There are also 60,000 cars that the Feds didn't approve for C4C so you might see those back on a dealer lot somewhere.

"That's not a resentful zombiemobile out for vengeance..."

Ha!

@FoxCMK: Do zombiemobiles eat brains or other car engines?

Ignoring the part about them not actually knowing how much their car was worth, why would anyone buy the car they didn't want just because the one they did was out of stock? There are other dealers, dealer trades, etc.

I think they were "shocked" to find out their Xterra was worth more than they got on the trade in.

@starrion: Isn't that true of every trade-in? /ducks

What does the sales contract say? From the short quote the dealership provided it seems like this would have been there at the point of sale. I haven't seen a sales contract while the cash for clunkers has been going on but I would think it would show up differently on the paperwork than just a straight trade.

Without knowing more I see it as a case of the buyer not actually looking at the sales contract before signing it. Unless of course the dealership entered it as CfC on the signed contract. Then again, not knowing what the paperwork looks like for the program who knows.

@bloatboy: It's further shocking that a car dealer was not their advocate in advising them of the value. What next?

Clunkers for Cash?

The article is written like these people were lied to about their car. They got a new car, and a $3,500 trade-in; what more do they want? The dealership is running a business, and whether they take advantage of the government program or not, these people still got their cash.

If the dealership had committed a fraudulent act, that'd be one thing. But it looks like it's on the level here. Not sure why it's news.

@starrion: My thoughts exactly on the trade in value. It sounds like the customers didnt read a word of their contract.

@tedyc03: I assume their only complaint is that much of their motivation for participating was to remove a less efficient vehicle from the road, eliminating smog/pollutants/etc. By reselling that car, the dealer is short circuiting the OPs wishes.

I wonder, had the dealer informed them of their intent before the sale was completed - would they have gone through with the deal?

I guess buying a used car isn't such a good idea right now. I was going to get a used Jeep Wrangler for winter driving but I'm wondering if I should just wait. While the car in this article may have been traded in just because of mileage I'm sure there's plenty that were surrendered because they were absolute lemons. I have to wonder what else is being put back on the lot. Ugh.

@Radi0logy: It doesn't sound like from the article that they would have gone through with the sale. Further down on the original article the guy says he probably would have held onto the X-Terra for 2 more years if this was the case.

Then again it still has to show on the sales contract though where the $3500 comes from though right? Even if it wasn't communicated verbally to them I'm assuming there is still somewhere that says the $3500 was either trade-in or cash for clunkers.

@Chmeeee: My mum went with her second choice (a Honda) over her first (a Toyota) because Toyota gave her shit over her paperwork, which was all in order, and refused her the scrap value of the car, which they had to give to her under the program.

It was a close second anyway, and she's very happy with it.

@bloatboy: So true. Except this C4C deal turned out to be great for people with true clunkers. My parents got $4500 for a '98 Ford Windstar that was worth around $3000 KBB, I think. And my mom LOVES her Honda Fit. LOVES.

@Radi0logy: Lets go with your "wishes" argument and add a twist in there that many dealerships faced.

The dealer and the OP both wished to take the polluter off the road. The deal goes through, the dealer gives them the $3500 and applies to the government for reimbursement. The government takes much, much longer than it should. The dealer realizes he could get at least $3500 for the car and decides to resell it. Because the government did not uphold its contract, the dealer breaks their contract and resells the trade-in.

Is there anything wrong in that example?

@tedyc03 A Nissan Xterra in trade-inable condition would probably be worth quite a bit more that $3500, even when selling to a dealer. Yes, that means that these people didn't research the Blue Book value of their vehicle, but I'm sure the dealer said something along these lines: "Oh man, look at that piece of crap. I bet you sure are glad the Cash for Clunkers program is going on!"

Thank you Phil for letting us all know that the dealership did nothing underhanded and people obviously didn't read their trade-in paperwork to understand that their car was traded in and not part of the CARS program. Is that the take-away on this one? That people should read stuff?

There seems to be a general consensus that the dealership underpaid for this trade-in and that the couple could have gotten more if they had done some research, however that isn't really true. This is a 2001 Nissan Xterra with 141k miles on it. [www.vwofgardengrove.com] A quick search of Kelly Blue Book shows an estimated trade in value of $2575 for this care in excellent condition or $2200 in good condition. The couple got $3500.

The couple got a good deal, the dealership got a good deal, and the taxpayer got a good deal. As Michael Scott would say, this is win, win, win.

@gparlett:
And you Sir are full of win for doing research. So does this make your post a win of a win, win, win situation?

@aka_mich: from the agreement sheets i've seen this summer, the c4c credit simply appears under "trade-in" - there's nothing indicating that it's a c4c trade-in (except maybe a scribble in the margin by the salesperson). i believe there are addenda for the program, but like you i've never seen this paperwork - just the dealer agreement sheets.

i suppose those contracts could say virtually anything. i've heard rumors that a few of these addenda require the owner to compensate the dealer for the credit if the government fails to refund the amount, so the existence of a "we can do whatever we want with the car" clause doesn't surprise me.

Actually... I think in this case the dealership could have just 'given' them a value of $3500 for thier car instead of a discount on the new car. Dealerships aren't in the business to lose money, they do lose money, but they dont' try to.

Did this couple REALLY use CFC to get thier car off the road in the name of environmental do-goodedness? Or did they want a new car?

@CFinWV: I doubt that the true lemons are being resold. There are generally laws that protect the consumer from that. If the car is manufacturer or dealer certified (meaning it's gone through a whole battery of checks to make sure it's a good vehicle that has no problems), you are pretty protected.

