After plateauing earlier this year, US green car sales are settling into a steady pattern of chalking up year-over-year increases in the 30 percent to 50 percent range. Last month, Toyota and Ford both sold their hybrids to a broader range of customers. Plug-in vehicle sales also received a boost after the Chevrolet Volt extended-range plug-in, Nissan Leaf and Toyota RAV4 EV battery-electrics and Toyota Prius, Ford Fusion Energi and Ford C-Max Energi Plug-in Hybrids all set monthly sales records. Add it up, and Americans bought 72,175 hybrids, plug-ins or diesels in August, up 46 percent from a year earlier. Plug-in sales rose even faster, doubling year-earlier figures to 9,431 units.

Add it up, and Americans bought 72,175 hybrids, plug-ins or diesels in August, up 46 percent from 2012.

Toyota continues to be the green-car leader by far, boosting sales 34 percent from a year earlier to 38,799 units. Prius sales rose 28 percent to 27,358 units as all four Prius variants improved their year-over-year numbers. Notably, the Prius Plug-in Hybrid sold a monthly record 1,791 units. The RAV4 EV moved a record 231 units, or almost 10 percent of Toyota's total allotment.

Ford also continued its surge in green car sales as well, almost quadrupling 2012 numbers to 8,292 units. The Fusion Hybrid more than tripled August 2012 sales to 3,694 vehicles, while the C-Max Hybrid sold 2,411 vehicles. Additionally, both the Fusion Energi and C-Max Energi Plug-in Hybrids set monthly sales records by moving 600 and 621 units, respectively.

Nissan and Honda also fared well in August with their green-car sales. Nissan's monthly-record 2,420 Leaf EVs were more than three times the August sales of a year ago. Honda's green-car sales jumped 27 percent to 1,857 units, with the Civic Hybrid, CR-Z and Insight hybrids each improving sales by at least 20 percent from August 2012.

Audi's diesel sales doubled to 1,180 units.

Volkswagen and its Audi unit each had increased green-car sales as more Americans bought diesels. VW diesel sales rose 40 percent to 12,264, while Europe's biggest automaker moved 712 units of its recently introduced Jetta Hybrid. And Audi's diesel sales doubled to 1,180 units.

In fact, the only major green-car maker to lag its 2012 sales numbers was General Motors. The company's Chevrolet division did increase Volt sales by 18 percent from a year earlier to a monthly record 3,351 Volts and moved 430 of its newer Cruze Diesel models. Still, sales dropped substantially for the Buick LaCrosse and Regal eAssist mild hybrids as well as for GM's hybrid SUVs. Overall, GM green-car sales fell 3.7 percent to 6,578 vehicles.

For the lower-volume producers, Mitsubishi i EV sales fell 19 percent to 30 units while sales of Porsche hybrids were down 63 percent from a year earlier to 43 units. Daimler's Smart division, which in July sold 58 of its ForTwo EVs, didn't submit August sales numbers for that model as of late Thursday.

So far in 2013, green-car sales are up 26 percent to 450,392 units.

Through the first eight months of the year, green-car sales rose 26 percent to 450,392 units. Plug-in sales surged 89 percent to 46,120 units, and those numbers don't include the Tesla Model S. Tesla, which sold 5,150 all-electric vehicles during the second quarter, doesn't report monthly sales.



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 37 Comments
      throwback
      • 2 Years Ago
      With cafe requirements going up green car sales have to go up. There are more hybrids, plug-ins and diesels available now than at any time in US history.
      Smoking_dude
      • 2 Years Ago
      The sheet is not showing on google chrome by the way. but impressive numbers. so if the ytd plug-in sales doubled. what will happen in august 2014. 92,240 plug ins ;) with each month the nieche is becomming smaller. and there is a wider choice of models out there
        Spec
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Smoking_dude
        Shows up fine in my Chrome browser on a Win7 PC.
      Jazzor
      • 2 Years Ago
      Lets speed things up... Obama, since you're the one who control gas prices (according to Repubs, and yes, pun intended lol) please hike the price up to $10 a gallon!! We need EVs to run all over ICE like yesterday!!! :D
        Jazzor
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Jazzor
        And next year we're getting the mass-produced Mitsu Outlander PHEV, which just recently got an output increase of 4,000 units a month!!! woohoo! What are BP and XON doing about it now!? still lobbying to demonize EVs???? :-D
      Zapbrannigan
      • 2 Years Ago
      Please stop repeating VW/Audi's marketing department in describing Diesel as green. Their agenda is clear - they've invested millions in R&D and want to cash in with the American market before EVs become the norm. It's true they are more efficient than gas but diesels spit out a large amount of PM10s even with particulate filters (go to any European city where there's a tonne of Diesels and take a deep breath). They are too late anyhow - Telsa's got them beat.
        EVdriver
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Zapbrannigan
        Exactly! Calling those soot-belching obsolete diesels green is more than ridiculous. "It's true they are more efficient than gas but diesels spit out a large amount of PM10s even with particulate filters" Not to mention PM2.5, the most deadly particulate emissions ever! It's invisible, has no smell, and particulate filters are ineffective in terms of filtering out smaller than 2.5 micron particulates. The solution is simple, don't let diesel advocates fool you with "clean diesel" BS propaganda, and don't buy diesel cars at all.
        atc98092
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Zapbrannigan
        And you are repeating information that is outdated, or otherwise discredited. Gas engines exhale large amounts of PM as well, but so far they haven't been regulated. That is going to change in the near future, and gas engines will also require particulate filters. Diesel exhaust from the latest models are as clean as most gas engines, with the exception of NOx. And NOx is still being studied about its real impact on air quality.
          Tweaker
          • 2 Years Ago
          @atc98092
          I recommend you investigate the pollutants produced by diesel and gas variants of the same models. You will be very surprised to see that diesel produces 2-3 times the pollutants that gassers do - in everything except CO2. Seek out your own knowledge before repeating what the germans tell you. They are also little concerned about the costs to protect the shipping routes - since they pay none ofit.
      Grendal
      • 2 Years Ago
      Over 10K plug-ins in one month! Hooray for all of us! And there will be a spike in gas prices this upcoming month. Let's hope it just keeps getting better.
        EVSUPERHERO
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Grendal
        Remarkably gas prices have not risen with the rumblings of the US bombing Syria.
          Tweaker
          • 2 Years Ago
          @EVSUPERHERO
          They have started here, $.03 yesterday.
          Spec
          • 2 Years Ago
          @EVSUPERHERO
          It is happening slowly. I think oil prices are a bit frothy right now though and they'll probably drop unless there is some major melt-down somewhere. However, there are MANY places where a melt-down could occur . . . Egyptian Suez canal, Libya labor issues, Yemen, attack on Syria, spill-over into Lebanon, escalating violence within Iraq, etc. An interesting story I read that was not reported on much is that there has been an exemption made on the Iran sanctions allowing some European countries to import some oil from Iran. I wonder if this was done to allow some downward pressure on oil prices and/or as a good-will gesture to Iran.
        Spec
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Grendal
        Actually . . . over 11,000! Boo-yah.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          I prefer bombs, missiles and drones... it is MUCH harder to get sucked in permanently. True, no regime change or any other fundamental change will happen. But the U.S. Had bombed Libya in 1986 and 2011... and no, not ever strike leads to war.. yet we can still show a powerful gesture that use of certain weapons on civilians will NOT be worth the trouble.
          EZEE
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          Hopefully the republicans will stop the war-mongering democrats from attacking Syria. That most certainly would cause a jump in oil prices. (don't everyone scream I am smiling as I type)
          JakeY
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          Most Democrats are not on the same side as Obama on this issue. It's just Pelosi using the whip. As an article puts it, a lot of the fence sitters will side with Obama just so he doesn't end up as a lame duck. On the Republican side, many will oppose Obama just so he DOES end up as a lame duck. I don't think anyone wants another war, but a few strategic missiles on military targets does make some sense. But only if they can drum up some more international support (not just unilateral US action) and more evidence that it was Assad who did it (we know it happened, but not enough strong evidence who committed it).
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          Marco, isolationism vs interventionism is NOT as trivial as you make it sound. Regardless of how you or I feel about getting involved, remember, the Office of the Presidency has to make choices based on a lot more information than we have. I agree that if the U.S. were to strike Syrian forces, they better be damn sure the chemical weapons were their responsibility. I am not entirely sure that "losing chemical weapons" deserves amnesty either. The responsibility for making those weapons should extend to securing those weapons. Just as keeping guns in the house with young children without locking them up. Either way, there are WAY more dimensions to international security than just simplifying it to, "not our civil war".
          Spec
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          I guess I just detach the chemical weapons matter from the Syrian conflict. We've been quite happy to ignore the Syrian war for a couple years now. Launching a strike due to the use of chemical weapons is not being done to oust Assad or support the rebels . . . just to punish someone that broke the Geneva convention. But I guess people are too worried that it is a secret plan to get involved in the war or could accidently suck us in .
          Ziv
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          There isn't a lot we can do that would be truly effective, and given the al Qaeda support for Nusra Front, one of the leading opposition groups, we really shouldn't be helping out our enemies on both sides of this conflict. But for a bit of history, here is what W said when he was being pushed to respond quickly after 9/11. "When I take action I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."-- I would bet our action in Syria will be only slightly more effective than a $2 million dollar missile hitting a $10 tent.
          Marcopolo
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          @ JakeY I think there can be no doubt that the rebels have some stocks of Sarin in the form of artillery shells, since one of of the rebel Syrian army units that mutinied was the unit equipped with these weapons. No one is suggesting that the US can't supply humanitarian aid to refugees in neighboring countries, but military aid is a different issue. US policy is clearly focused on the removal of the Assad regime. This would suit many Sunni Arab regimes, and Israel. But, the Assad regime poses no viable threat to the US, (or for that matter it's neighbours). It's legally and morally wrong (and just plain lacking in commonsense) for the US to involve itself in yet another pointless quagmire. There's always a danger that the US may find itself facing PRC and Russian built fighter aircraft and missiles flown by US trained Iranian pilots. The US is perceived to be itching to create a war with Iran and this has the potential to escalate into a much broader conflict . Hasn't Obama learned anything from the disastrous US adventure in Lebanon ?
          throwback
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          We have to accept that we don't have the asnwer to everyone's problems. This is a civil war, dropping a few tomahawks won't change shia vs sunni hatred, nor make people get along. Also, I'm not sure how dropping a few bombs is punishing assad.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          It is mostly because the use of chemical weapons. It's basically a slap down for the audacity. So close to Israel too. This is a message, saying that the U.S. won't tolerate chemical attacks. Civil wars are one thing, indiscriminate gassing of populations, is another. But there still is a hypocrisy. Darfur, no, Syria yes. I don't think it's so much about oil... as it is about being close to Israel.
          EZEE
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          If anyone is still reading this thread, thanks for the thoughtful answers. I meant my comment as a good natured dig at our friends on the left, since they are leading this. The response was the type of debate we shold have, opposed to screaming about who lied, who died, who is patriotic, etc. And yes, spec, I realize that many on the left are against this. Ed Asner (no right winger there) had one reason that Hollywood isn't so loud this time - the various actors and actresses don't want to appear anti-black by opposing this war. He didnt care...said, 'what will they do, take away my pension?' Thanks all, for being rational. It's all I ever ask.... :-)
          Marcopolo
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          @ Spec, EZEE , Joeviocoe , Ziv et al , Here we go again, the same old mistakes made by a well meaning, but ill-informed US President. Syria's civil war is no-ones business, except Syria's ! This is a quagmire of local politics based on an almost unfathomable mixture of ancient animosities. Once again, highly dubious 'intelligence' information is being used as an excuse for the US to effect regime change (and possibly murder) a local leader and his supporters. Assad poses no threat to the US, his only crime is he doesn't conform to how the US thinks the world should behave. There is absolutely no evidence that Assad is responsible for the use of Chemical weapons. Large stocks of these weapons fell into the possession of rebel units of the former Syrian army, and have undoubtedly been supplied to organizations like Al Qaeda and other even more unscrupulous fanatic's (including cannibals!). It's also significant that accusations of chemical weapon use comes at a time when Assad's forces are winning and soon the US would lose any reason to back the rebels. Why would Assad engage in such risky behavior, while his forces are already on the ascendancy ? Nor will America make any friends this way. All the Islamic nations, including America's allies, (and the rebels) will see US intervention as just another US ploy to further Israeli interests. The US should just refrain from any intervention.
          Marcopolo
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          @ Joeviocoe Good grief Joe, what does it take to convince you that President's are fallible? (even Democrats)., and 'intelligence advisors" are even more so? Are you serious about Assad being "careless " and "losing" chemical weapons ? Some of the rebel army units that mutinied were in charge of the facilities that held stocks of chemical weapons. Most of the anti-American world will never believe that the chemical weapon use wasn't just a CIA ploy to give the US the opportunity to meddle in Islamic affairs. Those who were supporters of the US and more moderate ideals will become alienated. No, it not the duty of the US or anyone else to intervene in a civil war, that's just imperialism. How would you feel if the Syrian government launched retaliatory missile attacks on the US ? Attacking Syria is an Act of War. ( especially without UN endorsement). Nor is Syria a threat to '' International Security" ! Assad's attentions are solely focused on Syria. He poses no international threat, but the rebel's allies US policy will benefit are already an international threat. If this was a Republican President you would be screaming opposition. The US has nothing to gain, and everything to lose. At some stage the US must learn that intervention in civil wars invariably makes the situation worse. In the end, the outcome is bad, and the US just gets hated by both of the conflicting factions ! As the new incoming Australian Prime Minister reflected sagely, ''the Syrian conflict is not about good guy's -v- bad guys, but bad guys-v-bad guys " . While the outgoing government endorsed the US proposals, as of next week, the Australian government will not be so quick to support US action in the UN Security Council, nor the G20 during it's period of presidency. Bad policy, is bad policy ! It doesn't matter if it's proposed by the party you support or not, this is just bad policy.
          Spec
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          @EZEE What I want to know is how did the GOP thinking on this change. The GOP went from backing land invasion of the much larger Iraq based on ghost stories of WMDs that did not exist to being too timid to launch some cruise missiles at a smaller regime that actually used chemical weapons. Now I know there is a small isolationist branch with Rand Paul and his ilk. But what about the rest of them? Are they against this missile attack just because it is Obama in the White House or are they against this attack because they've actually changed their thinking on foreign relations matters? I suspect it is much more the former.
          JakeY
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          @Marcopolo I don't agree Syria has no effect in internationally, esp. to US allies. The large amount of Syrian refugees spilling in to neighboring countries (many of which are US allies) are a very pressing issue. The Arab nations have not publicly announced they would join US action, but they are urging some type of military action. In recent news, some of the neighboring nation are offering to fund the US for a full invasion. The only exception is Egypt (they have enough of their own internal problems). As I put it, if we confirm with strong evidence that it is Assad (so far it's weak, we are assuming Sarin means Assad, but there's still a possibility that rebels got their hands on Sarin) and we get international support (so far there's only France) then maybe a case can be made for some kind of action (although any sort of invasion would be opposed by both sides).
          Spec
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          It is definitely an odd change. The GOP when from backing a land-invasion of the much larger Iraq based on ghost-stories about mythical WMDs to being too timid to launch a few missiles into much smaller Syria after an actual use of chemical weapons. Part of it is the new isolationist (or non-interventionist if you prefer) branch lead by Rand Paul. Part of it is just "Do the opposite of whatever Obama wants to do!" I wouldn't call the Democrats war-mongering though . . . yeah, Obama and Pelosi are for this . . . but there is a large contingent of Democrats that oppose and are voting "No". I'm a little worried about this knee-jerk whip-saw flip. I guess we over-react to everything.
      RoyEMunson
      • 2 Years Ago
      Good thing the Prius Plugin is a Toyota, otherwise I have no idea why anyone would buy that car... no idea, considering the alternatives.
        EZEE
        • 2 Years Ago
        @RoyEMunson
        It isn't the most handsome car out there, but the reliability has been good. Or is that what you were getting at with, 'good thing it is a toyota?'
          RoyEMunson
          • 2 Years Ago
          @EZEE
          Yes, reliability and the fact that some people will only buy Toyotas.
      Joeviocoe
      • 2 Years Ago
      Danny... you must be the last person here still changing the name of this chart from "Alternative Fuels" to "Green". You are intentionally confusing people to start a comment war. Diesel Passenger vehicles are on the "Alt-Fuel" list simply because they are such a minority in the U.S. Nothing to do with GREEN. Do some work! Recalculate without the Diesels! Stop being lazy and just cutting and pasting someone else's charts.
      BraveLil'Toaster
      • 2 Years Ago
      Interesting. The Leaf is outselling most models of hybrids. I'll be damned.
      Tweaker
      • 2 Years Ago
      "Volkswagen and its Audi unit each had increased green-car sales as more Americans bought diesels." Any fuel that requires we expend millions of gallons of fuel and untold lives to protect its shipping routes is not "green". Diesel will never be green. If it is "green", why don't you include the gassers that get similar mileage? The Germans have you hoodwinked.
      Marcopolo
      • 2 Years Ago
      Like many others, I'm alway baffled by the inclusion of diesel as a 'green' fuel ! Some argument could be made that NG products like CNG or LPG are in some ways 'greener' fuels, but to describe any form of diesel as 'green' is just disingenuous.
        Spec
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Marcopolo
        They need to stop using the phrase 'green' in these articles. I can accept 'alternative fuel' in that diesel is an alternative to gasoline which is by far the most popular transport fuel in the USA for light-duty cars & trucks. Thus 'alt-fuel' can be electric, natural gas, diesel, propane, methanol, fuel cell, etc.
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X