Used Cars For Sale
Dealer Reviews, News, and Cars For Sale
Consumers Locked Out of CARS Program
If you have been locked out of the CARS program, share you feedback with our legislators below. This is not our online petition but a place to outline your ideas for change to the current Cash for Clunkers bill. We also urge you to signup for our online petition.
110 responses on “Consumers Locked Out of CARS Program”
Copyright 2011 PCG Digital Marketing - www.pcgdigitalmarketing.com - Car Dealer Digital Marketing
Automotive News - Automotive SEO - Automotive Advertising - Car Dealer Advertising - Automotive Microsites - Auto Classifieds
2173
OK so the highest mpg the gov. is giving us for the c.a.r.s. program is 18 mpg…….Well that sucks because my 95 mazda millenia only get about 14 mpg and the website to qualifiy said it gets 20. Great so now I have to limp this junker around and hope to god it keeps going till only god knows when
I own a 1995 Ford Taurus station wagon, which I’ve driven over 130,000 miles since getting it new. Its current MPG is 14 miles/gallon. It has 2 big dents, and leaking oil gaskets. Because its original “new” EPA mpg was “19″, I cannot trade it in. I would like to buy a Honda Accord with 30 combined mpg. Does it make any sense that I can’t trade it in? Why am I being penalized for not buying a gas-guzzling SUV in 1995???
Frederick A. Smith
Garden City, NY
I would be totally willing to go out and buy a brand new fuel efficient car if my current car qualified. Right now I own a 1992 Chevy Lumina. It is the definition of a clunker… old, rusty, faded, breaks down a lot, however it gets a combined MPG of 20 according to fueleconomy.gov.
It’s sad that I am going to miss out on a $4500 voucher over 2 MPG.
I Qualified for all parts of the program until I got to the 1year insurance part. I see the concern that you need proof of ownership of the vehicle for a year or more to prevent someone going out and buying a clunker to use as a quick 4500 freebie. My concern is what does the 1year insurance have to do with it. I,ve owned the car for 3 years and parked it last august 2008 because it was costing to much to drive and i dropped the insurance on it to insure a more cost effective car we bought. Now i want to get rid of the gas guzzeler and they say i cant. whats with this bs.
I have a 94 Lincoln continental that is rated at 19mpg …no way I am frustrated all years 91 thru 01 qualify at 18 for this model except 94, it is the only year rated 19mpg no way. Their rating system is wrong. if you drive 40 percent highway and 60 percent city with a vehical rated at 19mpg it would really consume 18mpg instead of 45 highway and 55 city which they develope the consumtion rate at for new condition vehicals not when there over ten years old with over 100,000 miles on them anyways.
Locked out because I wish to purchase a small passenger car to replace my category III truck which I no longer have need for, but rules will only let me use my truck to purchase another gas guzzling truck.
This is wrong!
I’m do not believe that I get over 18 MPG for a 16 year old car.
I own a 16 year old Dodge Spirit. Because I get 20 miles to the gallon, I cannot take advantage of this program.
Have a older vehicle that gets about 15 MPG and I use it for both work and pleasure. Bought it in 2003 and have insured it continuly since purchsed. Work took me away for a time and my state allows a vehicle to stored pending it’s return to use. Durring the stored time I kep it insured. Upon my return I put it back in service (registered and insured). The oficial law reads ‘not less than one year immediately” and the answer to question as to qualify on the gov site Q & A for dealers has it “insured and registered for one full year preceding the trade in. This means if for any reason a person has a lapse in either their registration they do not qualify. Or in the case of a person who got sick for a few months and has a lapse in either insurance or registration dose not qualify. Even though in both cases the person has registered and insured it for well over a year since they purchased it along with the fact the title is in their name and never changed for years. The law was made with the thought of preventing one going to a junk yard and getting a junk car for trade. Sounds like the intent is being misinterpreted?
I have a 1992 Grand Marquis, this car monitors your mpg and I have never seen it go above 18mpg on the highway. So the rating of 19 mpg combined for this vehicle is unrealistic to say the least
Alan wrote:
“Dont worry about the numbers on the MPG website , the car dealership will check how many miles per gallon your gas guzzler really consumes so if u qualify good luck!!! this should answer all ur question about your MPG. I KNOW CUASE I JUST GOT A CALL FROM THE CAR DEALERSHIP . PEACE!!!”
I would recommend you call the cars.gov hotline @ 1-866-CAR-7891 to verify the information you speak of.
I have a 1999 Isuzu Hombre that gets a combined 19MPG on the fuel economy, on the model that doesn’t have the extended cab like mine. My particular model isn’t listed on that site and I guess I don’t qualify. Complete nonsense.
Dont worry about the numbers on the MPG website , the car dealership will check how many miles per gallon your gas guzzler really consumes so if u qualify good luck!!! this should answer all ur question about your MPG. I KNOW CUASE I JUST GOT A CALL FROM THE CAR DEALERSHIP . PEACE!!!
The car that I currently own does indeed qualify for the program, however, my credit does not allow for me to buy a new car, and this program only applies for new cars. I do not understand why this can’t be applied to a gently used car as long as it meets the EPA Fuel Economy standard set forth for the program. There are many used and demo vehicles that one can more easily be financed for thise of us with less than perfect credit that would more than qualify under the current standards.
I have 1983 Van that gets about 12 MPG. Why the 25 year old deal? Anything you can get running is my gripe. Also the insurance and registration is bogas. You could be self insured and working on the old clunker to get it ready for trade or whatever. I have several vehicles that do not qualify for one reason or another very lawyer friendly!
It is so ironic to see that the Plymouth 3.3L grand voyager do not qualify at 19 MPG. However, similar minivans with same size engine do get 18 MPG. So So frustrating …
It is so ironic to see that the Plymouth 3.3L grand voyager do qualify at 19 MPG. However, similar minivans with same size engine do get 18 MPG. So So frustrating …
@Ken:
Gov’t numbers to voice concern over the inconsistency of the MPG ratings:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contacts.shtml
http://www.cars.gov hotline 1(866)CAR-7891
https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/email.cfm (CARS.gov program administrators)
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/comments3.htm
(EPA email I used, the list is extensive))OMSCFEIS@EPA.gov
Bill Sponsor:
http://stabenow.senate.gov/email.cfm
I have the exact same issue. I have a 2000 Grand Caravan and they have it combined in with the regular Caravan
re: Dodge Caravan and Grand Caravan
2000 Dodge and Plymouth 3.3 Liter minivans.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov did update the website to include the Dodge Grand Caravan but still made no distinction in MPG between the lighter, shorter wheelbased Caravan and the heavier, longer wheelbased Grand Caravan.
No updates have been posted, to date, concerning the 19 MPG rated 2000 3.3 Liter Dodge and Pymouth minivans. While the 2000 Chrysler 3.3L, the 2 years prior & 2 years after 3.3L Chrysler family minivans are all rated @ 18 MPG.
3.3 Liter Chrysler Family Minivans
—-—Chrysler-Dodge-Plymouth
YEAR—MPG—–MPG—–MPG
1998—–—18—–—–18—–——-18
1999—–—18——––18————18
2000——–18——––19————19
2001——–18——––18————18
2002——–18——––18————18
The Uproar continues!
i am beyond frustrated!!! i have been driving my 1992 toyota camry v6 automatic for seventeen years. i finally decided to purchase a new car-ford fusion hybrid which averages 39 mpg. according to the fueleconomy website, my camry does NOT qualify as a clunker because it (supposedly) gets 19 mpg. first of all, it does NOT! secondly, the IDENTICAL camry a year newer (1993) DOES qualify!! experts at toyota confirmed that there is absolutely no difference in the two model years. (to make matters worse, the 1991 qualifies, too)
i don’t understand. my car is the type they SHOULD want to recycle. i am buying a car that more than doubles my fuel economy. suggestions??
