Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV Sales Surge In Sweden In June

JUL 6 2014 BY MARK KANE 29

Outlander PHEV Badge

Outlander PHEV Badge

It seems that Sweden finally found the ideal plug-in vehicle for its need as Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV registrations surged in June to 428 units, which is more than two thirds of all plug-in vehicles sold that month in Sweden.

Considering the 28,749 total number of new passenger cars registered, Outlander PHEV has approximately 1.5% market share!

Year to date, Mitsubishi delivered 1,194 Outlander PHEVs in Sweden, which is over 50% of all plug-in vehicles sold in Sweden thus far in 2014.

Total sales of plug-in vehicles in Sweden reached a new high, as the number of registrations for the very first time exceeded 600 units and 2% market share.

However, no other model gets even close to Outlander PHEV.

Passenger plug-in registrations in Sweden - June 2014

Passenger plug-in registrations in Sweden – June 2014

Categories: Mitsubishi, Sales

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

29 Comments on "Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV Sales Surge In Sweden In June"

newest oldest most voted

A 4WD Small SUV which has an ICE and so no problems about heating in a cold climate or gripping in the snow, sells at a reasonable price and gets great fuel economy and ample room inside.

Who could have guessed the Swedes would like it? 😉

Well… it’s still a Mitsubishi. The brand had 0,97% of car sales in Sweden last year.

Having one model getting 1,5% just shows the lack of EV’s at the right price and with the right specification.

Imagine what would happen if some of the popular brands like Volvo, Audi, Toyota, BMW, Kia or Volkswagen would deliver some good EV’s at the right price.

I think the Audi and Golf PHEVs will sell well in Sweden, and elsewhere for that matter depending on price.

The Outlander PHEV is not only a great car, but it costs no more than the diesel.

I think that is the price point PHEVs have to hit.

Nice, the model s is the best selling pure electric 🙂
45 does not sound like much, but i think it is more than say germany per capita.

It looks like the don’t fancy the Tesla much in Germany, but like everywhere else they certainly do fancy the Outlander PHEV. This as of June 21st: ‘I’ve deciphered KBA’s registration data enough that I actually feel comfortable reporting on Germany’s May plug-in registrations. Like it is with almost every country, there were still holes remaining in the data. For example, for models that have a gas version and an electric or plug-in hybrid electric version, it isn’t completely clear how many of the registrations were for the plug-in version. For those models, I used estimates from the EV-Sales blogspot. The surprising thing in May was seeing the Mitsubishi Outlander Plug-in on top (22% market share), rather than the homegrown BMW i3 (19%), Volkswagen e-Golf (19%), or Volkswagen e-Up! (15%). Still, those three German models did quite well. There’s still a lot of room for growth, but Germans are finally getting rolling with the EV revolution. It’s still surprising to see the Tesla Model S (4% market share in May) and Nissan Leaf (2%) not growing faster in Germany. It’s hard to know for sure if the Tesla numbers are low because of low demand or because of limited supply,… Read more »

I think it’s mainly just that the Model S is too expensive without a federal tax credit like most countries have.

The tax credit is a way smaller proportion of the sales price on a Tesla S than it is on the Leaf et al.

The Germans don’t much like them, even if a lot of people think they SHOULD like them.

We have heard every excuse under the sun for poor German sales, with mysterious shortages of supply when scads got through to Norway, and on and on.

Facts are facts.

Sales in Germany are poor because Germans are not choosing to buy them.

I was in Germany last summer talking to a German about the Model S. He had a reservation for one, but the fact that the car was so WIDE turned him off. I thought that was strange, until he explained that on the German Autobahn, they have specific widths of the lanes in different situations. Only cars narrower than 2m wide can go in the construction zone passing lane, so it wouldn’t fit – they’d have to sit in the slow lane behind a bunch of trucks. That thought, coupled with a lack of space generally (one often plays “chicken” in small towns and neighborhoods since roads are narrower and more people park vehicles on the street) might have deterred a lot of German buyers.

On the other hand, I can’t imagine Norway being great for a wide Model S either. Maybe the good incentives there and no native country car company competition makes the difference.

Article (in German) about left lane width:

When you have enough money to buy a 75000 € car, 5000 € more or less doesn’t matter.

this is the reason why third gen Tesla must be AWD. It really does not make sense to produce non-AWD electric cars.

Not everyone needs AWD, nor wants to pay the price premium for it.

Tesla may possibly decide to make AWD an option on the Gen III. Soon the Model S will have it available.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

I would bet that an AWD 2- or 4-motor electric with different gearing between the front and rear would get better highway range than a single-geared motor. The weight penalty would reduce city range, but IMO the safety and handling advantages you could get from AWD (and torque vectoring) outweigh that.

There wouldn’t necessarily be a significant weight penalty. If two smaller 150-200hp motors are used instead of one 300-400hp one, the weight penalty could be almost nothing for the motors and just be limited to the extra diff/halfshafts.

I agree with you about the gearing. Lots of opportunity there. That’s probably why BYD is committing to their 5-4-2 strategy.

Mitsubishi finally finds an untapped market to exploit, but DARN, they forgot to make enough batteries for them. One big facepalm.

I’m sticking to my conspiracy theory . . . I think the major automakers know a PHEV would sell well but they don’t want to make one because it would cut into the thick profits of their conventional SUVs. It took a loser outcast automaker like Mitsubishi to release the first SUV PHEV. More will come after they broke the taboo.

Definitely agree that Outlander PHEV is the product of a marginal auto maker in desperate need to reinvent itself.

It’s the right concept too: sticking 2 drivetrains in a car gives packaging problems at the expense of interior space in small cars as demonstrated by Volt and i3, not a problem for Outlander. OTOH: it does has less AER so the comparison isn’t entirely fair.

It’s pretty successful though, let’s hope its increasing success is something its rivals cannot ignore.

Its easier to put two drivetrains in a small SUV, but with proper design from the start space doesn’t have to be heavily compromised in a Golf-sized car as their PHEV shows.

The Volt was the first of the kind, so intrusion is not surprising, but I would expect them to do better in future models.

For the Fords etc the problems have arisen simply through putting the PHEV into a body never designed for it.

Like I said: AER is part of that equation too, and VW only managed to squeeze about half the Volt’s battery and about 40% of i3’s battery in its Golf GTE. That makes for a different order of AER, presumably less than 25 EPA rated miles.

Yep, like anything in engineering, it is a matter of getting the balance right.
In my view poor current sales of the Volt are due to people not being prepared to compromise accomodation that much, although as I said GM did a cracking job for a first try.

The much later VW design presumably had an eye on the higher energy density, matching that in the Tesla S,which they are trialling.

If they offered that later as an option that would give them a Volt-like 40 miles or so AER.

It will be interesting to see when GM have more energy dense batteries available whether they opt for a still higher AER of 70 miles or so or stick to 40-ish.

My guess it that they will opt for around 50 miles AER to retain bragging rights but keep cost and weight down and make packaging easier.

Obviously with the right theoretical battery chemistry anything is possible but plug-in hybrids are the answer to that not existing yet and are compromises by nature. The better batteries get the more the balance will shift towards BEVs at the expense of intermediate solutions.

I was not referring to a theoretical chemistry, but the one VW are road testing now, which only takes them up to the same energy density as that current in the Tesla.

They have designed the VW platform in a homage to the Volt, as with expected improvements in AER they will have almost identical specs to the Volt I, but with better packaging.

That is just to say that GM got it right.

Your notion that it is ‘obvious’ BEVs will win out over PHEVs as battery technology improves is not certain.

40 miles a day gives you coming up to 15,000 miles a year of AER, which covers most even for the average new car driver, with no range worries at all.

The average driver it seems to me puts a higher premium on convenience than electric car fans, so at least for the primary car it seems to me that PHEVs may be with us for some time.

