Cash for Clunkers - Does it Work for You?

ateixeira

Would your Ford dealer put a used Ford on a Toyota lot first in line for a recall fix?

A car on the lot isn't being driven and should not be given priority just because it's an auto dealer.

joel0622

Thank you, my point exactly, hence the reason that we are not real excited about trading for cars we have no idea when we will be able to sell. Wow this conversation went full circle.

ateixeira

Guess so!

That could be the primary reason trade-in values for Toyotas will drop.

Same thing happened a while back with Explorers. Any of them sitting on a Toyota dealer's used lot with Firestone tires wasn't exactly an easy sell.

And I see other parallels, too. People say the Toyota recall goes beyond the CTS pedals because models without CTS pedals are also affected. Well, Explorers with Michelin tires in other countries were also affected, too.

It just sucks for everyone involved. Owners, Dealers, Manufacturers, and especially suppliers (who take the brunt of the blame).

Karen_S

A reporter is looking to interview participants in the Cash for Clunkers program one year later. Please drop a note to jfallon@edmunds.com no later than Friday, August 20, 2010 if you care to be interviewed about your experience.

disneygirlwv7

I would love to share my horrible experience with cash for clunkers....but at least I won in the end!!

isellhondas

I won't share my opinion of the Cash for Clunkers program but it was a time like I had never before seen.

We did sell quite a few cars because of C4C but a lot of it sure wasn't much fun.

It brought out the worst in some people. People whined because their cars didn't qualify and they tried pulling every trick to convince us that they did. Some people complained bitterly because thier cars qualified for the lower amount.

It was amusing when some people stripped every removable item off of their clunker even when those items had little or no value.

They would grind every last nickle out of a new car deal saying they had no trade in only to spring a clunker at the end.

And getting re-imbursed from the government was a nightmare.

We were glad when it ended!

So, Mr. Obama, what's next?

ateixeira

I don't think anything else will be needed, unless we get a double-dip recession. Most automakers have returned to profitability.

deltheking

The next is Mr.Obama losing the next elections. Would be good for the nation !!! No more clunker strategies or auto bailouts !! :P

isellhondas

One can only hope.

Sandman6472

Personally, I like the guy...and so does my portfolio! But enough of this political nonsense...this is not the forum for it! Seems to me alot of new cars were sold with the C4C program...correct? So y'all had to deal with some horrible folks...but it's the nature of car selling I'd expect...so why [non-permissible content removed] about it this far out? Will never understand that...if the business is so bad, look for another profession. Sad to have a job that doesn't seem to make ya happy...guess I'm luckier than most in that respect!

The Sandman :sick: :shades:

isellhondas

I just happen to stumble in here and I'm sorry if you're offended.

As with all jobs, there are the good and the bad things. When the bad starts to outweigh the good, it's time to move on and I did!

Sandman6472

Just not necessary to the discussion! And I'm glad you went when the fun was gone...smart move!

The Sandman :sick: :shades:

ateixeira

You gonna change your handle to "idontsellhondas"?

isellhondas

How about "isoldhondas"?

But I would lose my seniority here along with my vesting, four weeks vaction and my sweet 401K plan.

Think I'll leave it alone!

ateixeira

I understand, I tried to change my handle and they told me the same thing!

fezo

What? You get four weeks vacation and a 401K? I thought you had to date back to 1997 for that...

michaellno

What? You get four weeks vacation and a 401K? I thought you had to date back to 1997 for that...

Craig has been around since '97, as have I, though the value of my Edmunds' funded 401(k), like everything else, has dropped significantly the past year or two.

Plus, the mop 'n' glo overhead on the 401(k) has eaten away at any gains I may have had.

fezo

Oh, I know Craig - and you - have been around that long. Was questioning ateixeira, but he's been around a good long time as well.

How strange. My Edmunds funded 401K hasn't varied at all in all those years....

ateixeira

Yep, since the late 90s also, right after purchasing a 1998 Forester.

fezo

I thought you went that far back. We just weren't in the same topics much earlier.

ateixeira

Yeah, I recognize your handle from way back when, too.

At first I focused on the Subaru threads, to get the Subaru Crew established. After a while I branched out a bit.

isellhondas

Funny you would say that. Same here. The value of my Edmunds 401K is exactly the same as it was when I started it.

