Price Point

[oilwillbegone]

Just purchased a 2014 FFE. Such a great deal, I couldn't pass it up. I have been looking at the car since 2012. It was the $6000.00 rebate from Ford that propelled me to make the purchase. So far, I am extremely happy with the car. What bothers me is the low sales numbers. A lot of great engineering has gone into this car and as I read on this forum Ford is paying attention to a lot of the constructive input. A lot of people have labeled this car "a compliance automobile". I find this very disturbing, considering what a great car this really is. In my opinion, the Nissan Leaf is its main competition. It is also my opinion that the FFE beats the Leaf hands down in almost every category. It is also my opinion that the biggest reason for the low sales numbers is PRICING! I do understand Ford has lowered the price since the car was introduced, however I believe in order to get these cars out so people can see them they need to be more competitive in pricing with regard to the Leaf. After all, using myself as an example I sat on the bench for two years until I felt the price was competitive.

 

[michael]

I don't understand why "complicance car" has such a bad implication. California is really great in this regard.

I live in LA. Last weekend I went to Baltimore for five days. I recall seeing one Prius, one Energi, and zero electric cars.

When I got back to LAX and walked through the parking structure, within 100 yards I saw two Prius, two Volts, and an FFE. All the states should get on board with California and the other "compliance" states. Everybody would be better off.

 

[jmueller065]

So you want Ford to sell thousands and you want them to lower the price in order to do so. Well there is a reason they cost so much: The battery. If it wasn't for the battery the car would cost as much as (or even less than) an ICE Focus. Its the reason a Tesla costs as much as it does--which is why Tesla is building the "Giga Factory"--to lower the cost per kWh of the battery.

At the prices the FFE is currently going for I doubt Ford is making any money on them at all--most likely losing a few hundred or thousand $$ per each shipped out the door. Until battery quantities of scale bring battery prices down all BEVs (and PHEVs) will be expensive.

The pressure to lower battery costs is already happening: We're seeing this in the price reductions of the more popular BEVs/PHEV (The FFE's price drop over the years, the Volt's price drop over the years, etc.)

 

[hybridbear]

I don't understand why "complicance car" has such a bad implication. California is really great in this regard.

I live in LA. Last weekend I went to Baltimore for five days. I recall seeing one Prius, one Energi, and zero electric cars.

When I got back to LAX and walked through the parking structure, within 100 yards I saw two Prius, two Volts, and an FFE. All the states should get on board with California and the other "compliance" states. Everybody would be better off.

I agree! If all 50 states had the same requirements as California you would see even more action by the automakers to promote BEVs and design better BEVs.

 

[michael]

To me, compliance car = a perfectly good electric car that the manufacturer would otherwise have not made. Good! The more compliance cars the better.

 

[Abelgoddard]

Totally agree. Compliance car is good. Even though it basically means ford is only making as many as they have to, at least they're bring made, and once the demand from consumers is enough they will see the profitability and thus expand. Demand will certainly grow, with supply to follow.

 

[michael]

I'm not aware that Ford has limited the number of FFE's they sell, nor do they limit the places where you can get one.

Honda and Toyota, on the other hand, have strictly limited the number of cars they have made and will sell, and they have limited their sale to compliance states. Look at the Honda Fit electric and the RAV 4 EV. Both exactly met their quotas, and both are now out of production.

I agree the FFE is a compliance car to the extent it would probably never have been made had the laws not required it, but as best I know, there isn't a limit as to how many they will build and sell, just like Volt or Leaf.

 

[EVA]

I'll agree compliance car doesn't mean bad car. It is what drove manufacturers to build these cars. Well, in reality, Tesla had more to do with forcing their hand in the rest of the country than that law.

I'm going to rant right now. California enacted a horrible law. The problem we have with BEVs are heating them when the weather is cold. Because California was such a genius and passed a law that said the cars could have zero emissions, there was one solution, batteries. Use batteries to heat the cars. There is a monumentally simple solution to heating cars - everybody with a Beatle in a cold climate used them. A fuel fed heater. It would be so simple to add a propane fueled heater that would solve the whole reduced range problem in cold weather.

But no, that solution isn't possible because California enacted a law that said zero emissions. Nobody can consider creative solutions because their hands are tied by that law.

Good job California. No not every state should enact that law.

Andy Rooney has left the building.

 

[jmueller065]

Are you aware that Ford has been testing (along with MIT) a heating system that is "rechargeable" (they call it a "thermal battery"):
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/513466/novel-heating-system-could-improve-electric-cars-range/

They even plan on testing it with the FFE! Granted the article above is almost 18 months old now..I wonder how its has progressed since then.

 

[ElSupreme]

I don't define compliance cars as liberally as some of you. I think there is a fundamental difference between what Ford is doing and what a true compliance car is.

Ford gets absolutely no credit for FFEs sold outside of CARB states (CA, and I think OR now). They have absolutely ZERO financial incentive (other than a vehicle sale) to sell outside those states. Many maunfacturers like Honda (FIT), GM (Spark EV), Fiat/Chrysler (Fiat 500e), and Toyota (Rav4EV) only sell vehicles in CARB states. They cap their sales numbers to just meet CARB requirements, and many of them have stated losing money (if you don't count the CARB penalty savings) on each vehicle they sell. These are compliance cars.

Vehicles that are created because of CARB that are sold widely (geographically) might include the Model S and LEAF. Nissan and Tesla get financial benefits from CARB, and the push, and idea for more electric vehicles may have come from CARB.


That being said I think Ford is being smart. They are not publicizing the FFE on purpose! They don't want tens of thousands of EVs on the road (like Nissan has). They want only highly knowledgeble and dedicated EV people beta testing a vehicle. They are limiting their long term liability and learning about how EVs work in the real world. Tesla did this with the Roadster. Nissan is doing it with the LEAF (but betting big that they won't have huge recall/replacements) of parts. Which based on their battery problems they almost fell into.

With ~3 years under the FFEs belt Ford can start development of a 2nd Gen EV with all the FFE learnings. While not ponying up a huge potential liability like Nissan has. Honestly everyone is scrambling to get a 2nd generation EV out (other than Tesla, who is having 1st gen mass production car problems). Nissan will probably be first (but I think their ambient battery strategy will be a huge setback) but Ford will be in a good position to be 2nd. And after the kinks are worked out, and a DC charge standard is a little bit more settled. Ford will put together a eGolf looking FFE and probably a Fusion and be looking pretty good to square off versus the Tesla Model 3.

 

[EVA]

Jmueller - as always an excellent article. No I had no idea that was being worked on. That seems like a fantastic idea.

I think it dovetails nicely with what ElSupreme is saying about Ford - get the experiment run with a manageable number of cars, and find the technology they need. It seems obvious there is a market for the cars now. That wasn't so obvious three years ago. Maybe Ford can invest in a purpose built EV and it will pay off.

 

[unplugged]

California enacted a horrible law.

EVA, without California enacting CARB, we would have one, possibly two selections for EVs today: Tesla and Nissan.

The remainder of the EVs on the market today are sold solely or primarily because of California's ZEV mandate. So, really, the California law is not that "horrible."

And, of course, by allowing no emissions, the law provides an incentive for automakers to invent alternative means to heat a car other than the use of fossil fuels.

 

[shirleymartinez]

The time has really changed a lot and its not same as it used to be three years back as California law has really provided an incentive for automakers to invent alternative means to heat a car.