Please read my comment properly: I didn’t say say that BEVs will obviously win. I said with theoretical chemistry anything is possible and I said that with improvement of technology the balance will shift in favour of BEVs. All pretty axiomatic.

Time will tell how long it takes for battery chemistry to improve to the point that intermediate solutions like PHEVs and EREVs no longer make sense. Time will tell what battery aces VW has up its sleeves. If it’s Tesla energy density but at higher cost I expect it to focus on improved AER EREVs rather than BEVs. If it also gets Tesla cost (might be hard without Gigafactory economics…)it will no doubt choose a mix that favours BEVs more.

So you did not say it was obvious, but did say it was axiomatic?

That sounds to me pretty much the way I characterised your comments, with axiomatic being a bit stronger than obvious, and in any case if you read my comments carefully you will see that I regard your premise of better batteries leading automatically to the dominance of BEVs as flawed.

As for battery chemistries, there is a world of difference between theorising about improvements and commenting on a chemistry VW is already testing on the road.

Getting beyond Tesla levels of battery density will be tough though, and with it goes your notion of inevitable moves to BEV from PHEV.

No, I didn’t say it was obvious, I said 2 different things that I consider axiomatic (which means self evident btw) that you pasted together to a new statement that I never made.

As to your expectations and speculations of future events: everybody is entitled to their opinions and only time will tell how things will work out. The notion that carmakers will insist on going with hybrids even if BEVs start to make for a better value proposition at some point due to battery improvement strikes me as odd though.

I am aware of what an axiom is.
Your idea that it is ‘axiomatic’ that better batteries swing the balance in favour of BEVs sufficiently away from PHEVs is jumping the gun IMO.

It presupposes that people will chose a BEV as costs drop, when that is not necessarily the case if they like the option of long trips and don’t fancy hanging around to charge away from home.

In that scenario a drop in battery prices, which anyway would also help PHEVs, would not swing the balance for people who felt that way.

To break that paradigm would seem to suppose a far greater fall in battery prices, and increase in capacity, than the introduction of already being tested batteries into PHEVs which I have mentioned to give rather greater capacity, although with over 20 miles of AER they are already perfectly functional at the moment.

So whilst dismissing my comments as speculative, you are IMO making far more speculative assumptions to power your supposed axioms.

Again I need to implore you to read my initial comment properly. What I said was: “The *better* batteries get the more the balance will shift towards BEVs at the expense of intermediate solutions”.

To make your point you seem to have narrowed that down to “It presupposes that people will chose a BEV as *costs* drop”.

When I talk better batteries I mean of course on a wider range of parameters than just cost. Recharge time is a crucial factor too, because I agree: convenience is very important.

Tesla is working on 10 minute recharges for free at its Supercharger network. That is the sort of improvement of BEVs as a value proposition that along with dropping prices I expect other technologies will find hard to beat in the long run, but again: time will tell.

‘“The *better* batteries get the more the balance will shift towards BEVs at the expense of intermediate solutions”.’

And I disagree that this is axiomatic.

Another choice would be a lower premium on a PHEV, which don’t need a fast charging system at all.

Why are their 2 diferent teslas? One “model s” and one “tesla s” ?

It seems some studies said that the ‘Average’ Person drives 40 miles a day to work (and back?) or less, so the PHEV target range needs to be just 40 miles of so for all PHEV’s! Why not make PHEV’s with 3 choices of Battery size to give 3 choices of AER? right now – the Volt is the USA/Canada PHEV Range Leader, but the other choices are the Prius PHV at the lower end of AER, and the Ford Energi Series in the Middle: What if you could get the car you like – with the range you like? I would think – even with today’s battery choices – that a 20 mile range in Electric Mode – (without loss of Trunk Space) would be fine for many, but also there would be those who want more than 35-38 miles AER. So – a selection of – 20, 35, 50 miles AER would really see what the volume sales leader was. for myself, I could do fine with the 11 miles of the Prius PHV just for to work and back, but my once a week runs would put it in gas running mode, plus, it is not a… Read more »