Finding specific information about whether sales tax should be applied before or after the deduction in Georgia is virtually impossible. I would contest it though if I had been charged sales tax before the deduction. I showed our dealer this site, and they were happy:
The CARS Act states that the credit is not income for the consumer, and therefore in my mind should be interpreted as tax free. It shouldn't matter to the dealer as the sales tax is not paid to them, so they do not benefit from it either way. If anyone has a more specific link that would be helpful.
The requirements are simple. Insured and registered for one year.
I did my homework before going to the dealerships. I called my insurance company and had them fax a letter with the effective dates of my policy (insurance cards only showed 6 months). I had my clear Title and my registration papers from this year and last year.
With those four documents, verification at the dealership was no big deal.
I hope your right-I read the Code of Fed Reg 150 pages-as I am a dealer-say half is about how we dispose of the cars-the other, and I am also a lawyer, I assure is not easy.
Here's how to get a pretty good estimate of what a cars salvage value is. Insurance companie scrap cars all the time. The use a figure of 15% -20% of the retail value of the car. For the Clukers Program, if you have a vehicle that has a retail value of $2,000 then you should get approximately $300 less $50 for a net of $250 from your dealer. The dealer does not get to keep the $250. That's called fraud. You can see where the dealer could make a tidy little profit from each car by not refunding the net salvage value to the dealer. Mark my word, the government if going to make an example out of a bunch of them to the tune of a $15,000 per incident. The rest will get honest real quick.
Does anyone know how a dealer will know when the funds for the program have been exhausted? Will transactions just suddenly be rejected when that happens?
Here we are again, letting people buy things that down the line they may not be able to pay for. Like the houses that are back on the market again and now we are doing it again. Who is going bail out the finance companies that back these loans. $4500.00 in nothing when you have a 400 or 500 dollar payment per month. We up are being set for failure again and it seems no one is seeing the same game being ran again, does everyone not remember 2008 and 2009 already the lost of jobs, homes, life savings and families. It's no wonder other countries thinks of us as dummmmmmm americans.
The dealers are working for them selves not you. I am all for the big three getting back on there feet but not if that means more american families are going to be hurt.
Here we are again, letting people buy things that down the line they may not be able to pay for.
How does that follow? There is no indication that people who are unqualified to get a loan will get one nor is the CARS program set up to deal only with people who would borrow to make a purchase. In fact, with a lower cost to the customer, it would seem less likely that the customer would have such problems.
I'm just curious how identical vehicles with the same city and highway mpg's can have different combined mpgs???? My 1988 Toyota 4runner 4cyl 5sp is one of those that changed from 18-19 mpg. It is rated 17 city, 20 highway. All 89-95 4runner with the same drivetrain are also rated 17/20 but they're combined is still 18????? If the government wants to round up to dq vehicles could they atleast do it uniformally????
Duhmmmmmm wel wif us dum fokes, I sur cant beleeve we culd even git oursilves up fer werk evry mnrnin' n wats a rebate? uh.
What the heck do you think the banks have learned about the past? They're not handing out loans like the used to. I sat in the dealership yesterday surrounded by people in their late 30's, early 40's, well dressed, well spoken, all there to arrange deals for the C4C program. You're making people who take advantage of this rebate out to be a bunch of welfare cases and you're so far off base. Jeez, is your house paid for in full? Are you completely debt free? If we've learned from our past, borrowing is good for the banks, good for the people.
The dealership was booming yesterday...good for them. The scrap yard is scrapping...good for them. The car makers are making....good for them. People are trading in gas guzzlers...goood for everyone!
Just checking in to report my clunker experience. After 4.5 hours of paperwork and negotiations, I'm the new owner of a Nissan Sentra 2.0S CVT. My Mid-90s minivan was smoking on the way into the dealership and it probably wouldn't made it back home - so good timing. Paid cash and after rebates and clunker credit came to $10,265 + tax, title etc.Pretty happy with the deal. Any thoughts on how well/bad I did? It was my first time buying a new car and very overwhelming. (The dealer worked 6 Clunkers deals that day)
Wow tidester -- using your formula of combined = 100/(55/city + 44/highway) I actually come out with a lower combined MPG than doing it the other way -- 18.59375 as opposed to 18.8. The manual comes out to 18.936109 instead of 19.25. I feel like I have posted this before! :confuse: I can understand rounding up if it is done the same across the all the vehicles, and I could understand the fact they have gone back and used raw data gathered in tests instead of just rounding off the old sticker numbers, but my city/highway numbers don't reflect that -- just the combined number with no official explanation.
