American dysfuntion: Hybrid adoption at 14 percent in Japan, small cars rule
A hybrid-only model in Japan.
Is America’s biggest problem one of psychology?
When the 2012 Toyota Camry launches in Japan, only the Camry hybrid will be offered. Since Japan accounts for just 1 percent of all worldwide Camry sales, the Camry just isn’t an important offering in Japan, where hybrid adoption is already at 14 percent and where most consumers prefer small cars to sedans. Nevertheless, Toyota is hoping the Camry hybrid can copy some of the hybrid success of the Toyota Prius in Japan.
That makes me wonder, are Americans just a bunch of dysfunctional cake-eaters?
When Americans buy cars, we buy them to serve every possible need imaginable — even once in a lifetime events. Moreover, we want everything when we buy our cars: size, horsepower, fuel economy and as many luxury amenities as possible. And we buy it all with as much credit as we can barely afford.
It’s not just function that matters, it’s also perception, maybe even more so than function. What does my ride say about me?
Maybe it’s just me, but isn’t American consumer psychology simply dysfunctional? Or, is the problem even greater than just consumer psychology?
For instance, the far majority of all healthcare problems in the US are self-created. We over eat and what we eat typically just isn’t very good for us, but it tastes good. To top it off, we don’t exercise. It’s too much work.
The healthcare crisis, like America’s energy problems, is largely created by lazy, short-sighted decision making.
To counter this, many politicians propose regulations and incentives to improve our decision-making process. And it can work. Government incentives pushed 14 percent of Japanese consumers into hybrid cars, for instance, versus just under 3 percent in the US.
But, will Americans tolerate such government force, especially when subsidized by their tax dollars, particularly when economic times are tough and the deficit is spiraling out of control?
Regardless, even America’s tax focus on plug-in vehicles seems somewhat dysfunctional since a real move to plug-ins almost certainly isn’t achievable without a major battery breakthrough, an achievement most experts don’t believe will happen for at least another decade. So, why the rush now? In the interim, wouldn’t 14 percent hybrid adoption and a greater small car share be a more effective goal today, while also promoting battery R&D?
Then again, maybe hybrid incentives wouldn’t be worthwhile either, unless we’re talking pickup trucks, which brings me to my next point.
If pickup trucks are the most important segment for US consumers, for US manufacturing, and for tackling poor US fleet fuel economy, shouldn’t pickup trucks be America’s primary focus for change, the main driver? Instead of a $7500 tax credit for a small plug-in car, wouldn’t a $7500 tax credit for a hybrid pickup truck — even a plug-in version – offer more bang for the buck, both today and long term considering the legacy effect?
Are we really striving for change, or just trying to create the perception of change to delay any real change as long as possible?
It’s ironic that many years ago GM used to mock the Prius and hybrid technology because it was too focused on small cars. If you really wanted to improve fleet fuel economy in the US, GM claimed, then you’d focus on the biggest problem, large trucks. While GM did develop hybrid pickups such as the Chevy Silverado hybrid, they never hyped or marketed them the way they have the Prius-sized Chevy Volt — even when the Volt was just a Corvette-looking plug-in concept years away from reality.
Perception matters. Unfortunately, sometimes it’s all that matters, and that just doesn’t seem very sustainable.
Play ifnormatvie for me, Mr. internet writer.