Comments on: NHTSA Updates Fuel Economy Website for CARS

By: Tiffani P.

Tiffani P. — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:59:13 +0000

i have a 2002 jeep grand cherokee limited. irt is as beautiful car, but needs a new transmition and god only knows what else. i was told of cash for clunkers and i was wanting to know if you could tell me a specific price i would be able to get for this car. please contact me back. thanks

By: Don Rae

Don Rae — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 23:44:32 +0000

My 1997 Chevrolet Lumina 3.1L is listed as getting 21 mpg and therefore doesn´t qualify for the program. The 3.4L engine however does quality in the ’97 Lumina.

I have had this car since it was brand new and it never got 21 MPG City/Hiway. Maybe 16 MPG on its best day after a tune up.

I feel I and others that own these mid-1990′s Chevrolets really got the shaft. The MPG they were given is a lie. Someone is manipulating this to keep certain cars from participating.

By: Edna Daniels

Edna Daniels — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:35:27 +0000

My vehicle is a 1996 Volkswagen Jetta GLS. It is not listed in your qulaifying vehicles. My vehicle is 13 years old and cannot possibly get decent mileage.

By: jackie & lenny

jackie & lenny — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:43:42 +0000

We thought we were going to catch a break with this CARS Program. We certainly have a Clunker! It’s a 1993 Dodge Spirit which we bought brand new. It served us well with nearly 180,000 miles logged, we’re just hanging on to it because we use it for local commuting/transportation. It is just about ready for the graveyard. This incentive was just the ticket to trade-in for a hybrid model, helping both us and the environment. Too bad, it’s listed at 20MPG, 2MPG over the cut-off. This is insane, ridiculous and fictitious!! The actual MPG is closer to 12MPG. Something’s wrong somewhere…

By: christie

christie — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:03:57 +0000

yeah my 98 altima does not get near 18 mpg yet it says it gets more than that and i dont qualify, which is crappy cause i do not think its going to live much longer

By: Dianne

Dianne — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:20:57 +0000

I, too, am in the same situation as Patrick. It says my 1987 Oldsmobile gets 19 mpg and needs 18 to qualify, yet, it won’t pass inspection this years because of emissions, even after spending $700 in parts (not including labor)!!! YOU CAN’T WIN!!!!

By: Sarah

Sarah — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 05:19:01 +0000

The site states that my 2000 Dodge Neon gets 24mpg, and while it is not on its last leg.. it certainly has never gotten that good of gas mileage the entire time I’ve owned it!
So much for investing in a hybrid any time soon!

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:28:58 +0000

The website claims that my 1995 Jeep gets 19 mpg…this is not accurate. I have been driving this car for 8 years and have never gotten that good of gas mileage. Perhaps when it was brand new it was capable of this, but as engines get wear and tear they get less and less. My car makes noises, is barely hanging on, and fits the description of a “clunker.” Without the financial assistance though I cannot afford a new car. But since the government claims that it is correct, there is nothing I can do, even though it is off by one mpg. That is terrible and now I’m stuck driving my beat up car. Thanks US government, you’re awesome.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:20:44 +0000

The website claims that my 1995 Jeep gets 19 mpg…this is not accurate. I have been driving this car for 8 years and have never gotten that good of gas mileage. But since the government claims that it is correct, there is nothing I can do, even though it is off by one mpg. That is terrible and now I’m stuck driving my beat up car. Thanks US government, you’re awesome.

By: Jane Marion

Jane Marion — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 08:16:36 +0000

My dealer will not let me take my vehicle until the government pays them. But in 45 days my first payment is do. They said even if they have not received their check or I have not taken possesion of my vehicle I have to make payments. Is this legal?

By: liz

liz — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:15:34 +0000

i checked my combined mpg a month ago and now it stating more than what was previously posted.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:03:29 +0000

I have a 2001 Toyota Seinna, I have been driving it for over 8 years, so I would like to think I know a little about my car. My mini van is rated at 17 city, 23 highway miles per gallon. There is absolutely no way this is true, and it wouldn’t bother me but now that I need a new car and want to help the environment I cant! Combined MPG is rated at 19 on the NHTSA website! This needs an update immediately. Please take the time to drive any 2001 Seinna, it is a gas guzzler and definitely should be on the clunkers list.

By: ana

ana — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:41:40 +0000

can cash for clunkers be used from a car dealer???

