Featured New federal EV incentives

Medicare for anyone:

• Reduce age eligibility to 60 years and one year reduction every year thereafter.
• Alternate to COBRA
• Let discharged service men and women opt in to either Medicare or Tricare (VA)
• Medicare negotiate drug prices

Bob Wilson

 

Such a blatant provoke reveals an important fact. Some focus so much on a point-in-time response that they completely miss the lesson learned and fail to see when change takes place. They don't recognize cherry-picked examples either. In this case, we may have seen some initial surge in demand which consequently resulted in mark-ups. But seen within context, $4 gas of that time really puts on understanding on supply a new offering. But when you fast forward 2 years, we see that supply was piling up. Then came the massive price drop. That $5,000 reduction tells us much about GM's problem.

It wasn't Volt. In fact, there was never any hate. It was all about not doing anything with the technology. Volt was a conquest vehicle, a model designed specifically to appeal to early-adopters who otherwise had no interest in any type of GM vehicle. That would have been fine if the technology was rolled out to other models. Diversification is a Business 101 fundamental. If you don't spread the achievement, the opportunity for growth will be lost... which is exactly what we witnessed. GM became desperate for sales.

This topic of new FEDERAL EV INCENTIVES ties directly to that. $7,500 tax-credit became a dependency. Sales were a struggle even with such a large subsidy. Much of that can be attributed to the message from GM about lack of confidence with its own technology. Not seeing it offered with any other vehicle was a big tell. Why would a supposedly well proven design not be spread across the fleet? After all, we were watching Toyota do that with its hybrid tech. Why wasn't GM doing the same with their plug-in hybrid tech?

In short, you are wrong. We have seen Prime technology spread from Prius to RAV4. In China, there is a Corolla PHV too. Quite unlike Volt, there is no intention for conquest sales. Those are vehicles targeted directly at Toyota's own core customers. That is real change, not a "halo" as GM delivered.

Notice how Corolla Cross is now heading to North America? Just like what we saw for RAV4, making it a Prime model is easy to accommodate by lifting the floor. Toyota is setting the stage to further spread their tech in an extremely popular vehicle on a high-demand platform... which brings us back to this topic of new FEDERAL EV INCENTIVES. Toyota has time on its side. There's a penalty for rushing. Taking the time to prepare for a variety of offerings is opportunity.

Tesla did an exceptional job of taking advantage of the tax-credit phaseout period, increasing production dramatically during that time to maximize the opportunity. Tesla knew that resulting momentum would result in sustained sales afterward. It worked like a charm too. Key to that was drawing & building an audience. GM never bothered. Volt was for conquest, not to change its base. Looking at GM dealerships, that is undeniable. There simply was no interest.

Ford sees that as opportunity. 70% of their Mustang Mach-E sales are conquest. They recognize that niche audience. This is why true Mustang fans are still waiting for an actual Mustang model, not a SUV with familiar labeling. This is also why their premier BEV model will target their core customer, the F-150 owner looking up replace their old F-150 with a new one offering a plug. That couldn't be any more of an extreme of a difference from GM.

Put another way, the supposed "hate" has been called out as really just an effort to stir posting. It wasn't constructive. It sighted no purpose. It was void of any detail. This reply, on the other hand, explained the situation in a nature no one can interpret as vague. The past and future of FEDERAL EV INCENTIVES is a topic of complex responses to challenging situations. Some automakers take the situation seriously; others do not.

 

Respect the view, though in some instances it doesn't be seem to be based in reality. As some have stated before revolving around this topic, if nothing else, GM learned more than they originally had, regarding traction packs, & traction pack cooling tech, which seriously carries over to their all electric vehicles - nevermind the fact the electric Drive platform couples to ICE still sells overseas. As far as Volt demise in the USA, everyone manufactured was sold in short order, especially compared to the Hummer which sat languishing in remote lots for years after they were scuttled. Agreed they were high-priced are relatively small car, but the small car being scuttled here in the US for the most part was part of the dynamic as well - just as the Prius C was scuttled although it was a great car.
Speaking of a thermal management, it has yet to be revealed if Toyota will try & get away with air cooled traction packs on all Electrics. Speaking of Lessons Learned, (one of your frequent isms) Toyota will hopefully not follow the failure of Nissan in that regard.
.

 

KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE !!!

Volt was discounted heavily, both sale & lease prices, to stir interest. The only bites GM got were from fleet & early-adopters... neither of which achieved any type of change... the very purpose of the tax-credit. They were nothing but hallow victories. The lesson-learned was conquest does not impact the status quo. GM's business actually got less green as a result, despite so much praise for supposedly being the legacy leader. We witnessed the end of car choices and now a reincarnated obsession with Hummer. Remember all the hype about Two-Mode, how it would evolve to offer a plug? Remember the prototype and all those excuses about delay? Toyota ended up delivering the promise instead... a product targeting their core consumer. We are still waiting for GM.

 

I well remember the ‘two mode’ that looked as complex as existing automatics followed by closing the transmission factory.

Bob Wilson

ps. Still waiting on apology for Chevette.

 

i'm glad toyota is not discounting the prime like gm did the volt. best you can seem to get is only 10-12k off of msrp.

 

I'm not sure what ancient history has to do with the ev incentives unless we look at the hybrid incentives and compare them.

The first round of ev incentives were very productive. The price of batteries have fallen much faster than predicted, and it is mainly because of incentives in the US and China. Tesla now sells a car with 400 mile epa range, and next year they will probably have a car and truck that can go over 500 miles. Rivian also should be producing a 500 mile truck. Tesla has built charging infrastructure across 3 continents. The US incentives need to change now that the heavy lifting of incubating technology has been done. The lagards currently get incentives that tesla and gm maxed out. Tesla sold all the cars they could make last year, and that was with no us federal incentives. GM might have built a US phev crossover as it has done in china, but here it would need to compete with the escape energi and rav4 prime which both get $7500 off. This may be part of the reason toyota is underproducing the rav4 prime as well as they can take more profit until they sell enough to max out.

I don't like the new plan. Perhaps plug-ins deserve a small subsidy, but when you make it that large people are just going to hike the price. Bonuses for US union assembly just cuts the wrong way to me. Are they trying to get technology out to reduce oil consumption or are they trying to help the UAW states versus right to work states like my own. Federal government should help improve charging infrastructure. Maybe something like $3500 incentive for the next 2 million plug-ins with a 15 kwh battery or bigger. That would probably get toyota to build more rav4 primes and get gm to bring over a US version of their phev crossover. People would complain though that tesla would get most of the money. At least it wouldn't incentivise people to be laggards.

That was one of the problems with the hybrid subsidies. They came when toyota couldn't make enough hybrids, and expired for them when they would have helped.

There are a lot of companies that I have to deal with that have bad business practices. I never had to deal with gm other than buying and selling their stock. I think the people that you want that apology from no longer work at gm.

 

Before Obamacare it wasn’t possible for me to have health insurance

 

My wife tried to follow a steel beam bumper pickup through a light but he stopped instead. The beam decapitated the radiator and accordion the hood. She hated the car and was dancing about it.

Walking around it I rubbed my chin and said, “Oh I don’t know. $50 in parts from a junk yard and I can get it running again.”

She was not amused.

Bob Wilson

 

It was nothing special in the snow. Rear-Wheel drive had traction shortcomings. My front-wheel drive Dodge Omni drove circles around them.

 

The Chevette Diesel 5mt was actually not bad, just slow but 50mpg was nice as was the reliable drivetrain. FWD definitely was available on the later Chevettes.

Rust was the main problem or your fiberboard floor getting wet

 

back on topic...

Purpose of tax-credits is a common among misunderstandings. Some of that is from spreading assumptions. Some of that is quite intentional. None of that is helpful.

For example, the hybrid tax-credit didn't come about until January 1, 2006. That was well into the second generation of Prius here in the United States, after the point of already achieving 100,000 annual sales. That made the purpose of the subsidy a means of GROWING the market, not establishing it... which is a profound difference from the first round of EV incentives. That puts into perspective some context overlooked and should make us want clarity of purpose for the second round.

Growth of market means no longer allowing extremes to retain the focus, giving attention to vehicles that are clearly a niche. Never having potential for high-volume should be a red-flag. It hasn't. We have watched several examples in the past dominate media praise without ever delivering growth.

What should priorities be? It's a question not being asked. That's a warning sign of trouble to come. Without agreement, the market will continue to flounder in the chaotic manner we have become accustom to.

 

it's politics john, they're never gonna get it right. and even the experts disagree about the best way to go about it.
we take what we can get. at least the next 4 years will be better than the last 4

 

That attitude of "good enough" has consequences.

 

yep - just as "perfect" has consequences ....
-

 

I'm not sure what misunderstanding you are talking about. There was a $2000 deduction in 2001-2005. This probably helped toyota and honda get hybrid sales going, but wasn't enough of a boost until the gen 2 prius. In 2006 $3150 tax credit went into effect with it decrease the second quarter after 60,000 vehicles were sold. Since the tax credit moved prius sales forward there were wait lists, and it hit 60,000 in the second quarter of 2006. October 2006-March 2007 the toyota credit was $1575, April 2007-September 2007 it was $787.50, then dropped to nothing. 2007 was the best sales year in US for the prius ever. Honda hit their 60,000 in 2008 and then phased out. Ford and GM never even got to that number before the tax credit expired in 2010. Toyota couldn't make any more Prius to sell in 2006 until after the tax credit dropped. Its likely 2008 hybrids were pulled into 2007 where they got partial tax credit. Honda may have sold more hybrids. Net effect was not a substantially higher hybrid sales rate. All in all a failure by any measure.

Toyota never even produced the prius in North America, the plant they built for it now produces corollas that were moved from other north American production. we can look at the failure in several ways. The cap was too small - the biggest manufacturer hit it in less than 6 months. Unlike the tax deduction in 2001-2005 which helped but may have been too low, this expired too fast for companies to r&d new hybrids and build manufacturing capacity.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Is it the mirai? The prius prime? Be more specific. Definitely the hybrid tax credit brought about gm's two mode, is that what you are talking about?

That is vague and unhelpful.

From my previous post, expanding the market needs to be the the priority for this. As mentioned battery costs have already fallen and are still falling. The incentive appears too big here. The UAW portion will not expand the market but is a clear giveaway to ohio and Michigan and the ford and gm vehicles assembled by union labor there, and works against tesla. It is a similar mistake to the 60,000 cap in hybrids to help gm and ford versus honda and toyota. The final assembly portion is just strange. This is likely a throw away to the gm bolt - 20% north American content but assembled in a uaw shop - which in reality does not need extra bonuses. North American content would be a much better goal for incentives but make it $500 for over 50% content, instead of $2500 for tiny percent of finally assembly.

I have a feeling congress will tailor something that does little good or even some harm, like the hybrid tax credits.