Actually, that’s not the equivocal message we might have expected from a University of Michigan study on electric vehicle (EV) viability [via Green Car Congress]. Instead, the money quote reads:
The data provide strong evidence that a combination of economic and social incentives may be most effective in successfully introducing these vehicles.
The study’s baseline shows that, given no increase in fuel costs, 42 percent of those surveyed would consider buying an EV. But with every doubling of a hypothetical price premium, the probability of purchase fell by about 16 percent. At a $10k premium, only 14 percent said they would consider purchasing an EV. Which is enough to conclude that the “social incentives” of EV ownership are enough to create a certain level of demand for even uncompetitively-priced vehicles. And that seems to indicate that breathless green marketing is here to stay. In fact, if the image after the jump is anything to go on, this eco-toehold in the minds of some consumers will likely be exploited with ever-more breathtaking shamelessness.
Why am I not thrilled about a government-owned and controlled entity having “deep insights” into my travel patterns?
Looks like a pretty nifty Powerpoint
Presentation to me.
If this same “survey” was done by a University outside of Michigan would different results be seen?
So OnStar HAS been used to spy on people.
@ SpikedLemon :
With OnStar’s logo in the corner of each slide I think we can figure out who sponsored the study.
Don’t know about OnStar being used to spy on people, but Mercedes has a service similar to On* and that was used to spy on someone by the police and listen in on conversations in the car. It was determined to be OK if the functionality/safety of the car was not compromised.
In my survey which includes thousands of hours at auctions,and thousands of hours in dealerships juggling aged inventory and such, I found that with Hondas and Toyotas there is a huge resistance to the high price of Hybrids. In the past, dealers would have to sell a Prius, or Accord etc. for cost or less to get rid of it. Of course now with the shortage of cars it’s not the case, however I expect it to return, when dealers are over stocked once again with Hybrids.
The sales dropoff vs price premium is no surprise, and just verifies the function of a free market. You’d see the same effect if Toyota charged a $10k premium on a Corolla.
In the case of the Volt, they should ask about the willingness to purchase at a $15-20k premium, because that’s what it is.
Take the soon to be release Tesla Model S. Now here’s an electric saloon car with a 300 mile range. Kind of the type of electric vehicle many people may consider purchasing. However with a starting price of $49,900, many people will be put off.
But then again, look at the performance – 0-60mph in 5.9 seconds – that puts the Model S up there with petrol powered cars of the same ilk – so what ‘premium’ are people going to pay? Not much in my opinion – and as time goes by and as battery technology gets better and better, the parts for these vehicles will get cheaper and cheaper. Think of how much PC’s cost now compared to 10 years ago – thats my prediction on what will happen to the cost of electric vehicles.
The relevant questions are “How much are you getting for your money and how well does it meet your needs and desires?”
The Volt loses two ways. First, it is a $20k car with a $40k price tag. Second, once the battery runs down, it will be a real dog to drive.
I am getting tired about reading all this stuff about how electric cars will be comparable to petrol-powered ones just as soon as the battery technology is worked out and the economies of scale kick in.
It is my honest opinion that in the mid-teens (around 1915 for the kids) when the occasional Detroit Electric could be seen silently conveying some dowager on her shopping errand, exactly the same kind of hype was being shoveled out by the electric car partisans. There is nothing new under the sun, and internal combustion engines have not reached the limit of their development.
Okay but why not have a mix of propulsion systems on the streets today?
I don’t EVER expect a battery car to be a cross country touring car using a battery unless we move on to some super capacitor idea. 300 miles and a fast recharge. Or some 200 mile car with a 5 min battery swap machine at former gas stations.
I also don’t EVER expect an internal combustion engine to get double the efficiency it does today. 75 years ago the family sedan got about 15 mpg. Today the family SUV still only gets about 15 mpg. Yes the modern SUV is heavier and has more driveline drag. Yes it is cleaner at least. Still each time we get more efficient people soak up that efficiency with more weight and options like 4WD.
It seems there are the naysayers who won’t believe anybody would be happy driving an EV and the folks with a copy of “Who Killed the Electric Car” on their movie shelf.
We shouldn’t pursue a single solution to getting around. All that does is make a single group of people rich. Let’s drive a mix of electric and gasoline and even hydrogen power.
Same thing happens with electricity generation. People arguing that solar or wind isn’t relevant because they can’t replace coal or nukes. Put solar and wind everywhere we can. The coal and nuke plants can then throttle back a little and make less pollution and consume fewer resources.
We need a little of this and a little of that folks!