By: Miriam Winter

Miriam Winter — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:00:55 +0000

My 1997 Chevrolet Lumina 3.1L is listed as getting 21 mpg and therefore doesn´t qualify for the program, but the 3.4L would. My car in it´s current condition never gets 21mpg! My friend´s car (a 2001 Toyota) is in way better shape and makes more mpg than mine and his car qualifies (just because it is listed as getting 18)! His car is in perfect condition and runs and looks like new. My car is a real “clunker”, making loud noises when driving and it should actually off the streets already. I would like to trade it in and get a new one, but can´t afford it without the program.
Something is wrong with the way the criteria are made for this program!

By: Clifford Jakubowski

Clifford Jakubowski — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 18:09:17 +0000

I own a 1995 Buick Riviera. My car does not qualify because they have it listed as combined 20 mpg rating. This 20mpg might have been new 14 years ago but it sure does not apply to the present.I probably get about 12-14 if lucky the way the engine is. I would like to trade it in for the cash for clunkers but because of this I can’t. Was this considered when the fuel economy ratings were decided about that the car does not get the same gas mileage as when new.

By: Mari

Mari — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:37:36 +0000

The NHTSA is not approving the deals fast enough. This has result for me into a week of waiting. I completed all my paper work @ the dealer on 7/31 but I don’t have the car yet since the dealer has not received a confirmation from the NHTSA /sigh.

By: BryanA

BryanA — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:27:20 +0000

I can beat all you. I have a 2000 Mitisubushi Eclipse V6 the GT model. I have the orgional dealer sticker that sias 16/18mpg…but the EPA sais it gets 20??? So ya…I dont qualify either. Funny thing is the 2009′s get 16/18….Arent the MPG ratings supposed to get better? Isn’t that some federal mandate?

By: Frank & Jean Lopez

Frank & Jean Lopez — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:41:45 +0000

I have tried to look up my old car- Ford crown vic (but not a LTD) it is not on the list. Is it eligible for the trade in?

By: kia sportage fuel problem

kia sportage fuel problem — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:59:48 +0000

Creating your resume, method Ngeluwang/NglowongNgeluwang is?Engines spiders see, he speaks and.Photography is an, making products such.Induces the body kia sportage fuel problem, you appear dramatically successful people So.Accumulation of toxic, scam artists will.,

By: Robert Richardson

Robert Richardson — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 06:04:47 +0000

Hi:
“I am writting this in an effort to report “U.S. Government Fraud”

The fueleconomy MPG tables are fabucated to make the older automobiles and trucks look to have better gas milage than the newer automobiles and trucks. People are being decieved by the false information. Due to this, many driveable vehicles are being destroyed leaving the older ones in service. One thought is that the Obama administration is preventing the low income familys and farms from being able to take advantage of this program. Another idea is that a nation with many older vehicles on the road polutes more, causes more accidents and weakens the nations ability to transport civilians between major locations in times of national emergencys.

Here is a real examble of what I am talking about: I have a 1985 Ford F150 with the long wide bed that has a 300 c.i. engine (6 cylinder) with a manual 4 speed transmission according to the fuelecomony mpg table it is rated at 19 mpg. According to Ford’s mpg ratings it is rated at 14 mpg. My old truck was manufactued with a carburator, no computor, no emmission system and has no overdrive. I have been driving pickups for a long time. Before fuel injection, engine controlled computers and overdrive, a pickup was doing above adverage to get 14 mpg. However, it appears that vehicles manufactured between 1995 and 2000 are the ones being bought as clunkers which, all of these were manufatured with fuel injection, ODB2 computers, emmissions control and overdrive.

I am asking that this fraud get referred through the proper channels and that it get investigated as to who fabricated the data and what was the motive.

Peace be with you,
Rev. Robert Richardson 205-681-5509

By: Truckenator

Truckenator — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:27:07 +0000

Hey all you guys driving gas guzzling clunkers, rated at 20mpg, which really get around 14mpg: I feel a liiiitle bit sorry for you. But here’s the facts, Jacks: My 1985 Chev 4×4 was rated at 13mpg. When I drive it I can literally WATCH the gas gauge sink towards Empty. I’m lucky to pull 8mpg out of it, and that’s freeway. So please, don’t bawl about your clunker sucking more gas than it’s rated. THEY ALL DO! THEY ALL GUZZLE MORE GAS THAN RATED!
On a different note, the Chevy dealer near Seattle was totally clueless about this program. Across the street at the Toyota dealer people were driving in with junkers and driving out with new cars…36 deals in one morning. Meanwhile the Chevy guys were scratching their butts saying “Well, we’re really not set up for that right now.” What a bunch of losers. And the Dodge guys had NO CLUE about what my big pig of a truck would qualify for. The first guy said stuff that made me realize he never even bothered to read the rules of the program. Another bunch of losers. The Toyota guys were squared away, really knew the rules…too bad I need another big truck, or I would buy from them. Toyota Tundra don’t do it for me. But the American car industry, from what I’ve seen, is in trouble because of laziness.

