Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Grand Voyager EPA mpg incorrect on wwwfueleconomy.gov for Cash for Clunkers

pragmatist1pragmatist1 Member Posts: 26
edited May 2014 in Chrysler
www.fueleconomy.gov doesn't list the Grand Voyager/Grand Caravan separately from the Voyager/Caravan. This affects whether certain years, such as the 2000, would qualify for Cash for Clunkers. The website lists Voyagers/Caravans as having combined EPA mpg of 19, but the 2000 Grand Voyager/Grand Caravan is a twin of the 2000 Town and Country, and has a combined EPA mpg of 18, so it would qualify, if only the government and Chrysler would get the correct information onto the website! Email them at fueleconomy@ornl.gov to ask them to make a separate category for 2000 Chrysler Grand Voyager. The 3.3 liter engine has EPA mpg of 16/22 with combined 18, just like its twin, the Town and Country. This would make it worth $4500 as a trade in for a new car!
Tagged:

Comments

  • awawawaw Member Posts: 4
    We have a 1996 Plymouth Grand Voyager 6 cylinder, 3.3 L
    However, the fueleconomy.gov does not have separate categories
    for the '96 Basic Voyager and Grand Voyager.

    Basic: Plymouth Voyager 2WD 6 cyl, 3.3 L, Automatic 4-spd, (FFS), Regular
    Grand Voyager: ??
  • rpackardrpackard Member Posts: 1
    I have also done some research and believe the Grand Caravan is classified and a type 1 truck which means you only have to meet the 5 mpg to qualify for the $4500 which is different than the Caravan. I am waiting fro it to be more clear through the dealers, but I have completed the online regsitration for quotes form dealers. I guess we can hope that the dealer incentives will still be there and they won't jack up the price of the cars to equal the incentives!
  • srs_49srs_49 Member Posts: 1,394
    I have not looked in the CFC program, not being a position to take advantage of it. But, I would be very surprised of the Caravan and Grand Caravan are classified differently. I think they are both considered "light trucks" for EPA emissions and gas mileage rating purposes.
  • pragmatist1pragmatist1 Member Posts: 26
    The issue is not truck classification. This is an exact twin to the Chrysler Town and Country, which IS eligible, but the Grands are not listed. You need to trade in a vehicle that gets 18 mpg or less for a higher mileage new vehicle. Look at CARS website. Those who own old Grands are going to miss out on this program unless NHTSA corrects its erroneous information.
  • cashforclunkcashforclunk Member Posts: 2
    The 2000 base vehicle is also incorrect. 1999 and 2001 have a new combined rating of 18mpg, however the 2000 has 19mpg. I sent email to gov't site, asking for clarification, but I won't hold my breath for an answer.
  • pragmatist1pragmatist1 Member Posts: 26
    The issue is that they need to list the mpg for the GRAND caravans/GRAND voyagers separately from the voyagers/caravans. The GRANDs have 18 mpg, the voyager/caravans have 19 mpg. Right now they only are listing the voyager/caravans, at 19mpg.
  • jsox99jsox99 Member Posts: 2
    Agreed. Until they changed I guess Grand Voyager owners are disqualified from participating in CARS. Anyone have a way to contact NHTS?
  • pragmatist1pragmatist1 Member Posts: 26
    The issue is getting Chrysler to report to the NHTSA the correct mileage for the Grands. We need to find out who at Chrysler is in charge of EPA mileage certification. Considering that this is decade old data, and that many owners of Grands who would take advantage of CARS would buy new Chryslers, I think they might be willing to report the corrected information. Any ideas on how to find the department in charge of mileage certification at Chrysler?
  • jsox99jsox99 Member Posts: 2
    I basically given up. I will continue to drive my Grand Voyager.
  • tomb508tomb508 Member Posts: 1
    I think I have a solution to the 19 mpg problem for the Voyager/Caravan family. When I was checking to see if my 1995 Voyager with the 3.0 engine qualified it originally did at 18mpg. But after July 24th the EPA said it was 19 mpg. Boy if I only bought the 3.3 engine it would qualify. This was based on just two vehicle estimates. One of them stated it got 21 mpg the other said 18. The two average out about 19.5. When I went back this weekend I saw there now were three estimates. So I did some more checking. I found I could input my own estimate, which is 17.1. So if more Voyager/Caravan owners input their estimates we all may qualify.
    Here is where I inputted my info. Go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/, click on “Find your car’s energy impact score”, on the blue line at the top of the page click on Your MPG. On the next screen you have to register and you can then enter your calculated mpg. After that you will get an e-mail you have to respond to and it should get inputted to the estimates within a few days. I just responded tonight and will be watching to see if my numbers show up soon. I’m thinking, the more people who input data to the site the sooner the Voyager/Caravan family will get qualified. Please give it a try, we could all benefit from this. $4500 is better then sitting on a clunker that doesn’t qualify.
  • cashforclunkcashforclunk Member Posts: 2
    I like your perseverence, but give it up. In the final rule it says they have gotten a lot of MPG "issues" but that they would only use the EPA ratings. Think about it if they don't draw the line, where does it stop? Best of luck.
  • rocky53rocky53 Member Posts: 5
    The fundamental problem originates From Chrysler's submission to the EPA of ERRONEOUS MPG info. Fueleconomy,gov admitted to me in an e-mail that Chrysler was allowed to combine the regular Voyager/Caravan data @19MPG with the Grands (which they know are 18MPG like their twin, the Town & Country) and report the Grands @19MPG. They know it is wrong, but they have not done anything about it to date. I've written e-mails, sent certified mailings and called the EPA, Chrysler, fueleconomy.gov, the CARS people, my congressmen, the White House, and the NHTSA. So far I've received only limited response usually consisting of, "we are looking into it". If anyone has any suggestions, let me know. Maybe contacting local or national news outlets for a "consumer interest story" might help expose this injustice.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,786
    Is this just for FWD vans? I can see that; I have driven 45,000 miles on my van, an AWD, and my total fuel economy is ~18.5 during that time based on calculated mileage and fuel. Any FWD should be able to beat that; especially in warmer climates where your winter economy (for six months!) is not hammered by sub-zero temperatures. In January, my monthly economy is usually in the 13-14 range! I live in Fairbanks, Alaska.

