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
2169
Car qualifies, clear title, insurance…late registration.
I really think the program should have a required registration of X months before the final rule was published, or have people show proof of more than one year of registration in their name. I think that would ensure that people didn’t try to use junkers or vehicles they didn’t own and personally operate.
Ford windstar gl 3.0L 1998, they said it combine mpg 19, when it is almost 17 mpg combine. and yes I think it would be smarter if its only for American Cars. Smart job Obama
Comment:
•I want to participate in stimulating the economy by using this program.
•My 15-year old vehicle is a clunker.
Issue:
•My 1994 Honda, Accord rates at 22 MPG. (does not “officially” qualify”)
Proposal:
•Modify the program to include vehicles over 10-years old.
•New rule to include an and/or option of 18 MPG
Rationale:
•To support the programs design
•Energize the economy
•Boost auto sales
•Put safer, vehicles on the nation’s roadways
•Put cleaner vehicles on the nation’s roadways
•Put more fuel-efficient vehicles on the nation’s roadways
Thank you for your time!
Bunker (n. A compartment for storing fuel)
Klunker (n. Something worthless)
I have an 89 gmc safari van that qualifies at 15-17 miles mpg. I have owned and driven and licensed it for 8 + years. It was my only vehicle. a year and half ago friends, out of kindness, bought me a car with better mileage. So I drive it most of the time. MY mother came down with terminal cancer and i ended up parking my van for the most part of the last year as I was always on the road to and from er rooms, mri’s, chemo, etc for mom. The registration lapsed as well as the insurance, cause frankly i wasn’t even paying attention to those things as I am have a severe disability myself, and my mom was a constant daily priority. I did catch up with both registration and insurance for it a few months ago, but now I am not qualified-the full year provision. I have three people who want to buy my van because it is very useful to tow etc. but I held off thinking i could get the cash for clunkers and trade in my other car together and get a car with great mpg. I have owned it for 8 years it runs, it qualifies, but if I can’t use this program i am going to sell it for $500 to the guy next door and it will be on the road for 10 more years and there will be no new car sale. I don’t get it. this van is the quintessential car u want off the road
. There should be someone we can make our case to and get waivers. Oh well, honk and wave, when u see my piece of junk go by belching out its carbon.
My 1997 Volvo rated at 21 MPG– actually less than 15 MPG
My car was originally listed at 18 mpg but was changed at the last minute to 19mpg (1993 Toyota Camry V6 auto transmission). You continue to list the same car with a manual transmission at 18mpg which does qualify. I’ve owned manual transmission cars before and they ALWAYS get a better mpg than an auto transmission. Move my car back to 18 mpg so my car qualifies. It’s 17 years old and by my estimation maybe gets 17mpg (combined highway and city).
what a disaster the car is registard in my wifes name and the title is in mine that disqualifies me
One of the other major problems, beside the “New estimated MPG” is that most of the dealers, i.e. GM, FORD,etc will list your car as allowable–check their websites!!! For example my car a 1987 Lincoln Town car on both Ford and GM is listed as being allowed with a MPG of 18. The CARs gov site lists as 19MPG – clearly not allowed ( The 1985 is…same engine as the 1987). Problem is the dealers are looking at their corporate sites and then filing the trade in for a voucher based on the information provided by their own corporation instead of checking the gov site. I tried to tell the dealers it would not be accepted, they disagreed and stated they checked their website and filed anyways.
Now when the dealers realize the car WONT pass and will be rejected you cannot change the information entering a different car or delete/cancel from the Gov site where they applied, until the Gov rejects the application. So now we must wait for the Gov to reject before we can enter a valid trade in, in this case I also have a 1997 Jeep (15 MPG). You also cannot go to a different dealer or refile because then it will state that you are trying to do two trade ins. Still waiting for the rejection since Monday, 7/27 so we can reenter the new trade in information. Now, will the GM Delivery by July 31st Rebates,still be honored by GM, as it was their site that provide the dealers with wrong info? Will any of the Cash for Cars gov money still be available after this delay??? Gov site where dealers send in the voucher application should have been designed to immediate reject applications for vouchers if the MPG does not qualify instead of accepting and then waiting up to 10 days to reject. This is only bogging down the systems, causing unrealistic delays and will cause many of the initial individuals with valid cars end up losing out during this horrendous trial phase.
