Hybrids take 7% of California market in 1H 2013; PHEVs 0.7%; EVs 1.1%
17 August 2013
|Hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicle share of the California retail market. Source: California Auto Outlook. Click to enlarge.|
Hybrid vehicle market share (excluding plug-in hybrids) in California increased to 7% in the first half of 2013, up from 6.2% in 2012, according to the California Auto Outlook for the second quarter of 2013. Plug-in hybrid market share was an estimated 0.7%, while battery electric vehicle market share hit 1.1%. California Auto Outlook is sponsored by the California New Car Dealers Association.
For the first six months of 2013, hybrid registrations (excluding plug-ins), were 59,300 units; plug-in hybrids, 5,736 units; and battery electric vehicles, 9,708 units.
Despite a 0.9 percentage point dip, Toyota remained the dominant brand in the California market during the first half of 2013, with 18.5% market share. Honda came in a distant second, with 11.8% market share, closely followed by Ford, which picked up 0.6 percentage points in the first half to take 11.7% market share.
(Tesla Motors took 0.6% share of the total new light-duty vehicle in California in the first half—more than Buick (0.5%); FIAT (0.5%); Land Rover (0.5%); Lincoln (0.3%); and Mitsubishi (0.3%).)
The top-selling model in the state for the first half of the year was was the Toyota Prius family (sedan, c, v and PHV), with 33,987 units, according to the report. This was followed by the Honda Accord family with 31,576 units. Honda Civic was in third place, with 31,798 units.
On the electric vehicle side, Tesla Motors posted 2,308 units of the Model S in California during the second quarter of 2013, representing 44.8% of the 5,150 units it reported sold during that quarter. (Earlier post.) For the first half of 2013, Tesla posted 4,714 units of the Model S in California, representing about 52% of its deliveries and representing 48.6% of battery electric vehicles sold in the state during that period.
According to the report, the Model S was the third top-selling brand in the luxury and sports segment in the first half of the year—behind only the Mercedes E-Class and the BMW 5-Series—with a 12% share of that segment.
Overall, the report notes, new light vehicle registrations (including retail and fleet transactions) in California increased 12.5% during the first half year-on-year—a larger increase than the 7.7% improvement in the US market as a whole.
Passenger car share in California was 62.6%, exceeding US levels by more than 11 share points. Domestic brand market share (Ford, GM, Chrysler) in California was 29%, up from last year, but well below the 46% share nationally. Japanese brand share in the state was 11 points higher than nationally.
So batteries are 9.8% of new car drive trains and 100% of ICE starter systems.
Posted by: kelly | 17 August 2013 at 10:38 AM
A hand to California, the first State with almost 10% electrified vehicles.
Had all States done the same (and they will soon do), USA would already have a fleet of some 26 million electrified vehicles.
Posted by: HarveyD | 17 August 2013 at 12:04 PM
@Harvey and Kelly: Show your math.
Posted by: TM | 18 August 2013 at 01:26 AM
I would say: hardly any progress in the last couple of years for hybrids (i.e. from 6% in 2009 to 7% in 2013). Furthermore, most of the sales boil down to only one model (Prius). It does not indicate “complete fiasco” for hybrids, but it is very close. What must to be done to make hybrids more popular? Increase efficiency? Decrease cost? Improve performance? Obviously, cost-benefit assessments by customers do not favour hybrids over ICEs for the moment. The increased supply of various new car models (other than Prius) does not seem to have had any significant impact (yet). Perhaps simpler (and cheaper!) mild hybrids will have a chance to increase the market penetration.
Posted by: Peter_XX | 18 August 2013 at 03:44 AM
“It does not indicate “complete fiasco” for hybrids, but it is very close. ”
Let me put it in perspective, light truck outsold hybrids 7 to one.
“What must to be done to make hybrids more popular? ”
Why would you want to do that? In theory, hybrids might be a better choice for some people.
The best I can tell the only reason to buy a car with more than one battery is image.
Posted by: Kit P | 18 August 2013 at 06:06 AM
What is your point? As always, your comments are confusing. Is it so that, according to your theory, light trucks have a better image, or??? I do not know much about the US and Californian market but I presume that the most sold hybrid car has much better mileage than the corresponding light truck. If so, why not promote hybrids? I can see no reason to promote light trucks with conventional (V6/V8) ICSs that are primarily used to transport people, not goods, weigh two tons and use much more fuel than conventional cars with hybrid drive system. What would you want to promote?
Posted by: Peter_XX | 18 August 2013 at 06:34 AM
If you want to sell more hybrids, put the price of fuel up.
People are rational, if fuel is cheap, they don't really care about economy, if it is expensive, they do.
There are green types who care about economy and "the planet" who will be early adopters and who will embrace hybrids, but these will remain a small minority until fuel becomes uncomfortably expensive. (Which it hasn't in the USA).
But it has in Europe and in Japan, which is why Europe is 60-70% diesel, and Japan has a lot of hybrids.
The point is:
USA - 7% hybrid, cheap fuel
Europe 60-70% diesel, Dear fuel.
The cost of fuel can be raised by Taxes, which the US government badly needs. Once people buy hybrids / diesels / efficient ICEs, they aren't so bothered by high fuel costs (as they use so little of it).
The technical solutions are known (hybrid / diesel / downsized ICE, / EV).
The financial solution is known (higher fuel taxes).
You just have to do it, and hold your nerve.
(An interesting question is whether to go slowly, or a "big bang".
If you "go slowly", you give people time to "pre-buy" efficient vehicles, but you also give lobbyists time to repeal the laws.
If you go fast, you don't give people time to "pre-buy" efficient vehicles, but lobbyists are caught on the hop too".
What do people think ? ... )
Posted by: mahonj | 18 August 2013 at 04:19 PM
“What would you want to promote? ”
I am not promoting any particular kind of car. I do frequently point out that hybrids are more about image than substance. I can show how we decided on a Corolla rather than a hybrid. I could also see how a hybrid might be a good choice for some families but when people tell you why the have a hybrid the reason is unfounded. No more of a silly reason than those in California telling they need a jacked up 4wd for driving in the snow.
So my point is looking at the big picture. People seem to like big cars and SUVs. You need to have a compelling reason reason to get people to change.
Posted by: Kit P | 18 August 2013 at 04:30 PM
“There are green types who care about economy and "the planet" who will be early adopters and who will embrace hybrids, ...”
So mahonj you are saying that you think various forms of BEV are an effective way to reduce the environmental impact of transportation?
I have met very few 'green types' who have a clue about reducing the environmental impact of modern life.
Posted by: Kit P | 18 August 2013 at 04:41 PM
My main point is that the progress for hybrids has been very slow. Hybrid fans have difficulties in accepting this fact. However, I see no problem that fuel-efficient solutions are promoted in some way. Ideally, incentives should be technology-neutral, i.e. not tied to any particular technology, such as e.g. hybrids. If people choose hybrids just because of image – it is fine with me. However, if they choose 4WD light trucks without any other apparent reason than image; you should do something about it. You cannot continue wasting fuel while the rest of the world is changing.
Posted by: Peter_XX | 19 August 2013 at 12:02 AM
As we all know on GCC, hybrids reduce your fuel consumption abut 30%, as does diesel.
PHEvs reduce it even more, and reduce your CO2 a good deal if the electricity is from a low carbon source, like nuclear or hydro. Wind and solar can also help, but charging time is more of a factor in those cases.
Other simple matters like not driving too fast, or having your heating / Ac too high / low also help. (And switch commonly used lighting to CFL / Leds).
I am sure most "green" people understand these things.
If you live in a part of the world where most of the electricity is generated from coal, EVs are less effective at reducing global pollution (especially CO2), but are still effective at reducing local pollution.
Posted by: mahonj | 19 August 2013 at 01:49 AM
“As we all know on GCC ...”
Most posters on GCC confuse unverified assumption with facts based on data. For example,
“reduce your CO2 a good deal if the electricity is from a low carbon source, like nuclear or hydro ”
The fact is power for BEV comes from burning coal.
It is a fact that hybrids cost a lot more. If someone commenting on GCC congress commented that they rented a Corolla for a normal week and then rented a pious for a week and then based buying a Prius on those facts I would stop calling them the pious.
It is a fact that hybrids are more dangerous because they have more accidents. Turns out hybrid owners are so busy patting themselves on the back and text about how green they run over school children.
“are still effective at reducing local pollution. ”
Not where I live. Year before hybrids were introduced, air pollutions was already eliminated. Judging from comments on the GCC, I am the only person who post here that has bothered take environment engineering classes to learn about effective ways to protect the environment.
“switch commonly used lighting to CFL ”
That would be an example of something to promote. Promoting hybrids which are more expensive for people who do not have driving habits that would take advantage improved mileage would be an example ineffective policies. So again why promote something that does not work?
Posted by: Kit P | 19 August 2013 at 07:57 AM
HEVs and PHEVs are interim stepping stones to the final solution, i.e. lower cost, extended range lighter BEVs?
Replacement afforadable, practical BEVs may not become common place much before 2020 or so but they will come.
Meanwhile, many million HEVs and PHEVs will fill the gap and help to reduce liquid fuel consumption and progressively reduce crude oïl import.
Posted by: HarveyD | 20 August 2013 at 08:40 AM
PHEVs and EVs have taken up some of the market that would have naturally gone to hybrids. EVs and PHEVs have the greater economic impact for certain commuters especially given the greater tax incentives. Eventually EVs will be far cheaper than any ICE car and significantly cheaper than any Hybrid or plug-in because of the simplicity of EV and the complexity of a dual drive system.
8.8% drive trains containing an electric component.
Posted by: Brotherkenny4 | 20 August 2013 at 09:55 AM
Agree with you that HEVs and PHEVs are interim solutions and will be phased out when batteries become cheaper with much higher performance.
Posted by: HarveyD | 21 August 2013 at 10:14 AM
Kit...driving habits may soon be improved with a new very small plug-in on-board GPS based black box together with communication capalities to down load data on a daily basis.
One local isurance firm already offers 25% reduction for improved drivers...coupled with an increase of up to 100% for bad drivers. Premium adjustment is done on a monthly basis. The offered bonus-malus is currently baised in favor of the insurer. a 50%-50% balanced approach would have more sucess and is probably in the cards for the near future.
Posted by: HarveyD | 21 August 2013 at 10:24 AM
See my latest article published on Seeking Alpha to have and idea of the extent of the transition to electric propulsion in the U.S. market as a whole: http://seekingalpha.com/article/1542112-are-ford-and-tesla-pushing-toyota-to-adopt-li-ion-batteries
Posted by: Jczuleta | 25 August 2013 at 10:50 AM
CFLs are more efficient but early models cost over $10 each or up to 20X the cost of an equivalent regular bulbs. Currently, most CFL cost less than $1 and are more efficient than early models and last 5X to 10X times longer than regular bulbs.
LEDs are more efficient yet but early models cost over $30 each or up to 30X the cost of equivalent regular bulbs. Currently, many LEDs cost less than $3 and are 2X to 3X times more efficient than early models and last 50X to 100X times longer than regular bulbs. LEDs are dimeable while CFLs are poor candidates.
There are similarities between regular/CFL/LED/OLED bulbs and ICEVs/HEVs/PHEVs/BEVs. Each new technology is more efficient than the previous but initial (early models) cost is always higher. However, a few years latter, their TOTAL NET cost is much lower and older technology units are phased out.
Posted by: HarveyD | 06 September 2013 at 05:36 PM