wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:52:58 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/2/09 1:48 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:38:35 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:20:50 -0400,
wrote:

...what a great idea.

"Cash for Clunkers, which paid buyers up to $4,500 for their used
cars
when they purchased more fuel efficient models, spurred strong sales
from late July through the end of the program on Aug. 24.

But it likely pulled ahead sales that might have taken place in
September and left dealers with limited supplies of vehicles to sell
coming into the fall."

Year to year comparisons show Ford down 5%, GM down 45% and Chrysler
down 42%.

Must be that Fords are just a much better auto than GM or Chrysler.

http://tinyurl.com/yaamseb


I do believe Fords are better (at least the truck/SUV lines) but the
real fear for a lot of people was buying a car from a bankrupt
company.

And I think part of it may be backlash from folks who don't like the
way the bailout was done. At least Ford worked its *own* problems.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.


The dip in GM sales was expected after the C for C program ended. GM has
a
lot of problems, certainly one of which is customer confidence.



Part of the reason for the dip in sales has to do with the lack of
inventory on dealer lots. The clunkers program cleared out a lot of
older new car inventory, and with the factories pretty slack over the
summer, they're still not much in the way of new cars on the lots.

Simple-minded fools, like most of the righties here, have problems
thinking outside of the box or in terms other than 1 or 0.

I don't have numbers but they said a lot of the cars that got sold on
the clunker deal were unsold 2008s (two years old in car years)



I don't see a problem with that... it would be nice if the auto industry
rebounded, but I'm doubtful.

--
Nom=de=Plume