Only 11% of new car buyers willing to pay extra for green vehicles

What a surprise. Perhaps consumers are not as stupid as car manufacturers want them to be. No doubt, Hybrids are more expensive, but by far not the only alternative. What about ethanol or biodiesel, LPG or CNG? Look at the policies of Mercedes, VW, Toyota etc. Why is an E85 Mercedes C300 available in the US, but not in Germany? A VW Touareg in Brazil can use E85 there, why not somewhere else. The costs are close to nothing and a missing gas station network is a weak argument. The price tag for "environmental friendly" is too high and just used to earn extra money. Technology is available and if a car manufacturer can offer dozens of colors, seat/glas roofwheel combinations it is hard to believe for me that they are unable to offer ethanol and/or gas equipment at decent extra costs.
Mike from Germany

So does this include the Prius since there is not a non-hybrid variant like the Camry or Civic? Just curious since that one seems to sell well.

As for the rest of the bunch :Civic, Camry, Highlander, RX350 -- hybrids make up roughly 10% of their sales which is not that spectacular but @ least they are selling. Performance hybrids like the Accord, GS & LS ... those are clearly not big sellers.

In addition to cost, I think that there are other factors preventing people from buying hybrids: reduced trunk space, fear of replacing the battery/new technology that they might not trust .. and those in the know realize that hybrids are not that green when you consider making & disposing of the batteries ...

Wonder how the diesels will do?

I'd just like to get one thing straight: Neither hybrids nor bio-ethanol cars are really environmentally friendly. Hybrids just get slightly better mileage than a normal petrol car, they are only a mediocre short-term solution. And bio-ethanol is completely senseless altogether because in the end, the carbon emissions are created are much higher than if you had used normal petrol. To produce one liter of bio-ethanol you need 4500 liters of water. And many acres of jungle are burnt to create plantations for crops. Just think about it. The car industry (expecially GM) are playing tricks on us.

Well, do you think that transporting 70-100kg of more or less intelligent biomass in a 2 ton metal box is generally environmental friendly? Unless you come up with "beam-me-up-Scotty" solution... I do not know where you got the 4500 liter Water figure from, I can assure that sugar beets in Germany do not need this amount of water and no jungle has been touched. The same applies for semi-arid areas in Africa. Please do not start the food vs. biofuel discussion there is enough land available for biofuels without interfearing food production. Do you know the energy amount which went in to produce and distribute 1 kilo of beef or 100 g of chocolate??? Even the balance to produce 1 liter gasoline from crude oil is >1. What is your point?

I expect that if you look at the universe of buyers that a only a subset is interested in any given option. So the interesting question is, how does the percentage of buyers who will pay more to be 'green' compare to the percentage who will pay more for AWD, a more powerful engine, Nav systems, etc. With out this kind of context this is a useless survey and was a waste of time and money.

jim; i'd be willing to bet more people would be willing to pay more for something they can see or feel than those who will pay more for the societal rubber stamping of "green car". asking some one to pay more for a car that makes less of something you cant see or may never feel the effects of, is a little much.

german dude is right. ethanol is a very dirty fuel when you consider that you need to produce a large amount of crops, feed them, water them, use pesticides, and then use a combine to harvest that crop, send it to a factory in a transport truck that will use machinery to mash that organic matter into a paste, then WATER IT DOWN and put in yeast cultures to let it ferment. all so we can burn a fuel that gets what... 50% less carbon? MAYBE?!

if you want to get an idea of the processes involved in ethanol production just go to your nearest distiller. I live in windsor ontario and we make canadian club whiskey here. the plant is spectacular but whats inside is great evidence of this process. you take corn, mash it, then make a big soup with water. you add bacterial cultures which breath oxygen and produce carbon dioxide to turn sugars into alcohol (ethanol) and the whole time you need to boil the water. you need to heat up large vats of water to let carbon dioxide producing yeast ferment corn that has already taken many thousands of acres of land and water to produce who knows how much alcohol. and thats just 80 proof whiskey. E85 is 170 proof vodka with some gasoline mixed in, just so that some imbred white trash doesnt get the great idea to have a party at the gas station.


like ive said in the previous hybrid topics, the only good thing about them is that theyre moving the technology from fuel burning ICE's to electric vehicles which are much better for the earth; even when you take into account the power plants and their waste.

You guys aren't considering the future of ethanol, which is cellulosic ethanol. This ethanol produces a 540% rate of return (energy in/out) compared to corn.
If/when that's perfected, I see ethanol going all the way.
Besides, I'd rather see farmer Joe drive a Lamborghini than Shiekh Abdullah anyday...