Anyone else annoyed about the "Cash for Clunkers" program?

Long story short, I ended up trading in my car on a new one, but wasn't eligible for the Cash-for-Clunkers program. My 10-year-old car with a gas leak and an oil leak and other problems was not eligible because its initial EPA rating 10 years ago was ~24 mpg (it actually got ~28mpg until these leaks). My new car is rated for ~30mpg and getting ~38mpg.

So had I bought a guzzling SUV or pickup a few years ago, I could have gotten $4500 trade-in instead of $1700, even if I was buying something less efficient than my last car. I get $2800 less because of past responsible behavior? What about someone who didn't own a car before and used public transit or their own feet? Why isn't the incentive based on miles per gallon or better yet gallons per mile of the new car being purchased? And I'm sorry, but a 1-5mpg improvement in EPA predictions is not a real difference. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/cars.shtml

It's clearly an economic stimulus measure packaged as an environmental one, but I'm feeling personally annoyed about it. :grr:

Sucks not to be rich, eh?

:eyes:

http://www.cars.gov/

Qualified consumers may participate in the CARS Program between July 1, 2009 and November 30, 2009 on authorized funds are no longer available.
Qualified consumers will receive a credit of $3,500 or $4,500 for an eligible trade-in toward the purchase of lease of an approved vehicle under CARS Program.
Qualified consumers will receive the $3,500 or $4,500 credit at the time the purchase their new vehicle.
Dealers must provide consumers with any other advertised rebates or discounts in addition to the credit they receive through the CARS Program.
Consumers should expect to conduct their deals at their dealership of choice, not on the Internet.
Consumers should expect the dealers to provide their best estimate of the scrap value for their eligible trade-in vehicle. Dealers are allowed to deduct $50 from this value for their administrative costs.
Consumers should expect that all information collected through the CARS Program will be kept confidential. Social Security members are not required for a CARS transaction.

Your vehicle must be less than 25 years old on the trade-in date
Only purchase or lease of new vehicles qualify
Generally, trade-in vehicles must get 18 or less MPG (some very large pick-up trucks and cargo vans have different requirements)
Trade-in vehicles must be registered and insured continuously for the full year preceding the trade-in
You don't need a voucher, dealers will apply a credit at purchase
Program runs through Nov 1, 2009 or when the funds are exhausted, whichever comes first.
The program requires the scrapping of your eligible trade-in vehicle, and that the dealer disclose to you an estimate of the scrap value of your trade-in. The scrap value, however minimal, will be in addition to the rebate, and not in place of the rebate.

again, I find it disappointing trying to talk to brick walls.

I'm starting to think that the only brick is in your noggin.

Good luck with that!

And face it, the program is mainly a subsidy to the auto dealers, the manufacturers, and the people who are driving gas guzzlers.

People who are driving old, but thrifty, vehicles are getting screwed.

It isn't a subsidy, but what's the point of talking to a brick wall.......

This whole "deal" is smoke & mirrors. The idea is to "offer" something they will probably not have to come through with for most people. You go to a dealership with this "plan" in mind, and once there, the bait & switch happens & you leave with a new car you may or may not have wanted, and the dealers have avoided cutting the prices by a lot, because they are factoring in that mythical $4500.00 that most people will end up NOT getting to take advantage of.

If the government were truly interested in getting OLD cars off the roads, they would just buy them outright, and offer people an opportunity to get rid of a car, remove it from service completely,,,not just trade it for another vehicle...

or they would allow it to apply toward a USED car.

This is all about helping car dealers move new cars that have been sitting there for months.

and no one will sell us a new car on the $25/mo payment plan since that's all we can afford.
So we're driving a 1992 Toyota truck that hopefully will hold out a while. At least it gets 26 mpg in town and 31 on the highway.

I bought a car 5 years ago for its mileage and all wheel drive (essential where I am). I shopped for a car that got good mileage and now I see the the folks that didn't give a damn about that are getting $. Suck it up for the environment, I guess.

