azdiver 0 #51 August 14, 2009 would it classify as a car or truck, different mileage guide lines Trucks have to get 12 to qualify, otherwise most new trucks wouldn't qualifylight travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #52 August 14, 2009 >would it classify as a car or truck, different mileage guide lines Yes, there are different categories for types of vehicles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyMissy 0 #53 August 14, 2009 QuoteLet's not forget one of the most obvious flaws in Cash-For-Clunkers: cars that still have economic value are being destroyed. This is from a CNN article: "Despite the popular "clunker" name, the government requires vehicles to be drivable and to have been insured continuously for the past year. So no hauling, pushing or pulling broken-down jalopies into dealer parking lots." The trade-ins (still drivable and workable) are then required to be scrapped. Indeed. All of the poll clutter has detracted from this point. Used cars, the ultimate recycling, are being disabled and destroyed versus donated, sold, and/or repaired by people with jobs (for now).________________________________________________ Mike Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #54 August 14, 2009 Quote>It, and many others, do not get good enough gas mileage. 4mpg is >not remotely good enough to be part of a debt funded giveaway. I agree. Which is why it's not part of the debt funded giveaway. They have to get >18mpg to qualify. I'm pretty sure you knew what I wrote, but if you want to play dumb, I'll rewrite. "An improvement of 4mpg is not remotely good enough to be part of a debt funded giveaway." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybill 19 #55 August 15, 2009 Quote I guess the cash for clunkers program forgot to tell people they should buy fuel efficient cars with the money. so I guess being green isn't very important after all.http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1044/spin-meter-3-billion-buys-not-so-green-vehicles/;_ylc=X3oDMTE5M3F1NDB1BF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEc2VjA2ZwLXRvZGF5BHNsawNjbHVua2VyLXNjYW1z Hi Mark, It's not the "Cash 4 Klunkers" program" that is interesting, it's the "Caskets 4 Klunkers" program in the med bill that's amusing!!!SCR-2034, SCS-680 III%, Deli-out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #56 August 15, 2009 Quote Quote Quote www.gallup.com/Home.aspx Still 53% approval despite the systematic program of lies being spread around by the GOP. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history 51% DISapproval, by the pollsters that have the best record out there, regardless of the partisan whine. That wouldn't by any chance be an "appeal to authority" would it? Someone on here criticized that just today in another thread. WHY - it was mnealtx! Um, no - I'm saying Rasmussen's numbers are more accurate because they've been more accurate over the last several years - QED. Here's a link, since you seem to be having a bit of trouble with the definition. What I'm NOT doing is, oh.... implying another professor wasn't qualified to speak on a subject due to their expertise. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #57 August 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteLet's not forget one of the most obvious flaws in Cash-For-Clunkers: cars that still have economic value are being destroyed. This is from a CNN article: "Despite the popular "clunker" name, the government requires vehicles to be drivable and to have been insured continuously for the past year. So no hauling, pushing or pulling broken-down jalopies into dealer parking lots." The trade-ins (still drivable and workable) are then required to be scrapped. Indeed. All of the poll clutter has detracted from this point. Used cars, the ultimate recycling, are being disabled and destroyed versus donated, sold, and/or repaired by people with jobs (for now). Such a waste. It makes me wonder who said "Now this is a great idea" to that part of the program and signed off.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #58 August 16, 2009 QuoteQuote I guess the cash for clunkers program forgot to tell people they should buy fuel efficient cars with the money. so I guess being green isn't very important after all.http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1044/spin-meter-3-billion-buys-not-so-green-vehicles/;_ylc=X3oDMTE5M3F1NDB1BF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEc2VjA2ZwLXRvZGF5BHNsawNjbHVua2VyLXNjYW1z Hi Mark, It's not the "Cash 4 Klunkers" program" that is interesting, it's the "Caskets 4 Klunkers" program in the med bill that's amusing!!! Quotethats funny, I don't care who you are thats some funny shit Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #59 August 16, 2009 The article mentioned F-150, which I have. I'm not planning on trading in my pickup, but if I were, I think I would lose money with the cash-for-clunkers program. The bluebook value for trade-in is $5,500, or a $1,000 more than the best I could do with the clunkers rebate. Pickup trucks hold value better than passenger cars, so some people may have really broken down vehicles that they never took care of and actually do a little better with the clunkers rebate. My guess is that most would not.