Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
i can understand why dealers would want to keep all of it to offset administrative hassle and don't necessarily blame them. but if it's up to the dealer whether any of it is even negotiable why is there a line in the rules stating that the dealer must disclose the scrap value and is "permitted" to retain $50? confusing.
Wow!
The dealer told me to stop by on Monday.
BTW, what number do you put down on the estimated scrap value line?
However, there is something wrong with the EPA's math...
The Automatic version of the T-100 is listed as getting 17 city and 21 highway. Using the EPA calculations of 45% highway and 55% city this comes out to 18.8 MPG. Okay, I understand rounding up, and I guess I could accept that if it were not for this little mathematical quandary...
The Manual transmission of the same engine of the T-100 is listed at 17 city and 22 highway and the combined MPG as being 18. If you do the math the combined MPG actually comes out to 19.25. How exactly does 19.25 ROUND DOWN to 18?!?!?!?!?!?
Is this some kind of New Math? Is there some other factor that determines the combined MPG that I am missing out on? I don’t know, but I am calling the number on the Fuel economy website and the CARS website tomorrow and will keep calling and emailing until I get an answer.
Apparently! Let us know what they tell you.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
automatic: 22/29, 24 combined
manual: 21/30, 24 combined
On the surface, those both look the same. However, for estimated fuel usage, they have the automatic listed at $857 and the stick shift at $900. So that's an indication right there that the stick uses a bit more fuel. So my guess is that, due to rounding, the automatic's combined mpg might have come in at, say, 24.4 combined, while the stick might have come in at 23.5 combined. Both would round to 24.
Not even looking at the combined figure, the 1 mpg less in the city cycle is going to ding your average more than the 1 mpg more on the highway would help it.
Somehow, when the raw numbers were rounded down for the window stickers, the discrepancy reversed itself, showing the stick as more efficient. The window stickers were 19/23 for both, but this time, the combined showed as 20 for the automatic and 19 for the stick.
And it looks like that discrepancy is carrying over even worse with this new set of "double dumbed down" numbers. The EPA needs to work on that and get their story straight...especially since their own raw data shows that the automatic is slightly more efficient.
Where do you find those numbers for estimated fuel usage cost? The only cost for fuel usage I see when I pull up fueleconomy.gov is $1925 for the Manual and $2035 for the Automatic. Are they trying to say that the automatic costs more for a year, but gets better gas mileage? Does anyone know hoe the Carbon Footprint is determined? Does that play a factor in calculating the combined MPG, or does the combined MPG determine the Carbon Footprint?
I am prepared to fight tooth and nail about this, but I am one of those girls who likes to have all of her information before making a complete jerk out of herself.
Thanks for all of your help
example with 17/22
550 miles @ 17 mpg = 32.35 gallons used
450 miles @ 2 mpg = 20.45 gallons used
add the total gallons used in 1000 combined miles = 52.8 gallons
1000 miles/52.8 gallons = 18.9 mpg
(EPA probably uses more precise numbers, so 17 could probably really anything from 16.51 to 17.49 mpg)
BTW, I'm not sure, but I think my 1997 Windstar had been listed at 18 and now is 17.
As for the carbon footprint, they probably just take some sort of formula, like how many pounds of potential pollutants are in a gallon of gasoline, multiplied by gallons used by a "typical" year of driving (their example of 15K miles per year, with 55% city, 45% highway)
I was using the much simpler mathematical equation of City x 55% + Highway x 45% = Combined MPG
Your equation actually determines the combined MPG for my automatic to be 18.59375 instead of the 18.8 I was getting.
AHHH... The Mystical Math continues!
I'm expecting a bunch of news stories next week about people whose cars went from qualifying to non-qualifying on Friday. I really see no reason for information that's been out there for years to change overnight, and I suspect that some (albeit painful, time-consuming, and frustrating) protests may result in some reversals -- especially if people can produce printed evidence of the numbers that were posted before Friday.
So sorry Mr. Toyota dealer. We just handed out the last of the money allocated. You are on the hook for the $4500. As the word gets around the money is all gone the dealerships will go back to morgue status.
We aretaking the per pound price for scrap X the vehichle weight.
Before you all start saying that the car is worth more then that remember the first thing we do is ruin the engine.
