# C.A.R.S.your car qualify???



## campgottagopee (Jul 1, 2009)

Wondering how many people drive a car that qualifies for C.A.R.S.


From what I can tell not many do. Your car must get a combined 18 MPG or less

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm


----------



## mondeo (Jul 1, 2009)

I'm at 20, 18 city 24 highway.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jul 1, 2009)

What is C.A.R.S.?  I just miss it with a combined 18.5MPG, but I have only gotten that low when towing heavy trailers.


----------



## bvibert (Jul 1, 2009)

My car gets 23 mpg combined according to that site.  That seems a bit on the low side, but fairly accurate.

My wife's car is at 16 combined, which seems high if anything.

Our other vehicle isn't on the list, but if it was you wouldn't want to know anyway.


----------



## Mildcat (Jul 1, 2009)

Both of my cars qualify. Can I trade them both in and get $9000 towards a new car?


----------



## campgottagopee (Jul 1, 2009)

Hawkshot99 said:


> What is C.A.R.S.?  I just miss it with a combined 18.5MPG, but I have only gotten that low when towing heavy trailers.



Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) - "Cash for Clunkers"‏


----------



## campgottagopee (Jul 1, 2009)

Mildcat said:


> Both of my cars qualify. Can I trade them both in and get $9000 towards a new car?



Not according to the rules so far, or at least as I understand it.


----------



## o3jeff (Jul 1, 2009)

My Jeep Wrangler qualifies with 17 mpg combined.


----------



## ERJ-145CA (Jul 1, 2009)

No, I have an '02 Corolla, it's starting to look like a clunker but it runs well.

I think I accidentally clicked the lightbulb icon.


----------



## Grassi21 (Jul 1, 2009)

o3jeff said:


> My Jeep Wrangler qualifies with 17 mpg combined.



+1


----------



## Glenn (Jul 2, 2009)

I don't think my 03 Grand Cherokee is old enough. Even if it was, I can't wrap my brain around getting rid of a perfectly good vehicle. That to me, in itsself, seems really wasteful...just to save a few MPG.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jul 2, 2009)

Glenn said:


> I don't think my 03 Grand Cherokee is old enough. Even if it was, I can't wrap my brain around getting rid of a perfectly good vehicle. That to me, in itsself, seems really wasteful...just to save a few MPG.



That, and chances are your Jeep is worth more than 4500 anyways.


----------



## SkiDork (Jul 2, 2009)

it doesn't make sense unless you've got a really old guzzler worth little


----------



## bvibert (Jul 2, 2009)

o3jeff said:


> My Jeep Wrangler qualifies with 17 mpg combined.





Grassi21 said:


> +1



For some reason I thought wranglers would get better mileage than that.  I guess their small appearance is deceiving.  They're not very aerodynamic, so that doesn't help I suppose.


----------



## o3jeff (Jul 2, 2009)

bvibert said:


> For some reason I thought wranglers would get better mileage than that.  I guess their small appearance is deceiving.  *They're not very aerodynamic*, so that doesn't help I suppose.



Zero aerodynamics and I think it weighs about 3500 lbs, but it is fun vehicle.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 2, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> That, and chances are your Jeep is worth more than 4500 anyways.



Exactly!


----------



## wa-loaf (Jul 2, 2009)

That website says my outback gets a combined 22mpg. For me though I'm getting around 24-25 in mostly highway driving.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 2, 2009)

My Mountaineer qualifies but it's worth more than $4,500.  Reminds me, I need to drive it.  It hasn't moved since Killington closed on May 2nd.  I should also probably crawl under and change the oil & filter.  After a winter of only driving it 2 miles to the ski area, I probably have some water in the oil.


----------



## Mildcat (Jul 2, 2009)

bvibert said:


> For some reason I thought wranglers would get better mileage than that.  I guess their small appearance is deceiving.  They're not very aerodynamic, so that doesn't help I suppose.



I knew mine got crap for mileage but I was kinda surprised to see my Chevy Astro AWD got better mileage than my Wrangler.


