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?

Thank You.

James Thomas

Anyone else have a similiar instance?

-Kevin

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

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 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.

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 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?

-Rashid Islam (Virginia Beach)

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.

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)

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.

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,

Same here I own 2000 Grand Voyager 3.3L Flex fuel vehicle and out of luck as well

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

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.

It’s sad that I am going to miss out on a $4500 voucher over 2 MPG.

This is wrong!

I would recommend you call the cars.gov hotline @ 1-866-CAR-7891 to verify the information you speak of.

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

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!

they can’t just go buy the new EPA mileage estimates!

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?

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!

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.

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)

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.