AutoblogGreen reader Michael recently sent in a question regarding the about-to-start “Cash for Clunkers” program. Officially known as the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), the program allows owners of some older and inefficient vehicles to trade them in and receive a rebate check worth up to $4,500 from the direction to buy a new car. The mere version of the rules are that the trade-in can’t be additional than 25 years old, needs to have an official combined highway/city fuel economy rating of less than 18 mpg (on the EPA’s new mpg scale), be in drivable condition and you have to be in possession of owned and insured the car for at least the year prior to turning it in. Michael’s question revolves around what happens at the time that a car has two fuel economy ratings – one for gas and one for ethanol. Turns out, no one really knows yet. Find out more succeeding the caper.
Photo by iboy_daniel. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.
Michael’s email unravel as follows:
I own a 2000 Ford Taurus Flex Fuel auto. The combined mpg in spite of unleaded gasoline is 20mpg which is over the required minimum of 18 combined mpg for the cash for clunkers program. The E85 combined mpg is a combined 15mpg the sort of the same. is under the minimum of 18mpg combined. Is this vehicle eligible for the program?
We thought the answer would be no, the vehicle is not eligible, because CARS only counts the fuel economy number when using gasoline. The CARS FAQ page explains the qualifications this way:
How do I find at a loss the combined incorporated town/highway fuel economy rating of my trade-in vehicle?
Go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm and click on the model year of your vehicle, the make, and at another time the type. Under the words “ESTIMATED NEW EPA MPG” in the red banner, there is a red number with the word “COMBINED” under it. That is the just discovered combined incorporated town/highway fuel economy for your vehicle. You may then come in the make, model, and shape year of a new vehicle you may want to pervert with money and look its combined MPG because comparison.
When you follow the instructions, you see an image like the one above. For greatest in quantity vehicles, there is only unit amount to that gives the gasoline rating. If that’s under 18 mpg, then you’re virtue to go. But, in Michael’s particular instance, there are two ratings, undivided that would qualify and one that wouldn’face to face.
We called National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the organization amenable for implementing CARS, to get to the bottom of the story. The NHTSA representative we spoke to told us – repeatedly – that, if you claim that you’ve been using ethanol in a trade-in car that has an E85 rating that qualifies for the rebate, then, yes, you can get the multi-thousand-dollar voucher towards the purchase of a new car.
The bill authorizing CARS is H.R. 2346, which President Obama signed in late June, and the text describing the program be able to be found here. In this legislation, there is no mention of ethanol or a particular fuel type. Instead, it reads:
With respect to a new fuel efficient automobile, the number, expressed in miles per gallon, centered below the logomachy `Combined Fuel Economy’ on the label required to be affixed or caused to be affixed on a new automobile pursuant to subpart D of part 600 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
Here’s what the label looks like:
The EPA’s regulations on how to advance up with this number stipulate that it be bound to “indicate the fuel economy of the automobile when operated on gasoline or diesel fuel.” Therefore, we’re pretty stable that CARS decree only air at the gasoline number, and our friend Michael is out of luck if he was hoping to trade in his Taurus. Things could change, of course. The EPA told us that no one really knows yet what the rules are, because they are still being drafted. According to the Department of Transportation, the full rules of the program will be made public in slow July. Stay tuned.
Source: www.autobloggreen.com
Related Articles
No user responded in this post