No, the "purchaser" is clearly the purchaser of the new car under the rule. Some excerpts from the rule docket:
Therefore, the trade-in value of the vehicle is not likely to exceed its scrap value. Purchasers should not expect to receive the same trade-in value as they might if the vehicle were to remain on the road. The Act also requires dealers to disclose to purchasers the scrap value of the trade-in vehicle...
The agency...defines a “purchaser”...as a person purchasing or leasing a new vehicle under the CARS program.
Purchaser means a person purchasing or leasing a new vehicle under the CARS Program.
I am sure that you are right that the EPA went back to the original raw data instead of just converting the old sticker numbers, but that really should have been done in the first place, not the day that a government program like this goes into effect. Talk about teasing the poor kid with an ice cream cone -- ala Eddie Murphy!
Hmmm... I wonder if I can get the driver's door to the truck fixed so I can actually open it -- otherwise I will just have to leave the window down all the time and slide in like Dukes of Hazard! :P
The gov gives us $50 the service dept charges $85 to disable the engine.
Give me a break. That is about like me telling my wife I'm going to charge her $50 to drop her car off for an oil change and therefore the oil change is costing me $75, rather than $25.
No breaks to give Jeffy. The service department is charging an hour to do the work. labor rate is $85 an hour. Does not matter if it takes them 5 minutes to do they are charging an hour.
No different then the fact it cost the used car department more to get an oil change then it does a customer
Also if you follow the goverments rule which is appendix B to part 599 Engine disablement procedure for CARS You will have over an hour wrapped up in it if you take into account one of the steps is letting the engine cool for one hour. Now granted the car is just cooling off but that isstill time you have to stop the job you are working on and go mess with the clunker some more.
If I was a mechanic I would not want to stop on a paying job to mess with something that is not paying me squat. Thats what a $30 charge would get them after you net it out squat. I also have no idea how much Sodium Silicate cost. Thats what the Gov says you have to use.
I didn't check my vehicle's combined MPG rating on fueleconomy.gov until after some of you noticed "adjustments" to yours. I too am ineligible (2000 Chevrolet Venture) at 19 mpg combined (17 city; 24 hwy.). I did find a site called fueleconomydb.com that uses "figures adjusted for EPA's new 2008 estimation method" but are probably older than the most recent figures on fueleconomy.gov. My vehicle shows 18 mpg combined (16 city; 24 hwy.) on the third-party site with what seems to be older EPA data. I'm sure it's not "proof" that would help qualify anyone, but it might be worth a look to see what your vehicle is rated an on that site verses the "official" one.
Your internal exchanges among different departments of the same dealership do not demonstrate what the actual cost to the dealer is.
I didn't say the purchaser is "entitled" to anything, however, one would think that the language requiring disclosure to the purchaser is there for a reason and the statement that the purchaser should not expect to get more than the scrap value of the car, certainly implies that they may expect to get the scrap value, less $50.
I see no use of the term "purchaser" to mean the purchaser of the scrap vehicle in either the law or the code. Maybe you would like to point out exactly what you are refering to?
The law does clearly state that the dealer should expect to get exactly $50:
...permit the dealer to retain $50 of any amounts paid to the dealer for scrappage of the automobile as payment for any administrative costs to the dealer associated with participation in the Program
After holding for 30 minutes, I spoke to representative through the CARS hotline. My 88 Toyota 4Runner mpg rating changed overnight from 18mpg to 19 mpg. The representative said this was the first time he had heard of this happening! He also said that even if I had proof that fueleconomy.gov had previously rated my vehicle at 18mpg, for the purpose of the CARS program, the only data that can be used is that which is CURRENTLY on the website. Since this sudden upgrading of fuel economy appears to have happened to many other people, it might be useful everyone to whom this has happened calls and lets the people at CARS know (be prepared to be on hold for awhile; it's very hard to get through).
Personally, I tend to buy a car and drive it until the wheels come off, so my inclination would be to keep it. Also, I'm not too sure that the 'cash for clunkers' lets you bundle 2 cars in one trade-in.
Theoretically, Saturn will continue in business under Roger Penske, who historically is a very sharp businessman. GM will theoretically continue in business now that the government is a major stakeholder. Your particular car has a Honda drivetrain. So, I really don't see parts availability as that big of an issue.
Seems to me you are almost always better off financially just driving a car as long as you can....
That said, if you really want a new car, now is the time to take advantage of the 'cash for clunkers' deal.
