Ford Not Interested In Competing With Bolt Or Model 3 – Won’t Offer A 200-Mile Electric Car


Ford Focus Electric

Ford Focus Electric

Report: Ford Has No Interest In Making A 200-mile Electric Car

Report: Ford Has No Interest In Making A 200-mile Electric Car

Kevin Layden, Ford’s director of electrification programs and engineering, stated that when the 2017 Ford Focus comes out this Fall with its 100 miles of range, that vehicle will meet the needs of most commuters, so there’s no reason for Ford to produce a 200-mile electric car.

As Layden stated:

“I think right now with the launch of the Focus Electric at 100 miles, it is going to satisfy a big chunk of the population. It’s going to be really affordable and a step up from where we are now.”

The original Ford Focus EV had only 76 miles of range, so a bump to 100 is an improvement, but only slightly.   The 100 mile range also lags the 107 miles available today in the last model year of the first generation Nissan LEAF – the Ford’s closest competitor.

We’d also like to note that today’s Focus Electric is one of the oldest, and most commercially unsuccessful national EV offerings in the US.  Today’s model has sold between 53 and 198 units per month in 45 of the past 46 months.  With just one of those months edging past the 200 level ever (historical monthly sales available on our sales scorecard).

With that in mind, could Ford really just be lying in the weeds, trying to promote the “car they have today” over the car they are working to bring to market? (ala Nissan’s scant LEAF 2.0 details)   Given the all-electric Ford’s dismal sales history, one would think the company has few (if any) future sales to protect; maybe it has more to do with saving image then?

Quoting Automotive News:

“Speaking on the sidelines of the SAE World Congress last week here, Layden said keeping the car’s range at 100 miles will help rein in weight and cost. The lower range enables the use of a smaller, lighter and less expensive battery pack, Layden said.”

If Ford insists on not making a 200-mile electric car (or at least in a timely fashion), then General Motors with the Chevrolet Bolt, Tesla with the Model 3 and Nissan with it’s not-yet-announced long-range LEAF, will have control of the long-range, affordable electric segment. Regardless, it looks like Ford is willing to sit this one out, which is a poor choice for sure.

There was talk one year ago of Ford developing a 200-mile electric car, but apparently that was just a rumor.

Source: Automotive News

Categories: Ford

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

118 Comments on "Ford Not Interested In Competing With Bolt Or Model 3 – Won’t Offer A 200-Mile Electric Car"

newest oldest most voted

The FFE was always an also-ran. The loss of 2/3rds of its storage space shows the lack of commitment to EVs that Ford has.

Yea ,If it works Don’t FIX IT* leave the same old same old ..Noise, Pollution etc: They’re making Big Profits on those big G00fY Looking SUV trucks , So all is Good ! Gas is Cheap ! so pollute ! I’D BET THEIR GAME PLAN WOULD CHANGE IF PEOPLE STOPPED BUYING THOSE GAS GUZZLING RELICS….Butt….They are so MACH0….

Take a deep breath …. Oh, I Forgot, you cannot because people around you drive ICE propelled cars. Bad people, eh?

Rear seat headroom was also very tight.

Yes and No. I thought this post would bring out the usual cast of Focus EV haters. It seems to be the favorite punching bag of this site. a couple of points none of you seem to care about or want to acknowledge. 1. I have a Ford Focus EV and Love, Love, Love it.. 2. In that sector it is the best looking EV available along with the VW Golf EV 3. It doesn’t cry our weird mobile – “look at me I drive electric” – I happen to like that. 4. The cargo area is not an issue. The seat folds flat and the cargo area is more useful and durable that the Nissan Leaf. I carry around a full set of drums and use it as my gig car. 5. It handles better than any other car in the segment – flat around the corners, awesome pick-up on the freeway. Entertaining to drive – much more so than the LEAF 5. For many people 75 mile range isn’t an issue – like me. 6. There is less battery degradation than the LEAF because of internal battery cooling so the range after a couple of years is actually… Read more »

Guess it comes down to Ford’s definition of “really affordable”?! Even with 200+ mile range EVs, there is probably a market for 100 mile range cars IF the price is low enough…

“Smaller, Lighter Battery” seems to me that they want their trunk space back!
Maybe they will be able to MSRP it at $24,995, making it just $17,495 net Federal Tax Credit?

After all, half the miles, half the price – to paraphrase Ford from the line they gave in “Who Killed The Electric Car?” How was it now?

Something like:
“it does less, so people should pay less!”

A perfect new slogan for them!

The fact that used LEAFs for under $10k haven’t been selling strongly would seem to indicate there is not a large market for sub 100 mile range EVs at any price. That may just be because of lack of education, but it is what it is. MAYBE 100 mile range at $10k rather than 60ish mile range at $10k might bring in more buyers… but there’s no way Ford’s new EV will be that cheap anyway.


Well in fact a 100 mile range would already fulfil my needs… So there is no need for me to pay for more. Range anxiety is no concern for me (I fear nothing… )

However I guess that ford would be wise to cover more than this small market…

It’s not that Ford isn’t interested in building it, they don’t have the resources/contracts with suppliers to be able to build it. The company is most likely going to play it safe and just make hybrids options of their models to pass CAFE like Toyota has done.

But they need a ZEV for CA, so either they sell enough compliance FFEs or they will have to buy credits from their competitors.

You just answered yourself. That’s why Ford has the Focus Electric.

But people might buy the obsolete FFE.

I meant “But NOT MANY people may buy the obsolete FFE.”

There currently is a flood of ZEV credits in the market. EV’s have sold much better in California than the ZEV credit plan projected. Mostly because of Tesla, who doesn’t need any ZEV credits, yet has been creating them at a decent pace.

And Ford has been actively lobbying CARB to keep the ZEV credit requirements where they are. As long as they keep winning that fight, they will be able to buy really cheap ZEV credits.

Until that changes, they won’t do anything they aren’t forced to. And if EV sales drop, they will just use that as an excuse to say that people don’t want EV’s, so CARB should get rid of the mandate.

The ZEV mandate starts to look like a hockey stick in 2018. The percentage through 2014 was 0.79%. In 2018 it’s 2%, 2019 is 4%, 2020 is 6% etc. until it’s 16% in 2025. Ford is going to have to step it up or buy credits eventually. Maybe Tesla will be making so many cars that the credits will remain cheap enough for them not to bother.

Tesla’s Model 3 sales starting around the same time will be like taking a hockey stick to the prices of ZEV credits.

Tesla is going to start sales in California, and is going to take a baseball bat to the planned ZEV numbers.

Besides, the biggest increase in ZEV vehicle sales won’t be from the existing companies increasing sales, it will be from the smaller companies who haven’t had to meet the same ZEV requirements as the big companies, finally having to start pulling their own weight.

Meanwhile, Ford will just take advantage of the low ZEV price.

They don’t build batteries.
They use suppliers like LG Chem.
All they need to do to upgrade this battery is pick up the phone and ask for the latest battery.

…and then get told by LG that they sign contracts for delivery in large quantities a minimum of two years in advance.

Of course, Ford may be at least that far away from being able to put a 200+ mile BEV into production, so that may not be a constraint.

Damages control…

More like, the controls at Ford are damaged. 😉

Ihave an existentialist question here… how many horse carriage companies did adapt and embrace the horseless carriage when it arrived?

My guess is none… they just waited and did not try until it was too late. Change is coming from new comers, Tesla, BYD, Apple, FF etc.

Studebaker was originally a carriage maker, and was a well-known automobile manufacturer until it went out of business in the 1960s.

Of course, a single exception doesn’t refute the existence of a general rule.

“Big chunk of the market” == enough ZEV credits for us in the near term.

It seems quite clear that Ford is simply trying to find the cheapest way to meet CAFE requirements and otherwise keep doing business as usual. That seems to me – and I am an EV advocate – like a perfectly sensible business decision. Given the current regulatory environment and size of the EV market, doing just the minimum may well be the most profitable course of action. It only hurts their brand among people like us who read insideEVs, and I don’t believe it will give Ford any significant disadvantage in terms of technology. EV drivetrains are after all very simple, and Ford has most of the resources it needs to make a competitive EV when market conditions make that profitable. The expertise they don’t have can be bought straightforwardly enough. The new Focus is pathetic, but it only shows how undemanding the regulations actually are. I keep reading about the “tough” regulatory environment. It is of course tough compared to the previous regime of “anything goes”. But given what presidents and prime ministers around the world SAY about how much they will reduce their emissions and improve their energy efficiency, it really is odd that regulations don’t require manufacturers… Read more »


scott franco (the evil EV owning republican)

MOre regulation isn’t going to accomplish a thing. Having %25 of new cars go electric and watching your sales drop will.

