Kathy Kristof

Devil in the Details

Rule Change Means There’s No Cash for These Clunkers

By Kathy Kristof | Jul 28, 2009 |

Barbe Roberts figured she had the perfect car for the fledgling Cash for Clunkers program. Her 1993 Toyota runs, but is slowly falling apart. She figures it has more value as scrap than wheels, so when the government launched its voucher program, promising to pay between $3,500 and $4,500 to those trading in their gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient cars, she immediately checked to see if it qualified. Bingo. With a mileage rating of 18, she just slipped under the wire.

But when federal officials issued the program’s final rules on Friday (7/24), she discovered that the mileage on her car had been boosted to 19, making it ineligible for a government voucher. Roberts figures its a rip-off designed to cut out eligible buyers.

“I was so mad that I sent off a note to my representative last Saturday,” said Roberts. “It appears that I’m not the only one having this problem.’

She’s right. The Environmental Protection Agency apparently refigured the mileage on more than 100 vehicles, pushing 78 vehicles out of the program and adding 86. The agency just supplied me with a list of the changes, which notes that the 1987 Chevy Blazer, Lincoln Continental and Town Car are off the list, as is the Mazda 929 and Plymouth Voyager and Grand Voyager. The agency added the Chevrolet Caprice, the Mercury Cougar and a later model of the Chevy Blazer.

“Unlike previously available mileage data, which was solely intended to guide consumers’ vehicle purchases, more precise data is required by the new CARS legislation,” the agency said in a press release.

To qualify for CARS, you must have a car that’s less than 25 years old with an EPA “combined” mileage rating of 18 or less; buy or lease a new car that gets at least 4 miles per gallon more (although the rules are different for trucks and vans) than the old car; and the car must be owned and continuously insured by you.

One of the huge frustrations, even prior to this wrinkle, was that the EPA mileage ratings are based on the mileage that the cars were supposed to get when they were new. Actual mileage doesn’t matter. In reality, owners say their cars get far worse mileage than the estimates.

If you’re one of the people, like Roberts, who have been suddenly and inexplicably locked out, I’d like to hear from you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is apparently looking into the complaints, but has not said whether it will reevaluate the mileage ratings again. In the meantime, the agency’s 136 page CARS rulebook says the EPA mileage ratings rule. If you don’t fall under their 18 mpg cut-off, you don’t get a voucher.

“I don’t ask for help from the government, I don’t even ask for help from my mother,” said Roberts. ” However if something is out there that I could use and means the difference between a new care & a used one, I like to take advantage of the program.  Changing the rules at the end stinks.”

More on MoneyWatch:

Rip-off Alert: Who Gets the Cash for Your Clunker? - http://moneywatch.bnet.com/saving-money/blog/family-finance/who-gets-the-cash-for-your-clunker/875/

Cash for Clunkers: 5 Things No One Is Saying - http://moneywatch.bnet.com/saving-money/article/cash-for-clunkers-5-secrets-and-3-smart-tips/322848/

Cash for Clunkers: How to Make It Work for You - http://moneywatch.bnet.com/saving-money/video/cash-for-clunkers-how-to-make-it-work-for-you/324243/

 
Reply to Story

MoneyWatch TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    bean0614

    07/29/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Rule Change Means There's No Cash for These Clunkers

    We are one of these that was misled! The only difference is the DEALER allowed the deal to go through, we signed all the paperwork, and they patted me on the back with a big ol' congrats on your new purchase. Then, two days later, I receive a phone call stating I must either return the car or $3500 since the government changed the mileage. I looked through my paperwork and there is no caveat that I can read stating that my deal was conditional upon the dealer receiving the money. Now, a total of four days later, the dealership claims I signed a waiver, yet I have no copy of it. Also, they never discussed my sale depending on any approval, only simply stated that I was fortunate to have qualified. I can say with certainty that I researched this legislation completely before I purchased my vehicle and new it better than the dealer. Is it not the dealer's job to suck it up and pay because they didn't re-verify the rebate on the day of the sale?