@joeblevins: Did this couple REALLY use CFC to get thier car off the road in the name of environmental do-goodedness? Or did they want a new car?

Or both?

@joeblevins:
If they were environmental do-gooders they probably wouldn't have owned the vehicle in the first place.

@gparlett: And some fool will pay $5,995 for it at 20% interest...

@chiieddy: They eat thier owner's wallets...

@CFinWV: The dealership would have to believe that they could get at least $3500 or $4500 (depending on how much credit the seller got) to try to resell it. The true beaters would never sell for that.
The cash for clunkers row at my local Pull a Part is just horrifying. So many NICE vehicles just...killed.

I figured that this type of stuff would happen especially in areas like California or the Southeastern US (where I live) in which cars do not degrade quickly as cars do in the Northeast and Midwest due to crappy roads and winter road de-icing sodium/calcium chlorides. I trolled one car dealer's clunker lot and there were some cars/trucks that looked alot better here in TN than vehicles 10 years younger in the Northeast...

The dealer did nothing wrong since they did not submit the vehicle for re-imbursement under the program. The dealer is trying to get $2500 profit on a $3500 trade in.

My guess is that the program actually brought in 20% more vehicles than actually submitted under the program...

@Chmeeee: In Marin County, 400,000 people just north of San Francisco, which a few years ago had boatloads of new car dealers to take care of a rather affluent population...

Most of the car dealers have closed. There is now one dealer each for GM, Ford, Honda, and Toyota. There are no Chrysler dealers anymore.

So if you want something other than what they have on the lot, you have to be prepared to drive. A lot.

My immediate reaction is that the dealership schooled them or they need to do more investigation to the value of the vehicle. If its back on the road I would venture a guess that you could have got more than $3500 out of the dealership for it. Just cause its east (the CFC trade in value) doesn't mean its the best option.

... gotta make those car dealers work for your business. Don't be easy on them!

@tedyc03:

A dealership acting on the level *is* news...

@Nogard13: I thought they were required to immediately have their engines destroyed when the paper work was turned in... Hopefully I'm wrong and the denials weren't first destroyed.

@Cant_stop_the_rock: Do you know of a circa 2001 vehicle that gets extremely good gas mileage and low carbon emissions that can also go off roading and haul canoes? Not necessarily saying this is what these people were doing, but I know plenty of people who drive gas guzzlers because their Honda Fit can't carry anything larger than a kid's bicycle.

@joeblevins:
They are probably republicans so they are just pissed they did not get to spend tax dollars. Republicans love spending tax dollars.

GOOD! Junking a 2001 X-terra is retarded.

@CFinWV: if anything, i think this is definitely a buyer's market (though 4wd vehicles are generally cheaper in the spring & early summer in winter climates). you're dealing with a soft sales market, a huge influx of vehicles & low financing rates (if you need to finance). plus, it seems like every lawn in america has become a used car lot (at least where i live) as people try to keep up with the bills.

if you're concerned about the car itself, there are many things you can do - ask the dealer to pull a service history, pull a carfax &/or pay an unaffiliated mechanic to inspect the vehicle for you. carfax has a buyback guarantee - according to their site:

The CARFAX Buyback Guarantee protects you from unknowingly buying a used car with DMV-reported incidents (salvage, fire, flood damage, odometer problems or lemon history). This coverage lasts one year and is transferable.

Please remember to print and retain a copy of your CARFAX report as it will be required in a Claim submission per the program's terms and conditions.

so, if the only reason you're not buying is b/c you're worried about getting a crap car, just take steps to protect yourself.

@TuxthePenguin: Well, sure. If I have a contract with you, and you have a contract with someone else based upon our contract, and that person breaks their contract with you that doesn't give you a blank slate with me. Our contract is still valid and unless you write in some special stipulations that I agree to, you can't just break the contract with me.

I think most people would operate under those assumptions.

Makes me sad about the C4 vette that got clunked. The thing certainly had more than $4,000 in parts on it and could have been sold outright for around $7,000. People need to research their cars.

@FoxCMK:

@katstermonster: I agree with that actually. If my existing car qualified (gas milage is too good for C4C), any amount would've been worth more than what the car is actually worth.

So they're motivation was to get the car off the road, and if they knew the dealer wasn't going to euthanize it, they would have...continued to drive it? Which leaves it on the road? Which is the same place it'll be now?

I smell people wanting to be on TV.

@pecan 3.14159265: not hard. the xterra gets 14/17 according to [www.fueleconomy.gov]

subaru forester 4wd 19/25
subaru legacy/impreza 4wd 20/27
honda crv 4wd 19/23
ford escape 4wd (6-cyl.) 16/22
ford escape 4wd (4-cyl.) 20/24
toyota rav4 4wd 20/25

all 2001.

@AustinTXProgrammer: I sure wouldn't have destroyed the engines until they were approved. A business couldn't afford to ever eat $3500-4500 on a risk like that.

@bloatboy: Yeah, my honda accord had a $1000 KBB, so if it hadn't gotten such good gas milage, I would have totally taken the $4000.

@tedyc03: I'll light a candle tonight as a symbol of my sympathy for these poor people's plight. Better yet, I'll light my old styrofoam cooler on fire.

@Radi0logy: They accepted less for the car because they couldn't get the more efficient jetta. I'm sure they wouldn't have done that if they thought it was a trade.

@bobert: Maybe it's just me, but there's a substantial difference between the TDI and the base engine. I would love a TDI Jetta, but I have no interest whatsoever in a gas powered model. I will acknowledge that they can be hard to find.

I just don't understand why people are so quick to abandon what they want for whatever's convenient when it's a five figure purchase that they'll use everyday for years.