<p>Rebate program in a nutshell:</p>
<p>[‘Cash</a> for clunkers’ details: How to get rebates up to $4,500](<a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009319032_apuscashforclunkersglance.html]'Cash”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009319032_apuscashforclunkersglance.html)</p>
<p>Won’t help me. My 30 y/o weekend car doesn’t qualify because of its age and my wife’s everyday 16 y/o car is too efficient.</p>
<p>Environmentally, this program is a disaster! Destroy existing cars and pay people money to help them buy new cars that are only a few miles a gallon more efficient??? :eek: Absolutely nuts! This program should require that people receiving the rebates buy cars that get at least 35 miles or more per gallon.</p>
<p>The difference between 12 and 16 mpg is the same as 24 to 32, so this isn’t quite as bad as it seems. But the real purpose is economic. If they required really good mileage, US automakers wouldn’t get as many sales out of it.</p>
<p>It’s just another thinly disguised subsidy for the auto industry, but this one is very expensive and not very efficient. I get sick just thinking it.</p>
<p>But I love my Isuzu Trooper (it’s 8 years old and gets about 15 mpg) although apparently I’m one of the few people in this country that felt that way. RIP Isuzu.</p>
<p>This is great! More money for my piece of sh-- 97 Blazer! Now I’m actually going to get a car that I don’t need to fill up every 280 miles.</p>
<p>Tsdad, my old Isuzu Trooper averaged 17 mpg but was a great vehicle. It lasted 290,000 miles. The engine was still doing well, but the transmission was in need of a complete rebuild. I probably should have had that done. I bet it would have gone another 100k or so.</p>
<p>This is appalling. Trade in a car getting 18 mpg or less for one getting at least 22? Big whoop.</p>
<p>Lousy use of my tax dollars and yes, the low bar ensures the bill will help US automakers but not increase overall gas mileage very much.</p>
<p>I don’t know if the gov’t is thinking that folks will trade their monster trucks for Priuses, but that’s wishful thinking. Not going to happen.</p>
<p>We own a vehicle that can be considered a “clunker” under these rules, but why would we want to trade in a 10-yr old truck that has only 34K miles on the odometer? We own this thing free and clear and it does a great job hauling dirt and garden wall blocks. It gets 15 mpg, but that’s a gallon of gas for the round trip to the Home Depot. Not bad.</p>
<p>would this be like the $3000 tax credit for buying a hybrid? that later you find out you can’t get because your income is too high?</p>
<p>wbow, You hit a sore spot. It seems that whatever we get for tax credits or incentives is capped at something less than my income. So I pay a lot of taxes. When it came to FAFSA, same thing. FAFSA did not take into account a moderately high income in a very expensive, high tax area. I pay full cost for my D’s college expenses. Now that I am reaching retirement age, I just haven’t been able to save. Now is my time to get even. I am even planning on retiring early. Instead of paying a lot of taxes, I will be a drag on society. I don’t know how all you youngsters are going to afford baby boomer Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security expenses and the Obama spending plans. Not my concern, I did my time.</p>
<p>There are some websites out that help you figure out if your car qualifies and for what and how much. I have a 97 lexus ES 300 with 165k miles that is worth about $2500… and I do not qualify because the car is rated at more than 18 mpg. What a freaking joke. Let’s give money to people who bought vehicles with poor gas mileage. Free healthcare for smokers! Forgive mortgages for people with no equity and no income. Government money but only for bankrupt poorly run companies. I guess that is the model.</p>
<p>Wow edad, 290000 miles??? So my old 13 year old Isuzu Rodeo with 127K has a whole lot more years to go. I’m keeping it, I love it.</p>
<p>I have a 2000 minivan that I’d love to trade in for a new Ford Fusion Hybrid (EPA rated at 41/36 mpg, best for any mid-size hybrid). Unfortunately, because we went for the best fuel economy available at the time in a minivan, my “clunker” is rated at 19 mpg, which makes it ineligible for the program—just barely. This makes no sense to me. I think the tax credit should be based strictly on the net increase in fuel efficiency you get. In my case it would be roughly an INCREASE of 20 mpg, but I can’t get the subsidy, whereas someone who trades in an 18 mpg minivan for a 20 mpg minivan can get $3500, or if he trades in that same 18 mpg vehicle for a 23 mpg vehicle he can get $4500. Obtuse.</p>
<p>Without the subsidy, I don’t think I can afford the hybrid. Trade-in value on my old clunker is probably $1000 or less.</p>
<p>bclintonk, see? you shoulda bought a Hummer.</p>
<p>This is yet another huge waste of taxpayer dollars. </p>
<p>It seems that a side effect of this will be fewer inexpensive used cars available for sale which will drive up the prices for them which will hit the pocketbooks of those who can barely scrape together enough money to purchase a used car. I suppose next there’ll be a program to hand $4500 in taxpayer dollars to anyone below a certain income level so they can buy a car to compensate for this program driving up the prices.</p>
<p>
Good thing I bought that Durango (13mpg combined)!</p>
<p>Make sure you check the EPA website for combined mileage. Remember, the “official” MPGs were re-calculated a few years ago, b/c they were inflated.</p>
<p>In other words, even if, when you bought your car it had a milage of 20, it may have been revised by the EPA. So you may qualify.</p>
<p>I have a 18 mpg minivan, that I’m thinking of trading in…But only if the car dealers don’t increase prices by exactly $ 4500.</p>
<p>bclintonk, that would have made too much sense!</p>