Cash for Clunkers - Good or Bad Idea?

stephen987

Yet another "drive by" post from someone who listens to Rxxh Lxxxxxh and hasn't bothered to learn anything about this program. Or, for that matter, to learn anything else, in all likelihood.

mikemartin

No one HAS TO buy a new car.

No one HAS TO do what any saleman or sales manager asks in terms of paying a specific price.

That's what makes a market.

I see this CFC program has enabled dealers. It's almost as if they're able to command and control consumers, and that the consumers have lost their minds, logical thought process and all manner of good negotiating sense.

Folks, this is a bad time to buy a new car for the majority of people, with or without a trade-in, even including a "qualifying" clunker (I say MOST people).

I'd rather buy a used car - any used car, so long as it runs well, than even attempt to buy a new car, if I NEEDED a car at this point.

Bide your time. Dealers have always had to negotiate hard to gain sales and this normalcy will return once this temporary insanity wears off.

There's empirical evidence that the effect of CFC is already waning, and economy studies done showing that expanding it won't do much good.

This has been one clunker of a bill for everyone but dealerships.

Look for the true deals to come about after dealers restock and production ramps back up. It has to, or the economies of the U.S., China, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Germany, Korea, etc., etc., etc. will literally go into full tilt depressions.

The workers get angry and the politicians nervous when idle hands grow.

It's going to be a very dry season for new car sales now that a whole lot of pent up demand has been satisfied in such a short period of time.

Buyers' market soon...

Mr_Shiftright

Can't be much of a classic if it's 25 years old and you still can't get $4500 for it. You'd think something would have started cooking under these "classics" by now.

I think you can rest easy. Nobody's going to junk their GNXs, pristine C4 Vettes, IROC Z convertibles, Mustang SVOs, clean low mileage Allantes, or anything else worth saving from the 80s and 90s, IMO.

What gets junked under C4C is either going to be a) "junk" or b) common utilitarian cars with no hope of becoming classics.

newdavidq

As if there aren't enough reasons why the C4C is bad, consider the 164,000 independant auto repair shops in the US. The fallout from this program will be felt long after the program is over. Reminds me of a famous quote: " Marry in haste, repent at leisure"

Regards, DQ

stephen987

Nonsense. There are plenty of used cars on the road even after C4C, and they will continue to break, and to require routine maintenance, just as they always have. Most of the independent mechanics I know are so backed up that they can't take new customers without a week or more of delay.

Mr_Shiftright

Judging from some of the clunkers I've seen, I doubt .50 cents has been spent on them in the last year.

Anyway, given the fact that the entire population of America, man woman and child, could simultaneously hop into every used car in America, and that nobody would be in any of the back seats--I think there are still plenty of used cars to keep everyone happy.

gagrice

When I am forced by circumstances beyond my control to venture out onto the highways and byways of any major city along our coast, it seems as if all 300,000,000 people are on the road at the same time. Sadly this program only added more to the over crowded highway system. Most people with a new car will drive more than with an old POC. Especially if the old one got 12 MPG and the new one 35 MPG.

andre1969

Most people with a new car will drive more than with an old POC. Especially if the old one got 12 MPG and the new one 35 MPG.

Possibly, but I'm sure in most cases, it's more like going back to your old ways. For instance, suppose someone used to drive 20,000 miles per year with their 12 mpg POS back when gas was cheap. But when it shot to $4.00 per gallon, they cut out most unnecessary driving and cut back to, say, 12,000 miles per year. Essential driving stayed the same, such as commuting to work, but fewer meals out afterwards, more combining of errands, less visits to friends and family, etc.

So now, they trade in the clunker for a fuel sipper, and their mileage goes back up to 20,000 miles per year. While yeah, they're driving more than they did in the past couple years, I look at it more as reverting to the mean. The last couple years were artificially low, rather than their new total suddenly becoming artificially high.

