Which of these situations do you save the LEST amount of fuel in 100 miles of driving?
a) replacing 10mpg with 11mpg
b) replacing 17mpg with 25mpg
c) replacing 25mpg with 33mpg
d) replacing 33mpg with 50mpg
If you picked a you are among those mislead by mpg numbers. The real answer: it is a trick question, they are all the about the same. Replacing your 10mpg gas hogging smog-mobile with an 11mpg gas-hogging smog-mobile saves just as much as replacing your fuel-conscious Honda Civic with a Toyota Prius.
Here is why, the fuel used per 10,000 miles looks like this:
a) from 1000 gallons to 900 gallons for 10,000 miles
b) from 500 gallons to 400 gallons for 10,000 miles
c) from 400 gallons to 300 gallons for 10,000 miles
d) from 300 gallons to 200 gallons for 10,000 miles
Each replacement case saves 100 gallons for 10,000 miles of driving. And no, you can't go yelling and screaming that you have to replace a 17mpg minivan with a 50mpg Prius. The Minivan seats 7 and Prius barely sits 5. It just doesn't have space for a family of 5 plus company to use one vehicle, and replacing one van with two compact hybrids is out of the question.
So a lot of people seem to not be reading the provisions of the bill, so let me sum it up real quick:
-Your old "junker" car must get less than 18mpg as rated by the manufacturer
-It must be drivable and have been registered for at least 120 days.
-The amount of money you get depends on the age of the car "junked", and whether you are buying a new car or used car.
-You can opt for transit fare credit instead of the amount of money for a used car.
The maximum rebate is $4500 if you trade in a car newer than 2002 to buy a new car, and $3000 for a used car purchase.
For 1999-2001 vehicles you get $3000 for a new, and $2000 for a used car purchase.
The "new car" rebate drops to $2000 if you trade in a car that is 1998 or older, and to $1500 for a used car.
In my case the $1500 for a used car when trading in a 1998 or older is where I'd fall. I certainly won't be buying a new car, and my "junker" is a 1989 Dodge Caravan, 3.0L V6 that gets 18mpg mixed driving. Hopefully it is a "less than or equal to 18mpg" or even this vehicle is disqualified.
That is pretty substantial, considering the blue-book value for the vehicle is only around $1000, and trade-in value even less.
What this bill really misses though is the "drivable" car that is polluting because of its poor condition, NOT its age. I also have a 1987 Honda CRX, 1.5L I4, that "only" gets 30mpg. It should be getting close to 40mpg, but the engine was abused by its owners. I am SURE that even though the CRX still gets much better fuel economy than the Dodge Caravan, the blue cloud of smoke trailing my CRX is polluting MUCH more. And it can't qualify on the rebate, even though it is "drivable" and should be taken off the road, but I live in a state where there is no emissions testing requirement.
I should point out that our primary vehicle is a 4-door 1996 Acura Integra, it gets around 26mpg and serves our family well with no safety issues. With both anti-lock brakes and air bags I fail to see the reasoning that 10+ year old cars are somehow inherently "unsafe" or "unnecessarily polluting" as it is going on 13 years old now.
I have pretty mixed feelings on the bill, it has good intentions, but I feel it misses some key points.
Slashdot Mirror
Which of these situations do you save the LEST amount of fuel in 100 miles of driving?
a) replacing 10mpg with 11mpg
b) replacing 17mpg with 25mpg
c) replacing 25mpg with 33mpg
d) replacing 33mpg with 50mpg
If you picked a you are among those mislead by mpg numbers. The real answer: it is a trick question, they are all the about the same. Replacing your 10mpg gas hogging smog-mobile with an 11mpg gas-hogging smog-mobile saves just as much as replacing your fuel-conscious Honda Civic with a Toyota Prius.
Here is why, the fuel used per 10,000 miles looks like this:
a) from 1000 gallons to 900 gallons for 10,000 miles
b) from 500 gallons to 400 gallons for 10,000 miles
c) from 400 gallons to 300 gallons for 10,000 miles
d) from 300 gallons to 200 gallons for 10,000 miles
Each replacement case saves 100 gallons for 10,000 miles of driving. And no, you can't go yelling and screaming that you have to replace a 17mpg minivan with a 50mpg Prius. The Minivan seats 7 and Prius barely sits 5. It just doesn't have space for a family of 5 plus company to use one vehicle, and replacing one van with two compact hybrids is out of the question.
So a lot of people seem to not be reading the provisions of the bill, so let me sum it up real quick:
-Your old "junker" car must get less than 18mpg as rated by the manufacturer
-It must be drivable and have been registered for at least 120 days.
-The amount of money you get depends on the age of the car "junked", and whether you are buying a new car or used car.
-You can opt for transit fare credit instead of the amount of money for a used car.
The maximum rebate is $4500 if you trade in a car newer than 2002 to buy a new car, and $3000 for a used car purchase.
For 1999-2001 vehicles you get $3000 for a new, and $2000 for a used car purchase.
The "new car" rebate drops to $2000 if you trade in a car that is 1998 or older, and to $1500 for a used car.
In my case the $1500 for a used car when trading in a 1998 or older is where I'd fall. I certainly won't be buying a new car, and my "junker" is a 1989 Dodge Caravan, 3.0L V6 that gets 18mpg mixed driving. Hopefully it is a "less than or equal to 18mpg" or even this vehicle is disqualified.
That is pretty substantial, considering the blue-book value for the vehicle is only around $1000, and trade-in value even less.
What this bill really misses though is the "drivable" car that is polluting because of its poor condition, NOT its age. I also have a 1987 Honda CRX, 1.5L I4, that "only" gets 30mpg. It should be getting close to 40mpg, but the engine was abused by its owners. I am SURE that even though the CRX still gets much better fuel economy than the Dodge Caravan, the blue cloud of smoke trailing my CRX is polluting MUCH more. And it can't qualify on the rebate, even though it is "drivable" and should be taken off the road, but I live in a state where there is no emissions testing requirement.
I should point out that our primary vehicle is a 4-door 1996 Acura Integra, it gets around 26mpg and serves our family well with no safety issues. With both anti-lock brakes and air bags I fail to see the reasoning that 10+ year old cars are somehow inherently "unsafe" or "unnecessarily polluting" as it is going on 13 years old now.
I have pretty mixed feelings on the bill, it has good intentions, but I feel it misses some key points.