|
|
|
|
 |
Mr. Taggart
 |
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Your assumption is invalid as the taxpaying base includes the company itself which is going to be paying a significant amount of local taxes in itself. The tax breaks being discussed typically are on local property taxes. However, if structured correctly the company will bring additional jobs to the area spurring additional economic activity. (See Honda in Marysville, OH., BMW in Spartan burg, SC. Boeing in SC., Hyundai in MS., and Honda in AL.) This money flows into the community not only as profits to the company but to profits to other local businesses as well. Don't forget the additional jobs that are created. And other companies can relocate in the area, if they choose to. Why would a state want to limit itself to only one company. |
This is getting way off track. Tax breaks and loopholes are mathematically equivalent to spending.
To put it another way, if a company, by moving to an area, would result in $100 in tax revenue (which goes to wards paying for government, emergency services, schools, other public goods like utilities that help the company), and the government says: 'we will give you a break -- only pay $50 in tax', that is effectively handing the company money.
Why?
Because that tax revenue goes to wards things that support the infrastructure that benefits the company. If they are paying $50 for $100 of services (their share of what it costs to run the community), that is wealth transfer. Someone else needs to make up the difference.
Yes, more jobs and more people move to the area and that helps economic growth, but it costs money to support new people and new businesses. That means more infrastructure, more sewer and water lines, more schools, and more emergency services. Those people may be working and paying taxes, but they are also simultaneously creating need for services, which must be paid for.
From a classical Liberal perspective, using the tax code as a policy bludgeon is unacceptable! Tax rates should be used to pay in full for services that the community deems necessary, and not as a back door tool to funnel money to specific parties or industries.
No bid contracts are by their nature very different as there is no competition. When an auto manufacturer looks to build a plant there is significant competition to provide the best package of benefits to entice the company and by law these kind of negotiations need to see the light of day so the local constituents can see what kind of deal that has been made.
|
Again, this is a difference in degree, not in kind. The mechanism of wealth transfer is different in this case, but it is still wealth transfer.
|
It is obvious that you do not have enough real world experience to understand how economics in the real world works. Quoting what theoretical economics such as 'classical liberal perspective' has no relation to the real world. You also forget that the theory of rational expectations have a role in economics as well.
And you fail to grasp that the benefits to the community when a new business moves in and you completely disregard that people of the community can have ownership in the business.
Further the community itself can deem it necessary to increase jobs in the community. Does it make sense for a community to bring in a business that is not a net benefit for the community?
And I find it funny that you say tax rates should be used to pay in full for services that the community deems necessary. Do you think most people like that their tax dollars to pay for teachers are being funneled to unions to be used for liberal propaganda?
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
It is obvious that you do not have enough real world experience to understand how economics in the real world works. Quoting what theoretical economics such as 'classical liberal perspective' has no relation to the real world. You also forget that the theory of rational expectations have a role in economics as well. |
More personal attacks? Keep digging that hole.
And you fail to grasp that the benefits to the community when a new business moves in and you completely disregard that people of the community can have ownership in the business.
Further the community itself can deem it necessary to increase jobs in the community. Does it make sense for a community to bring in a business that is not a net benefit for the community? |
That's only one side of the coin. Yes, new businesses can bring benefits to a community, but as I stated in my previous post, new businesses also bring new burdens in the form of requirements for more municipal services.
Examples of this would be areas of North Dakota which are experiencing rapid growth in oil drilling. The infrastructure in those areas cannot cope with the growth.
The same thing happened in areas of Pennsylvania, where gas drilling created lots of problems with roads. The gas companies brought in lots of heavy construction trucks, which destroyed the roads. The gas companies also paid little in taxes, so they effectively got most of the benefit of a public good while not paying for it.
| And I find it funny that you say tax rates should be used to pay in full for services that the community deems necessary. Do you think most people like that their tax dollars to pay for teachers are being funneled to unions to be used for liberal propaganda? |
You're getting way off track again.
But to put another perspective on this, property values often depend very heavily on the quality of public schools. A person might not like paying taxes, but I'm sure they'd like it even less if the school district went to crap and they suddenly found themselves underwater on their mortgage because their property value fell as a result.
|
tennis32828
|
|
Mr. Taggart, you should be working for the Romney campaign. Your arguments are clear, detailed, and coherent, something Romney needs to improve.