The buyer is suppose to get the difference between the salvage value and the $50 that the dealer keeps. Here's the law as written in the CARS.gov web site:
"The program requires the scrapping of your eligible trade-in vehicle, and that the dealer disclose to you an estimate of the scrap value of your trade-in. The scrap value, however minimal, will be in addition to the rebate, and not in place of the rebate."
many dealers are pocketing the money and giving the buyer a song and dance. Simply turn them in for fraud. A few $15,000 fines per cars will wake them up.
"Lucky for you. That dealer misinterpets the program. The consumer does not recieve any proceeds from the scrap."
That's not true, the dealer is supposed to give you the scrap value - $50. I am thinking of trading in my 2002 Mazda MPV. If I trade it in regularly I probably will get $2k, if I sell it outside I can probably get $3k, if I trade it under CARS I'd get $4.5k. I don't expect the dealer to give me all the scrap value but considering he can strip the airbags, the doors, the body panels, the leather seats, etc... He can make a lot of money selling the parts.
You can not expect to get the retail value of all your used parts. Sounds like some dealers have negotiated a flat rate of $200, if that is the case then that $200 is the scrap value of each car that they take in.
Our dealer gave us the "song and dance" as you put it. I thought about filing a complaint, but our clunker's mileage changed and no longer qualifies for CFC...I'm not about to risk the CFC rebate for $150
keep the Saturn, there will be parts and service availability for it for the foreseeable future.
However, if you had it in mind to replace the '98 pickup, now would be the time for sure, and Chrysler is matching the C4C money, so that would be $9000 off a new Dakota, plus whatever else you could negotiate. Find a bare-bones one, and you could get it pretty cheaply, I would think.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I put my son's 92 chev truck 1500 2wd regular cab, 6cyl, manual in the trade in side to find out if if it qualifies. Yup, it's rated at 18mpg. Qualifies for $4500 Purchase new, he can purchase a Chev 1/2 ton 4wd 5.3 eng, 6sp trans. rated 16mpg. rating -2 mpg. Still get the $4500. Yet with my suburban, 4wd, k1500, rated at 10mpg, I can't purchase the same vehicle (suburban new) or any other truck with tow capability 4wd. I call it the anti joe amendment. :mad:
Local dealers here had their 'CARS' trade in lined up in back of lots with 'not for sale' signs.
The most common vehicle was all generations of Chevy S-10 based Blazers. Next were first gen Explorers, Windstars, Mopar minvans, Durangos, Suburbans, and old Nissan Quests. There were very few cars, of which there were some 90's Town Cars and Caddys.
Just a few pick-ups were in the lots, however. Saw a 94 Dodge Ram and one old F-150.
The person I spoke to at the CARS hotline yesterday did not seem surprised at all by the change -- in fact she sounded like she was tired of answering questions about it! I was told that the law was not set in stone until the 24th and changes could be made up to that point. I was also told that if I had a problem with the math on the fueleconomy website I would have to call them.
So I called the Department of Energy informational number that is listed on the fueleconomy.gov website. I asked the very pleasant woman who answered how the combined MPG was calculated. As expected she said it is a weighted average of 55% city and 45% highway -- (city*55%)+(highway*45%)=combined MPG Then I asked if the city/highway numbers used in the calculation were the whole numbers listed on the website. She answered that yes, those were the numbers used -- then she asked why -- so I told her my whole story about my truck being 17/21 but 19 combined and the manual transmission being 17/22 and getting 18 combined. She agreed that it was odd, but there wasn't anything she could do, except suggest that I email the people in charge of the website. Which I did -- again!
"I put my son's 92 chev truck 1500 2wd regular cab, 6cyl, manual in the trade in side to find out if if it qualifies. Yup, it's rated at 18mpg. Qualifies for $4500 Purchase new, he can purchase a Chev 1/2 ton 4wd 5.3 eng, 6sp trans. rated 16mpg. rating -2 mpg. Still get the $4500. "
I think the website screwed up. Because if you read the actual wording of the rules, it says that "If both the new vehicle and the traded-in vehicle are category 2 trucks and the combined fuel economy value of the new vehicle is at least 1, but less than 2, miles per gallon higher than the combined fuel economy value of the traded in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If both the new vehicle and the traded-in vehicle are category 2 trucks and the combined fuel economy of the new vehicle is at least 2 miles per gallon higher than that of the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500."
