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 of 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 meetthe 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 3,269 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 ownedby the respondent
– Respondent intends to purchase another new vehicle in thefuture
– 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 SizeTOTAL 3,269Sub‐Compact Car 248Compact Car 250Midsize Car 355Large Car 249Compact Luxury Car 150Midsize Luxury Car 149Small CUV 248Midsize CUV 242Minivan 249Small SUV 248Midsize SUV 248Large SUV 243Fullsize Pickup 390
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 avehicle
Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 7
% CompletelySatisfied
MeanRating
% 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 owners 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
RecentlyPaid
Anticipated Cost1 Year From Now
Anticipated Cost3 Years From Now
Anticipated Cost5 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 - $2.74
Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 9
For many consumers, the actual fuel economy they are achieving is less than what they originally expected
Total Sample
Sub-Compact
Compact Car
Midsize Car
Large Car Compact Luxury Car
Midsize Luxury Car
Small CUV Midsize CUV
Small SUV Midsize SUV
Large SUV Minivan Fullsize Pickup
(3269) (105) (541) (566) (241) (154) (77) (365) (182) (78) (195) (101) (190) (475)
Fuel Economy More or Less than Expectations (%)
3 10 3 5 4 3 7 2 2 4 1 2 1 218
2425 19 20 19 15
12 17 13 13 10 13 15
5045
44 52 50 53 5054 45 49 53 53 49 52
25 19 26 21 21 22 22 29 31 26 26 26 31 244 2 1 3 4
15 2 4 8
6 7 5 60 0 01
0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1
Don't know Much less than expected A bit less than expected Equal to what I expected A bit more than expected Much more than expected
Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 10
While improved fuel economy is strongly desired, consumers are only willing to pay so much for it
Total Sample10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Additional Amount Willing to Pay to Increase MPG ($)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
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
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 EnvironmentI Like to Own the Latest, Cutting-Edge
TechnologyI 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
Consumers expect to be able to drive approximately 230 miles—or 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 237272
212 226 232261 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 4.85.3
4.85.6
4.6 4.85.7
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 residenceovernight
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 (%)
5540 49
66 67 70 7057
69 60 54 60 5632
3439 30
24 26 15 2131
2531 37 35 39
62
57 11
5 55 757
In a garage at my residence Drivew ay at my residence Parking lot Parking garage/structureOn 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 overnight, significantly fewer have electrical access during theday
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 7384
90
7585 80
89 86 87 92 9487
41
2632
4149
3242
3546
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
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 208.5 seconds 32 7.7 seconds 15 8.1 seconds 1910.0 seconds 29 9.0 seconds 14 9.5 seconds 1511.5 seconds 28 10.4 seconds 11 10.9 seconds 1112.5 seconds 27 11.3 seconds 9 11.9 seconds 8
24 MPG/289 Miles 16 26 MPG/ 308 Miles 5 29 MPG/345 Miles 327 MPG/327 Miles 19 29 MPG/349 Miles 7 32 MPG/391 Miles 432 MPG/385 Miles 29 34 MPG/410 Miles 14 38 MPG/460 Miles 1537 MPG/443 Miles 39 39 MPG/472 Miles 29 44 MPG/529 Miles 2640 MPG/481 Miles 48 43 MPG/513 Miles 39 48 MPG/575 Miles 32
Price Price PriceN/A - $750 16 $1,500 23N/A - $850 15 $1,700 19N/A - $1,000 14 $2,000 15N/A - $1,150 12 $2,300 13N/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
EnginePresent?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
0
506
481
481
481
40 0
Electric Driving Range (miles)
n/a
Recharge Time Hours (120v/240v)
29
33
35
60
120
42
40
40
40
0
0
0
30
75
0
0
0
0
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 President248.539.5277
Morpace Syndicated Research: 2010 PACE Powertrain Study 33