Poll: Most Americans won't buy PHEVs
A Prius before plug-in conversionJust build plug-in hybrids and they will come?
Not so according to another poll. Survey data by Pike Research finds that only 48 percent of Americans are willing to consider a plug-in hybrid vehicle that can achieve 40 miles of pure electric range.
However, 83 percent of those interested in buying such a plug-n hybrid would only be willing to buy a plug-in hybrid if it cost no more than 10 percent, or less, of the cost of a conventional gas powered vehicle. Unfortunately, many hybrid cars can't even come close to those economics, let alone far more expensive plug-in vehicles.
I guess Bob Lutz knows exactly what he's talking about when he claims that only 5 percent of US auto consumers are willing to buy plug-in hybrids such as the Chevy Volt.
Labels: Chevy Volt electric vehicle concept, Hybrid Vehicles
posted by Dahcredyns at
1:26 PM
14 Comments:
oh oh... reality has pushed it nose under the proverbial wishful-thinking tent!
danger. danger. will robinson
So.. Mr. Lutz is as much as admitting that GM is greenwashing with the Volt?
Wow.
You took a positive story / poll result and turned it into a negative news heading.
The poll results showed that 48% of respondents (that is nearly half, 52% is not most) were "“extremely” or “very” interested in purchasing a PHEV with a 40-mile range"
Kinda bad journalism, dontcha think?
wow. you're going to have to a better job of explaining how this is a positive story, enigmatic.
the pricing point required to get consumers to buy plug-in hybrids isn't anywhere close to reality, even after a $7500 government tax credit, for most americans.
34 percent of that 48 percent won't even consider a plug-in hybrid unless it costs the SAME as a conventional vehicle. the majority of the rest will only consider paying 5 to 10 percent more.
we've seen the same kind of data for hybrid cars for years, even $4.00 + gas only pushed hybrid sales up a couple percent of market share.
likewise, i'm sure many of these prospective buyers would want a plug-in sedan, truck or suv, where costs would go up even more and produce even less EV range - not to mention there are very few concepts even in these segments.
is 5 percent marketshare really good news?
i guess as long as you feel comfortable with waiting 4 or 5 decades to end foreign oil dependency this is great news.
look at the problems foreign oil dependency caused in the 70's to today.
and we have another 40 years of foreign oil dependency?
i'm sorry, but i find that kind of complacency insane. moreover, i see this kind of data as a wake up call.
I look at the numbers another way. They say 8% of respondents would buy a plug-in hybrid even if it cost 10% more (1-0.83)*0.48. So yes that is about the same as Bob Lutz's estimate. Well I'd take 8% market share right out of the gate any day.
People are fickle - the early adopters will adopt and then the mainstream will catch on.
Dach - a wake up call to what - to give up?
this is not rocket science.
Probably even the most ardent supporters of Hybrids have a price point on most of the things they purchase....
the difference is that the hybrid-lovers .. the hybrid is the apple of their eye but the rest of their purchases - probably they are just like everyone else.
Other folks...I know some.. will pay $5-10K more for a diesel engine in a pickup.
in their mind - it's worth it if the engine is more efficient than a gas engine and will last longer.
I'm not sure if I'm explaining this very well..
everyone has price points on everything they buy but for some folks for some products there might be some exceptions.
Hybrids fall into one of those niches....
just like the guy who wants a diesel in his pickup..some folks will want the hybrid...
but the guy who wants that diesel pickup .. he's not even going to be in the forty-some percent that would "consider" it.
those that would ...they have other things in their life competing for what most folks would consider - discretionary income because when the pedal hits the metal for most people - they're working off of a bottom line price for a dirt cheap auto...then working up from there...
do they want to pay 5k more for the ability to carry 8 passengers, or carry a stove, or commute 100 miles a day?
very few folks will save up their last penny to get a plug-in if it is the same car even if they get all their initial outlay back in five years.
look at compact florescent .. it's several times cheaper over it's life than a non-CF but the initial price is 10 times more than an incandescent... so people still buy the incandescents even though they are much cheaper in the longer run...