Oh well, maybe I will go try to find a slightly used car to replace the truck -- if I am luck I can find something 3 years old and pay about the same as I would have for a new Kia Soul after the $4500. At least it would have A/C! Florida summer without A/C is harsh!
The logical explanation AFAIC is that the original numbers on the older vehicles were recalculated in a haphazard slapdash manner by either a summer intern or someone not very knowledgeable about math at the EPA.
fueleconomy.gov is an EPA website.
The actual calculations for fuel economy and the ultimate responsibility for the program were given to the NHTSA which is part of the DOT. In fact the DOT knows how to do the calculations properly. It always has.
When the EPA made its downward revisions two years ago it just used a 'deflator factor' to reduced the EPA values on the Maroney labels. I'd be pretty certain that noone thought at that time that anyone would care what the 'revised' EPA numbers on an old mid-90's clunker would be....who cares? Nobody was buying that junk any more. So some low level dweeb was given the task of to simply 'discount all the numbers back to 1984 by 10% and leave it at that....they'll be close enough...and nobody cares anyway...what's the big deal on 1 mpg either way on a 1997 Town Car.'
Ooops. Two years later 1 mpg either way does matter....now the NHTSA gets involved and looks at the numbers and does the calculations properly and voila...pissed off consumers. This happens all the time in large corporations and any large bodies where some understand what's going on, most do not understand what's going on and the grunt work has to be delegated to the less knowledgeable.
In our case we are disclosing to the buyer upfront that if the rules change then we have the right to recind the transaction and return everything to the way it was before the paperwork started.
New vehicle comes back to the lot unsold Trade is returned to the buyer All funds are returned All finance contracts are cancelled.
Start from scratch. The buyer has to agree to this proviso or we will not do the deal.
We should not be concerned about 250 bucks when we are buying a 20k/25k vehicle.The dealer will have his costs when scrapping-minimal but there will be. Again,no point debating every single tax ,fee on the sale form etc.Just negotiate an OTD price including all taxes and fees. I couldn`t care if a 20k car I was buying has 5k as selling price,10k as doc fee,3k as cust satisfaction fee and 2k in taxes as long as the vehicle OTD price we negotiated was 20k and it had an invoice of 18.5k! The dealer is free to fill in the blanks as he wishes as long as the final bottom line is 20k .That`s all that matters. :shades: Just MHO.
That's very peculiar. The correct formula should be Combined = 100/(55/CITY+45/HWY).
That's correct, and it surprised me too. But, it makes sense if you break apart the formula.
Assume we're talking about 100 miles total, with 55 of it being city driving and 45 miles being highway. There's the 100, 55, and 45 numbers from the formula. The 55/CITY is the number of gallons used in city driving, and the 45/HWY is the number of gallons used in highway driving. Add the two together (the denominator) and we get the total gallons of gas consumed. Divide that in into the 100 (the total miles driven) and we get the overall average.
The same sort of thing goes for the "answers" people are getting from whatever random person answers the phone. That person is unlikely to understand the calculation of combined mpg, beyond stating the 55/45 thing that someone told them to say.
I am pretty sure that to get the correct answer you have to start with the precise, unrounded numbers, and then figure out what the mpg would be if one drove 55 miles at the city figure plus 45 miles at the hwy figure and then round off the final answer.
The enclave does qualify as a light truck. The FWD model is 19 combined and the awd is 18 combined so yes it could be a new car that someone trades an older truck or SUV on.
I have a feeling this all started off with some college intern who didn't understand the importance of significant digits and not rounding off till the very end of the calculation.
