Domestic automakers General Motors and Chrysler — the two in the biggest world of hurt, financially — had disappointing results in the Cash For Clunkers program.

According to Reuters, GM sales accounted for 17 percent of “clunkers” business; however, GM held 21 percent of U.S. auto sales from January to July. Chrysler had a similar tale: the “clunkers” share was 6.6 percent compared to 11 percent for the first seven months of the year.

Ford inventory accounted for 14 percent of “clunkers” sales, compared to 15 percent share for January-July.

The big winners were Toyota, Honda and Nissan. All three reported sales gains, relative to the first seven months of the year.

  1. Toyota: 19.4% of the C4C sales; 17% for January-July; 16.8% market share, 2008
  2. Honda: 13% of the C4C sales; 11% for January-July; 10.8% market share, 2008
  3. Nissan: 9% of the C4C sales; 7% for January-July; 7.2% market share, 2008
  4. Ford: 14% of the C4C sales; 15% for January-July; 15.1% market share, 2008
  5. GM: 17% of the C4C sales; 21% for January-July; 22.6% market share, 2008
  6. Chrysler: 6.6% of the C4C sales; 11% for January-July; 11.0% market share, 2008

Market Share Data Source

KATHY GILL, Technology Policy Analyst
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2009 The Moderate Voice
  • And now the fall from the sugar high begins:

    Said Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl: “Cash for Clunkers distorted the market in a way that benefited the industry for four weeks. Now the payback begins.”

    However, kukos to the IT folks who made this one of the fastest data reporting turnarounds I can remember from the feds.

    And the “final 10” list from DOT is as flawed today as it was when first released. We’ll have to wait for Edmunds.

  • And now the fall from the sugar high begins:

    Said Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl: “Cash for Clunkers distorted the market in a way that benefited the industry for four weeks. Now the payback begins.”

    However, kukos to the IT folks who made this one of the fastest data reporting turnarounds I can remember from the feds.And the “final 10” list from DOT is as flawed today as it was when first released. We’ll have to wait for Edmunds.

  • Overall I still feel “Cash For Clunkers” was a success, albeit a short term success. But you are correct, the “sugar high” is over. Domestic auto makers still haven’t evolved enough but that evolution is going to take much time.

  • mitrebox

    From >>http://www.autonews.com/article/20090826/ANA05/908269991/1078/FRONTPAGE
    “Clunkers program yields 690,114 deals for $2.88 billion”

    If 690,114 cars were clunked at $4500 each, wouldn’t the final price tag be 3.1 Billion not the 2.88 govt is claiming? Did C4C just over spend 105 million dollars? Or will dealers be stiffed on 50,114 clunked cars?

    • tmol

      Not all were for $4500. Many were turned in for $3500. The vehicle’s make and model on both ends of the transaction decided final credit/grant. The better the change in fuel efficiency, the higher the credit.

    • Some people got only $3500 — for example, if a truck only got 1 mpg improvement in MPG.

  • 1957

    We own GM and, to a lesser extent, Chrysler, and we shoud do everything we can, as a people, to ensure their success. Giving tax money (or, more accurately, money borrowed from China) to transplant companies undermines our position. We gave Nissan billions from the DOE and now we’re giving all of the Asian manufacturers this backdoor bailout.

    • For those not familiar with jargon, a transplant company is a domestic plant owned by a foreign auto company.

  • DLS

    That foreign automakers largely benefited is no surprise to people not still living in the time-arrested “Detroit bubble.” (By the 1980s in California, center of our automobile culture, the phenemonon of preference for foreign autos was entrenched.) One of the problems with this economic-stimulus and Government-automaker bailout plan (as would happen with housing, appliances, or anything else that were the subject of such a plan in the future) was that the restrictions and conditions included fuel efficiency; this was a blatant political stunt that was superimposed (by notorious Californians, among the culprits) on the program, which itself was a grand political “stimulus” stunt. The separate takeover of GM and Chrysler shouldn’t have happened and it had Americans leery (including many here in Detroit metro), but fortunately the worst players weren’t allowed to try to distort the program to coerce or require participants to buy only domestic automaker products, or worse, only GM and Chrysler. Ironically, some who wanted such a thing, or flirted with it in their statements or sentiments (some Michigan legislators), making us recoil, chose to be terribly ironic at the time, demanding that such a thing, that is un-American in its nature, in support of products from companies Americans have long shunned, would be “patriotic” [sic] !

