Close this Advertisement

Survey Says Consumers Still Prefer Gas-Powered Vehicles

  • Jul 07, 2011
According to a survey from Mineta Transportation Institute (MNI), consumers continue to prefer gasoline-fueled vehicles are over alternative-fueled vehicles, though there is a strong interest these vehicles. No particular type of alternative-fuel vehicle is overwhelmingly preferred, although hybrid-electric seem to have an edge.

Using a panel rank-ordered mixed logit model, the researchers assessed the trade-offs people make between key alternative-fuel characteristics. They found that, in order to leave a person's utility unchanged, a $1,000 increase in alternative-fuel vehicle cost must be compensated by either a $300 savings in driving cost over 12,000 miles; a 17.5 mile increase in vehicle range; or a 7.8-minute decrease in total refueling time (e.g., finding a gas station and refueling).

The study’s author, Hilary Nixon said, "Although one-third of respondents ranked gasoline-fueled vehicles as their first choice, 20 percent of respondents ranked gasoline vehicles last, and there is a strong interest in AFVs. Although no AFV type is overwhelmingly preferred, HEVs seem to have an edge, which probably reflects the fact that a number of popular HEVs have been available for several years."

Full electric vehicles (EVs) are the least popular of the alternative-fuel vehicles that the respondents were asked to consider. In fact, they were ranked last by 40 percent of the respondents. The researchers say it is apparent that the current limitations of these vehicles, such as their limited range and long recharging time, are still a deterrent to their widespread household adoption.

"The vehicle range trade-off primarily concerns EVs, and it highlights the importance of range for our respondents," said Jean-Daniel Saphores, the study’s other co-author. "The respondents also place a very high value on refueling convenience, which emphasizes the importance of providing enough refueling infrastructure to make AFVs a viable transportation option for households."

The research results have certain policy implications. Although the media often tout the environmental benefits of alternative-fuel vehicles, this characteristic does not seem to be a determining factor when buyers make large purchases, such as motor vehicles. Economic concerns are their priority. Therefore, policymakers and manufacturers who would like to increase the market share for AFVs must make environmental issues a greater educational priority. More than one-quarter of the survey respondents were misinformed about the environmental impacts of motor vehicles or about current vehicle gas-mileage regulations. In particular, educating the public about the advantages of AFVs and the public health impacts of pollution from current vehicles will be necessary to increase support for AFVs.

The nationwide three-part, Internet-based survey of 835 households was administered in February and March 2010 by Knowledge Networks. The final report is available for free download from the Mineta Transportation Institute at www.transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2809.html.


Comments

Tue, Aug 2, 2011 Joe West Virginia

Our power grid is at the point of breakdown and new infrastructure is being protested. Why would I want to buy something that plugs into the electric grid, demanding more electric production from coal? If you move, it will generate pollution. I get 23.5 mpg in my 6X6 diesel truck now, (with hop ups), can haul anything I want to load, pull any trailer within reason, only outclassed by tractor trailers in an acident. That is with '06 technology. The VW diesel has been getting 50 mpg for decades and people turn to the AFV's that generate more toxins during manufacturing that convential car and then end up with the same fuel mpg??? How much of this is just feel good marketing? So you feed your EV with a windmill, how much energy was initially used to smelt the Aluminum it is built with? So the windmill is composite, how many VOC's are let into the air during its curing and post curing time? Only the Hydrogen cell will have a interst for me to act as a AFV source.

Thu, Jul 28, 2011

Either that, or it might just be that people don't want these things, and don't really want something shoved down their throat and have to pay for other people's "early adoption" with tax money.. There's no way I can use one, at least not with anything even vaguely resembling the state of the technology at the moment. I'm still paying for other people to try to convince themselves that they are being "green".. If it's worth buying, the market will reflect that. If it's not, it'll go the way of the gas-turbine chrysler and the early 8-6-4 cadillac engine and the early converted diesels.. "Green" doesn't mean "wanted by the consumer" in all cases..

Wed, Jul 27, 2011 Willy

Good points Nixon. I'm glad you were able to read and understand this article. In just the first paragraph there are sentences that I couldn't understand because of the errors in them. So I gave up on reading the rest.

Fri, Jul 22, 2011 Nixon

Critique of study 1) Only 439 of the 835 surveyed were selected to rank vehicles. Survey group is too small 2) “for simplicity, we assume that all vehicles considered have similar maintenance costs” This is a false assumption. 3) The survey was done in Feb-March 2010, long before any highway-capable EV other than the Tesla Roadster was available for sale. Yet nearly 70% of this group of people surveyed say they dead flat won’t buy new technology. This is less a survey of AFV's, and more a survey of the willingness of 439 people to be early adopters back before there was any product to buy. “We asked respondents how quickly they typically purchase products that incorporate a new technology. The vast majority (69 percent) indicated that they tend to wait until the new technology has been widely ac¬cepted and proven before considering using it….Only 3 percent are among the first to purchase a new technology.” 4) Survey group was done without selecting for New car buyers. In a country with approx 300 million people, where only about 10 million (only 3-4%) buy a brand new car in any given year, this study doesn’t in any way reflect what actual NEW car buyers want to purchase. Since there aren't a bunch of 5 year old AFV's besides hybrids for sale, this study isn't representative of actual purchasers. 5) The assumptions for the rankings were absurd. For example, in one survey set, they claimed that Fuel Cell vehicles were cheaper than EV’s (False). It claimed that Hydrogen for fuel cells cost just 40% of gas costs (False). They claimed that Hydrogen refueling took the same time as filling a gasoline tank (False). They claimed the range of Fuel Cell vehicles was the same as gas cars (False). They used just a 40 mile range for EV’s (False). They claimed it only cost $1200 dollars to drive a gas car 12,000 miles (That’s $2.50 gas for a CAFE average 25 mpg car - False). Given these false assumptions, it isn't surprising they got the results they got. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above