Dealers with big stores and big investments are being ultra cautious about how the program works. Also these $3500 and $4500 discounts are a lot of money that large stores have to carry, interest-free, until they get paid by the Feds. It's not surprising that certain stores are taking a more cautious stance and doing nothing until everything is clear.
The ones that feel that they had to jump-the-gun in order to win more buyers..well more power to them. Hope it all works out well.
We should not be concerned about 250 bucks when we are buying a 20k/25k vehicle. The dealer will have his costs when scrapping-minimal but there will be.
I agree. Folks should be elated to get $35-4500 for their clunkers.
Most dealers want nothing to do with the disabled clunkers. They will simply call the government approved salvage yard and accept whatever they offer. To the dealer, that is the salvage value. In some parts of the country, salvage yards actually charge to tow that non-running junker off their lot.
But I guess its only natural for some to fight a never ending battle to squeeze every penny out of any transaction. And then whine because they still think they got taken.
And any dealer that abuses the program deserves whatever penalty the government imposes.
I already finished my deal 10 days ago. The Hyundai dealer did indeed charge the 8.75% sales tax on the $4,500 rebate. I was wondering if they did it right? How do I find out? If they did it wrong that is a $400 difference. Any help is appreciated, thanks
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 has to do with the fact that the auto industry wrote the legislation in order to boost its own sales. Viewed in this light you can guess who wrote in such a low threshhold for those potential buyers wanting to trade a truck for a truck.
How many times have I stated this basic premise behind the program. One more time...
The legislation was created and written by the auto industry itself. Their politicans in DC simply legalized it. This minimal improvement in large trucks was written into the bill by GM, Ford and Chrysler. Hellooo.
How can this be a surprise. When I first saw the rules it was perfectly obvious. Understand the rules and you understand who were the rule-makers.
Give me a break.. The American solution to everything....sue somebody.
Class action suit about what? The fact that you personally don't understand the program and its genesis has nothing that makes it liable for litigation. It simply means that you personally haven't made yourself aware of the whys and wherefores.
As it stands now the program is slated to end on November 1, 2009 or when funds are exhausted, whichever occurs first. There are 250,000 vouchers that are to be issued. If you divide 250,000 by 50 states that's 5,000 vouchers per state. Here in Florida we have 67 counties. Divide that 5,000 vouchers by 67 and you get an average of 74 vouchers (cars) per county. I know of one Toyota dealer who sold ten cars under the Clunker Program the first day. I would venture to say that this program will run out of funds by th end of August or very shortly thereafter. It could be before and it will be sudden death. If you want in under the current allotment you need to move sooner rather than later.
There is a possibility that new funds could be allotted for the program, but given the fire that the Obama administration has come under for the program it could go either way.
Be sure to request, or should I say demand, your net salvage value form your dealer. Don't let them pocket YOUR money. Remember, we're dealing with auto dealers here and not the local preacher.
The dealership was booming yesterday...good for them. The scrap yard is scrapping...good for them. The car makers are making....good for them. People are trading in gas guzzlers...goood for everyone!
Thank you and well put.
For all the worrywarts, nay-sayers and generally negative people....the program will do exactly what it's intended to do.
Stimulate business across a wide range of sectors of the economy, large and small. Replace older less fuel efficient vehicles with newer, safer, more fuel efficient vehicles. Improve our national security situation by having as many as 1 million drivers using less fuel than before.
We did our CFC deal on last Saturday. Then on Sunday, the government changed the mileage of our clunker so that it no longer qualifies. Well my wife just received a call from the sales manager saying that our clunker doesn't qualify anymore, and that we could either pay the extra $4500 or return the new car (and get our old car back). On Saturday, I signed a document saying "I would provide additional documentation needed to complete the CARS purchase", but there is nothing saying I am responsible for the $4500 if it doesn't go through. Do I have any obligation here? Or is it all on the dealer? I'm going to do some more research, but thought I would ask here as well. Thanks!
The truck we are trading in tags renew on 7/31/09 (we have already renewed them for next year) but last year we were 8 days late renewing (we renewed on 8/08/08 instead of 7/31/08). I have read about a few people saying they were turned down for the program because of a clause saying "1 year continuously registered", and that a lapse of a few days like ours caused them to be turned down. As nutty as it sounds, am I reading this correctly in that we can't get our car until 8/08/09 because that would technically be ONE year of continuous registration? True, it would only make a few days difference in our getting our car.....BUT I admit to not being very patient and wanting it as sooner
I too purchased a car in GA under the program and was not charged the tax on the $4,500. The $4,500 was listed as a 'trade' and not a credit (additional money down per the voucher). The GA tax boys are going to wake up to this and come back to the dealer and HE is going to be responsible for the tax, not the buyer as it is a done deal for the buyer. Per GA law , if you trade in your vehicle then the amount of the trade is not taxable, but in this case you are selling sell your car to the government, or some individual first, for $4,500 first and get a voucher that can be used at the dealer for additional money down, this is not a trade. The state tax boys are not stupid and when they catch on to a potential tax loss of about $100+ per car all hell will break loose.
About how the customer has to sign a document stating "if the deal does not go through, the dealer can rescind the deal and get the new car back"? My document says "I also acknowledge that I may be required to fill out extra paperwork to fufill this purchase with the CARS program a later date." I don't see anything in this document about un-doing the deal if the clunker doesn't qualify.
If the vehicle comes back with 1000 miles it is no longer a new vehicle. Myself I would NEVER sign a contract like that. However, as flaky as our government is, I can see your side of the deal also. I think there are going to be surprised dealers when the check was supposed to be in the mail. Ask any doctor that deals with Medicare how long it takes to get paid.
Suburbans, Blazers. Bronkos etc are Special Purpose Vehicles. You can't replace them with like vehicles. I've come to the conclusion that I'm going to purchase a used truck. If I wait about a year there are going to be a bunch of repo's from people who over extended. Then I'll give my burb to a charity, Can I claim that it is worth a $4500 deduction? That is what it's worth now!
I believe it is you that is asleep at the wheel here. You have obviously not been following the thread. If you had you would have left your nasty remarks in the delete file.
Maybe in your infinite wisdom you can explain why one vehicle getting 17 MPG can be traded for another that gets 15 MPG? And another from a different maker with the same mileage cannot.
Sadly, I am guessing that legally, the language means the same thing. It sure would have been clearer if that had been stated in plain language, though (and of course if the gov't hadn't changed the calculations...).
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
IMHO, this is meant for people driving old 90's SUVs that simply do not need such a vehicle, and can trade in for a better MPG car.
Local dealer has a bunch of old S-10 Blazers and Explorers taken in for CARS. Many middle class buyers need to dump them and get realistic.
Now don't start the 'some need to tow, blah, blah blah. 90% of them were just bought for their 'outdoorsy' looks and style so popular in the go-go 90s. And a trip to Eddie Bauer outlet store is the most 'off road' they get.
Also, if need AWD for snow, there are many new crossovers that get better MPG.
Let me preface this by saying I do not have anything that resembles a legal background. However, all legal documents I have signed in the past (house, cars, anything financial) are very specific about the terms of the contract. I wouldn't think you can assume anything not explicitly written in a legal contract. But again, I am no lawyer. :confuse:
Sure you can. In fact, the more general the language, the more it can encompass.
You signed stating that you may be required to fill out more paperwork to fulfill the CARS program requirements. Well, part of that paperwork may entail producing evidence or signing a document that verifies your vehicle's eligibility for the program.
I don't know for sure; I'm just speculating here. Hoping we get more info on what's happening with the deals made prior to the official start date.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
In our case we are disclosing to the buyer upfront that if the rules change then we have the right to recind the transaction and return everything to the way it was before the paperwork started.
New vehicle comes back to the lot unsold Trade is returned to the buyer All funds are returned All finance contracts are cancelled.
This is the same approach taken by a dealer I know of. The hit to the dealer is the mileage on the returned "new" car, but that is likely to be less than $3,500 or $4,500.
Some dealers also ask customers for a "hostage" check ($3,500 or $4,500). The check is destroyed or returned if the government pays; otherwise, it is cashed by the dealer if the customer does return to undo the transaction.