To chime in, GM bailout was federal money, where as companies tax breaks are state and local money. At least that tax break has the potential to benefit its local communities. For the GM bailout, why should tax money from someone in Florida go to Michigan?
Regarding GM recents (albeit recently declining) gains and profits, every other major automakers also have been posting gains and profits after the recession, without tax payers bailout.
|
CarGuyLee
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
.
Clarity is likely a future means of practical transport.
Volt is a dead end marketing ploy. A con-trick.
Malcolm
:)
|
That's why Toyota came out with a plug in, oh and Honda just did also. Why are they copying a dead end marketing ploy?
According to a person who posted earlier, car technology is not static so none of the cost can be spread....so when will the Clarity make a profit?
You didn't answer the question.....How much does Honda lose on each Clarity?
|
CarGuyLee
|
|
|
How much does Honda lose on each Clarity?
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
CarGuyLee wrote:
MalcolmR wrote:
.
Clarity is likely a future means of practical transport.
Volt is a dead end marketing ploy. A con-trick.
Malcolm
:)
|
That's why Toyota came out with a plug in, oh and Honda just did also. Why are they copying a dead end marketing ploy?
According to a person who posted earlier, car technology is not static so none of the cost can be spread....so when will the Clarity make a profit?
You didn't answer the question.....How much does Honda lose on each Clarity?
|
I think I can answer that.
Honda officials told Honda AFVM that the FCX Clarity has a production cost of $1,200,000. Source: http://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1090955
@ 09-03-2012 22:50
The FCX Clarity leases for $600/month for 3 years. Total monthly payments $21,600.00. Maintenance costs and physical damage collision coverage included in lease. Source: http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/
So to roughly approximate:
Manufacturing cost: $1,200,000
Maintenance cost: ?
Insurance cost: ?
Minus (-)
Leasing revenue: $21,600
Per unit Net Loss to American Honda Motors: $1,178,400 + insurance + maintenance
This is more than 10 times the cost of a Tesla Model S Performance with 85 kWh battery, tech package, premium sound, and TwinCharger system.
Ouch.
I doubt that the FCX Clarity was ever intended to make a profit. It is a test platform for electric powertrains, batteries, and control systems. I think the program has probably helped Honda with other products like the Fit EV and the Honda Accord plugin hybrid.
The FCX Clarity also puts Honda in a good position to move into mainstream EVs or hydrogen cars should market conditions change.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
CarGuyLee wrote:
MalcolmR wrote:
.
Clarity is likely a future means of practical transport.
Volt is a dead end marketing ploy. A con-trick.
Malcolm
:)
|
That's why Toyota came out with a plug in, oh and Honda just did also. Why are they copying a dead end marketing ploy?
According to a person who posted earlier, car technology is not static so none of the cost can be spread....so when will the Clarity make a profit?
You didn't answer the question.....How much does Honda lose on each Clarity?
|
It is my personal opinion that they came out with plug ins to placate the current administration as Ito himself had said they were not efficient or cost effective.
Honda has not disclosed Losses and it has not staked it's future to it
|
TonyEX
|
|
CarGuyLee wrote:
MalcolmR wrote:
.
Clarity is likely a future means of practical transport.
Volt is a dead end marketing ploy. A con-trick.
Malcolm
:)
|
That's why Toyota came out with a plug in, oh and Honda just did also. Why are they copying a dead end marketing ploy?
According to a person who posted earlier, car technology is not static so none of the cost can be spread....so when will the Clarity make a profit?
You didn't answer the question.....How much does Honda lose on each Clarity?
|
Your question is a non sequitur.
The fact is American tax payers are not paying a dime for the Clarity.
And that the design of the components in the Clarity's powertrain closely resembles the second generation IMA.. Hint.. "serial hybrid".
When you look at how Toyota and Honda are developing their alternate fuel vehicles you see how they are really leveraging their R&D.... and using their own funds.
|
P54
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
CarGuyLee wrote:
MalcolmR wrote:
.
Clarity is likely a future means of practical transport.
Volt is a dead end marketing ploy. A con-trick.
Malcolm
:)
|
That's why Toyota came out with a plug in, oh and Honda just did also. Why are they copying a dead end marketing ploy?
According to a person who posted earlier, car technology is not static so none of the cost can be spread....so when will the Clarity make a profit?
You didn't answer the question.....How much does Honda lose on each Clarity?
|
It is my personal opinion that they came out with plug ins to placate the current administration as Ito himself had said they were not efficient or cost effective.
Honda has not disclosed Losses and it has not staked it's future to it
|
Future IMA: http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1094887&page_number=1#1094887
|
TonyEX
|
|
P54 wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
CarGuyLee wrote:
MalcolmR wrote:
.
Clarity is likely a future means of practical transport.
Volt is a dead end marketing ploy. A con-trick.
Malcolm
:)
|
That's why Toyota came out with a plug in, oh and Honda just did also. Why are they copying a dead end marketing ploy?
According to a person who posted earlier, car technology is not static so none of the cost can be spread....so when will the Clarity make a profit?
You didn't answer the question.....How much does Honda lose on each Clarity?
|
It is my personal opinion that they came out with plug ins to placate the current administration as Ito himself had said they were not efficient or cost effective.
Honda has not disclosed Losses and it has not staked it's future to it
|
Future IMA: http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1094887&page_number=1#1094887
|
"Revamped One Motor" IMA
Could it be?
Put the motor/generator aside of the crankshaft axis, add a small CVT connecting it to the driveshaft and then put a transmission with a clutch between the engine and driveshaft...
I think I posted something like that three years ago in TOV....
That way, the motor/generator can run the car by itself -with the ICE disconnected.
Or they can both run when power/torque is needed.
And the ICE can run proper VTEC.
Maybe an R13 for the Fit and R15 for the Civic? (100bhp, 120 bhp).
Motor/generator good for 25bhp, 75ft/lbs.
Morepowerful NiCad batteries.. perhaps even a plug in.
The ability to keep the motor/generator at peak torque while the engine runs it own profile... in essence, RPM of the motors is independent and tuned for maximum performance and efficiency.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
TonyE wrote:
P54 wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
CarGuyLee wrote:
MalcolmR wrote:
.
Clarity is likely a future means of practical transport.
Volt is a dead end marketing ploy. A con-trick.
Malcolm
:)
|
That's why Toyota came out with a plug in, oh and Honda just did also. Why are they copying a dead end marketing ploy?
According to a person who posted earlier, car technology is not static so none of the cost can be spread....so when will the Clarity make a profit?
You didn't answer the question.....How much does Honda lose on each Clarity?
|
It is my personal opinion that they came out with plug ins to placate the current administration as Ito himself had said they were not efficient or cost effective.
Honda has not disclosed Losses and it has not staked it's future to it
|
Future IMA: http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1094887&page_number=1#1094887
|
"Revamped One Motor" IMA
Could it be?
Put the motor/generator aside of the crankshaft axis, add a small CVT connecting it to the driveshaft and then put a transmission with a clutch between the engine and driveshaft...
I think I posted something like that three years ago in TOV....
That way, the motor/generator can run the car by itself -with the ICE disconnected.
Or they can both run when power/torque is needed.
And the ICE can run proper VTEC.
Maybe an R13 for the Fit and R15 for the Civic? (100bhp, 120 bhp).
Motor/generator good for 25bhp, 75ft/lbs.
Morepowerful NiCad batteries.. perhaps even a plug in.
The ability to keep the motor/generator at peak torque while the engine runs it own profile... in essence, RPM of the motors is independent and tuned for maximum performance and efficiency.
|
Tony, sounds like a whole lot of engineering work. And a much heavier engine? How big woud real world fuel economy have to improve to be a 'game changer'?
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
You realize the estimate was arrived at simply by them by taking the aprox. R&D costs and then splitting it by the # of cars sold?
You do understand why this isn't accurate at all right? GM hasn't even BEGUN to leverage all of the R&D work they acquired with the Volt. It's just like developing a new platform (i.e. VW's new MQB, Honda's new Accord platform)- you cannot recoup all costs with a single model, you need to do it over 2-3 generations and several variants.
Secondly, I hate how this car has become a political punching bag. When the car was originally conceived in 2007 it was intended to show that GM can be a technological leader. GM took what was actually a very advanced technological concept... but then had to go the dual route of relying on government tax credits for sales and "bankruptcy guidance"... so now that every time the car is mentioned you have dicks posting Obama poster spoofs and the word "Taxpayer" is mentioned more times than the car itself. This car probably only served to set the industry backwards because of this.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Remember the human condition and fear.
Even Ito said as Nissan's Leaf was released that apart from narrow inner city applications, EV's made no sense.
Yet after the Leaf and Volt, Honda announced an EV Fit. Honda saw the need to appear to do something.
Humans follow at times contrary to the evidence driven by a fear of being left out or of being seen as ...
The Volt never made sense. It doesn't make sense. Weight, consumption of resources in manufacture, life-cycle resource consumption, ...
Ito was correct. That even Honda sees the need to follow contrary to its engineering says plenty about the pseudo-green mantle.
Yet buyers vote with their wallets. Wallets show that without political subsidies, buyers shun hybrids, EV's. Without subsidies and tax-break shey will shun PHEV's.
The human condition and its need for acceptance/belonging and its fear of rejection or being shunned explains much.
Look at the sales data. Look at the subsidies. Look at the tax-breaks. Look at the abuse of resources falsely camouflaged in greenness.
Then go and read Robert Zubrin's "Merchants of Despair" and see the anti-human basis of the modern greens movement.
Then, instead of following antihuman fashion do something to address real environmental and humanitarian challenges.
Malcolm
:)
|
TonyEX
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
.
...
Ito was correct. That even Honda sees the need to follow contrary to its engineering says plenty about the pseudo-green mantle.
...
:)
|
I disagree. I think Honda is leveraging its technologies widely between its cars (ICE, IMA, IMAII, fuel cell, NG, CVT, batteries) and the EV is an organic part of that.
There are huge differences between Honda/Toyota on one side, GM on the other and Nissan sort of in the middle.
For GM, the Volt is their second one off. They never had bothered to create a range of alternate fuel vehicles nor have they pushed the envelope. Their work has been mostly demonstrators devoid of a business plan. The Volt making into "large scale" production was PR for Obama, simple as that, otherwise they would have leased a few and then scrapped them after a couple of years just like they did with the EV-1.
Honda and Toyota, OTOH, are pushing alternate fuels and it shows.
Toyota is mostly set with the Synergy system. They have some electrics and Fuel Cells but they are research/PR vehicles (like the ones here at UCI). They have leveraged their mighty marketing know how to equate Prius with Hybrid and now they are pushing the Plug In Hybrid, which is a natural extension.
Toyota is lowering the cost of manufacturing hybrids by leveraging their current design into a range of hybrid specific cars instead of creating a wide portfolio of technologies with great commonality.
Honda's approach is broader than Toyota. Arguably the broadest and notable for what is a much smaller company. Honda is pushing the envelope in fuel cells, EVs, NG and hybrids. While some folks think that IMA is not a real hybrid, this is BS. Honda's IMA is really part of an engineering tool kit that is shared by many alternate fuels... the components of IMA can be used in a fuel cell car and the EV. The new IMA in the Accord shares a ton of thinking with the Clarity and by the sounds of it, the next gen single motor IMA will likely move that route as well.
So, it's not surprising that when Honda would introduce an EV it would be best of breed because most of its components have already been tested in other vehicles. The cost of R&D for the EV was likely not too high and provides HMC both with political good will, good PR and experience that can be leveraged into IMAs and Fuel Cell.
Similarly, Honda has been using CVTs for a while in IMA and the Clarity. This long term experience surely crossed over to the new Accord, huh?
Unlike Toyota, Honda is lowering the cost of alternate fuel vehicles by creating a wide range of different types of power plant systems that share a large number of components and installing them across the existing car product line. The Clarity is rare and the Insight and CRV are getting flak for not offering an ICE!! Imagine that...
Nissan is sort of in the middle. They make some hybrids too, but they do not really have a broad portfolio.
Be noted, though, that EVs do make sense in Japan proper.
|
P54
|
|
Politicians are known for causing trouble. Look at this story from India where politicians have promoted sales of diesel cars. Honda, the only maker without diesel option is loosing out.
Honda Brio: The sleeper hit of 2012
http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/car-nama/2012/09/13/honda-brio-the-sleeper-hit-of-2012/
Honda has always said that EV do not make sense and they have worked on it for over 20 years, which led to the fuel cell vehicle. Obama administration killed the hydrogen initiative and promoted electric, seems he is in bed with Buffet and others of like mind.
Electric is political driven and supported and only reason Honda made the Fit EV is because of politics and regulations in California and some other places. Honda only leases it and have so far said only 1100 will be built. Electric vehicles are expensive and the major cost is the batteries, plus they are heavy. Today's cars with ULEV-2 rating or PZEV are so clean that why spend the $thousands on batteries etc? I guess the power plants pollute more. You can buy a whole lot of gas for what the $10000 or more you spend on a vehicle to get it electric. Since the electric cars that are pushed by Governments are so expensive people are hesitant to buy them the Governments subsidize them with tax money.
In big cities with congested traffic you can see the benefits in electric cars but how many can afford an electric vehicle for inner city use and another for other uses?
Politicians have also pushed diesels and sold diesel fuel cheaper as to promote the sale of those vehicles. Honda traditionally stayed away from diesel, I guess for same reason the old man did not like two-strokes, they are dirty and noisy.
Honda finally had to give in and make a diesel for Europe and another new and smaller is soon on the market. Despite the fact that Europe now are reaping the consequences of too many cars with diesel, dirty air and health problems.
In another market, India, Honda are loosing out because they do not have diesel engines. Honda is killing Accord and Civic for lack of diesel engines. The new 1.6L diesel they developed for Europe will not work there as the diesel is too "dirty". This scenario was developed by politicians and it is strange they have not learned from the experience from Europe. If India fills up with diesels, and dirty diesel, just think down the road when those vehicles don't get their proper maintenance; they will for sure regret the bad air they are going to breath.
Honda car sales are plummeting in India due to no diesel option and Honda is now developing new diesel engines for India. Maybe politicians had been wiser listening to Honda rather than European manufacturers. Maybe the new IMA will be the right compromise between power, clean air, less CO2 and price. A diesel engine adds more to the cost of the vehicle than IMA.
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
TonyE, you're making sense.
Hybrids and PHEV's though still do make sense.
Maybe with continued development they will one day be viable despite their technical and environmental complexity.
Honda is doing it for environmental reasons seeking a solution. Toyota could be doing the same. More likely swayed by marketing. Or, maybe, steered by marketing.
As you say, Honda has long been genuinely researching and applying new technologies across many fields. It's in Honda's philosophy to do so.
They had held the enviro mantle until Prius' success in the market. Yet, IMHO, IMA is a far more effective solution all around. Swamped by Toyota's superior marketing.
Eventually, providing government leaves the market (a huge assumption), the real market will identify the best solution.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
MalcolmR wrote:
.
TonyE, you're making sense.
Hybrids and PHEV's though still do make sense.
Maybe with continued development they will one day be viable despite their technical and environmental complexity.
Honda is doing it for environmental reasons seeking a solution. Toyota could be doing the same. More likely swayed by marketing. Or, maybe, steered by marketing.
As you say, Honda has long been genuinely researching and applying new technologies across many fields. It's in Honda's philosophy to do so.
They had held the enviro mantle until Prius' success in the market. Yet, IMHO, IMA is a far more effective solution all around. Swamped by Toyota's superior marketing.
Eventually, providing government leaves the market (a huge assumption), the real market will identify the best solution.
Malcolm
:)
|
.
Oops, I meant to say: Hybrids and PHEV's though still do NOT make sense.
Rushing. Much of previous post poorly worded.
Malcolm
:)
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
Show me a hybrid that when you look at the total cost to build vs a regular car delivers a payback period on the difference that is five years or less based on driving 12-15k miles per year. Without any government subsidies.
And at the same time the car should handle as well as a conventional powertrain and carry no weight or space penalty.
Until then, Hybrids are not worth the costs, and should be restricted to small numbers like the clarity.
|
HONDA AFVM
|
|
gofast182 wrote:
Neal wrote:
Wow! I guess votes, er, I mean "Volts" are expensive!
|
Haha, nice.
Anyone else notice the new Volt commercials where they talk about how infrequently they stop for gas insinuating that the car is almost free to power? They don't talk about electric bills or the need for a dedicated 240v line in your home if you really want to charge it properly.
|
The electric bill is not a huge change........But I drove one July, I was going to write about here. I was very excited at that time, but it was SO UNEVENTFUL, I decided not to waste my time or TOV's.......
In a nut shell, I am 5 foot 9 and I had an incredibly difficult time getting in and out of this car, it was weird to drive and seemed like it couldn't make it's computer-chip mind up on what it wanted to do.......... It was very course......and rough....not refined at all........VERY disappointed.........and I could hardly even get in the back seat........
|
DrWhiner
|
|
siegen wrote:
Thanks for the read. I don't know if Lutz's calculation is accurate or not, but it seems reasonable.
|
I guess Lutz 'conveniently' forgot the R&D costs of Volt. Haha.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
I guess those Honda executives then must have lied to Bloomberg which reported it actually was FCX that costed about 1 miilion each to produce (how many FCX were made?); FCX Clarity costs about half of that.
|
TonyEX
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Show me a hybrid that when you look at the total cost to build vs a regular car delivers a payback period on the difference that is five years or less based on driving 12-15k miles per year. Without any government subsidies.
And at the same time the car should handle as well as a conventional powertrain and carry no weight or space penalty.
Until then, Hybrids are not worth the costs, and should be restricted to small numbers like the clarity.
|
In the West Coast thats' a pretty low number. Make it 20K per year as a bottom line.
BTW, for a while I was doing 40K per year.... At $3.80, 40mpg, my weekly gas bill was 80 bucks. If I had been driving something at 30mpg, say... that my bill would have popped 25 bucks per week... 1250 a year.
Currently our gas is 4.20... so again, my weekly bill would have gone up.
And our Civic Hybrid has the auto AC which is really nice.
Plus, for the first three (four?) years we owned it it had car pool lane stickers... that was extremely handy for my wife.
|
siegen
|
|
DrWhiner wrote:
I guess Lutz 'conveniently' forgot the R&D costs of Volt. Haha.
|
I think Lutz was only debunking the rumor that each individual Volt costs $90k in materials, labor, and etc. Whether or not the R&D costs are recouped from continued Volt sales and the use of technology in other models is yet to be determined. The Volt has only been on sale for a little less than 2 years.
|
CarGuyLee
|
|
DrWhiner wrote:
siegen wrote:
Thanks for the read. I don't know if Lutz's calculation is accurate or not, but it seems reasonable.
|
I guess Lutz 'conveniently' forgot the R&D costs of Volt. Haha.
|
Your kidding right? How much was Toyota losing on the first gen Prius when it sold 20000 the first year???
|
CarGuyLee
|
|
DrWhiner wrote:
I guess those Honda executives then must have lied to Bloomberg which reported it actually was FCX that costed about 1 miilion each to produce (how many FCX were made?); FCX Clarity costs about half of that.
|
So it only lost $500K per car?
|
DrWhiner
|
|
siegen wrote:
I think Lutz was only debunking the rumor that each individual Volt costs $90k in materials, labor, and etc. [....]
|
I guess you haven't read the article from Reuters.
| It currently costs GM "at least" $75,000 to build the Volt, including development costs |
I'm not arguing that cost per vehicle figure per Reuters is right, since no one knows how many Gen. I Volts would ultimately be sold. But, it's clear that, the current sales is substantially below GM's plan of selling 15,000 in 2011 and 45,000 in 2012.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
CarGuyLee wrote:
So it only lost $500K per car?
|
Geez. Volt is a production model. FCX Clarity is not. End of story.
P.S. By your logic, how is it possible for Honda to lose a single dime when the FCX Clarity is NOT even a production model??
CarGuyLee wrote:
DrWhiner wrote:
I guess Lutz 'conveniently' forgot the R&D costs of Volt. Haha.
|
Your kidding right? How much was Toyota losing on the first gen Prius when it sold 20000 the first year???
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 [2] |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
