Two year payback on hybrids?

Google translate works

 

If cost per kWh drops as some group are forecasting, plug-ins will take significant market share, at least in mid-size and smaller cars where the issue of 4WD doesn't need to be resolved, and they could easily take more than double-digit share. Plug-ins offer a smooth quiet ride and good performance. If they also offered lower cost of ownership, apart from the small segment of people who actually like their vehicles loud miles traveled, access to charging and utility would be the only barriers and they wouldn't be enough of a barrier to significant market share.

 

Til recently this was obviously true. We were still in the mindset of the 1990's where everyone had the god-given right to drive as big a vehicle as possible for as long as possible with no consideration of cost or effect on others.

Since 2007 when Bush, to his credit rolleyes, first jacked up the CAFE standards to the mid-35 mpg range and now with Obama's further advancement of them to the mid 55 mpg range and with the agreements of all the vehicle makers to go along with the program I think that after 2015 we'll see more and more people choosing more super-efficient vehicles simply because that's what the industry will be offering.

There has however been a HUGE change in the buying patterns of the American driving public since the 90's. This gets little or no attention and it's one reason why our petroleum usage for transportation has leveled off and may even be declining. IMO it's the buying public's first steps at self-preservation ( of the personal budgets ) as regards to fuel usage.

Look at the sales of BOF-type vehicles in say 1998; that would be small, midsized and heavy duty pickups along with midsized and large SUVs. Then compare that to the sales of these vehicles in 2010. It's been a HUGE drop approaching 50%. The only surviving midsized SUV from 1998 still on a BOF chassis is the 4 Runner and its sibling FJ Cruiser. Ford and GM and Dodge are essentially out of the 'compact' pickup market. Escalades and the like are becoming dinosaurs.

The effect of this is very significant for the country as a whole. Consider a buyer who in 1998 purchased an Expedition which over the course of it's life of 12 yrs used 8 gallons to go 100 miles ( 12+ mpg ) optimistically. Now statistically that buyer has downsized to the new Ford Escape crossover which uses 4.4 gal to go 100 miles ( 23 mpg ). In the last 5+ years, even with the crash, there has been a huge swtich from dinosaurs to more reasonably-sized vehicles. It's self-preservation for the masses. Everyone who's on any type of budget can see and feel the effects of today's higher fuel prices.

This first step by the buying public is of tremendous significance for the country. It's far more important for our country to limit the usage of BOF-type vehicles and to move those buyers toward more efficient options than it is to encourage Camry buyers to move into Prii.

Fuel usage numbers ( 15000 mi/yr)
98 Expedition @8 gpc............ 1250 gal/yr
10 Escape FWD @4.4 gpc........ 650 gal/yr

10 Camry 2.5L @2.8 gpc.......... 430 gal/yr
10 Prius hatch @2.0 gpc............ 300 gal/yr

IOW it's better for fuel usage and emissions to switch ONE Expedition owner into an Escape than it is to switch FOUR Camry owners into Prii. Address the most difficult problem first.

IMO the government actually has been implementing steps to move the country toward more fuel efficient vehicles but it's been doing it so subtly that it's gone unnoticed by nearly everyone.

• First and foremost the Feds have allowed ( even encouraged? ) the increase in fuel prices except for some specific grandstanding steps to go after 'speculators'. LOL. There's no better way to sway the public than to hit it where it hurts the most, in the cash drawer. Make the public think that it's switching of its own accord, 'let the markets do their thing' [chuckle, chuckle]. It's worked; c.f. decline of BOF vehicles. DONE, and continuing
• Cash-for Clunkers!!! Hello. Let's kill half a million of the worst offenders and get them off the roads forever. DONE
• Beginning with Bush in 2007 increase CAFE standards for the 20's and beyond. Get the entire auto industry behind the movement. DONE
• NatGas-Diesel hybrid trucks, c.f. Wesport Innovations, Cummins, GM, Ford, Dodge, Volvo and I'm certain Toyota on the QT. This initiative by the Feds to encourage the really large truck makers to switch to the next gen technology for the worst users of diesel was killed by apathy and risk of retribution in the noise and clamor of the recent elections. I think that this initiative will come back to the fore soon. Still to be done.

 

Have to say that this is one of the best, level headed, intelligent conversation, and interesting threads I've read on PC in a while. Good work and thanks to everyone that has posted so far. Here's to hoping no trolls join it.

 

Yes I think there is a tendency for people to believe that what they haven't heard about doesn't exist.
The government has also been actively supporting research and development of a wide range of fuel saving technologies. There are many small projects that one seldom hears about unless one searches for them.

 

We seem to be having a pretty aggressive adoption rate in Austin, perhaps fueled (pun intended) by the local EV subscription program that makes charging almost free.

 

I am a 69 year old retired married white male living in a semi-rural community 5 miles from a small town with enough money that buying a car is a matter of preference and not totally economics. My son the engineer and his wife the financial analyst (and smartest shopper I know) bought a 2010 Prius (also own a Sienna for their 6 person family) for his 40+ mile one way commute. They have owned it for several years. They bought it at the dealer in the town up the street from me. Their first Toyota products.

My wife drives an 2011 bought new Avalon which replaced a 2002 Acura TL. Our first Toyota product. I was driving a 4WD 2003 CRV bought to enable me to own a Porsche for the good weather. Last summer I sold the Porsche (lack of use) and the CRV was getting to its 60k mile service and it was a good time to replace if I was going to. The CRV needed nothing, in fact had new tires, brakes, rear hatch strut all within the last 2-4k miles. I was however, tired of having to refuel after every 100 mile round trip at 70MPH to visit the grandkids even if gas was dropping in price. Got passed by lots of Prius hatchbacks doing it. Never really calculated it but was probably in the 18-22MPG range.

I now tend to keep cars 8-10 years and maintain them very well. I've bought probably 40 cars over my lifetime of 54 years. Many were disasters. (You kids have no idea how bad cars were built back in the day. Can you say rust out!) Not particularly brand loyal. I subscribe to MotorTrend. I guess I'm up on most of what is available and about to come out. Had driven my son's Prius a total of twice about 1 mile each.

The Prius V looked like an interesting car. A casual neighbor had a red V and, in a one sentence exchange, seemed to like it. At first I wasn't seriously in buying mode.

When I first looked at the V, it had seating for 3 car seats in back, room for golf bags in the trunk, would carry the trash to the recycling center, was quieter than my CRV (due to the tires on the CRV being very aggressive rain dispersing all season tires), was not that different to drive "normally", actually had a generally usable audio/GPS interface (as compared to the Avalon 2011 version which I'd pay to disable), would bluetooth to a Droid, could be gotten without a sunroof and provided a bit of fun to drive being different. A Three level seemed right but I hated the fabric and could see the grandkids making a mess of it. Found out the dealer could install leather and it be Toyota warrantied.

Figured my 6'4" and 6'6" kids can fit in the back seats. I expected to get 38-40 MPG. I did not expect to get the mileage my son's fastback Prius got...bigger, geared differently, less aero, etc.

I read online reviews and comments discounting their enthusiasms to some degree as justifying the wisdom of their selection...we all do it.

Ford ads sounded interesting but I wanted auto trans and a large boxy trunk with 4 passengers.

Would prefer US made/content. (Avalon ranks #1 in that regard, BTW)

I "got" the controls on the first or second test drive. Didn't test drive another car.

Took 3 rounds of serious negotiations before the price got to where I'd seriously consider buying. After all I didn't need a new car then or even in the next few years. Since cost wasn't the driving factor (lucky saver me), it was was this car the car I wanted to drive over the next years and did I see the cost as being "fair" whatever that means (and it doesn't mean that the dealer makes nothing, I was in a business with a P&L). Finally got to where the price was OK.

Enjoying the car, got 41 and 43 on my first 2 tanks. Not doing anything special. It has led to one bad habit, I'm not as conscious of combining trips to town 5 miles away as I was. It wasn't the cost so much as being conscious of the gas used. Is that being environmentally conscious or is it influenced by the Europeans in my life's more spartan habits? Now use Fuelly for fun just so I can answer people's questions.

I say all this just to show that buyers are different and their motivations complex. Sometimes driven by facts, finances, economics. Sometimes just because "I want". And sometimes a mix. I'm sure I'm not Toyota's intended demographic but I didn't see them turning me down <grin>.

 

The many small gov't-stimulated green projects are certainly not unknown to me; small company job encouragement is mainly what Congress does for a living. My critique would be that that focus solely on job creation, means gov't picking winners such as ethanol E10 and EV, and therefore say hybrids maybe get less support than deserved.

 

For some strange reason Hybrid is just not embraced by the Automotive Media, it is common for them to take stabs at it rather than promote it as the Future.

 

"Hybrid" isn't the goal, just a means to higher MPG, and indirectly less gasoline consumption if miles travelled remains the same.

It would be interesting to understand how many households actually reduce annual gasoline consumption with a hybrid, or if they end up using the same amount of gasoline and driving more miles. I speculate most people maintain the same budget for annual "fuel" expenses, using higher MPG to offset increased $PG.

 

I took Bob Wilson's OP as a question why the hybrid market has somewhat stabilized at 3% of the market; and more importantly what are the highest ROI steps to take to increase share.

For Toyota: AWD. A higher car with minimized aero effect would also help a LOT
For the country: more expensive fuel

 

what is the market share for 40+ mpg passenger vehicles?

or better yet, the market share for passenger vehicles with lower than $1000 annual fueling cost for 15,000 miles?

 

To improve market share and increase sales, Toyota could possibly produce the Prius family models in the United States. Since 2008, the Japanese Yen's value against the US Dollar increased by approximately 35%. The unfavorable exchange rates caused the production of the Prius in Japan to become increasingly unfeasible. In fact, consumers saw the MSRP of the 2010 Prius II priced at $22,000 increased to $24,200 for the 2013 Prius Two.

If Toyota's goal is to increase the market share of the Prius models, a U.S.-assembled, strip-down Prius One model priced at $21,000 would be a great option. Reduce the MSRP for the Prius C, the Prius V, and the Prius Plug-In by approximately $3,000 to make the vehicles more competitive.

 

Do you have Google on your computer ?

 

No.

 

Nothing wrong with lowering prices to help market share, but since the Prius is already the cheapest TCO car on the market excluding econoboxes, that approach has clearly been blocked by other resistance factors.

 

Find a charitable neighbor who will take the time to show where it is hidden.

Or pay about $200 for a consultant's time. I'll guess that is the going rate

 

so much for the trolls staying away.

 

I'm not sure what happenend in America. But somehow a Hybrid and a Prius got associated with Liberal Politics, Global Warming, Tree Huggers and people who cannot afford gas. When guys like Al Gore and Rush Limbough started talkking about Prius it became a symbol for something rather than the Car that is Reliable, Dependable, Efficient and Fun to Drive.

 

In the US, didn't the tax code partially subsidized the first maybe 5,000 of any hybrid or EV car thus helping initial production and acceptance by the buying public? The theory being that the cost of the initial few would price them out of consideration (20 year payoff) and the production of risky technologies must be encouraged by subsidy. And once I see several in the neighborhood, it becomes a not so risky decision for me to buy one so the volume of sales go up and the price to develop and support can go down.

Sounds like not picking against the Hybrids to me..