----------



## Grassi21 (Jul 2, 2009)

bvibert said:


> For some reason I thought wranglers would get better mileage than that.  I guess their small appearance is deceiving.  They're not very aerodynamic, so that doesn't help I suppose.





o3jeff said:


> Zero aerodynamics and I think it weighs about 3500 lbs, but it is fun vehicle.



the thing is shaped like a brick.


----------



## Marc (Jul 2, 2009)

WTF, my Outback is supposed to be 18/24?  Out here in the country I get 27.  And the vehicle has 150k+ miles.  I smell fish.


----------



## bvibert (Jul 2, 2009)

Marc said:


> WTF, my Outback is supposed to be 18/24?  Out here in the country I get 27.  And the vehicle has 150k+ miles.  I smell fish.



You must drive like an old woman...


----------



## hammer (Jul 2, 2009)

bvibert said:


> Marc said:
> 
> 
> > WTF, my Outback is supposed to be 18/24?  Out here in the country I get 27.  And the vehicle has 150k+ miles.  I smell fish.
> ...


I get 25 from my Outback on summer gas and it has 175K miles.


----------



## Marc (Jul 2, 2009)

Yeah, I actually do drive like an old woman... minus the swerving, abrupt, blinkerless lane changes and other erratic behaviors.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jul 2, 2009)

bvibert said:


> For some reason I thought wranglers would get better mileage than that.  I guess their small appearance is deceiving.  They're not very aerodynamic, so that doesn't help I suppose.



Plus they are geared very low.


----------



## bvibert (Jul 2, 2009)

Hawkshot99 said:


> Plus they are geared very low.



Good point.  I hadn't even considered that, and I should have...


----------



## Grassi21 (Jul 2, 2009)

bvibert said:


> Good point.  I hadn't even considered that, and I should have...



You should now flog yourself for such a transgression.  Man card revoked.  ;-)


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Jul 2, 2009)

Marc said:


> WTF, my Outback is supposed to be 18/24?  Out here in the country I get 27.  And the vehicle has 150k+ miles.  I smell fish.



ditto for me...98 outback with 145K.


----------



## mondeo (Jul 2, 2009)

bvibert said:


> For some reason I thought wranglers would get better mileage than that. I guess their small appearance is deceiving. They're not very aerodynamic, so that doesn't help I suppose.


Wide tires, too.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Jul 2, 2009)

Marc said:


> Yeah, I actually do drive like an old woman... minus the swerving, abrupt, blinkerless lane changes and other erratic behaviors.


I usually accellerate like an old woman...the car is an old woman (over 10yrs old and 145k) but I'm going 72-78 on the highway


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Jul 2, 2009)

If i was using this to trade a car in and get $4500 I wouldnt argue with the stats...but since I'm not, I'll say the site isn't accurate for what we get for mileage on our 2 cars.  I already mentioned my outback, the wife's 07 tribeca averages 21.9 not the 18 thats stated.  This is combined over the 30K miles we've had it with most of that driving done around town...seconday roads, some lights, but not "city" type stop and go.  On the highway we get 23 without trying and can get 25 if we're trying...not stomping on the gas when merging on the highway or leaving tolls and driving in the low 70s.


----------



## severine (Jul 2, 2009)

As Brian said, my 1998 Blazer qualifies. I'm lucky if I get 14mpg and it claims 14mpg city/19mpg hwy on that site. I hate that POS and it isn't even worth $1K with all that's wrong with it so it would be a deal for me, if I could afford a car payment for the difference for upgrading.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jul 3, 2009)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> If i was using this to trade a car in and get $4500 I wouldnt argue with the stats...but since I'm not, I'll say the site isn't accurate for what we get for mileage on our 2 cars.  I already mentioned my outback, the wife's 07 tribeca averages 21.9 not the 18 thats stated.  This is combined over the 30K miles we've had it with most of that driving done around town...seconday roads, some lights, but not "city" type stop and go.  On the highway we get 23 without trying and can get 25 if we're trying...not stomping on the gas when merging on the highway or leaving tolls and driving in the low 70s.



That's just it---there's no arguing---whatever the site says is what you have to go by. It's designed to tell you what your cars combined MPG is/was when it was new.

