Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg A controversial finding shows fuel economy and green attributes lag far behind most everything else? (cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=201067)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/2009_Honda_Fit_Sport3.jpgWayne Gerdes – CleanMPG (cleanmpg.com) – April 15, 2009

2009 Honda Fit -- $14,550 to start and 31 mpgUS on the 08 EPA. Its popularity has nothing to do with its fuel economy according to some.

Detroit, MI. -- Despite just nine months ago paying the highest gasoline prices in US history, only 1 in 10 Americans would be willing today to pay more for an environmentally friendly vehicle, notes Alexander Edwards, president of automotive research for Strategic Vision, Inc. Strategic Vision is a company of clinical psychologists and business professionals with more than 30 years of experience studying how and why consumers make buying decisions and the factors that drive owner satisfaction and loyalty.

Edwards is a featured panelist on a forum entitled "Does Green Matter in a Try-to-Survive Market?" as part of the ATX-Consulting4Drive Executive Business discussion. The event is in conjunction with the three-day annual Society of Automotive Engineers World Congress at Cobo Center.

Edwards will provide findings on how the American consumer continues to have a long list of priorities for their next vehicle purchase that rank higher than having a fuel efficient vehicle. According to Strategic Vision research, out of 124 attributes cited by consumers for their next vehicle purchase, overall environmental friendliness of the vehicle ranked 53rd, emissions controls ranked 87th, fuel economy/good mileage ranked 120th and fuel efficiency ranked last at 124th.

Despite the reports low rankings for fuel efficiency and environmental friendliness on consumers' list of importance, Edwards than asserts there remains opportunity for automobile OEMs to market green vehicles.

"When customers do not have to compromise on styling, room, power and price to obtain the best fuel economy and environmental friendliness in class, they will make the 'smart, green choice'," he added.

Given the actual marketplace shows fuel efficient vehicles sales declines are far less severe than the FSP’s, this presentation should be very interesting. I currently know of no individual that places Fuel Economy last when contemplating a new vehicle purchase...

I do know that when my Volvo 850 died last November, I immediately began looking at Toyota.
Unfortunately, at the time my interest was in the Corolla, not Prius, for 2 reasons.
1. Raising 3 kids, the immediate hit on my wallet was not attractive to me, when the Corolla was at $16K sticker.
2. As a jobbing musician, trying to get the entire 88 key keyboard, or my entire drumkit into the Prius, plus a passenger was going to be a serious challenge.
So I figured the Corolla was probably my best bet for interior size needs and FE.

If there is the slightest bit of truth that "...fuel efficiency ranked last at 124th," then that is the overwhelming reason why the government has to dictate fuel efficiency standards. The American public, for whatever reason, is incapable (according to Alexander Edwards) of taking into account the negative effects of over-consumption of gasoline, among them global warming, economic support of our enemies, over-dependence on energy from unstable areas of the world, depletion of reserves, etc, etc.

Harry

2. As a jobbing musician, trying to get the entire 88 key keyboard, or my entire drumkit into the Prius, plus a passenger was going to be a serious challenge.


I find that statement puzzling. With the rear seats folded down, the Prius has way more room than a Corolla. The Prius can haul amazing amounts of cargo.

Harry

Agree. Very puzzling. A hatchback always trumps a small sedan in terms of utility.

I find that statement puzzling. With the rear seats folded down, the Prius has way more room than a Corolla. The Prius can haul amazing amounts of cargo.

Harry

My priorities were:
1. Something I can afford, but would prefer a new vehicle
2. Fuel efficient
3. Reliability to last me over 10 years
4. Manual Transmission

That was it.

It was going to be my point A to point B commuting vehicle, 35 minutes at a time so I felt I could drive just about anything and be happy. Interior amenities not needed at all, I could add my own CD player for cheaper than OEM. Color didn’t matter as long as it was bright and highly visible.

I ride my bicycle a majority of the time so the higher cost (initial and total) of a hybrid wasn't worth it.

It all makes sense now, Detroit has been planning based on research from Alexander Edwards, and Strategic Vision, Inc.

Unknown to Detroit, Strategic Vision, Inc. is funded entirely by OPEC. :eyebrow:

I ride my bicycle a majority of the time so the higher cost (initial and total) of a hybrid wasn't worth it.

Likewise. Hybrids only work out better environmentally and financially only when they're driven a lot; otherwise, you're just paying extra to replace batteries that die of old age.

The keyboard would not have been an issue, however my 5-piece kit with all the hardware would have posed a little challenge I figure.

This is so sad to read. :(

You can easily see my preferences in my Avatar.

I wouldn't need a poll to tell me that people who rate efficiency highly don't usually participate in polls asking them to rank 100's of vehicle attributes.:p

The details matter when conducting preference and ranking surveys. Measurement difficulties abound when asking people to make multi-attribute comparisons. Back when I was a mathematical economist I cared a lot about that sort of thing.

Without knowing details of the study three concerns are immediately apparent.

1. With over 100 attributes surveyed, how were the poll questions framed matters a lot--for instance subtle presentation differences could make fuel efficiency seem a "nonaspirational" objective. With over 100 attributes involved, even the order of presentation would probably matter.

2. Were respondents answers made salient to them? This more or less means "do respondents have to live with their choices?" "Scientific" poll data routinely under-reports unwholesome or unfashionable activities such as cigarette smoking and country music fandom which can also be directly measured by sales. Whether this phenomenon is the result of respondent wishful thinking or dishonesty is open to interpretation.

3. How did they sample the population? US vehicle preference seems partly to be dictated by social group--so, for instance, college professors drive different vehicles than auto executives who drive different vehicles than fast food workers. Biased demographics provides biased results.

Choices that people have to live with are regarded (at least by economists) as more revealing of people's true preferences than polls without consequences that are subject to design manipulation. Like Wayne said, increased market share for more fuel efficient vehicles speaks for itself.

It doesn't surprise me that most Americans are still clueless about the importance of fuel economy. They'll spend $2,500 to upgrade from cloth seats to leather, but they won't spend the same amount to upgrade to a hybrid.

It doesn't surprise me that most Americans are still clueless about the importance of fuel economy. They'll spend $2,500 to upgrade from cloth seats to leather, but they won't spend the same amount to upgrade to a hybrid.

And then there are those who refuse to spend anymore than they have too for transportation. Hehe...