backtop


Print 44 comment(s) - last by BifurcatedBoat.. on Aug 14 at 3:04 PM

For the total seven months of 2012 so far, the automaker has only sold 135 of these EVs

Ford's electric Focus hasn't had much luck in the sales department during 2012, and this was evident in July's numbers.

The electric Ford Focus, which is a 5-door hatchback electric vehicle (EV) that was first produced in December 2011, had a total of 38 sales in the United States for the month of July.

This was a pretty big drop from the 89 Ford Focus Electrics sold in June. However, for the total seven months of 2012 so far, the automaker has only sold 135 of these EVs.

Ford has built a total of 884 Ford Focus Electrics this year, with 121 built in July alone. The American automaker managed to sell zero Focus EVs in February, March and April.

Ford hasn't given any sales predictions for the Focus EV throughout the rest of 2012, but said it will match supply with demand. For right now, the Focus EV is only available in California, New York and New Jersey. It will make its way to 19 other markets this fall.


Source: The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Simple
By WalksTheWalk on 8/3/2012 3:05:00 PM , Rating: 5
Here's my math:

$40K-50K for any EV with poor range, no charging stations, no quick charge and bad performance in hot/cold weather = No Thanks


RE: Simple
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: Simple
By web2dot0 on 8/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: Simple
By 91TTZ on 8/3/2012 5:43:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The TCO for a gas engined car is not calculated properly in all parts of the world. Who pays for oil spills? Who pays for destroying the land to harvest the oil? You don't think there is government incentives for oil companies? Yeah ... right ..


But the oil is still getting shipped here, it's just getting burned by power plants so you can charge your car instead of by your engine.


RE: Simple
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 8/4/2012 10:35:15 AM , Rating: 4
You must live in Hawaii or some other remote island. Because no place in the US burns oil for electricity if they can get domestically-produced coal, natural gas, or uranium.

And AFAIK no coal miners or nuke techs flew airplanes into buildings on 9/11.


RE: Simple
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: Simple
By Ringold on 8/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: Simple
By AssBall on 8/3/2012 9:29:02 PM , Rating: 1
My father worked on some of the biggest diesel electric oil rigs in the 70s and 80s, and I can tell you first hand that the oil companies he drilled for spent 2-3 times as much on "environmental reclamation" than they did drilling the dang well. In short, this guy is a moron.


RE: Simple
By Ringold on 8/4/2012 6:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
Might've been quite true -- in the 70s and 80s. Welcome to 2012 though, FFS. The 1970s was FORTY YEARS ago. Technology, particularly since the 90s, in the field has been almost a quantum leap. Your father couldn't of conceived of the sort of things they do now, not back then.

If you were suggesting coal mining, gold mining, or certain other things were dirty, which they absolutely can be, then you'd be right. But modern oil and natural gas rigs don't have to be at all.


RE: Simple
By MrBlastman on 8/6/2012 12:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
The other thing web2dot0 is refusing to acknowledge is who is going to pay for the environmental repair of the land around battery factories and disposal areas? Those things are made of some nasty elements so while you might drive around all smug thinking you're saving the environment--you're just ignoring the real issue.

Anything can damage the environment that is man made. Nothing is entirely safe.

I don't like the concept of EVs with now because they have too limited a range for me and their operational environment is also too limited.


RE: Simple
By knutjb on 8/3/2012 11:26:25 PM , Rating: 3
One of my favorite environmental laughs is when someone takes the line of thought you are.
quote:
This is the same as saying styrofoam cups are great, we should all use it because it's cheaper than recycled plastic. Someone is paying for it (which is our grand-grand-children), just not in our life time.
The environmentalist in the early 70s were getting their all POd at paper plates, cups, packaging, etc... So they pressed to eliminate them and replace them with styrofoam containers. Gotta save the trees! The movement, as I recall, was led out of UC Berkly.
quote:
Who pays for oil spills? Who pays for destroying the land to harvest the oil? You don't think there is government incentives for oil companies? Yeah ... right ....
More oil is leaked onto the shores of California by natural causes. It seeps up through the sidewalks in Santa Clara. If we would drill off Santa Barbra we could greatly reduce that pollution. Fixing the laws could take the burden off taxpayers.
quote:
Once you take into account of all the costs, it's not so cheap.

Take responsibility for ourselves and not defer it to someone else to clean up the mess.

You expect the nanny state to really hold those responsible responsible? If we really held people responsible for their actions, rather than blaming others for their actions, much of what you complain about can be corrected. Sadly, the Left can't accept such an idea. Look at all the class warfare in the current in this election cycle. Blame the rich, they have more than they need. So let’s take it from them, because you deserve it. Until you change that mindset, it will be hard to hold anyone responsible for anything.

When Government sets the rules in such a political manner that only they determine risk it is never determined correctly. When an insurance company determines risk it tends to lean towards the fiscally conservative, otherwise they go out of business. No sense of fear or failure leads to poor choices. Get rid of most, not all, of the safety net and we will all make better decisions.

I think you have valid complaints however; your approach only perpetuates them.


RE: Simple
By Dr of crap on 8/6/2012 8:30:26 AM , Rating: 1
So - uh -
do you drive an EV, drink from plastic cups, recycle everything, don't swat flies or crap in the woods?

It's a money issue, and it will always be whether you like it or not, and whether the environment likes it or not.

The money will live comfortably and the poor will deal with the cast offs of the rich, has been for many, many years. Oil is used by the money, like it or not.


RE: Simple
By pixelslave on 8/6/2012 2:57:42 PM , Rating: 3
I am pretty open to adopting clean-fuel vehicle, but the market for EV just isn't there yet. I, for one, would not buy one at this moment. The reason is simple -- it just takes too long to charge. We are talking about hours. Make no mistake about it, I think this issue can be fixed in the coming future, but this is exactly the problem. I can smell that in a couple years, the EV that's being sold in the market today will be looked like an antique car because quick charging EV will be widely available. By then, the value of this current generation of EV will be so low that it will be pretty impossible to sell it.

I was looking to buy the Volt earlier this year, but after a long research, I decided to replace my Prius with a new Prius -- the Hybrid one, not the plug-in.


RE: Simple
By BifurcatedBoat on 8/14/2012 3:04:13 PM , Rating: 1
It's not that they don't want EVs - it's that they don't want EVs @ $40k. If that EV were $14k, then lots of people would be buying them as a 2nd car. The batteries have to be improved/become cheaper.


RE: Simple
By AssBall on 8/3/2012 3:47:26 PM , Rating: 1
And here's my math:

200,000 miles @ 40mpg @ 4$/gal = $20,000 gas.

+ $20,000 normal focus

= $40,000 10 year old car that doesn't actually totally blow goats.


RE: Simple
By Mint on 8/3/2012 10:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
Who is going to average 40MPG in a normal Focus? Do you live and go to work directly on the highway? Try 31MPG combined. We'll be pretty lucky if OPEC is satisfied with $90/barrel oil for the next 10-20 years (it doesn't matter how much oil the US produces, as even a drill happy gov't will never get production near OPEC levels).

Anyway, pure EVs are just not a great idea right now, and that's why the Focus EV isn't selling. If EVs have a big battery, then its expense and weight is wasted for the typical day, and no matter how large it is you can't do the 600+ miles a day that you'd need if you wanted to go on a long road trip to explore the country.

PHEV is the way to go. 100% freedom, 80% reduced gas consumption and urban pollution. Put the Volt in a Tesla or Fisker body with $1000 more in the electric motor (which should rocket performance a lot more than a $1000 upgrade in an ICE) and you have a winner.