We are yet to do one that is even close to being worth anything, all of them have been junk
We have done about 15 of them and 14 have been cash deals no lien holder.
That's not surprising. I figure I could sell my potential clunker for $2000-2500, so getting an extra $1000 is not enough of a bonus to make this worthwhile in our particular situation, an extra $2000 makes it a little more tempting. But if it was a craptacular pile that was worth $500 and I was going to get a $4000 bonus, I'd be pretty sure to jump in.
Interesting that the one report is mostly cash deals, sounds like the non-typical buyers (people like me, who buy for cash and then go away for 10-12 years) are the ones going for this.
My dealer said that he has 15 C4C presold cars. I was at the office Friday morning closing my deal, and all the other people I met, 2 other buyers, are paying cash.
We have done about 15 of them and 14 have been cash deals no lien holder.
I think the first wave of buyers will be educated, frugal, wealthy mid-class buyers. They are well informed and cash-ready (and *document-ready*) once it is finalized. Most cars they buy are not that expensive (most bang for the buck kind of frugal cars).
You will probably get less cash-deals as time goes on (e.g., the second wave and beyond).
BTW, are dealers well informed about the program now?
I heard that once a deal is done, the dealers (not the buyers) will be to blame if the deal fails to clear the government checks.
Spider you are taking this to close to home. what Volvo is saying is that the "majority" of people who have these vehicles may ..... actually I am saying what I believe, don't really remember where Volvo was going with it....
The "majority" of people who have these vehicles would have gotten out of them last year when gas was over $4 a gallon... The people that couldn't / didn't (profiling here don't take offense) couldn't for some reason or another.... You are obviously a regular "Joe the plumber"
Hope the program works for you,
GP
See my post #384 we are having the same problem
Did you check cars.gov? I think they're updating info pretty constantly.
We own a 1993 Toyota Camry Wagon (V6). This is a car that when I get 18 MPG I am feeling pretty lucky.
On July the 18th we heard about the CARS (Cash for Clunkers) program. Every day from 07/18/2009 thru 07/23/2009 the web page showed that our car was eligible at 18 MPG. Now on 07/24/2009 it is listed at 19 MPG – Brilliant.
We had everything lined up, we had a couple car dealers that had verified our car qualified, and we were ready to purchase a new car this weekend. But it will not happen now because at the last second the EPA updated the information at their web page for a 1993 Toyota Camry Wagon (V6) from 18 MPG to 19 MPG.
I have never owned a new car in my life, so I thought this would be the perfect opportunity to do so.
We have taken time off work and spent a lot of time and money lining up the purchase of this new car. Now the EPA has just ripped $4,500 and possibly up to $5750 out of our hands. (One of the Toyota’s I was looking at had a $1250 cash back offer in place). When you include sales tax, that increases the rip-off from $4,815 to $6,065.
I made calls to CARS and fueleconomy.gov to no avail. The only thing that I could find out was that fueleconomy.gov updated the web page on the 24th.
(Rhetorical question) - How could they have revised a vehicle from 18 MPG to 19 MPG just as a program of this nature is being just implemented?
They had to have known that there were many people out there like us that had all their ducks in a row to make their new car purchase using the information that had been on the fueleconomy.gov web page ever since the Cash for Clunkers program had been announced – it is just unconscionable.
I am hoping that when it comes back the mystical math will make a little more sense! Maybe????? :confuse:
Of course, I can't pull up anything on fueleconomy.gov right now. Maybe they are changing the numbers again?
I do have a copy printed out where it say 18mpg combined, and none of the numbers other than the combined mpg changed. Other years with the identical drivetrain and bodystyle still list as 18mpg???? How do these ratings so conveniently change all of a sudden??????
As 3/4 ton trucks got bigger and heavier, their GVWRs went up, and through the 1990's, some of them got heavy enough to break that 8500 lb threshold. As of 2009, I don't think there's a 3/4 ton truck, SUV, or van out there with a GVWR of less than 8500.
Actually, shouldn't something like that, with 4wd and a 454, still have some real value left? I'd imagine that as long as it's not ratted out, you might be able to find a buyer who'd take it for $3500-4500. Sounds like it would be a great work truck/tow vehicle.