It should be clear that improving the fuel efficiency of one’s SUV from ...

We could hardly believe our eyes while catching up on the news from over the weekend. No less than four major news sources wrote negatively about cash for clunkers, and on varying rationales.

* First, Brian J. O’Connor of the Detroit News writes about how he’d be the perfect potential cash for clunkers customer, with his deer-magnet 1995 Buick Roadmaster Estate Wagon, but decides against taking Uncle Sugar up on his offer, should it become reality.

But it’s not that simple, according to Jeff Bartlett, the deputy online editor for autos at Consumer Reports. You have to buy a new car with 4 mpg to 10 mpg better mileage to get the clunker coupon, which means a new car loan, too.

“Who’s going to be eligible for this?” Bartlett asks. “Chances are it’s someone using an old car because they’ve elected to live frugally or is doing it out of necessity. That type of person would typically gravitate toward a used car.”

Financial planners say a low-mileage 2- or 3-year-old car gives the most reliable service at the best price, since you don’t take the big depreciation hit that comes the second you drive a new car off the lot. The Clunker cash mostly covers that depreciation.

…

When it comes to Clunker bucks, “The person who benefits the most is the person who can pay cash,” Bartlett says, “but that person doesn’t drive a clunker.”

Well said, Brian and Jeff.

* The Guardian offered some criticism of c4c, though their main thrust is that the current proposed legislation isn’t strict enoug.

It should be clear that improving the fuel efficiency of one’s SUV from 15 to 20 mpg isn’t going to do much to deflect the damaging effects of expensive oil. What we want to do, then, is to encourage fuel efficiency without encouraging unnecessary automobile purchases or a shift away from transit.

And they proposed an alternative of raising the gas tax slowly over a period of years. Might be a hard medicine to swallow, but would we rather have crushing?

* The Huffington Post also criticized c4c in much the same vein, with more analysis on the MPG Illusion argument. Their solution - make c4c dependent on carbon emissions rather than miles per gallon. Noble, but that would require a federal emissions testing program or some means of measuring individual automobile emissions.

* Finally, Time’s David von Drehle writes on how he could take advantage of cash for clunkers to get rid of his family’s 2001 Honda Odyssey, but after considering it, finds himself strangely attracted to the van and its sentimental value. And isn’t that the root of car collecting and why we shouldn’t scrap vehicles willy-nilly?

* Of course, we’re far from out of the woods as far as this legislation goes. Apparently a group of U.S. senators, unhappy with cash for clunkers being rolled up into the Waxman energy bill, intend to introduce their own c4c legislation this week. And the AP reports that cash for clunkers may even jump to an emergency spending bill, though I haven’t seen that news elsewhere, so that may be a misunderstanding.

* It seems there’s a new site out there cheerleading for c4c at cashforguzzlers.net. We’re still trying to figure out who exactly is behind it and why. The WHOIS shows the site registered to Pasch Consulting Group, which has had several auto dealer clients in the past.

* Finally, we’d like to welcome theDailyGreen, an environment blog, to the c4c opposition. They object to the plan largely on the basis that it bails out SUV drivers, the greenies’ mortal enemy.

Related posts:

• In the recent weeks, the company has announced to the public that it will ...
• It was an amicable and mutual decision for Tiger Woods and General Motors ...
• It was an amicable and mutual decision for Tiger Woods and General Motors ...
• General Motors kicked off with the expansion of the Invest in America program ...
• But to help prove our point for soon-to-be collector car owners (or any ...