The Wall Street Journal confirms TTAC’s report that Chrysler killed its “Double Ca$h” for clunkers ad campaign because they ran out of popular, qualifying vehicles. “The marketing change comes as Chrysler is struggling with low inventory of its most popular products because of prolonged factory shut-downs and after the success of the government program further depleted stocks at dealerships.” How’s this for a quote? “Unfortunately the problem that we face with Chrysler is the lack of inventory,” ChryCo dealer Bill Rosado told the WSJ. “I can’t believe I’m saying this, I need more Chrysler inventory. My goodness, I’ve got to rehearse that line a couple times.” This gives credibility to Ken Elias’ contention—as yet unreported by the MSM—that Uncle Sam’s entire Cash for Clunkers (a.k.a. C.A.R.S.) program fell afoul of low inventories, rather than limited funds. In other words, the program did not run out of cash. It ran out of cars. Which makes me wonder . . .
Did car-strapped manufacturers call for a halt to the Cash for Clunkers program? The Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) says the C.A.R.S. program was never suspended. But the story that C.A.R.S. was pulled—which led directly to Congressional approval for additional $2 billion in federal funding—came from somewhere . . .
Given previous reports of a “ring ’round” by the Department of Transportation on the day the program was put in limbo, it seems increasingly likely that the D.O.T. and carmakers contemplated putting the brakes on the program to allow the automakers to play catch-up.
If so, the resulting PR spin—it’s too successful!—belies unreported, misdirected collusion between the feds and carmakers. (Or sensible policy, depending on your perspective.) The question then becomes, were all carmakers’ concerns treated equally? Or did the feds weigh their nationalized wards’ (i.e. Chrysler and GM) distress heavily in the equation?
Meanwhile, the WSJ ends by [almost] pointing out that ChryCo really missed the boat here: “Edmunds.com estimates that Chrysler has spent about 68% more on incentives for the first six months of the year than the industry average, at about $4,693 per vehicle.”
The Cash for Clunkers program dramatically increased demand for some of the former bankrupt automaker’s qualifying products. If Chrysler had the vehicles on the lot, they could have reduced those incentives. Big style.
The chances that new Chrysler new inventory will arrive in time to capitalize on that demand, before the next $2 billion runs out (should the Senate roll over) are slim. Unless, as Mark Tapscott has suggested, the C.A.R.S. program is made permanent.
But Cash for Clunkers is about helping the environment, not propping-up a failed automaker. Right?
Chrysler may have run out of cars, but that doesn’t mean that the government didn’t also run through the $1B.
Chrysler running out of cars? Who would’ve thunk it?
One person’s ‘collusion’ is another person’s ‘cooperation’.
What troubles me is the government’s insistence that the pause was due to money, and so therefore the funding will be trebled.
And what’s to become of the gazillion full-size vehicles languishing out there from current and past model years, for which the scholarship program doesn’t apply?
What’s the word on Hyundai, etc., on their inventories? Maybe only Chrysler had a problem because relatively few of their cars qualify anyway.
They ran out of qualifying cars that people want? Such aaaaas…what?
I’m wracking my brain about this and the only think I can figure out is that this is why the PT Cruiser was given a stay of execution, because to this day it’s the only competitive, economic reasonably-desirable Chrysler.
Or maybe those few Crossfires still sitting on dealer lots across the country?
Read carefully: “…Chrysler…ran out of popular, qualifying vehicles.”
That means that Chrysler is short on vehicles that meet the fuel efficiency requirements for the new vehicle being purchased. Which means that they’re still stuck with an excess inventory of gas guzzlers.
Speaking of non-qualifying gas guzzlers, I’ve been wanting a base Wrangler with few or no options to drive on nice days – top down – as a third vehicle. Wonder if there are still any left, and if so, if they will start to go at fire sale prices anytime soon?
@psarhjinian:
The Patriot and minivans (3.3L and 3.8L engines) all qualify by being a “Catergory 1 truck” and I personally consider those at least somewhat viable vehicles.
In fact the Patriot is the only “Trail-rated 4×4” Jeep one can buy through the program because the Liberty and Grand Cherokee only qualify when in their highly undesirable 2WD versions.
Also keep in mind that the Ram 1500 qualifies as a Category 2 truck. It is possible get a $4500 government C4C rebate by turning in a 12mpg 1994 Dodge Ram 1500 for a 15mpg 2009 Dodge Ram 1500 4×4 with the 5.7L V8.
Then there’s the heavy duty Rams that qualify as a “Category 3 truck” because they have a GVWR of over 8500lbs…
Isn’t running out of cars the auto industry’s motivation for CFC? It’s August 2009; dealers need to start stocking in earnest the 2010 models, but how were they supposed to do that with 2009s and even some straggling new 2008s clogging dealer lots?
So, give me a list of what Chrysler products DO qualify? I’m interested…
“It’s August 2009; dealers need to start stocking in earnest the 2010 models…”
Sort of…there is a flaw in that logic.
You see, when automakers start producing 2010 models, it’s likely that there will be fewer buyers because many who were planning a purchase just made one through C4C.