I was all ready to go for this deal. Had my car picked out, financing all taken care of, even had the dealership write it up so that it was in my price range. Then, today I find out that with less than a week before this is suppossed to begin, they change the rules and now I don’t qualify. Now, you can not owe any money on the trade-in vehicle. It must have a completely clean title to qualify for the deal. What difference would that make? All that needs to be done is have the remainder of what’s owed rolled onto the new vehicle. I can understand if it was a lot owed, but if you are talking about less than what you would get through the program, then why should it matter? Now I’m stuck driving around a Blazer that realistically gets 12 mpg not the 15 mpg that is listed on the fuel economy website.
the program as it is written right now penalizes those who bought more efficient vehicles back in the days! my car used to be efficient, but it definitely isn’t getting above 18mpg with almost 250,000 miles on it. it seems like this program only encourages those who bought gas guzzlers back in the days – as their cars will definitely be less than 18mpg on EPA.
they can’t just go buy the new EPA mileage estimates!
Hi,
I’ve been looking at the Cash For Clunkers government program. It appears that my car, 94 thunderbird 4.6L, does not qualify because the new combined is 19mpg.
I’ve done research and the 97, 96, 95, 93, 92, and 91 Ford Thunderbird 4.6L V8′s all qualify with 18mpg. What happened in 94?
The gov says my mileage is combined 20 mpg (accurate), so I do not qualify. However, I am buying a car that gets 31 mpg (according to gov)-actually will get about 40 mpg. I should not be disqualified because of my 20 mpg when I would be buying a car that will get much better gas mileage. It does not make sense that they will give out $3500 for a vehicle that gets only a 2 mpg increase. Sheesh…government thinking!
My clunker registration expired June 30, 2009, so I have to renew the registration for the car to be crushed. It is insured, and meets all the other qualifiers. Do they want the clunkers off the roads, or are they creating paper work nightmares to create jobs?
I agree with Kevin’s statement he left on July 11, 2009 at 1:57 pm… I have a 1989 Olds Cutlass Ciera… It’s because of this so called fueleconomy.gov…It stating that I have a combined MPG of 21 … City 18 MPG…
My concerns is this … who in the heck told ya’ll this is correct? My car thank goodness it is still running… but it does not get close to 18 miles a gallon, so this DIS QUALIFIES me…. Come on now PEOPLE…The MAN gets away with millions again… we have to pay taxes on things that we shouldn’t be trying to fix… I have crappy credit, this looked like the only way I could even try to get a new and reliable car, but NOPE…. The MAN makes it out to where NO person that is trying or working hard to make ends meet will be able to participate in this JOKE!!!! The MAN-Government knew what they wanted to do… like normal… lets screw the little guy/gal…. No breaks for them!!!! LETS GET THIS THING FIXED RIGHT….
SUGGESTIONS: 1) I think there should be a 1 mpg credit/variance for every 5 years on the car’s age at trade-in. Would that be too much to ask? 2) Go to a NET-4/10 MODEL that opens eligibility if your trade makes at least the 4 or 10 mpg “net” increase on fuel economy. 3) Also, they need to INCREASE funding for the bill, or else they’ll be out of money by labor day. I mean here’s a chance for lawmakers to end (at least some of) the anger on “Main Street”. The “spirit” of this legislation is right; the “letter” of the law is wrong. Let’s get this one right! Fix it before the late-July roll-out!
I have a 3/4 ton 4×4 that they consider a class 3 work truck. They will not let me trade it in on an economy CAR, only a full size truck. That is just stupid!
Jason, you may have to wait until the rules and requirements are rolled out. If the rules say a DMV history will work, then I suspect the dealer will take it at that time. Until then, they probably don’t want to touch it for fear of possibly losing money on the deal.
I went to purchase a car, and I qualify. The vehicle has been registered and insured since 1994. I have only the 2007 and 2009 registration cards. The vehicle was still registered in 2008, but the card expired and has been throw out. The dealer will not except the 2007 and 2009 cards, they have to be 2008 and 2009.
Who keeps expired cards from over a year ago ?
I went to Motor vehicle to get a history report of the vehicle registrations, and the dealer still will no except this, they want the original expired card from 2008. DMV will not print out old or expired cards. I even showed the dealer my insurance coverage on the vehicle from 1994-2009. They still want the expired old card.
