“It’s my money.” There, I said it. For the duration of this blog, I’m “that guy,” the person who claims the right to dictate how his or her tax money is spent once it’s sent in to the government. And with in regard to the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), I wanted to get my tax money back, but it wasn’t going to happen.

I am generally supportive of the CARS program, and the program has certainly been successful.  But I just wish it could have done more for me. (Read: "Is cash for clunkers for you?")

My 1996 Audi A4 2.8 quattro has nearly 160,000 miles on it. It’s long paid off, has been pretty darn reliable (really!), is in excellent condition, and doesn’t get much use because I often drive the CR test cars. But it has eaten a few batteries (mostly from lack of use), the climate control display is always on the fritz, and it needed two new catalytic converters last year. Needless to say, it has little value in sale or trade.

But I’m newly remarried with a baby on the way and the A4 doesn’t really cut it safety-wise. Not only does it lack side and curtain air bags, but it also doesn’t have the LATCH system for securing child seats. This is a biggie for me. As CR says in our guide to child seats: “Despite its flaws, LATCH installation eliminates some of the incompatibilities that may exist when you use the vehicle safety belts to install a child seat.”

So I’m officially in the market for a new car, but the CARS program won’t help me. According to the EPA my A4 gets 20 mpg combined. Perhaps with the new cats and O2 sensors my car gets near that, but I doubt it. But with CARS, over 18 mpg and you’re out.

I wish it hadn’t been configured like that, and rather that any major increase in mileage would be considered.

Running my scenarios
I certainly would have rushed out to drop off the A4 at the Volkswagen dealer for either a 2009 GTI or a Jetta diesel wagon. Both fit my needs and my tastes. The GTI doesn’t represent a huge improvement, but look at the numbers from fueleconomy.gov: a 5 mpg improvement in combined mileage, a 7 mpg improvement on the highway, 3.4 fewer barrels of oil consumed each year, nearly 2 fewer tons of CO2 emitted, and a $400 savings in fuel costs each year.

If I opted for the Jetta diesel, the differences are far greater: a 14 mpg improvement in combined mileage, a 17 mpg improvement in highway mileage, 5.5 fewer barrels of oil consumed each year, 3 fewer tons of CO2 emitted, and nearly a $1,000 savings in fuel costs. But the A4’s 20 mpg overall figure prevents me from getting back my tax money.

However, my old 1996 Chevrolet Blazer 4WD, with its 16 mpg, easily qualifies for CARS. What if I traded that in on something similar, say the popular Ford Escape V6 AWD: a 4 mpg improvement overall, a 4 mpg improvement on the highway, 4.3 fewer barrels of oil consumed each year, 2.2 fewer tons of CO2 emitted, and a $458 savings in fuel costs each year.

My whining is merely to illustrate that CARS could have been written to take a wider range of “clunkers” off the road. Mandating a floor for new vehicle mileage is necessary, but why not just set that and go from there? The newly purchased cars must get 22 mpg and a 4- or 10-mpg improvement over the old, while new trucks must get 18 mpg and a 2- or 5-mpg improvement over the old vehicle.

Yes, I realize the upgrade from low to mediocre mpg (the Blazer/Escape scenario) is often the same or better than the upgrade from mediocre to good mpg (the A4/GTI). Of course, the A4/Jetta diesel (assuming I could find a Jetta diesel wagon!) easily trumps the other two scenarios.

The overall result would still be very beneficial in terms of fuel used, greenhouse gas emissions, and safety. Through the Cars blog, we’ve received many comments from readers in similar situations, with 19 or 20 mpg overall, finding the program is just beyond their grasp. In the end, CARS stops short by focusing on gas guzzlers rather than fuel economy improvement. The irony is, had I bought a less fuel-efficient vehicle years ago, I would be $4,500 closer to a new, safer family car.

—Jon Linkov

Learn more in our cash for clunkers special section.

Also read:
Cars for clunkers: Obama signs $2 billion extension into law
Cash for clunkers: CARS program beats all expectations
Cash for clunkers: Most popular clunkers, new cars
Cash for clunkers: The safety advantages with new cars
Cash for clunkers: Recommended cars that qualify for a voucher
Cash for clunkers: The best gas guzzlers to junk
Cash for clunkers: Compare the fuel savings
Cash for clunkers: Fuel and owner costs
Cash for clunkers bill cuts fuel consumption–running the numbers

Have you traded in a clunker? Share your experience in our cash for clunkers forum.