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
2170
I find myself of being in the very unfortunate position of having been denied access to the Cash for Clunkers program in the 11th hour because of a short lapse in registration. In spite of the fact that my vehicle more than qualifies, and that I’ve owned it for 12 years, because I was out of town on business and missed the registration deadline, I am now being punished. I have already emptied my savings accounts (i.e. closed and cashed out all of my mutual funds) in anticipation of this purchase. Not realizing that exceptions for situations such as mine weren’t being made, I’ve now put myself at a serious financial inconvenience. I hope that something will be done to take into account those of us who have owned a qualifying clunker for some time, keeping it registered and insured FOR YEARS. Slipping up for a few weeks should not disqualify me from the CARS program. That isn’t fair, and I hope something will be done to correct this.
I am so frustrated. I traded my clunker in on a new vehicle. Had all the documentation needed. Went home with my new vehicle and 1 week later the dealership called and said I had to bring my new vehicle back. They said because my registration ended on my birth date of July 19, 2009 and I did not have it registered until Aug 1 that I did not qualify. In the state of Florida if you are late after 30 days you have to pay a late fee to the state, but I still had continuous registration. How far is this? Law applies for yearly registration but in the cash for clunkers because of the few days that it did lapse I still do not qualiy. It has been titled in my name for 5 years, insured in my name with not lapse for 5 years, and have contiually registered it ever year I have owned. What is wrong with this picture. Is there no common sense? It figures when you look at the idiots that run our government. You know it is not rocket science!!!!!!!
Its funny, seems like the gov is only interested in gas guzzling SUV’s for the “clunker” status to adhere. I see that an overwhelming amount of the epa measurements claim that most cars average 19mpg!! ODD, I’ve never seen an old clunker car average new mpg ratings, my 92 Nissan Maxima is averaging 15-16mpg, I know, I averaged it out myself this past week. Oh, but the epa rates it like its brand new at 19mpg, this has got to be changed because there are lots of people on the cusp of a trade for a new eco friendly vehicle but the gov, as usual, in all its red tape glory have managed to foul up again. Rediculous!!
I have a 99′ Plymouth Voyager that is getting 19 MPG (or so they say), I am pretty sure that estimate is inflated and the actual MPG is lower. This van emits a great deal of smoke on start up and leaks freon from the air conditioner, we want to get a new Mazda 5 and this program would have been great, but unfortunately the van does not qualify so we can not help our environment.
I have a 91 Blazer that I wanted to trade in but I didn’t have insurance on it. I don’t see the fairness in this program because only some of the people get this money. The program should be changed so anyone who wants to should be able to get in on this deal.Not just the ones that happen to have all their ducks in a row.
Things need to change with this cash for clunkers program. My 1992 Pontiac Bonneville did not qualify due to a measly 1 MPG difference (19MPG). My car has 265,000 miles on it, it in actuality gets 13MPG and I believe this car should have qualified. People like me (laid off, drawing unemployment) really can’t afford to buy a new car and this program was perfect for me. I actually thought I was going to get a decent car, I assumed my car would qualify due to it being a TRUE clunker. If the MPG’s were dropped by 1 MPG I could have gotten my clunker off the road and saved a lot of money trying to fix the crap that I have. If the MPG’s can be lowered by 2 MPGs so many other people would be getting rid of their old junk. Please revise this system so more people can take advantage of this program and save money in the long run as well as saving the environment a little bit. Thanks.
So I went into a dealership on August 7th with the expectations of buying a used vehicle. The dealership noticed what my old car was and said that it would be eligible for the C4C. So, with that in mind, I looked at the new cars and settled on a brand new vehicle. This was a Chrysler dealership where they doubled the “rebate”. So I dropped off my clunker, signed all the paperwork with the loan, etc. I didn’t however, sign a contingency document. Today I received a phone call saying that they need to have my new vehicle returned because it turns out I wasn’t eligible due to the insurance part. Even though I gave them everything, I had a lapse and it means that my vehicle was not eligible and they want to reverse the transaction. Is that possible? I wasn’t aware of exactly what the C4C guidelines were and they said they would “walk me through it” so I understood.. Can someone shed a little light on what to do here?
Is the museum open on Sunday?
—————————————
signature: buy bactrim online fexxe89e8kapapw0w0e99rrrfdfd
I purchased a truck 10 months ago from a guy and when I purchased it, it was running, registered, and insured by the previous owner. When I purchase it I continued the the same. It is currently on the road meeting those requirements. The problem is I have only owned it for 10 months. The rules state I have to have been the owner for one year. I’m hoping the program will make exceptions to the rule or waivers for these situations. I would love to get this truck off the road.
Here’s why; 1992 Ford F250 4X4…………..9 miles to the gallon!
Wouldn’t you think the government wants this truck off the road? I mean, this was the point…….true?
I have a 2000 FOrd Mustang 6 cylinder automatic. The government says it gets a combined 20 mpg but I am only getting about 16 mpg. I would like to be eligibele for the cas for clunkers so that I can buy a new Chevy Cobalt that gets 37 mpg. That is a net increase of 21 mpg over my current car. Please see if the legislation can be ameded to allow a net increase of 10 mpg or more to be eligible.
Thank You.
James Thomas
Subject lines must, not your arms?How to Contact, Google sitemap is.A somebody is, actually created some.Be a foam government cash for clunkers, packages contain a system Also consider.Be requested from, it than others.,
I have two ford f150′s one is a 1986 (as they say here it smokes, drinks and runs around)one is 1995. My girlfriend has a 1996 Mitubishi Montero she is planning on trading in under the CARS program. I asked her if she would trade her Montero for my 1986 f150 and she said yes if it was legal. So I spent a lot of time reading and re-reading rules and regs and found out it is acceptable for me to trade in my truck on the vehicle she is buying. As I re-read the rrules for the final time I noticed a potential problem I have had my trucks both registered for years but I got so broke earlier this year that I had to let my auto insurance lapse for 15 days in May of this year. This is the first time in my 35+ years of driving that I was without auto insurance and now it looks like I will not get to have a car that gets better gas mileage, has all its windows, has a radio that works and doesn’t leak oil everywhere it goes. I’ll admit my gas mileage would not improve more than a few miles per gallon but this is getting ridiculous.
Why don’t we have a “Clunkers for Clunkers” program to get the really bad ones off the road?. You set up a closed course where you can drive around your clunker to determine its actual mpg in front of an observer who then issues you a Clunker for Clunker Certificate that says what your mileage is, then you can go to your local dealers and trade for a better clunker with better mileage before it gets crushed. Charge a $500 fee to pay for the cost, I would jump at it. “Wake up America!”
I have a 1998 Plymouth Voyager. I do not qulaify by 1 mpg. I supposedly get 19mpg. I live in New England, with cold winters…I can assure you I do not average 19mpg. CARS should be changed to netting. I get 19mpg…if I buy a car that gets 29mpg, shouldn’t I be eligble for the program. I am still improving by 10mpg. This needs to be changed for everyone to have a chance at a new, reliable, safe, and ecologically friendly vehicle. CHANGE IT SO I CAN RID MY CLUNKER!!!
Have a 1995 Chevy Lumina minivan. Bought it new and it has been my only car for 14 years. Just barely qualified at 18 mpg. Filled out all the paperwork to purchase a Mazda Tribute, but didn’t have registration going back one full year. Went to DMV to get proof and there was a note on the paperwork saying “prior suspense”, due to a change in the title (got married and added my husbands name to the title). Dealership wouldn’t take it. Had to go back to DMV, they gave us another form and spoke to the dealer to explain that we had been continually registered, but the dealer still won’t take it because they are afraid they won’t get their $ from the government. Apparently any little discrepency disqualifies you from the program because the government doesn’t want to take the time to look at each case individually. No new car for us
I called the CARS hotline and explained that I have a truck that quilifies, is kept in my garage and only used to haul junk. I have kept it insured and registered for years. Well, I paid to register the vehicle for 08/09 online at oplates.com last December before the expiration this January. I completely forgot I did so and now when I checked the registration online it says it expired in January of this year. I have no record proving I did this and I never recieved anything in the mail from the BMV. I explained that I had the registration for the year 07/08, title in my name and proof of insurance for 12 months. He told me that the dealer could submit this information and provided a phone number for the dealer to call to get the CARS credit for the truck.
Anyone else have a similiar instance?
I just want to say that this CARS program is completely effed. I have a 1997 Mercury Sable that leaks oil, has over 170,000 miles on it, and randomly shuts off when it wants to…I would say its definitely a clunker. According to the EPA my car gets 20mpg…THAT’S A LAUGH!!! This progam should be based on the individual condition of the car rather than a vast generalization on fuel economy. And btw how did the 1998 Mercury Sable make it into the program while my older and basically identical car did not!? This program is just another briliant government idea that ends up screwing over the people who really need it most.
My car averages 19-21 MPG. it is a clunker, but I also am upside down on the car, and am left out because you have to have a clear title. With the CARS program and the current incentives offered by dealers – it WOULD give me the opportunity to pay off my vehicle.
Frankly speaking
—————————————
signature: xenical f6ef8e8efe2h9045999g
They shouldve made the credit only good for a purchase of an AMERICAN car with “low mpg” if they wanted to help the economy at the same time going/acting green, but now your actually allowing OUR “tax money” to help pay for thousands of foreign cars?……wtf
Same here 1991 POS nissan maxima, firing on 5 cylinders, leaks oil, burns gas like a 60′s Hemi. EPA says 19mpg,, LOL, not this clunker, more like 12mpg. This program is useless to most who need it!!
I was just wondering how the 1989 Dodge Grand Caravan with a v6 3.0L engine producing 136 hp gets a average rating of 18 mpg, while the 1990 Dodge Grand Caravan with a v6 3.0L engine producing 141 hp which is more, gets an average rating of 19 mpg making it unqualified for the CARS rebate program. The 1990 Grand Caravan gets more HP! Both cars use the same exact Mitsubishi 6G72 engine. Both body types were the same because Dodge did not make any changes to the body styling of the Caravan until 1991. The 1990 Grand Caravan should be getting a lower MPG rating and should qualify for the CARS rebate program. This is a major flaw in the MPG rating system and should be fixed.
-Kevin
I am a former Navy Lieutenant that got out of the military in June 2009 and moved from VA to WA in June 2009. I’ve owned my 2001 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo since 2003. The registration for my Jeep expired on June 30th, so we titled and registered the car in WA on July 2, 2009. Now, I am not eligible for the CARS program because I have a one day gap in my registration. This just doesn’t seem right. What if the situation were slightly different and our registration ended on a Friday…offices would’ve been closed on the weekend and we would’ve missed out on this program because of that? Again, that doesn’t seem right.
Dear Government,
I have a 1990 Dodge Grand Caravan, not some small car but a van! EPA claims this van gets 19 mpg and isnt eligible for the CARS Program because it gets over 18 mpg and shouldn’t be considered a “clunker”. This car is a v6 with a 3.0 liter engine and was bought by my family when it was brand new way back in 1990. A couple of days ago this car barely made the cut of 18 mpg but ever since the EPA has changed it to 19 after what they called A new system for determining MPG, it has shut us out. I first considered using this program to buy my son a new car as a gift since he is commuting between college and home everyday, something like a gas saving Honda Civic or Chevy Cobalt. I thought to myself, this is a great deal and my car should definitely qualify as a clunker, just look at it, its over 19 years old and can’t even be driven on the freeway anymore because of safety issues! It met all the criteria and barely gets 17 mpg because of its age. According to the EPA it gets 19 mpg and does not qualify. I thought the purpose of this program was for people to trade in their old gas guzzling vehicles for a car that is more fuel efficient, but having this cut off at 18 miles per gallon is shutting out many people including us that need the help of this program to purchase a new car. My family isn’t trying to take advantage of this program, we are just trying to get rid of our very old vehicle and help our son get transportation to and from school. We believed we were a prime candidate for this program. This was the only way my family was going to be able to purchase a nice, reliable gas saving vehicle. We never ask the government for much help but we just feel that we are being wrongfully excluded from this program and want help! Please and thank you.
-Kevin
got a 1991 nissan maxima meet all the criteria and they tell me i get 19 mpg sure my car drinks gas HELP US HELP US TO…………
iI have a 1993 pontiac firebird and i was denied for the cash for clunkers cause they say it gets 20mpg yea rite probably when it was first made i thought this program was to help people like me, a single mother working everyday and need a reliable dependable vehicle my cars sucks on gas!I cant afford a new car thought i was finally gonna get the help but not!!!!!
So who is this program suppossed to help? The older the car is, the greater the necessity it is to get it off the road. So how can there be limitations on how old the vehicles are? Isn’t an older car a clunker? Most of the time a person with a car older than 15 years or so is the one who may need a break. Aren’t they also paying more in gas?? How can the goverment institute a program, and then put so many limitations on it. It is very frustrating to constantly see these programs come out that are of no help to the average amerian. It is very sad and disheartening to hear how many people including myself who are left out of this program. It is also sad that most people who would benefit greatly,are the same individuals that are excluded. It seems that there are so many benefitting from the program who don’t necessarily need the rebate, yet individuals who would not be able to purchase a new car without the program are left out- ONCE AGAIN.
For many who have an older car, passing emissions is a big problem. If you don’t pass emissions you cannot register your car. Did anyone not think about these people? Also many people have a clunker sitting in their yard or garage that they don’t drive because it does not run. Yet they too do not qualify for the program because the car has to be running, which does not make sense to me because the cars are destroyed. Then there is the car owner who just purchased a clunker maybe 9 months ago, and the gas is eating up their $$, and they would love to trade in their car, but they haven’t owned it for at least a year, and lastly there is the owner who has a clunker that may work, but they don’t drive it because it has too many problems, so they don’y have insurance on it, they too are left out because it must be continually insured for at least a year.
It makes me very upset because it leaves out so many people. Why come out with a program that claims to help, yet excludes so many. It makes me sad to think about how many people could have benefitted from this ,yet will have to wait years to purchase a newer vehicle. Watching the news, I see that many people are not trading in real “clunkers”. Many of these cars , in my eyes would not be considered a clunker. If they truly wanted to get “CLUNKERS” of the road, there would not be so many rules and regulations that once again leave the average american locked out.
I thought CARS was a good thing till I found out it was only for those who really didn’t need it. I tried to get a HHR from Chevy to replace my 93 Jeep . I had $10,500 off the car with insentives and CARS…I was trying to get a $13000 loan secured by a $22,000 vehicle. Do the math, even if they repoed it in a month they would make out. All I wanted was a chance to make the payments and get a car. I am disabled and a dependable car would be a good thing.
I drive a 1995 Chevy Beretta and in no way does it get the combined 21MPG that the EPA says it does. My car is indeed a clunker as it’s leaked oil, power steering fluid, failed the emissions test 3 times, has broken off door handles, and ripped up seats. Still despite all the wear and tear the government says it’s not a clunker.
I could use a new car but yet the government disqualified many cars like mine from the program all because Obama and Congress failed to take into account that a vehicle that is 15 years old will have wear and tear. That 18MPG rule needs to be eliminated but we’re talking the government here. They never seem to get anything right.
Meanwhile, people such as myself are forced to continue to fix a car that’s falling apart while they allow people who drive Porches, Mercedes, BMW’s, Lexus, and other luxury cars to qualify for the CARS program. I guess the government will continue to steal from the poor and give to the rich, just like they always have.
Thanks for creating this website! I’ve been looking for a place to petition for all clunkers to qualify. I drive a 1992 Nissan Maxima and has 19 MPG according to EPA. The car has lots of problems, and is really shaky (if you old car drivers know what I mean). I’m certain that it gets less MPG than it did 17 years ago. It would just be ridiculous if my car is still as efficient with the same fuel consumption. The gov’t needs to take this into account, to qualify ALL clunkers and be more lenient.
To start, one way insurance coverage got the best of me. One icy night, my 2001 Blazer (14mpg)slid into a telephone pole, causing considerable side damage. It also decreased my car value from $7000 to practically zero. I have owned this car for 8 years, and i was so relieved it’d be worth something with the CARS program!
With research done, and a new car picked out (KIA..yes, all i can really afford!) i was all happy to go and trade it in. Little do i know that when i had emmissions problems in the state of IL early this year, and couldn’t renew my plates cuz i couldn’t pass emissions test for 2 months, i was no longer eligible for the CARS program. So i have a car that during the entire duration i owned it was registered, with the exception of 2 months because of a stupid check engine light that wouldn’t go off! FML
The bill was a great idea and supposed to be a blessing to me, but not well thought out for people in my predicament that get screwed over due to a technicality. They better bring it back next year so i can finally not risk my life driving in an unsafe blazer! Thanks for listening.
I was very excited to read about the CARS program signed into law last month. I still drive a 25 year old Ford Econoline E-250 van daily that gets approximately 10 MPG. I purchased this vehicle new in July of 1984 and have had it registered, licensed and insured every day of that 25 years. I started shopping right away and the Toyota Prius, at 50 MPG, is what I have decided would meet my needs and help the environment. I went to a local dealer and he informed me that my vehicle must be manufactured no longer than 25 years ago. I checked my vehicle and found out it was made in June of 1984 and does not qualify for this program.
I was ready to purchase the vehicle the day the CARS program was implement but I will have missed eligibility by one day! I would think that one day and a 40 MPG difference is something that might be taken into consideration as an exception to the rule. The whole point of this program is to get automobiles like mine off the road and make way for new, more efficient models. That is exactly what I was planning to do. The 25 year rule is absurd and needs to be corrected right away.
ARE YOU LISTENING LEGISLATORS?
My car does get over the 18 MPG, but it is still a clunker! Im a single mom, Desperately need a new car, driving a clunker, and my car doesnt qualify??? Well this bill should allow for clunkers to get higher miles, just as long as the NEW car gets better mileage!! My car should definately qualify, if you really want to get “clunkers” off the road!
We have a vehicle that should qualify; a 1996 Chevy S-10 that gets 17 MPG according to the cars.gov site. Our problem is with the registration in our county the registration is paid for one year no matter what date you pay for the registration, but the registration date is printed on the info. Our dates are a small time appart; the vehicle has not been tranfered it is from one owner and has been insured for the full time. example – Registered from April 08 to 09, then April 09 to 2010. But if paid May 3, 2009 for example this shows a “gap in registration”. Our local DMV has told us three times that this is still continuous registration because all the back taxes fees and such have been paid. No matter when you register it it counts from April to April. Lets say you register it September 1st you don’t get a new registration for September 1st this year to the next September – it is still April to April. Our local dealerships will not even take a chance on us, even though DMV says it qualifies and the Cars.gov guy says it should qualify.
What to do?
This is getting more and more frustrating. First my 87 Lincoln qualified, we submitted, then it didn’t and of course was FINALLY rejected…which you have to wait for until you make any other moves. So we submitted again on Friday the 31st this time with my 95 Jeep gets 14 MPG. Cool that was last week. Still waiting.I had arranged private financing on July 24th through my bank. So for two weeks now I have had to pay interest on my loan…but still no car!!!Waiting on the government to finally approve that it is a valid trade in. Have provided all documentation as the rule states. Not sure what the HUGE delay is about..but am getting aggravated paying interest on a loan that I have nothing to show for it yet! Dealer still has car..can’t sell it, I am paying on a loan..no car..can’t go to any other dealer as you have to wait for the CARS app to clear….This is just as frustrating to car buyers as it is for the dealers.
I was trying to buy a car and I qualified for the cash for clunkers programs… however the car I wanted to buy was $900 over the MSRP, even though the car was selling for $41,000, I think this limit should be lifted for the program.
-Rashid Islam (Virginia Beach)