RE: Simple
By mindless1 on 8/4/2012 1:54:28 PM , Rating: 1
That's ridiculous. The average compact car is junked long before it reaches 200K miles and one with limited range would be all that much harder to achieve 200K miles in its lifetime.

Further, someone putting on that many miles is making poor lifestyle choices that contribute to the problem.


RE: Simple
By freedom4556 on 8/6/2012 7:18:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's ridiculous. The average compact car is junked long before it reaches 200K miles and one with limited range would be all that much harder to achieve 200K miles in its lifetime.

Further, someone putting on that many miles is making poor lifestyle choices that contribute to the problem.


You must be rich. Some of us get our cars with 100,000+ miles already on them because it's all we can afford. Some of us have to commute more than 25miles to work both ways every day because we live where we can afford to and work where we can. I put over 10,000 miles on my car since January, and I've only taken one road trip (~200 miles one way). Poor lifestile choices my ass. Spoken like a spoiled brat.


RE: Simple
By mindless1 on 8/6/2012 11:07:43 AM , Rating: 2
You obviously didn't consider that someone who has to live so far from work and "make due" due to income limitations, won't be buying a $40K _base_model_ vehicle.

So yes, I'm right. The car makes no sense economically for "most" people.

Note I wrote average. Do you know what that word means?


RE: Simple
By Targon on 8/6/2012 5:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
The base EV Focus is quite a bit better than most other base cars in the compact vehicle class when it comes to features. Take a comparable regular Focus for features, and then you can have a proper comparison. I don't care for the EV myself, because I drive too much to make it a good idea, but people need to be FAIR when they make their comparisons.

MyFord Touch, reverse sensing system, and the other additional features make it more comparable to a $25,000 Focus at the very least. Yes, that is still a big jump to get to $40,000, but there is also a big difference between expected sales between the two. When volumes are expected to be low due to limited places the car is available, the price DOES go way up. If Ford expected to sell as many EVs as a regular Focus, the price would be much closer.


RE: Simple
By mindless1 on 8/10/2012 12:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
I can't agree that the price would be much closer, the reason they are not ramping up production and availability to the same levels is they do not anticipate sales at the same volume because of the large cost difference to build it, as well as the limited cruise range.


RE: Simple
By Dr of crap on 8/6/2012 8:36:44 AM , Rating: 2
"Further, someone putting on that many miles is making poor lifestyle choices that contribute to the problem."

WHAT ???????

So you're saying if you put on over 200,000 miles on a car - making it last longer by using it so long - it's a bad choice??

Hope you walk everywhere you need to go!


RE: Simple
By Samus on 8/3/2012 10:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
Here's my math:

EV's have superior performance to anything in their price range (the Focus EV is 0-60 is <9 seconds, the Tesla S is 0-60 <6 seconds)

EV's do not have bad performance in Hot/Cold. Nissan screwed up this 'reputation' of EV's like Chrysler screwed up the reputation for turbo chargers in the 80's.

Good EV's have enough range for most of the population (only 5% of the country commutes more than 100 miles per day for work, and 3% of them are truck drivers)

Charging stations are coming along with grid optimizations and improvements. Like anything, it takes time.

This is all a transitionary technology. Hating on new transportation technology is stupid. If people don't buy it, then they'll just have to make it better. That's fine with me. I'm not personally buying one until quick charging (45 minute to 80% capacity) is a reality, which it will be in just a few years. But in the mean time, people who can utilize this technology are free to buy it, which is great.

Getting $7500 dollar government tax credits, on the other hand, is where I have a huge problem, one Walks didn't even mention.


RE: Simple
By mindless1 on 8/4/2012 1:55:34 PM , Rating: 1
It's not a race car, your idea of performance is ridiculous unless you're the type that always floors it coming off a red light only to sit and wait at the next light longer than everyone else.


RE: Simple
By StormyKnight on 8/5/2012 2:47:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
EV's do not have bad performance in Hot/Cold.

The batteries used in EVs suffer under conditions that are too hot or too cold. Hence, the performance (range) also suffers.


RE: Simple
By Samus on 8/6/2012 3:45:20 AM , Rating: 2
Tell that to Elon Musk. Tesla vehicles (in addition to the Chevy Volt) have negligible range impact from ambient temperatures. The heating/cooling system overhead has some draw on the overall range, but its around a 4-5% impact according to Tesla, who also states Nissans' air-cooled system reduces efficiency up to 50%.

And as far as I'm concerned, all these $40,000 EV's are performance cars. Yes, they have 100MPH-120MPH top speeds but they also have twice the torque of the petrol kit. It might not be immediately appearant, but when you load the car up with the family or haul around a few hundred pounds of cargo from Home Depot and you can still blast uphill like a diesel without running out of puffs, you'll realize they definately have a performance-edge over basically any naturally-aspirated engine.


RE: Simple
By Dr of crap on 8/6/2012 8:40:58 AM , Rating: 2
You must NOT live in tha area of the country that gets temps below -20°F. Some here where it does get that cold and colder, some can't even start our gas powered cars BECAUSE the battery can't get the engines started, BECAUSE of the much reduced energy of the battery at that cold temp!

Typical southener that doesn't understand winter temps!


RE: Simple
By Rukkian on 8/6/2012 9:44:27 AM , Rating: 2
Or he knows how some of the cars work (volt, tesla models) with heated and cooled batteries. This drops the efficiency 4-5%, and takes some of the power while charging, but gets around that issue for the most part.

The issue is with cars like the leaf that is just air cooled, and does not have a warmer.

As for the subsidies, the way they are implemented I do not agree in, but lets face it - most of the haters are simply rush is right people that hate Obama.

Most new technologies need help to get started, especially for something as ingrained into our society as the automobile. It takes time to get infrastructure, and for people to trust the technology. This particular credit is getting extra scrutiny by those that hate liberals (at least what Rush says a liberal is), and may be implemented int he wrong way.

Would you rather have money handed out for research by companies that do not directly effect citizens, or would you just like all research to not be funded by the government? Where do you draw the line? Cut off medical research, cause it isn't directly profitable? Cut off space exploration because it can't make money?

I will not be buying an ev of any type until the tech matures some, but that is what giving credits now does. I would personally like to see most spending dropped until we cut the deficit, but it would have to be across the board - IE cut some programs, but also close tax loopholes, cut aid to other countries, etc, etc.


RE: Simple
By Dr of crap on 8/6/2012 10:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
FAIL - he doesn't know how cars work.

And your reply has nothing to do with what I stated.

You reply is all political


RE: Simple
By Samus on 8/6/2012 12:32:03 PM , Rating: 2
I've been an automotive engineer at FoMoCo for a decade and you're telling me I don't know how cars 'work'?

Son, you truely are the doctor or crap.

Political views aside, the previous post is accurate. The energy used to keep the batteries at an efficient operating temperature greatly outweighs the lost efficiency incurred by a cold or overheating battery.

And I don't know who the post was directed at about being a "typical southerner" but I am from Chicago and it regularely drops well below 0f here in the Winter. It ain't Alaska but it definately pushes the capabilities of any battery chemistry. I use an engine block heater in my diesel just so the OIL doesn't freeze.


RE: Simple
By Carney on 8/6/2012 3:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
All cars, including gasoline-only cars, have worse performance in extreme weather. All current mass market EVs have enough range for everyday local driving (more than 75% of Americans drive less than 40 miles a day). Whining that EVs can't do cross-continental road trips (a rare need that can be met via rentals anyway) is like whining that a Ford Explorer can't beat a Mazda Miata at drag racing, or that a Miata can't go offroad onto rough unimproved terrain -- different cars are designed for different purposes.


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Related Articles
Ford Exec Outlines EV Plans
October 20, 2010, 9:44 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki