Ask Autoblog: Why doesn't my guzzler qualify as a clunker?
We've been hearing plenty of horror stories this past week about people trying and failing to trade in their vehicles under the Cash for Clunkers program. We recently received an e-mail from a reader named Rex asking about his particular case. Unfortunately, a big part of the problem is either lack of information or inaccurate information on the part of both dealers and the government. In Rex's case, he was trying to buy a 2009 GMC Sierra half-ton pickup with a 5.3-liter V8. His initial rejected trade was a 1985 GMC Suburban. After that, he was given two different government numbers to call and no one at those numbers or at the dealer could explain why he was rejected.
The answer is actually quite simple. The 1985 Suburban is rated at 13 mpg combined and the base 5.3-liter 2009 Sierra is rated at 16 mpg combined. To qualify for the clunker rebate, the new vehicle must get at least 4 mpg more than the old one. In this case, if Rex had opted for the Sierra XFE, he should've be able to get the rebate because it is rated at 17 mpg, thus clearing the lower limit.
After the 1985 truck was rejected, Rex offered up a 1990 3/4 ton pickup (example above), which was also turned down. The explanation here was also mpg-related, but for a different reason. The larger, newer truck is a heavy duty unit with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 8,500 pounds. These larger trucks are not subject to CAFE standards and aren't assigned EPA sticker ratings. Without an EPA sticker value, even though this truck is considerably thirstier than the Suburban, it was also turned away.The moral of the story is to make sure you carefully check the mpg rating of your trade-in and the new vehicle you want to buy before you go shopping. For trucks, the improvement must be at least 2 mpg for the $3,500 rebate and 5 mpg for the $4,500 (for cars: 5 mpg and 10 mpg). You can do the research by visiting fueleconomy.gov.
[Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
laser 6:36PM (8/04/2009)
Cry me a friggin river. You could qualify for a vehicle under this "take money from me to pay for your vehicle purchase", but you want to dictate the vehicle "I'm going to pay for!"
Sorry - I'm glad you are picky/greedy. You are getting the treatment you deserve for demanding others pay for your purchase.
Why don't you just do the right thing and buy what you want without EXPECTING THE REST OF US TO PAY FOR IT!
Reply
Sean 12:44PM (8/14/2009)
Heard of sales tax?
Jacob 1:55AM (8/15/2009)
That "take money from me to pay for your vehicle purchase" and EXPECTING THE REST OF US TO PAY FOR IT!
theory is full of holes. The ones that get the rebate AFAIK are taxpayers aswell, You make it seem like they are not paying anything at all in taxes.
I respect your other opinions, But please use valid ones. :)
JZeke 6:40PM (8/04/2009)
Sounds like one of those "birthers - people who just don't get it.
This is why CARS is bad for America. For most (read those who don't read, which is sadly many it seems) it comes off as a government subsidy to just buy any new car they wish. You don't want to give the public the impression that the government will just pay you to buy stuff.
Then again, in a culture obsessed with "cheap" and "bargains", this thirst can never be quenched.
Reply
tC 1:16PM (8/14/2009)
Don't forget the fact that the majority of Americans can't exactly fit inside a compact car that gets 30+ MPG.
Ian 1:26PM (8/14/2009)
Fun fact:
The French obesity rate is growing faster than the United States' obesity rate.
why not the LS2LS7? 2:12PM (8/14/2009)
tC: that's not true at all.
ack154 2:41PM (8/14/2009)
Funny thing is I think I see more large people in small cars than I do in normal cars. It is kind of amusing to watch... but also sad.
chance 3:34PM (8/14/2009)
"Don't forget the fact that the majority of Americans can't exactly fit inside a compact car that gets 30+ MPG."
Really? I'm 6'2" and I fit fine in the majority of compact cars. Also there are a handful of cars that get around 30mpg and aren't exactly that compact. The new A4 is a large car, almost as big as a BMW 5 series, and it gets 30mpg. (non-quattro version)
I think as Americans (in general) we need to be less fat and not stuff our faces with crap. Exercise is good too. But then again, unless you live in a major city with cultural diversity sometimes you don't have many choices in the diet area.
Rocketboy 3:49PM (8/14/2009)
Naaa, he sounds like either a Truther, or someone who believes in change.
Chris 4:22PM (8/14/2009)
@JZeke
Actually he did kinda get the idea, just made a bad choice of picking yet another car with awful mileage to purchase. Probably not the target for the rebate, which, is why he didn't get it. Seems like it worked out in the end.
@tC
Really? I'd like to see some numbers on that. I'm a fattie at 280lbs and I can fit fine into more than a few cars (as passenger and driver) that get well over 30mpg. (Insert joke here about lower mileage with me in it ;)). Still, I imagine that a lot of the really big folks larger than me might have some trouble with tiny cars, but even some mid-size ones can pull 30 flat or better (G6?). That being said, I'm not convinced that the really big folks are the 'majority' in this country, I'm not even sure folks my size are the majority.
br4nd0nh347 9:00PM (8/14/2009)
How about another fun fact?
Americans (US) aren't the most obese in the world.
Rich 6:44PM (8/04/2009)
In a word, "duh!".
Reply
Paul P. 7:02PM (8/04/2009)
This whole cash for clunkers thing had me laughing the other day. I used to drive through the middle of PA (farm country) and see tons of vehicles (usually trucks) seemingly abandoned behind barns, trailers, sheds, and out in the woods.
Well, I took a ride out to PA last week and a lot of the vehicles I used to see were suspiciously absent.
I know scrap iron was kind of high for a while, so that could account for a few of them dissapearing, but I can't help but wonder how many of those old vehicles were traded in by their owners under CARS.
Im sure many of them came to the conclusion that a $4,500 credit for something they weren't using, that was rusting away out back, is a pretty good deal. Better than they would have recieved otherwise. I'm sure many took advantage, even if they already have newer and more efficient vehicles that they use daily.
Makes me wish I held onto a few of my older junkers.
Reply
Alex 12:49PM (8/14/2009)
I don't think those cars were traded in under the CARS program. The feds, believe it or not, did close the loop on potential frauds using junk yard vehicles. Clunkers can't be more than 25 years old, must be in running condition, and have to have been continuously insured and registered by the owner for the last year.
StanleyVanBuren 12:54PM (8/14/2009)
Right.
Say you have a junker worth $500.
You go trade it in as a clunker and save $4500 on the purchase of a new car. Say the car is $24,500 -- you only pay $20,000.
Then, you turn around and sell that same car to someone who doesn't have a clunker to trade in for $22,500, which is still a good deal for them because they are saving $2k, and it's $2.5k more than you actually paid out of pocket.
Minus the value of your old $500 clunker, you've just made $2000 cash off the gov't.
Luis 1:19PM (8/14/2009)
Stanley - That's way too complicated for most people. Americans aren't that smart and the hassle is not worth it.
Also keep in mind you have to pay sales tax, twice. So, the government makes it's money back in most cases. (5% on 20k is $1000, x2 is $2000, at 10% the thing already paid for iteself). On top of that the original clunker is still off the road.
Tony 12:47PM (8/14/2009)
I guess you can get a new SRX or X3 with help from us taxpayers too.
http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1044/spin-meter-3-billion-buys-not-so-green-vehicles/
Reply
Kellman 12:48PM (8/14/2009)
Since he was trying to buy a pickup truck his MPG should only have to be an improvement of 2 MPG to qualify. The following is straight from the CARS.gov website.
"What is the value of the credit for the purchase or lease of a new van, pickup truck or SUV?
The value of the credit given for the purchase or lease of a category 1 or 2 truck also generally depends on the difference between the combined fuel economy of the vehicle that is traded in and that of the new vehicle that is purchased or leased. If the new vehicle is a category 1 truck that has a combined fuel economy value that is at least 2, but less than 5, miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If the new category 1 truck has a combined fuel economy value that is at least 5 miles per gallon higher than the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500.
If both the new vehicle and the traded-in vehicle are category 2 trucks and the combined fuel economy value of the new vehicle is at least 1, but less than 2, miles per gallon higher than the combined fuel economy value of the traded in vehicle, the credit is $3,500. If both the new vehicle and the traded-in vehicle are category 2 trucks and the combined fuel economy of the new vehicle is at least 2 miles per gallon higher than that of the traded-in vehicle, the credit is $4,500. A $3,500 credit applies to the purchase or lease of a category 2 truck if the trade-in vehicle is a category 3 (work) truck that was manufactured not later than model year 2001, but not earlier than 25 years before the date of the trade in."
Reply
altiain 12:52PM (8/14/2009)
Actually, I don't think this answer is right, either. From my understanding, a new Category 1 truck (light duty truck, like the example in this blog entry) has to get a minimum of 18 mpg combined to qualify. So neither the base half ton nor the Sierra XFE would qualify for any C4C rebate, regardless of the "clunker" being traded in.
Also, the mpg improvement requirements are different for Category 1 trucks than they are for passenger cars. A new Cat 1 truck must get a mileage improvement of 2 mpg to qualify for a $3500 rebate, or 5 mpg to qualify for a $4500 rebate, plus the above mentioned minimum of 18 mpg combined.
Reply