Powertrain Acceptance & Consumer Engagement Study Chrysler Powertrain Research March 2008 1
Research Objectives The 2010 Morpace Powertrain Acceptance & Consumer Engagement (PACE) study builds upon the findings in last year s study to provide automotive manufacturers and suppliers with a comprehensive assessment of current and future powertrain technologies from the consumer s point of view. The key objectives addressed in the 2010 PACE study include: Quantifying awareness, initial interest, and purchase consideration for various powertrain technologies Identifying consumer preferences for powertrain characteristics, including engine size/power, fuel type, drivetrain, and transmission type Understanding the trade-offs that consumers will make among specific powertrain technologies given the specifications of each and the resulting impact on expected share (Discrete Choice analysis) Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 2
What s New for 2010 While last year s study was a success, some changes are planned for 2010 to meet the demands of our clients and to best reflect the changing marketplace. Key Changes for 2010: Greater focus on electrified vehicles, including range-extended electric vehicles, and battery-electric vehicles. o In-depth focus on infrastructure issues and other issues related specifically to these types of vehicles Additional technologies tested to include Stop/Start, EREV, FEV o Omission of CVT and All-Wheel Drive Enhanced driver behavior/habits information to better understand how the vehicle is used. Detail on fuel economy performance versus expectations, and the price willing to pay for improved miles per gallon. Discrete Choice Model: each attribute will be tested at five different levels to increase range of values tested. Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 3
Methodology The 2010 PACE study was conducted online among a total sample of 3,26 U.S. respondents Fielding period: April 2010 The total survey took approximately 30minutes to complete, including the discrete choice exercise Sample Participants in the study meet the following criteria: Own a qualifying 2006 2011 MY vehicle Qualifying vehicle purchased/leased new and is still owned by the respondent Respondent intends to purchase another new vehicle in the future Respondent was primary vehicle owner and decision-maker Respondent does not work for an auto manufacturer/supplier/ dealer, etc. or a marketing/advertising company All data is sales-weighted by vehicle segment Vehicle Segment Sample Size TOTAL 3,26 Sub Compact 248 Compact 250 355 Large 24 Compact Luxury 150 Luxury 14 Small CUV 248 CUV 242 Minivan 24 Small SUV 248 SUV 248 Large SUV 243 Fullsize Pickup 30 Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 4
Highlights of Findings Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 5
The Importance of Fuel Economy Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 6
Fuel economy is a major factor among today s automotive consumers Consumers place high emphasis on fuel economy when considering a vehicle Importance of Specs on New Vehicle Shopping (% Very Important 5 on 5pt scale) Fuel Economy (MPG) Transmission Type 53 57 Number of Cylinders Engine Horsepower Engine Torque Engine Size (Displacement) 1 18 15 14 Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 7
Further, consumers are not satisfied with the fuel economy they are achieving today Satisfaction is lowest among SUV and Pickup owners, but CUV and Minivan owners are less satisfied as well Satisfaction with Current Engine & Transmission % Completely Satisfied Mean Rating % Completely Dissatisfied Engine Reliability & Durability 7.1 * Overall Engine 71 8. * Engine Vibration 71 8. 1% Overall Transmission 6 8.8 1% Smoothness of Transmission/Shift Feel 66 8.7 1% Engine Noise 62 8.6 1% Power and Pickup Provided by Engine 62 8.6 1% Fuel Economy 38 7.7 2% Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 8
Consumers anticipate higher fuel prices in the future, emphasizing the importance of improved fuel economy Fuel Price (Mean) $5.00 $4.64 $4.50 $4.00 $3.82 $3.50 $3.00 $2.83 $3.12 $2.50 $2.00 200 - $2.74 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $0.00 Recently Paid Anticipated Cost 1 Year From Now Anticipated Cost 3 Years From Now Anticipated Cost 5 Years From Now Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study