Plus, keep in mind that a good deal of these old clunkers were second/spare cars, anyway. What probably happened is they got C4C'ed for a new, economical commuter car, and what had been their primary car now takes spare car status. So in this case, while the new car is being driven more than the guzzler had been, it's not necessarily being driven more than the previous primary car had been.

That being said though, this morning I had to run to the grocery store and the gas station, and I swear every idiot on earth came out of the woodwork! The parking lot at the grocery store was full, the drive thru at the McDonalds was so long it was causing a bottleneck in the parking lot, and at the gas station, when a pump became available, it was like watching a pack of hyenas all trying to descend on the same carcass all at once! So maybe people are driving more...or it could just be that I went out later than normal.

hpmctorque

I had a reminder this week of the effect of C4C on independent repair shops. One of the shops I take my cars to specializes in Ford products of all types. They work on virtually all brands, but they specialize in Fords. Although I don't currently own a Ford, a mechanic I know that's competent and honest transferred there. Anyway, this shop has a large clientele consisting of private individuals, small business people and contractors, and larger businesses in the area. When I took my car there last week I noticed that there were a lot fewer vehicles on the premise. I asked the owner if my perception was correct, and he confirmed that it was. He volunteered that his business had been hurt by C4C, because a good number of the vehicles - vans, Explorers, Expeditions, F-150s and F-250s, etc. - that he routinely repairs and services had been traded.

avalon02wh

Ran some numbers to see how this program would work.

Trade in 1998 Dakota 6cyl 4wd auto, 15 mpg, annual fuel cost $2441, CO2 12.2 tons

New vehicle is a Cadillac SRX 6cyl 2wd auto, 18 mpg, AFC $2035, CO2 10.2 tons

The deal gets you $3500. Does it make sense? For the person trading in yes, but not as an effective way to save fuel or CO2. I was also surprised to see that I could not buy a CTS that gets 20 mpg. The message I received was: "Sorry, passenger cars must get at least 22 MPG to qualify. "
I suspect this has been discussed in the forum before, I just did not have time to go through all 3,000 plus messages.

The cost to the government to save 30 tons of CO2 over 15 years would be $117 per ton. But that assumes the Dakota would have lasted 15 more years, which is unlikely. If we assume the Dakota would have only lasted 3 more years the numbers look bad. The government (taxpayer) cost to save 6 tons of CO2 would be $583/ton. About 500 gallons of fuel would have been saved at a cost of $7/gallon.

Any comments? I'm still not sure I have the logic right. Or maybe it is a program that defies logic. :confuse:

I don't even want to try to calculate the cost of sending the Dakota and thousands of other vehicles to a premature death in terms of resources used and CO2 emitted from manufacturing.

So the deal is great for anyone with a clunker and the car makers, not such a good deal for the taxpayer or the environment.

explorerx4

since you brought up logic, did you ever take a course in it?
one the main principles is that a specific example should not be used to determine a general rule.

gagrice

So the deal is great for anyone with a clunker and the car makers, not such a good deal for the taxpayer or the environment.

You my friend have hit the nail on the head. Little thought of the environment. Slightly less fuel used and a big stimulus to the dealers with a trickle down economic stimulus to those below the dealer level. It does look like the horde has passed, and it will be a slight bit of sales until C4C ends. If any money remains. There is a debate on how many have actually been approved and dealers paid. I am sure that Congress will wave it around as bringing the country out of recession while saving the planet from all those nasty Explorers that were on the highways.

Mr_Shiftright

That makes no sense to me. How could he keep track of all his customers trade-ins, or the effect on his business, so soon after the program ended? And how could he differentiate the drop-off in business from other factors? And how many cars and trucks could we be talking about anyway? Sounds like he might be looking for an easy scapegoat for his troubles--repair shop owners like to complain (with good reason most of the time).

wersdabestdeal

I had an extremely unpleasant experience with a NorCal dealer recently. I believed I was "wronged" or treated unfairfly. Maybe unlawful. After signing the credit app, the gen mgr told me that he can't sell the vehicle at the OTD (incl TT) price that his internet mgr faxed me the day before. This made me so upset and stressed after driving in traffic for 2+ hrs. He said that his internet mgr didn't get his authorization. I'm there to purchase a vehicle and not hear their insincere apologies. So, I'm the one who suffered for their mistake. He started throwing some excuses which I have nothing to do. For example, he claimed that his internet sales manager did not get his authorization at that price; they’re not getting the $4,500 back from the government on time; the cars are such in demand; take it or leave attitude. At this point, I was trying very hard to maintain composure. I thought the internet mgr agreed to lower the price by $200 during our last phone conversation because they're trying to sell their last few vehicles (all white) and driving from afar. The dealers are gods and you're at their mercy. After leaving the dealership, the internet mgr came out fuming. He said that I tried to lower the agreed price by $200 from the gen mgr. I thought we had an agreement during our last phone call and I have the right because it's my money and we have no contract. A few hundred dollars wouldn't break their bank. I tried to be calm and control myself at that point. It wouldn't matter what the internet mgr claimed or said since his gen mgr raised the price by $3000 w/c was the point.

The CFC clunkers I think is a big rip off for the consumers. Being an educated consumer doesn't not help either. It just instilled on me the reputation of dealers/car salesman as sharks and unscrupulous. I understand their business and the games they played. Why is it that the 1st thing they asked is if you have a CFC? If you do, why is it that negotiation starts at MSRP. I understand they don't need to sell their vehicles or they can pick and choose because they're high and almighty right now,. I believe that most purchased cars at MSRP or over. The gen/internet mgr were not even listening to me because they're so focused on making money. I was going to ask the gen mgr to set our goals (dealer profit, consumer save $$) aside for a minute and discuss the actual numbers. In my estimate, they're making $1600+ margin. Dealers are taking the approach that they're giving CFC money. When did it became a common practice to only negotiate MSRP. Also, I was told that if I can't find my title that I have to sign a waiver and pay $4500. I am reporting the dealer to a local TV news, BBB, CFC, consumer affairs, fed agency, and the manufacturer. I don't want their vehicle or business even if it's free.

Further suggestions and comments from others and Edmunds is appreciated.

Mr_Shiftright

The C4C program is voluntary for both you and the dealer. The $4500 voucher is separate from any other incentives, but on the other hand the dealer is allowed to sell his cars at any price he wishes.

You the consumer are in control of the deal. If you don't like their deal, then do as you did---walk on them.

Also there's no contract without the sales manager's approval, so verbal or even written promises are not a contract. I suppose you could claim a "bait and switch" but as this was not actual advertising, but one salesperson's mistake, it would be difficult to prove that this is a dealership policy rather than just a big goof.

I'm not saying I condone the dealer's behavior, only saying that in my opinion, aside from the careless treatment you received and the rude inconvenience, you have no legal case here.

So I'd put my energy into getting a good deal from a good dealer if I were in your present position. Life is too short. Not all dealers are bad apples by any means.

And the dealer was right about one thing. Many dealers are holding the bag on waiting to be paid through C4C.

stephen987

The problem with that situation is NOT the clunker program--it's the dealership.

stever

Tell the world.

Dealer Ratings and Reviews

imidazol97

The

Dealer Ratings and Reviews

Needs to have a way to search for all dealers within a zip code instead of requiring a brand to be chosen within the zip code.

stever

Oh we do it that way too.

Better link?

Get ratings & reviews on car dealers & repair shops in your neighborhood

gagrice

Good link: The one review of Drew VW/Ford/Hyundai gives them 5 stars. That has been my experience over the last 23 years with them. Both on Ford and VW. The link also gives an honest appraisal of the Toyota dealers I have dealt with. Not all that great. My experience with Chevy dealers is mixed. Bob Stall was always good to deal with. I used them for service and warranty on two PU trucks and my Suburban. Even though they were all bought out of state they treated me first rate. Highly recommend. The Chevy dealer that just happens to be the Lexus dealer was not worth a hoot.

If I do trade in a clunker it will be for a VW or Ford from Drew motors.

newdavidq

So, let me see if I understand your point: the effect of C4C on independant repair shops is negligible (Shiftright seems to agree). That begs the question; Why do the C4C program if its effects are negligible? I maintain that the only positive effect of C4C (if indeed you believe that this is a positive effect since it appears that customers are not bargaining as hard with taxpayer money as they would with their own) is it increases dealer sales, so why wasn't it sold that way? This "nonsense" about positive environmental effects and all the rest is pure BS.

Regards, DQ

stephen987

Positive environmental effects are marginal at best. It's a stimulus plan designed to sell new automobiles--any other benefits are minor. The basic framework of the bill came from lobbyists working for the US auto industry.

The confusion comes about in part because of the political maneuvering between two competing proposals--the one generated by Sen. Stabenow of Michigan and the one from Sen. Feinstein of California. The Feinstein bill was driven primarily by environmental concerns, while the Stabenow bill was a simpler proposal more directly aimed at bailing out the automakers.

The final law was presented as a compromise between the two--thus allowing both sides to save face--but it's essentially Stabenow's bill with a few minor tweaks.

mickeyrom

If the car that is bought uses a lot less oil,I would say that it's effect is a bit more than marginal.The fact is that most of the new cars sold in this program are compact or sub compact cars,and some are hybrids or high mileage diesels.Isn't that better for the environment?

imidazol97

That link works a lot better. It searches by zip code but allows specific dealer brands as an option. It also allows repair shops to be searched.

hpmctorque

While the evidence is mostly anecdotal and, therefore, inexact, it is a fact that service and repair traffic at this shop are both down significantly compared to last year. For example, whereas in the past I always had to make an appointment for my car, last week they took it right in and worked on it immediately. Now this could be largely attributable to the recession, and the possibility that customers are either deferring service and repairs longer, or are performing more of it themselves. However, the owner told me that he saw numerous vehicles of the type he normally services in dealers' lots, tagged for the silicon treatment.

avalon02wh

"since you brought up logic, did you ever take a course in it?"

Doesn't watching Spock on all those Star Trek episodes count?

"one the main principles is that a specific example should not be used to determine a general rule."

True. Unfortunately, my example is a bit more common then it should be. The bill was drafted without a whole lot of logic or thought. Here is something that addresses this just from an environmental standpoint (CO2). Is this an effective use of our tax dollar?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32290028/ns/us_news-environment/

If their numbers are correct

CO2 saved by clunker program 700,000 tons a year

CO2 emitted by the U.S. 6,400,000,000 tons a year

And assuming my calculator worked correctly, that works out to a 0.0109375% reduction in CO2 at a cost of $1 billion or maybe it should be $3 billion. In any case, the cost to reduce CO2 by 10% using this method would be somewhere between $1 and $3 trillion dollars give or take a $100 million or so.

The article did not appear to look at what happens when you scrap the vehicles before they reach their natural death. Creating the 250,000 new cars before they are needed would actually increase manufacturing emissions, not to mention increasing the need for resources. I think the term people are using is a sugar rush. I guess that is why it is called a clunker program.

gagrice

When I went to get our LS400 smog test last week, the shop was nearly empty. He also said business was slow. Not sure if C4C or just a crappy economy is to blame. We did talk about C4C and he agreed with me that it will only help the dealers and the few that take advantage of the giveaway program. More noise than substance to the stimulus.

avalon02wh

"When I am forced by circumstances beyond my control to venture out onto the highways and byways of any major city along our coast, it seems as if all 300,000,000 people are on the road at the same time. "

Do I have a solution for you. Try moving to Alamo, North Dakota. The mean home price is $48,837. The homes are OK, not what I would call "clunker" homes! I've been on the two lane road (50) up there a few times. You can drive for 45 minutes and you might see two vehicles, usually farm trucks. Setting the cruise on 50 mph, with the windows rolled down during one of those beautiful, sunny days is very relaxing. And, don't forget to stop by Writing Rock Historic Site.

