Hello everyone, Just saw a interview with Keny Behr the CEO of US auto LTD and he claims that through a legal loophole dealers are resaling the C4C trade-ins.
It will be interesting to see if this is true.
It was very hard to believe that these perfectly good cars wre being scrapped. I saw all the U-Yube videos with the engines being destroyed,was this all a scam to get us to believe they ALL were being destroyed?
When a dealer applies for his $4500, he must submit the VIN of the vehicle destroyed. That VIN can never be registered in the U.S. again…
But Mexico, now that’s a completely different story!! Looks like Ford Explorers are going to become even MORE popular south of the Border! North of the Border too!
What would we do without loopholes??!
Excellent recycling going to Mexico. They likely can be fixed(Explorers) if need be and run another few hundred thousand miles around on places that actually require a SUV.
I wonder how many members of Congress understood this before the bill was signed?
wasn’t this another one of those 100+ page bills that they were given on sunday night at like 10pm and they had to read it and vote on it by moday morning at 7am?
Would you be even a little bit surprised if some of the “clunkers” traded in under this program ended up back on the road, either in the US or elsewhere?
Does it matter? Really?
Of course someone is going to find and exploit a loophole in the law, and they will probably make money in the process.
Dive in if you’re brave enough. It’s not something I want to mess with.
I’ve also heard that loopholes exist in which cars are not scrapped and I can’t see perfectly good used vehicles being squashed when they could bring thousands on the lot. Maybe the squashing is for a token few.
It would probably not be too hard to doctor a few of them. Take a good trade-in, move it to a subsidiary lot where the door tag and dash VIN plates could be changed from a wrecked or ragged out heap maybe?
Personally I think the program stinks. No way should the government be using taxpayer money for PR purposes, aiding car makers/dealers, and coaxing a small number of people into further debt at the expense of everyone else.
And they consider a downsized, small displacement V-8 Lincoln LS that gets 28 MPG “crush worthy”? What a joke.
Lincoln LS was never rated by the EPA(government) to get 28MPG highway. They need a standard and the MPG of a subset of easy drivers does not qualify.
The program works Top 10 trade-ins:
- Ford Windstar Minivan
9 Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2 wheel drive
-
Ford F-150 Pickup 4 wheel drive
-
Ford Explorer 2 Wheel Drive
-
Chevrolet Blazer 4 wheel drive
-
Dodge Caravan/Grand caravan 2 wheel drive
-
Jeep Cherokee w wheel drive
-
Jeep Grand Cherokee 4 wheel drive
2.Ford F-150 Pickup 2 wheel drive
- Ford Explorer 4 wheel drive
It seems that dealers may be using the CARS program as a come-on and then reselling the vehicles rather than process the rebate paperwork in those cases where the vehicle is actually worth more in some other market than the $4500. This is probably legal, as there may not be any obligation to actually take the rebate.
I’d rather see them do this than take our tax dollars. It’s just unfortunate that ALL the tradeins aren’t worth more than $4500 and ALL of the dealers doing this. I’d prefer that NONE of them take our tax dollars.
EPA rating or not, the Lincoln LS will get 28 MPG. My son and daughter in law owned one until trading it off about 2 years ago and that’s what they got with theirs.
It was traded in on a 4 cylinder Dodge Caliber that gets 25 MPG on a good day. What an improvement.
Easy drivers? Hardly; especially the lead-footed daughter in law. That 28 MPG is on the Interstate with the cruise set at 80.
A neighbor here has an LS and they say they get around 26 with theirs although I have no idea what their driving habits are like.
Yes, you know how it goes: the dealer juggles the numbers, does the hula hula, and the consumer doesn’t really benefit from the cash for clunkers–but, the dealer does. (We trust some dealers to be more, or less, honest.)
The Government Agency which is administering the CARS program is aware of the potential for violations, and says; “With regard to the trade-in, NHTSA is considering various measures to ensure that the vehicle is never used again as an automobile in this or any other country. We intend to enforce the Act’s requirements strictly and vigorously and to conduct audits to detect any possible violations.”
Aha, but if the dealer never submits the rebate paperwork, there’s no violation! It’s only a violation if he collects the rebate and THEN sells the car.
Here’s my thinking:
Mr. Buyer trades his car and the dealer says "I’ll add $1000 to the rebate program and give you $5500 off the MSRP. Mr. Buyer take the deal. Once the dealer is in possession of Mr. Buyer’s trade, what’s to stop him from simply selling the car for $7500 instead of submitting for a rebate?
If buyers are trading vehicles for $5500 that will fetch $7500, then they are throwing money away. If someone is uniformed enough to make that mistake, then shame on them, not the dealer. The rebate is between the dealer and the Feds, not the buyer and the Feds.
To: Oldschool,OK4450, The same mountain bike and others in my generation
From: Triedaq
We have to get with it! These are modern times and we simply throw away things we don’t want, even if these things still work perfectly well. It probably takes more energy to build a new car than to keep a serviceable clunker on the road. We need gimmicks such as the Cash for Clunkers program to get people to spend their money (or the money they borrow from banks, so that banks can rich from the interest).
I personally hate to see anything scrapped that is serviceable. Taking a vehicle off the road and scrapping it just because it uses too much fuel I find very wasteful. Someone might be able to use this vehicle. I would like to retire in a couple of years and at that point would like to work as a volunteer for an organization that does repairs on houses so that older people who have little means of support can stay in their homes. I could certainly use one of these “clunker” pick-up trucks to take my tools to the job site and to pick up building materials. I’m certainly not going to buy an expensive “green” pick-up to do this job.
I guess, however, that I need to adjust my attitude and get with the times. (I’m not going to do this and I’ll bet many of the older responders on this board won’t either).
Not necessarily. Dealers give $5500 tradein discounts on cars that they resell for $7500 all the time. The only difference in my scenerio would be the different “come-on”. And that the buyers may not be as inclined to haggle, thinking they’re already getting a great deal due to the CFC program.
You’re right that the deal is between the Feds and the dealer…so what’s to stop the dealer from reselling at a profit (even to Mexico) rather than filing for the CFC rebate?
I won’t plan on an atttitude adjustment for myself either.
The difference between us and the younger generations may be that we have the experience to recognize this as a sham. IMHO it’s a thinly veiled addition to the bailout program for a struggling auto industry. It’s a way for the Feds to transfer our tax money to the industry while allegedly making it palatable to us. And, of course, it’ll be good for use in future campaigns.
“…so what’s to stop the dealer from reselling at a profit (even to Mexico) rather than filing for the CFC rebate?”
Nothing, I suppose, and it doesn’t bother me. Does it concern you? The purpose of the bill is to increase USA fleet mileage. Either way, the goal is accomplished. If someone is clever enough to make resale abroad work, good for them.
“IMHO it’s a thinly veiled addition to the bailout program for a struggling auto industry.”
Oh, I dunno… bailing out your big business buddies seems so Republican. Maybe they justify it as bailing out the UAW. I think the bill was presented as a way to increase our USA fleet mileage with a side benefit of aiding the auto industry. Surely benefiting the auto industry helped it pass, though.
It doesn’t concern me at all. The dealer is just operating his business. The buyer is just buying a car. I’d rather all the cars traded because of the program were sold in Mexico.
Unfortunately, enough have been traded that were not resold in mexico to eat up $1B of our tax dollars in one week. And they’re about to eat up another $2B. That’s the part I’m having trouble swallowing. That is not the purpose of federal income taxes. Or of the Executive Branch.
I’ve already posted my impression of the purpose of the program, including the “shellgame” that’s being played to make it appear environmentally focused.
Once the dealer is in possession of Mr. Buyer’s trade, what’s to stop him from simply selling the car for $7500 instead of submitting for a rebate?
Most people won’t care once they’ve driven off the lot with their shiney new debt machine… er car