While hybrids like the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid are doing well among most consumers, luxury and large SUV consumers are thumbing their nose at hybrid offerings aimed at them.
USA Today reports the additional cost of hybridization — which was a sound business case with regards to size considerations and better fuel economy only a few years before — on top of already-high prices has kept potential consumers away from the likes of the Cadillac Escalade Hybrid and Mercedes-Benz S400, both which have been cancelled as a result. Toyota itself has managed to sell only nine units of the Lexus LS600hL last month, making up just 1 percent of the 706 LS models sold overall during the period.
Despite poor sales and scrapped plans among some automakers regarding hybrid offerings in larger vehicles, Infiniti is one of a few staying the course with its QX60 full-size hybrid SUV. According to spokesman Kyle Bazemore, around 10 percent of QX60 owners have opted for the $3,000 hybrid option not only for fuel economy purposes, but for the V6-esque power.
In the news a while back, customers were reporting GM is buying all their hybrid full-size trucks back because a key part fails by a defunct supplier. That aside, shunning hybrids in larger vehicles is probably more like the rich moving on to the next new gimmick, to be “the first on the block.”
The party conversations go as follows:
A: “Say Danforth, saw you driving a new Escalade. I have a hybrid, is yours?”
B: “No Carter, I wanted a regular version…”
…Uncomfortable silence, while A thinks “what does B know that he doesn’t,” and while B wonders if ‘he appears trendy by saying this’…
Hybrids aside, the large SUV prices have gotten ridiculous, and I’ve noted seat comfort for rear passengers is being traded for seat height and aero, for MPG.
Not sure that the market for luxury goods has much of the care-for-other, care-for-environment demographic in it.
If they could pitch it as a fuel saving AND performance option (like additional off the line acceleration, or lower center of gravity), AND maybe safer (like the Tesla, with batteries making really stiff floor), then these could sell better.
Back in the early days, the Hybrid YukonTahoBurbaLade was pretty much exclusively sold as an image card. Post-minivan soccer-moms couldn’t bring themselves to sacrifice the driving position and ride height (again) so they plastered Flex fuel and Hybrid stickers all over those damn things. You got to keep the Truckster and you could tell your neighbors you drove a hybrid, like their Prii.
Now that diesels are becoming more acceptable in the high-end and the Tesla is the ride of choice among class-conscious yuppies, it’s hard to pose with one of these. If GM was willing to market a stripper Hybrid, you might see a better take-rate with fleets (assuming the package actually works out to real fuel saving) but that’s not a terribly profitable market.
Hybrid SUVs – A 3-ton vehicle with the agility of a 6-ton vehicle
I think you’re right about the luxury crowd not overlapping with the care-for-environment demographic. In fact, the ostentatious luxury and environmentally-conscious groups probably want nothing to do with each other, so the hybrid luxury doesn’t sell.
The big SUV buyer may not overlap with the C-F-E crowd either, preferring BOF V8 power, and there’s got to be a towing component that doesn’t trust hybrids to get the job done. I can see that segment being swallowed by 4-door trucks.
The bottom line, though is that as CAFE standards ratchet up, the hybrids are going to be necessary, or both the full size SUVs and luxury models are going to be much more expensive and fewer in available numbers. In the latter case, mid-size and compact models will have to do the heavy lifting.
The Tesla S hi lights a significant overlap. Its a huge status signal among the wealthy to be “green”
I agree that for Tesla there is currently overlap, but I think mostly the Tesla is a “look at me” nuvo-rich poser car. Not sure there is a lot of room for those in the market overall. Will be interested to see how much BMW i8 steals from them. Also I’ll point out that Tesla is pitching the safety aspect. Which I’m sure BMW will do too given Carbon-fiber shell.
For someone spending nearly $100,000 on a luxury vehicle I can’t see how hybrid higher initial cost can make it a non-starter. Is it simply possible that someone buying something like a massive SUV just doesn’t really care about green cred?
This. Exactly this.
Especially given that at this relatively high level of fuel consumption, the business case for hybridization is pretty good, I suspect that among buyers of luxury SUVs there is even active antipathy toward environmental concerns. They’re willing to spend a bit more to show that they just don’t give a damn. Sort of a reverse of the “smug Prius owner” syndrome.
993cc,
I’d like to see that business case. The hybrid upgrade on a Tahoe is something like $13,000, perhaps more. GM didn’t make a hybrid option available on a stripper Tahoe, which leads me to believe they were burying additional cost under a pile of high-margin options.
With an extra $13K up front, on a vehicle optioned the way no fleet would buy it, a Tahoe hybrid used in stop-and-go traffic (the ideal case) might pay off in a decade. Most businesses want their money back faster than that.