Carry on. :shades:

gagrice

It is kind of strange being on the same side of the fence with you. This statement sums up your article quite well.

Michael Gerrard, director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, who examined the clunkers program in an academic journal, said there are far better ways to cut energy use and greenhouse gases.

"It's not that it's a bad idea; just don't sell it as a cost-effective energy savings method," he said. "From an economic standpoint it seems to be a roaring success. From an environment and energy perspective, it's not where you would put your first dollar."

gagrice

We have a driving trip planned for the end of September, through October. We will be going through part of North Dakota to visit our farm in Minnesota. We want to catch as much of the Fall colors as possible. We will be driving our gas guzzling clunker Sequoia so we may raise the level of GHG in your area a bit.

PS
We will avoid the Interstates as much as possible.

stever

The Local Services tab up top is even easier than my link. There's just too much stuff at Edmunds to keep track of all of it.

Someone besides a dealer is liking Cash for Clunkers:

“It's been awesome for us,” said Mickey Allen, operations manager at Edaco. “With one dealer, I've got them lined up to bring me over 100 vehicles. Another one is going to bring in 20. It's on up in the hundreds, what we'll see from this.”

Edaco is an auto salvage yard in Asheville NC.

Crushing clunkers: Government program a boon to scrap dealers as well as car sellers (Citizen-times.com)

Mr_Shiftright

For once, America's generally lame media got it right and presented C4C for what is was---a business stimulus package created by the auto industry.

It's okay for government action to be imperfect in a crisis. Doing nothing is a far worse alternative (see, Hoover, Herbert and Coolidge, Calvin).

The plusses and minuses of C4C may lead to far better solutions next time around, that will improve the fairness and the effectiveness.

explorerx4

the majority of the vehicles being turned in and sold have more of a mileage difference than your example.
another thing is, many of the recently sold vehicles have been sitting on the dealer lots for a while.

isellhondas

We are hearing that quite a few dealers in this area have stopped doing C4C deals.

And it's just amazing how some people want to cheat the system and get mad when they can't "get around" the rules.

newdavidq

" It's okay for government action to be imperfect in a crisis. Doing nothing is a far worse alternative (see, Hoover, Herbert and Coolidge, Calvin)"

I'm speechless! Hoover was busier than Obama!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

Scroll down to the "Policies" paragraph.

Coolidge on the other hand was less busy and is regarded by some as a rather good president.

Will Rogers famously said that the only time he felt safe was when Congress was not in session.

A committee in congress is studying whether congress should change the way college football national champions should be determined!

The better situation in Washington is when we have a congress dominated by one party and a president of the other party thereby making it more difficult for these meddlers to pile more laws and regulations, and yes, worthless programs like C4C, upon the taxpayers.

Regards, DQ

Mr_Shiftright

Yes, I've noticed how often Hoover's record of success is constantly lauded by historians and patriots alike. What a curse to have been so brilliant but nobody noticing. :P

Will Rogers was the biggest suck-up in the history of wannabees IMO.

elroy5

The plusses and minuses of C4C may lead to far better solutions next time around, that will improve the fairness and the effectiveness.

NEXT TIME AROUND? Haven't the cars companies been given enough help? If they can't survive, after C4C, let them go down.

newdavidq

I certainly did not mean to give the impression that Hoover was a success as president, only that he was very active. He originated most of the programs that FDR later expanded into the New Deal and we know that WWII, not FDR (and Hoover)'s policies, really ended the depression. Doing nothing " at the Federal Level " is often much better for taxpayers.

And about Will Rogers: "What you talkin' 'bout ?"

Regards, DQ

Mr_Shiftright

Ah, well---An imaginative view of american history, and thanks for that, but not one I'd find credible. Hoover is rated near the bottom of presidents by a wide range of politically balanced historians (right and left I mean) for his persistent paralysis, lack of charisma, and reluctance to lead, and I agree with them.

Historically at least (a touchstone but not a golden rule)--inaction during economic crisis is usually fatal, because? --well, because of the potential for civil strife. Hoover refused direct federal aid to suffering people because he thought it would "weaken their morale" (!!!)

He was not a bad man by any means, but he did not have the force of will necessary to overcome a grave economic crisis. He was also bogged down in ideology. He was much better later in life serving on committees to solve international problems.

Will Rogers? A hammy hick taking easy potshots at politicians while eating their food and drinking their wine.

CFC continuing? Maybe one more round would be justified, especially to get the D3 past the usual Fall flat sales period.

ponderpoint

THAT was a good post, and not because I agree with all of it.
.
I automatically weed out posts that start with "It is a fact that" or "You are completely wrong because" they have no new information and they drone on with their particular "latex paint" world of phantom sources and false facts and sciolism. Some people never get past Junior High School but we can't do anything about that these days.

Good insight, I don't agree with all of it but some of your points are rock solid.

I find it strange that massive amounts of energy and economy are being WASTED on something that doesn't work. I'm a big fan of the new Camaro but I don't think the government should help me buy one (takes the shine off of it) and i don't think another taxpayer should help me buy one.

If I buy a Camaro it should be a reward, not a "fix".... the word "fix" is for the roads and road crews (they're those people in orange and yellow vests some people flip-off), old roads. Interstates. Parkways. Bridges. Are you getting it yet? THAT is were taxes should be spent.

INFRASTRUCTURE = GOVERNMENT= THE GREATER GOOD..... Not my personal automotive statement as I drive to Starbucks.....

Pathetic.

newdavidq

Well I guess we can agree that Hoover was not one of our best presidents, but what have you got against Will Rogers?

He made 71 movies, wrote 4000 newspaper columns, was the first mayor of Beverly HIlls (and prevented it from being annexed by the city of Los Angeles}, was the first civilian to fly as a passenger across the US, was a lifelong democrat and actually joked about Hoover when he was in the audience. I don't think he needed anybody to buy him dinner as he was one of the highest paid actors in tinseltown. His former 183 acre ranch above Los Angeles in now a California state park which you may want to visit sometime. To stay on topic, there is a nice piece of highway in Oklahoma named after him where clunkers can cruise comfortably, even with bad shocks, I think he even bought a few cars to help support the US auto industry.

And what's wrong with taking potshots at politicians?

Regards, DQ

gagrice

The federal government has only reimbursed auto dealers for 2 percent of the claims they've submitted through the popular "cash for clunkers" program, a Pennsylvania congressman said, calling on the Obama administration to help speed up the process.

Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., called for "immediate action" to address the problem in a statement Sunday, after writing a letter to President Obama Saturday expressing his concerns.

In the letter, Sestak said only 2 percent of claims have been paid and that four of every five applications have been "rejected for minor oversight."

In recent days, auto dealers across the country have been complaining that the reimbursement payments are slow to process. And they said some of their applications were being rejected because of apparent procedural issues. The statistics Sestak cited suggest those complaints are not based on isolated incidents.

Staffing could be one problem. According to sales data summarized by Transportation Department officials, dealers have submitted requests for rebates on 338,659 vehicles sold.

But while Congress just expanded the $1 billion program by $2 billion, the Department of Transportation says a staff of just 225 people is reviewing those claims.

Sestak wrote that he thinks 1,000 processors should be assigned to handle the claims. Sestak, who is challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in his state's Senate primary, wrote that auto dealers have contacted him to express their concern and ask for help.

"Failure to address delays with the cash for clunkers program will adversely harm auto dealers in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and around the country -- undoubtedly forcing many out of business," he said in a statement.

Under the clunkers program, passenger car owners are eligible for a voucher worth between $3,500 and $4,500 if they trade in their gas guzzlers for new, fuel-efficient vehicles.

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah and a bad actor and a bad writer he was, too. Not capable of sustaining a thought beyond a ten word cliche. This is why we read Mark Twain today but never him.

Oh, poor C4C.....Blaming the government for all of one's troubles is like blaming one's parents when one is over 50 years old.