This is by far the most frustrating week I have ever had.
Really bummed with this program. My 1997 Mercury Sable wagon is rated at 20 mpg by the gov. But with over 140K miles on the clock it gets 16-17mpg average and will barely pass a smog test. The CARS program would have gotten me off the fence to purchase a new car, but now I’ll just driving the Merc until it dies.
I have a 1983 Buick Century that is running and it gets max 17 miles a gallon and it is too old for this program!! They put a cap on how old a car can be to qualify for this program, how stupid is that? Cars have to be 1984 and newer and get 18 miles per gallon or less.
My 19 year old vehicle – 1990 Subaru Legacy 4WD – is hardly fuel efficient. Sadly, it is 2 MPG shy of qualifying per the current rules of CARS.
I would be glad to purchase a new car with a net gain in MPG of 10 or 15 or even 20 MPG if I could participate in the $4500. voucher program.
A net gain in MPG and a old clunker off the road, that sounds like it would have met the spirit of the program.
I drive a 1990 because I am frugal and financially responsible. I cannot afford a new car without this voucher.
Please consider the option of a Net Gain in MPG for any future programs.
Regards,
My car did not qualify because I did not have it licensed and insured during the winter when none of my kids were home and I (being a single parent at home alone and needing to save money to help pay for college, etc.) could only drive one car at a time.
Ditto here … 1999 Dodge Intrepid is 1 mpg over the limit (if title year is used). In fact all of the Intrepid model line are over the limit. If a person drove the combination of highway and city miles that MIGHT be correct but I drive only short city drives (two teens back and forth to practices, etc.) and my car has a slow oil leak. I only wish my mileage was 19 or more! The limits of the program are really arbitrary and should be lifted. If a car is older and one can purchase a new one at the required mpg then it should be eligible. Period.
My grievance is just more of the same – the 1993 Volvo 940 Wagon is the same car as 1992, but the program gives the earlier 18mpg, the latter 20 mpg. My ‘qualifying’ door sticker says 1992, the title says 1993 and no-one at the program answers phone calls to say which piece of information will ultimately be the determinant one. I was on hold for an hour this morning before I was disconnected at their end. I’ve given up on this already – too many unanswered questions and when added with the last minute changes to the fueleconomy.gov website, I feel that we’ve all been had, big time, and again.
My wife and I are the joint owners of two clunkers. The law & information in the Federal Register seemed to indicate that we could “trade” each one in on two new vehicles and receive a clunker voucher for each vehicle. The rules published contradicted this info. Joint owners are treated a sone person – they can only be named once to receive a credit voucher. We were going to buy two vehicles and get two clunkers off the road. Now we will just continue to drive the second clunker.
Not only is the program full of faults, I thought this was to help stimulate the lagging American car sales as well as help decrease fuel use. Yet I see most posters ready to trade in their clunker for a foreign car, no American spirit there. I am one of those with a 1990 car rated at 19 mpg and guess I will just donate it when it just won’t go anymore as it’s book value is a worthless $400. Would have been great to be able to put $4500 down towards a newer, safer, fuel efficient vehicle with the help of the taxes I have paid for years. I see ads in my area to “ignore” the rules and they will still give you $4500 but I also see they raised the price of the cars to reflect this. Crooks will be crooks and car sales people are #1. So another stupid idea by the government that was not worked out in full before teasing the public with it. I hope for those that it did work for much luck in their new car..And I hope they at least bought American.
For a second I thought you were kidding.
what about people that have an clunker and still have an lien on it. what good is getting the clunkers off the road if we can not ues the 4500 to pay off what we owe on the clunkers and still get an new car?
Have a 1993 3.5L Chrysler Concorde which, according to fueleconomy.gov, is a 19mpg thus missing the qualifying figure by 1mpg. Around town I’m lucky if I get 14. On highway, may actually get nearer 17 but nowhere near 19!! In fact, I would have thought 19 back in 1993 would have been questionable. Anyway, unless the bill is changed, I’m stuck with it and I will continue to use up this precious resource. I’m curious to know why the figure of 18 was adopted. I would have thought using the year as the trigger point (say anything over 10 years old) would have been more acceptible. Then scale the credit offered based on the fuel economy benefit to encourage the selection of smaller, more fuel efficient cars similar to what they have (ie. 8…$4500)
My 1987 Toyota P/up truck is 2 MPG shy of qualifying, I think the better way would be to have the trade in vs. new car MPG difference be more than say 10-15 MPG. I don’t want a fancy car, that is why I have an old beater Toyota. But the Honda Ffit I am looking at gets much better MPG, low 30′s. So to go from 20 MPG to like 32MPG should be enough to qualify or at aleast on a graduated scale
This entire bill and others like it is a big fucking waste of tax payer dollars. Assholes in Washington should defend the country and build park benches IMO. Capital Hill is filled with nothing but complete retards who make give me entitlement programs. How about an “Abolish the Bullshit Act” where we fire all the retards who voted on crap like CARS and bailouts?
Kerri says:
July 25, 2009 at 4:26 pm
“I have a 2000 Dodge Grand Caravan. The web page states it gets 19 mpg. Nice. The 1999, 2001, etc all have 18. Why on earth would the 2000 be different? I read somewhere that all the caravan’s around 2000 are 18, but Dodge wont go through the hassle with correcting the error.”
Same here I own 2000 Grand Voyager 3.3L Flex fuel vehicle and out of luck as well
My 1994 Saturn has about 170,000 miles on it and burns oil.fueleconomy .gov says it gets 24 miles per gallon combined.Hogwash!I would love to get this polluter off the road and need assistance in purchaseing a new vehicle.Right now it gets 18 miles per gallon combined.Every new government program seems to lock out lower middle class wage earners who work very hard just to have a bit of the American Dream.Please consider us average Joes of the world by adjusting this fantastic program to include us.Thank you!.
I have my 1994 V6 camry which I believe got no more than 18mpg but the fueleconomy.gov stats it gets 19mpg combined!!! no way I tried various fuels (regular to premium) and cutting my freeway speed form upper 70 to 65~70 and still not able to get freaking more than 18mpg! Is this program just intended to help just the rich who are driving SUVs ….?
Here’s the reply I got about the 2000 Grand Voyager.
Thank you for your email. We have consulted the EPA and their counterparts at Chrysler to determine the best way list these vehicles. Chrysler has confirmed that the data as shown on our website are correct. The manufacturers are only required to test one representative vehicle for each combination of loaded vehicle weight class, transmission class, and basic engine. The Caravan and Grand Caravan were jointly certified, thus there is no separate fuel economy rating for the Grand Caravan. This may disappoint you because the “Grand” version is different from the other version of the vehicle, but at the time these vehicles were jointly certified, the manufacturer had no way of knowing that a rebate system in 2009 would depend upon the EPA ratings. The Town and Country was certified separately and has no bearing on the certification of the Grand Caravan.
Sincerely,
http://www.fueleconomy.gov
Kerri says:
July 25, 2009 at 4:26 pm
“I have a 2000 Dodge Grand Caravan. The web page states it gets 19 mpg. Nice. The 1999, 2001, etc all have 18. Why on earth would the 2000 be different? I read somewhere that all the caravan’s around 2000 are 18, but Dodge wont go through the hassle with correcting the error.”
I’m in the same boat. It’s unfortunate that no one at the EPA could step up to the plate, make an executive decision so ALL of the Chrysler Family/Dodge Grand Caravans 3.3L owners from 1998 to 2002 could participate in the CARS program.
While most are eligible over the five year period the 2000 Dodge and Plymouth 3.3L minivans owners are the only ones that are not.
From the way it has been explained to me the EPA sets the criteria for the MPG testing process. The Car Manufacturers (Chrysler in this case)actually conduct their own testing and supply the EPA with the results. In my opinion some ‘splitting of hairs’ has taken place, coupled with rounding to whole numbers has thrown the 2000 minivan tests out of whack. Well, apparently there is a certain amount of latitude in the criteria the EPA has mandated to allow this to happen. ……..at our expense.
The EPA and Chrysler need to step up to the plate to correct this grievous error. If the EPA continues to operate with a deaf ear then Chrysler needs to step up to the plate and give the 2000 Dodge & Plymouth 3.3L minivan owners the $3,500 – $4500 that’s rightly owed via the CARS Program.
I have a 2000 Dodge Grand Caravan. The web page states it gets 19 mpg. Nice. The 1999, 2001, etc all have 18. Why on earth would the 2000 be different? I read somewhere that all the caravan’s around 2000 are 18, but Dodge wont go through the hassle with correcting the error.
My 1995 Subaru Impreza 2-door gets about 15 mpg because the engine is very old and rusted with leaking oil spots. I was turned down for a new car with cash for clunkersd and instead offered a ertified pre-own vehicle –a Toyota Matrix RX. This would not offer me better mileage. Please help!!!. Lurlena
I was not accepted into the cash for clunkers program, my 1994 mazda truck was off by one mile to the gallon, it was 19 miles per gallon and the cut off was 18 miles to the gallon. I would like the goverment to try and change the standards so I can get the extra money for my trade in. so I can afford a new car. It sure would bring more taxs for Ca. every little bit helps. Thank you very much Troy DePonte
I was not accepted into the cash for clunkers program my 1994 mazda truck was off by one mile to the gallon, it was 19 miles per gallon and the cut off was 18 miles to the gallon. I would like then to try and change so I can get the extra money for my trade in so I can afford a new car. It sure would bring more taxs for Ca. every little bit helps. Thank you very much Troy DePonte
I have a 1989 SUV I traded in. I have had it insured for many years CONTINUOUSLY. I have even purchased city stickers for all these past years. But my license plates are expired (due to emissions) The vehicle gets 11mpg (per the official government website). Now the dealer need registration. Can I use an old registration and if so how do I get it?
My car meets all of the requirements except the registration. I have owned it for years, it’s been insured (never dropped insurance on it) but it will not pass inspection because of emissions so I could not renew my registration. How can I show a year of registration when my state won’t renew it because of the emissions!? This is ridiculous!
ONCE AGAIN PEOPLE IN OUR GOVERNMENT DON’T THINK THINGS THOUGH. DOES ANYBODY IN OUR GOVERNMENT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT CARS. ONCE A CAR REACHES 130,000 MILES THE EFFICIENCY OF THE MOTOR GOES DOWN BY 15%. IF A CAR HAS A TURBO THAT DOES NOT WORK YOU LOSE ABOUT 30%. THERE IS NO WAY THAT THESE OLDER CARS GET WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THEY DO. THINK A LITTLE BIT, INTERNAL PARTS WEAR OUT AND YOU ARE NOT GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY TO FIX THEM.PLEASE CHANGE THE RULES. THANK YOU
It’s a very sad day that the EPA has chosen to turn a deaf ear in regards to addressing & correcting the inaccuracies & inconsistencies in MPG ratings as posted on http://www.fueleconomy.gov
Well I too hoped to get a new car and rid myself of this 1990 Infiniti M30, my 1st car. But it looks like I was screwed by the government again like the rest. The car had a rated MPG of 19…..gee 1 mile under and I could get $4500 to stimulate the economy and get a new car.. Too bad the rules are stupid and the car I will still be driving is a 1990 and probably gets 10 MPG at this point in its life.