@Mary: Your comments are spot on:
Concerning the Chrysler family 3.3 Liter minivans MPG(combined)for the years 1998 thru 2002. The MPG numbers list out as follows at fueleconomy.gov:
Year—Chrysler- Dodge- Plymouth
1998——18——–18———-18
1999——18——–18———-18
2000——18——–19———-19
2001——18——–18———-18
2002——18——–18———-18
For a five year period all of the ‘like’ Chrysler family 3.3 liter minivans are rated for 18MPG combined EXCEPT the 2000 Dodge & Plymouth 3.3 liter minivans are rated at 19 MPG combined. So, out of 15 ‘like’ Chrysler family minivans operating with the same 3.3 liter engine over a five year period, 13 qualify for the CARS program while 2 do not qualify, per fueleconomy.gov. And there is no distinction between the short wheelbased caravan and the longer wheelbased grand caravan.
The numbers from fueleconomy.gov (EPA) are inconsistent and are not suited for use in the CARS criteria.(IMHO)
My car isn’t even listed as a model! It is a 2000 Dodge GRAND Caravan. They have only Caravans listed. Grand Caravans are the twin of Chrysler Town & Country, which is large & heavier then plain Caravans. Same is true of Plymouth Grand Voyager vs plain Voyager. T & Cs are listed as getting 18 mpg, so they qualify. I assume Grand Caravans & Voyagers would also–but they are not on the list, although shorty Caravans & Voyagers are. So now what?
Why is it erroneous to target 8 cylinder cars and trucks? They tend to get the worst mileage and pollute the most. Seems like targeting those will have the most impact.
Driving habits will change your gas mileage. How do you expect the EPA to rate every car’s fuel economy for each individual’s particular circumstance? They don’t know or care where you live, how fast you drive, how many passengers you carry or how well you maintain your car. What they do instead is drive each model on the same course and publish those numbers as the EPA estimated fuel economy which is what you see on their website. Sorry, but that’s the closest they can come to guessing what economy you will actually get. That’s why they have the disclaimer that their mileage estimates may not be exactly what you see in real life. Your mileage may be better or worse depending on how you use your car.
Nobody was given “rights” under the legislation. Cash for Clunkers is not a “right”. It is a potential benefit.
If you adjust mileage figures for age of the vehicle, the ones rated at 18MPG or less will still have lower figures than ones rated at 19MPG or above if both are the same year vehicle.
I’m completely in agreement that they should provide more funding and expand the program, but I don’t think it makes sense to include more efficient cars in the current bill. Let’s get rid of the worst ones first.
I’ve been following the CARS legislation now for several weeks. I was looking forward to making my purchase to help the economy and the environment. I was EXTREMELY disappointed to learn that my 18 year old car does not qualify under the COMBINED EPA estimate clause of 18 mpg (I missed it by one lousy gallon). It seems like this legislation erroneously targets 8 cyl. passenger cars, and trucks, which is completely beyond the pale of most potential buyers. What’s even more disingenuous is the fact that the fueleconomy.gov website clearly states that these are only “methods for estimating fuel economy” your mileage will still vary! Vehicle condition, age, driving habits, how and where you drive, etc. are all factors and “may not accurately predict” it says. And yet this is the same website that will be used to DENY millions of potential buyers their rights under this legislation. SUGGESTIONS: 1) I think there should be a 1 mpg credit/variance for every 5 years on the car’s age at trade-in. Would that be too much to ask? 2) Go to a NET-4/10 MODEL that opens eligibility if your trade makes at least the 4 or 10 mpg “net” increase on fuel economy. 3) Also, they need to INCREASE funding for the bill, or else they’ll be out of money by labor day. I mean here’s a chance for lawmakers to end (at least some of) the anger on “Main Street”. The “spirit” of this legislation is right; the “letter” of the law is wrong. Let’s get this one right! Fix it before the late-July roll-out!
Rather than try to get qualified under the existing bill and competing for the $1 billion, how about you revise the petition to suggest a complementary bill allowing your cars in along with an additional $5 billion in funding to pay for it? Dividing the existing $1 billion among more people just leaves the same number of people out in the cold when the money runs out, but makes less impact on the amount of gas used.