At 15K miles/year, the cost of the driver in stop-and-go traffic may be more considerable than the fuel savings.
It also doesn’t help that GM provides a convenient fuel-saving alternative to the Tahoe hybrid… downsize to a Traverse.
If I’m spending that much, I’ll be having a regular Range Rover, with a much nicer interior and different headlamps than the schmucko in a Tahoe.
Sad part is, a proper bigger Voltec drivetrain with thru-the-road AWD could offer more interior room than the last tall but cramped Suburban I sat in, with more torque for towing..
They don’t care about green cred, and they don’t care about fuel economy either. Marketing fail.
Tesla buyers excepted, buyers of luxury cars just don’t really care.
Heck, *I* don’t really care, I don’t drive enough on my own dime for fuel economy to matter to me. The types of cars I prefer tend to be naturally fairly efficient, though my 12-16mpg Rover is a bit of an aberration. I’d prefer a diesel wagon for trips because of how they drive and the range, not so much for efficiency in and of itself.
I always did say that if you’re buying a big ol SUV, clearly you’re not worried about “green cred”, and I see another “stripper” CUVs and that to know that people don’t mind aesthetically undersized wheels and bad foglight block-offs if it means saving a few bucks.
But then again if they want to be frugal why’re they buying CUVSUVs from the getgo? Mini-vans are cheaper, and will work much better for family trips.
None of these hybrids are what the market really wants is the problem-they weren’t particularly fuel efficient even if they were good gains versus their non-hybrid versions and they just cost way too much in terms of the premium. I think a large hybrid crossover that got really excellent (>30mpg combined) fuel economy while not costing too much of a premium would probably sell like crazy-the closest thing right now seems to be the Highlander Hybrid but it’s way too pricey (why does this thing start at $18K over the base Highlander?!)
Not really true – the fuel savings of a Hybrid Suburban was as great or greater than a Prius in terms of actual gas saved. But our idiotic way of measuring fuel economy disguises the savings. Most folks I know with Tahoe/Suburbans struggle to get double digit fuel economy in the city when driven like a typical Soccer Mom. The Hybrid version would get nearly double that or better. Impressive really, but nobody cared.
Struggle to get double digits? Really?
Idling a big V8 for hours in LA rush hour sure ain’t efficient.
I only saw a few of these vehicles in the wild.
The gigantic, in-your-face HYBRID badge on such a huge vehicle, was like a really fat girl wearing tight jeans. Tasteless.
“like a really fat girl wearing tight jeans. Tasteless” .And yet somehow you can’t look away and you start thinking about …..things…
“like a really fat girl wearing tight jeans.”
Ooh.. and with those sleeveless, low-neck floppy tops that show much skin…
Hubba Yum!
Get cho muffin top outa mah face!
I would never say that. I would say:
Mah face too haah.. wait!
I heard it said once that “spandex should be a privilege, not a right!”
And with the HYBRID lower trim lettering x.x ugh.
Rumor has it Ford is still working on a system suitable for trucks. If they can do it for nominal extra cost (under $5K) and add it to work trucks, I can see a future for it in fleets. Especially if they add some useful features like electric power takeoff.
Lutz was both right and wrong about this; he was right that the potential fuel savings made the project worthwhile but he was wrong that GM’s expensive system could be attractive at the necessary price.
Of course, he’s now calling his other brainchild, the Volt, a mistake and trumpeting the virtues of his $80K electric truck. Good luck with that, Bob.
The Ford hybrid system for trucks isn’t exactly dead, but don’t expect it in this next generation of F-series. It was looked at, but scrapped in favor of the smaller Ecoboost V6 and a V6 diesel.
Bummer.
Ford’s likely to improve city fuel economy, anyway, with the aluminum-intensive truck. Reduced mass should make a big difference. I suppose hybridization can wait.
I wonder if Toyota’s still looking at it?
+1 Hybrid badging on GM full sized SUV’s is the definition of overkill.
I’d argue that folks who buy large SUVs don’t care about mpg, no matter how much they may complain about it. So now you are left with those who want to be green and really that’s kind of of a confused group of folks who also want a large SUV.
fredtal, I think you summed it up succinctly!
People who want to be green generally choose to drive sardine-can cars, if they choose to drive at all, not something of substance and with heft.
The real mystery is whether Escalade should be pronounced esk-ay-laid or esk-ah-lahd. I hear it said both ways.
Yeah, one is the USA pronunciation, the other is British English.
Most buyers pronounce it ex-ca-laid. Buncha expresso drinkers.
