EPA Update Causes More Clunker Confusion

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

Think your clunker gets 18 mpg combined? Plan on cashing in on the CARS clunker rebate program? You might want to double check those EPA numbers over at fueleconomy.gov. As part of the buildup to the Cash For Clunker program, the EPA undertook “quality assurance and quality control effort regarding fuel economy calculations on more than 30,000 vehicle model types spanning the past 25 years.” But according to CNN Money, this pre-stimulus housecleaning turned up bad data for about 100 vehicles and ended up changing their clunker rebate eligibility. Although “roughly” the same number of cars became newly eligible as became newly ineligible, this news came as a nasty surprise to owners of the 1993 Camry V6 wagon, 1995 Saab 900S, 1988 Toyota 4Runner and the 1987 Mercury Grand Marquis. And since the EPA’s statistical quality control didn’t take place until the official launch of the program, some shoppers had their deals planned out before realizing that their trade-ins were too efficient to qualify. Meanwhile, dealers have their own complaints about the program.

One anonymous dealer writes:

I wish you would let us opt out of the cash for clunkers deal. Three dealers on the conference call stated that they were not fucking with this bullshit. You wouldn’t believe the bullshit involved in this. I don’t see this costing us any significant sales. We will waste more time fucking with this than it will ever be worth. The rebates are in place to subsidize the deal. Collecting our money will be a full time job.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 15 comments
  • Italianstallion Italianstallion on Jul 29, 2009

    Wow. I remember hitting 18 mpg with my '87 Grand Marquis on one or two (downhill) highway trips. Other than that, the mileage was abysmal. Still miss the crushed velour, pillow-top bench seats. That, and the ability to gently float over every pothole on the Belt Parkway at 70 mph with just my pinky on the steering wheel.

  • GS650G GS650G on Jul 30, 2009

    It was either find a way to limit the trade in's or pony up more money we don't have. I wonder if the bailed out companies had to face this level of Scrooge when they asked for their money. Big business gets billions while Joe Six pack gets a few coppers for his pickup truck. Get back to work, AIG is waiting on your paycheck to cash.

  • FreedMike I'd say that question is up to the southern auto workers. If I were in their shoes, I probably wouldn't if the wages/benefits were at at some kind of parity with unionized shops. But let's be clear here: the only thing keeping those wages/benefits at par IS the threat of unionization.
  • 1995 SC So if they vote it down, the UAW gets to keep trying. Is there a means for a UAW factory to decide they no longer wish to be represented and vote the union out?
  • Lorenzo The Longshoreman/philosopher Eri Hoffer postulated "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and ends up as a racket." That pretty much describes the progression of the United Auto Workers since World War II, so if THEY are the union, the answer is 'no'.
  • Redapple2 I think I ve been in 100 plants. ~ 20 in Mexico. ~10 Europe. Balance usa. About 1/2 nonunion. I supervised UAW skilled trades guys at GM Powertrain for 6 years. I know the answer.PS- you do know GM products - sales weighted - average about 40% USA-Canada Content.
  • Jrhurren Unions and ownership need to work towards the common good together. Shawn Fain is a clown who would love to drive the companies out of business (or offshored) just to claim victory.
Next