I had to purchase a new car last weekend. As a child of the seventies .... I grew up knowing that there was a finite amount of oil, i also remember how difficult the "oil crisis" of the 70's was ... So, six years ago I bought a fuel efficient 4-cyl 5-speed manual transmission car (never forgetting fuel efficiency, even in a time of excess) .... yeah it did tick me off that my efforts to NOT squander resources would not be rewarded and that those that chose to were rewarded.

I purchased the most fuel efficient vehicle I could ... again.

And I've been rewarded in spirit for it. I'm getting 42 mpg with my diesel. When gas prices shot up over the last few years, I didn't suffer as much as others. I know I was doing better for the environment as well. I just think that if it helps people getting into better vehicles for the environment, then while I may not personally benefit money wise, it's still good overall for everyone.

:shrug:

(just like right wing-ers) if someone manages, by dumb luck or cleverness or happenstance) to get one thing they didn't.

If the goal is to help lower income people buy cars or better cars, put a low income limit on it.

If it's to improve fuel economy, then improving only a few mpg and buying a car with unimpressive mpg doesn't make much of a difference.

If it's to support American automakers, then specify that.

This isn't about dumb luck or cleverness or happenstance - this is about an organized program we're all paying via taxes.

And yes it's also about getting people out there buying cars which will help the economy too.

And a whole lot of dealers are matching the federal money, and in Texas there's the Air Check program where someone could get another $3000 towards a new vehicle (though Air Check also applies to slightly used cars as well).

Trading in a 16 mpg SUV for even a 21 mpg sedan (5 mpg improvement) is a ~25% improvement. And I don't think any qualifying new vehicle is that low.

Trading 28 mpg for 38 mpg (10 mpg improvement) is roughly the same improvement percentage-wise. But over time the improvement in the larger vehicles represents a larger, possibly much larger, total carbon reduction.

It's the low-hanging fruit they're after.

If you look at driving 10,000 miles
16 mpg -> 625 gallons
22 mpg (minimum for program) -> 455 gallons

Yes that saves 170 gallons, and is a 27% drop, but they're still using 455 gallons

Going from
24 mpg -> 417 gallons
30 mpg -> 333 gallons
difference = 84 gallons, 20% cut, but only using 333 gallons for the same distance

I'm glad to have the eligible clunker reduce their carbon footprint- but they will save money already for doing that, and in many cases they won't spend as much on the newer car either. But they're still choosing to have a car that is not getting impressive gas mileage - so why is that being rewarded in particular? Why not base the incentive on the mpg of the new car - if they turn in their old behemoth for a Prius, they'll really save in multiple ways.

...what's the total gas burnt? 455 + 417 = 832 gal p/a

If you buy the new car, and they leave the old one on the road, what's the total gas burnt? 625 +333 = 958 gal/pa.

Assuming it's a zero-sum game, and only one of you gets the rebate, the first scenario represents a 15% improvement over the second scenario.

It's about promoting fleet efficiency.

it's going to the car that's still using more gas - and a 22mpg sedan is not impressive gas mileage at all. There's no additional incentive for the gas guzzler to go for a 30 or 35 or 40mpg car.

and many of the old land yachts off the road and to get the owners into way more efficient (and safer) vehicles. Additionally, way to many of the people driving these turds can't afford a decent down payment to get into something newer. Combining the 3500-4500 and zero percent financing, you've got half a million old pieces of crap scrapped.


Sorry you're pissed, can't make everyone happy.

I am so confused over all of this and I don't wanna go and sit at a dealer all day to find out that I am not eligible.

Anyone know?

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ - click the green and white car on the right hand side.

:)

She had an old van that she bought because she had three small children at the time. Her children are basically grown and she needed to get a new vehicle because the van is close to beyond repair and they are giving her $3500 from the CFC program. She is a single mother and works her ass off. The program helped her out and now she is getting a reliable vehicle with payments she can make.

I think it is a good program, maybe not perfect for everybody, but can be helpful to some.

Requirements:

1. Be in driveable condition
2. Have been continuously insured consistent with State laws and registered to you for at least one year immediately prior to trade-in.
3. Be manufactured less than 25 years before the date of the trade-in (i.e., before mid- to late-1984)
4. Have a combined MPG of 18 or less. This does not apply to category 3 trucks---trucks with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) between 8,500 lbs. and 10,000 lbs

1 and 2 might rule that $100 clunker out.

But I don't. My clunker was a 'desperation' purchase a couple of years ago, after my fuel-efficient but very tired old Toyota gave up the ghost. That Toyota could probably fit in the back end of the Suburban that now slurps up anything that's left of my social security check after the monthly bills are paid. The SUV was supposed to be temporary, to be replaced as soon as possible. At the time, gas was at $4, and any vehicle with good mileage was totally out of my price range. Compounding the issue, social services limits the value of my vehicle so a new one is out of the question.

When I first heard of the 'cash for clunkers' program I hoped there would be a provision to help with an upgrade to a used but more fuel-efficient vehicle. Sadly, those of us who could really use that kind of boost are shut out entirely. And our clunkers thus continue to guzzle both gas and money while adding to pollution. So, yes, it's very frustrating.

In my case, I'm still prohibited from having my name on a vehicle that exceeds a certain value, leased or purchased.

i've looked into them before, and the amount of miles i put on a vehicle makes it very unaffordable, unless i just park it for the last two years of the lease.
i've ALWAYS purchased used cars, and always will. new cars just aren't worth the money- and i don't want/need to be saddled with monthly payments.

But if someone really wants out of a gas guzzler and they do only drive 10-12,000 miles/year, then a lease maybe a good option for them. At least the option is out there. :shrug:

I'm torn on this. On the one side, all we're really doing is financing waste. On the other side, I'm sure that it is acting as a benefit in a number of ways. If it gets folks into more responsible, safer cars, that's a good thing. It also has to be helping both the local economy because of the sales of new cars and hopefully helping some Americans save jobs by moving some of the overflow of new cars being produced. It would have been nice if part of the program specifically stated that the cars that were eligible had to have final assembly on American soil.

I'd like to have seen this opened up to some of the "Certified Pre-Owned" cars as well, that sort of thing where the depreciation hit had already been taken.

AND yes, I think your 10yr old car w/ gas and oil leak should def. qualify as a clunker. However, its really aimed at bringing in SUV's.. the reason for that is a SUV in good condition is sent out of the country and bought in places like Saudi Arabia where gas is almost free.

I didn't know that about Chrysler. For me, the nearest dealership I know of can't sell new ones anymore, just used. And I haven't liked the Chryslers or Dodges I've driven in the past few years for work.

Also, I think all the tradein cars have to be demolished, not resold and some of the truck category ones have to be older than 2001.

Advertising $9k off with the program, putting folks in a brand new Versa for under $6k. Probably a gimmick in there somewhere, but I really haven't looked into it.

I looked at the Versa a bit but didn't see that much of a discount
http://www.nissanusa.com/car-allowance-rebate/index.html?intcmp=Cash_for_Clunkers.Promo.Homepage.Home.P2

It's an 07. I can't trade it in. I have to keep it. I need it to pull my RV, which is 11,000 pounds.

It gets 16 mpg combined, so out of curiosity I pulled up a 2009 model of the same vehicle. The new version gets... 16 mpg combined.

but I think the mileage disqualifies it.
where do they list the exceptions?
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1988_Buick_Century.shtml

what is "combined" fuel economy? :wtf:

does that sound right?
or do they mean 18 maximum?

None of the vehicles below qualify. Trade-in vehicles, other than Category 3 trucks, must have an EPA Combined MPG of 18 or less to qualify.
Buick Century 4 cyl, 2.5 L, Automatic 3-spd, (FFS), Regular 24
Buick Century 6 cyl, 2.8 L, Automatic 3-spd, (FFS), Regular 20
Buick Century 6 cyl, 2.8 L, Automatic 4-spd, (FFS), Regular 21
Buick Century 6 cyl, 3.8 L, Automatic 4-spd, (FFS), Regular 20

Still gets 30 mpg on the highway.

I'm so much pissed off at Cash for Clunkers as I am at car makers in general. It's bullshit that in 15 years, the only cars getting 40 mpg or better are hybrids.

TlalocW

Irks the shit out of me.

Air conditioning doesn't work, window won't go down, starter giving out, and I've been waiting for the program and now I found out I'm not eligible.

If my car's not a clunker, I don't know what cars would be.

I have a car that *had* a qualifying mpg rating - a 1998 Buick.

Last year - yes 2008 - the EPA rerated as 1 mpg better and as a result it is 1 mpg too good to qualify.

And we going to buy a hybrid.

Fuck whoever invented this bullshit program. I don't know ANYONE who has thought about it who qualifies for one reason or another ..... including dealers opting out.

thought. What was not on the list I saw was that it only included 3.6 engines; mine is a 3.0, so I'm out of luck there.

My other car is a Mercury Grand Marquis that I inherited when my mother died. Because of probate and such, I only legally took posession of it 6 months ago. You have to have owned and insured a car for a minimum of a year. Out of luck on that one too.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

My Toyoda T-100 automatic qualified with 18 MPG (I checked feuleconomy.gov every day for the last month to make sure) until I went into the dealership on Friday and suddenly the MPG had jumped to 19 MPG. The funny thing is, the manual transmission of the same vehicle -- same engine -- was listed as 19 MPG until Friday, then it fell to 18 MPG!

But the numbers do not add up...

My truck, with automatic transmission is listed at 17 city and 21 highway. Based on the EPA formula of 55% city and 45% highway over 1000 miles:
550/17 = 32.352941
450/21 = 21.428571
+ = 53.781512
1000/53.781512 = 18.59375 MPG -- but it is listed as 19 combined MPG on the website

The manual transmission is listed at 17 city and 22 highway -- the same formula:
550/17 = 32.352941
450/22 = 20.454545
+ = 52.807486
1000/52.807486 = 18.936709 MPG -- and is listed as 18 MPG combined on the website

The manual transmission is listed as costing $110 less expensive than the automatic as far as estimated annual fuel costs go as well. According to the information on the website (which is supposed to be the only location for this kind of information) the manual is $1925 for one year of fuel cost while the automatic is listed as $2035 -- and the automatic is supposed to get BETTER gas mileage than the manual?

I just wanted to get the word out that there is some sudden switching going on. I don't know if there is anything I can do about it -- I keep trying to call both the EPA information number (they are closed until Monday) and the CARS hotline (I can't get through to a live person!) and I will post back if I ever find out anything -- of course by then the money will all be gone ;( but at least I will have the gratification of arguing the system! :D

Wait until you read the Fine Print of the Health Care Reform Bills currently in Congress.
Better take a Valium first.

Under their "new" ratings...... the Ford Windstar and Ford Crown Vic, the two other vehicles I was looking at in 2001....are rated for 18. How cute. No rebate for me.

Because in the scenario you provided, you DO qualify for the cash for clunkers program.

If your new vehicle gets between 4-9 MPG better than the one you're trading in, you qualify for $3500 under the program. If the new vehicle gets 10MPG or above the one you're getting rid of, you qualify for the full amount of $4500.

Don't know where the $1700 figure came from, but with the scenario you described, you should have gotten $3500 toward the purchase of your new vehicle.

If it doesn't, or if you have not owned/insured the car for a minimum of one year prior to trade-in, you are out of luck. Even if the car you want gets scads more mileage that the one you have. If you don't meet those initial criteria, you do not qualify.

and yet people are bitching that THEY aren't happy with the cash for clunkers program.

I fucking give up, you people should be debating the death of Michael Jackson

That was pretty cool.

I don't have a clunker to ditch, but I really need some new wheels.

I seem to remember a presidential candidate saying that people should own their failures.

The first time was when they gave better deals to those Americans whose homes were in foreclosure. In O/W, 'screw those Americans who didn't go out and buy a home they knew they couldn't afford'.

Now "Cash for Clunkers" comes along and one of the first rules is that you cannot qualify for the program if your clunker gets better than 18 mpg. In O/W if you were a responsible American and purchased a car 10-20+ years ago because it had a good EPA Gas Mileage Rating, then you can go fly a kite if it still gets better than 18 mpg.

It doesn't make much sense to use our tax dollars to reward those who care less about this country and penalize those who have been responsible.