Powertrain Acceptance & Consumer Engagement Study Chrysler - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Chrysler Powertrain Research March 2008 1

Powertrain Acceptance & Consumer Engagement Study

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.

• 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

• f

each—and the resulting impact on expected share (Discrete Choice analysis)

Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 2

The key objectives addressed in the 2010 PACE study include:

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.

• 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
• 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 3,269 U.S.

respondents

– Fielding period: April 2010

• The total survey took approximately 30minutes to complete, including the discrete

choice exercise

• 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

Sample

Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 4

Vehicle Segment Sample Size TOTAL 3,269 Sub‐Compact Car 248 Compact Car 250 Midsize Car 355 Large Car 249 Compact Luxury Car 150 Midsize Luxury Car 149 Small CUV 248 Midsize CUV 242 Minivan 249 Small SUV 248 Midsize SUV 248 Large SUV 243 Fullsize Pickup 390

Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 5

Highlights of Findings

Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 6

The Importance of Fuel Economy

Fuel economy is a major factor among today’s automotive consumers

Fuel Economy (MPG) Transmission Type Number of Cylinders Engine Horsepower Engine Torque Engine Size (Displacement)

Importance of Specs on New Vehicle Shopping (% Very Important 5 on 5pt scale)

57 53 19 18 15 14

− Consumers place high emphasis on fuel economy when considering a vehicle

Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 7

% Completely Satisfied Mean Rating % Completely Dissatisfied Engine Reliability & Durability 9.1 * Overall Engine 8.9 * Engine Vibration 8.9 1% Overall Transmission 8.8 1% Smoothness of Transmission/Shift Feel 8.7 1% Engine Noise 8.6 1% Power and Pickup Provided by Engine 8.6 1% Fuel Economy 7.7 2%

Satisfaction with Current Engine & Transmission

79 71 71 69 66 62 62 38

Further, consumers are not satisfied with the fuel economy they are achieving today

− Satisfaction is lowest among SUV and Pickup owners, but Midsize CUV and Minivan

• wners are less satisfied as well

Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 8

Consumers anticipate higher fuel prices in the future, emphasizing the importance of improved fuel economy

Recently Paid Anticipated Cost 1 Year From Now Anticipated Cost 3 Years From Now Anticipated Cost 5 Years From Now

Fuel Price

(Mean)

$2.83 $3.12 $3.82 $4.64 $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 2009 - $2.74

Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 9

For many consumers, the actual fuel economy they are achieving is less than what they originally expected

Total Sample Sub- Compact Compact Car Midsize Car Large Car Compact Luxury Car Midsize Luxury Car Small CUV Midsize CUV Small SUV Midsize SUV Large SUV Minivan Fullsize Pickup

(3269) (105) (541) (566) (241) (154) (77) (365) (182) (78) (195) (101) (190) (475)

Fuel Economy More or Less than Expectations (%) 3 10 3 5 4 3 7 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 18 24 25 19 20 19 15 12 17 13 13 10 13 15 50 45 44 52 50 53 50 54 45 49 53 53 49 52 25 19 26 21 21 22 22 29 31 26 26 26 31 24 4 2 1 3 4 1 5 2 4 8 6 7 5 6 1 1 2 1

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

Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 10

While improved fuel economy is strongly desired, consumers are

• nly willing to pay so much for it

Total Sample

10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Additional Amount Willing to Pay to Increase MPG ($)

Total Sample $578 $921 $1,369 $1,882 $2,515

Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 11

Consumers do not necessarily want fuel economy to come at the cost of performance

Trade engine size for fuel economy Consider environmental vehicles if similar performance in the class Keep same type but shop different brands for fuel efficiency Pay more for environmental vehicle Sacrifice performance for fuel economy Pay more for delivering more exhilarating performance

Buyer Personal Characteristics (% on a 5 point scale)

22 16 16 12 7 6 31 32 32 28 26 19 27 28 31 37 37 34 13 14 12 14 21 26 7 10 9 9 9 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

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

Opinion of Gasoline Engine (% Excellent 5 on 5pt scale)

48 43 43 42 41 27 21 21 20 17 14 14 9 7 6 5 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

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

Opinion of Diesel Engine (% Excellent 5 on 5pt scale)

45 29 24 19 15 14 9 9 9 5 5 4 3 3 3 2 Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 15

Hybrids are cited as providing an economical and quiet ride, but lack in many performance areas

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

Opinion of Hybrid Electric Vehicle (% Excellent 5 on 5pt scale)

39 38 37 36 31 31 30 29 28 19 16 15 8 7 7 3 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

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

Opinion of Fully Electric Vehicle (% Excellent 5 on 5pt scale)

67 63 62 57 53 52 46 34 32 31 16 12 8 7 6 3 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

Clean Diesel Turbo Charged Direct Injection Stop/Start Technology Hybrid Electric Vehicle Plug-in Electric Vehicle Extended-Range Electric Vehicle Fully Electric Vehicle

Interest in New Automotive Technologies (%)

9 11 10 18 11 10 10 32 37 30 41 35 28 28 41 48 40 59 46 38 38

% Very/Somewhat Interested

Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 19

Adoption is highest for HEVs as well, while folks are not as likely to choose an electric vehicle for their next purchase

Clean Diesel Turbo Charged Direct Injection Stop/Start Technology Hybrid Electric Vehicle Plug-in Electric Vehicle Extended-Range Electric Vehicle Fully Electric Vehicle

Consideration of New Automotive Technologies (%)

16 16 8 19 9 9 9 26 29 23 32 25 25 19 42 45 31 51 34 34 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

Improved Fuel Economy Lower Operating Costs Better for the Environment Less Reliance on Fossil Fuels Good Resale Value Improved Power and Pickup I Want to be Seen as Doing Something Good for the Environment I Like to Own the Latest, Cutting-Edge Technology I Want to be Noticed for Owning Something and Different

Influence on Alternative Fuel Consideration (% on a 5 point scale)

55 45 34 33 26 20 11 4 3 32 37 32 32 35 30 20 9 6 9 13 21 22 27 31 29 25 20 2 2 6 6 7 11 16 25 22 2 3 7 7 5 8 24 37 49

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—

• r five hours—before recharging their vehicle

Total Sample Sub- Compact Car Compact Car Midsize Car Large Car Compact Luxury Car Midsize Luxury Car Small CUV Midsize CUV Small SUV Midsize SUV Large SUV Minivan Fullsize Pickup

(3031) (98) (517) (523) (216) (147) (71) (347) (167) (73) (174) (88) (182) (427)

Electric Battery Distance until Recharge Expectations (miles)

(includes those that are not a definite rejector of all three technologies (PHEVs, ReEVs, and BEVs) 231 229 223 236 227 237 272 212 226 232 261 253 223 229 Total Sample Sub- Compact Car Compact Car Midsize Car Large Car Compact Luxury Car Midsize Luxury Car Small CUV Midsize CUV Small SUV Midsize SUV Large SUV Minivan Fullsize Pickup

(3031) (98) (517) (523) (216) (147) (71) (347) (167) (73) (174) (88) (182) (427)

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) 5.1 4.9 4.8 5.3 4.8 5.6 4.6 4.8 5.7 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9

Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 23

The majority of consumers park their vehicles at their residence

• vernight

Total Sample Sub- Compact Car Compact Car Midsize Car Large Car Compact Luxury Car Midsize Luxury Car Small CUV Midsize CUV Small SUV Midsize SUV Large SUV Minivan Fullsize Pickup

(3269) (105) (541) (566) (241) (154) (77) (365) (182) (78) (195) (101) (190) (475)

Where Vehicle is Parked Overnight (%)

55 40 49 66 67 70 70 57 69 60 54 60 56 32 34 39 30 24 26 15 21 31 25 31 37 35 39 62 5 7 11 5 5 5 7 5 7

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

− About half park the vehicle in their own garage

Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 24

While most consumers have access to 110v outlet when parking

• vernight, significantly fewer have electrical access during the

day

Total Sample Sub- Compact Car Compact Car Midsize Car Large Car Compact Luxury Car Midsize Luxury Car Small CUV Midsize CUV Small SUV Midsize SUV Large SUV Minivan Fullsize Pickup

(3269) (105) (541) (566) (241) (154) (77) (365) (182) (78) (195) (101) (190) (475)

Parking Habits - Standard 110v Availability (% Yes)

83 68 73 84 90 75 85 80 89 86 87 92 94 87 41 26 32 41 49 32 42 35 46 39 40 53 55 51

Overnight Daytime

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 Car: Expected Shares (Base Case)

4-Cylinder Gasoline

(0-60 MPH (seconds) 10.0; Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG) 32/ Total Driving Range (Miles) 385; $0)

4-Cylinder Gasoline Turbo Direct Injection (GTDI)

(0-60 MPH (seconds) 9.0; Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG) 34/ Total Driving Range (Miles) 410; $1,000)

4-Cylinder Clean Diesel

(0-60 MPH (seconds) 9.5; 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)

Expected Engine Shares at Base Case Level (%)

None of these engines 29 14 15 31 8 2 2 Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 29

Compact Car: Attribute Sensitivity

Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 30

Acceleration (0-60 MPH) Acceleration (0-60 MPH) Acceleration (0-60 MPH) 7.5 seconds 35 6.8 seconds 19 7.1 seconds 20 8.5 seconds 32 7.7 seconds 15 8.1 seconds 19 10.0 seconds 29 9.0 seconds 14 9.5 seconds 15 11.5 seconds 28 10.4 seconds 11 10.9 seconds 11 12.5 seconds 27 11.3 seconds 9 11.9 seconds 8 24 MPG/289 Miles 16 26 MPG/ 308 Miles 5 29 MPG/345 Miles 3 27 MPG/327 Miles 19 29 MPG/349 Miles 7 32 MPG/391 Miles 4 32 MPG/385 Miles 29 34 MPG/410 Miles 14 38 MPG/460 Miles 15 37 MPG/443 Miles 39 39 MPG/472 Miles 29 44 MPG/529 Miles 26 40 MPG/481 Miles 48 43 MPG/513 Miles 39 48 MPG/575 Miles 32 Price Price Price N/A

• $750

16 $1,500 23 N/A

• $850

15 $1,700 19 N/A

• $1,000

14 $2,000 15 N/A

• $1,150

12 $2,300 13 N/A

• $1,250

10 $2,500 10

Expected Share Sensitivity Summary (%)

Compact Car Segment 4-Cylinder Gasoline 4-Cylinder Gasoline Turbo Direct Injection (GTDI) 4-Cylinder Clean Diesel

Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG)/Driving Range (Mi) Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG)/Driving Range (Mi) Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG)/Driving Range (Mi)

Optimal Powertrain Configurator

Compact Car Simulator

Engine 1 Engine 2 Engine 3 Engine 4 Engine 5 Engine 6 Engine 7 Engine 8 Engine 9 Engine 10 None

Gasoline 4-cyl

Engine Present? Fuel Economy (mpg) Additional Cost

Gasoline - Turbocharge Clean Diesel 4-cyl Clean Diesel 4-cyl Extended Range Electric Full Electric

Calculate Sensitivity

? ?

Gasoline - Turbocharge Gasoline 4-cyl Gasoline 4-cyl Gasoline 4-cyl

7.5 $0 8 10 9 9 9 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 $1,250 $1,500 $1,500 $4,130 $5,625 $750 $0 $0 $0 0-60 MPH (seconds) Total Driving Range (miles) 481 349 398 421 300 506 481 481 481 40 Electric Driving Range (miles)

n/a

Recharge Time Hours (120v/240v) 29 33 35 60 120 42 40 40 40 30 75

n/a n/a n/a 12/3 _/5 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 31

Simulation:

• Increase Clean Diesel fuel

economy to 40 MPG

• Lower cost to $1,500

Simulation:

• Increase Clean Diesel fuel

economy to 40 MPG

• Lower cost to $1,500

Optimal Powertrain Configurator

Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 32 4-Cylinder Gasoline

(0-60 MPH (seconds) 10.0; Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG) 32/ Total Driving Range (Miles) 385; $0)

4-Cylinder Gasoline Turbo Direct Injection (GTDI)

(0-60 MPH (seconds) 9.0; Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG) 34/ Total Driving Range (Miles) 410; $1,000)

4-Cylinder Clean Diesel

(0-60 MPH (seconds) 9.5; Equivalent Fuel Economy (MPG) 40/ Total Driving Range (Miles) 460; $1,500)

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)

Expected Engine Shares at Base Case Level (%)

None of these engines 25 9 26 27 7 3 3

4 11 5 4 1 1 1

Change from Base Case

For More Information:

Bryan E. Krulikowski

Vice President 248.539.5277 bkrulikowski@morpace.com

Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 33