I have a friend in a similar position. He clunkered his Car and the dealer accepted - now he finds out that his registration expired July 15 2009 and he didn't renew until July 22. 1 week without being registered in 7 years of continous ownership/registration/insurance. He's now trying to work out if the trade in can be valued as early July, since the program technically started July 1. Wondering how that's going to work out.
IMHO, this is meant for people driving old 90's SUVs that simply do not need such a vehicle, and can trade in for a better MPG car.
I traded in my 1994 Chrysler minivan, because we no longer need it to transport our 3 kids to soccer games and band practices. While I was at the dealer, another traded in an '80's Mercedes .Our dealer said many traded in minivans and bigger sedans. So your opinion is just that. And a lot of people traded in older cars for the safety features, besides gas mileage, of the new models
In VA the 'new' vehicle limit is something under 10000 miles. We normally park demo's at about 5000 miles, they're still new by law. Each state's laws are different.
Have you read my posts? I am not able to replace my Suburban with anything that resembles a more economical car. In fact, I can's replace my Suburban with any other SUV except another Suburban with the LARGEST motor they make according to the rules of this program. I can't even get a smaller motor. Is this exactly what this program is intended to do? If it is intended to "Replace older less fuel efficient vehicles with newer, safer, more fuel efficient vehicles." then it doesn't do that for my situation. I think there are some real problems with the way this program was implemented and that the people who have valid issues with it should not be dismissed in the manner you did in your post.
When we bought our new car and traded our 1996 Jeep Grand Cherokee we were laughing hysterically because there was a row of about 8 identical Jeeps waiting to go to clinker heaven. I guess babyboomers who bought SUV's in the 90's because they were cool now looking for better mpgs. Yes, just my experience blah blah blah......
Not at all. I tried the CARs.gov site and large 5.7L Tundra does not qualify for a rebate either as a gas-only truck or as an FFV....even against the least fuel efficient 92 1500 Chevy.
The 4.3L V6, 5M, C1500 might qualify for a $3500 rebate vs the 2009 Silverado C15 XFE, 5.3L V8 6AT, the most fuel efficient vehicle in that class at 16 mpg vs 17 mpg.
I stand by my statement. It appears that a) use of the CARS site was done incorrectly or b) the criteria changed from the time you used it to today, which is also possible.
Comments
link title
The CARS Act states that the credit is not income for the consumer, and therefore in my mind should be interpreted as tax free. It shouldn't matter to the dealer as the sales tax is not paid to them, so they do not benefit from it either way. If anyone has a more specific link that would be helpful.
I did my homework before going to the dealerships. I called my insurance company and had them fax a letter with the effective dates of my policy (insurance cards only showed 6 months).
I had my clear Title and my registration papers from this year and last year.
With those four documents, verification at the dealership was no big deal.
How does that follow? There is no indication that people who are unqualified to get a loan will get one nor is the CARS program set up to deal only with people who would borrow to make a purchase. In fact, with a lower cost to the customer, it would seem less likely that the customer would have such problems.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
What the heck do you think the banks have learned about the past? They're not handing out loans like the used to. I sat in the dealership yesterday surrounded by people in their late 30's, early 40's, well dressed, well spoken, all there to arrange deals for the C4C program. You're making people who take advantage of this rebate out to be a bunch of welfare cases and you're so far off base. Jeez, is your house paid for in full? Are you completely debt free? If we've learned from our past, borrowing is good for the banks, good for the people.
The dealership was booming yesterday...good for them. The scrap yard is scrapping...good for them. The car makers are making....good for them. People are trading in gas guzzlers...goood for everyone!
After 4.5 hours of paperwork and negotiations, I'm the new owner of a Nissan Sentra 2.0S CVT. My Mid-90s minivan was smoking on the way into the dealership and it probably wouldn't made it back home - so good timing.
Paid cash and after rebates and clunker credit came to $10,265 + tax, title etc.Pretty happy with the deal.
Any thoughts on how well/bad I did?
It was my first time buying a new car and very overwhelming.
