Interesting points to ponder...
1. The dealer's goal is to sell cars. The dealer realizes a "deal breaker" could be a high payment. High interest rates can cause a high payment. Therefore, it is the dealer's advantage to use a bank to finance a customer with good credit rather than a subprime lender. The reason the dealer didn't use a bank in your case is because you are a sub-prime borrower.
2. A customer with good credit would have seen the contract APR with CAC is very high. That same customer with good credit would have NOT signed it and would have arranged their own financing at a bank and then bought the car if the dealer didn't use a bank as explained in point 1 above.
3. You disclosed you have been with CAC for THREE YEARS. If you had good credit, you would have done a refi with a bank at the start of this contract rather than pay THREE YEARS of high interest with a sub-prime lender. In that instance, you would have been done with CAC and all this would be a moot point. You didn't do this because you cannot qualify for a bank loan.
It is intersting to note, whenever a rebuttle hits the nail directly and squarely on the head, the original poster suddenly comes up with all these "new" details such as how they are not subprime or there's suddenly these "extenuating circumstances", because you don't like what the rebuttle said.