For many consumers, the actual fuel economy they are achieving is less than what they originally expected Fuel Economy More or Less than Expectations (%) 3 18 Don't know Much less than expected A bit less than expected Equal to what I expected A bit more than expected Much more than expected 10 3 5 4 3 7 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 12 25 1 20 1 17 13 13 10 13 15 15 24 50 45 44 52 50 53 50 54 45 4 53 53 4 52 25 1 26 21 21 22 22 2 31 26 26 26 31 24 4 2 1 3 4 5 2 4 8 1 1 6 7 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 Total Sample Sub- Compact Compact Large Compact Luxury Luxury Small CUV CUV Small SUV SUV Large SUV Minivan Fullsize Pickup (326) (105) (541) (566) (241) (154) (77) (365) (182) (78) (15) (101) (10) (475) Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 10
While improved fuel economy is strongly desired, consumers are only willing to pay so much for it Additional Amount Willing to Pay to Increase MPG ($) Total Sample $1,36 $1,882 $2,515 $578 $21 Total Sample 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 11
Consumers do not necessarily want fuel economy to come at the cost of performance Buyer Personal Characteristics (% on a 5 point scale) Trade engine size for fuel economy 22 31 27 13 7 Consider environmental vehicles if similar performance in the class 16 32 28 14 10 Keep same type but shop different brands for fuel efficiency 16 32 31 12 Pay more for environmental vehicle 12 28 37 14 Sacrifice performance for fuel economy 7 26 37 21 Pay more for delivering more exhilarating performance 6 1 34 26 15 % Strongly Agree % Strongly Disagree Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 12
Fuel Type Comparison Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 13
Gasoline is rated highest for passing performance, but is not seen as economical or environmentally-friendly Opinion of Gasoline Engine (% Excellent 5 on 5pt scale) Highway Passing Performance Passing Performance Reliable Safe to Use Acceleration from a Standing Start Towing Performance and Capacity Noise/Vibration at Idle Noise/Vibration During Driving Engine Sound Driving Distance Between Fill-Ups Holds Value (Resale) Exhaust Odor Innovative/New Technology Fuel Economy Cost to Operate Environmentally-Friendly 27 21 21 20 17 14 14 7 6 5 48 43 43 42 41 Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 14
While noise and odor are still perceived issues for diesel, the fuel is noted for its exceptional towing performance Opinion of Diesel Engine (% Excellent 5 on 5pt scale) Towing Performance and Capacity Safe to Use Reliable Driving Distance Between Fill-Ups Highway Passing Performance Passing Performance Acceleration from a Standing Start Holds Value (Resale) Fuel Economy Innovative/New Technology Cost to Operate Noise/Vibration During Driving Engine Sound Environmentally-Friendly Noise/Vibration at Idle Exhaust Odor 2 24 1 15 14 5 5 4 3 3 3 2 45 Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 15
Hybrids are cited as providing an economical and quiet ride, but lack in many performance areas Opinion of Hybrid Electric Vehicle (% Excellent 5 on 5pt scale) Fuel Economy Noise/Vibration at Idle Innovative/New Technology Driving Distance Between Fill-Ups Environmentally-Friendly Safe to Use Exhaust Odor Engine Sound Noise/Vibration During Driving Cost to Operate Holds Value (Resale) Reliable Highway Passing Performance Acceleration from a Standing Start Passing Performance Towing Performance and Capacity 8 7 7 3 16 15 1 3 38 37 36 31 31 30 2 28 Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 16
Fully-Electric Vehicles outperform all other fuel types across many green categories, but are thought to have some performance deficiencies Opinion of Fully Electric Vehicle (% Excellent 5 on 5pt scale) Exhaust Odor Fuel Economy Environmentally-Friendly Noise/Vibration at Idle Innovative/New Technology Engine Sound Noise/Vibration During Driving Safe to Use Driving Distance Between Fill-Ups Cost to Operate Holds Value (Resale) Reliable Acceleration from a Standing Start Highway Passing Performance Passing Performance Towing Performance and Capacity 16 12 8 7 6 3 34 32 31 67 63 62 57 53 52 46 Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 17
Technology Assessment Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 18
Hybrid-Electric Vehicles are the alternative fuel technology consumers are most interested in Interest in New Automotive Technologies (%) Clean Diesel 32 41 Turbo Charged Direct Injection 11 37 48 Stop/Start Technology 10 30 40 Hybrid Electric Vehicle 18 41 5 Plug-in Electric Vehicle 11 35 46 Extended-Range Electric Vehicle 10 28 38 Fully Electric Vehicle 10 28 38 % Very/Somewhat Interested Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 1
Adoption is highest for HEVs as well, while folks are not as likely to choose an electric vehicle for their next purchase Consideration of New Automotive Technologies (%) Clean Diesel 16 26 42 Turbo Charged Direct Injection 16 2 45 Stop/Start Technology 8 23 31 Hybrid Electric Vehicle 1 32 51 Plug-in Electric Vehicle 25 34 Extended-Range Electric Vehicle 25 34 Fully Electric Vehicle 1 28 % Strongly / Possibly Consider Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 20
Improved fuel economy and lower operating costs are the top reasons consumers will consider an alternative fuel technology Influence on Alternative Fuel Consideration (% on a 5 point scale) Improved Fuel Economy 55 32 2 2 Lower Operating Costs 45 37 13 2 3 Better for the Environment 34 32 21 6 7 Less Reliance on Fossil Fuels 33 32 22 6 7 Good Resale Value 26 35 27 7 5 Improved Power and Pickup 20 30 31 11 8 I Want to be Seen as Doing Something Good for the Environment 11 20 2 16 24 I Like to Own the Latest, Cutting-Edge Technology 4 25 25 37 I Want to be Noticed for Owning Something and Different 3 6 20 22 4 Strong Influence No Influence Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 21
Battery-Powered Vehicles Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 22
Consumers expect to be able to drive approximately 230 miles or five hours before recharging their vehicle Electric Battery Distance until Recharge Expectations (miles) (includes those that are not a definite rejector of all three technologies (PHEVs, ReEVs, and BEVs) 231 22 223 236 227 237 272 212 226 232 261 253 223 22 Total Sample Sub- Compact Compact Large Compact Luxury Luxury Small CUV CUV Small SUV SUV Large SUV Minivan (3031) (8) (517) (523) (216) (147) (71) (347) (167) (73) (174) (88) (182) (427) Fullsize Pickup 5.1 4. 4.8 Electric Battery Recharge Expectations from Zero to Full (hours) (includes those that are not a definite rejector of all three technologies (PHEVs, ReEVs, and BEVs) 5.3 4.8 5.6 4.6 4.8 5.7 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.1 4. Total Sample Sub- Compact Compact Large Compact Luxury Luxury Small CUV CUV Small SUV SUV Large SUV Minivan (3031) (8) (517) (523) (216) (147) (71) (347) (167) (73) (174) (88) (182) (427) Fullsize Pickup Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 23
The majority of consumers park their vehicles at their residence overnight About half park the vehicle in their own garage Where Vehicle is Parked Overnight (%) In a garage at my residence Drivew ay at my residence Parking lot Parking garage/structure On the street Some other place at my residence Some other place not at my residence 55 40 4 66 67 70 70 57 6 60 54 60 56 32 5 34 Total Sample 3 30 24 26 15 7 11 21 5 5 7 5 7 Sub- Compact Compact Large Compact Luxury 5 Luxury Small CUV CUV Small SUV SUV Large SUV Minivan (326) (105) (541) (566) (241) (154) (77) (365) (182) (78) (15) (101) (10) (475) 31 25 31 37 35 3 62 Fullsize Pickup Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 24
While most consumers have access to 110v outlet when parking overnight, significantly fewer have electrical access during the day Parking Habits - Standard 110v Availability (% Yes) 83 68 73 84 0 Overnight 75 85 80 Daytime 8 86 87 2 4 87 41 26 32 41 4 32 42 35 46 3 40 53 55 51 Total Sample Sub- Compact Compact Large Compact Luxury Luxury Small CUV CUV Small SUV SUV Large SUV Minivan (326) (105) (541) (566) (241) (154) (77) (365) (182) (78) (15) (101) (10) (475) Fullsize Pickup Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 25
Concerns with plugging-in a vehicle at home are most often related to safety/security Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 26
Optimal Powertrain Configuration Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 27
Discrete Choice Model - Overview The objective of the discrete choice exercise is to measure share of preference for different engine types as a function of performance, fuel economy, driving range, technology and price. In the choice exercise, respondents were asked to select an engine from a set of six that best met their needs. The engines offered varied by segment, and within a segment the engines varied by the factors referred to above. Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 28
Compact : Expected Shares (Base Case) Expected Engine Shares at Base Case Level (%) 4-Cylinder Gasoline (0-60 MPH (seconds) 10.0; Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG) 32/ Total Driving Range (Miles) 385; $0) 2 4-Cylinder Gasoline Turbo Direct Injection (GTDI) (0-60 MPH (seconds).0; Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG) 34/ Total Driving Range (Miles) 410; $1,000) 4-Cylinder Clean Diesel (0-60 MPH (seconds).5; Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG) 38/ Total Driving Range (Miles) 460; $2,000) 4-Cylinder Hybrid-Electric Gasoline (0-60 MPH (seconds) 10.0; Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG) 45/ Total Driving Range (Miles) 540; $3,500) 4-Cylinder Extended-Range Hybrid-Electric Gasoline (0-60 MPH (seconds) 10.0; Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG) 80/ Total Driving Range (Miles) 400; Electric-Only Range (Miles) 40, Recharge Time 120v/240v (Hours) 8/2 ; $5,500) Full Electric (0-60 MPH (seconds) 10.0; Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG) 160; Electric-Only Range (Miles) 100, Recharge Time 240v (Hours) 5 ; $7,500) 2 8 14 15 31 None of these engines 2 Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 2
Compact : Attribute Sensitivity Expected Share Sensitivity Summary (%) Compact Segment 4-Cylinder Gasoline 4-Cylinder Gasoline Turbo Direct Injection (GTDI) 4-Cylinder Clean Diesel Acceleration (0-60 MPH) Acceleration (0-60 MPH) Acceleration (0-60 MPH) 7.5 seconds 35 6.8 seconds 1 7.1 seconds 20 8.5 seconds 32 7.7 seconds 15 8.1 seconds 1 10.0 seconds 2.0 seconds 14.5 seconds 15 11.5 seconds 28 10.4 seconds 11 10. seconds 11 12.5 seconds 27 11.3 seconds 11. seconds 8 Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG)/Driving Range (Mi) Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG)/Driving Range (Mi) Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG)/Driving Range (Mi) 24 MPG/28 Miles 16 26 MPG/ 308 Miles 5 2 MPG/345 Miles 3 27 MPG/327 Miles 1 2 MPG/34 Miles 7 32 MPG/31 Miles 4 32 MPG/385 Miles 2 34 MPG/410 Miles 14 38 MPG/460 Miles 15 37 MPG/443 Miles 3 3 MPG/472 Miles 2 44 MPG/52 Miles 26 40 MPG/481 Miles 48 43 MPG/513 Miles 3 48 MPG/575 Miles 32 Price Price Price N/A - $750 16 $1,500 23 N/A - $850 15 $1,700 1 N/A - $1,000 14 $2,000 15 N/A - $1,150 12 $2,300 13 N/A - $1,250 10 $2,500 10 Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 30
Optimal Powertrain Configurator Compact Simulator Engine 1 Present? Engine Gasoline 4-cyl 0-60 MPH (seconds) Fuel Economy (mpg) Total Driving Range (miles) Electric Driving Range (miles) Recharge Time Hours (120v/240v) Additional Cost 7.5 40 481 0 n/a $0 Engine 2 Gasoline - Turbocharge 8 2 34 0 n/a $1,250 Engine 3 Clean Diesel 4-cyl 10 33 38 0 n/a $1,500 Engine 4 Clean Diesel 4-cyl 35 421 0 n/a $1,500 Engine 5 Extended Range Electric 60 300 30 12/3 $4,130 Engine 6 Full Electric 120 0 75 _/5 $5,625 Engine 7 Gasoline - Turbocharge 7.5 42 506 0 n/a $750 Engine 8 Gasoline 4-cyl 7.5 40 481 0 n/a $0 Engine Gasoline 4-cyl 7.5 40 481 0 n/a $0 Engine 10 Gasoline 4-cyl 7.5 40 481 0 n/a $0 None Calculate? Sensitivity? Simulation: Increase Clean Diesel fuel economy to 40 MPG Lower cost to $1,500 Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 31
Optimal Powertrain Configurator Expected Engine Shares at Base Case Level (%) Change from Base Case 4-Cylinder Gasoline (0-60 MPH (seconds) 10.0; Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG) 32/ Total Driving Range (Miles) 385; $0) 25 4 4-Cylinder Gasoline Turbo Direct Injection (GTDI) (0-60 MPH (seconds).0; Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG) 34/ Total Driving Range (Miles) 410; $1,000) 5 4-Cylinder Clean Diesel (0-60 MPH (seconds).5; Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG) 40/ Total Driving Range (Miles) 460; $1,500) 26 11 4-Cylinder Hybrid-Electric Gasoline (0-60 MPH (seconds) 10.0; Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG) 45/ Total Driving Range (Miles) 540; $3,500) 27 4 4-Cylinder Extended-Range Hybrid-Electric Gasoline (0-60 MPH (seconds) 10.0; Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG) 80/ Total Driving Range (Miles) 400; Electric-Only Range (Miles) 40, Recharge Time 120v/240v (Hours) 8/2 ; $5,500) Full Electric (0-60 MPH (seconds) 10.0; Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG) 160; Electric-Only Range (Miles) 100, Recharge Time 240v (Hours) 5 ; $7,500) None of these engines 3 3 7 1 1 1 Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 32
For More Information: Bryan E. Krulikowski Vice President 248.53.5277 bkrulikowski@morpace.com Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 33