How can that be? :confuse:

fezo

It's a mystery to me. Must be an accounting error.

Juice - yeah, the Subaru Crew is where I remember you from!

Sandman6472

I, myself, am getting an Edmunds pension, though I probably should've gone for the 401K plan instead. No matching funds but liked the idea of the same amount each month with provisions for the spouse. With my own Roth Ira, things should be fine!
Think I've been here since the late '90's...seem to remember some kind of glitch so most have a 2001 date.

The Sandman :sick: :shades:

isellhondas

Your profile says 2005 but I remember at least one sandman from way back. Are there more than one "sandman"?

I think I started here in 1996 when the forums were newly established.

A lot of people have come and gone since then.

Sandman6472

That was me...had a problem with my login back in '05 so had to start a new profile. Once my kids showed me to operate a computer & surf on the internet, I found Edmunds & was hooked. Now, I'm here on a daily basis & love the forums. Lots of friendly folks with great advice & stories...much like a family but we only know each other by what we post...good or bad! Seriously, this is my favorite website on the web.

The Sandman :sick: :shades:

isellhondas

OK, I didn't think there were 6472 different sandmen.

Sandman6472

Only me & my son here.

The Sandman :sick: :shades:

euphonium

"Cash for Clunkers" took a lot of his stickers off the road so when I see an Obama placard today it is recognized the driver is taking responsibility for his mistake.

Sandman6472

And reducing emissions while increasing mileage so we can be less dependent on foreign oil...a good thing for America! So we all win!!!

The Sandman :sick: :shades:

rabelleville

This will make your hair stand on end. On August 11, 2009, I went to a local Mercury dealership, L&B Lincoln Mercury in Babylon, NY, to inquire about trading my car in for a better gas mileage SUV. I gave them all required paperwork - insurance card, registration, title, etc. The sales person informed me the car I was trading in - a 1995 Mercury Cougar - qualified for $4,500 under the CARS program. After hagling for a better price, I was told that they were not going lower since they were giving me $4,500 from the Government and 0% interest on the remainder of the loan. I told them the $4,500 had nothing to do with negotiating a better price, but they weren't budging. That should have been a sign for me to leave right there, but I figured I should take the $4,500 and be happy.

On August 14, 2009, I went to pick up my car, but they needed my registration, insurance, etc. and wanted to verify AGAIN that my car qualified for the CARS program. I was told AGAIN it was. After going over all the paperwork, I was reading the Bill of Sale and noticed it said - Dealer Install - $350. I asked what this was and they pointed out on the left side of the BoS that it was for the Tow Hitch. I was ticked that they charged me for it after they said they would throw it in. Mistake number 2.

After signing the BoS, I was just about to get my copy and leave when a guy came out of the dealership and said there was a typ-o on the Bill of Sale. I looked at the price (didn't change), my name and they type of car I was buying. I signed it and left.

Here's where the story really gets interesting. In April of 2010, I received a call from the dealership in which they said that the car was denied by the federal government and that I owed them the $4,500. I went to the Better Business Bureau (who responded), Department of Consumer Affairs (who also responded), my legislator (who responded), Senator Schumer (who has yet to respond), Congressman Bishop (who has yet to respond), and my states Attorney General's Office (who also has yet to respond).

Apparently, what L&B did was the old bait and switch. When the guy came out stating there was a typ-o, they removed where they mentioned the tow hitch and put a clause in there that states (yes, there is a typ-o in what they wrote) - Dealer Installed: BUYER SHALL INDEMNIFY DEARERSHIP FOR ANY DEFICIENCY FINANCIAL OR OTHERWISE PERTAINING TO THE FEDERAL CARS ACT.

This was never explained to me. Thus, they took me to small claims court demanding the $4,500. I stated my case and even pointed out to the judge that L&B's representative, Ira Bernstein, showed a document they submitted to the federal government clearly showing my car DID NOT qualify. Thus, they new it did not qualify and wanted to move inventory. The arbitrator stated to L&B "do you think you deserve everything? What about the trade in value of the car?" The arbitrator also mentioned that I should pursue Federal Appeals Court. That indicated that I would lose. Lose I did. Not only did the arbitrator grant the whole $4,500, plus the destruction value of my car, they also mention interest! Interest? There was no interest rate associated with the decision.

