SHENANIGANS! We have an Editorial call of Shenanigans. Please everyone assemble your brooms while the play is reviewed.

I think Im going to keep my gas guzzeling momzilla explorer. The other day I saw a smart car get rear-ended, and all of a sudden my clunker seemed like an iron clad ssafe ride.

Be sure to check Kelley's or Edmunds to be sure your car isn't worth more than the program rebate!

My wife tried to sucker me into this program over the weekend. I'm still on the fence about it. While I'll get more in a "rebate" than what my truck is worth, the idea of another car payment makes me cringe. I guess it boils down to whether I want to drive a beater of a truck that gets crappy gas mileage (~12 MPG), or a new car that gets (~25-33 MPG) and whether I want another GM product.
But getting almost 10,000 off sticker does make it appealing..

@everclear75: make sure to haggle first, THEN get the $10k off. Also, why would you be relegated to a GM product?

Don't assume the Smart Car is unsafe -- or that your SUV is safe. Here's a bit on Smart Car safety:

[auto.howstuffworks.com]

Then here's a bit on Ford Explorer rollovers:

[www.usautoinjurylaw.com]

There's the perception of safety and then there's actual safety, and if you're a mom, you kind of have a responsibility to know the difference, huh?

When I did a piece about how I pranked SUV drivers back around 2000, an AAA insurance investigator told me the safest car on the road was a Volvo station wagon. Don't know if it's true anymore, but he told me that because SUVs are high up, with a narrow wheel base, they are more prone to roll over.

So how do you know FOR SURE if your vehicle qualifies for the program before you buy a new car? It says that vehicles generally qualify if they're under 20mpg...but I have a car that gets 21 highway and 18 city. I assume they average them?

Just want a guarantee before I walk into a dealership.

You are forgetting that the program is a scam itself.
It encourages people to needlessly buy new cars while destroying perfectly good ones, so it is environmentally irresponsible. Plus it is more government deficit spending, which is not a good thing.

It seems to me like this is a good idea if you get decent warranty coverage on the new car

while a car payment is never fun, the cost of a single major repair is easily equal to half a year of car payments and that's even before fuel savings.

@lannister80: Visit the following website: [www.cars.gov]

The CARS program is being administered by NHTSA, and a link is also on their website: [www.nhtsa.gov]

I did this last week. Had a 1993 F150 4x4 with 225,000 miles on it, that I'd used as a daily driver to work for 6 years. Worth about 1,400...had rust, dry rotten seals around the windows/doors, slight oil leak and the torque converter was about to go. Averaged about 12-13 mpg city, about 19-20 highway. Got a 2009 Hyundai Elantra Touring that is so far averaging about 32 mpg (about 30/70), and qualifies as a SULEV/PZEV. After cash back incentive, CFC, and internet pricing, got the Elantra for about 45% off of msrp.

@lannister80:

You go by the government mpg website:
[www.fueleconomy.gov]

Find the average for your car. If it is 18 or below, you should be good.

@Rachacha: I also forgot, GM has a handy dandy calculator to tell you whether your vehicle qualifies for the CARS program, and what your "rebate" will be: [www.gm.com]

@pockygt: Believe it or not, some of them are actually recommended by Consumer Reports.

@flyingember: When that happens, the car is usually at least ten years old, and has given its all, so I just get another one.

@Amy Alkon: It's not really about suv vs. smart car safety, I had made up my mind after I saw the accident. It's more or less that the cars they are trying to push off on us are cheaply made, and will not survive much abuse.

BTW -- I'm not trying to sway anybody's point of view, just my personal opinion.

anyway, I'm not comfortable with taking on a car payment right now, even if the deal came on a silver platter hand delivered by a sparkly vampire ;)

@Rachacha: well, it says

"Generally, trade-in vehicles must get 18 or less MPG (some very large pick-up trucks and cargo vans have different requirements)"

It's the "Generally" that worries me.

@lannister80: The combined city/highway mileage must be 18 mpg or less. It's a weighted average-I think 60% city, but I'm not sure. From the looks of it, your car won't qualify.

@Amy Alkon: Most accidents aren't rollovers, though, and so SUV's are safer than cars, unless they roll over. You can't ignore that fact that they *might* roll over, but it is the exception.

@flyingember: haven't you heard of the programs "double-whammy" offer ? When your warrenty runs out, your enige blows. That way your stuck with a car payment & repair bill.

JK, the coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

***engine****

sorry.bad spelling, no coffe, it's monday.

@Coles_Law: Hmm, the GM site says I'd get $3500.

1991 Plymouth Grand Voyager, 6 cyl, 3.3 L, Automatic 4-spd

@flyingember: Agreed, if you are in the market for a new car (either by choice or necessity - major repair), then taking advantage of the CARS program, and the double rebate programs that some manufacturers/dealers are offering, it can be a good deal.

KBB valued my car at tradein at around $3000. Under the CARS program, I am eligable to receive $3500. Go to a dealer that is offering double the CARS rebate, and I get $7000 +0% financing + rebates from my GM credit card, and I am looking at almost $10K in rebates and savings...not a bad deal...if I were looking for a new car!

@HurtsSoGood:

Hence the reason why I'm looking for a new vehicle. I have a 2000 Dodge Ram that needs a new tranny. Do I want to keep it and spend the 2000 plus to fix it or use that cash for a Down payment on a new car coupled with the cash for clunkers deal? Right now, I can get a sweetheart deal on certain GM products.. Like I said, it's very appealing right now..

@HurtsSoGood:

Considering how many models they have...yeah a very few. You'd be ok with a Malibu, or full size truck and that's about it.

@flyingember:

Is that really accurate? About the only thing I wouldn't fix on my old car is the frame when it finally gives (Even then, it's hard to say--if I could get the work on the frame warrantied for long enough it was worth it, I'd still get it done).

I figure the absolute most expensive repairs possible on a car are replacing the engine and transmission. Each of which on a compact car shouldn't, IMHO, cost more than $2000, parts and labour included. That's still less than a years payments on the cheapest car you can possibly buy assuming a 48 month lease term and 0% financing. If you do what so many people do and buy something in the $25k range, well, your car could be run over by a Mack truck and still be worth "fixing".

I wish I could find it, but there was a study done comparing the cost of buying a new car vs. the cost of continuing to repair a beater. In no case did they find it was cheaper to buy the new car. It was always cheaper to patch up the zombie car and keep it going.

Personally, I don't plan to get a new car unless it is 100% battery powered and under $15k. That could take a decade so I'll be one of those cars you stare at and wonder how I manage to get it started each day. :D

The best part about having a sh*tbox is that you can attempt any repair yourself to save cash when you're broke. The worst that happens is you have the car towed to the junkyard. I personally do my own brakes and oil. And I'll be trying some other things in the future, too.

@lannister80: Assuming your Grand Voyager is 2WD (I suspect 4WD would be worse), it would qualify:

[www.fueleconomy.gov]

The hard 18mpg limit is a serious limitation in the program, IMNSHO. I have a 20mpg '91 Daytona that I'd love to trade in on something that gets 30-35 mpg but under this program it doesn't qualify. If they really wanted to get things moving, Congress could have stipulated either a limit on the trade-in of 18-20 mpg or less, *or* required that the new car get at least (pick a number) 15-20mpg better than the trade-in, regardless of what the trade-in gets.

Yes, I know the new car has to get at least 4mpg better than the <18mpg trade-in; my point is that with another set of criteria, this program would be appealing to a larger group of people.

Guess I'll keep the Daytona a little longer. It'll be a classic soon, anyway... ;-)

Important Things to Know

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, however minimal, will be in addition to the rebate, and not in place of the rebate.

@shepd:

$2000? my BIL works as mechanic at a toyota dealership, and to rebuild a blown engine or transmission on a new, newer toyota prius won't cover that.

Trust me, they will bend you over and forget the vasoline on a hybrid. They won't even give you a kiss or buy you dinner first.

@I Love New Jersey: When I read that they cease the engine and then compact it in a dump, I thought.. How is that any better for the environment? There's more than just CO gas.

Stupid blinded by media warmist

Is the clunker's MPG based on when it was brand spanking new or what it gets now? Surely they build in a duct tape factor?

by the time you factor in all the red tape, maybe it would be better if you kept the clunker as a 'spare'.