  •  
    2

    bean0614

    07/29/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Rule Change Means There's No Cash for These Clunkers

    typo:

    KNEW it better than the dealer. Angry typing does not work well for me!

  •  
    3

    Barbelr

    07/29/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Rule Change Means There's No Cash for These Clunkers

    I?m not going to hide my name because this article is about me, barbe. I was lucky, I had not signed a contract yet. Please, please, contact your US representative for your district. The representatives are going to be more proactive & the more they hear from their constituents, the better. You could contact the Senators, but more than likely, you won?t hear from them. The media is reporting that 100 cars were changed. Yes, 100 TYPES of cars were changed, meaning 1000?s of people no longer qualify. I still think that EPA knew they were going to change the combined mileage & they should have never put up mileages to begin with. That should have been left to the end when the program started.

  •  
    4

    Kathy Kristof

    07/29/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Rule Change Means There's No Cash for These Clunkers

    Bean, I agree with you. Dealers knew that the final rules weren't
    out until last week. If the dealer decided to go through with a
    Cash for Clunkers agreement without the benefit of final
    regulations, I'd say they're liable for the result--good or bad. If
    they maintain that you signed a waiver, I'd demand a copy
    before I allowed them to bully me into returning the car or cash.

  •  
    5

    Kathy Kristof

    07/29/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Rule Change Means There's No Cash for These Clunkers

    And Barbe is right. Call your legislators if this change affected
    you. It doesn't pay to be meek. (Yes, I know: "The meek shall
    inherit the earth." But you can read that in two ways--one that
    you'll get some benefit some day when all the aggressive people
    stop fighting...Or, you can look at it the way I do, which is the
    meek may get what's left of the earth and, if you do nothing,
    that may be a toxic swamp.)

  •  
    6

    Lorado

    07/29/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Rule Change Means There's No Cash for These Clunkers

    Regarding the CARS Program: I am the original owner of a '76 Chrysler New Yorker with a 440 cu in engine. Book value is $4750. This is an everyday driver, with regular insurance and goes through emmissions testing, as opposed to a collector car with collector car insurance (limited miliage allowed) and no emmissions testing! THIS SHOULD BE THE POSTER CHILD OF THE CARS PROGRAM! What are the law makers thinking?

  •  
    7

    Lorado

    07/29/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Rule Change Means There's No Cash for These Clunkers

    Regarding the CARS Program: I am the original owner of a '76 Chrysler New Yorker with a 440 cu in engine. Book value is $4750. This is an everyday driver, with regular insurance and goes through emmissions testing, as opposed to a collector car with collector car insurance (limited miliage allowed) and no emmissions testing! THIS SHOULD BE THE POSTER CHILD OF THE CARS PROGRAM! What are the lawmakers thinking?

  •  
    8

    ollietk

    07/29/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Rule Change Means There's No Cash for These Clunkers

    I had been looking forward to the program for several months and had been following the details in the news and on the web. I currently drive a 1992 SAAB 900 (2.1 liter, automatic, 3 speed) which was reported to get 18 miles per gallon on the fueleconomy.gov website.

    Based on guidance at the CARS.gov website, I verified that my vehicle did qualify and began to negotiate prices for a new car. On the 23rd of July, I confirmed again that my vehicle qualified, and made plans to purchase including lining up financing, contacting my insurance provider, and gathering the required paperwork to participate in the program. On the 25th of July I was at the dealers signing the paperwork, and was told that my car did NOT qualify.

    I obviously walked away from the deal quite frustrated.

    In researching the change on fueleconomy.gov it seems strange that the data for the 2.1 liter model is now identical to the 2.0 liter. Strangely, the indentical 1991 and 1993 models of the 2.1 liter still show 18 mpg. I spoke to the the EPA folks managing the fueleconomy.gov database and they told me that "representative" data is sometimes used when the didn't test the actual model - I suspect

advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement

Kathy Kristof

Kathy Kristof is a syndicated personal finance columnist, speaker and author of three books, including the recently updated Investing 101 (Bloomberg, 2008).

Kathy Kristof

Click Here
track your portfolio