General Motors(?)survey On HarrisPoll OnLine (and interesting statistics)

[Ian David]

So, I was just taking an Harris Poll survey, which I think was done by General Motors (because they asked about OnStar).

I've signed up for a few survey companies-- NOT the ones that require a fee for the privilege-- and I go out of my way to tell them I "buy blue" and that I listen to Air America Radio.

I urge you all to do the same.

Here is one of the questions from the latest survey (tell me what is missing):

Thinking about the next vehicle you plan on purchasing or leasing, what type(s) of vehicle(s) will you consider? Please select all that apply.


Compact sedan (e.g., Ford Focus, Honda Civic)
Midsize sedan (e.g., Ford Taurus, Toyota Camry)
Mini SUV (e.g., Toyota RAV4, Jeep Wrangler)
Midsize SUV (e.g., Ford Explorer, Toyota 4-Runner)
Full-size SUV (e.g., Ford Expedition, GMC Yukon)
Luxury SUV (e.g., Lexus RX 330, BMW X5, Hummer H2)
Compact/Midsize pickup truck (e.g., Ford Ranger, Toyota Tacoma)
Full-size pickup truck (e.g., Dodge Ram, Toyota Tundra)
Minivan (e.g., Honda Odyssey, Dodge Caravan)
Sporty car (e.g., Ford Mustang, Mitsubishi Eclipse)
Luxury/Sports performance (e.g., Cadillac Seville, Infiniti Q45, Lexus IS300, BMW 3-Series, Chevrolet Corvette, Acura NSX)
Other
None of these

I selected "Other."

The only car I will consider is a Hybrid. And it's not one of the choices.

Here are some interesting statistics they were willing to share:

Percent who say fuel economy will influence their next car buying decision:




Percent who are taking steps (other than car pooling) to save gas:



Here's an aside: How can you be "not sure" if you're trying to save gas?

"I had this dream that I was trying to conserve gas. At least I THINK it was a dream..."

[progressiveBadger]

1. GM is so behind the times

Of course, a conservative friend of mine brought up a study that said that you would have to drive a hybrid for 25 years to save enough money in gas to make up for the additional expense. I questioned him on the study and he didn't really know who paid for it (Exxon most likely). And I told him that saving money on gas was the least important reason why I want a Prius. Breathing clean air is just a bit more important for me, followed by that big, "invisible" chunk of money that isn't reflected on the price board at the gas station (ie Billions in military spending to keep oil producing nations in line).

[Ian David]

2. That "25 year" number was debunked somewhere.

I'll see if I can find it later.

[progressiveBadger]

4. That would be awsome! n/t

[phantom power]

3. To say nothing of the fact that gasoline prices are rising.

Even at current prices, there's no way the payoff time is 25 years. I think it's deluded to believe that gasoline won't become more expensive, and not in some distant future either.

And then there's the whole "pollution, climate change, oil war" thing. I'd say it's worth a premium to do something about those minor irritations.

[Kolesar]

5. An article in IEEE Spectrum claimed an long, long ROI for hybrids

(IEEE=Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and ROI=Return on Investment, typically expressed in years)

Once again, the hybrid automobile is a product that is designed to solve the air pollution problems in the Japanese cities. That is why Japanese automakers Toyota and Honda introduced them first. It has a fuel economy benefit, which is relevant in stop and go urban driving. Someone like me with an 11 mile commute on the limited access freeway at 60mph would practically never get an economic benefit from the added initial expense. By the IEEE article's analysis, if one even puts a value on the other benefits (lung health, etc), the hybrid is still no better than a comparable compact car.

A lot, and maybe most, of the Prius' efficiency comes from non-hybrid features like aerodynamic engineering, transmission design, and lighter weight components.

Happy motoring!