So you need at least a +2 mph improvement to get the $4500 rebate. I still think 2 mph is ridiculously low to get the rebate but that's another story.
That is absolutely bazaar. How you can buy a new truck that gets 2 MPG less with a $4500 clunker is beyond belief. I guess they are trying to sell the big trucks.
I tried his vehicle against a Tundra 4WD with the big engine that only gets 15 MPG and it still says he gets $4500. That is totally crazy. Typical Federal agency. With jumping mileage numbers and letting people trade for lower mileage vehicles. It should be fun sorting it all out.
I wonder if anyone's pissed enough to consider filing a class action lawsuit yet? I didn't really believe this was all for improving fuel economy anyway. If that was the sole goal the rules would've been much different. A +1, +2 mpg requirement is just ridiculously low. You can achieve that by altering your driving habit alone practically.
Not me. I waste enough each year on April 15th. Don't want to support any more attorneys than absolutely necessary. I would have been happy with a new truck that gets 2 MPG better than this gas guzzling Ranger. Just nothing out there that qualifies.
I have read at least one first person report on another forum by someone who received $1 for salvage value, and was therefore charged $49 by the dealer for administrative overhead. I wouldn't mind a wash, but this seems shady. I'm expecting to do my CARS trade-in/purchase on Wednesday, and this is a part of the process that I intend to watch carefully. If a dealer says the salvage value of the trade-in is only $1, ask him how he determined that figure.
Apparently, if you had bought something that guzzled even more and was cat. 2, you'd get $4500, even with -2 or -3 mpg, if the official web site is to be believed (despite the fact that the rules and law say otherwise).
I think technically my Ford Ranger should be a Cat 2. It states any vehicle with more than 115 inch wheel base. My truck comes up as Cat 1. Even though it is 125.7 inch wheelbase. More federal flubs.
A category 2 truck is a large van or a large pickup truck, based upon the length of the wheelbase (more than 115 inches for pickup trucks and more than 124 inches for vans). Note: some pickup trucks and cargo vans exceeding these thresholds are treated as category 3 trucks instead of category 2 trucks.
It was dumb for them to use wheelbase--but as the NHTSA rule states, they go by the shortest wheelbase version of the vehicle--so all Rangers are cat 1.
C.A.R.S worked well for us today in GA. Our clunker was a 1996 Jeep Grand Cherokee rated at 16mpg, more importantly it was not only a clunker but a stunker, beyond any help. The only thing of value was a half tank of gas. We bought a 2010 Camry rated at 26mpg. The dealership was extremely helpful, and the transaction went very smoothly. The first dealership we tried to buy from was not at all helpful, and really didn't want to deal with it. The experience was chalk and cheese. So if at first it doesn't go well for you, try another dealership. Also they are very particular about what paperwok you need for the clunker, no exceptions. Also figure out in your state when the sales tax should be applied, for us it was after the $4,500 deduction, some states are before. Some of our area dealers didn't know. Good luck!
I chose a new car on Friday and, like many people, the dealer told me the program doesn't officially start until Monday.
This morning my dealer told me some one will be contacting me to set up an appointment with the financial dept. to finish the paperwork, but that I will not be able to get a credit from them until they get approved, which could be up to 10 days!
Some people seem to be getting the credit on the spot! Is anyone else experiencing these delays??
So once approved, I will have to go back with my clunker and finalize the deal?
One reason I'm being impatient is because MA sales tax goes up 25% on Friday and I would like to save the couple hundred dollars since this all should have been done last week. The dealer says ther are trying as fast as they can but I may not be able to save on the tax if I'm not approved by then.
Does anyone know the rules in MA for this program? Do we have to pay tax on the price before the C4C??
Try a different dealer. That's exactly what we were told at the first dealer we attempted to purchase from. Didn't know what they were doing. They had even drawn up some of their own documents saying they were not responsible if the credit was not processed correctly. They also said they could not apply the credit to the sale price and would notify us in 14 days if it had been approved, then provide the check. When we said we wanted to use C.A.R.S, they pretty much said they weren't happy, and this is a huge Toyota dealer in Atlanta. The dealer we ended up buying from (also in Atlanta) made everything easy. They applied the credit immediately. Said it was their job to ensure we were qualified for the credit, and if it failed, would be their responsibility. Could not have had a more different experience if we'd tried. The dealerships who have not done their homework are soon going to find out that the customers have! Look around for a dealer who knows what they are doing, and it should be very easy.
Just picked up my brand spanking new Mazda5, trading in our salvage title 2001 Town and Country. The dealer said that there were rumors this morning that the salvaged titles were not going to fly, but they worked through the questions they had about it I guess. For what it's worth, we loved our T&C, towed many a children to beaches and amusement parks. But, I'm thrilled to be able to get a vehicle that gets better mileage and still seats 6. The salesman said that he was sure that this program would be over within 2 weeks. He also mentioned how many folks he had been gathering info for and their mileage changed from 18 to 19 overnight. One guy went from a 19 to an 18 today. Good luck & move fast Clunker peeps!
yeah i agree and wish i hadn't already put a $500 deposit down : ( the deposit is refundable if the C2C doesn't go through; however i finally found a prius that was available right away and got a few extra bucks off because its a demo vehicle with some miles, so not sure if a deal like this on a 2010 prius will turn up again soon...ugh
The "Do I Qualify" system says I can only replace my 1992 3/4 ton (8600 GVRW) Suburban with another vehicle greater than 8500 GVRW and equal to or less than 8600 GVRW, or a Category 2 vehicle, that being a long wheelbase truck or van. Nothing else! The only vehicle fitting the first description is a brand new gas guzzling 2009 Suburban with the largest motor, the same vehicle I have now. The smaller engine does NOT qualify. Or, I can get a large truck or van, which I have no need of and is not anything like an SUV. But I cannot get the smaller more fuel efficient SUV I want, nor can I get a Ford Fusion or any car at all. This is absurd. I am locked out of the program unless I want to buy the biggest gas guzzler possible in my situation or make a complete body style change to a vehicle that would still guzzle gas and doesn't replace what I have and need. How does anyone, even the auto manufacturers, benefit from locking people like me out of the program like this? I was ready to buy today, now I'm pretty much done with this. The people who designed the rules for this program are idiots!
Large pickup trucks and vans with a GVWR less than or equal to 8,500 lbs. Large pickup trucks are defined as having a wheelbase greater than 115 inches, and large vans are defined as having a wheelbase greater than 124 inches.
Note that the wheelbase used to determine truck category by the CARS program is the shortest wheelbase for a given nameplate (e.g., Ford F-150) and may not correspond to your vehicle's actual wheelbase, especially in the case of trucks with extended cabs."
Really useless and absurd.
Best bet-Dodge ram with rebates or Toyota Tundra without hefty rebates if you want a PU truck.
so in Georgia the Sales tax is applied AFTER deducting the 4500?? Is That right Does anyone else KNOW for sure is GA??? Hum my dealer missed that on Friday7/26/09. I need to call tommorrow and get that corrected because they DID charge me sales tax on the 4500 in Buford, GA. thanks and congrates on your new Camry.
You are right, it now says that when I put in a cat 3 and a Fusion Hybrid or other cars. The other day when I tried, I'm sure it was saying $3500 and that is what I based my comment on.
I was charged sales tax when I did my deal on Friday and was the first one the dealship was able to process. Did they make a mistake when they figured sales tax on the 4500?
You are pretty much correct. The previous "New MPG" values that were there before were calculated using the "Old" rounded, adjusted values. That was fine for comparison purposes - until the CARS program. I believe the new, new numbers as of Friday reflect recalculations based on the original, more precise numbers. So the adjustment for the test methods that took effect in 2008 (New MPG) are now based on the unrounded, unadjusted numbers instead of rounded, adjusted numbers. The regulations are complex and it all comes down to rounding. Some vehicles fell off the list but some vehicles were added too.
As expected she said it is a weighted average of 55% city and 45% highway
That's very peculiar. The correct formula should be Combined = 100/(55/CITY+45/HWY). The two methods will give essentially the same result when there is little difference between CITY and HWY but that's not so when the difference is large. How they get 18 mpg for the manual transmission has me baffled as well. Both methods of calculation give 19 mpg.
I am concerned with th dealers that are "rolling" cash for clunker deals right now. they are not approved or funded by the Gov. I think a lot of customers driving around right now are up for some phone calls, "Mr. Jones, Im sorry your car didnt qualify because...." Ouch, the fallout is going to be awful.
I had the same experience in Kansas City. Wanting to trade in my 1990 C1500 for a 2010 Prius IV. The dealers were completely clueless on how the program was supposed to operate. I found a car in stock on the internet in Quincy, IL. Put down a credit card deposit on Saturday morning and drove my clunker 260 miles. After verifying eligibility (the CARS site was very slow), I signed the papers and drove away in my new Prius!!! A C.A.R.S success!!!
Verifying whether your qualifies on cars.gov though isnt even the beggining there are so may hoops to jump through--title changes, registrations, insurance requirements.
Comments
Therefore, the trade-in value of the vehicle is not likely to exceed its scrap value. Purchasers should not expect to receive the same trade-in value as they might if the vehicle were to remain on the road. The Act also requires dealers to disclose to purchasers the scrap value of the trade-in vehicle...
The agency...defines a “purchaser”...as a person purchasing or leasing a new vehicle under the CARS program.
Purchaser means a person purchasing or leasing a new vehicle under the CARS Program.
Hmmm... I wonder if I can get the driver's door to the truck fixed so I can actually open it -- otherwise I will just have to leave the window down all the time and slide in like Dukes of Hazard! :P
Give me a break. That is about like me telling my wife I'm going to charge her $50 to drop her car off for an oil change and therefore the oil change is costing me $75, rather than $25.
By the way you are not quoting the portion of the act I was refering to when it talks about the dealer negotiating scrap value.
No different then the fact it cost the used car department more to get an oil change then it does a customer
If I was a mechanic I would not want to stop on a paying job to mess with something that is not paying me squat. Thats what a $30 charge would get them after you net it out squat. I also have no idea how much Sodium Silicate cost. Thats what the Gov says you have to use.
I didn't say the purchaser is "entitled" to anything, however, one would think that the language requiring disclosure to the purchaser is there for a reason and the statement that the purchaser should not expect to get more than the scrap value of the car, certainly implies that they may expect to get the scrap value, less $50.
I see no use of the term "purchaser" to mean the purchaser of the scrap vehicle in either the law or the code. Maybe you would like to point out exactly what you are refering to?
The law does clearly state that the dealer should expect to get exactly $50:
...permit the dealer to retain $50 of any
amounts paid to the dealer for scrappage of the automobile as
payment for any administrative costs to the dealer associated
with participation in the Program
He also said that even if I had proof that fueleconomy.gov had previously rated my vehicle at 18mpg, for the purpose of the CARS program, the only data that can be used is that which is CURRENTLY on the website.
Since this sudden upgrading of fuel economy appears to have happened to many other people, it might be useful everyone to whom this has happened calls and lets the people at CARS know (be prepared to be on hold for awhile; it's very hard to get through).
Theoretically, Saturn will continue in business under Roger Penske, who historically is a very sharp businessman. GM will theoretically continue in business now that the government is a major stakeholder. Your particular car has a Honda drivetrain. So, I really don't see parts availability as that big of an issue.
Seems to me you are almost always better off financially just driving a car as long as you can....
That said, if you really want a new car, now is the time to take advantage of the 'cash for clunkers' deal.
Just my 2 cents
you get back $150.00.
"The program requires the scrapping of your eligible trade-in vehicle, and that the dealer disclose to you an estimate of the scrap value of your trade-in. The scrap value, however minimal, will be in addition to the rebate, and not in place of the rebate."
many dealers are pocketing the money and giving the buyer a song and dance. Simply turn them in for fraud. A few $15,000 fines per cars will wake them up.
That's not true, the dealer is supposed to give you the scrap value - $50. I am thinking of trading in my 2002 Mazda MPV. If I trade it in regularly I probably will get $2k, if I sell it outside I can probably get $3k, if I trade it under CARS I'd get $4.5k. I don't expect the dealer to give me all the scrap value but considering he can strip the airbags, the doors, the body panels, the leather seats, etc... He can make a lot of money selling the parts.
However, if you had it in mind to replace the '98 pickup, now would be the time for sure, and Chrysler is matching the C4C money, so that would be $9000 off a new Dakota, plus whatever else you could negotiate. Find a bare-bones one, and you could get it pretty cheaply, I would think.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Purchase new, he can purchase a Chev 1/2 ton 4wd 5.3 eng, 6sp trans. rated 16mpg. rating -2 mpg. Still get the $4500.
Yet with my suburban, 4wd, k1500, rated at 10mpg, I can't purchase the same vehicle (suburban new) or any other truck with tow capability 4wd. I call it the anti joe amendment. :mad:
The most common vehicle was all generations of Chevy S-10 based Blazers. Next were first gen Explorers, Windstars, Mopar minvans, Durangos, Suburbans, and old Nissan Quests. There were very few cars, of which there were some 90's Town Cars and Caddys.
Just a few pick-ups were in the lots, however. Saw a 94 Dodge Ram and one old F-150.
So I called the Department of Energy informational number that is listed on the fueleconomy.gov website. I asked the very pleasant woman who answered how the combined MPG was calculated. As expected she said it is a weighted average of 55% city and 45% highway -- (city*55%)+(highway*45%)=combined MPG
Then I asked if the city/highway numbers used in the calculation were the whole numbers listed on the website. She answered that yes, those were the numbers used -- then she asked why -- so I told her my whole story about my truck being 17/21 but 19 combined and the manual transmission being 17/22 and getting 18 combined. She agreed that it was odd, but there wasn't anything she could do, except suggest that I email the people in charge of the website. Which I did -- again!
The Saga Continues!
Purchase new, he can purchase a Chev 1/2 ton 4wd 5.3 eng, 6sp trans. rated 16mpg. rating -2 mpg. Still get the $4500. "
I think the website screwed up. Because if you read the actual wording of the rules, it says that "If both the new vehicle and the traded-in vehicle are category 2 trucks and the combined fuel economy value of the new vehicle is at least 1, but less than 2, miles per gallon higher than the combined fuel economy value of the traded in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If both the new vehicle and the traded-in vehicle are category 2 trucks and the combined fuel economy of the new vehicle is at least 2 miles per gallon higher than that of the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500."
So you need at least a +2 mph improvement to get the $4500 rebate. I still think 2 mph is ridiculously low to get the rebate but that's another story.
But, Last Satureday I rrelized that EPA has changed the information at their web page for a 1993 Toyota Automatic 4-spd, (FFS), from 18 MPG to 19 MPG.
Please check below from Updated MPG
Toyota Camry 4 cyl, 2.2 L, Automatic 4-spd, (FFS), Regular 21
Toyota Camry 4 cyl, 2.2 L, Manual 5-spd, (FFS), Regular 22
Toyota Camry 6 cyl, 2.9 L, Automatic 4-spd, (FFS), Regular 19
Toyota Camry 6 cyl, 2.9 L, Manual 5-spd, (FFS), Regular 18
Dose it make sense that Toyota Camry 6 cyl, 2.9 L, Automatic gets more MPG than Toyota Camry 6 cyl, 2.9 L, Manual ...?
I'm so sad!!! Please return to MY MPG...
A category 2 truck is a large van or a large pickup truck, based upon the length of the wheelbase (more than 115 inches for pickup trucks and more than 124 inches for vans). Note: some pickup trucks and cargo vans exceeding these thresholds are treated as category 3 trucks instead of category 2 trucks.
http://www.cars.gov/faq#category-17
This morning my dealer told me some one will be contacting me to set up an appointment with the financial dept. to finish the paperwork, but that I will not be able to get a credit from them until they get approved, which could be up to 10 days!
Some people seem to be getting the credit on the spot! Is anyone else experiencing these delays??
So once approved, I will have to go back with my clunker and finalize the deal?
One reason I'm being impatient is because MA sales tax goes up 25% on Friday and I would like to save the couple hundred dollars since this all should have been done last week. The dealer says ther are trying as fast as they can but I may not be able to save on the tax if I'm not approved by then.
Does anyone know the rules in MA for this program? Do we have to pay tax on the price before the C4C??
"Category 2 Truck
Large pickup trucks and vans with a GVWR less than or equal to 8,500 lbs. Large pickup trucks are defined as having a wheelbase greater than 115 inches, and large vans are defined as having a wheelbase greater than 124 inches.
Note that the wheelbase used to determine truck category by the CARS program is the shortest wheelbase for a given nameplate (e.g., Ford F-150) and may not correspond to your vehicle's actual wheelbase, especially in the case of trucks with extended cabs."
Really useless and absurd.
Best bet-Dodge ram with rebates or Toyota Tundra without hefty rebates if you want a PU truck.
thanks and congrates on your new Camry.
That's very peculiar. The correct formula should be Combined = 100/(55/CITY+45/HWY). The two methods will give essentially the same result when there is little difference between CITY and HWY but that's not so when the difference is large. How they get 18 mpg for the manual transmission has me baffled as well. Both methods of calculation give 19 mpg.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper