![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
18MPG city or highway?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21970-100x100.png\")
@The_Truth: Neither--you have to use the combined rating. Check [www.fueleconomy.gov] for your model--you'll see city and highway and then the combined rating.
@The_Truth: It's a blended rate which may or may not bear any resemblance to reality. That is, your mileage may vary. Take a peek at the link in the story which gives the EPA ratings for most cars.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-81067-100x100.png\")
Oh great. My wife and I were hoping we'd be able to do this with her old Ford Taurus. It gets 19 MPG based on the EPA estimate. This sucks.
@Donathius: Yep. They need to rename it \"Cash for Guzzlers\". Most trade-in for this program will not be eligible due to MPG estimations.
If you had gotten a good efficient vehicle in the past, you are screwed now.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-93308-100x100.png\")
@gauden44: I want to trade my 30 mpg 1993 honda accord for a Jetta TDI or hybrid in the 45 mpg range. That is a 15 mpg improvement for those who can't do math this early in the morning. No credit for me. Yet if I drove a car that got less than 18 mpg, I could get partial credit for buying a car that only gets 23 mpg, an improvement of only 5 mpg, and still not a really fuel efficient car. Seems like a little bit of loosening of the rules would help get more people in more fuel efficient cars. Just because you get over 18 mph doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.
@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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-962740-100x100.png\")
@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.
@Firethorn:A savings of 167 gallons for millions of people would be a huge deal. I was estimating with the 45, but even at 40, I get well over 10 MPG savings since my car no longer gets the 30 mpg it used to get.
@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
@Firethorn: \"We can't afford to pay everybody to replace their vehicle\"
Have you SEEN our debt? We can't really afford to pay anybody to replace their vehicle...
@gauden44: Yes.. and if someone wanted to turn in their 19 MPG vehicle for a 45 MPG vehicle they would have been more likely to do so using this program to help get it done...
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.
@gauden44: When people hear 'clunkers', most would think any old car (5 or more years older) will work. But that is not how it is. Like Donathis and his 'old' Ford Taurus. An 89 model got 18/city. The 09 model get the same. No voucher.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-81727-100x100.png\")
The dealer will apply the discount? That will not lead to fraud, scams or anything. Not at all.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-93197-100x100.png\")
@Alexander: Exactly they could easily sell the cars to ignorant people for $2K more than they would have without the program.
Our gas hog SUV gets just over 18mpg on the rating, never does in real life w/ city driving. Most vehicles are worth $4500 if they are newer than 25 years or at least somewhere near that. So unless you really beat the crap out of it your really not getting much of a rebate over trading in or selling.
Yet another great idea compromised into irrelevance.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-407430-100x100.png\")
@bohemian: We have a 96 or 98 Mercury Pillager that is getting 10 mpg, not the 18 that is listed. It's a POS on four wheels, yet I doubt if we;d be able to get on this because of what payments would be on a new vehicle. What a bite.
@bohemian: I have to agree with radiology, the kbb value on my very reliable 1993 Accord is only $1500. Since it's nowhere near as good shape cosmetically ( my brother drove it when he was 16, and he's known for being a spacey driver ) I couldn't get that for it if I sold it. So $4500 would be a huge encouragement for me to heed my mom's begging to \"get rid of that ugly thing\"
@bohemian: My local Craigslist has 1,000 cars just in the $500 to $1,500 range. I myself have purchased four running cars for $600 or less in the last three years (shh, I already know I'm nuts).
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-363287-100x100.png\")
@bohemian: Most vehicles are worth $4500
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.
@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.
@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.
@badgeman46:
Did you consider renting a truck instead of multiple trips? Our local hardware superstore rents a truck for like $20 for the day.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-890779-100x100.png\")
@bohemian: I'm not sure why you say this - I JUST bought a 94 Camry with 145k miles for $900. I wouldn't trade it in because it doesn't get under 18 mpg combined, but still, nowhere close to worth $4500.
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?!?!?