    I was even disappointed here in Detroit metro to see Nolan Finley, who usually is sound-minded, diverge from his commonly straight and true path and say the same kind of thing, that this program should have deliberately favored, if not exclusively benefited, GM and Chrysler, “our” (tax-paid) cars.

    (Finley reminded me here of Frank Beckmann, who is usually correct in what he says, but who has cast aside the proper position on controversies and questions about Detroit, in its defense. Note that this is not patriotism in any way, but instead is favoritism, mixed in these folks’ case with localism.)

    If they wanted to help the auto industry, from suppliers to manufacturers (and assemblers) to fuel refiners and sellers, and businesses all along the roadways of the USA, the program itself should have rewarded all purchases of all new vehicles, if not necessarily equally (given varying prices and values of vehicles that are being exchanged). Also, it is insane to deliberately destroy old vehicles, most notably engines and powertrains; these vehicles would have been of value to other drivers as well as assisting the used car and parts businesses. Finally, the bureaucracy and paperwork were inexcuseable. (Dealers are still waiting to be paid. They should have been paid promptly.)

    The program has ended, but there’s no reason, given its popularity, that it won’t be resurrected. Hopefully a better variant of it will be sought next time, if this is the case.

    • Hopefully it will not be resurrected, although I saw a hint that there’s going to be smaller version for household appliances. =:-0

      We’ll have to agree to disagree about its efficacy.

  • DLS

    “Domestic auto makers still haven’t evolved enough but that evolution is going to take much time.”

    The sales slant was inevitable given when this incentive program was launched — now rather than 10-20+ years from now, which is what it is likely going to take. Not only does product quality need to stay up to higher (similar to import) levels long enough to relieve the public, but (what so many of us are aware of) the culture at GM, especially, needs to be completely changed.

    All the breathy statements about the batteries and the electric car by Governor Granholm here won’t change a single thing. GM is definitely trying to advance battery technology, which is good, and it notably is doing so here in Michigan, which isn’t necessarily only due to “incentives” from Michigan or the federal government, but which also is due to — culture, of course, but also to the vast community of suppliers and engineering that is still located here. (Note that Fisker chose to locate itself here, and that even the foreign automakers are looking to do things here, including in beautiful and brainy Ann Arbor. Yep, Tree Town, home of the university [which is also involved in engineering — a great history of science and World War II weapons work, nobably] and naturally, some “green” industry.)

  • DLS

    A lot of auto-related commentary can be found here (note comments in each thread there).

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/

  • $199537

    I’ve been watching the Youtube videos on some of the cars being intentionally destroyed. My God what a waste.

    • It is especially a waste when you remember that 3-out-of-4 cars sold in this country are USED. :-/

  • DLS

    Here in Detroit metro alone there are car-less or struggling people who would appreciate older cars.

    Side-issue related to engine destruction:

    Given the various concerns the elderly (and other, informed people) have for their futures with health care controlled by people who want to decide what care is “appropriate” for various reasons as well as purposes, and who are associated with the worst when it comes to the subject of euthanasia, I had experienced some suitable humor when watching sodium silicate “poison” get put into auto engines.

    “I hope you have a very pleasant journey,” he or she says, as the vehicle is euthanized.

    [“If the engine will operate at idle, repeat steps 7 through 11 until the engine will no longer idle.”]

    http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.com/car-dealers/how-to-use-sodium-silicate-to-disable-engines/

  • jamesmyers

    First of all, transplant or not, I resent the fact that my tax dollars went towards some foreign nameplate. If their Governments wanted to help them out, then so be it, no objection. GM, Ford, not so much Chrysler, had plenty of fuel-efficient, well-made vehicles that run circles around some Honda Accord or Toyota Camry. I consider these people who buy this junk American Economic Terrorists. I make it a practice not to do business with those who deem it necessary to criticize our Industries, then buy from the Foreign Competition.

  • DLS

    “We’ll have to agree to disagree about its efficacy.”

    Well, sales certainly were boosted. My point related to that was that it should have been free of the fuel efficiency restriction, as well as any other kind of restriction, such as as only buying GM or Chrysler, with Ford also likely included (the ultimate federal government political interference). It ideally would have been sought to boost all possible sales, not limiting what people wanted to buy.

    James Myers, I’ve owned two Ford Rangers and might get another car sometime, say from Ford, like the one I drove for 400,000 miles in earlier years. But, first, what are Ford’s rotary engine car or cars?

  • DLS

    “I saw a hint that there’s going to be smaller version for household appliances.”

    Is this surprising? No. Stereos, *** computers ***, and teevees come next!