C I've seen so far. I really like the Fit and that's my favourite car of those 10...I'm just surprised Americans didn't mind its high MSRP relative to all other small cars.

[Sulu]

I wonder why GM did not sell more vehicles? Was it mainly a supply problem, i.e. they did not and could not produce enough cars to sell; or was it mainly a demand problem, i.e. relatively few people wanted to buy GM vehicles; or was it some combination of the two?

If it was mainly a demand problem -- more people preferred other manufacturers' cars than GM's cars -- could it be argued by some in the Obama administration that they should not have saved GM as they did? Would they argue that they should have offered the Cars for Clunkers program earlier -- before deciding to buy GM -- and let the public decide which automakers they supported? And if the buying public tended to support other manufacturers, such as Toyota, Honda, Ford and others (ones that did not ask for help from the American and Canadian governments), would the decision have been made to let GM die instead of saving it?

If it was mainly a supply problem, will this be a signal to GM management that perhaps they do not have enough of the type of vehicles that Americans want to buy?

I know these are very difficult questions to answer, especially now that both programs are over (i.e. the Canadian and American governments have bought control of GM and the Cars for Clunkers program ends before the end of August). They are really rhetorical questions, but the question was begging to be asked.

[heartdisease]

Originally Posted by Sulu

I wonder why GM did not sell more vehicles? Was it mainly a supply problem, i.e. they did not and could not produce enough cars to sell; or was it mainly a demand problem, i.e. relatively few people wanted to buy GM vehicles; or was it some combination of the two?

If it was mainly a demand problem -- more people preferred other manufacturers' cars than GM's cars -- could it be argued by some in the Obama administration that they should not have saved GM as they did? Would they argue that they should have offered the Cars for Clunkers program earlier -- before deciding to buy GM -- and let the public decide which automakers they supported? And if the buying public tended to support other manufacturers, such as Toyota, Honda, Ford and others (ones that did not ask for help from the American and Canadian governments), would the decision have been made to let GM die instead of saving it?

If it was mainly a supply problem, will this be a signal to GM management that perhaps they do not have enough of the type of vehicles that Americans want to buy?

I know these are very difficult questions to answer, especially now that both programs are over (i.e. the Canadian and American governments have bought control of GM and the Cars for Clunkers program ends before the end of August). They are really rhetorical questions, but the question was begging to be asked.

People don't want to support Government Motors, Ford did fine, GM, Chrysler not so much. They don't think they will be around long term, and or don't like the idea of government tax dollars going to a for profit company in such a manner.

[Camread]

Originally Posted by Jegan_V

Not bad, the top 10 list does produce some decent cars and none that are truly horrible.

I guess you didn't see the Escape on that list....

[Bakemono]

Originally Posted by Sulu

I wonder why GM did not sell more vehicles? Was it mainly a supply problem, i.e. they did not and could not produce enough cars to sell; or was it mainly a demand problem, i.e. relatively few people wanted to buy GM vehicles; or was it some combination of the two?

If it was mainly a demand problem -- more people preferred other manufacturers' cars than GM's cars -- could it be argued by some in the Obama administration that they should not have saved GM as they did? Would they argue that they should have offered the Cars for Clunkers program earlier -- before deciding to buy GM -- and let the public decide which automakers they supported? And if the buying public tended to support other manufacturers, such as Toyota, Honda, Ford and others (ones that did not ask for help from the American and Canadian governments), would the decision have been made to let GM die instead of saving it?

If it was mainly a supply problem, will this be a signal to GM management that perhaps they do not have enough of the type of vehicles that Americans want to buy?

I know these are very difficult questions to answer, especially now that both programs are over (i.e. the Canadian and American governments have bought control of GM and the Cars for Clunkers program ends before the end of August). They are really rhetorical questions, but the question was begging to be asked.

From what I have read, it was a supply problem. Ford and GM were running low on supply of fuel-efficient cars, so a lot of people were going with Toyota and Honda.
This is also why GM and Ford recently announced they would be increasing production of their smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.

Originally Posted by Camread

I guess you didn't see the Escape on that list....

Nothing wrong with an Escape. My girlfriend drives one, great car. Dont get me wrong, Id take a Rav4 over an Escape any day; but Escapes are pretty nice.