Anyone can make a living making fun of politicians. It's like shooting cows. Not something that requires talent.

gagrice

Although the cash for clunkers program has been refueled with a $2 billion cash injection by Congress, some auto dealers' bank accounts are still running on fumes, waiting to get reimbursed by the government.

Dealers across the country are reporting that reimbursement issues continue to stall the wildly popular incentives program. They have submitted requests for rebates on 338,659 vehicles sold, at a cost of about $1.4 billion to the government, according to sales data summarized by Transportation Department officials.

David Wilson, a Toyota dealer in Orange County, Calif., told Automotive News that he has been paid for only three of 92 claims he submitted before Aug. 2, leaving him on the hook for about $374,000. In total, he has 450 unpaid claims filed for $1.9 million.

"I'm worried the government will run out of money before we get paid," he told the publication.

Sounds like some Toyota dealers got real greedy.

stephen987

Sounds like some Toyota dealers got real greedy.

Car dealers? Greedy? Surely you jest!

I suspect that some dealers of all brands may have either (a) gotten sloppy with their paperwork, or (b) failed to educate their salespeople about the requirements.

It's also possible that some salespeople (or managers, for that matter) may have intentionally misled customers into believing that their trades would qualify, hoping that when the deals were rejected by NHTSA the customers would be too much in love with their new cars to unwind the deal.

Just curious, though: what makes you think Toyota dealers would be any more likely to do any or all of the above than, say, Hyundai, Honda, or Dodge dealers? In my area the Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep/Mazda/Hyundai dealership has the real "bottom feeder" reputation, while the Toyota and Honda folks are about average and our best local customer service is found with Kia and certain GM and Ford stores. But I've heard real horror stories associated with dealers for all of these brands, and many others.

gagrice

Just curious, though: what makes you think Toyota dealers would be any more likely to do any or all of the above than, say, Hyundai, Honda, or Dodge dealers?

With 22,000 dealers signed up for C4C and this Toyota dealer has 450 clunker deals waiting to be paid. That seems greedy to me. I can see 40-50 deals pending. If that is indicative of big dealers there may be some real big surprises. Not to mention very unhappy customers. My guess is this program will alienate more customers than make happy ones.

newdavidq

If it's true that there are only 225 government employees processing 338,600 C4C applications consider this:
338,600 divided by 225 = 1504 claims per reviewer. Or how about 3B $ divided by 225 = 13.3Million$ being administered by each government worker. Could this be true?

Looks like the manufacturers are going to be the only ones to benefit from the program as the dealers themselves are getting clunked.

And we, the taxpayers, have been clunked........again.

Regards, DQ

100chuck

Divided by the three weeks the program has been up and running is a little over 100 claims per day per employee. Have you even looked at the forms ? I would think it would not take more the 5 minutes to review the submitted documents.

gagrice

It is hard to put your finger on who will benefit from C4C. Not the person that waits 2 weeks to find out he got kicked out of the system with no explanation. That goes equally for the dealer that sat at his computer inputting all the crap to get a reject with no reason. The manufacturers could go back into full swing and end up with a lot of inventory they cannot unload just as it was before C4C.

And, what is there to verify? The dealer sends in a fax of the title, registration and insurance. Either they fit the criteria or they do not. I cannot believe they are getting verification from each state that all is as it says it is. That could take hours for each submission. I know getting any info from the CA DMV is a daunting task.

I would say the only winners could soon become losers if the program does not pan out. Dealers could end up with a bunch of slightly used cars back on their lots. Consumers could be left with a bad taste for dealers. And Congress that hoped to make themselves look like they knew what they are doing, could fall flat on their collective faces.

2% paid is unacceptable in my book.

imidazol97

> Dealers could end up with a bunch of slightly used cars back on their lots.

No problem. They'll be "program cars," "executive cars," "demonstrators," "XXX brand corporation cars," and on. They'll come up with a label to make them good. And they'll show the CarFax "proving" that the cars are perfect as far as their history.