@madame_underpants:

I always wondered what that would look like. Or, a Smart Car getting t-boned by any large sedan, suv, or truck. Oh, the carnage.

@IfThenElvis: are they going to factor in the wire coat hanger holding up the tailpipe too ?

@I Love New Jersey: It's about

@Shadowman615: Bah. Posting Fail.

It's more about conserving oil and stimulating auto sales than protecting the environment.

@madame_underpants:

:)

I guess I'm blind to all those high prices because I bought the handyman's special: A Corolla.

There's no way I'd pay $2,000 for any single repair on that car (parts + labour included) because I am certain I can junkyard what I need for half that and get the mechanic to put it in for me for the other $1k. Of course, he already knows that and knows better than to charge anything excessive.

@madame_underpants: You're comparing apple to kumquats. Shepd was talking about replacing the engine or transmission on a beater compact car, and you are talking about replacing the engine or transmission on a new Prius. Those are completely different situations.

@Shadowman615: You know there is much more oil that is spent creating and shipping cars than simply driving a car that gets say 18 mpg vs 26?

This is excellent advice. You do not need to pre-register for this program to take advantage of it. I wrote a decent wrap up here CarDealerHorrorStories. I know, I'm pimping my own site, but it IS related. :)

@Skankingmike: Yeah, if they want to play this off as environmentally friendly, the parts should be able to be resold, just not the car as a whole. I know it would be harder to enforce, but it would not only mean less waste to dispose of, but less carbon produced making new parts for older cars that need repairs.

@IfThenElvis:

No, I imagine the program would cost another billion of we had to run each car through MPG tests to verify current MPG.

@JohnnyUtah_GitEmSteveDave:
*slow build standing ovation*

@Skankingmike: No, I don't know that. I've seen articles that claim that is completely false and others that claim it's true. Do you have any hard numbers to back that statement up?

I really don't give a rat's ass either way, to be honest, just wondering.

@Amy Alkon: Being less prone to rolling over probably won't do much good when you're hit straight-on from the front or back at 40 mph. Having four times the mass to absorb the impact might help though.

@madame_underpants: small cars are actually holding up pretty well these days in protecting the passengers (you cannot seriously think smart cars represent small cars in general). and as for damage, SUVs/vans can be extremely expensive to fix in small accidents (moreso than cars), however, they also have a huge gas and maintenance cost thats aren't nearly as extreme as cars.

meanwhile, i ride a bicycle since i cannot afford a car and public transportation is inadequate. i'd much rather be hit by a car than an SUV since with an SUV i have no chance of rolling onto the hood, i.e. SUV hit = my probable death via under the wheels & car hit = likely serious injury (broken legs, roll over hood). your minor or possibly even non-existent addition of safety by driving an SUV = my possible death if you make a stupid mistake. (you wouldn't hit this biker if you don't make a mistake since i follow traffic laws + follow strong defensive safety precautions... yet i've almost been hit many times by stupid/careless/ignorant/blind/impatient drivers.)

@madame_underpants: Isn't that kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy though? People stick with bigger cars because they think smaller cars can't take damage as well, when they're driving a bigger vehicle that will inflict more damage. If everyone drove smaller cars, the damage from collisions would be lower to begin with.

@shepd: "In no case did they find it was cheaper to buy the new car. It was always cheaper to patch up the zombie car and keep it going."

Ther comes a time however when you need to consider reliability. I had a Saturn that was 10 years old, and the body was still in very good condition, but the transmission went on it, and it was starting to develop random electrical problems (that were difficult to diagnose and repair), it needed new tires, new struts, new brakes and a few other things. I estimated about $6000-7000 in repairs to make the car reliable again (and having the car in the shop for several weeks). Certainly cheaper than a new car, but then you begin to think this car is 10 years old and has 80K miles of stop and go city driving and wonder "What if...The engine goes and needs to be overhauled, and the exhaust system and..." after investing $7000 in needed repairs to the car and considering the "very likely" repairs that will follow in a few months, it can easily approach $10K or more.

When I can negotiate a deal on a new car with a 5 year 100K warranty, and take advantage of rebates and discounts, and trade-ins and come out with a new car for $12K out of pocket at 0% interest one has to seriously consider their options.

@shepd: First rule of driving beaters is to have more than one.