(The dealer worked 6 Clunkers deals that day)
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-07-27-cash-for-clunkers-list-changes_N.- htm
I feel like I have posted this before! :confuse:
I can understand rounding up if it is done the same across the all the vehicles, and I could understand the fact they have gone back and used raw data gathered in tests instead of just rounding off the old sticker numbers, but my city/highway numbers don't reflect that -- just the combined number with no official explanation.
Oh well, maybe I will go try to find a slightly used car to replace the truck -- if I am luck I can find something 3 years old and pay about the same as I would have for a new Kia Soul after the $4500. At least it would have A/C! Florida summer without A/C is harsh!
fueleconomy.gov is an EPA website.
The actual calculations for fuel economy and the ultimate responsibility for the program were given to the NHTSA which is part of the DOT. In fact the DOT knows how to do the calculations properly. It always has.
When the EPA made its downward revisions two years ago it just used a 'deflator factor' to reduced the EPA values on the Maroney labels. I'd be pretty certain that noone thought at that time that anyone would care what the 'revised' EPA numbers on an old mid-90's clunker would be....who cares? Nobody was buying that junk any more. So some low level dweeb was given the task of to simply 'discount all the numbers back to 1984 by 10% and leave it at that....they'll be close enough...and nobody cares anyway...what's the big deal on 1 mpg either way on a 1997 Town Car.'
Ooops. Two years later 1 mpg either way does matter....now the NHTSA gets involved and looks at the numbers and does the calculations properly and voila...pissed off consumers. This happens all the time in large corporations and any large bodies where some understand what's going on, most do not understand what's going on and the grunt work has to be delegated to the less knowledgeable.
New vehicle comes back to the lot unsold
Trade is returned to the buyer
All funds are returned
All finance contracts are cancelled.
Start from scratch. The buyer has to agree to this proviso or we will not do the deal.
Again,no point debating every single tax ,fee on the sale form etc.Just negotiate an OTD price including all taxes and fees.
I couldn`t care if a 20k car I was buying has 5k as selling price,10k as doc fee,3k as cust satisfaction fee and 2k in taxes as long as the vehicle OTD price we negotiated was 20k and it had an invoice of 18.5k!
The dealer is free to fill in the blanks as he wishes as long as the final bottom line is 20k .That`s all that matters. :shades:
Just MHO.
That's correct, and it surprised me too. But, it makes sense if you break apart the formula.
Assume we're talking about 100 miles total, with 55 of it being city driving and 45 miles being highway. There's the 100, 55, and 45 numbers from the formula. The 55/CITY is the number of gallons used in city driving, and the 45/HWY is the number of gallons used in highway driving. Add the two together (the denominator) and we get the total gallons of gas consumed. Divide that in into the 100 (the total miles driven) and we get the overall average.
The same sort of thing goes for the "answers" people are getting from whatever random person answers the phone. That person is unlikely to understand the calculation of combined mpg, beyond stating the 55/45 thing that someone told them to say.
I am pretty sure that to get the correct answer you have to start with the precise, unrounded numbers, and then figure out what the mpg would be if one drove 55 miles at the city figure plus 45 miles at the hwy figure and then round off the final answer.
The ones that feel that they had to jump-the-gun in order to win more buyers..well more power to them. Hope it all works out well.
I agree. Folks should be elated to get $35-4500 for their clunkers.
Most dealers want nothing to do with the disabled clunkers. They will simply call the government approved salvage yard and accept whatever they offer. To the dealer, that is the salvage value. In some parts of the country, salvage yards actually charge to tow that non-running junker off their lot.
But I guess its only natural for some to fight a never ending battle to squeeze every penny out of any transaction. And then whine because they still think they got taken.
And any dealer that abuses the program deserves whatever penalty the government imposes.
That has to do with the fact that the auto industry wrote the legislation in order to boost its own sales. Viewed in this light you can guess who wrote in such a low threshhold for those potential buyers wanting to trade a truck for a truck.
How many times have I stated this basic premise behind the program. One more time...
The legislation was created and written by the auto industry itself. Their politicans in DC simply legalized it. This minimal improvement in large trucks was written into the bill by GM, Ford and Chrysler. Hellooo.
How can this be a surprise. When I first saw the rules it was perfectly obvious. Understand the rules and you understand who were the rule-makers.
Class action suit about what? The fact that you personally don't understand the program and its genesis has nothing that makes it liable for litigation. It simply means that you personally haven't made yourself aware of the whys and wherefores.
Read more and sue less.
There is a possibility that new funds could be allotted for the program, but given the fire that the Obama administration has come under for the program it could go either way.
Be sure to request, or should I say demand, your net salvage value form your dealer. Don't let them pocket YOUR money. Remember, we're dealing with auto dealers here and not the local preacher.
Thank you and well put.
For all the worrywarts, nay-sayers and generally negative people....the program will do exactly what it's intended to do.
Stimulate business across a wide range of sectors of the economy, large and small.
Replace older less fuel efficient vehicles with newer, safer, more fuel efficient vehicles.
Improve our national security situation by having as many as 1 million drivers using less fuel than before.
If the vehicle comes back with 1000 miles it is no longer a new vehicle. Myself I would NEVER sign a contract like that. However, as flaky as our government is, I can see your side of the deal also. I think there are going to be surprised dealers when the check was supposed to be in the mail. Ask any doctor that deals with Medicare how long it takes to get paid.
I've come to the conclusion that I'm going to purchase a used truck. If I wait about a year there are going to be a bunch of repo's from people who over extended.
Then I'll give my burb to a charity,
Can I claim that it is worth a $4500 deduction? That is what it's worth now!
I believe it is you that is asleep at the wheel here. You have obviously not been following the thread. If you had you would have left your nasty remarks in the delete file.
Maybe in your infinite wisdom you can explain why one vehicle getting 17 MPG can be traded for another that gets 15 MPG? And another from a different maker with the same mileage cannot.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Local dealer has a bunch of old S-10 Blazers and Explorers taken in for CARS. Many middle class buyers need to dump them and get realistic.
Now don't start the 'some need to tow, blah, blah blah. 90% of them were just bought for their 'outdoorsy' looks and style so popular in the go-go 90s. And a trip to Eddie Bauer outlet store is the most 'off road' they get.
Also, if need AWD for snow, there are many new crossovers that get better MPG.
You signed stating that you may be required to fill out more paperwork to fulfill the CARS program requirements. Well, part of that paperwork may entail producing evidence or signing a document that verifies your vehicle's eligibility for the program.
I don't know for sure; I'm just speculating here. Hoping we get more info on what's happening with the deals made prior to the official start date.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
New vehicle comes back to the lot unsold
Trade is returned to the buyer
All funds are returned
All finance contracts are cancelled.
This is the same approach taken by a dealer I know of. The hit to the dealer is the mileage on the returned "new" car, but that is likely to be less than $3,500 or $4,500.
Some dealers also ask customers for a "hostage" check ($3,500 or $4,500). The check is destroyed or returned if the government pays; otherwise, it is cashed by the dealer if the customer does return to undo the transaction.
He clunkered his Car and the dealer accepted - now he finds out that his registration expired July 15 2009 and he didn't renew until July 22. 1 week without being registered in 7 years of continous ownership/registration/insurance.
He's now trying to work out if the trade in can be valued as early July, since the program technically started July 1.
Wondering how that's going to work out.
I traded in my 1994 Chrysler minivan, because we no longer need it to transport our 3 kids to soccer games and band practices. While I was at the dealer, another traded in an '80's Mercedes .Our dealer said many traded in minivans and bigger sedans. So your opinion is just that. And a lot of people traded in older cars for the safety features, besides gas mileage, of the new models
The 4.3L V6, 5M, C1500 might qualify for a $3500 rebate vs the 2009 Silverado C15 XFE, 5.3L V8 6AT, the most fuel efficient vehicle in that class at 16 mpg vs 17 mpg.
I stand by my statement. It appears that a) use of the CARS site was done incorrectly or b) the criteria changed from the time you used it to today, which is also possible.
The dealer I went to yesterday (4/27) could not access the system.