By: elvir

elvir — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:10:32 +0000

i have a 96 chrysler sebring jxi and it sure as hell dont get 21mpg i want to trade it in but i guess its not eligible is there any way around this ?

By: rob

rob — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:23:33 +0000

What a joke. My 1993 Olds cutlass supreme is supposed to get a combined 20 MPG???? I hav NEVER gotten over 18 MPG on straight highway driving…even worse with A/C on….UNREAL! Interestingly enough My combined MPG was a lot lower when I checked websites last week. Guess I wont be buying a new car after all.

By: Arman

Arman — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:52:22 +0000

Do diesel, propane or cng vehicles qualify?

By: Doanda

Doanda — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:49:29 +0000

e of the major problems, beside the “New estimated MPG” is that most of the dealers, i.e. GM, FORD,etc will list your car as allowable–check their websites!!! For example my car a 1987 Lincoln Town car on both Ford and GM is listed as being allowed with a MPG of 18. The CARs gov site lists as 19MPG – clearly not allowed. Problem is the dealers are looking at their corporate sites and then filing the trade in for a voucher based on the information provided by their own corporation instead of checking the gov site. I tried to tell the dealers it would not be accepted, they disagreed and stated they checked their website and filed anyways.

Now when the dealers realize the car WONT pass and will be rejected you cannot change the information or delete from the Gov site where they applied, until the Gov rejects the application. So now we must wait for the Gov to reject before we can enter a valid trade in, in this case a 1997 Jeep (15 MPG). You also cannot go to a different dealer or refile because then it will state that you are trying to do two trade ins. Still waiting for the rejection since Monday, 7/27. Now, will the GM Delivery by July 31st Rebates,still be honored by GM, as it was their site that provide the dealers with wrong info? Will any of the Cash for Cars gov money still be available after this delay??? Gov site where dealers send in the voucher application should have been designed to immediate reject applications for vouchers if the MPG does not qualify instead of accepting and then waiting up to 10 days to reject. This is only bogging down the systems, causing unrealistic delays and will cause many of the initial individuals with valid cars end up losing out during this horrendous trial phase.

By: Melanie

Melanie — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:16:07 +0000

The gov. forgot to list the 1996 Chevy suburban 2500. So we are waiting for the website to be updated also.

Very poorly executed. Good thought though.

By: Mike Gruhlke

Mike Gruhlke — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:41:46 +0000

I was going to try and trade my daughter’s 1995 Dodge Intrepid in. Originally the combined mpg was 18, but now it’s been revised by the EPA???? Who told them to do that and what are they using as a ruler???? This is just another program that looks good at face value but won’t actually help that many people. Congress, the President and all the rest are sending us towards a depression and they don’t know how to rescue us. This program would have helped somewhat, but it is so limited. I think the government TOLD the EPA to revise the mileage figures so they wouldn’t have to pay out more money.

It’s OK to GIVE the banks billions of dollars, but it’s not OK to give us any money – this country needs an enema!

By: Arthur Shoels

Arthur Shoels — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:19:36 +0000

We have a f 250 class 2 work truck that we have traded for and cannot get the proper response to get the vehicle registered with the program. hat exactly needs to be done to complete this transaction.

By: stephen

stephen — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:55:20 +0000

No complaints about the program except in its execution.
1. As far as dealers: Signup did not begin until the day the program officially began, so of course the server crashed. They list dealers on their website by the corporate name rather than the dba, making it nearly impossible to determine who is in the program. Our city isn’t even listed among the cities in our state where dealers are located. They have been slow to produce a set of rules that cover 90% of the transactions and let the dealer figure out the remaining 10%. The rules weren’t published far enough in advance to allow dealers a chance to familiarize themselves and their staff with a smooth way to conduct business.
2. Spokespeople for NHTSA have been virtually nonexistent. They should have been blitzing the airwaves with references to their website. Eliminate miscoummunication and misconceptions that have pervaded this program. The mileages CANNOT change after the program starts. They have had ample time to get ready, it is unacceptable. Someone should lose their job on that one.

By: Edgar Hamill Hughes 3rd

Edgar Hamill Hughes 3rd — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 06:17:48 +0000

My Cash for Clunkers trade in is a:
1986 GMC G3500 Vandura 2WD
8 cyl, 6.2 L, Automatic 4-spd, Diesel 10city 12hwy 11combine
The internet sight (http://www.cars.gov/) is not complete.

There are 2 ways to look at it.

GMC G35 Rally 2WD 8 cyl, 5.7 L, Automatic 4-spd, Regular does qualify for $4500.
or
GMC G35 Vandura 2WD 6 cyl, 4.3 L, Automatic 4-spd, Regular does qualify for $3500.
but
Confirmed with my title and registration. I have a:

1986 GMC G35 Vandura 2WD 8 cyl, 6.2 L, Automatic 4-spd, (NO-CAT), Diesel to qualify for $4500.

The internet sight (http://www.cars.gov/) is not complete!!!!!! The sight dosent cover my van

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:44:56 +0000

We traded for a 2009 Highlander 4 cylinder. Fueleconomy.gov only lists the 6 cylinder 09 Highlander which is 5 mpg more than our trade in so the dealer figured the difference on the 6 cylinder which qualified for the $3500 rather than $4500. So we got $3500 for a vehicle which truely gets 7 mpg more. Kinda chaps me. Can I go bak on the dealer for another $1000 if they update their site. Dealer technically is turning in the wrong vehicle.

By: JD

JD — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:43:29 +0000

I had been researching the CARS Program to see if my 1993 Camry V6 4 speed automatic qualified for the program. On Thursday of last week I had everything in order to by a new car. The Camry was showing a combined MPG of 18, on the fueleconomy.gov web site. Saturday morning I checked to make sure I had not missed anything needed for the dealer and found that my combined rating had changed from 18 MPG to 19 MPG, disqualifying my car from the program. I checked the combined MPG on the 5 speed and it was still at 18 MPG. Both have ratings of 16 MPG city and 22 MPG highway and standard transmission cars have always had better gas mileage than automatics. I then started trying to find out why the MPG had changed and found that the EPA MPG ratings had been “refreshed”. I checked the final rule on CARS.gov and it states “EPA changed the way it calculated fuel economy ratings starting in Model Year 2008, and has estimated the revised ratings for Model Years 1985-2007. Therefore, as described above, eligibility is determined by the revised ratings rather than the original EPA sticker on the vehicle.” It does not say anything about revising on July 24th 2009! I am very disappointed in the way this program has been handled.

By: pedro

pedro — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:27:47 +0000

i drive a 95 buick century and it says that it gets 20 miles per gallon what a f*in joke i’ve drivin it for years and have been lucky to get 18 is there any rebate for these vehicals?

By: Marshall

Marshall — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:58:04 +0000

They forgot to list the 1995 2WD 1500 Suburban on the http://www.fueleconomy.gov website. We are trying to trade it in on the program and now we are just waiting with the car dealership until they post the car.

By: Meryl Dean

Meryl Dean — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:56:43 +0000

My 2001 Chrysler, according to the website, is 19 MPG. However, I have 156K mi on the car and it gets less than that. Is there an appeal process or allowance for miles on the car? I need to buy asap.

By: David

David — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:52:24 +0000

I don’t understand why the mpg are different between 1998 and 1999 acura RL (19 mpg and 18 mpg). They are both same engine, same body size nothing has change. The data in http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ is incorrect. How can we ask NHTSA to update and fix the problem ?

By: Chad

Chad — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:04:48 +0000

I am sell cars in Ohio and I have a brother in law with a 1994 Dodge Ram 1500 and wants to trade for a new F-150. The new website classifies the Dodge as a catagory 1 truck. At first I believed there may have been a wheelbase of 115″ or less but after further investigation I found that the shortest wheelbase is 118.7″ what is the deal with that?

By: Ashley

Ashley — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:32:41 +0000

After ensuring that I was highly educated in this program, I assured that my car qualified for this program. I had a 1991 Toyota Camry, V6. As of July 18, my car was listed as getting a “new epa estimated mpg” of 18 mpg. I purchased my new Honda Fit July 25th, a car that gets 29 mpg. Needless to say I was ecstatic.

This afternoon I received a call from my car salesman, informing me that the voucher request for my old car has been rejected. Unsure of why this occurred, my car salesman checked fueleconomy.gov, which NOW states that my car gets 19 mpg. Unfortunately, I am facing a situation that completely disqualifies my car, despite it being qualified previously. I feel like I have been put in a very unfair situation because of a last minute change that has been made with no warning.

Has anyone else been put in this situation? And if so, what have you done to resolve it?

By: Jan

Jan — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:48:12 +0000

I have a 1989 Olds 88, a four-door sedan. They show a 2-door in the picture on the “does not qualify” website. Wouldn’t there be a difference? My car is a boat, as they say. I cannot imagine how it wouldn’t qualify as “not good gas mileage,” since it’s so large. It has features that do not come standard; is there any chance the motor is not standard, either? They say my “boat” once got 20 mpg combined. I’ve seen the mpg for some of the newer cars and they do make them that get *way* better mileage. Why would they have such a relatively low mpg not qualify?

By: jari

jari — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:19:38 +0000

Okay, my problem is totally different. I traded-in my 2000 gas-guzzling Jeep and bought a brand new fuel-efficient Honda Fit on July 4. The bill states that the offer starts with cars purchased on July 1. My Honda dealer says my Jeep is “long gone.”

There is something wrong/fraudulent here. Surely the dealership knew this law was pending.

I would welcome any/all advice.

By: Chris Gravell

Chris Gravell — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:24:13 +0000

My 1997 Volvo 960 does not get 18 mpg yet the website says it does not qualify.

By: joe torre

joe torre — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:30:19 +0000

CAN YOU CALL ABOUT A TRUCK 201 832 4726

By: joe torre

joe torre — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:29:45 +0000

CALL YOU CALL MW ABOUT A TRUCK

By: Isac Wollner

Isac Wollner — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:00:13 +0000

Hi I have a Chevy Venture and combined fuel is 19mpg but it actully uses 9 mpg on Super and about 7mpg in regular why cant my car qualify for this program?

By: Thomas Y

Thomas Y — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:37:36 +0000

With regards to the changes in the combined mpg on the website http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm, here is my thought:

1. If the data were incorrect previouly, I could understand the change.

2. On the hand, if the data were correct previouly and it was updated by mistake, the responsible government agency ought to change it back. Such is the case for the 1993 Toyota Camry V6. Both the manual and automatic versions of the 1993 Toyota Camry have the same city mpg of 16 and highway mpg of 22 on http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm, you would think that the combined mpg should be the same for both. Yet pm July 24 the automatic was increased to 19 and the manual stayed at 18. (Note: Before July 24, both were 18. The automatic was changed to 19 on July 24.) I’m quite sure there are other cases where the new values are incorrect. The responsible agency ought to double check their data and calculation again.l

By the way, here is a method of calculating the combined mpg based on the city mpg and highway mpg:

Assuming 55% city miles and 45% highway miles, the no. of gallons of gasoline to drive 100 miles for a city mpg of 16 and a highway mpg of 22 is:

55 city miles/16 city mpg + 45 highway miles/22 highway mpg = 5.483 gallons

The combined mpg is:
100 miles/5.483 gallons = 18.238 mpg (rounded down to 18 since 0.238 is less than 0.5 as taught in elementary arithmetic.)

You will find that most of the combined mpg on the website http://www.fueleconomy.gov will match the numbers calculated with the above method, except for a few cases suca as the 1993 Toyota Camry V6 automatic.

By: Dean Scheckelhoff

Dean Scheckelhoff — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:37:06 +0000

I purchased a clunker in November that meets the above fuel mileage criteria that I would like to trade in under this program. Is there any variances for someone that did not own the vehicle for a year?

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:35:22 +0000

Just and FYI. GM.com is still using last weeks Fuel Economy ratings. I know that doesn’t matter a whole heck of a alot, but it is evidence that there were changes made to fueleconomy.gov

By: John

John — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:54:23 +0000

Just decided to check if my vehicle had changed and it went down from 18 combined to 16 combined. Pity I still don’t qualify!

By: New Card Owner

New Card Owner — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:11:00 +0000

We completed our CFC deal on Saturday. On Sunday, our clunker’s MPG rating was updated so that it no longer qualified. I’m really glad we got it done quick!!

By: Matt Watson

Matt Watson — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 03:35:23 +0000

The problem is this data is available from a lot of sources and dealers and consumer sites may be using “marketing” data from the manufacturers versus data from the EPA. Also the “combined” number on some sites may be the average of the city and highway and not the true combined MPG from the EPA. Also the EPA has changed the standards on how they measure MPG over time and they may change the numbers. So to get proper information make sure you check the fueleconomy.gov website.