Will the 2012 be the same but with a plug-in option?

New technologies are always more expensive at first. The early adopters are folks who are willing and able to pay more. Eventually the technology becomes cheaper, and early units enter the used market.

The people you are talking about cannot afford any new car. Including a Prius. Some day there will be enough used Priuses on the market they'll be able to consider them.

And some day, further away, there will be used EVs on the market at affordable prices.

 

Your sentence is a bit confusing to me. Tax credits and tax deductions are two different things. With a tax credit, you actually get that money back as a refund where a tax deduction just lowers your taxable income.

 

It only applies to new cars. Because we are a dealer, when we buy a 2009 Toyota Prius and convert it to a Hymotion, then sell it as a 2009 Toyota Prius Hymotion Plug-In, the car has never been titled. It is still a new car. So it qualifies for the state and federal tax savings.

The same will apply to the 2009 Toyota RAV4 EV conversions that we are doing. In fact, we are getting these approved by the DOT and CARB to make sure they qualify for the full $7,500 federal tax credit.

We have to buy a full RAV4 with the engine. But because we buy a lot of new Prius cars, we get the lowest possible price on all of our deals from the local Toyota dealer. We try to sell the engine components that are not needed after the EV conversion.

 

The best quote I can find about the Prius Plug-in is this from: TOYOTA OPEN ROAD BLOG: Irv?s Sheet: Toyota Steps Up the Technological Pace

"And here’s an interesting tidbit for you: During its development, the new 2010 Prius was designed and engineered to package either the lithium-ion battery pack with plug-in capability, or the nickel-metal hydride battery for the conventional gas-electric system."

If this is true I'll think long and hard about ordering the 2009 in three months as a local Toyota salesman recommended. Even if waiting hurts trade-in value, I would be much happier owning a 2010 plug-in with Lithium Ion battery option.

 

In this thread we have had continued discussion assuming the absolute need for petroleum as industrial power. We assume the existence of technology to remove petroleum fuel from our mobile transport. I recall watching a newsreel shortly after the second world war of a French site using discrete reflectors as an experimental solar power source at a test site in an alpine valley.

A very smoky shot of a large I-beam being vaporized as it was shoved through the focus of the combined mirror array was quite impressive. The dialogue included statements that as fast as the beam was shoved through the focus, that was how fast the beam would be vaporized.

A vaguely similar experiment has been run at Sandia National Laboratory; not the I-beam but the multiple mirror concept. Our department of energy has completely dropped the ball when it comes to developing usable energy utilizing the sun. DUH!

We ignore or refuse to engage in practical solar research dating from Ericsson around the civil war right up to the present. John Ericsson

Our exploitation of the earth, our mother and home, has been unconscionable. Unless we collectively and corporately change our attitude we are doomed to destroy our home.

 

Thank you for your noteworthy understatement above--too many people. How much longer will it take us to finally realize and accept the fact that this is the problem? Saving species from extinction, wilderness areas, our food supply, our own quality of life, etc. will only be temporarily successful unless we first solve the overpopulation problem. For information on how and why it can and should be done see Negitive Population Growth website.

 

The one site turning up on Google as a "Negitive Population Growth website" has US immigration as it's prime problem. Try thinking about world conditions. There is only one, and we all share it. Such sites as Negative Population Growth really are worthless as solution providers for world populations.

 

You are correct, I wish that the organization's name was "International Negative Population Growth" or Negative World Population Growth".
Ron B