Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
Mazda MSRP $21790, bought for $17900 - $4500 CFC -additional $150 scrap value. So $13250 plus Tax and tags. Dealer had registered this morning and had
done 8 CFC deals today. Went very smooth but did have some extra paper work.
Mazda MSRP $21790, bought for $17900 - $4500 CFC -additional $150 scrap value. So $13250 plus Tax and tags. Dealer had registered this morning and had
done 8 CFC deals today. Went very smooth but did have some extra paper work.
You can call now for a VIP C.A.R.S Program Trade-In Review Appointment with our Internet Sales Manager B*************s to save you a lot of time (the program is on through Nov 1, 09 but experts are saying the funds allotted to the program will be gone in a week to 10 days) and effort in research. Schedule a 30 Minute appt. to save as much as $4,500.Call to schedule yours now.
Just nothing I want bad enough to fight a crowd at the dealership. So I will keep my gas guzzling Ranger for a while longer. Maybe put in a high performance V8 so it will not be so under powered. Or a Cummins 4BT diesel as that is a popular engine swap now.
Two vehicles have ratings of 50 mpg and 20 mpg. What's the average rate of the two? It's NOT 35 mpg!!
Here's why.
The first vehicle uses 2 gallons to drive 100 mi.
The 2nd vehicle uses 5 gallons to drive 100 mi.
Together they use 7 gallons to drive 200 mi, so as an average together they get 200/7 = ~28.5 mpg.
To get an accurate average rate you must first convert the mpg rates to usage numbers, then you can average those.
So yes there is a different math being used. The correct math principle is being used. It's explained on the NHTSA site.
Thanks for the concerns gagrice. If the plan is a raging success and the funds begin to run out then you can count on this...it will be extended. If the public voices its approval by beating down the doors of the dealerships all over the country in every Congressional distric in the US you can bet an extension will be easy to come by.
REmember this program was originally foreseen to go 12 months and involve 1 million units and $4 Billion. It was cut back to fit into this Fiscal Year and this budget. Forget Barry. The auto industry is salivating over the boost.
Most are very very well off. No liens on the trade, no loans on the new purchase, just cash deals.
Same year but pickup sierra k1500 , is Cat 2 Truck.
Problem is I need a cat 2 new truck because I need 4wd for snow (hill) and larger because of tow also.
CARS says NOT!!!!
Why are suburbans (a 1/2 ton truck when I bought it) now not a truck?
You can buy a Fusion Hybrid or a lot of other vehicles, it's just that you'd get $3500.
If I go to www.fueleconomy.gov and look up my vehicle then switch the units to gallons/100 miles in the "Personalize" window I get this for my vehicle:
City: 5.9 Highway: 4.8
I add the two together and get 10.7. Then I divide 200 miles by 10.7 and get 18.691588
Did I do that right? Under "gallons / 100 miles" does the 55% 44% come into play?
Then I look at the same vehicle with a manual transmission and it is listed as having:
City: 5.9 Highway: 4.5
Add them together and get 10.4 -- 200/10.4 = 19.230769
Does anyone know how the combined gallons/100 miles is computed? I'm still coming up with different numbers -- but I am using the 55% & 44% simple math. This is what is listed:
Automatic -- City: 5.9 Highway: 4.8 Combined: 5.3
Manual -- City: 5.9 Highway: 4.5 Combined: 5.6
But when I take 55% of the city and add it to 45% of the highway I get this:
Automatic -- 5.405 (100 miles divided by that is 18.501387)
Manual -- 5.27 (100 miles divided by that is 18.975332)
I still believe that the Automatic and Manual combined scores got switched!
I am really sorry if I am driving everyone crazy with my problems and wacky math questions, but I really wanted to thank everyone for all of their help and equations on how to get these numbers. I have learned more math in the last two days than I have in the 17 years since high school!
We're not deadbeats, and we're not underachievers. I know for a fact that several of the people you've just slandered are educated, capable professionals who have done the right thing and managed their finances responsibly. Do some research, or at least read the rest of this discussion, before you decide to insult people you've never met.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Thank you so much!
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
When you go to:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/CarsResult2.jsp?column=2&id=26044
It lists the mileage as 16 MPG.
That would allow me to get a V6 Ford Ranger with 2 MPG improvement.
NOTHING I read online says that.
We are trading a 98 ford windstar 3.8 L that gets 18mpg for a mazda 5 that gets 23 mpg and EVERYTHING I find online says we get $4500 for the 5 mpg improvement.
anyone else run into this? we are pursuing it, will see them again Monday morning... I had him double check it and he did but I still think we're being lied to (with a smile, of course).
michelle in NC
link title
this is the only wording that MIGHT categorize the mazda 5 as passenger, but it's so vague?
Section 1302(i) of the CARS Act defines those categories largely with reference to statutory categories of
vehicles subject to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards as follows: “passenger
automobile” means a passenger automobile, as defined in section 32901(a)(18) of title 49, United States
Code, that has a combined fuel economy value of at least 22 miles per gallon; “category 1 truck” means a
non-passenger automobile, as defined in section 32901(a)(17) of title 49, United States Code, that has a
combined fuel economy value of at least 18 miles per gallon, except that such term does not include a
category 2 truck; “category 2 truck” means a large van or a large pickup, as categorized by the Secretary
using the method used by the Environmental Protection Agency and described in the report entitled “Light-
Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 through 2008”; “category 3 truck” means a
work truck, as defined in section 32901(a)(19) of title 49, United States Code. Under regulations
implementing the CAFE program (see 49 CFR Part 523), “passenger automobiles” currently include all
passenger cars and “non-passenger automobiles” include all SUVs, vans and pickup trucks up to 8,500
pounds GVWR.
Cars gov. site lists three choices for the 86 chevy celebrity S/W 2.8 V6 with automatic. Two with 19 MPG and one with 18. 8th Vin # X indicating carburetor on ours. How do i determine qualifying, from this selection process? Confused...
jackc
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/CarsSearchIntro.shtml
perfect.
let you know how it goes. I sincerely hope it was an oversight not an attempt to jip me of $1,000... I mean do they think we are stupid?
My clunker is 17 mpg and I can't find any new crewcab trucks (compact or full size) or medium+ SUV's that would have the mileage to qualify for the C4C program, other than Highlander or Escape hybrids. And yes, I actually calculated the mpg's to see what qualifies and what doesn't (don't trust dealers' math).
A family friend traded in his clunker (probably 15 mpg) two days ago for a Toyota Tacoma Double cab with V-6, and the dealer supposedly value this C4C at $3500 (or $4500 I am not sure). This is in Albuquerque, NM.
For the life of me I couldn't figure out how he can get C4C money on a new V6 Tacoma (not enough mileage improvements). So I am wondering, are dealers being honest about what new cars/trucks qualify and what don't? Like to hear from those who shopped using C4C money.
Hate to have to bought something (with my clunker), only to be called back next week and be told that my new purchase does not qualify for C4C money, so I have to pay the additional money (or go to court to settle).
Thanks.
your dealer is lying or isn't bright, I'd bet they are lying. It clearly shows on CARS.GOV that the 5 is a catagory1 truck.
To all the mechanics who keep these old vehicles running, the bad news you will be out of a job, however the govt will probably hire 100,000 bodies to monitor the program..More tax $$$$$s will be needed to run another govt scam..Good project for Acorn or Americorp since the Obama folks are sending them monies by the truckload to carryout their strong arm activities..so just another distribution of your monies to those unwilling to work..
From reading a few of the postings, I see where the foreign car addicts are in heat for Hondas and other Asian offerings where the bulk of money returns to the homeland after they pay their willing associates at their stateside assembly plants the $15.00/hr for their skill in constructing these wonders of the world..
Hey, keep your old piece of history that most likely originated in Detroit and remember the "Good Old Days" which are disappearing before our very eyes..
Yep, the list of scams is growing---Global Warming, Cap and Trade, Govt Health Care, and etc,etc...
Have a Good Day !!!!!!!
This Junker Deal has lots of twists for scamming...It will make cheaper gas available for my 2 gas hog cars..a bright side, the down side centers around our sleazy car dealers, junkyards, and our Govt..Had lots of experience with cars, owned 43 to date, purchased 2 Porsches in Europe, and the balance were Big3 offerings...no Asian jalopies for me..
What is a special purpose vehicle. Just because of body type? It has two seats and can be used as a cargo with seats folded down.
What's really irritating is that in every instance reported in this discussion, the MPG rating for the vehicle changed by exactly ONE MPG - from 18 to 19. I'm personally disgusted.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
Obama Check
ACORN Check
Socialism Check
Americorps Check (you know that was something Bush embraced heavily right?)
You got all the appropriate right wing scare tactic buzz words in there at least.
What does this have to do with C4C again? Or is this just a way for you to make a post that is vaguely on topic and push some Agenda? Many of those asian cars you rail against, another agenda I am sure, are made in the US and those workers get paid a whole lot more then 15 bucks an hour.
Further off-topic comments will be removed without notice - people need a "clean" discussion in which to get help.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
I wish I could find a dealer doing the equiv of C4C for 'just miss' cars. I doubt the fact that I lost 4th gear in the tranny 2 years ago would qualify me. It knocks the EPA from 19 mpg to about 3/4 of that. My actual fell from 27 to 22 for my commute. $3500 off a new Malibu instead of $400 trade would be a tipper for me. I will recheck the mpg site for any changes.
As I posted, I'm not certain, but I think mine went from 18 to 17.
The C4C law clearly states that only vehicles that are EPA rated at 18 mpg combined or less are eligible for the CARS rebate. Since that's been one of the most contentious issues associated with the C4C program, I'm surprised you didn't check it out for yourself before wasting your time.
As with any automotive purchase, it's up to potential customers to become informed and responsible, because some salespeople are dishonest and others are ignorant (and some are both). That's why edmunds.com and other similar sites exist--to help customers find the information they need.
If their intention in the timing of the adjustment was to create hostility and distrust, they've certainly gone the extra mile in accomplishing that goal.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
I'd be curious to hear from anyone who went from NOT qualifying to qualifying under the adjustment.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
And what's with using wheelbase as the difference between a Category 1 and Category 2 pickup? GVWR would make a lot more sense as a differentiator.
Oddly enough, NHTSA's implementation rule actually makes more sense than the language originally offered by Congress. Can it be that NHTSA actually gets it?
Nah.
I can see why the gov't needs a hard and fast rule (EPA estimates) rather than a "fluid" determination (individual results, modifications to their own engine, etc.). It would be pure chaos to allow otherwise without something set in stone.
I'm not going to do it but I was wondering about, say your brother in law had an old car he was going to scrap but you had him do the C4C program for you (you give him the money) then he transferred the title over to you at a later date. Were there any clauses in the rules that definitely made that illegal?