@wagnerism: Wrong, I'm driving a 1993 Accord that was given to me for free. I could have replaced it with a used car years ago, but since it's very reliable, I've driven it to save up the money for a new car. I know many like me who still have the old crappy cars their parents helped them get in high school/ college, but now have real jobs, and are in the market for a brand new car.
The problem with this really seems to be that there are just almost no vehicles that qualify - Just browsing through I can't seem to find any, even looking at big, what I would consider gas-guzzling cars like big, older buicks and chevys, they almost all have at least 18 mpg combined. Then I finally found one! 1988 Cadillac Allante, click over to Craigslist, one for sale within hundreds of miles, asking price.... *drumroll* 7 grand. Lol. Useless.
@Radi0logy:
My 2000 Kia Sportage, which I was trying to sell for $1500, qualifies. My parents also have a 1997 Dodge Caravan that would have qualified, had they not removed the insurance on it two months ago.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-10718-100x100.png\")
@Radi0logy: Seriously? I just got one on my first try: 2000 Ford F150 pickup.
Or, since I'm picking on Ford for no real reason, a 2005 Explorer.
@juri squared: Well the article said that trucks and vans had different rules, I didn't click on any trucks or vans for that reason. Maybe I'll go back and take a look at them
did someone forget to close a bold tag?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-151293-100x100.png\")
@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.
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
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-394634-100x100.png\")
18MPG for city or highway? Are they looking at the sticker MPG, or the actual MPG?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1029427-100x100.png\")
@Inka Dinka: And it's the sticker. That first link has the rating the government is using to determine eligibility.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-487473-100x100.png\")
Hm. I can only wonder why they chose such a dubious figure as 18MPG.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-98962-100x100.png\")
My car get's 19mpg according to the fuel economy website.
BOOOOOOO!
@juri squared: Yeah I think this bill should be labeled get the old SUVs and hummers off the road bill.
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.
@minsky: \"It has way too many details for most people to follow\"
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.
@minsky: Concur.
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.
@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.
@minsky: Tell us how you really feel. :)
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.
So if your car gets 18 mpg you can qualify for a $4500 tax credit, but if your car gets 19 mpg you get nothing.
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.
So let me get this right... My 1991, falling-apart, piece of crap, burning oil, small car, actual \"clunker\"---- does NOT qualify because it gets 23 mpg.
BUT, my 2006, running great, wonderful smooth riding SUV that gets 17 mpg- DOES qualify.
????
Who wrote this bill? Cash for Clunkers my A**
@gauden44: There is a ton of room to improve from 23. Also, it would be getting a car that does not have required emissions inspections ( if their state has them ) off the road, helping with air quality. Also, this bill was originally pushed aside when first brought up. The reason given for bringing it back up and passing it ( and the reason that it requires your car to be scrapped, and the car you buy to be new ) was to help the economy by clearing out some of the extra new car inventory. If no one qualifies, the economy gets no benefit.
@gauden44: Agreed. I guess I'm complaining about the name of the program... a 2006 car is a \"clunker\" but a 1991 car isn't.
Typical government logic, I guess.
@OrlandoDude: It isn't the official name of the program, it's what people have been calling it. Rally against the media, I guess.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-322119-100x100.png\")
Wow, this plan is bullshit. My car gets 18MPG combined according to the EPA, but it will definitely get way more in trade-in than $4500. WTF is the point of the program when millions of the cars that will qualify will make more money in trade-in yet you can't get the trade-in value? I know it's supposed to be for clunky old cars, but what about newer cars that get even worse mileage than clunky old ones?
@linkura: Then get the stupid trade in value and just trade it in! Its not like this program is mandatory, or its replacing dealer trade-ins. Just go find a dealer that will give you the value you say your car has. Or don't buy a new car. Or fill your car with jello. Do what you want!
Also, the website doesn't really do a good job.
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
And to top it all off, this waste of a bill has a $45,000 cap. As if the poor can afford to buy cars even with this bill.
This actually might work for me!!
Well, first of all - make sure you're looking at the COMBINED EPA MPG amount - a better link is this:
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.
