Tax Credit on a Hybrid?

In a post from yesterday about buying a new car I am comparing the
price of the Hybrid and I make the assumption that there is a $2100
tax credit. But in some reading it sounds like the credit phases out
and expires after a certain amount of cars.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml

How can I definitively find out whether the tax credit is still $2100?
The dealer says he doesn't know.

It makes it a bit easier to rationalize the extra cost of the car with
that $2100 credit and might effect the decision.

\Samson

Samson > wrote:
> In a post from yesterday about buying a new car I am comparing the
> price of the Hybrid and I make the assumption that there is a $2100
> tax credit. But in some reading it sounds like the credit phases out
> and expires after a certain amount of cars.

> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml


There is a "frequently updated" list at
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...157557,00.html


--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

If you keep the vehicle more than a couple years you may need that $2,100 to
replace the batteries and electronics after they wear out.

Earle

> wrote in message ...
> Samson > wrote:
> > In a post from yesterday about buying a new car I am comparing the
> > price of the Hybrid and I make the assumption that there is a $2100
> > tax credit. But in some reading it sounds like the credit phases out
> > and expires after a certain amount of cars.
>
> > http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml
>
>
> There is a "frequently updated" list at
> http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...157557,00.html
>
>
> --
> Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

Earle Horton > wrote:
> If you keep the vehicle more than a couple years you may need that $2,100 to
> replace the batteries and electronics after they wear out.

That would be under warranty for 10 years/150k miles in several states
using the "California" package, 8/80 across the US.

The Prius and Escape are harder on batteries, and they are going over 150K
in taxi service. The Civic batteries might outlast the car.


--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5

Samson > wrote:
> In a post from yesterday about buying a new car I am comparing the
> price of the Hybrid and I make the assumption that there is a $2100
> tax credit. But in some reading it sounds like the credit phases out
> and expires after a certain amount of cars.

> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml

> How can I definitively find out whether the tax credit is still $2100?
> The dealer says he doesn't know.

> It makes it a bit easier to rationalize the extra cost of the car with
> that $2100 credit and might effect the decision.

> \Samson

Also don't forget about the AMT trap. If you end up being subject to AMT,
you may not get any tax deduction. The way AMT rules are written, it is
catching more and more people evey year. I bought a Hondad Accord Hybrid last
year and this was the first time I found myself subject to AMT. I got $0 of
the promised $1300 federal tax credit. Fortunately Colorado gives me $3200
tax credit on state taxes (no strings attached). Nevertheless I am enjoying
the car. So I won't complain too much about the imaginary federal tax credit.

================================================== ==================
Khalid
khalid gonehiking org

On Mon, 14 May 2007 06:21:05 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> wrote:

>If you keep the vehicle more than a couple years you may need that $2,100 to
>replace the batteries and electronics after they wear out.
>
>Earle


Batteries guaranteed for 8 years and 80K. In CA and some other
states, it's 10/100.

I see gas is up to $3.60 near me.

> wrote in message ...
>> Samson > wrote:
>> > In a post from yesterday about buying a new car I am comparing the
>> > price of the Hybrid and I make the assumption that there is a $2100
>> > tax credit. But in some reading it sounds like the credit phases out
>> > and expires after a certain amount of cars.
>>
>> > http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml
>>
>>
>> There is a "frequently updated" list at
>> http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...157557,00.html
>>
>>
>> --
>> Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
>

"Gordon McGrew" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 06:21:05 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> > wrote:
>
> >If you keep the vehicle more than a couple years you may need
> >that $2,100 to replace the batteries and electronics after they wear
> >out.
> >
> >Earle
>
>
> Batteries guaranteed for 8 years and 80K. In CA and some other
> states, it's 10/100.
>
> I see gas is up to $3.60 near me.
>
It's almost that high here. 80k is just broken in on a Honda, admit it. My
'02 HX has 83k, looks like new, runs like a top, and gets 45 mpg. So far,
major repairs have been a timing belt and a door skin. For me to trade in
on relatively new untested technology at this point would be idiocy. I see
a '92 VX with 124k in the paper for $3,200, where the seller claims 55 mpg.
I think that's the EPA rating it had when new. Why did they stop making a
perfectly good 55 mpg car, and then a perfectly good 45 mpg car, and replace
them with a similar performing model, but costing more to manufacture? No
idea, and I am not into conspiracy theories, but the Emperor's New Clothes
story comes to mind. "Batteries are good, we are wasting so much energy
going downhill..." I wonder if anyone even did the math.

According to Nevada State Patrol, the HX is capable of 127 mph too. I
wasn't there, but I paid the fine.

Another thing about hybrids. In the winter, when you want heat, and you are
driving in the city, the engine comes on with the battery fully charged just
to warm your toes and windshield. Mpg plummets to about 20, just like my
Jeep.

Saludos,

Earle

On Mon, 14 May 2007 19:56:08 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> wrote:

>"Gordon McGrew" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 06:21:05 -0600, "Earle Horton"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >If you keep the vehicle more than a couple years you may need
>> >that $2,100 to replace the batteries and electronics after they wear
>> >out.
>> >
>> >Earle
>>
>>
>> Batteries guaranteed for 8 years and 80K. In CA and some other
>> states, it's 10/100.
>>
>> I see gas is up to $3.60 near me.
>>
>It's almost that high here. 80k is just broken in on a Honda, admit it. My
>'02 HX has 83k, looks like new, runs like a top, and gets 45 mpg. So far,
>major repairs have been a timing belt and a door skin. For me to trade in
>on relatively new untested technology at this point would be idiocy.

I agree. But if you are buying a new car anyway and are an
early-adopter...

> I see
>a '92 VX with 124k in the paper for $3,200, where the seller claims 55 mpg.
>I think that's the EPA rating it had when new. Why did they stop making a
>perfectly good 55 mpg car, and then a perfectly good 45 mpg car, and replace
>them with a similar performing model, but costing more to manufacture? No
>idea, and I am not into conspiracy theories, but the Emperor's New Clothes
>story comes to mind.

The problem is that all these new cars have a weight control problem.
The heaviest Civic models are within about 100 pounds of the old Volvo
240. At the same time, people expect them to be quick. The Civic
Hybrid has a 110 hp engine, about the same as my G1 Integra. The
Integra weighed 500 lbs less and I don't think I ever got 30 mpg with
it, although I don't recall ever trying either ;-)

> "Batteries are good, we are wasting so much energy
>going downhill..." I wonder if anyone even did the math.
>
>According to Nevada State Patrol, the HX is capable of 127 mph too. I
>wasn't there, but I paid the fine.

A story there, no doubt. Frankly, I would have to see that to believe
it.


>Another thing about hybrids. In the winter, when you want heat, and you are
>driving in the city, the engine comes on with the battery fully charged just
>to warm your toes and windshield. Mpg plummets to about 20, just like my
>Jeep.

I'm sure winter mileage drops more than a conventional car, but I
would be very surprised if it dropped to 20. At it's worst, this is a
small car with a 1.3L engine.

"Gordon McGrew" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 19:56:08 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Gordon McGrew" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Mon, 14 May 2007 06:21:05 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >If you keep the vehicle more than a couple years you may need
> >> >that $2,100 to replace the batteries and electronics after they wear
> >> >out.
> >> >
> >> >Earle
> >>
> >>
> >> Batteries guaranteed for 8 years and 80K. In CA and some other
> >> states, it's 10/100.
> >>
> >> I see gas is up to $3.60 near me.
> >>
> >It's almost that high here. 80k is just broken in on a Honda, admit it.
My
> >'02 HX has 83k, looks like new, runs like a top, and gets 45 mpg. So
far,
> >major repairs have been a timing belt and a door skin. For me to trade
in
> >on relatively new untested technology at this point would be idiocy.
>
> I agree. But if you are buying a new car anyway and are an
> early-adopter...
>
> > I see
> >a '92 VX with 124k in the paper for $3,200, where the seller claims 55
mpg.
> >I think that's the EPA rating it had when new. Why did they stop making
a
> >perfectly good 55 mpg car, and then a perfectly good 45 mpg car, and
replace
> >them with a similar performing model, but costing more to manufacture?
No
> >idea, and I am not into conspiracy theories, but the Emperor's New
Clothes
> >story comes to mind.
>
> The problem is that all these new cars have a weight control problem.
> The heaviest Civic models are within about 100 pounds of the old Volvo
> 240. At the same time, people expect them to be quick. The Civic
> Hybrid has a 110 hp engine, about the same as my G1 Integra. The
> Integra weighed 500 lbs less and I don't think I ever got 30 mpg with
> it, although I don't recall ever trying either ;-)
>
> > "Batteries are good, we are wasting so much energy
> >going downhill..." I wonder if anyone even did the math.
> >
> >According to Nevada State Patrol, the HX is capable of 127 mph too. I
> >wasn't there, but I paid the fine.
>
> A story there, no doubt. Frankly, I would have to see that to believe
> it.

Sorry I don't let her drive it anymore. There were two passengers and a
pile of luggage in the car too.

The thing I don't get, is that they invest in this elaborate, expensive
hybrid technology, make the engine smaller and the car heavier and scarcely
change the fuel mileage, and people buy into it.

Earle

>
>
> >Another thing about hybrids. In the winter, when you want heat, and you
are
> >driving in the city, the engine comes on with the battery fully charged
just
> >to warm your toes and windshield. Mpg plummets to about 20, just like my
> >Jeep.
>
> I'm sure winter mileage drops more than a conventional car, but I
> would be very surprised if it dropped to 20. At it's worst, this is a
> small car with a 1.3L engine.
>

Earle Horton > wrote:
> Another thing about hybrids. In the winter, when you want heat, and you are
> driving in the city, the engine comes on with the battery fully charged just
> to warm your toes and windshield. Mpg plummets to about 20, just like my
> Jeep.

The engine in the Honda hybrid runs almost any time the car is moving.
Winter makes no difference with that. In order for lack of heat to cause
the engine in the Civic to start from an idle stop... I don't think it
does, but I've never tested that. I don't recall it ever starting
unexpectedly.

Idle stop does not work if the defroster is on, so the engine will
run when the car is stopped, but it should still get better MPG under any
conditions than the 20MPG your Jeep gets on the highway. In order to drive
the MPG on a Honda Civic Hybrid to the 20's, you'd have to be stopped
more than moving, with the engine idling, for a very long time.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5