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #60 August 16, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote www.gallup.com/Home.aspx Still 53% approval despite the systematic program of lies being spread around by the GOP. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history 51% DISapproval, by the pollsters that have the best record out there, regardless of the partisan whine. That wouldn't by any chance be an "appeal to authority" would it? Someone on here criticized that just today in another thread. WHY - it was mnealtx! Um, no - I'm saying Rasmussen's numbers are more accurate because they've been more accurate over the last several years - QED. Irony meter pegged. OK, now you can add "Appeal to authority" to the list of things you need to look up.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #61 August 18, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote www.gallup.com/Home.aspx Still 53% approval despite the systematic program of lies being spread around by the GOP. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history 51% DISapproval, by the pollsters that have the best record out there, regardless of the partisan whine. That wouldn't by any chance be an "appeal to authority" would it? Someone on here criticized that just today in another thread. WHY - it was mnealtx! Um, no - I'm saying Rasmussen's numbers are more accurate because they've been more accurate over the last several years - QED. Irony meter pegged. OK, now you can add "Appeal to authority" to the list of things you need to look up. Those who can, do - those who don't spend the time playing semantics games. I'd ask you if you knew the difference between performance and authority, but the answer seems obvious.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #62 August 18, 2009 does anyone have a link to the report this morning that the dealers are getting reject notices instead of money on the clunker claims? I heard about dealers getting rejects notices with no reason for the reject. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #63 August 18, 2009 From Edmunds.com (for those who don't believe the NHTSA): Edmunds.com analysts have determined that in May and June, the average fuel efficiency of recently purchased new cars was 21.8 miles per gallon. Since the program launched, the average has jumped to 23.2 mpg, a 6.1 percent improvement. Those who participated in the program now earn an average of 24.3 mpg with their new purchases. The average fuel efficiency of trade-ins had been 20.0 mpg prior to the program; that number has dropped 9.0 percent to 18.3. The average clunker trade-in earned 16.1 mpg. As mentioned earlier, 39 percent of all recent trade-ins qualified as clunkers. "Less fuel-efficient vehicles are being traded in at a faster rate now that the program is in effect, and they will be removed from the road permanently," noted Edmunds' GreenCarAdvisor.com Editor John O'Dell. "This suggests that some environmental benefit has been gained." ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #64 August 18, 2009 This one?Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #65 August 18, 2009 QuoteQuote>It, and many others, do not get good enough gas mileage. 4mpg is >not remotely good enough to be part of a debt funded giveaway. I agree. Which is why it's not part of the debt funded giveaway. They have to get >18mpg to qualify. I'm pretty sure you knew what I wrote, but if you want to play dumb, I'll rewrite. "An improvement of 4mpg is not remotely good enough to be part of a debt funded giveaway." 4mpg is the MINIMUM that qualifies. Apparently the average is 8.2mpg (according to Edmunds).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #66 August 18, 2009 Quote does anyone have a link to the report this morning that the dealers are getting reject notices instead of money on the clunker claims? I heard about dealers getting rejects notices with no reason for the reject. There is a dealer here in Des Moines that is saying the Gov owes his dealership about 2M$. So, he has those trying to use the program signing a contract saying if the Feds dont come through the car buyer owes the dealership the money. Now the state At General is saying there is something wrong with the dealers doing that. Stupid gov programs are sad to watch "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #67 August 18, 2009 Quote Quote does anyone have a link to the report this morning that the dealers are getting reject notices instead of money on the clunker claims? I heard about dealers getting rejects notices with no reason for the reject. There is a dealer here in Des Moines that is saying the Gov owes his dealership about 2M$. So, he has those trying to use the program signing a contract saying if the Feds dont come through the car buyer owes the dealership the money. Now the state At General is saying there is something wrong with the dealers doing that. Stupid gov programs are sad to watch Why do businesses expect faster response from government than from businesses themselves? Many businesses I've had dealings with have a 30 day net payment terms, and some as long as 90 days.