I think this "program" is more hype than reality, and it's obvious the goverment never consulted with any dealer body before laying this plan out. You talk about a monkey doing something to a football---geez.


----------



## skijay (Jul 19, 2009)

This Cash for Clunkers law is kind of confusing.  It seems the dealerships do not even have a firm list of what qualifies and what does not.  

Here is my story.  My uncle went in May the day after I bought my Subaru to order buy a 2010 Prius.  He heard they were out so I went with him to the Toyota dealer where I bought my Scion.  We were told they are not in and will not be in until late July / early August.  He decided to buy one and put down $500 and ordered a Prius II.  We also told the sales consultant that there is a car to be traded in under the CARS program.  

Fast forward to July 10th.  My uncle gets a call that the Prius will be here on the 17th.  I called the dealer and told him he has a car that qualifies for the CARS program.  I told the make & model and I was told it did not qualify.  I was told the fuel economy needs to be a combined 18 MPG or less.  Also, no car can be delivered until 7/24/09 as that is the “official” day the program begins.  

I went to the Fueleconomy.gov site and saw the vehicle gets a combined 18 MPG under the “new” EPA guidelines.  I also went to the CARS website and verified the requirements and the car in question DOES qualify.  

I went to the Toyota website since they have a listing of eligible vehicles and I did not find the car on the list.  The car in question is 2000 Mercury Grand Marquis V8.  However, the Ford Crown Victoria does.  These are identical vehicles – same engine, tranny and drivetrain.  I went to the Ford website and they have a similar list of cars and the Grand Marquis qualifies.  

On July 10th I listed the car for sale locally and was hoping to have it sold – just in case we run into an issue with the CARS program. 

On July 18th we went to the Toyota dealer and were going to get the figures & go over the trade (CARS program), set up a delivery date.  The sales management team could not firmly give an answer whether or not the Grand Marquis would qualify.  I showed the print outs from the CARS site and FuelEconomy.gov site showing that it does.  They told us that we have to wait until the 24th before we could take delivery of the Prius under the CARS program.  They said that they have a “voucher” reserved for my uncle and would know more on the 24th. 

At this point in time why does the dealer not know if this car that is being traded in qualifies???????  I gave the print outs from the “official” government sites.   If it does not qualify they are giving $3,000 for a trade in for a 1 owner, never seen snow, low mileage car.  I had it listed for $5,000. 

Later in the morning I was at Wal*Mart and received a phone call from a potential buyer.  I shoot home to show the car and, Yes! I have a buyer!!! I got, for my uncle, $300 below what the CARS voucher would have been for the trade in on the Prius.  I am very happy that this worked out and perfect timing.  

How come this CARS program is confusing?  How come there is no uniformity to what qualifies and what does not?  Originally I checked the FuelEconomy.gov site and the car DID NOT qualify but now it does. Why is this so difficult?


----------



## mondeo (Jul 19, 2009)

skijay said:


> How come this CARS program is confusing?  How come there is no uniformity to what qualifies and what does not?  Originally I checked the FuelEconomy.gov site and the car DID NOT qualify but now it does. Why is this so difficult?


Uh, government program?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 20, 2009)

My neighbor is a salesman at a local Ford dealer and he says it's definitely helping with car sales significantly.  The dealership is fronting the cash until the program goes online.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jul 23, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Uh, government program?



We have a winer---reminds me of a monkey doing something to a football.



deadheadskier said:


> My neighbor is a salesman at a local Ford dealer and he says it's definitely helping with car sales significantly.  The dealership is fronting the cash until the program goes online.



Even when the program goes "live", dealers still have to front the money, nice.


----------



## tjf67 (Jul 23, 2009)

I have an 04 4runner with 160k miles on it.  Now if they put the 4.5k on top of what the trade is i would swap out.  The way it stands now is it does not make sense.   
So Camp.  The dealers are going to get reimbursed 4.5k for the clunkers.  Are you guys then going to turn around and sell them off to a developing country?  Sounds like the only people getting the deals are the dealerships.  I am probably wrong but it looks that way to me.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jul 23, 2009)

tjf67 said:


> I have an 04 4runner with 160k miles on it.  Now if they put the 4.5k on top of what the trade is i would swap out.  The way it stands now is it does not make sense.
> So Camp.  The dealers are going to get reimbursed 4.5k for the clunkers.  Are you guys then going to turn around and sell them off to a developing country?  Sounds like the only people getting the deals are the dealerships.  I am probably wrong but it looks that way to me.



The cars need to be crushed and proof of that must be sent to the Gov (along with an arms length of documentation) before "we" get the customers rebate money. The "deal" isn't in the trade but the rebate---an 04 Toy Runner isn't a "clunker", but a 98 Dodge Ram 15 Passanger van is. Got it??


----------



## bvibert (Jul 23, 2009)

tjf67 said:


> Are you guys then going to turn around and sell them off to a developing country?



From what I understand the dealership has to show proof that the car was scrapped in order to be reimbursed.


----------



## tjf67 (Jul 23, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> The cars need to be crushed and proof of that must be sent to the Gov (along with an arms length of documentation) before "we" get the customers rebate money. The "deal" isn't in the trade but the rebate---an 04 Toy Runner isn't a "clunker", but a 98 Dodge Ram 15 Passanger van is. Got it??




Got It kinda,   Sounds like it is going to cost more money to administer that the actual dollars paid out for the clunkers.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jul 23, 2009)

tjf67 said:


> Got It kinda,   Sounds like it is going to cost more money to administer that the actual dollars paid out for the clunkers.



Of course---I'd love to meet the "car guys" the government consulted with this, not!!! It's really crazy, I haven't jumed thru this many hoops since elementary gym class.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jul 29, 2009)

Better hurry only 850mil left


----------



## wa-loaf (Jul 30, 2009)

better hurry if you are going to do it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32228179/ns/business-autos/


----------



## thorski (Jul 30, 2009)

Geoff said:


> My Mountaineer qualifies but it's worth more than $4,500.  Reminds me, I need to drive it.  It hasn't moved since Killington closed on May 2nd.  I should also probably crawl under and change the oil & filter.  After a winter of only driving it 2 miles to the ski area, I probably have some water in the oil.



I would spray the frame and just about everything else with some wd-40 or something like that while your under there. I use Zep45 but most people don't have easy access to the good stuff.  Cars rot out faster when they are not used.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 31, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> better hurry if you are going to do it:
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32228179/ns/business-autos/



Like gravity, the laws of supply and demand can be bent...but only temporarily. :razz:


----------



## wa-loaf (Jul 31, 2009)

Glenn said:


> Like gravity, the laws of supply and demand can be bent...but only temporarily. :razz:



Saved! http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w.../levin_cash_for_clunkers_good_through_friday/


----------



## RootDKJ (Jul 31, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> Saved! http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w.../levin_cash_for_clunkers_good_through_friday/


Ummmm...we "found" an additional $2 Billion to keep this going?  BS


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jul 31, 2009)

RootDKJ said:


> Ummmm...we "found" an additional $2 Billion to keep this going?  BS



If they see it as ok to go as far into debt as they have, what is another $2b?


----------



## RootDKJ (Jul 31, 2009)

Hawkshot99 said:


> If they see it as ok to go as far into debt as they have, what is another $2b?


Well then I think all write our represenatives and we could
 go another $5 or $10 million more into debt and offer "Cash for Straight Skis"?  Where does it end?


----------



## Philpug (Jul 31, 2009)

RootDKJ said:


> Well then I think all write our represenatives and we could
> go another $5 or $10 million more into debt and offer "Cash for Straight Skis"?  Where does it end?



great idea!

and for rear entry boots? Non indemnified bindings?


----------



## RootDKJ (Jul 31, 2009)

Philpug said:


> great idea!
> 
> and for rear entry boots? Non indemnified bindings?


Sure...bring it on...let's find a way to include ski poles as well


----------



## mondeo (Jul 31, 2009)

hurtmyknee hasn't stuck his head in in a while...


----------

