SURVEY SAYS: 88% of Americans believe hybrid leadership is crucial to U.S. - Do you?
We Americans want hybrid leadership. We want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Trouble is, most of us aren't willing to pay for it. Johnson Controls surveyed 2,309 adults on all matters hybrid, and it found that 84% of Americans believe the government should support the advancement of hybrid technology and fully 88% believe hybrid leadership is crucial to America's future. But the devil is in the details, and few things bring out the worst in people more than money.
The survey asked whether car buyers would expect to pay more, less, or about the same amount as a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle. 23% of the adults surveyed said they were willing to pay more for a hybrid, while 35% would only purchase a car with battery assistance if it cost the same as a comparable non-hybrid. 33% actually think they should pay less for a hybrid than a conventional vehicle. And the other 11%? They wouldn't purchase a hybrid at any price. Click through to the jump for more on the study and to read the official press release.
[Source: Johnson Controls]
Beyond price issues, survey-takers were also concerned with size and performance. 49% are hesitant to purchase a vehicle at the expense of power and functionality. 47% of those surveyed feel that a lack of hybrid understanding prevents additional sales, and 59% don't understand the difference between various kinds of hybrids.
While most Americans appear to have limited hybrid knowledge and even less desire to pay for the technology, we're at least practical. While 90% of survey respondents are open to a hybrid purchase, 80% say that the cost of hybrids prevents them from buying one. At least automakers know that if they could only create a big, cheap hybrid with plenty of power that costs less than a Chevrolet Aveo, they'll have a hit on their hands.
PRESS RELEASE:
Nine out of 10 consumers open to purchasing hybrid as next vehicle
MILWAUKEE, May 12 /PRNewswire/ -- A new Johnson Controls (NYSE: JCI) survey, conducted by Harris Interactive(R), reveals that more than four in five U.S. adults believe the United States must become a leader in hybrid vehicles (88%), and that the government should support the advancement of battery technology in this country (84%).
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20081030/AQTH055ALOGO)
Johnson Controls commissioned the survey, "Powering the United States Hybrid Vehicle Industry," to understand consumer sentiment regarding hybrid vehicles and to gain insight into the challenges and opportunities for broad market acceptance in the United States. The online survey of more than 2,000 U.S. adults, conducted in March 2009, finds that the biggest reasons why U.S. adults think it is important that America become a leader in hybrid technology are to reduce the nation's reliance on foreign oil (81%), create jobs (67%), and reduce the U.S. impact on the environment (64%).
In fact, 90 percent of U.S. adults are open to choosing a hybrid if they were in the market for a new vehicle. However, they also perceive major obstacles to such a purchase today, most notably cost concerns: Four in five adults (80%) think financial barriers such as purchase price and/or insufficient cost savings prevent people from buying a hybrid car. At the same time, most see incentives and tax credits as an effective way to encourage consumers to purchase hybrid cars (84%). Among adults who do not already own a hybrid, more than one in three (35%) would buy a comparable hybrid vehicle as long as it was priced the same as the gasoline-powered equivalent, and more than one in five (23%) would be willing to pay more. However, one-third would expect to pay less.
"The survey makes one message abundantly clear: despite recognizing the importance of hybrid technology and the role of government support, consumers need costs to come down for the hybrid industry to thrive," said Kim Metcalf-Kupres, Vice President of Global Sales and Marketing for Johnson Controls. "The survey also suggests a need for consumer education, because most people admit they don't really grasp how hybrids work or understand the differences between the types of hybrid applications that are available," she added.
In addition to cost barriers, many consumers may also think hybrid vehicle performance should be equivalent or better than that of a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle. When asked what might prevent people from buying a hybrid car, 49 percent of adults cite reluctance to sacrifice features such as size and horsepower, and 42 percent express concerns that hybrids might mean inferior performance, lack of speed, or a poor driving experience. Further, nearly half (47%) believe lack of understanding about hybrids in general prevents people from buying them, and an even greater number (59%) have no idea what the distinctions are between different types of hybrids.
"That U.S. consumers are open to the idea of purchasing a hybrid bodes well for the development of a U.S. hybrid industry," said Alex Molinaroli, President, Power Solutions, for Johnson Controls. "However, it's evident that success in building the industry will depend on making it easier for consumers to buy hybrids. We're doing good things in the United States to stimulate the industry, but in the long run, it will be broad market acceptance and scale that makes it sustainable."
Survey Methodology
The Johnson Controls survey, "Powering the U.S. Hybrid Vehicle Industry," was conducted online within the United States by Harris Interactive between March 9 and March 11, 2009 among 2,309 adults ages 18 and older, of whom, 35 (2%) already own a hybrid car. Results were weighted as needed to reflect the composition of the U.S. population of adults ages 18+ using targets for region, age within gender, education, household income, race/ethnicity, and propensity to be online. This online survey is not based on a probability sample and therefore no estimate of theoretical sampling error can be calculated. For further details, please contact Rebecca Fitzgerald, Johnson Controls, at Rebecca.K.Fitzgerald@jci.com.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
required 2:50PM (5/13/2009)
I don't care much about leadership. I'd love to be able to buy a biodiesel hybrid though. I'm not even in the market to buy a new vehicle but it's 2009 which means we are basically a decade in on this new millennium and we still don't even have that option. That industry has been so damn devious it's doubtful it can now become a leader simply because we have a new administration. It's sad. I remember thinking the EV1 era Geo Metro would be one of the last fossil fuelers. Then we endured the Bush years which actually subsidized the Hummer. Now they are going bankrupt and what not...Weee!
Reply
Ernie 3:18PM (5/13/2009)
And here I thought hybrids were a stop-gap measure between gas and electric cars. Maybe leadership on electrics would be more important?
Reply
im4gmg 3:34PM (5/13/2009)
I just think it's a little ironic that the article is about Americans feeling like America should become a leader in hybrid technology, but the one picture is of a Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive logo. It's unfortunate that America doesn't produce more hybrids, since most professional reviewers have suggested that on several fronts America is in fact the leader in hybrids (just not in perception or sales).
What I mean is that American companies have been cited by professional reviews as having the most technically advanced hybrid system (GM's 2-mode), the most refined hybrid systems (GM for software; Ford for hardware & software), the broadest range of hybrid technologies (from GM's Belt-Alternator mild hybrid, to Ford's full hybrid, to GM's two-mode full hybrids), and the most advanced future hybrids (Tesla and Fiskar's current electric vehicles; Ford and Chrysler full electric vehicles, and the Volt extended-range electric; as well as the GM and Ford's plug-in hybrids due out in 2011). It's worth noting too that GM is the only company to span the full range of hybrid technologies--from mild hybrids to advanced full hybrids, to future plug-in hybrids and extended-range electric vehicles).
To be sure, where Toyota and Honda have the lead is in access to current battery production, profitable production models, strong market presence, and--obviously--the first-to-market timing. No one questions their lead in those areas, and neither am I trying to do that (so please don't bash this post as though I were). I am simply noting that it is not true that American companies need to "catch-up" technologically. Where they need to catch-up is in production, promotion, and profitability of hybrids.
Reply
paulwesterberg 4:19PM (5/13/2009)
If GM & Ford hybrids are so awesome why do they suck so much gas?
American car buyers are reluctant to buy hybrids because the technology doesn't pay for itself and externalities like cleaner air/water are not motivating factors for most people.
American hybrid systems use the technology to produce more powerful cars while fuel savings are secondary. These vehicles are for people who want a powerful large vehicle, but are willing to spend 20% more to use 5% less gas. Most buyers who want more power are looking to spend 5-10% more at most and could care less about gas savings. American hybrid cars are designed for a buyer that doesn't exist - the tree hugging motor head.
For instance the base model ford fusion hybrid starts at $27,270(much more than the prius & insight) but it gets much worse gas mileage.
Note: The 2010 honda insight or 2010 prius may be exceptions where the gas savings may eventually come close to the extra upfront car costs(vs a non hybrid car)..... depending on gas prices over the next 10 years.
augustus 4:49PM (5/13/2009)
Also Toyota and Honda aren't keeping themselves afloat through government subsidies that my tax money paid for and that I strenuously object to. In other words: I don't hate Honda and Toyota. In other words: I will never buy a GM. I hold out hope for Ford.
mister nomer 6:33PM (5/13/2009)
paulwesterberg: "American car buyers are reluctant to buy hybrids because the technology doesn't pay for itself..."
Well let's see. A quick check of edmunds.com reveals the following:
2009 Silverado 1500 Crew Cab Short Box 2-Wheel Drive LS: $30,040
Engine: 4.8L V-8, 295 HP
MPG: 14 city/19 highway/16 combined
2009 Silverado 1500 Hybrid Crew Cab Short Box 2-Wheel Drive: $38,020
Engine: 8.0L V-8, 332 HP
MPG: 21 city/22 highway/21 combined
A 5 MPG difference may not sound like much but it's a 31% increase. Over time that starts to add up.
(12,000 miles per year / 16 MPG) * $4 per gal * 10 years = $30,000
(12,000 miles per year / 21 MPG) * $4 per gal * 10 years = $22,857
In this case, the hybrid doesn't quite pay for itself but it comes awfully close: $7,143 in savings vs $7,980 up front cost.
Throw in a jump in gas prices or a gas tax hike (and a cut in other taxes to offset it for blue collar folks) and watch the Hybrid savings climb. = )
And, yeah, I got to agree that $27K is a lot for a Hybrid Fusion. I can only hope that Ford brings out a Hybrid Focus to compete with the Prius as Honda will do with the next gen Hybrid Civic (so I've heard).
Still, the Fusion isn't too far behind.
(12,000 miles per year / 40 MPG) * $4 per gal * 10 years = $9,600
(12,000 miles per year / 50 MPG) * $4 per gal * 10 years = $12,00
See, only $2400. As they say, YMMV. = ))
Carney 4:39PM (5/13/2009)
No, "hybrid leadership" is irrelevant, and pursuing it is actually harmful to the degree it diverts money, time, public awareness, market demand, and political momentum away from relevant and useful efforts.
The purpose of a gasoline-electric hybrid in to conserve gasoline by increasing miles per gallon, but this is a failed strategy.
From 1976 to 1990, despite the average US MPG increase from 13 to 20, gasoline use went up from 89 to 103 billion barrels.
Any gains in efficiency are more than made up for by increased driving from existing drivers as well as increases in the number of drivers due to population an economic growth.
And even if in the impossible event that conservation does succeed in reducing gasoline demand, you are still each year adding more (in absolute terms, despite the reduced rate) previously-sequestered carbon to the atmosphere that would not otherwise have been there, adding more particulates, etc.
Also, OPEC can respond to the reduction in demand by cutting production to match, keeping up oil prices and thus its profits and the budgets of its member states for nuclear weapons, terrorism, and the kind of radicalizing propaganda and madrassas that are roiling Pakistan and other nations.
Reply
GoodCheer 5:55PM (5/13/2009)
Do you drive as much as you can possibly afford?
I don't. I plan my travels on where I need to go, not how much gas I can buy. If there is any limitation, it is on how much time I want to spend driving.
The research I've read finds that this spring-back effect is usually limited to 10-15% of energy savings.
In the span you mentioned, 1976-1990, the US population increased ~14%. The fuel consumption reported by the EIA for 1976 was 6820 thousand barrels/day and for 1990; 7080 kb/d, an increase of only 3.8%. [table 5.13c of Annual Energy Review 2007]
augustus 4:42PM (5/13/2009)
Wouldn't we rather be the leader for something that is the future? Hybrids are complex, still burn gas and you can't make a hybrid minivan that does anything worthwhile for the environment. Worse still it seems that all effective hybrids are cursed to look like turtle cars. The Ford Fusion hybrid is technically a great car (that actually looks like a car) but you pay several thousand dollars to get 10 more MPG in city driving. Hypermiling isn't an option for most people on their daily commutes.
If we want to have leadership then get leadership in batteries, fuel cells or ultracapacitors. Then again maybe "American" car companies should focus on making cars that people will actually buy and work on quality/reliability.
Reply
Dave - Phoenix 5:18PM (5/13/2009)
This article is absolutely 100% correct. It explains why hybrid and EV technology is developing so slowly.
- Americans as a "group", want foreign oil independence.
- Americans as "individuals", are unwilling to take the additional measures necessary
Americans want everything to be free or they want the government to pay for it.
Well guess what. This stuff isn't free. Even though you may get your money back over the long haul, there "is" and up front cost. Deal with it.
There is only one way to bring about the changes we desire in regards to foreign oilo independence.......
LEAD BY EXAMPLE.
We as individuals, need to go out and buy hybrids, EV's and what ever is available "today" to help set the example and get others to follow.
"It starts with me!!!"
Reply
required 6:34PM (5/13/2009)
That is a common misconception. People have never wanted inefficiency. They were given it. OPEC is who wants that. The SUV fad was not started with the consumer, it was started at OPEC as they are the ones that put it on the lot and advertised the hell out of it. Efficient cars are never marketed and when they are they are called economy cars. You and I do not decide what is on the dealers lot, when you go buy a vehicle you get what is available which is most often insane inefficiency. Another example is over packaged goods. No one wants it, but the industry that makes it. No one wants plastic bags for their foodstuffs, but they don't get what they want. They get more trash then food.
This is why we want/demand our Government to make and enforce regulations. We pay taxes (a lot of them) and we expect Government in return.
Dave - Phoenix 11:56AM (5/14/2009)
"People have never wanted inefficiency"
This comment is true, but Americans not wanting to pay more for Hybrids proves that we expect efficiency "at the exact same price as inefficiency".
The misconception is that it costs the same amount of money to make an efficient car as it does to make an inefficient one....Not true.... The reason GM, Ford are still making gas guzzlers because they cost less to produce.
win39 6:46PM (5/13/2009)
This thing is going to continue to fail without incentives. Voluntarism does not work. It may not be simple to pass without committing suicide at the ballot box, but a gasoline tax will solve most of the issues. Then you will see hybrid waiting lines. Diesel will become viable in this country. And people would seriously consider electric only commuter vehicles until more viable mass transit systems are built.
Another measure could be an annual carbon tax.
Instead of the ridiculous left hand carpool/commuter lane in which two people can ride in a Humvee passing single drivers in 35 to 40 MPG economy and small diesel cars, you could restrict all fuel inefficient vehicles to the two right hand lanes with a maximum speed of 45 mph.
Urban parking meters are being changed over right now to be credit card only. It would be a simple matter to tie that card to your vehicle and large vehicles could pay more for parking.
You could get really draconian and make it unlawful to offer sales incentives for inefficient vehicles. Perhaps then those vehicles would become special order items instead of something to be stocked. You could require a skull and cross bones sticker in front of each seat saying that this car is destroying the planet and that your grandchildren will likely die horrible deaths because of it. Send a message to your passengers and family. But maybe that is going too far. :-)
If you make it really unpleasant to buy and drive a large gas hog vehicle the small unpleasantnesses of alternative vehicles like dealing with no performance at all because the air conditioning on a hot day has depleted your battery will fade away by comparison.
Reply
John Rowell 8:09PM (5/13/2009)
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid most Americans seem to be...or maybe these surveys just bring out the worst in people. Most likely though, only stupid people have the spare time to take surveys!!!
Reply
Billy 8:30PM (5/13/2009)
Umm... as I recall, Most American hybrid technology is licensed from the Japanese... Detroit ignored it while the rest of the world embraced it. No different than back in the 70s when the EPA mandated strict emission laws... Detroit hired a thousand lawyers to fight it, Japan hired a thousand engineers to solve it.
Then again back when California mandated manufacturers had to produce at least x% of their fleet as ZEVs (Zero Emission Vehicles)... GM worked on the EV1, Ford bought TH!NK to hedge in case their new fleet of lawyers couldn't get the law overturned. The lawyers beat California, getting the mandate relaxed. GM canceled EV1 and Ford ditched TH!NK... Assholes.. In all fairness to the US clan, this time Tokyo added to the legal pool as well to help defeat Cal.
All pretty sad but Detroit as usual was the saddest...
At this point I tend to agree with other comments... I opt to leapfrog past the hybrids and go directly to the future tech. EV is my local fav.
Reply
Bill 9:44AM (5/14/2009)
Once CARB dropped the "pure" EV mandate, ALL auto manufacturers dumped their pure EVs.
Not even Toyota was interested in continuing the RAV4-EV.
Dave - Phoenix 11:26AM (5/14/2009)
For Billy and all of those waiting for the "next generation"
You will wait forever to get that vehicle that has "everything" and at just the right price........
If no-one supports the current generation, we have no path to get to the next generation.
That's the other thing Americans do..........Wait.......