[FelineFreddie]

Over on the bZ4X forum there’s a lot of chatter about Toyota offering buy-backs to the few existing owners in a “to be released” letter early in August.

If that Is indeed the case, it seems to me the entire new product introduction is moving in reverse, even forgetting about the whole tax-rebate situation change. This has all the markings of rapidly turning into a public relations nightmare for Toyota and Subaru.

I’ve been in the Subaru camp for a long time waiting on this vehicle, even accepting last-minute “gotcha-recalls”… but I’ve got to say that even I’m starting to wonder if the planets are aligning against the vehicle… maybe it’s time to back up a bit decision-wise and see where all this is heading.

 

[Jenovalente]

Over on the bZ4X forum there’s a lot of chatter about Toyota offering buy-backs to the few existing owners in a “to be released” letter early in August.

If that Is indeed the case, it seems to me the entire new product introduction is moving in reverse, even forgetting about the whole tax-rebate situation change. This has all the markings of rapidly turning into a public relations nightmare for Toyota and Subaru.

I’ve been in the Subaru camp for a long time waiting on this vehicle, even accepting last-minute “gotcha-recalls”… but I’ve got to say that even I’m starting to wonder if the planets are aligning against the vehicle… maybe it’s time to back up a bit decision-wise and see where all this is heading.

I just popped over to see the comments there.
Supposedly a choice of getting car repaired, $5000 payment, extended EVGo service and a warranty extension for the amount of time the car is out of service. And a loaner, of course.

Or a buyback.

 

[useracy]

With the major shortage, I don’t think the 7500 credit will impact sales that much. Plenty of people that will buy it without the credit.

 

[StevenH]

With the major shortage, I don’t think the 7500 credit will impact sales that much. Plenty of people that will buy it without the credit.

Plenty of people would then gage their options for cars that previously didn't qualify for the credit (i.e., Cadillac Lyriq, Tesla Model Y). That's a $15,000 shift in after-credit price difference.

 

[Peterd15]

Personally if this passes it will be very bad for EV expansion. Most of these new EVs will probably not qualify anymore which will limit what people want. There is no doubt this bill is pushed by GM and Tesla. I’m sure they have giving politicians a lot of money to make the changes start immediately in order to stifle competition.

 

[FelineFreddie]

That’s the thing when a government selects favorites for special consideration. As some fall out of favor, others fall into favor. And, as always, there’s also the law of unintended/unforeseen consequences…

Lets see what may happen to Chevrolet Bolt pricing if this legislation passes…

 

[useracy]

Plenty of people would then gage their options for cars that previously didn't qualify for the credit (i.e., Cadillac Lyriq, Tesla Model Y). That's a $15,000 shift in after-credit price difference.

Elon doesn’t really care if Tesla qualifies or not. They’re supply constrained and there’s plenty of demand.

Personally I think government should not offer any EV credits and allow the manufacturer produce them at a cost efficient price. If people want to be on the bleeding edge, then let them pay to play.

It’s just shuffling tax payer dollars. Nobody is really getting free $7500.

 

[jg.]

...Lets see what may happen to Chevrolet Bolt pricing if this legislation passes…

I think the biggest test will be the Equinox EV pricing. They are currently trying to position it around Bolt pricing, but having more credits for customers may mean adjusting pricing to get a bit more profit out of the transaction.

 

[JIm_in_PA]

It may take some time, but I think Subaru and Toyota will shift production of EVs to the U.S. quicker than originally planned.

No question in my mind that they will have to do this if the language passes as it appears to be currently worded. Lack of the tax credit will de-incent the increasing population of early adopters from choosing the initial Toyota/Subaru/Lexus EV in a market that is still constrained in choices that are "affordable" for average buyers.

 

[bob E]

No question in my mind that they will have to do this if the language passes as it appears to be currently worded. Lack of the tax credit will de-incent the increasing population of early adopters from choosing the initial Toyota/Subaru/Lexus EV in a market that is still constrained in choices that are "affordable" for average buyers.

So, which product line in Indiana will Subaru replace with EVs? Impreza or Legacy? My bet is that Impreza will bite the dust: that would cut another hatchback from the American market.


(I read elsewhere that Lexus is moving its ICE production cars from its plant in KY back to Japan and replacing them with Lexus' BEV cars. Perhaps Subaru will maintain the Toyota-ru relationship until its own Japan based EV plant is online.)

 

[bob E]

This upcoming EV bill sounds like it will be a game-changer for the Solterra. Since it's being built in Japan, the $7,500 credit will go away beginning 1/1/23. Is anyone planning to bail on the Solterra if delivery isn't taken by 12/31?

I'll be bailing on the Solterra if it is delivered past 1/1/23. In fact, I need to start looking for a Nissan Leaf, given that is the only EV that seems readily available on showroom floors. (I think it is too late to order most EVs for delivery by 31-dec-2022.) After 1-jan, the rebate will not be available to me.

 

[StevenH]

I'll be bailing on the Solterra if it is delivered past 1/1/23. In fact, I need to start looking for a Nissan Leaf, given that is the only EV that seems readily available on showroom floors. (I think it is too late to order most EVs for delivery by 31-dec-2022.) After 1-jan, the rebate will not be available to me.

Per the Transition Rule, if a written binding contract to purchase is in place before 1/1/23, and the vehicle is placed into service on or after 1/1/23, you may elect to treat it as if it was placed into service before 1/1/23 for purposes of the credit under the legislation in effect prior to 1/1/23. I'm not sure if our buyer's order that we can cancel qualifies as a binding written contract to purchase.

 

[md.]

Per the Transition Rule, if a written binding contract to purchase is in place before 1/1/23, and the vehicle is placed into service on or after 1/1/23, you may elect to treat it as if it was placed into service before 1/1/23 for purposes of the credit under the legislation in effect prior to 1/1/23. I'm not sure if our buyer's order that we can cancel qualifies as a binding written contract to purchase.

The current text of the bill is "before the date of enactment of this Act", which most people are interpreting as the date it is signed into law by the President, rather than the date it goes into effect, 01/01/2023.

Also, I would interpret "written binding contract to purchase" to be a signed Sales Order, which I would assume would require a VIN to be valid. Are dealers going to be able and willing to write those up quickly if a similar bill passes both houses of Congress? Will buyers commit to a car that they may not have had a chance to test drive?

Personally, I think the reasonable thing to do would be to have a grace period through the end of March or June of 2023 where buyers could use either the current system or the new one. The way things are written now, there will be a lot of cancelled orders and Bolt waiting lists will explode. When waiting lists for most vehicles are measured in months and years, a couple months is too quick for this change.

I'd also like to see each taxpayer limited to incentives on one car per year or even per 3 years, like the used car credit. I follow the RAV4 Prime groups, too, and there are people who are flipping those like crazy! To be honest, there's no reason for a RAV4 Prime to qualify for $7,500 in the first place.

 

[rfrancis073]

From the Senate Bill....

‘‘(7) EXCLUDED ENTITIES.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘new clean vehicle’ shall not include—‘


‘(A) any vehicle placed in service after December 31, 2024, with respect to which any of
the applicable critical minerals contained in the
battery of such vehicle (as described in sub
section (e)(1)(A)) were extracted, processed, or
recycled by a foreign entity of concern (as defined in section 40207(a)(5) of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (42 U.S.C.18741(a)(5))), or

‘‘(B) any vehicle placed in service after December 31, 2023,
with respect to which any of the components contained in the battery of such
vehicle (as described in subsection (e)(2)(A)) were manufactured or assembled by a foreign
entity of concern (as so defined).’’.

Unless I'm reading that wrong, the stipulations don't fully kick in until December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2024, correct?

‘‘(5) FINAL ASSEMBLY.—For purposes of para graph (1)(G),
the term ‘final assembly’ means the process by which a manufacturer produces a new
clean vehicle at, or through the use of, a plant, factory, or other place from which the vehicle is
delivered to a dealer or importer with all component parts necessary for the mechanical operation of the
vehicle included with the vehicle, whether or not the component parts are permanently installed in or on
the vehicle.’’.

As for 'Final Assembly' in North America, seems that has a giant loophole in that car manufacturers can simply install a component here (maybe in port?) and state that the final assembly is in North America (unless there is a certain % of the assembly required here - I did not see that but I could have missed it). That’s exactly how manufacturers got around NAFTA requirements. I worked for an automotive supplier that did that with NAFTA using the exact ‘FINAL ASSEMBLY’ wording.

 

[useracy]

A binding contract is the purchase agreement, which the dealer will only draft up if they have the car in possession.

We’ll see when these cars actually get delivered. Not a big deal.

 

[Peterd15]

A binding contract is the purchase agreement, which the dealer will only draft up if they have the car in possession.

well the dealers may need to figure out how to write a purchase order without the car if they want to sell them.

 

[JayEM]

well the dealers may need to figure out how to write a purchase order without the car if they want to sell them.

The printed order sheet is for a specific vehicle. It just doesn't have a VIN associated with it at the time it's prepared.

 

[useracy]

The printed order sheet is for a specific vehicle. It just doesn't have a VIN associated with it at the time it's prepared.

An order sheet isn’t evidence that you purchased the vehicle. If you were audited by the IRS, that wouldn’t fly. Anyone can easily order and not purchase the vehicle, then try to claim the tax incentive. You need a purchase agreement that states payment etc.

 

[useracy]

well the dealers may need to figure out how to write a purchase order without the car if they want to sell them.

Good luck getting the dealer to commit tax fraud. Dealer isn’t going to do something shady just to make a quick buck.

 

[frankamartin]

delete