i want an affordable hybrid convertible, then we'll talk. (no electric, i like road trips.)

The problem is it only applies to NEW car purchases. We own a car that would qualify for the rebate, but we can't afford to purchase a brand new vehicle even with this rebate. We are only in the market for used cars, like most of the people who own clunkers.

so you only get what it is worth in SCRAP METAL???? LOL what a crock of shipwreck city

This is so stupid. This law only says "hey, you've done a great job owning a gas guzzler, now go buy another!".

@peachplum: Any new car will qualify. It could even be a left over 2008. Just so long as it's new off a dealer lot.

Have fun picking the taxpayers' pocket. Hope you choke on the $4500 you steal from the rest of us.

@Inka Dinka: And it's the sticker. That first link has the rating the government is using to determine eligibility.

@Inka Dinka: According to the link in the article, it's the combined rating.

Have you SEEN our debt? We can't really afford to pay anybody to replace their vehicle...

It'd be better if they allowed the credit toward used cars - isn't that a part of the "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" thing, after all?

@K-Bo:
The reasoning for requiring it to be registered and insured for the year is to prevent all the rednecks from turning in junkers that have been rusting in the front yard for a decade because they don't run.

Those cars haven't been polluting the road with gasoline emissions for years, but without the restriction people would quite happily turn in cars already destined for the junkyard. Heck, pull them out of the junkyard to turn in.

@wagnerism: Not necessarily. If my parents had the money now (the economy is hitting them hard), they would have purchased a new car. They prefer to buy new and then run them into the ground.

@Alexander: Exactly they could easily sell the cars to ignorant people for $2K more than they would have without the program.

@badgeman46:
Did you consider renting a truck instead of multiple trips? Our local hardware superstore rents a truck for like $20 for the day.

@K-Bo:
I agree that it'd really help, but you can't forget the resources it costs to build the vehicle. In many cases it's better for the environment to keep driving the older vehicle for a while yet.

We can't afford to pay everybody to replace their vehicle - but by providing a modest subsidy we can get a few percentage points.

Even at $4/gallon, the savings for somebody who drives 15k miles/year and gets exactly EPA estimates* is 'only' $668-724 a year.

Or 2 payments on the new vehicle. Of course, there's a whole mess of other factors - maintenance, warranty, new features(like a mp3/bluetooth capable stereo system), etc... So you don't have to make up 100%.

I've given this program a hard look and conlcuded it's not for most, mostly for the crowd that buys a new 'new' car and drives it for a decade or more. It'll encourage them to buy more efficient vehicles.

It's not perfect either. I would have approached the program from the angle of pollution prevention - new vehicles pollute a lot less than old ones, even if the gas mileage is the same. I would have placed a higher factor on getting rid of older vehicles(they pollute more on average), and would have allowed the purchase of newer used vehicles to count.

*For the purposes of this example I'm assuming that EPA estimates actually average out correctly, and that's what matters on a governmental level

I'm going to continue trading in my clunkers for other clunkers, until there's a new car on the market that actually saves me as much in gas and emissions as I could save by buying a clunker that batteries in it. (URL of used cars for sale, made over by average citizens to run on batteries: [www.austinev.org])

Programs like this should be supporting *actually new*, *actually beneficial* technology and getting it in the hands of people who wouldn't otherwise buy it. This is the crappiest implementation of a decent-on-the-surface idea EVER.

also...you can lease the car, provided that the least is at least 5 years. when was the last time you saw a 60 month lease?

in today's economy, what family is going to trade in a (probably) paid off car for a $550-$600 finance payment on a 30k suv (after the discount)

(D) that has the combined fuel economy value of at least-
-
(i) 22 miles per gallon for a passenger automobile;
(ii) 18 miles per gallon for a category 1 truck; or
(iii) 15 miles per gallon for a category 2 truck;