@Where The Mild Things Are: I traded in my 1993 GMC Jimmy 2WD in April when I bought my Nissan Titan. I got $2000 trade-in value during the deal, with the KBB value of the vehicle at $900. My new truck gets worse mileage so this wouldn't have helped me, but it definitely could be a deal for you.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-342256-100x100.png\")
Wooo, my junker truck qualifies! Now if only I could get a job. And, ya know, improve my credit. Income might help with that, I hear...
*sigh*
My 2005 Prius doesn't qualify. Jerks.
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
@militarydave: I'm pretty sure if it 1) runs, and 2) can move under its own power, then you're good to go.
Have fun picking the taxpayers' pocket. Hope you choke on the $4500 you steal from the rest of us.
@Andrew Farris: Not sure that's required, as long as you have had it registered and insured for the proper amount of time. The assumption is if you pay to register and insure, that it's either do this deal or fix it to run, at which point the car with bad gas mileage is back on the road. Since they require the dealer to scrap them, needing work to get running shouldn't matter to them.
@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.
@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!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-716547-100x100.png\")
And where is the money coming from?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-498940-100x100.png\")
Was this plan crafted by Cash4Gold?
what if Your car is rated at 22 mpg, but due to an error with the catalytic converter, you only get 18? Is there a way to prove it?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87429-100x100.png\")
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.
I believe the real motivation behind this bill was to improve the resale value of many older vehicles as an economic stimulus. These older vehicles will be bought by people intending to trade-in; the vehicle must have been insured and registered for a year... but you did not have to own it! Suddenly the market value of these vehicles is four to five times higher than it was...
@Andrew Farris: Not exactly accurate there.
On the part:
\"These older vehicles will be bought by people intending to trade-in; the vehicle must have been insured and registered for a year... but you did not have to own it!\"
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.
@Andrew Farris: I was under the impression it was to get new cars to sell, since everyone has been buying used since the economy went south. That's why the it must be new part was added, so it could be economic and environmental at the same time.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-492077-100x100.png\")
wtf...have an older camry that is just out of that mpg range..damnit!
they set the bar way too low.
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.
Hehe, I'm fortunate that my 1993 F150 qualifies (14mpg). I've been kicking around the idea of getting a honda fit or mazda 3 for about 2 years now. Will be nice getting a 17k new car for 12k.
Everyone keeps saying 18 mpg and at the bottom of page 6 of the law it says 22?
(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;
@Brian Collins: That's the minimum MPG for the new replacement car you buy to qualify (in addition to the other requirements)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-131723-100x100.png\")
Hmmmm, EPA says that my car gets 24 MPG, I usually have it hover around 30 with mixed city and highway.
Beating the estimates FTW?
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.
So what's a \"new\" car in the program? 2009 or 2010?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-681073-100x100.png\")
@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.
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.
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)
Why only limit it to cars getting 18MPG or below? Why not give it to anyone getting 4MPG better on their new car. You'll still end up getting 4MPG better. I have a saturn getting 25MPG city, and I would consider upgrading to a better MPG car, like a 40 MPG hybrid, if I could get a $4500 credit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1578-100x100.png\")
Wow, it's hard to see what good it will do...the savings mostly don't benefit the people who need it, and the environmental gain is LAUGHABLE (seriously, we're rewarding car-makers for hitting 22mpg? 22? When there's been a guy in a garage in Kansas who's been hitting 100MPG for a decade, using GM's own parts??). (An URL about Johnathan Goodwin, for doubters: [www.puredoxyk.com])
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.
This is so stupid. This law only says \"hey, you've done a great job owning a gas guzzler, now go buy another!\".
so you only get what it is worth in SCRAP METAL???? LOL what a crock of shipwreck city
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-147087-100x100.png\")
wth? this doesn't seem worth it for anyone. my car's trade in is $8k, so i'd get maybe $4500 + the scrap metal price? or is that $4500 total? my car does only get 18mpg, but it's got serious balls, and runs great.
i want an affordable hybrid convertible, then we'll talk. (no electric, i like road trips.)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-307161-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-343837-100x100.png\")
It might be more widely used if they also included used cars..but alas...that's how it is.
@skipjack: Of course they only included new cars - the government wants you to help the failing auto industry.
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?