I am now going to an attorney to find out what I can do. In my opinion, this is FRAUD!

mikefm58

I don't see what the issue is. They told you it qualified, you signed the BofS with the "typ-o" to reimburse them if it doesn't, you didn't qualify. With what the paper work says, you lose.

I'm curious to see what an attorney can do, keep us informed.

kernick

Of course they knew that a small Mercury Cougar - whether it was the 4 or 6 cyl. wasn't going to qualify when you go to an SUV. You should have been able to look that up yourself also, if this is a true story.

Anyway here's my advice to you next time, or anyone in the future - if someone pulls some sort of fraud - even a "legal" one like this on you, don't try and get justice from the legal system. At this point you need to decide whether you get Soprano-like with the guy. Explain to him that your vehicle has been surging, and is dangerous, and you'll bring it down to see if he can check it out ...

jeffyscott

1995 Cougar was not small and had a V8 available, rated at 18 mpg according to fueleconomy.gov

Cougar was not small (again) until 1999.

kernick

Good catch. I thought they stopped making that model and the T-Birds at the end of the 80's. I guess I never saw many to know they still made them into the mid-90's.

Anyway the dealership made the promise, it that the Clunker deal was good, and then slipped in the clause at the last minute, without telling the customer what they had changed. Sleazy legal fraud still occurred.

mikefm58

Sleazy legal fraud still occurred

Tell me how what happened rises to the level of "sleazy legal fraud"? All we've heard is one side of the story, but you've immediately jumped down the dealer's throat saying they committed sleazy legal fraud without hearing both sides.

deltheking

I think there is more to this story. He bought the car in Aug '09 and they called him in April '10. Doesn`t add up . Something looks fishy here. And not common for new car dealers to go through all of that and also taking him to small claims court. Not that new car dealer is not there, but this story doesn`t add up or more details were left out. I hope the OP responds back . :confuse:

kernick

you've immediately jumped down the dealer's throat saying they committed sleazy legal fraud without hearing both sides.

This isn't a court-of-law, and I guess we wouldn't hear both sides of the story. Even if the dealer came here and gave their side of the story, we couldn't confirm the poster was really the dealer, right? So as I said in Post #2721 - "if true", I'll go with the poster's story, and comment on it. This could be fact or fiction - like a lot on the web.

ateixeira

I'll go with the poster's story, and comment on it. This could be fact or fiction - like a lot on the web.

The OP has just one post, and hit-and-run style posting is typical of a troll. I'm leaning towards fiction.

obyone

I'm leaning towards fiction.

Either way it's OLD news.

fezo

Old news? You think so?

Meanwhile I hear Coolidge may run for president.....

gagrice

berri

Let's not go C4C again. The market still has distortions from the last one. Only the dealers made out while the taxpayers got hosed.

euphonium

January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

At the time:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

What in the name of Reason & Common Sense happened since?

ateixeira

January 3rd, 2007 we were sitting on this GIGANTIC housing bubble created by massive de-regulation and risk-taking...

...then it blew.

berri

I don't think George W was as bad as many felt. However, I wouldn't go too easy on him. Remember, it was actually his Treasury Secretary Paulson who started the bank and auto bailouts. All of the war under him has hurt the economy as well. Prolonged warfare generally harms an economy over time despite an often initial short term economic spike. As for the argument which party does economics better, I'm not sure a lot of it isn't just timing and circumstances. I suppose people can say Roosevelt bailed out Hoover, or Reagan bailed out Carter who may have been the victim of Nixonomics. Clinton ran a pretty good economy after the first Bush who may have been a victim of some of Reagonomics. Bottom line - I personally don't think partisan politics has as much to do with it as economic cycles inherent to capitalism. There will always be periods of excess and periods of reconciliation. That's just the way capitalism functions. But don't interpret this as support for all of the deficit spending and government stimulus going on. Sometimes all the money in the world will still end up trying to piss upstream.

Sandman6472

For g-ds sake, please leave the political implications out of Edmunds...we all have our own opinions on this stuff so let's not pollute a very fun site with all this political nonsense. Nothing good ever comes from it!!

The "Independent" Sandman :sick: :shades:

fezo

Thanks, Sandman. I second the motion.

tidester

Me three!

tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper

lemko

Well, Paulson didn't save Lehman Brothers.