Sparks will fly over GM, Toyota plug-ins
It's all been very gentlemanly so far. No name calling. No punches thrown.
But a fight is brewing between heavyweights Toyota and General Motors over the way the government should support plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
Robert Wimmer, a Toyota research manager, told a Senate committee last week that proposed legislation "redefines plug-in electric vehicles to seemingly eliminate consumer tax credits for all but one plug-in vehicle design. Toyota believes this approach is counterproductive."
He didn't identify the Chevrolet Volt by name. But the GM hybrid would be the main beneficiary of the bill, which would provide tax credits of up to $7,500. A plug-in hybrid being developed by Toyota might not qualify for a tax credit.
The difference? The bill, as written, bases the credit on a vehicle's range in the electric-only mode. The Toyota design is expected to rely, more than the Volt does, on an alternating combination of electric and gasoline engine power.
Said Wimmer: "We believe consumer incentives should encourage all plug-in designs and allow the consumer market to select winners, not legislation."
GM spokesman Greg Martin challenged the assertion that only the Volt would benefit but said it is understandable that Toyota's testimony "would reflect their competitive interests."
(Source: Automotive News)
Glenn
Anyway, Toyota's request seems totally fair to me, Especially for a $7,500 tax credit. Geez. It's hard to say for sure since we don't actually know anything about their car yet, but a plugin is a plugin, even if they use different methods (series vs parallel). Parallel is still completely capable of on electricity alone for as long as the batteries will carry it.
one. the volt is designed to be ELECTRIC ONLY for the first x amount of miles (i think its 40, not sure), that isn't the case the toyota.
so the chevy is essectially a gas free electric car, but when you need to go farther, you have the option to use the gasoline. the toyota can't do that according to this article.
Toyota's request would seem fair to me, if their car could operate without the gas, but it can't.
2nd. Japan has worked closely with toyota for years, devaluing the yen, and other things to promote foriegn sales of thier cars. toyota slashes the prices on thier cars over the years in this market to destroy local automakers, and then makes up the sales in places without compition.
I have no problem giving every advantage to a local automaker.
If Toyota want's the $7,500 tax credit, they need to build a car worthy of it.
Batteries are not 100% reliable and some will go bad very fast and they are extremely expensive, and of course the main reason is distance.
I am getting 32mpg on my 96 accord. I cant believe they still haven't make a car that can get 100+mpg at a affordable price.
Also, batteries aren't going to go bad "very fast" it's a well researched technology (Li-Ion batteries) that have been used in laptops for well over a decade. Batteries are just as reliable as your engine so that's also not an issue. The batteries in the Volt will go 150k miles without losing anything and even then it's not like an engine that could fall apart - the batteries will slowly decrease in max storage. It'll be another 50k miles + before it gets below 80% peak.
Also, there's a 10 yr warranty on the batteries so as long as GM/Honda/Toyota/Ford/whoever are willing to replace it for you if there's a problem and you've got a gas-engine to back you up what's the problem?
I used to get over 40mpg in my '90 civic and they still aren't making civics that good and here it is almost 20 years later - you need to realize there's only so much optimization you can do with the IC (or even diesel) engine. There's a peak efficiency and even with all the technology in the world you aren't going to get the IC above 30%, there's just way, way too many losses. That's the reason we don't have 100mpg vehicles because the engine would have to be so weak that you wouldn't even be able to travel on the highway...
To expand on strykernyc's comment, the reason GM was hesitant to reveal details on the Volt and are waiting until 2010 to release it is because they are banking on batteries improving by that time. If they don't, watch the specs for the Volt go down the toilet.
Oh, and as a reminder, the plug-in hybrid is only effective from an environmental standpoint [not considering a foreign oil standpoint] if we switch to a low-carbon power grid.
Oh, and as a reminder; we emit far less carbon thant say China. Get your facts straight.
That seems like a fair compromise - also, that would help GM's new Saturn plug-in Saturn Vue SUV that's coming out next year.
Also, to spur technology those mileage "bonuses" go up 10% each year. so 40 in 2010 would be 44 in 2011 and 48.4 in 2012, up until you reach 80 miles. I think that would cover probably 95%+ of Americans commutes and that's really the goal here...
Second, if you want to argue the merits of the proposed legislation, then you need to understand what the intended goal is. It is essential that /some/ kind of criteria be established for who is eligible to receive the credit. Using the "gas-free" range of the vehicle isn't unreasonable. Creating a sliding scale based on EPA MPG would be another reasonable method ... the better your MPG, the better your tax credit.
I think that the legislators need to look at the big picture and decide what they want to reward citizens for: trying to improve the environment or trying to end our dependance on fossil fuels or both.
16 years later they can't do (or won't do) better than that?????
Watch the movie "who killed the electric car" and then you will understand who is really working for you, and who's working against the consumer.
Also, since I'm sure there's some environmental aspect to this realize that the EV-1 used Ni-Cd batteries which are much worse for the environment than the current Li-Ion batteries.
GM didn't kill the electric car - the consumer did...
They recalled them and crushed them even after promising not to do it.
People who wanted to buy the car were refused.
GM refused to advertise the car properly and made people fill out an extensive application just to lease it.
Once the California mandate was lifted, GM and Toyota pulled all the cars off the market.
How many miles do your drive per day. The national average is 29 miles!
Also, something you fail to realize is that Ni-Cd batteries lose their charge much, much, much quicker than Li-Ion batteries so the entire vehicle's battery system was going to need replaced in a matter of just a couple years.
The EV1 was a prototype that GM mistakingly let out into the wild - it never should have made it out into the wild. As far as environmental concerns - the efficiency of the vehicle was so low that your "carbon foot print" as Al Gore would like to say it much larger than if you just bought a regular car that runs on gasoline.
Bottom line: GM created a great car, then realized it would ruin their revenue flow and their oil and gas buddies all got together to fight the mandate and kill the car. The only reason it was in CA was due to the mandate, and that's why the rest of the country didn't get a chance to buy one.
Of course they didn't sell many, they only sold them in CA, and you had to "qualify" to buy one.
So to top of my already 80 mpg diesel savings, I save $200 a year on my plates and insurance.
It pays to go green in Canada.
So to top of my already 80 mpg diesel savings, I save $200 a year on my plates and insurance.
It pays to go green in Canada.
-
by tg_iv
September 23, 2008 10:22 AM PDT
- I have absolutely no problem with our government providing tax incentives that promote a cleaner environment, reduction in foreign oil imports, greater energy independence, and the sales of cars made in the U.S. by U.S. owned companies. What incentives has Japan given Japanese citizens for buying U.S. cars in Japan?
-
Like this
Reply to this comment
-
(27 Comments)Just the opposite, the Japanese government worked hand in hand with Toyota to develop the technology that resulted in the Prius. I have no problem with us promoting our own. There is no reason to believe that we can't promote improving our balance of trade for both energy and manufacturing while also improving the environment.