I can't answer the first question without knowing why the 6 kwh number was recommended. The answer to the second question would probably be "no" because tax credits for their vehicles have come and gone -- changing what qualifies for the credit won't change that fact.

Prius have been sold out without the tax credits for quite awhile now.

This Volt credit is a huge one, probably unreasonably so considering the likely mpg and carbon footprint of the vehicle. Still I would like to see a graduated scale that encourages new initiatives.

I agree with Toyota that they should be getting a credit for a plug in as well, but that it should be scaled based on storage capacity, etc.

A system of "after the fact" credits is pure political bull$hit to reward specific manufacturers. If this country is serious about reducing gasoline use, a tax credit structure needs to be in place ahead of time, so that manufacturers can do development with the goals in mind, not unleashing lobbyists after the fact.

I also agree that a rebate scale for battery capacity is the way to go.

OTOH, a $7000 rebate for 6 kwh is a very low lying juicy fruit that Toyota would be nuts not to take advantage of. Hymotion charges $10k for 5 Kwh, so I find it hard to believe that Toyota could not build it for less than $7,000. That would be a 100%+ subsidy.

Wow.

I see Toyota -trying- to protect its' market share in the future plug-in cars. There is nothing basically wrong with that, but I don't think the US govt. should listen.

I DO think that if they ARE going to issue a tax credit it should be a graduated one as proposed above.

I also think the US govt. has a lot to protect in the Volt. A "made in the US" car by a very large US corp. teetering on bankruptcy. Now IF Toyota were actually MAKING the plug-in Prius in the US Toyota MIGHT have something valid to complain about. They are NOT, despite some reports to the contrary, they are just planning to do so in the future.

But I'm Canadian, so my opinions shouldn't count. It's your business (literally).

the whole reason it's not fair is because GM and other companies hold the "large battery in a hybrid" patent. it's not that toyota can't give you a 16kw battery.. it's illegal for them to equip anything larger than 1.5 without breaking patent laws...

It is not illegal if you pay the agreed upon royalties. Having a patent doesn't always mean no one else can use it -- you just have to give the patent-holder their due.

The volt is a hybrid (no matter what GM chooses to call it). As such, it should qualify for whatever portion remains of GM's piece of the existing rebate program. It was fair for the prius, escape, civic and etc. hybrids and should be fair for GM hybrids as well.

Sadly, we're not in the least.

... Brad

Washington these days seems to be the creator of all of our problems, and not the fixer. Those jerks in Congress, both parties, are behaving like it was the 1950s. Toyota and Honda probably generate as many domestic jobs nowadays as American car companies--maybe more. The Volt will never sell anyways. GM doesn't know how to sell cars anymore--not here.

Posted comments at Motor Trend:

The patent holder is Texaco/Chevron, and as far as I know they expressed no interest in letting anyone use it at any price. They sued Toyota to stop production of their large scale NimH batteries used in the RAV4 EVs. This rendered the only practical technology for BEVs and PHEVs off limits for the better part of the last decade. Only since Li-ion has started becoming feasible have the patent holders started indicating they might let certain people (GM, DOD) use their NimH patent.

Rob

Let me get this straight....Toyota is upset that another manufacturer's vehicle will make owners eligible for a tax credit probably because the vehicle relies more on the electric drivetrain. Isn't that the agrument that I heard countless times for Toyota's full hybrid getting a bigger tax credit than a mild hybrid? Hmmm...very interesting.

GM could have not made a hybrid with the same design as HSD without paying royalities...so it is difficult to comapre the manufacturers on hybrids. The hybrid car business is more about design than manufacturing.

I'm sure Toyota is capable of developing a vehicle to qualify for the tax credit. If Toyota chooses not to produce a PHEV with a large battery pack to qualify for the new tax credit that is their business....the same as GM chose not to produce a vehicle that could qualify for the max amount for the last tax credit.

GM already got their free money. FREE MONEY ... not a measly tax credit, or a discount for their customers. With the free money GM got, they built the EV1 ... on the backs of us, the taxpayers. So looking at it THAT way, the EV1 never even belonged to GM, rather all of us US, the taxpayers. What did they do with the best damn EV that WE paid for? Don't get me started on giving more to GM. I'm done w/ them.

What do you mean "after the fact"? The car is not even fully developed and the tax credit is for the consumer, not the manufacturer. Such a tax credit will certainly increase demand for this fuel efficient vehicle while reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Isn't that desired outcome? How is it different than the Prius tax credit that was implemented years after the car hit the market?

Now, you can argue that tax credits in general are a bad thing, particularly by a government that is already deeply indebted. But that is a different issue.

If they do implement it though, it should be a scaled tax credit - offering more to consumers who buy the more efficient of these vehicles. This would incentivize consumers to seek a wide range of more fuel efficient vehicles.

A tax credit for the consumer is still a tax credit for the producer because logic says consumers will buy more of the cars than without the credit -- the producer gains by that.

There is a difference. The current system of tax credits is a one-time credit that is awarded to the consumer but the producer must qualify for it and also apply for it. The credit is phased out by the total number of qualifying vehicles sold by the producer. Toyota reached the vehicle limit in 2007. Toyota cannot apply for the credit again. Toyota's argument is that GM is creating a new category within the existing tax credit program offered by the government that basically extends the credit for GM only. Toyota buyers would not have the same opportunitiy as GM buyers because Toyota's tax credits already ended and you can't extend the timing of the benefits once you are done.

wait a minute.............

The patent holder is Texaco/Chevron, and as far as I know they expressed no interest in letting anyone use it at any price. They sued Toyota to stop production of their large scale NimH batteries used in the RAV4 EVs. This rendered the only practical technology for BEVs and PHEVs off limits for the better part of the last decade. Only since Li-ion has started becoming feasible have the patent holders started indicating they might let certain people (GM, DOD) use their NimH patent.

and then................

if this is true, this then indeed stops every other manufacturer in creating better cars. yeah, it's business, yeah, it's the law of patents, but this is something that just doesn't sound right. it stops the chances of better vehicles. gosh.............never knew this. this is quite disturbing to me. :boink:

The patent on larger batteries is ridiculous. That's like patenting a larger fork or a faster computer, without making any genuine technological advances. That's got to be challenged in court.

Because the development has already been done. It is "after the fact." The development was done without the tax credit there. This is bass ackwards incentivization of the market. It also is designed to favor one manufacturer over others by targeting their product after development is complete.

If you want the market to work efficiently, you put the long term goals and incentives out in plain sight well in advance, then let ALL of the competitors shoot at them. You don't wait until a product has been developed, then reward based on the weight of the lobbying efforts as has been done here.

in what court? Reagan packed the court with as many business minded conservatives as possible. And Bush 1 and 2 have continued the trend. Good luck getting your way in court