Ah, but you’re telling Buzz that many of these buyers wouldn’t have bought new vehicles were it not for C4C? Well, my friend, you may be correct. Those buyers would’ve normally bought used vehicles, and I’m happy they got to live their dream of driving a shiny new car.
Except here’s the rub: The folks who would have normally bought new cars in the next several months may find themselves taking a bloodbath on their trade-ins.
“Why?” you ask? Simple; it’s because the prices paid for used vehicle inventory are likely to fall due to a lack of demand – because many of the buyers who traditionally buy used cars are now driving around in shiny new vehicles that were purchased with the assistance of C4C.
So the owner of a late model vehicle who wishes to trade it in will rethink the strategy of buying a new vehicle this year. And with that, new car sales stay flat for yet another model year.
Mind you, this is just a theory, and one that I hope is totally wrong…
Who in there right mind would want to purchase a Chrysler product in the first place? In this area they don’t want to cover any Warranty problems,telling Customers they have no Parts?
I had a Chrysler once, never again!
I didn’t know the Patriot was trail-rated. Did they lower the requirements to trail-rate a Jeep to get it in?
I suppose this means that the Halfass, er, I mean, Compass qualifies as well.
^^^ I believe that a Patriot with the off-road package is what gave one the trail rated certification, otherwise it would not. Of course even with the off-road package the Patriot is still no Wrangler, but then it doesn’t have the Wrangler’s low MPG.
I did my own research and almost all of Chrysler’s vehicle qualify. It all depends on what you are trading in. I would have been trading in 18 year old Dakota, which would have qualified for any of the following vehicles:
– All of the C/D class cars qualify (Journey, PT, Caliber, Patriot, Compass, Sebring, and Avenger) with any available engine option.
– The V6 LX cars qualify (Charger, 300, and Challenger).
– The minivans qualify (Caravan and T/C) with any available engine option.
– The Jeep Liberty and Dodge Nitro qualify with any engine option.
– The V6 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Commander qualifies.
– Even the handful of Crossfires left qualify.
This left only a handful of Chrysler’s vehicles that DO NOT qualify:
– All Dodge pickups (Ram, Dakota, Durango, and Aspen) do not qualify.
– V8 equipped LX vehicles do not qualify.
– Jeep Wrangler does not qualify
– Unfortunately the Dodge Viper does not qualify.
So… It seems to me that MOST of Chrysler’s vehicles qualified (at least based on my personal trade-in).
segfault
The Trail Rating on the Patriot is only if you get the off-road package. It actually comes with stronger control arms, various skid plates, and a few other things that don’t instantly come to mind.
I remember seeing a mule of trail and non-trail rated vehicles on hoists and comparing the two.
So, give me a list of what Chrysler products DO qualify? I’m interested…
Dodge Avenger- 2.4L engine only (passenger car)
Dodge Caliber- All models (passenger car)
Dodge Dakota-All models (Cat. 2 truck)
Dodge Grand Caravan- All engines (Cat. 1 truck)
Dodge Journey- All engines, FWD only (Cat. 1 truck)
Dodge Nitro- All engines, RWD only (Cat. 1 truck)
Dodge Ram 1500- All models (Cat. 2 truck)
Dodge Ram 2500/3500- All models (Cat. 3 truck)
Dodge Sprinter- All models (Cat. 3 truck)
Chrysler PT Cruiser- All models (Cat. 1 truck)
Chrysler Sebring- 2.4L engine only (passenger car)
Chrysler Town and Country- All Engines (Cat.1 truck)
Jeep Patriot- All models (Cat. 1 truck)
Jeep Compass- All models (Cat. 1 truck)
Jeep Liberty- 2WD only (Cat. 1 truck)
Jeep Grand Cherokee- 3.7L engine 2WD only (Cat. 1 truck)
@autojunkie:
I think you need to check your sources again.
To qualify as a passenger vehicle, the new car needs to get at least 22mpg combined. No engine offered on the LX cars meet that figure. The Avenger 3.5L does not either.
And, for a Cat.1 truck like the Nitro, it has to get at least 18mpg combined, but the 4.0L Nitro R/T 4WD only gets 17. The V6 Commander 2WD only gets 16.
The Ram trucks all qualify as a Cat.2 or Cat.3 truck.
This link here to the Dodge website shows the eligible vehicles for the brand (with no Charger listed): Dodge C4C Center .
Wow. So they finally got those Calibers and Sebrings off the lot?
Now, imagine what kind of business a good car company is seeing!
BDB: “Now, imagine what kind of business a good car company is seeing!”
The local Ford dealer’s lot sure looked picked-over Sunday. Up front, new cars were parked diagonally to leave smaller gaps between them. Out back, I saw a half-dozen vehicles marked “CFC”: a minivan, two pickups and three SUVs. I assume they took in other clunkers that had already been moved elsewhere.
It’ll be interesting to hear from sales reps how business has been.
50Merc–
Same at my local Ford dealership. Just two weeks ago the lot was filled with new cars, now it is MUCH emptier.
I did my own research and almost all of Chrysler’s vehicle qualify.
Qualify and are desirable. That cuts the list down some.