[Jegan_V]

Originally Posted by Camread

I guess you didn't see the Escape on that list....

You clearly haven't driven a current Escape have you? There are much worse SUVs filling Chrysler's lineup than the Escape, other than the Santa Fe and Veracruz, Kia and Hyundai's smaller SUVs are not as good as an Escape either. Considering how many Ford Explorers were traded in, the Escape is a logical choice considering its significantly better than that vehicle.

[Bakemono]

Originally Posted by Jegan_V

You clearly haven't driven a current Escape have you? There are much worse SUVs filling Chrysler's lineup than the Escape, other than the Santa Fe and Veracruz, Kia and Hyundai's smaller SUVs are not as good as an Escape either. Considering how many Ford Explorers were traded in, the Escape is a logical choice considering its significantly better than that vehicle.

Even the Explorer is pretty good, IMO. My mother drives an '07 Explorer Limited V8 and I cant really find any fault with it. Its solidly-built, has a smooth, quiet ride (no squeaks or rattles) and gets 22 mpg on the highway.
Ford has come a long way in the past few years and they really dont make any truly bad vehicles.
Im a little skeptical of the Ford Ecoboost engine, but Ford is doing really well now.
Infact, I seriously considered a Ford Fusion before I bought my '06 Camry, but the fact that you cant pull a trailer with a Fusion (but can pull a trailer with a Camry) is what made the decision to buy a Camry really easy for me. Not sure why, but for some odd reason Ford says you cannot pull a trailer with a Fusion.

[Jegan_V]

Originally Posted by Bakemono

Ford has come a long way in the past few years and they really dont make any truly bad vehicles.

That is very true...I really like the 2010 Fusion, I really like the Flex, we just got a 09 Expedition and that's improved from the 07 I last drove, the F-150 is pretty good. I only got a 20 second drive in an Edge but it feels much like the other big Fords so its safe for me to believe its also good. The previous Taurus was quite good...I'm expecting the 2010 to be much better. I can't think of a bad vehicle they make anymore, I guess the Ranger is the only one that really needs an update.

[84Cressida]

Originally Posted by Bakemono

Even the Explorer is pretty good, IMO. My mother drives an '07 Explorer Limited V8 and I cant really find any fault with it. Its solidly-built, has a smooth, quiet ride (no squeaks or rattles) and gets 22 mpg on the highway.
Ford has come a long way in the past few years and they really dont make any truly bad vehicles.
Im a little skeptical of the Ford Ecoboost engine, but Ford is doing really well now.
Infact, I seriously considered a Ford Fusion before I bought my '06 Camry, but the fact that you cant pull a trailer with a Fusion (but can pull a trailer with a Camry) is what made the decision to buy a Camry really easy for me. Not sure why, but for some odd reason Ford says you cannot pull a trailer with a Fusion.

The Explorers being traded are the junky 1990's ones, not newer 2007s. The old ones were pure shit. I'm glad a lot were clunked.

[xpeed]

^ I second that. Man I really hated those Explorers. Drivers couldn't drive them for shit.

[heartdisease]

Originally Posted by xpeed

^ I second that. Man I really hated those Explorers. Drivers couldn't drive them for shit.

Naw man that was just the Firestones!

[TrailDust]

Originally Posted by 84Cressida

The Explorers being traded are the junky 1990's ones, not newer 2007s. The old ones were pure shit. I'm glad a lot were clunked.

I'll second that opinion. Biggest turd to hit the road since the Chevy Vega, or is that being too harsh?

[Jegan_V]

Originally Posted by TrailDust

I'll second that opinion. Biggest turd to hit the road since the Chevy Vega, or is that being too harsh?

Your missing the FWD X-bodys, the Hyundai Ponys and Excels, the J-bodys and the Tempo. All before the Explorer's time. Canada also got to experience the Lada...

[84Cressida]

Originally Posted by Jegan_V

Your missing the FWD X-bodys, the Hyundai Ponys and Excels, the J-bodys and the Tempo. All before the Explorer's time. Canada also got to experience the Lada...

Don't forget the K-Car. I don't care how well it sold and how big of a boner Lee Iaacoca had for it....they were garbage in every way possible.