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #68 August 18, 2009 >does anyone have a link to the report this morning that the dealers are >getting reject notices instead of money on the clunker claims? Here's one: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/nhtsa-rejects-more-than-25-of-cash-for-clunkers-submissions/ They've been rejecting about 25% of the claims. Top five reasons claims are rejected: Missing trade-in registration Trade-in not registered to same owner for required 12 months VIN mismatch on summary of sale VIN mismatch on trade-in proof of insurance Missing summary of sale/lease Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #69 August 18, 2009 Quote Quote Quote does anyone have a link to the report this morning that the dealers are getting reject notices instead of money on the clunker claims? I heard about dealers getting rejects notices with no reason for the reject. There is a dealer here in Des Moines that is saying the Gov owes his dealership about 2M$. So, he has those trying to use the program signing a contract saying if the Feds dont come through the car buyer owes the dealership the money. Now the state At General is saying there is something wrong with the dealers doing that. Stupid gov programs are sad to watch Why do businesses expect faster response from government than from businesses themselves? Many businesses I've had dealings with have a 30 day delay, and some as long as 90 days. So you are saying the dealership should not protect itself and the Iowa AG should stop the practice? If so, under what law?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #70 August 18, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote does anyone have a link to the report this morning that the dealers are getting reject notices instead of money on the clunker claims? I heard about dealers getting rejects notices with no reason for the reject. There is a dealer here in Des Moines that is saying the Gov owes his dealership about 2M$. So, he has those trying to use the program signing a contract saying if the Feds dont come through the car buyer owes the dealership the money. Now the state At General is saying there is something wrong with the dealers doing that. Stupid gov programs are sad to watch Why do businesses expect faster response from government than from businesses themselves? Many businesses I've had dealings with have a 30 day delay, and some as long as 90 days. So you are saying the dealership should not protect itself and the Iowa AG should stop the practice? If so, under what law? From cars.gov*** (the NHTSA site): * To participate in the CARS program, you do not have to sign an agreement to pay back the dealer the CARS credit amount if the deal is rejected. * You are required to leave your trade-in vehicle at the dealership and sign over the title to the trade-in vehicle at the time of the deal. * The dealer must give you the new vehicle at the time of the deal. * Your vehicle must be less than 25 years old on the trade-in date * Only purchase or lease of new vehicles qualify. * Generally, trade-in vehicles must get 18 or less MPG (some very large pick-up trucks and cargo vans have different requirements). * Trade-in vehicles must be registered and insured continuously for the full year preceding the trade-in. * You don't need a voucher, dealers will apply a credit at purchase. * Program runs through Nov 1, 2009 or when the funds are exhausted, whichever comes first. * The program requires the scrapping of your eligible trade-in vehicle and that the dealer disclose to you an estimate of the scrap value of your trade-in. The scrap value, minus $50 the dealer keeps for administrative fees, will be in addition to the rebate, and not in place of the rebate. *** I went to cars.gov, and as far as I can tell my PC has not been turned into a government controlled zombie like Glenn Beck said.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #71 August 18, 2009 From the requirements to enroll in the program: www.cars.gov We’ve heard that dealers are asking consumers to sign agreements with contingencies when they participate in the CARS program. CONSUMERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SIGN CONTINGENCY AGREEMENTS TO PAY BACK THE DEALER SHOULD THE CARS CREDIT BE REJECTED. We’ve also heard that dealers are asking consumers to keep their “clunker” until the deal is approved by NHTSA. IF THE DEALER HAS THE NEW CAR IN STOCK, THE DEALER MUST ALLOW YOU TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE NEW CAR BEFORE THE DEALER MAY SUBMIT THE CREDIT APPLICATION TO THE GOVERNMENT. PLEASE REPORT ANY DEALER TO NHTSA THAT DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO TAKE POSSESSION OF A NEW CAR PURCHASED UNDER THE CARS PROGRAM. PLEASE CALL THE CARS HOTLINE AT (866)-CAR-7891. http://www.cars.gov/faq Contingency Questions Generally A dealer has demanded that I sign an agreement that requires me to pay the dealer the amount of the CARS program credit if the dealer's CARS program credit application is rejected. Am I required to agree to this? NO. To participate in the CARS program, you do not have to sign an agreement to pay back the dealer the CARS credit amount if the deal is rejected. (See specific questions/answers, below, for more details). back to top The dealer says that I should take my trade-in car home after I sign the purchase agreement for a new car under the CARS program, and that I can pick up my new car after the dealer is paid by the government. Can I do this? NO. The dealer must take title to and possession of your trade-in vehicle in order to submit a credit for reimbursement under the CARS program. You may not keep possession of your old car. back to top Specifically A dealer has demanded that I sign an agreement that requires me to pay the dealer if the credit application is rejected because I submit incorrect information regarding my name, residence address, driver's license number, or the title to my trade-in car. Am I required to agree to this? NO. However, be aware that to participate in the CARS program you must certify under penalty of law that all information you provide is true. If your CARS program credit is denied because of a false statement made by you, the dealer may take action to recover the money or vehicle regardless of whether you sign such an agreement. back to top A dealer has demanded that I leave a signed check or credit card authorization in the amount of the CARS program credit that he will return to me if the credit application is approved, but keep if the credit application is rejected. Is the dealer allowed to do this? NO. The dealer must reduce the price of the new vehicle by the credit amount. If a dealer has a check or credit card authorization given by you at the time of the sale, the dealer has not actually reduced the price as required by the CARS program. Take your trade-in to another dealer if a dealer makes this demand. back to top A dealer said he will wait to extend me the CARS program credit amount until after the dealer gets the money from the government. Is the dealer allowed to do this? NO. The dealer must certify in its application for reimbursement that the dealer has already reduced the price of the new vehicle in the amount of the CARS program credit it requests back to top A dealer has included in the purchase agreement a requirement that I return the new car or pay the dealer the amount of the CARS program credit if the CARS program credit application is rejected. Do I have to sign this in order to participate in the CARS Program? NO. You are not required to sign an agreement like this to participate in the CARS Program. However, you may agree to such a term, but your choice to agree is between you and the dealer.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #72 August 18, 2009 Quote From the requirements to enroll in the program: www.cars.gov We’ve heard that dealers are asking consumers to sign agreements with contingencies when they participate in the CARS program. CONSUMERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SIGN CONTINGENCY AGREEMENTS TO PAY BACK THE DEALER SHOULD THE CARS CREDIT BE REJECTED. We’ve also heard that dealers are asking consumers to keep their “clunker” until the deal is approved by NHTSA. IF THE DEALER HAS THE NEW CAR IN STOCK, THE DEALER MUST ALLOW YOU TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE NEW CAR BEFORE THE DEALER MAY SUBMIT THE CREDIT APPLICATION TO THE GOVERNMENT. PLEASE REPORT ANY DEALER TO NHTSA THAT DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO TAKE POSSESSION OF A NEW CAR PURCHASED UNDER THE CARS PROGRAM. PLEASE CALL THE CARS HOTLINE AT (866)-CAR-7891. http://www.cars.gov/faq Contingency Questions Generally A dealer has demanded that I sign an agreement that requires me to pay the dealer the amount of the CARS program credit if the dealer's CARS program credit application is rejected. Am I required to agree to this? NO. To participate in the CARS program, you do not have to sign an agreement to pay back the dealer the CARS credit amount if the deal is rejected. (See specific questions/answers, below, for more details). back to top The dealer says that I should take my trade-in car home after I sign the purchase agreement for a new car under the CARS program, and that I can pick up my new car after the dealer is paid by the government. Can I do this? NO. The dealer must take title to and possession of your trade-in vehicle in order to submit a credit for reimbursement under the CARS program. You may not keep possession of your old car. back to top Specifically A dealer has demanded that I sign an agreement that requires me to pay the dealer if the credit application is rejected because I submit incorrect information regarding my name, residence address, driver's license number, or the title to my trade-in car. Am I required to agree to this? NO. However, be aware that to participate in the CARS program you must certify under penalty of law that all information you provide is true. If your CARS program credit is denied because of a false statement made by you, the dealer may take action to recover the money or vehicle regardless of whether you sign such an agreement. back to top A dealer has demanded that I leave a signed check or credit card authorization in the amount of the CARS program credit that he will return to me if the credit application is approved, but keep if the credit application is rejected. Is the dealer allowed to do this? NO. The dealer must reduce the price of the new vehicle by the credit amount. If a dealer has a check or credit card authorization given by you at the time of the sale, the dealer has not actually reduced the price as required by the CARS program. Take your trade-in to another dealer if a dealer makes this demand. back to top A dealer said he will wait to extend me the CARS program credit amount until after the dealer gets the money from the government. Is the dealer allowed to do this? NO. The dealer must certify in its application for reimbursement that the dealer has already reduced the price of the new vehicle in the amount of the CARS program credit it requests back to top A dealer has included in the purchase agreement a requirement that I return the new car or pay the dealer the amount of the CARS program credit if the CARS program credit application is rejected. Do I have to sign this in order to participate in the CARS Program? NO. You are not required to sign an agreement like this to participate in the CARS Program. However, you may agree to such a term, but your choice to agree is between you and the dealer. Thanks to you and kallend for the info. I did not know this. But if I were a dealer I would not trust the government so I would not enroll. Leave it up to the gov to find yet anothe way to possilbe screw another business"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #73 August 18, 2009 It does apear that the dealer could have a buyer sign an agreement. I see no rule stopping that. It just says the buyer does not have to sign the agreement. Either way, the program is still a joke........"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #74 August 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote>It, and many others, do not get good enough gas mileage. 4mpg is >not remotely good enough to be part of a debt funded giveaway. I agree. Which is why it's not part of the debt funded giveaway. They have to get >18mpg to qualify. I'm pretty sure you knew what I wrote, but if you want to play dumb, I'll rewrite. "An improvement of 4mpg is not remotely good enough to be part of a debt funded giveaway." 4mpg is the MINIMUM that qualifies. Apparently the average is 8.2mpg (according to Edmunds). And that does not conflict in the slightest with my assertion - 4 is not enough to be PART OF the program. 10 should be the minimum. BTW, notice that 8.2 is substantially less than the Fed claim of 9.6. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #75 August 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>It, and many others, do not get good enough gas mileage. 4mpg is >not remotely good enough to be part of a debt funded giveaway. I agree. Which is why it's not part of the debt funded giveaway. They have to get >18mpg to qualify. I'm pretty sure you knew what I wrote, but if you want to play dumb, I'll rewrite. "An improvement of 4mpg is not remotely good enough to be part of a debt funded giveaway." 4mpg is the MINIMUM that qualifies. Apparently the average is 8.2mpg (according to Edmunds). And that does not conflict in the slightest with my assertion - 4 is not enough to be PART OF the program. 10 should be the minimum. BTW, notice that 8.2 is substantially less than the Fed claim of 9.6. So what? Calculated on different dates.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
