Ford to Start Shipping Focus Electric to Dealers

[ChargedUp]

The Chicago Tribune is reporting that the Ford will begin shipping Focus Electrics to 67 dealers this weekend. 350 Focus Electric cars will be sent to dealers in California, New Jersey and New York over the next couple weeks.

Manufacturing executives are said to have “signed off on the decision on Friday.” The Tribune says Ford declined to comment on the news and the sources asked not to be named because the plans are confidential.


http://insideevs.com/chicago-tribun...true&preview_id=1342&preview_nonce=171cf87ee1

 

[scottf200]

The Chicago Tribune is reporting that the Ford will begin shipping Focus Electrics to 67 dealers this weekend. 350 Focus Electric cars will be sent to dealers in California, New Jersey and New York over the next couple weeks.

Manufacturing executives are said to have “signed off on the decision on Friday.” The Tribune says Ford declined to comment on the news and the sources asked not to be named because the plans are confidential.
insideevs.com/chicago-tribune-ford-to-start-shipping-focus-electric-to-dealers-this-weekend/?preview=true&preview_id=1342&preview_nonce=171cf87ee1

Good link:
http://insideevs.com/chicago-tribune-ford-to-start-shipping-focus-electric-to-dealers-this-weekend/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[EVDrive]

This is a good looking car. They need a dc charging option though.

 

[kubel]

Ford is wise to limit production until combined-J1772 is standardized. I think they would rather have a limited number of 6.6kW charger equipped Focus's on the road than make the mistake that Nissan did and have 3.3kW charger equipped LEAFs and jump the gun with soon-to-be obsolete CHAdeMO. I hope my next EV is a 2015 FFE.

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

I think not having CHAdeMO is going to be a huge mistake, even if the standard is changed down the line. I mean what's worse, having a quick charge port that you can use now that might be obsolete later or having none at all? The west coast, where EV's are selling the best is opening up new CHAdeMO chargers every day. OR and WA state are currently completing their stretch of the border to border west coast green highway http://www.westcoastgreenhighway.com/ all with CHAdeMO (an L2 J1772 EVSE is also being included with each QC station). By the end of the month we should be able to drive from Seattle to Portland OR or Vancouver BC or all the way out to Leavenworth WA with very short charge times, dramatically opening up the possibilities for EV's. If you ask me the SAE missed the boat on creating a standard early enough for initial adoption on purpose as they are averse to change and simply want to slow the adoption of EV's... they had years of warning to get it together before now and they failed to act!

I've used a quick charger several times now and I can tell you it's a vast improvement over public L2. In fact, I'm gradually starting to think that a vast public L2 network is an utter waste of time and resources and parking spaces beyond one's own garage, work and a few other very well thought out public places where people are likely to be parked for an appreciable amount of time. I predict that the majority of the hundreds of L2 chargers in place in the Seattle Metro Area will go from being used very little to virtually not at all once quick charging is readily available... at least until there are hundreds of thousands of EV's on the road. People will continue to do what they do now, which is rely mostly on their home garage for charging at night and on occasion, go for a QC when longer distance driving is needed or something unplanned arises.

We need Quick Chargers NOW and CHAdeMO works great and it's here now!! Very soon, any manufacturer that doesn't have a CHAdeMO port on their EV is going to have a hard time selling it on the west coast, where the bulk of the market is currently. I drove 160 miles yesterday in the Leaf in just a few short hours all because of 1 fast charger within driving distance to me. If all the EV manufacturers were being smart they would make the port plug style easy to swap out, go with CHAdeMO for now and leave it up to the customer to have it swapped out later if the need arises. Producing a car with no Quick Charging port capacity will leave buyers of that car left out in the cold in the very near future, no matter what standard wins out. I personally like having two ports, the connections for the CHAdeMO stays nice and clean and provides redundancy, if for some reason one plug goes tits up, I've got the other.

Ford is wise to limit production until combined-J1772 is standardized. I think they would rather have a limited number of 6.6kW charger equipped Focus's on the road than make the mistake that Nissan did and have 3.3kW charger equipped LEAFs and jump the gun with soon-to-be obsolete CHAdeMO. I hope my next EV is a 2015 FFE.

 

[timhebb]

Just to communicate a different point of view: I've had my Leaf over a year now, living near downtown Los Angeles where I'm surrounded by dozens of public L2 charging locations. They are my primary charging resource. I don't even have an L2 installed at home - if I need to charge at home, trickle charging works fine for me. For me, L2 charging IS quick charging.

The imminent 6.6kW vehicle charging standard will dramatically narrow the gap between the L2 and L3 charging experiences. And, when the cost differential is factored in, L3 becomes far less attractive as an option. Finally, the "format war" between CHAdeMo and SAE is inevitably going to continue to muddy the waters and, in the short term at least, discourage L3 deployment.

IMHO, adoption of EV's would be greatly accelerated if EV drivers and potential drivers could get over an unrealistic insistence on ubiquitous L3 charging, and accept the very useable parameters of 6.6kW L2 charging. A little more flexibility will get us all much farther down the road toward the end of the ICE age.

 

[Herm]

Ford can always implement the full J1772 spec, 70A @ 240V.. so can Nissan.

 

[smkettner]

Ford can always implement the full J1772 spec, 70A @ 240V.. so can Nissan.

And put the range of the charger up to 480v even 600v and QC is nearly obsolete.

 

[DANandNAN]

Ford can always implement the full J1772 spec, 70A @ 240V.. so can Nissan.

When you say so can Nissan, you mean in a future car, correct? Just wanted to clarify.

L2 is going to need a new name if it's going to be this fast. Hmm, we were waiting for the 6.6, then Toyota's (Tesla's) Rav4 came out with the 10, maybe we should wait a bit longer and see who tops that :lol:

 

[AndyH]

Ford can always implement the full J1772 spec, 70A @ 240V.. so can Nissan.

When you say so can Nissan, you mean in a future car, correct? Just wanted to clarify.

L2 is going to need a new name if it's going to be this fast. Hmm, we were waiting for the 6.6, then Toyota's (Tesla's) Rav4 came out with the 10, maybe we should wait a bit longer and see who tops that :lol:

No, Herm's right - we have the J1772 spec here on the forum (and I have a paper copy in front of me) and it's good to 80 A.

Hybrids don't need the higher charge rate but real electric cars can benefit from it.

 

[DANandNAN]

Hybrids don't need the higher charge rate but real electric cars can benefit from it.

What do you consider a real electric car? The ER Tesla?

 

[mitch672]

L2 is going to need a new name if it's going to be this fast. Hmm, we were waiting for the 6.6, then Toyota's (Tesla's) Rav4 came out with the 10, maybe we should wait a bit longer and see who tops that :lol:

The Tesla Model S (240 & 320 mile versions) have an option for a 2nd 10KW onboard charger, and they have J-1772 adapters availble, thats 20KW max, about 100A @ 240V, not sure if the AC input could possibly use 2 seperate J-1772 EVSE's at once or not, it's possible it will be limited to the special Tesla only HPC EVSE.

 

[AndyH]

Hybrids don't need the higher charge rate but real electric cars can benefit from it.

What do you consider a real electric car? The ER Tesla?

It's not my definition that matters. The various standards organizations and industries involved have agreed upon the definitions. Consider the Department of Energy for one example:

EVs use a battery to store the electric energy that powers the motor. EV batteries are charged by plugging the vehicle into an electric power source. EVs are sometimes referred to as battery electric vehicles (BEVs).

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/electric.html

It's unfortunate that some individuals and groups have taken it upon themselves to attempt to redefine hard fought definitions to suit their own purposes. Thankfully Ford does not appear to be one of those groups.

 

[Herm]

Using the word "real electric car" (is that an officially defined term?) implies hybrids are "fake electric cars".. they are all variations of electric cars, propelled by an electric motor. Its like debating religion or AGW, both useless :0 .. but ok if done just for the sake of jawboning over a cold beer.

 

[AndyH]

Using the word "real electric car" (is that an officially defined term?) implies hybrids are "fake electric cars"..

One can choose to see it that way if they wish. I don't agree since we're talking about definitions - and BEVs are not HEVs or PHEVs by definition. I'm not concerned about trying to side-step a connection (or implication) that isn't there.

they are all variations of electric cars, propelled by an electric motor.

Read the entire definition again - there's more to a BEV than the electric motor.

Its like debating religion or AGW, both useless :0 .. but ok if done just for the sake of jawboning over a cold beer.

In the 'real world' we don't get into alcohol-induced debates about the amount of vitamin C in apple-oranges - because even a 6 year old understands that these are two separate and distinct objects with different characteristics. That's also why it doesn't help to try to combine things that are scientifically definable and /or provable with things that are/can not be. There's no 'real' debate there, either. Depends on blood alcohol level though, I guess...

 

[Herm]

the alcohol comes into play to just even start debating the merits of different belief systems..

 

[DANandNAN]

So the only way you'd consider a car a real electric car is if it has no on-board generator or alternative fuel source?

 

[Smidge204]

So the only way you'd consider a car a real electric car is if it has no on-board generator or alternative fuel source?

By definition, if it's got more than one energy source, it's a hybrid. So if you want to say a "real" electric vehicle is a battery, controller and motor... yes, anything that has more than one energy source would not be a "real" electric car.

I'm fine with "Extended range electric vehicle" though, even if it's pure marketing.
=Smidge=

 

[garsh]

By definition, if it's got more than one energy source, it's a hybrid.

Going a little more off-topic... most "hybrids" only have a single energy source - gasoline. That's always bugged me.