By on June 15, 2011

Reuters reports that Boston Consulting Group has revised its projections for EV market penetration downwards, concluding that plug-in electric vehicles (including EREV and PHEV models) will make up no more than five percent of the US market by 2020. And ironically, the recent increases in gas prices have actually driven the estimate downwards, as Xavier Mosquet, the global head of the group’s autos practice, tells The WSJ [sub]

Electric cars will undoubtedly play an increasingly large role in many countries’ plans in the decades ahead as energy independence and environmental concerns intensify, but they will gain only modest ground to 2020. Gas- and diesel-powered vehicles are improving faster than expected and will continue to dominate the global landscape.

We don’t have a copy of the report, but Reuters helps explain the situation by breaking down the costs:

Direct injection, turbo-charging and electric power steering are among the improvements in combustion engine that BCG expects to be mainstream in passenger cars worldwide.

Those changes can cut emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming, by as much as 40 percent, BCG said. For every percentage point cut, consumers will have to pay between $50 and $60 more for the car — about half the group’s estimate of $100 three years ago.

“It’s only $2,000 to get 40 percent improvement with ICE technology,” Mosquet said. In 2009, “what we saw was the $3,000-$4,000 range, which obviously makes it more difficult for consumers. It’s achievable and it’s cheaper than expected.”

And, adds Mosquet, the $2,000 in additional ICE efficiency-boosting costs should be good for the next ten years or so of government emissions standards… only after 2020 or so will EVs become critical to complying with government standards (providing California is talked out of big ZEV mandate increases).

The BCG study’s key conclusion auto makers can hit most of the future fuel-efficiency and emissions-reduction targets that governments are imposing on the industry in the next 10 years, and do it by introducing or improving known automotive technologies. “I’m not saying it’s easy, but it’s feasible,” Mr. Mosquet said.

BCG estimated fuel-saving improvements such as electronic power-steering systems, light-weight materials and more efficient transmissions would add about $2,000 to the price of vehicles.

The need for car makers to pursue electric vehicles in the near-term is “minimal,” the study said. However, auto maker must continue to develop electric vehicles since they will “undoubtedly” play a major role in meeting 2035 to 2050 emissions, it added.

This revision puts BCG right in the middle of what appears to be an emerging consensus on EV and hybrid penetration, which puts US-market plug-in penetration at between 2.5% and a little over 5% by 2020. My favorite reference point for mapping out the hybrid and EV future: the chart at the top of this post, which maps out bear, bull and baseline cases for different electrified drivetrain concepts (courtesy: Pacific Crest). In addition to the points BCG makes about improving ICE technology, the Pacific Crest analysis shows how important stop-start (aka microhybrid) technology will become, which will also keep ICE technology efficient enough to prevent plug-ins from taking over.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

5 Comments on “Plotting The Electrified Future: BCG Downgrades EV Penetration, Pacific Crest Offers Bear And Bull Cases...”

  • avatar
    SVX pearlie

    “the Pacific Crest analysis shows how important stop-start (aka microhybrid) technology will become, which will also keep ICE technology efficient enough to prevent plug-ins from taking over.”

    Which is why CARB is trying to mandate EV vehicles instead of efficiency. Technology can do it, so EVs won’t be required.

    • 0 avatar

      works for me SVX pearlie, I don’t care what tech they use in CA.

      I still say that the EPA needs a new drive cycle to add to the sticker of either “drive thru” or “traffic jam”. I’ll quote my prior post on the subject

      easy peasy, just add a Drive Thru test cycle.

      America is the land of fast food.

      EPA cycles would then be:

      Drive Thru

      I’d suggest the Drive Through test be normalized to the euqivalent of sitting in a drive through with 5 cars waiting taking about 15 minutes to complete (

      City cycle

      * Trip length: 11 miles
      * Test time: 31 minutes
      * Number of stops: 23
      * Time spent idling: approx. 18%
      * Maximum speed: 56 MPH
      * Average speed: 20 MPH
      * Engine temp at startup: Cold (75 degrees outside air temperature)

      Drive Thru Cycle

      * Trip length: 0.01 miles
      * Test time: 15 minutes
      * Number of stops: 7
      * Time spent idling: approx. 98%
      * Maximum speed: 3 MPH
      * Average speed: 0 MPH
      * Engine temp at startup: Warm

      Then just decide what percentage it’d take to make the Drive Thru cycle barely affect the combined mileage. I haven’t done the math but something like 10% Drive Thru/50% City/40% Highway seems reasonable. Adjust the mix of the 3 tests until the Yukon/Tahoe/Sequoyah look worse without making them look any worse than you have to and without making the Prius look unbelievably better than it is.

      If there is any political backlash on the name “Drive Thru Cycle” call it “Traffic Jam Cycle” instead and bump the max speed up to 13 MPH, lower the idle time to 50%, and increase the Trip length accordingly.

  • avatar

    Are there any vehicles left, besides strippo economy cars and heavy duty trucks, that still run hydrolic power steering? I thought most vehicles had EPS. My four year old Mazda has EPS.

    I must be tired. All I could understand in the title was penetration and be(e)r cases….

  • avatar

    So BCG’s estimate of the costs dropped by 1/3 to 1/2 for the same time period? That level of accuracy is CARB-worthy and doesn’t give me much faith in the prediction.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • EBFlex: “ So Comrade you now like Fords. It’s hard to give up those Ladas and Volgas.” You would know better comrade....
  • theflyersfan: With both of my last two purchases (VW and then Mazda from the same dealer), once we settled on the...
  • la834: The first generation minivans had that feature (it was even lockable), but no glovebox in the usual location....
  • dal20402: I have an easier time seeing a DS in the front than the rear. If I try not to see a J30 when I look at the...
  • dusterdude: Overalll I don’t mind the exterior design – very bold for sure

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber