Last post on Jul 30, 2009 at 5:03 AM
You are in the Chrysler/Plymouth Voyager, Dodge Caravan
What is this discussion about?
Dodge Caravan, Chrysler Voyager, Plymouth Voyager, Car Values, Van
#7 of 16 Re: G. Voyager/G. Caravan EPA is 18, NOT 19! Don't miss out Cash for Clunker! [rocky53]
Jul 16, 2009 (2:51 am)
I tried to get Chrysler to submit the info to FuelEconomy.gov about a month ago. After I hit a dead end with customer service, they suggested that I write to the CEO of Chrysler. At that point I concentrated my efforts on NHTSA and Fueleconomy.gov and my congressman, to no avail.
#8 of 16 They updated the website with incorrect info
Jul 16, 2009 (4:03 am)
Well, all fueleconomy.gov did was add the Grands into the website with the same mileage as the smaller Voyagers/Caravans. I think the only thing left to do is to petition Chrysler to submit the corrected information to NHTSA and fueleconomy.gov.
#9 of 16 Re: They updated the website with incorrect info [pragmatist1]
Jul 17, 2009 (10:37 am)
Man this is total BS. I guess there goes my plan to buy a new vehicle.
#10 of 16 We'll have to write to Chrysler
Jul 17, 2009 (10:57 am)
It is pretty disgusting. Obviously, 10 yrs ago, in order to make it look like their minivans had better gas mileage overall, Chrysler only reported the mileage for the smaller non-Grand voyagers and Caravans. Now, when it's going to make a difference for a lot of people (after all, many more Grands were sold than the smaller vehicles), the NHTSA is refusing to recognize the difference in mileage. Of course, since Chrysler had no smaller version of the Town and Country, the mpg for the Grands is the same as that of the Town and Country, namely, 16/22/18. The only thing left to do is to write to the following at Chrysler:
Bob Nardelli, Chairman of Board of Management
James Press, President and CEO
Tom Lasorda, Chief Operating Officer
all at PO Box 21-8004, Auburn Hills, MI 48321
and ask them to please report the correct mpg (16/22/18) for the Grands to the NHTSA/fueleconomy.gov, and hope that they'll do it in time for us to participate in the program.
#11 of 16 Re: We'll have to write to Chrysler [pragmatist1]
Jul 22, 2009 (10:49 am)
Still hitting nothing but dead ends here. What about you?
#12 of 16 Still Nothing
Jul 22, 2009 (2:44 pm)
I've written to Chrysler's CEO, COO,etc., cars.gov, fueleconomy.gov, (even President Obama). I've called all 3 of my congressmen also. So far NOTHING. I also was e-mailed today by fueleconomy.gov who directed me to cars.gov as the "official site" for the program. I then called them at 1-866-CAR-7891 and they then directed me back to fueleconomy.gov. I then called them and they said that the combined MPG ratings were obtained from the manufacturers by the EPA and they (fueleconomy.gov) would have someone in the EPA contact me (we'll see). I tell everyone that this admitted mistake shouldn't be this hard to rectify and that allowing it to stand will undermine both the intent and effectiveness of the "cash for clunkers" program as the Chrysler "Grands" were so popular . Any ideas going forward ??
#13 of 16 Re: We'll have to write to Chrysler [str1der]
Jul 22, 2009 (4:33 pm)
I also tried to contact my local NBC news affiliate...this may strike them as consumer advocate news story fodder. This may be our only option left. If it is picked up it may get results.
#14 of 16 Why Chrysler won't budge
Jul 24, 2009 (5:16 am)
I've been reading this discussion for a couple of weeks. I too have a 2000 Gr Caravan, and want to get a Jetta wagon (still have some hauling needs). Yesterday Chrysler unveiled its own rebate program--they are giving buyers $4500 whether or not the trade in quallifies under C4C, and adding another $4500 if the vehicle they buy meets other (rather stringent) requirements vis a vis the trade in car.
Therefore, Chrysler has nothing to gain by correcting the mpg error on the 2000 Grands. If owners of this model & year want their $4500 trade, they have to buy a Chrysler. Period. I do not think any change in the fuelecon.gov listings will come from them.
This also keeps the old Caravans on the road, btw. The dealers can turn them around & resell instead of pouring sodium silicate in the engines.
If you want your $4500 you will have to get the EPA to change the number, and the point will have to be that it's about getting the gas eaters off the road.
#15 of 16 Re: Why Chrysler won't budge [ofionnachta]
Jul 29, 2009 (8:00 pm)
I surprisingly received a call from "Steve", Corporate Offices Communications Director who said he received my letter (one of three I sent Certified Mail to specific Chrysler Officers), who wished to go over my concerns in more detail. After I reiterated the inaccurate MPG rating on the "GRANDS" and the information I received to date from FuelEconomy.gov, he claimed that Chrysler is aware of this problem and are "reviewing the matter" but couldn't say when or what the final outcome would be. He said that these complaints are "not falling on deaf ears".
We will just have to try and keep hope alive and keep making noise. Has anyone else tried to contact local or national news outlets to hopefully create some more mainstream exposure? I mentioned to "Steve" that we are beginning to solicit news coverage of this problem. He seemed somewhat concerned. (I hope it was genuine).
#16 of 16 Chrysler won't budge
Jul 30, 2009 (5:03 am)
I was told by the NHTSA in a phone call I made to them, to use the "corrections" feature on the EPA's webmaster site to alert them, as it is a data error on their webpage. So I did.
After the automated replies over the weekend, I have received 2 emails asking me to clarify, and assigning the matter a case number.
I've sent them links to the various models' mileage pages on fuelecon.gov, and told them these cars all have the same engine, and that it is very unlikely Chrysler is going to give them any corrections, no matter whose error it orignally was, because at the moment Chrysler holds all owners of 2000 Gr Caravans & Voyagers captive. And that Chrysler will simply turn around any 2000s they take as trades under their own version of C4C & put them right back on the road as used cars. They cannot themselves receive a rebate from the feds due to the erroneous listing.
There was a story on the front page of our local paper today abt C4C, and I am going to email the reporter to give her this angle. Rocky, if you communicate any more with "Steve," let him know that.