That makes Ford very useful. When Ford goes EV (for real), that indicates the market has really turned.


Global Emissions Regulations are the only reason WHY you even have compliance EVs…

Smart Regulation isn’t a bad thing. It clearly works. A Carbon Tax, would be amazingly motivational for the automotive industry…

Sure, but just like the 1965 Ford Mustang made the big 3 sit up and take notice with sales exceeding 500,000 in the first year, so too will the Tesla model 3, if they can manufacture the car well enough, fast enough.

Regulations mean nothing in America when you can build something the public actually wants. That’s kind of what’s holding them back from building a car like this – their vision of “what the public wants” is all wrong.

Not to disagree with your overall point, but there’s no way that Tesla is going to make 500k Model ≡’s in the first year of production, or the second. If they manage to do it in the 3rd year, I’ll be more than a bit surprised.

Trying to be incendiary, again? Not to argue for, or against, Georgia’s EV rebate, but we saw what that regulation did to sales.

Ford’s plan for Federal CAFE requirements is to wait and see if one political party who has openly campaigned on eliminating the entire Department that regulates CAFE, actually gains full control of the federal gov’t.

If they eliminate that department for them, Ford doesn’t have to do anything to meet CAFE. There won’t be anybody left to enforce it anymore.

Will it have DCFC?

It’s suppose to, but it’s Ford, so who knows if it really will. Especially if they are trying to keep cost down even more. I was hoping they would come out with more range than they had initially stated back in December of the “more than 100 miles”, but it seems they are now just pegging it at exactly 100 miles. I’ll now have to reconsider my future EV purchase since I was going to just get the “long” range 2017 FFE ?. Ford, you’re killing me.

It’s all in the timing– that guy’s trying to sell the 100-mile car he has NOW. In an interview a couple of weeks ago Ford CEO Mark Fields made it clear that they ARE developing a 200+-mile car as part of the $4.5 billion (not including R&D) commitment they recently made to electrification. The best guess is that it will be available late 2018.

No, what he said was, “We’re investing another $4.5 billion, so by the end of the decade, 40% of our nameplates around the world will be electrified.”

Given how much it costs them to develop vehicles, that’s mostly going to be PHEVs. No indication at all that they will develop a Bolt competitor, much less a Model 3 competitor in that time period. They are going to review in mid-2017.

If they are coming out with a Model 3 competitor with significant production numbers, we should start hearing about the supply chain effects about 2 years ahead of time.

To follow up, two years ahead of time is enough to use existing capacity, but not to build out a lot of new capacity.

They consider conventional hybrids ‘electrified’.

Well Mark, that revelation shoots holes in your anti-Tesla theory that there will be multiple Model 3 competitors that will drain Tesla of sales.

The fact of the matter is Ford is going to drag its feet for as long as it can on electrification.

They are so invested in ICE car and truck sales that they don’t want electrification even worse then most of the laggard OEMs.

The Model 3 is going to eat the lunch of Fusion Energi and whatever else weak-ass ford products they scrape together.

+1 Their halo is the GT40, a total throwback.

That’s as old as this website’s servers.

Ouch, feel that burn Jay 😉

Hehe, its ok we had it coming, (=

Heading into week 3 of the server upgrade that probably should have taken 5-6 days.

/getting there

Ford is not a company that leads, they are followers. Once there’s a beaten path they will follow. They have no vision or imagination. Give Ford another seven or eight years and they will put together a compelling electric vehicle.

scott franco (the evil EV owning republican)

They showed vision with the aluminum F-150. If they electrified that same F-150 they could change the pickup market completely overnight.

If you call building yet another pick-up truck

Yeah, it’s like those cartoons when the guys eyes turn into $ signs. It’s their bread and butter.

As opposed to building yet another, oh, say four-door compact sedan? Market rules!

(P.S. I’ve never owned nor expect to own a pick-up.)

Franco — I hate to burst your self-identifying Republican fantasy bubble, but Ford’s aluminum F-150, with it’s turbo engine is the product of gubbermint socializm.

Those commies at Ford used their DOE loan to develop both of those technologies, and to retool their factories to build those fuel saving technologies.

Their loan was a full order of magnitude larger than Tesla’s loan, and they’ve gone years longer than Tesla not paying back their socialist handout.

And your self-identified party has repeatedly campaigned on completely eliminating the gov’t agency who provided that loan.

If the irony weren’t so sad it would be funny. And if it weren’t so funny, it would be sad.

Keep in mind the 4 primary reasons the Focus EV never sold well:
1) Poor range (76 miles)
2) no fast charging
3) lack of cargo area
4) high price

So the new Focus EV will address at least 2 of these 4 problems, range and fast charging. Maybe even price, as it sounds like they are going to get competitive with that.

Not to say this vehicle is going to be any huge seller. But I could see it maybe getting 300-400 sales per month if the price is right.

More sales is always better than less, so I hope you are right David. I could see them potentially hitting 300-400 or so in November or December (filling any built-up demand, coupled with year end tax season) but I’d think any resurgence would be just for those 1 or 2 months, before “returning to the norm” of 100-and something sold levels With the 107 mile LEAF already available, and the 110 mile Hyundai IONIQ actually arriving ahead of the 2017/100 mile Focus, it is hard to arrive at a much higher sustained level than what they have today going forward. Of note: since the 107 mile LEAF hit the market in December, Ford has only sold 353 Focus EVs, which is ~88/month, down from the earlier 2015 average of ~134…so they are fighting from an even “lower low” Then heading into 2017 we have NAIAS in January, and Geneva/NY in March/April, which is when the “responses” to the Bolt/Model 3 are unveiled from the OEMs who are currently making plug-ins (and didn’t want to bastardize sales during the ~24 months prior) – such as the next gen LEAF. In other words, the downward pressure on the ‘updated’ Focus EV will… Read more »

Those 4 points apply when you compare to other available EV. Today, they would apply against the likes of 30 kWh Leaf, and Ford is “ok” for compliance. When most EV are about 80 miles, 76 miles isn’t so bad. When 30 kWh Leaf is 110 miles, 100’ish miles isn’t so bad for compliance.

But later in 2016, they will apply against Bolt, and Ford falls way short. Who’s going to buy an EV with half the range for roughly the same money (going by today’s price)? I suspect they won’t sell nearly enough to meet compliance.

Ford will either come up with 200’ish miles range EV, drastically lower the price and take huge losses (like Fiat), or they will be forced to buy credits from Tesla, GM, etc. Or maybe they’ll pull the old GM and force CARB, etc. to nullify compliance laws.

What the automotive industry is slowly starting to tell us is that they see no way they can produce a 200 mile EV at the price point given by Tesla and make a profit. I would bet my house that Musk has no clue as well but that by 2019 somehow they will find a way and that what matters is that now Tesla is in a fantastic position to raise the billions of fresh cash on the markets which will be needed to bring to production the new M3.

I am not criticizing here, just being realist, someone has to do the job to promote EV’s. What EM does now is fast forwarding the car electrification process which ultimately is the only thing that matters (La fin justifie les moyens).

This means that I am convinced as well that the Bolt will be sold at no profit.

Tesla is a vastly different company than the traditional car companies. They can benefit from the lack of dozens of factories that may or may not be a liability, thousands of retired employees that are a burden on the finances, and a product line that requires much more R&D, tooling, and manufacturing space.

If I hadto compare Tesla and GM, I would put it like this:

Design & marketing: 9.5/10
Execution: 5/10
Cost control: 4/10

Design & Marketing (EVs): 6/10
Execution: 7/10
Cost control: 8/10

In a few years Tesla will be as good in execution as the others, learning curve…

I’m not sure if you’re right, but I’ve had the feeling that GM’s decisions are more informed by the accountants – for better or worst. (As an engineer, it’s hard to say, “for better”, but I know it can be true. Ya’ gotta pay the bills at the end of the day.)