Most buyers pronounce it ex-ca-laid. Buncha expresso [sic] drinkers.
Repeat After Me:
“Chevrolet Suburban with Leather”
Just kidding. Have fun. Oh, and rednecks like us pronounce it: “Ess- Kah-Lade”
aka as the Texas Cadillac.
I don’t know how it’s pronounced, but I have to figure that it translates from “wildly overpriced Tahoe” in someone’s language.
Considering what happens to large SUV sales when gas prices go beserk I would have to say people that own them do care about fuel economy.
I considered the Tahoe hybrid but the reduced tow rating was the show stopper. The biggest drawback I suspect is initial cost and long payback time. Also possible maintenance costs with the hybrid system.
No, but sometimes they care more about fuel cost than the image they project.
“but for the V6-esque power.”
You mean V8-esque, as the QX60 already comes with the 3.5L.
Alright lets get down to brass tacks: People who can afford 50-80K vehicles do not care if they drop 1500-2500 more per year on fuel. They just don’t care at all, there consideration in the value of money per unit is lower than an lower-income family. So in other words: Rich people don’t care if they spend more on fuel.
The difference for the Prius is realized pretty quickly if you were comparing it to a mid-size or compact car in the same price range and the lower fuel costs add up quickly in what was already a minimal price difference in terms of loan cost. So it doesn’t surprise me that these people don’t care to buy hybrids, it doesn’t add any value to their ostentatious purchase nor does it really make a difference in their annual budget in any major way.
This is also why the most avaricious wealthy people are driving the green movement. They can eliminate the middle class in all but name by making energy, parking, and roads luxury goods. Their world is a better place without anyone else in their way.
As for the sort of rich, I just tried talking my boss out of replacing the company car I drive with a 14 mpg CUV. You’re right. $100/month more on gas doesn’t mean a thing to someone paying over 700 a month on a car lease.
You’re such a wonderful right-wing-populist troll, CJ.
The wealthiest people on the planet are in general not driving the green movement. In fact the wealthiest people and corporations are the biggest offenders in terms of pollution and driving climate change. If you think they’re trying to make it hard for you have energy, parking, and roads you must have missed out on how the anti-environmental groups are the ones who rallied for lower taxes and ending any environmental regulation in the name of corporate profit. But don’t let that get in the way of a good right-wing meme.
Tell me how the left is going to save the middle class by bringing in tens of millions of new unskilled laborers just to end contentious elections.
What does that have to do with any kind of “green” movement?
And, although I’m a card-carrying liberal and read “The Voice of Big Brother” daily, I was unaware that we’re actually sending out for unskilled labor, let alone actively importing it or encouraging it to vote (a judge in WI just put paid to Walker’s scheme to discourage actual American-born poor from voting).
So far as I can tell, the biggest foreign labor impact on the economy is the large-scale offshoring of our IT and telephone support workers. Those are good jobs going bye-bye and it’s a trend driven by overpaid CEOs who spend their off-hours shoveling cash to the Republican party and demanding lower taxes.
I can’t fix you.
I’m not even going to bother with what you said because Kixstart basically made the point for me with a pleasant eloquence. Instead I’ll merely point out the second you were challenged on your statement you jumped to a completely unrelated argument. In fact you challenged the entire argument based solely on the fact that I pointed out how the wealthier people in our society are indifferent to their ecological and social impact on society.
Without breaking out the voting statistics those same people skew towards the corporate right and advocate for certain capitalist things. So it isn’t surprising that they seem non-plussed over ecological issues.
CJinSD, you and I are kindred spirits, but there is absolutely zero benefit arguing with the other side on a blog, by the time they figure things out, it will be too late for them, if it is not already too late for us- just send in a few bucks to a cause you believe in and have researched and let them go on thinking there is a difference between left and right, Obama and Bush-talk about laughably out of touch.
@CJinSD:
“I can’t fix you.”
I find it telling that you think a difference in political opinion needs to be “fixed.” As if that means that there’s something wrong with someone because he disagrees with you.
Somewhere in hell, Mao Tse Tung and Josef Stalin are nodding their heads in agreement with you. They “fixed” lots of dissenters, as I recall.
@TomHend
I’m not sure what’s worse, that you think I’m some lost sheep in the wilderness who is ruining your society or you think Obama and Bush have similar policies. Outside of some minor similarities on Foreign Policy (mainly on the right-wing Hawk side) they are fundamentally different political actors. One was neoliberal, the other Keynesian, one was anti-environment (which was my main issue with him) while the other is modestly pro-environment. The fact that Obama pushed through a heritage foundation designed plan for healthcare based off of the Massachusetts plan suggests that while he pulled a page out of the right’s play-book it tells volumes that Bush never bothered and let that entire decade create vast bankruptcies over health care bills.
Xeranar, I don’t believe it is about lost sheep.
The way I read these comments it is all about whether administration policies work for someone, or not.
The policies of Clinton and Shrub worked great for me. I did extremely well.
Obviously, in view of your support of the current administration, their policies must work for you.
Maybe for others not so much?
The wealthiest people on the planet, in general don’t drive. They’re being driven. That likely holds true for their involvement in the “green movement” as well. You don’t have to look further than California’s Tesla lanes (for people who can afford to either drive an 80 grand car solo, or… be driven) to find examples of how the practical results of “greenness” tend to skewed towards inconveniencing those less than equal disproportionally, however.
Political power is, after all, a standard good. Meaning, the more you pay, the more you get to play. Whether your idea of playing, is forcing others to support your paranoia about tropical beaches in Canada, or about Scary Muslim Virgins ™ wrapping themselves in Burqas instead of American flags.
George Soros, billionaire.
Green movement, everything else on the Obama agenda.
Just my $0.02, and opinion; not gonna say anything more!
Carry on! Remember to tip your server!
@Xeranar
I do think you must have an issue with someone who earn a good crust.
I can afford a really nice vehicle, as can many people I know who earn a good living. What do you consider rich?
Most people, rich and poor do look at FE and the overall costs of a vehicle.
If you had that kind of money the only US manufactured SUV I would drive would be a BMW. Other than that I would buy a Cayenne that’s returning 30mpg with a 4.2 V8 diesel.
For weekends I’d buy a AMG G Wagen 6×6 pickup, the world’s best pickup, it’s actually made in Europe.
Why would you buy a so called luxury or prestige SUV based on a $20 000 pickup chassis? What a waste of good money for a pickup truck.
There is a clear divide in hybrid sales when it comes to mid to large sedans which is based on RWD vs. FWD.
Lexus sales of the hybrid LS and GS are anemic, as are Infiniti sales for the hybrid M/Q70.
Meanwhile sales of the hybrid ES, Avalon, Camry, Sonata/Optima, MKZ and Fusion are strong (the Accord hybrid should soon join them).
They sell hardly any LS and GS cars, anyway. In another market weirdness, the take rate on the Avalon hybrid is, last I looked, higher than the take rate for the Camry hybrid.
I guess, if you are comfortable moving up to buying an Avalon, a few extra pence for the hybrid feature won’t kill you.
You aren’t making an apples-to-apples comparison. Just because they have hybrid parts doesn’t make them competitors on scale. It’s not “based on RWD vs. FWD.”
The LS/GS/M/Q70 hybrids are MUCH more expensive than any of the FWD options you listed, and in general (save for the Avalon) quite a bit larger. Someone considering a hybrid Sonata is generally in no position to buy a GS or LS.
My point wasn’t an apples-to-apples comparison and with regard to the RWD vs. FWD divides, it’s exactly that reason why the take rate on hybrids differ so much.
The hybrid versions of the RWDs are more geared towards performance than fuel economy, but at the same time, it seems like the hybrid version of the GS is a poor substitute for the V8 since Lexus only sells around 30-40 of the GS hybrid a month.
Meanwhile, the hybrid versions of the FWDs are geared towards fuel economy and for those ponying up the $$ for an ES or Avalon, it would be worth it to pony up a few more $$ for the hybrid version, esp. if one lives in a high price of gas state like California.
Would not be surprised if sales of the Cadenza spike 30-40% once Kia launches the hybrid version in the US.
A hybrid K900, otoh, would be DOA like the hybrid LS.
Personally I don’t think cost has anything to do with why consumers are ‘shunning’ Full Sized Luxury SUV hybrids . I think its more a case of ;
1) Full Size Luxury SUV and Hybrid in the same sentence is pretty much the automotive oxymoron of the decade
2) Consumers considering a Full Sized luxury SUV of any kind have no concerns for ‘Green’ the Environment etc . Their sole motivation being – A) ” My ____ is bigger than yours ” B) Blatant expressions of conspicuous consumption C) Keeping up with the Jones’s .. or D) A,B & C
Simply put … if customers considering full size luxury SUVs did have any ‘green’ thoughts or even the slightest concern for the environment .. not to mention the space they take up etc they’d be looking at mid size or compact luxury SUV/CUVs instead .. hybrid or not … not full sized Gas Sucking – Road Hogging ones
3) In light of #2 why would those considering a full sized luxury SUV spend extra money on a technology they care nothing about and in fact is meaningless to them and their peers : when they could be dumping another few $1000 or so on some exotic leather – more infotainment – bling wheels etc guaranteed to impress the Jones’s they’re trying so hard to keep up with ?
4) Buyers of full sized luxury SUVs all to a number : whether male or female have a severe case of Macho Syndrome … with Hybrid of any kind among that lot being very antithesis of Macho
No . Methinks way too much over analyzing went into this conclusion when in fact the simple case of who is buying the vehicles and why would of sufficed . Put 2+2 plus a bit of common sense/understanding of the human conspicuous consumers psyche together and the conclusion that hardly no one was ever going to purchase full sized luxury Hybrid SUVs would of been the obvious foregone conclusion way before the first one ever rolled off the assembly line.
Oh … but heaven forbid the auto manufactures should apply a bit of common sense before embarking on such a futile venture such as these .
Anecdotally, I’d guess at least a third of current Tesla drivers drove giant SUVs back when they were the fashionable thing to arrive in. At least one even drove the original Hummer…. The remainder are tech bubble optionistas that didn’t yet have a license back when daddy dropped them off at Stanford in his Range Rover, S Class or sports car…
Which indicates that it’s less about having the biggest, than about having the most fashionable. And that fashions vary over time.
Of course, that does create a conundrum for a Hybrid Giganto SUV. It’s hard to make a fashion statement with something so neutered and compromised that it is neither fowl nor fish in the fashion stakes. Lutz may be right that hybridizing SUVs for those who actually “need” them, makes more environmental sense than doing ditto to cars that don’t use any gas to begin with. But, as a car exec really ought to know, expensive vehicles are bought for the same reason women buy expensive handbags.
Personally, I wouldn’t buy a hybrid because of the inconvenience. Having a battery pack that limits trunk space or prevents rear seats folding down is a real drag. People shouldn’t be expected to pay a hybrid premium for less utility.
A giant BOF truck in general has so much unused space, that if there really was a market, they’d be able to tuck the batteries where few would mind having them. That would, however, shoot a big hole in business plans revolving around using the cheapest battery packs, and the minimum engineering necessary, to capture as much of the hybrid markup as profits as they can.
I’m amazed anyone thought these would actually get bought in the first place. People who buy these enormous SUVs don’t care about fuel economy, and they don’t care if anyone thinks they’re environmentally conscious. If they were, they wouldn’t be buying one of these in the first place.
Thank you, Mike. Exactly my sentiments AND….. MY lifestyle.
The next large SUV we buy will be a 2015 or 2016 Sequoia 5.7-liter, if they still make them. We’ll be trading off my wife’s 2012 Grand Cherokee V6 and stepping up to a V8.
Is the cost of gasoline a consideration? Not in the least bit.
Has the cost of gas EVER been a consideration for most Americans? Not if you can believe that the F150 is the best selling vehicle in America, and this was long before ecobust was cool.
It seems to be enough of a concern to warrant rah-rah-ing around any half literate yahoo who claims Scary Muslim Virgins wants to make their gas more expensive. And that it’s better to spend a few tens of thousands per tax payer constructing elaborate bomb craters around the world, than to simply sit back and see if that drivel has some actual merit first.
I have traveled up and down the I-95 corridor and the I-5 corridor, and even more times going East-West on I-8, I-10, I-40, I-70 and I-80.
And even during the times when gas was over $5/gal there was never a lack of demand for it.
People just lined up at the pumps and sucked that stuff down like it was the elixir of the gods.
Until something happens that would make gasoline and diesel unobtainable at any price, like in 1973, I don’t see it as an issue.
People may p!ss and moan about the price but they aren’t altering their buying behavior.
Instead what they do is spend less money at small businesses like coffee shops, diners, fast-food joints, and the like.
That’s why so many of those have gone belly up.
It’s real simple. If you can cough up $65K+ for a Suburban, even if that Cheddar is coughed up over 72 months – you’re probably not losing sleep on the price of a gallon of gas.
There’s always the 120-month loan repayment plan……
I think the hybrid BOF SUV didn’t sell well because there were better solutions to the problem of poor SUV fuel economy.
Soccer moms never really wanted an Escalade, hybrid or not. They just wanted a tall vehicle that wasn’t a minivan. The CUV provides the ride height with more car-like suspension tuning. The Range Rover thoroughly and completely beats the Hybrid Escalade for status vs. price.
Men with big toys like large boats want a luxury SUV as a tow vehicle. A drivetrain which reduces tow ratings is a big negative for the boat towing customer. In addition, city cycle fuel economy improvement isn’t that useful for a truck so spectacularly unsuited to fitting in city parking spots.
You, sir, should consider a career in auto industry consulting….