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 Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2012 3:26:17 PM , Rating: -1
Once again the consumers are telling us they don't want EV's, no matter what subsidies you throw at them. And once again "Progressives" will ignore them and keep their foot firmly on the stupid pedal.


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.


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

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