Barra is in Barron’s, last weekend, shooting for 10% margin on all sales. That’s not much room. They probably do 20+% on a Tahoe, but I agree Bolt materials and other input costs are a tough proposition. Incidentally, $35,000 was the average selling price for a GM product (US-I think).

The point I keep in mind is that “breakeven” probably isn’t the fixation, that the margin target is to these guys. “What does the Bolt do for Mary’s 10% goal?”, or “What was the margin I gave up, on that loaded Sonic, that became a Bolt customer?” are more like it. Then, Bolt production/sales numbers are also so low, that the damage doesn’t weight itself into earnings too badly.

Beyond breakeven, I think the whole OEM EV adoption thing comes down to when gaining/preserving market share trumps what will still be a smaller profit margin, relative to ICE. Internal answers to this question sets the stage for when pulling EV sales becomes pushing, for each maker.

I think you should break out Design and Marketing into two separate groups.

The Volt is one of the best engineered cars on the road, so I have a problem rating it a 6 in design. However, the marketing deserves about a 3.

I fully agree.

PVH said:

“If I hadto compare Tesla and GM, I would put it like this:”

You left out:

Forward looking
Tesla 9.5/10
GM 2/10

That’s why GM keeps needing to get bailed out every couple of decades or so.

I think it’s tough to rate GM a 2/10 on “forward-looking.” If they are a 2, what is Ford… a 1? What about Honda and Toyota? What about Mazda and Subaru? What about FCA?

I don’t see how one can seriously argue that GM is worse than second-place (to Tesla) in forward-looking automakers outside of China. Nissan has stalled out on the Leaf, Ford is content standing still (see above), BMW is too niche, and Mitsubishi makes the Model X timeline look hurried. No one else is even worth discussing.

Hmmm, I thought that Ford didn’t take any bailout money from Uncle Sugar in 2009, as GM did… but Mr. Google tells me I’m wrong, despite what has been widely reported.

Okay, perhaps GM deserves better than 2/10 in forward thinking. But I think not that much better.

+1. I too am of a similar opinion. Only time will tell, and I would love to be wrong ?

I don’t see that at all. An ICE Ford Focus cost around $20k MSRP. Add a $10k battery ($166/kWh pack level) and you are well below the $35k price point. Except for the battery an EV drive train is cheaper than an ICE drive train but let’s say it cancels out.

That is $166/kWh for a 60 kWh battery package, which should be possible but even at $200/kWh you are still just under the price target.

You might be right but in my professional life I often had the situation when a CEO from a foreign subsidiary came to us with a business project saying that, according to his calculations, he had a very profitable business to suggest. Then we would start with cost accounting (direct and indirect costs, variable and fixed cost) analysis and 8 times ou of 10 it was profitable just because he forgot to include half of the costs or was grossly underestimating them. Cost analysis is difficult and does not mix well with back of the napkin calculations.

I’m just saying it is possible, whether _Ford_ is able to pull it off is another matter. This is where the competition and innovation lies. Old companies too stuck in their ways to reinvent themselves will go under and new, dynamic companies (Tesla) will take over.
I don’t see why Ford wouldn’t be able to since they already have most of the needed resources to produce cars (i.e. the production lines) while Tesla need to set everything up from scratch. Ford should be able to outdo Tesla but it seems they are not willing or eager to.

Well they are more than just “back of the envelope” calculations. You can buy ICE cars for $20K . . . those prices include all the proper budgeting.

GM/LG announced a battery price down at $145/KWH. But let’s assume that is over optimistic and go with $200/KWH. If you go with a 60KWH battery, that is $12K.

So that is $32K for a $20K ICE + $12K battery for $32K. That’s below the $35K target. Yes, that assumes EV drivetrain without battery = ICE drivetrain. I don’t think that is way out of the ballpark.

So a $35K EV with 200 miles range is possible. I think Tesla will miss the target and raise the price a little. Or at the very least, they’ll build high-end versions loaded with $7K to $10K of options for a year before any stripped $35K version is sold (if ever).

It certainly won’t be easy but it is NOT impossible.

NPR had a nice story about the Gigafactory . . . the factory that might make it all possible.

Its certainly possible in the short future anyway (2-3 years ?) so Musk calculation is correct as one needs to anticipate new trends.

Speculawyer said:

“So that is $32K for a $20K ICE + $12K battery for $32K. That’s below the $35K target.”

The problem there is that your “$20k ICE” car’s cost is highly dependent on volume of sales. We’d expect a $20k gasmobile to sell in large numbers. With lower sales, unit cost goes up… possibly quite a bit.

GM bet on higher demand and higher sales for the Volt than it actually got, and wound up having to idle the Volt production line for a month or two every year, instead of the normal two-week period for switchover to the new model year. Based on that experience, one can argue that GM was prudent to be more conservative with production with the Bolt, and from that viewpoint it was a good idea to keep down tooling-up costs by farming the EV drivetrain out to LG Electronics.

(I’m not arguing that GM should have been that cautious with producing the Bolt; only that caution was prudent from a conservative business standpoint.)

You forgot some components. My calculation is different.

20k for a basic Ford.

+6k for a battery
+2k for a 100kW Inverter
+1k for a electric motor
+1k cables and conectors.
+2k for CCS Plug
-2,5k for the missing convetional ICE

=MRSP of 29,500$

Ford is likely at a high price per kWh since they buy little numbers. I would guess around 400-450$/kWh at pack level. Tesla are market leading regarding prices and reached 200$/kWh at pack level not so long ago. 166/kWh pack level for Ford is possible, but maybe in 2025. Not likely today.
At 400-450$/kWh it means the Ford you describe has maybe a 13-15kWh battery only. Add another 7kWh and you increase the price by 3k$.

This doesn’t seem like a good BEV to me…

Saw somewhere that building the manufacturing line only costs $150 million, even if you double it, the line cost are covered. I hope the the model 3 deposits cover the cost!

scott franco (the evil EV owning republican)

“This means that I am convinced as well that the Bolt will be sold at no profit.”

How many times did we hear from the negative press that the Leaf was being sold at a loss. Does anyone now believe that Nissan sold all those leafs at a loss?

No, but Nissan is selling a 30Kwh Leaf at $29K.

R&D expenses & tooling for the Leaf are yet amortized probably.

Not a very good yardstick I think.

It’s not being negative to note that a Nissan spokesman said, as the Leaf was going into production, that they planned to start making an overall profit on the model only in the third year of production.

And I rather doubt they went from red ink to black sooner by having to build two new battery factories, in Tennessee and the UK, to alleviate an unexpected production bottleneck with battery packs.

I don’t know whether or not the Leaf has made an overall profit, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that it hasn’t. If it has turned a profit, even after 5-1/2 years, I suspect it’s not much.

The reason legacy auto makers aren’t rushing to put compelling long-range plug-in EVs into high production isn’t that they’re evil, or that they have a political agenda to stop the EV revolution. Nor is it that they’re in collusion with Big Oil, despite what some conspiracy theorists post. It’s strictly business. It’s because legacy auto manufacturers make much less profit on long-range PEVs than they do on their best-selling gasmobiles.

That assumption is, to say the least, quiet naïve since there has been, is and will still be, up to the last day of oil, collusion to retard, by as much days as possible, the advent of global ev cars on the market. It is even a matter of hours since the cash involved is so huge. Not only cash but a hole set of political, military and ideologic influences by amongst others Saudi Arabia. The per hour flow of money is absolutely staggering. We are not talking 1000 $/h here but 40 million $/h for Saudi Arabia only (12000 $/second!). Any normally constituted being human or organization would do whatever possible to keep that going.

Imagine this Whoopi Goldberg scene repeated every 6 minutes:


secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

(source: Google)

* * * * *

Certainly there is an alignment of interests by both legacy auto makers and Big Oil to keep selling gasmobiles that burn petroleum distillates. That doesn’t make it “collusion”.

EV1 crushing.

NiMH battery allowed for all uses but cars.

The Panasonic process to make it stop providing Toyota with batteries for the Prius and RAV4 EV

The VW diesel cheating hiding real emissions.

The anti biofuel campaign by planting biofuel in Sahel on purpose.

Blocking the pure biofuel sale in Belgium.

The VW diesel cheating hiding real emissions.

These are a few examples that crossed the border line of collusion.

Sorry VW diesel should be only once, although we no wear Mitsubishi did the same trick to artificially prolong the fossil burning advantage.

If they make a 100mile car that always will go 160miles in head wind at cold weather at 70mph that costs the same as a similar gas powered car after incentives including 100kW fast charging it will sell like crazy.

It must be able to handle 400Wh/mile for 100miles. The batteries usually have a 5kWh buffer or something like that too meaning the battery size needs to be 45kWh!

… But Ford won’t do that.

100 miles of range is soo “yesterday”

If you live in the future?

I have a friend that knows Ford Electrified drivetrain and they do have something in the works but it at least two years out if they push it, so ford would never announce a 200 mile car or support it because it would kill the 100 mile focus completely classic Osbourne effect

So if Ford feels 100 miles is good enough for the EV. Does that mean they will install a fuel tank that has enough fuel to go 100 miles? There should be no double standard.

Why is the reporting always so favorable to Ford? Until they demonstrate they have the ability to compete the headline should be: “Ford unable to compete with Bolt or Model 3”.

It’s not unable. It’s unwilling. Big difference there. And hardly favorable reporting. It’s just being impartial and giving the facts. Nothing wrong with that in today’s reporting media ?

Ford Mustang, Chevy Corvette and Camero, Dodge Charger. These could all be released at low numbers with rediculous price tags, high range and they would all sell. 100 of each. Next year 200, next year…I get the fact that Ford wants to follow the herd and not enter an EV arms race that could bankrupt their company and alienate their customers. They will just sell less vehicles.

…and I am still waiting for Ike to act.

scott franco (the evil EV owning republican)

Quiet… listen carefully…….

Its the sound of nobody caring.

At least add the DC fast charger you jerks. You said that you would support SAE-CCS!

The new 2017 focus will have CCS fast charging look at the link below:

What did Ford do with the $5.9B loan?

“Eco-boost” . . . meh.

They just announced $4.3Billion or something like that for ‘electrification’.

I always thought a 100 miles was a pure and comfortable range. If that was in an i-MiEV at its cost, it would be given loads of praise.

I hope Ford would take this as a strategy that Mitsubishi does (throughout its range); Dominate the “low” range, low price matket.

I’d just think that we and the market would still be limited if we all had were 200 mile BEVs in the $30,000 range.

It ALL comes down to pricing. Cars are a consumer electronics product now. How many people have I seen with cheap android phones? Of course the iPhone is ubiquitous, but it doesn’t have a complete 100% market share. IF Ford can release it with a MSRP of $18,995, it will sell. MSRP of $18,995, Invoice of $18,115, then take off the Federal Tax Credit ($7,500), State Tax incentives (2-4k), and you are looking at a car out the door for 6-10k. That is a cheap android option that many will opt for. As a second car, limited commuter car, and a grocery getter, it could be ideal. That would put it almost in souped up golf cart range. I could see a ton of senior citizens with this car, IF Ford marketed it to them properly. It all has to come down to pricing. Price this at $27k, and it shows Ford ain’t serious one bit.

Ford’s new advertising slogan:

“It’s good enough.”

“ford . . . Good enough is job #1.”

Ford: “Clean Gasoline”

I hope the Ford PHEV owners know we still love ‘um.

I think one of the major hurdles on a 200 mile FFE is – Not enough room in the “trunk” (hatch) to stuff that many batteries. That’s the only place Ford has put batteries in any plug-in, and until produce a vehicle designed to be an EV, they can’t play in the 200 mile game.

Spark EV fills in nicely for a lot of our commute and local needs. Only when full family+dog goes out for weekender that we have to be careful — but that’s the point of the 200mi larger cars to do it all and NOT have ICE backup.

With a car that’s essentially free go drive for 3 years, I’m not complaining

“100 miles ought to be enough”

– Kevin Layden

“640k ought to be enough”

– Bill Gates

That’s just what I was gonna post! Congratulations for getting there first.

Yes, there are more people out there waiting for the first 1000km NEDC (420 miles EPA) BEV than you might think.

Come on, Ford. Tesla is going to spank you with the $35,000 Model 3. You have a solid product with the Focus. It’s got great steering, good handling, and it’s a hatchback, so it’s practical.

But 1/2 the car demands 1/2 the price. I would be willing to pay $17,500 ($10,000 after rebate!) for the Ford Focus Electric with 100 miles of range. Seems like a great deal. Of course that will never happen. And since that will never happen, Ford has no means to compete in 2017.

I don’t see why FORD doesn’t make more than one TOKEN vehicle (my appologies to FFE owners – you have to admit they don’t sell that well.. Yes I have an ELR, but you can at least find them in dealerships) that gets a $7500 tax credit.

Batteries are getting cheap enough that the added cost is nothing to the ev buyer since they’ll get it back on the $7500 credit if the battery is big enough.

I’d like the Ford Energi products which have been top sellers if they’d only put more than a 19 mile battery in them.

Around here it is too difficult to find public chargers at BOTH ENDS of a commute.

I don’t mind using gasoline on the occassional trip, but around town I’d like to be fully electric. Isn’t that the point of these cars to begin with?

Wow, how sad I feel for Ford right now.

I will not buy another ICE unless I absolutely forced to do so.

Model 3, here I come.

Wow… so much hate toward GM rather than Ford.

If GM had said the same thing, this page would have been filled for GM flaming comments. But when Ford said it, it is just “outdated and lame” follower…

Wow, truly amazing how many GM haters are there…

It’s not at all “amazing” or even surprising that there is a lot of hostility toward GM in the EV community, after it came out the GM was backing a State bill to block direct sales by Tesla in Indiana. If Ford had done the same, I imagine there would be a lot of negative comments directed at Ford.

If you thought that was gonna fade away quickly, MMF… think again. Some of us have long memories!

Did you forget that Ford was on the Michigan Bill as well?

Sure, GM took it directly because GM feels that Tesla is a true threat and take it pretty seriously.

If GM could, GM would ban Toyota too…

Think of it as a way to show that GM validated Tesla’s influence.

They did not provide the complete info.

What about the Price.
Will it be @ same 30K.

What about the interior space.
Will it increase (using smaller battery) or decrease (similar battery taking more space).

Will it be sold in all 50 states and all countries.

Hope they will come up with this info soon.

I don’t think they can increase the price since more customers will flock to Leaf as it has 10 cu. ft. more space or even the Bolt.

Ford needs to focus on building a longer range EV.

Sergio said it: They can build EV’s but they don’t want to.

In Ford’s Fields’ case, they want to really build some 17-19 mile cars, and that is about it.

Historically though, ford has always been technically the most backward.

1). Last to drop mechanical brakes.
2). Last American company to drop the 6 volt battery (1956),
3). Last company to use an alternator to charge the battery – 1966 Ford, 1960 Chrysler, 1963 GM.

Of course, Henry Ford II DID, to his credit (in 1955) come out with a “Safe FOrd Option” for a few hundred dollars: Padded dashboard, seat belts, etc.

Then the CEO of GM said he would “RUIN” him if he didn’t take that option off the market.

Of course, that was during the days of the Big-Bad GM.

Nowadays GM is no where near as powerful, and all the people running the show are different.

If Chevy sells Bolt in 1,000s every month, will Ford reconsider its decision and start making an EV with a 200 mile range.

Next year will see lot of EVs, Plugins selling in much higher #.

I doubt 12,000 sales/year will convince Ford of anything.

We don’t need your stupid fast, efficient EV’s. We are the mighty maker of the Mustang! Long live the Supercharger and the Super lobbying Super Pack!

Ford will sell only as many lame 100 mile Focus Electrics (and Fusion Energis) as it takes to keep CAFE numbers at minimum requirements while they continue to sell gobs of F-150s and SUVs.

Maybe they aren’t going to build a longer range EV because the dealers don’t want to sell them.

Technically, the FFE is available everywhere. I can get one at the Ford dealership 40 miles from my house. They are an authorized EV dealer where my local dealer didn’t bother to get certified to sell electric. Trouble is, that 40 miles away dealer will only special order your Focus, they will not stock one, so ne test drive. I can’t find an FFE within 150 miles of where I live. The FFE won’t even make it home from the nearest dealer that might have one in stock…. Not much charging infrastructure nearby either 🙁

FFE = 3 year bridge to the model 3.

Current FFE leasee. 2013. 46k miles.