EI-
"a wake up call to what"?
to reality.
i'm not suggesting by any means that we should limit our push to plug-in technology.
in fact i'd like to add a gas tax, a carbon tax or both to the price of gasoline and pump that money into hybrid and plug-in credits.
but if you believe the far majority of data available on this issue, plug-in hybrids, etc. are not taking America to energy independence any time soon. in fact, it's going to take a long time.
are we really so certain that America can easily survive another 3 decades of serious foreign oil dependence? (and according to the far majority of data it will take much longer than 3 decades).
based on the last three decades and China alone, i would say its beyond obvious how serious foreign oil dependence will become and how dangerous waiting 3+ decades will be.
so, why aren't we investigating other possibilities as robustly as battery-powered vehicles?
again, i'm not arguing against investment into battery powered vehicles. but battery powered vehicles, according to the overwhelming majority of data, are not going to end foreign oil dependency - for instance - for many decades based upon our current trajectory.
do we really have that kind of time?
without doubt plug-in vehicles and hybrids are an essential piece america's automotive future, but the data seems to overwhelmingly suggest that we need much more than such vehicles if we're serious about ending foreign oil dependency in less than 3 decades.
perhaps its just me, but i believe waiting 3 decades is waiting far too long and such a time frame is counter-productive to harnessing America's innovative potential.
that's my wake up call to america.
If there is a battery breakthrough that results in plug-ins have longer ranges... my guess 200 miles... then they'll start to have an impact on people's buying habits - provided they're not ungodly expensive.
but we already know that the "replacement cycle" for vehicles in 5-10 years and longer as car engines tend to be more durable.
but let's say cars get more and ore efficient on a fleet average - over time...
doesn't that tend to push out and mitigate the overall demand for oil?
If the average conventional non-hybrid world car starts to average 40mpg .. or better and ranges of 300-400 miles... PHEVs are still going to be on the "bleeding edge" - no?
larry-
there is data out there that suggests the new CAFE rules will, ultimately, simply balance growing US demand for oil because of population increases, etc. moreover, one assumes once the economy picks up, demand for energy will also pick up.
in terms of the oil markets and how they relate to america many claim the bigger problem is US refining capacity, not oil supply.
and, yes, it does appear that phevs will remain very niche vehicles for some time without a major breakthrough in batteries.
nonetheless, i believe we should move forward with these vehicles, we just shouldn't peg our energy independence hopes on these vehicles if we believe ending foreign oil dependence is a priority.
likewise, i hope we don't overlook conventional hybrids, especially the american automakers.
similar polls have been done on conventional hybrid cars and something like 80-some percent of americans are interested in buying hybrids, as long as they are priced correctly.
obviously, we're not there yet, otherwise that 80-some percent consumer interest would translate into far more than just 3 percent marketshare.
still, achieving cost-effectiveness with hybrids in the short-to-midterm might be achievable.
likewise, this survey was focused on phevs like the Volt that could achieve 40 miles of pure electric range. these vehicles according to some studies i've seen are not as cost-effective as something like a plug-in prius.
likewise, if battery swapping is perfected, pure EVs could become cost-effective as well according to some studies.
so, i think it's imperative that america keep moving forward on battery technology, but we have to smart, open-minded and realistic.
and, if we're serious about foreign oil dependency, we will have to consider more than just the battery.
just a question -
is the world proceeding on the same track as the US with regard to hybrids & PHEVs or is it on a different track?
i'd say japan is more aggressive and hyundai appears as though they might also become more aggressive along this front.
china has indicated it would like to develop this angle and BYD, the most notable chinese hybrid producer, has been a big investment area for warren buffett.
europe has been talking up diesel hybrids for a while.
as for the emerging markets, there is some talk, but i think its minor, at least for now.
I botched the question.
in terms of people buying hybrids...
are their other markets in the world other than the US?
Are hybrids hot in other countries?
just japan, where the prius has been the best selling vehicle for the last four months.
in the next few years i think you'll see europe and south korea enter into the mix as well.
Indigo Incarnates
I'd rather see options for a really good hybrid and a really good EV. A PHEV just seems to combine the weaknesses of both systems without the strengths of either.
For instance, you can get a pretty decent Prius. Or (next year) you can get a pretty decent EV for $25 (Nissan Leaf). But for $40k, you can get a Volt that only has a 40-mile EV range and a paltry 30 MPG thereafter (300-mile range divided by 10-gallon tank = 30 MPG). I'd drive either of the first two, but I'd have to say "no way" to a Volt PHEV.
indigo-
and according to most of the data, that is the only way forward.
yet, i'm not sure the Leaf is there in reality. i think Nissan is playing accounting games just to gain marketshare. the iMiev for instance, was built very small and cheap and offers the same relative range, etc., yet it costs twice as much.
again, according to the data, the most cost-effective path for EVs is the business model that Better Place is pursuing.
Post a Comment
<< Home