By on May 19, 2012

This weekend, Ford will put its first Focus EVs on car carriers and ship them to dealers, Reuters heard.  Some 67 dealers in California, New Jersey and New York will receive 350 Electrics. Each dealer will get about six cars, one of which will be a demonstration model, the other for sale, Reuters’ sources said.

Ford did not want to comment on these enormous news. Ford spokesman Wes Sherwood only offered the sibylline statement that Ford is “still on track to begin shipping the Focus Electric this spring.”

The Focus EV will have a hard time. EVs are not necessarily flying off dealer’s lots. Nissan sold 2,103 of its all electric Leaf in the first four months of the year. In the same period, GM sold 5,377 of its not quite all-electric Volt.

Of course, some cars are not meant for rapid sales. They are more meant to fill a quota.

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

64 Comments on “Ford Focus Electric Car En Route To Dealers. Good Luck...”


  • avatar
    APaGttH

    The market just isn’t ready.

    • 0 avatar
      tuffjuff

      +1

      I could never see myself owning a pure EV, so a range-extended option like the Volt would be the only type of vehicle I’d consider, and at $42,000+ there’s just no way.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      How exactly does a market like this one become ready, unless there is a product to sell?

      We can debate whether the chickens or the egg needs to come first all day — but when a chicken or an egg shows up, we suddenly have something to work with!

      Congratulations to Ford for delivering a few chickens. :-)

      I agree that EVs will be niche vehicles for some time, and I found the conclusion that the Focus EV is a compliance car to be convincing… But I see lots of other niche vehicles on the road, so I see no reason why Ford won’t be able to help fill this niche.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “We can debate whether the chickens or the egg needs to come first”

        Trying to sell either chickens or eggs to a crowd of vegans would be a waste of time.

        If almost nobody is demanding one, then the supply becomes irrelevant. The primary reasons for the lack of demand are obvious — range and recharge times. It’s been over a century, and still, nobody has really managed to fix this.

    • 0 avatar
      OldandSlow

      Market smarkert, the E cars are built to comply with mandates from government regulators, such as the California Air Resources Board.

  • avatar
    jimmyy

    The problem with this vehicle is the price. But, the pricing problem is not with this electric. It seems to me GM, Ford, and Chrysler have a price problem on all of their vehicles. Now that the earthquake and flood problems are benind us, these inflated prices is leaving an opening for the foreign nameplates to take marketshare away from Detroit. On the east coast, those 19K base model 12 Camry’s are eveywhere. I see many base Camry’s for every XLE. People are avoiding all the useless options and going base.

    The only way Detroit can stop this is by pumping out numbers of base vehicles with out the door prices which undercut the foreign nameplates.

    Currently, very few base models are on Detroit brand lots, and the few that exist are not discounted much. On the east coast, this is killing any possibility of a Detroit comeback.

    Detroit executive, how in the world can you compete when your vehicles score below the Japanese in Consumer Reports reliability, but sport a higher transaction price? Only biased individuals will do that deal.

    • 0 avatar
      Secret Hi5

      “Detroit executive, how in the world can you compete when your vehicles score below the Japanese in Consumer Reports reliability, but sport a higher transaction price?”
      –Yes, because reliability is the only metric to consider . . .

      • 0 avatar
        jkumpire

        Nuts to this….

        These two car companies are dealing on reputation, not current reality. In my little corner of the world, Toyota and Honda are not whet they are perceived to be. I’ve sat in and drove their cars, and they are not some kind of supercar that lasts longer than a Giant Sequoia. I’ve spoken with others who have loved their Honda or Toyoda, and others who hated them and several who got lemons.

        I don’t claim universal knowledge of all things by any means, but these kind of generalizations irritate me. Or did my wife just dump her Honda Accord for a new Ford Fiesta because she is an idiot?

      • 0 avatar
        28-cars-later

        Right on jkumpire. The Japanese have gotten complacent and are coasting on years of good reputation from when they had the better products. Media bias and political feeling isn’t helping Detroit either. How often has C&D and other MSM outlets not blown Camcords year after year? What was their thought on the last gen cheepie Civic which the public hated?

    • 0 avatar
      Silvy_nonsense

      If your production capacity is well aligned with market demand, there is no reason what so ever to flood the supply chain with a whole bunch of stripped down, entry level versions of a given model. Chasing market share is what you do when you’ve got cars rolling off the line faster than you can sell them without incentives galore. Carpocalypse took care of the gross over capacity problem. Detroit doesn’t need to worry so much about getting rid of tens of thousands of cars the market doesn’t really need.

      I’d much rather see car makers making more money off fewer, well-appointed, higher-profit cars than shipping out jillions of low profit, plain-jane tin cans to rental fleets, federal agencies and other buyers of cars that most private buyers don’t want.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Exactly.

        I’d rather the new GM sell one Cruze for a $100 profit than a million Cobalts at a $1,000 loss each.

        Color me stupid, but I thought the object of a business was to make money, not sell units at a loss (al a the bad Detroit pre-economic meltdown, and the old British manufacturers after consolidation, and Seat, and Opel and…)

        [INSERT PROVE GM MAKES A PROFIT STRAWMAN HERE]

      • 0 avatar
        jimmyy

        Bottom line … Toyota and Honda are outselling Detroit in the small and midsize segment with base model cars that have higher reliability than Detroit products. Toyota and Honda are able to turn big profit margins selling base models while Detroit can only turn a good profit margin with stickered up models. This ends badly for Detroit. Right now, tbe foreign brands are increasing their capacity to build base models with a big profit, and this is what consumers really want.

      • 0 avatar
        Silvy_nonsense

        jimmyy, consumers don’t “really want base models”. Ford press releases describing the higher than expected sales rate of highly optioned cars, even for smaller cars, proves you wrong. Your ideas are out of touch with what is actually happening in the market.

        Your contention that Honda and Toyota turn healthy profits on base models is bunk. They don’t. If you think I’m wrong, please prove it with some objective data or evidence from a credible source. Heck, go to a dealer lot and count up the number of stripped down cars vs. mid or highly optioned ones.

        Japanese reliability overall is still pretty good. I don’t think anyone is really challenging that. However, quality for the domestic makers is going up and there are many solid choices from a reliability standpoint. Reliability isn’t the big differentiator that it used to be.

      • 0 avatar
        PintoFan

        “Toyota and Honda are able to turn big profit margins selling base models”

        That’s either an extremely poor misunderstanding on your part, or an outright lie. Let’s get something straight: in a given segment, the built-in costs for any particular Japanese brand or American brand model are pretty close. Not the same, but close enough to pretty much nullify whatever contorted argument you’re trying to make. Despite all the moronic blather about “overpaid UAW workers,” Toyota’s labor costs aren’t significantly lower for either domestically produced or imported vehicles. What is killing Toyota is the high yen. The margins on their vehicles are thin enough that they are either taking a loss or breaking even on pretty much every import that isn’t a Lexus in the U.S. Honda’s position is better because a lot more of their product is domestically sourced, but they still face the same currency problems.

        The bottom line is that no manufacturer is making significant profits off of base models, nor is the desire to move transaction prices up limited to domestic makers. Every car company would love to sell more highly-optioned models, because the profits are virtually always higher. Unfortunately for Toyota, U.S. consumers are smart enough to realize that if they want to spend $30k plus on a car it should be genuinely nice and not a warmed-over refrigerator.

      • 0 avatar
        jimmyy

        You guys are both wrong. Wall Street research is where my comments are from. Ford stock is way down off its high, as are Ford profits. The only way Ford was able to turn big profits one year ago was because Ford was able to push a bunch of over-optioned cars on the public since Toyota and Honda had nothing to sell. One year later, GM and Ford sales are not looking good, and profits are down. Why? Because Honda and Toyota are back with well price base model cars. Fact. LE Camry massively outsels XLE. Fact. LX Accord massively outsels EX. These are base or near base models. Fact. Toyota suprised wall street with outsized profit growth.

        Furthermore, the best thing that can happen to a business is growth. Ford and GM seem to rely on margin expansion. This is a dead end, and this strategy is usually pursued by a non-growth company.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “Wall Street research is where my comments are from. Ford stock is way down off its high, as are Ford profits.”

        Ford 2010 net income – $6.5 billion
        Ford 2011 net income – $20.2 billion

        http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=F+Income+Statement&annual

        2011 net income was 308% higher than the prior year. Better work on those research skills, champ.

      • 0 avatar
        jimmyy

        Here is a quote from their last quarterly picture:

        “Today Ford reported a first-quarter net income for 2012 of $1.4 billion on the strength of sales in the States. While that’s a 180-degree turnaround compared to the same quarter in 2009, it’s still a decline in earnings compared to the $2.6 billion earned just last year. ”

        Ford’s claim was the drop was all europe. However, Wall Street sees sales declining. There are at least 2 problems. Furthermore, Ford’s earnings are elevated from below market loans it obtained from the energy department.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “Ford’s earnings are elevated from below market loans it obtained from the energy department.”

        Loans aren’t booked as income. You might want to work on those finance skills, too.

      • 0 avatar
        PintoFan

        The operative logic here seems to be “Form an opinion first and then lie repetitively when the facts don’t support your opinion.”

      • 0 avatar
        Silvy_nonsense

        jimmyy – The research you are quoting in no way supports your concept that Honda and Toyota are making money selling stripped down base trim cars. You need to provide evidence, not just say you got it from “Wall Street”. Please provide us with a link to an article or two, press releases or something that shows Honda and Toyota are making beaucoup bucks on entry-level trims with little or no optional equipment. What’s going on a Ford has nothing to do with that.

  • avatar
    Silvy_nonsense

    “Of course, some cars are not meant for rapid sales. They are more meant to fill a quota.”

    Most (probably all) high profile enthusiast cars are not meant for rapid sales. They often can’t be supported by a business case and frequently lose money on every unit sold. They are as much a marketing exercise as they are an engineering exercise. Apparently it’s OK to invest engineering and development time and money on these “halo” cars because they build credibility with enthusiasts and cast a positive glow over the whole product line. (The way facebook ads indirectly boost sales, I assume.)

    Selling cars with little market potential and little hope of profit isn’t exactly new to the auto industry. If we’re going to judge cars solely by their potential sales numbers, then most every awesome hi-po, special edition such-and-such we’ve every read about and salivated over is a total failure.

    Would you be more supportive of EV’s if they cost $80,000 and took track laps really fast? Is that what makes it OK to address a very limited market with a product that won’t make much or any profit?

  • avatar
    tresmonos

    The BEV is more of a Magna E-Car product than a FoMoCo engineered solution. It’s incredible how much development was not at Ford, which for powertrain, that’s quite an exception.

    In spite of what sales will tell anyone, it’s a impressive piece of engineering.

    • 0 avatar
      Herm

      I believe the powertrain is 100% Magna.. the only skin Ford has in this game must be the dealer training and stocking replacement parts.

      Ford and Mullaly insist the Focus BEV will make a profit at MSRP.. at $2k more than a Leaf and minimal trunk space its has a fight on its hands. The assembly line can be throttled up and down to meet demand since its just a variation on the Focus. The battery should be good for 15 years.

      The ability to get a HOV lane pass in California and its good looks will insure they sell out.

  • avatar
    Hezz

    But will they offer that pleasant looking grill as an option in place of the tacky blackplasticpalooza on regular Focii? That is my question.

  • avatar
    "scarey"

    The market will be ready if a certain prez is re-elected and the price of gasoline ‘necessarily skyrockets’ to $7 or $8 per gallon.

    • 0 avatar
      ExPatBrit

      Like when gas prices almost tripled between 2001 and 2008.

      No worries George and Dick aren’t running this time!

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        Unleaded was $1.78 a gallon when Bush left office, but don’t let the truth stand in your way when trying to defend Obama. You’ll have nothing to say.

      • 0 avatar
        28-cars-later

        Funny how often key facts get omitted or ignored.

      • 0 avatar
        ExPatBrit

        “Like when gas prices almost tripled between 2001 and 2008″.

        “Unleaded was $1.78 a gallon when Bush left office”

        Bush left office in January 2009!

        So wise one, why was gas $1.78 on the day Bush left office as against over $ 4.50 6 months earlier?

        Not a trick question.

      • 0 avatar
        PintoFan

        The economy was also mired in the deepest recession since 2008. I don’t suppose that would have anything to do with declining gas prices, would it? Or that any of Bush’s unnecessary wars led to the price increases that were part of what caused the economy to tank in the first place?

      • 0 avatar
        28-cars-later

        PintoFan I do agree the wars created a drag on the economy but I have two points.

        -When Alan Greenspan was promoting his book I believe in 2006, I saw he remarked that he recommended to President Bush in late 2002 “it was necessary to remove the threat of Saddam Hussein in order to secure world oil supplies”. Now AG speaks for the Fed mafia, and tin foil hats theories aside, fact is the Fed does exist and those people who do own it are running a scheme to trade their fiat currency for oil with the OPEC nations. If someone comes along and creates too much friction, their scheme could be threatened, and WE the citizens of the United States are totally screwed and oil jumps overnight. Like or not, we need this scheme for survival, at least in the short term, so Bush, good or bad, was pushed in the direction of an Iraq invasion… not to mention Iraq had the largest known untapped reserves in the region.`

        -The Afghan war was technically initiated by the 9/11 attacks. Its hard to not wear a tinfoil hat to see why this war is still going on aside from something to do with the poppy trade or a possible buffer against an increasingly volatile nuclear armed Pakistan.

        I have my own theory though, if you take away all of the detail what are you left with?

        2000: Dot-com bubble burst, billions lost, instant recession.
        2001: 9/11 attacks, deeper subsequent recession.

        Now maybe the powers that be knew something we didn’t and wanted to stem the inevitable meltdown a few years with a wartime economy, hence sending Greenspan to persuade the President in the first place?

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “wanted to stem the inevitable meltdown a few years with a wartime economy”

        Wars are almost always bad for economies. War spending is inefficient and a drag on the economy.

        The Bush problem was largely similar to the LBJ/ Nixon problem — guns and butter policies don’t work, because military spending is a net drain on the economy. (It costs more than it produces.)

        The Iraq war should have been funded with tax increases. The war weakened the dollar, which contributed to a component of the oil bubble. (Given the circumstances, there probably would have been an oil bubble, anyway — speculation about Chinese economic growth contributed to much of it — but US fiscal policies likely made it worse than it would have been otherwise.)

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        28-cars-later, Wars are a necessary part of living in a democracy. Every war the US has been involved in was necessary to a majority of Americans. Not all supported it. That’s normal.

        Even Viet Nam was necessary. I served in Nam. But the war was so badly managed by Johnson that it was no wonder that we lost it. The military was prevented from doing anything substantial until Nixon bombed the hell out of Hanoi and ended it all.

        That should have been done after Johnson declared the Gulf of Tonkin incident an act of war. Instead he tried to micro-manage the war from the White House. Epic fail!

        But because of Viet Nam, America developed military leaders who served in Viet Nam and had risen through the ranks to lead the Gulf War in 1991. What they learned in Viet Nam they did not repeat in 1991.

        After Obama gets re-elected this year, it should not surprise anyone that a conflict with Iran will develop. Israel has no choice but to exercise its right to pre-emptive strikes and that will drag the US, Israel’s protector and guarantor, into war with Iran and its allies.

        Hopefully, Iran will pull its head out of its @ss and give up its nuclear weapons-grade enrichment program like Libya did. But I doubt it. Persians are proud people with a mind of their own.

        How would Americans like it if some other country told us we can’t do what we want in our own back yard? Just remember 9/11, that pissed everyone off, regardless of political beliefs.

      • 0 avatar
        28-cars-later

        PCH – Interesting, so could we be reliving the 70′s and have malaise and significant inflation to look forward too?

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “so could we be reliving the 70′s and have malaise and significant inflation to look forward too?”

        If oil prices don’t increase significantly, that is highly unlikely.

        Much of the 70s inflation was a hangover of Nixon’s wage and price controls and the general failure of the US to manage the gold peg prior to the closing of the gold window.

        Without other economic management to go with it, wage and price controls invariably result in inflation once the control mechanism collapses. (This was minimized after WWII because rationing and war bond sales effectively served to suck inflation out of the economy before the fact. WWII was an all guns, no butter policy, quite unlike what was done with Vietnam or Gulf War II.) In the absence of other tools to go with it, wage and price controls are unsustainable and lead to pent up inflation, which carries on after the policies are ended.

    • 0 avatar
      tced2

      correction: the President and his energy Secretary (Chu) think gas prices at European levels would be just fine.
      Rates for electricity (generated from coal, which is much of electricity) would “necessarily skyrocket”.
      Either way, the electric Focus would be much more expensive to operate.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        TXU has been advertising a free nights plan in my area. From 10 PM to 6 AM, there would be no charge for whatever you use.

        As long as that plan exists, ‘fueling’ an EV would be free.

        I’ve also been costing PV units recently. Those could be used to effectively ‘per-purchase’ the cost of EV’s operation at around $0.12-.013 per kWh. It’s still more expensive, but it will be constant for the next few decades. (Those prices don’t include the time value of money.)

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Oh for frack sake. Yes, and if that really did happen it would collapse the entire US economy. We’re talking depression. What, aviation fuel is free? Diesel fuel for the shipment and transfer of good are free? EVERYTHING that is bought and sold in the world is directly tied to the price of a barrel of oil. Everything in a local market is directly tied to the cost of the supply chain to bring it to market.

      What, American consumers are going to stand up and smile to $3,000 plane tickets and $10 tomatoes and $1000 47″ TV sets because the logistical costs are so high because “some President,” which has no real control over markets, is going to wink wink wink be afraid be very afraid, is going to double the cost of a price of gallon of refined petroleum.

      Ya.

      Right.

      And when the inflation kicks in and the job market collapses because the energy costs for transit, logistics, manufacturing, and HVAC are so high – then what.

      Oh I see – I guess the politico has a vested interest in keeping the prices at a point where the economy can withstand it.

      Isn’t it amazing with all the predictions of $5 a gallon gasoline this summer that as soon as the economy started to slow down, the price of energy dropped with it.

      Nah – it couldn’t possibly be that logical. Because we have a gay black president that wants us living in wigwams riding bikes. I’m sorry, I didn’t get that frackin’ memo.

      APaGttH

      - No fan of Obama, even less of a fan of partisan stupidity

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “The market will be ready if a certain prez is re-elected and the price of gasoline ‘necessarily skyrockets’ to $7 or $8 per gallon.”

      You can rest easy. George W. Bush isn’t permitted to run for a third term.

      • 0 avatar
        28-cars-later

        Somehow I think the oil man would recognize $7-8 gasoline would put the final death nail in an already fragile economy, and he and his ilk would strive for a higher than $1.78 but economically sustainable price. The words ‘economically sustainable’ are unintelligible to this administration of community activists and subversive muckrackers.

      • 0 avatar
        modelt1918

        It is the kind of person APaGttH is that ruins this site. Bush hasn’t been president for 3 years and isn’t coming back and I agree, you are disrespectful.

      • 0 avatar
        28-cars-later

        Sometimes good people get a little too into it and come off sounding the wrong way, I’ve certainly done it. We live in difficult times, but one thing everyone can agree on is we want a brighter future than our current reality.

        BTW it’s always nice to see a restored Motel T, its the car the helped build our country and the auto industry.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        Regardless of individual opinionations and political favoritism, the question for the future remains if the new Ford Focus Electric will sell any better than its peers and class members. I say good luck on that.

        Don’t let the price of gas today fool you into thinking that it will remain at this level, or lower, forever.

        Even though we have enormous reserves of oil, coal and natgas in the US, and more is found each day, the political battle rages on between those that want to extract and use our own resources and those who do not. So far, those who do not are winning.

        Based on the increase in gas prices over the years and decades leading up to today, I’d say we can reasonably plan to be paying around $5/gal as the new norm by 2014/2015. The rest of the world wants more of the available oil too.

        Again, from recent history we learn that Americans don’t care about the price of gas, and care even less for EVs and Hybrids. They may not like paying the high price for gas but they’ll give up other things in life so that they can continue to buy the gas. There is no shortage of gas. It just costs more.

        I don’t see the Ford Focus Electric selling as well as the Prius C and the Prius family of cars. But it may sell better than the Volt and the Leaf.

        I also think it should be available to anyone who wants to buy one for as long as Ford can continue to lose money on them. I don’t think it will be a cash cow for Ford.

        As far as APaGttH’s comments, he’s free to make them even if it makes the Obama boys cringe. He’s not saying anything that wasn’t said about Bush, or Clinton or even Reagan. But it was OK then. Now the shoe is on the other foot, so if the shoe fits, wear it.

        It’s all about how we interpret the facts. Same facts, different interpretations. It’s all about how the facts affect us individually.

        Most Americans have not and will not derive any benefit from Obama’s policies and visions for America. Those who did benefit received free money, had their employers bailed out, are having their mortgage restructured and their debts forgiven, all at the expense of the tax paying majority.

        That’s not a good thing. That’s not the hopey-changey we were expecting. What it is is spreading America’s wealth around by taking from the rich and giving to those who don’t want to work for a living.

        If social welfare is your bag, don’t expect me to pay for it. Get a job. There are plenty of jobs in America. You just have to move to where they are. That’s what people did throughout America’s history.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “he and his ilk would strive for a higher than $1.78 but economically sustainable price.”

        You say that as if a US president can flick a magic lever that can move oil prices around.

        Some of the comments that get posted here are frankly crazy. There isn’t much of anything that a president can do to directly influence oil prices. Oil prices are set by trading, not by the US government.

      • 0 avatar
        28-cars-later

        I agree there isn’t a switch anyone in Washington can flick to lower fuel prices, but even things such as announcing a tap into the SPR or cooperation in building a pipeline can dramatically affect the markets. I’m not sure what Bush would have done if he were still President, but I do know the current administration does not acknowledge and work toward the fact we still need cheap fossil fuels for at least the next twenty years when/if the alternative energy becomes viable. I honestly don’t think they care about the people and prefer to live in a bubble of sunshine, wind farms, an electric cars as our country descends from a first world power.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        highdesertcat, the eFocus will not sell anywhere near as much as the Volt. The Volt may sell in the thousands, but this will likely be in the hundreds. Ford doesn’t have dedicated assembly lines for it; they don’t have to sell a ton of them.

        Ford has no interest in *competing* in that market. They want to be present so they can keep up with the technology and get some green cred, but they don’t want all the negatives that come with it. That why they’ve been loud about having the eFocus (including showing it on Letterman), but virtually silent about selling it.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        redav, that’s why I wrote, “I also think it should be available to anyone who wants to buy one for as long as Ford can continue to lose money on them.”

        I no fan of electric or Hybrid because at this point it is an answer to a question never asked. Only the green-weenies and environmental nay-sayers have an interest in advancing their alarmist philosophy at the expense of everyone else. Climate change anyone? Bogus is bogus!

        I am a proponent of prudent use of our own wealth in natural resources. I am NOT against wind, solar, wave, nuclear, geothermal, etc, because each of those can contribute in their own small way in localities that can effectively use those technologies. Many places where they work, already employ those technologies. But let’s not mandate it nationwide. That just jacks up the cost.

        I’m also a believer in cars as toys and remember when gasoline still had lead and other additives like Ethyl and Methyl in them that were causing smog in California when I lived there along the Pacific Coast Highway (US 101).

        Automotive technology like the Cat-con have cleared up much of that smog and digitizing engine management systems has made things even better and cleaner. Regrettably also more complicated.

        So I continue to advocate the smart use of our own natural resources. Aside from this EV and Hybrid tech, I’d like to see CNG and LNG technologies developed in addition to the existing LPG, as well as Hydrogen extraction (similar to that in Oxygen concentrators for people with COPD) and methane conversion for electricity generation, as in landfills with adjacent power plants.

        Ford may want a presence in that segment, just like with the Fusion Hybrid in that segment, but how long can Ford keep losing money on these dead-end ventures, because the only contender and the one to beat is the Prius line of vehicles.

      • 0 avatar
        NulloModo

        The Focus electric is only being released initially in markets where Ford has determined there is both demand and an infrastructure in place to support an all electric vehicle. The reasoning behind that decision is just to keep the logistics workable. Part of the decision is surely to make sure that Focus Electrics don’t languish on lots in middle of Arkansas, but a lot of it is to make sure anyone buying this car has a great experience with it. For non-electric certified dealerships and dealers not in the electric launch markets we can’t even order a Focus Electric if we have a customer willing to pay in full up front.

        The Focus Electric isn’t supposed to be a profitable or high volume vehicle – it’s a proof of concept and ‘green halo’ car. This is just the first step in Ford’s pure electric vehicle strategy however. Right now electric vehicles are very much niche products, what Ford learns from the launch and use of the Focus Electric will be put to use in future generations of the product which should be available nationwide as battery costs drop, more public charging stations pop up, and more dealer service departments are trained in how to work on these vehicles.

        There are already some very neat ideas that have come along with the Focus Electric. The new home charging station is the best out there so far for an electric vehicle – cost with installation is estimated at only $1,500, it can fully charge the vehicle in 4 hours, and it plugs into a 240v outlet instead of being hard wired so that owners can take it with them if they move.

        Ford is expanding the hybrid lineup with the C-Max to offer a dedicated hybrid-only vehicle and compete head to head with the Prius. Both the C-Max and the Fusion will also be available in plug-in hybrid ‘Energi’ models to help bridge the gap between pure electric and traditional hybrid vehicles. Both the traditional hybrids and plug-in Energi vehicles will be available nationwide. Ford has already learned a lot from experiences with the Escape, Fusion, and MKZ hybrid vehicles, so these third generation hybrid vehicles will offer more to customers and continue to grow retail market share.

        Electrified vehicles are in a transition state right now. People have generally accepted hybrids, but pure electrics and plug-ins are still mysteries to a lot of people. The early adopters who are willing to pay more to have the latest technology will be given the chance to buy these vehicles, and the lessons learned from the production of these vehicles and the experience of the first owners will help make future versions of these vehicles more appealing, more affordable, and more practical for the general car buying public.

  • avatar
    BoredOOMM

    67 of how many exclusive California Dealers will get this gem again? Is there a market in South Dakota for them? Will they drive like the Sport Focus?

  • avatar
    BoredOOMM

    APaGttH, your comments do not apply to a large audience, and are disrepectful.

  • avatar
    coronaadvances.com

    Electric Car is the future

  • avatar
    Les

    Just taking the topic side-ways for a moment..

    Anyone else think styling wise the above car, at least from the front… kinda.. sorta.. vaguely resembles Aston Martin design language?

    • 0 avatar
      28-cars-later

      Grille and overall nose seem very Aston Martin, not sure about the rest.

      • 0 avatar
        tonymos

        Whether this front makes it look more Aston Martin(i) or not, it definitely makes it look a lot better to my eyes than the standard three black triangles – so the question would be: does anyone know whether it’s possible to retrofit a standard Focus with this front mask? Does this thing let some air flow through? And a sufficient amount of it to cool a gasoline engine?

        Another plus: it makes it look more in line with the 2013 Fusion which shall be the new corporate face anyway…

      • 0 avatar
        Les

        So it’s not just me then?

        I really wish they wouldn’t… making Fords look like Astons doesn’t make me covet Fords, it makes me NOT covet Astons.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        tonymos: no, you can’t retrofit the gas focus with this.

        EVs don’t need anywhere near as much cooling, so this grille is purely cosmetic & non-functioning (as far as I can tell). I haven’t seen enough close-ups to know for sure, but an EV doesn’t have the need for a radiator like an ICE does. But since aero is even more important for EVs, closing off as much of the grille would be advantageous.

        I do think there’s a small radiator in the opening below the Aston grille for AC and cooling the battery pack.

      • 0 avatar
        tonymos

        Thanks for the info, redav. I was fearing that this is the answer to my question. Which is a pity, b/c this is miles better than the standard gapping triangles…

  • avatar
    FJ60LandCruiser

    Electric cars aren’t created by a market economy, they are not purchased because there is a demand, they are produced at enormous cost and sold at a loss but at a still high price that is partially offset by a government tax credit (which would probably kill sales if it wasn’t there)…

    If you had 40 grand, what would you buy? Two new cars that get 35-40mpg, or a single electric car without a reliable charging infrastructure unless you live in one of a half dozen urban areas. Oh, wait, most average American families can’t even afford to buy a NEW car, despite high gas prices, let alone an electric car!

    The only “real” market I see for these vehicles are the people who want to be ostensibly seen as eco-crusaders. Forget the Prius, I have an electric car!

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      Given federal rebates and reasonable estimates for fuel & electric costs, the eFocus’ breakeven point would be around 100k mi. compared to a comparable gas Focus. Since I keep vehicles longer than that, I would expect the eFocus to pay for itself over the (very) long haul.

      There’s also the issue of maintenance. It is projected that EVs will cost much less to maintain since there are so many things they don’t need. But until we actually get some data on that, I’m not counting on it.

      I am not an enviro-crusader, but I would buy an EV if I could get one a bit cheaper. If I could get this eFocus for the cost of a Ti Focus (mid to high 20s) after rebate, I would buy it.

      I don’t live one of those special urban areas, but that’s not necessary. My commute is 13 mi round trip, and a lot of places I go are too close for a gas engine to fully get up to temperature. Also, half my drive home is spent stuck at a single (poorly designed) light. I waste a lot of gas in that spot, but an EV would be ideal. I would have no need for any other charging location than my garage, and I wouldn’t even bother buying a rapid charge station. We have mild winters and the only hills are overpasses.

      As to people not able to afford new cars – the industry sells ~12 million new cars a year, so that’s obviously whom they market all their cars to. (You don’t exactly see billboards in prison.) Of course, $40k is a lot of money, and it’s too much even considering the fed rebates.

      • 0 avatar
        Herm

        “I don’t live one of those special urban areas, but that’s not necessary. My commute is 13 mi round trip, and a lot of places I go are too close for a gas engine to fully get up to temperature.”

        It sounds like an iMiev with its EPA certified range of 62 miles is a good choice for you.. for about $21k you get an automatic transmission, AC and seats four. Looks are a bit odd but I’m sure you are not vain about cars :)

  • avatar
    solracer

    I do live in an area (Seattle) with an excellent EV infrastructure and a large population of EVs and if I was in the market for a new commuter car I’d definitely consider the Focus E. However my 2011 Fiesta gets 36 mpg so it’s a little hard to justify replacing a new vehicle that gets good mpg. If the price of gas keeps climbing (it’s $4.25 a gallon and heading up at the moment, the opposite of the national trend) the Focus is going to look more and more attractive to me.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India