Here is the definitions:

i) Definitions- As used in this section--
(1) the term `passenger automobile' means a passenger
automobile, as defined in section 32901(a)(18) of title 49,
United States Code, that has a combined fuel economy value of
at least 22 miles per gallon;
(2) the term `category 1 truck' means a nonpassenger
automobile, as defined in section 32901(a)(17) of title 49,
United States Code, that has a combined fuel economy value of
at least 18 miles per gallon, except that such term does not
include a category 2 truck;
(3) the term `category 2 truck' means a large van or a large
pickup, as categorized by the Secretary using the method used
by the Environmental Protection Agency and described in the
report entitled `Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel
Economy Trends: 1975 through 2008';
(4) the term `category 3 truck' means a work truck, as defined
in section 32901(a)(19) of title 49, United States Code;

and for those who think this will get rid of SUVs, it's actually backwards. the new mileage restrictions are SO loose on the SUVs (minimum 18 and must be only 2 mpg better than your old car), it will actually PROMOTE SUV sales.

for instance: minivans (a majority of whom share the same platform as an suv: odyssey/pilot, sienna/highlander) are treated like a regular car and needs to get at least 22 mpg and must be 4 mpg better than the old car. no regular-sized minivan gets 22 mpg (only the mazda5 qualifies, and it's kinda like a mini-minivan). meanwhile, the pilot/highlander qualify.

It does state:
"Remember to bring the title, registration and insurance papers showing continuous registration and insurance coverage for the past full year in your name."

I think this is what you meant anyways. Not to try and pull it out of context.
Where all it had to be is registered and insured for the full year prior. The part of registered and insured in your name. Rules out folks, just buying autos and using them for the credit.

So what's a "new" car in the program? 2009 or 2010?

I don't think they are handling this on a case by case basis. Simply going by the new mpg standards. I'm sure some people with non stock exhaust might prove a gain or loss of 1 mpg, or people with slightly larger tires might get 16 instead of 17 mpg, but it would be nigh impossible to check thousands of cars on a case by case basis to prove what mpg they get.

Although the new estimates are closer to actual mileage, they still aren't exact. For instance, they list some cars as 27/33, but actual owners might report 31/36.

Beating the estimates FTW?

@K-Bo: @Andrew Farris: Upon futher investigation, it is required that the vehicle moves under its own power, registered and insured (inspection/smog pass as well) for 1 year prior to trade.

sweet... that means i'll strip it to bare bones and sell the "stuff" elsewhere online for a very small marginal profit.

just waiting for the next 30 days then!

[www.cars.gov]

@Firethorn: The EPA themselves acknowledge that their tests are approximately 18% too low for diesels. They were actually just about exactly right before they made the 2008 changes. What they refuse to acknowledge is the possibility that it might make sense to have different testing methods for different types of cars in order to actually be able to correctly estimate all cars at the same time.

@I Love New Jersey:

I'll give you approximately 138,000,000 guesses.

@K-Bo:
15K miles
18 MPG: 833 Gallons
23 MPG: 652 - Savings: 181 gallons
30 MPG: 500
45 MPG: 333 - Savings: 167 gallons
Advantage replacing the GG by 14 gallons.

Replacing the guzzler with a slightly more efficient vehicle will save more gasoline, on average, than your already fairly efficient car with an extremely efficient one.

I'll note that of the hybrids only the Prius meets your mpg requirement for 45 mpg(and the 2010 model has a slightly larger engine and picks up 3mpg EPA est - smaller engine != better gas mileage). And the Jettas only get 41mpg highway.

So you'd prefer that they treat everyone like we're stupid? There will always be complexity in life - like it or not. I'd rather see the complexity than have someone dumb it down for me, so I don't have to get all confused by the big words and nuances.

Oh well, the Focus gets to stay around for a little while longer. I guess big daddy gubmint would rather I drive a 23 mpg car than a 40 mpg car with lower emissions.

they set the bar way too low.

The point is, typical government arbitrary and ill-conceived restrictions make this a nearly pointless program.

In any case, I'm not turning in my V8.

PERFECT!!! My 1996 Ford Crown Victoria (18 MPG Combined -per the US Government) with 207,468 miles is worth $1200 in "good condition" per KBB. i'll get $4500 if i get a 2010 BMW that gets 28mpg? SWEET!

now, they just want the car... correct? if the stereo, speakers, spare tire, silverstar light bulbs, etc. are gone... i'll still get the $4500?

please, advise!!

-dave

People driving around cars that are worth less than $4500 are not new car buyers.

You might snag some people that buy a new car every 10 years... but people that thrifty tend to buy used.

*sigh*

@pupu: Right or wrong? I don't want a dictator telling me what to drive. I just blew through 2 tanks of gas making 6 trips to the dump in one day in my corolla, when I could have only made one trip in an suv. Sounds inefficient to me, that's why I am buying a truck next.

[www.fueleconomy.gov]

Looking at the site given above, I would've thought I didn't qualify.
My 1998 GMC Jimmy - which I bought used, have had since high school, and periodically breaks down - definitely qualifies with a "combined" amount of 16 mpg. There is no way I could get 4500 for it - the problems with it are too many to list, I thought I'd just donate it when I was ready.
I would LOVE a more fuel efficient car, and this is great - but it would be better if I could get a used car. Honestly, if I could afford a new car (and qualify for financing), there's no way I'd still be driving this hunk of crap around.

I have a 1996 Buick Regal. The website shows 18 city 26 highway and 21 combined.

However, there are two different engines for this vehicle. A 3.1L V6 and a 3.8L V6. Each has a different mileage, but not according to the govt's website.

Also, look for a buick roadmaster. $700 in MPLS

Typical government logic, I guess.

Seriously, if nobody uses it then the money won't go anywhere. I agree it would be nice if the deal qualified for used cars, but think of the gaming of the system that would encourage in used car valuation, sales verification, etc.

Whoops, I think you meant the "Cash for Most Cars" bill which failed to pass.

Anyway, nonsense. Vast numbers of cars sell for well below $4500. My last purchase was right at $4500 for a cherry 9yr old Passat V6.

For what it's worth, all the text being bold makes it easier to read on the monitor I have at work. I wouldn't mind if they started leaving bold tags open more often. :P

@Coles_Law:
The article ended with a bold tag... I'm guessing leaving it opened caused everything below to be bold-faced, including the comments.

BUT, my 2006, running great, wonderful smooth riding SUV that gets 17 mpg- DOES qualify.

????

Who wrote this bill? Cash for Clunkers my A**

If you're going to have a stupid program like this, at least have some kind of fair sliding scale.

The government should just butt the frick out of this.

Or, since I'm picking on Ford for no real reason, a 2005 Explorer.

@dangerp: Did everybody forget to close a bold tag?

This program is a bunch of fucking bullshit. It does nothing for the environment or for the average car buyer. It has way too many details for most people to follow and is just a stupid way for the administration to look good to the very few people that will actually be able to use this thing.

Also, lots of people do not buy NEW cars (I don't, never have) and this excludes a huge part of the car buying public that perhaps could use this program the most.

Another waste of $1 billion of our taxpayer dollars.

@bohemian: Most vehicles are worth $4500

Yep - this program is dumb. Lets reward the people who chose to buy inefficient cars with a tax credit for getting them off the road. The people who did the right thing by buying efficient cars from the begining get nothing.

Why don't they increase the taxes on gas and use the money to fund a credit for operators of efficient vehicles. Lets reward the people who do the right thing and punish the people who do the wrong thing so that they change their behavior. If they want to drive a SUV fine - but it will cost them more.

18MPG for city or highway? Are they looking at the sticker MPG, or the actual MPG?

So my 2000 Mustang GT is STILL worth more to sell. Thanks a lot Ford for building such a dependable performance vehicle that gets good gas milage when driven sanely and doesn't depreciate much. How dare you?!?!?

Yet another great idea compromised into irrelevance.