    I looked up my '98 DGC with AWD (3.8L), and it is listed as qualified. Tempting, considering I have 213,000 miles on it, but I just dumped $1000 into extensive maintenance three months ago and, considering there are essentially no manufacturer rebates to be had right now due to this program, I can likely make out better on a new car through a private sale combined with rebates from manufacturers, etc., sometime down the road.

    Clunker or not, I sure love not having car payments. :shades:
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • ofionnachtaofionnachta Member Posts: 36
    xwesx--this is concernng the 6 cyl 3.3L engine FWD Grand Caravans from the yr 2000. All other 3.3 L FWD Gr Caras qualify because they are shown at 18 mpg. 3.8 L Gr Caras qualify because they have larger engines and tested at 18 mpg.

    The 1996-2000 minivans (within their engine sizes) are all twins of each other (except for minor tweaks in options, colors etc), being the "third generation." So if the 3.3 L engine got 18 mpg from 1966-1999, the same engine, same wt, same length minivan from 2000 should also show 18 mpg.

    As mentioned above, for the 2000 model year, Chrysler apparently fudged the numbers and got away with it. The EPA refuses to fix the acknowledged error on their site, and Chrysler has no incentive to fess up because they now "own" all owners of 3.3L 2000 Gr Caravans. Their own C4C program accepts all vehicles whether or not qualifying on the EPA list. If you want a $3500-4500 rebate, you have to go to a Chrysler dealership & endure a push to buy a Caliber.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,786
    you have to go to a Chrysler dealership & endure a push to buy a Caliber.

    Oh, my. That is horrific! As if ownership of the original vehicle was not torture enough! :cry:

    Thank you,ofionnachta, for setting me straight... admittedly I merely skimmed this discussion and missed the specifics you cited above.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • ofionnachtaofionnachta Member Posts: 36
    Um, if you don't read the discussion, don't make remarks to the discussers. I said "If you want a $4500 rebate" you are unlike owners of all other Gr Caravans of the third generation; you can only buy a Chrysler.

    If you think every car Chrysler makes is wonderful, then this situation with the 2000 Gr Caravans won't bother you. Unfortunately, not everybody wants the smaller more fuel efficient car they plan to get with the C4C tradein to be a Chrysler. The owners of all the other eligible Caravans can use C4C like everybody else and go wherever they want for their next car. Yr 2000 Gr Caravan owners cannot.

    It doesn't only effect the Caravan owners. The program was meant to get inefficient gas guzzlers off the road sooner, not just to goose auto sales. Chrysler dealers will clean up these vans and resell them--they can't get the rebate from the NHTSA. The cars traded under C4C will be destroyed immediately & their owners will be driving more efficient cars. The 2000 Gr Caravans will stay on the road drinking gas, and emitting CO2, either with their current owners or with their new ones. Cleaner cars do mean cleaner air---that's why California has all those extra laws about emissions; their smog kills elderly and schoolkids.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,786
    Hah; okay, well, if you cannot interpret what other posters write with relative accuracy, then don't respond to them! I understood what you meant and agreed wholeheartedly. Apparently, that level of understanding was not reciprocal. You must be very worked up by this....
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • pragmatist1pragmatist1 Member Posts: 26
    I think the only way we're going to get any response is through the media. I emailed CNN yesterday (there's a guy at CNN money who's written most of the C4C articles), no response yet.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles