Green Car Congress  
Go to GCC Discussions forum About GCC Contact  RSS Subscribe Twitter headlines

« EIA: US monthly crude oil production reaches highest level since 1998 | Main | MIT study concludes fugitive methane from shale gas production much less than previously suggested »

Print this post

Ford sold 1,259 C-MAX Energi plug-in hybrids, 179 Focus Electrics in November

4 December 2012

Ford reported selling 1,259 units of the C-MACX Energi plug-in hybrid in November, with cumulative sales of 1,403 units including 144 units from October, when the vehicle went on sale. Ford also reported its best month yet for the Focus Electric, with 172 units sold, bring the total for the year through November to 518 units.

Those results place Ford, with total plug-in vehicle sales for the month of 1,431 units, behind Toyota, Nissan and GM—respectively first (1,766 units of Prius PHV); second (1,539 LEAFs); and third (1,519 Volts)—in plug-in vehicle sales for November. (Earlier post.)

In total, Ford sold 4,848 C-MAX models in the US in November, 74% of them the regular C-MAX hybrid, 26% of them the Energi plug-in hybrid variant. (In November, Toyota’s Prius PHV accounted for 10.7% of total sales of the Prius family.)

Sales of the C-MAX hybrid increased 18% from the October results of 3,038 units. Total C-MAX (hybrid and PHEV) sales through November are 8,999 units. Sales of other Ford car hybrid models were:

  • Fusion: 1,834
  • Lincoln MKZ: 282

Overall, Ford had its best small car November sales month since 2000, with Focus, C-MAX and Fiesta sales totaling 26,848 vehicles—a 76% increase in small car activity over last year. Focus sales (18,312 units) were up 56% versus year-ago levels. Fiesta sales (3,688 units) were up 3.8%.

December 4, 2012 in Hybrids, Plug-ins, Sales | Permalink | Comments (26) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef017ee5ea2b0c970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ford sold 1,259 C-MAX Energi plug-in hybrids, 179 Focus Electrics in November:

Comments

I purchased my PiP in October. So far I am averaging 258 wh/mi on electricity (charging loss included) and 54 MPG on gas.

34% of my miles are on EV and 66% on HV (gas). Since majority of my trips are short, they are driven on EV and I am getting about 12 miles per charge (3 hours).

Wow! As many as 172 (or 179) electric cars must immediately save the planet from the climate change.

If the current trend continues or is accelerated; 2, 3 and 4 wheels electrified vehicles (HEVs, PHEVs and BEVs) will number over 10,000,000 by 2015 and probably over 33,000,000 by 2020 and over 100,000,000 by 2025.

At 100+M and rising, they will have a net positive effect on climate change together with Wind, Solar, Hydro and other clean power plants.

Most fossil and bio-fuel burning ICEVs fans will also make the switch (a few years latter?)

The common claim is that the purchase price of EVs and PHEVs is greatly held high due to low manufacturing volumes.

If that is the case then as sales increase, prices will fall to eventually equal or fall lower than ICEVs.

Who is going to buy an ICEV when they can buy an EV or PHEV for the same or less and drive for a fraction per mile of what the ICEV costs?

I think we simply have to reach the "almost as cheap to buy" point along with an adequate selection of body configurations (sports cars, sedans, SUVs, pickups, etc.) and then the ICEV market will collapse. There's a crossover point out there. It might be at less than 5 million plug-ins per year.

If you've followed the change from one technology to another, film to digital for example, you saw many people claiming "too expensive", "never will happen" and then a tipping point was reached and an extremely rapid change followed.

Come back when a litte more than a handful of EVs have been sold...

@ Peter

I sure you know this but BEV do not reduce ghg. They use electricity made from fossil fuel.

Since I work in the power industry, I have been interested in electric cars before the watermelons heard of AGW. Even have considered putting a kit on an old Civic. The problems is that $12-20k would get me enough batteries to go as far as I rode my bike to work.

Most advocates of BEV have two traits. They do not have a BEV but think they would be a good idea. Second, they do not have a clue about where there power comes from. They all do math like Bob Wallace. If you add $20k in batteries to a $16k car, they will be cheaper someday. They forget batteries have been around for a very long time unlike cell phones, PC, and digital cameras.

If BEV were somehow better I could a point of getting the cost down, However, the present state of the art of the ICE is really hard to beat.

"I sure you know this but BEV do not reduce ghg. They use electricity made from fossil fuel."

ICE energy efficiency is ~25%, so 75% is heat and greenhouse gas waste. EV motor efficiency is ~90%, so how is 75% energy waste better than 10% energy waste?

Solar/batteries/electric components keep getting cheaper, just as oil keeps getting higher.

"..art of the ICE is really hard to beat..", but the Prius, Prius family, and other autos turning part, and then full, electric drive are doing it.

Save more of the remaining expensive oil for 'high energy drain' trucks and jets.


90% is peak motor efficiency, not average. You also have 90% for the controller and 90% for the battery round trip and 90% for the charger. Then there is the 40% at the power plant and transmission losses.

By the time you get the coal in the furnace and the rubber to the road, you might be 30% instead of 20% with I.C.E. Then make the car a hybrid like a Camry and get 38 mpg.

There are many benefits/advantages that EVs provide aside from energy efficiency and emission reduction, PHEVs moreso than all-battery BEVs and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles mere niche applications.

The PHEV battery pack is 1/3 the size of BEVs, enabling a wider market demand as well as larger class of vehicle application. BEVs are compact class to minimize weight and maximize driving range. More standard drivetrain vehicles can be converted to PHEV than to BEV.

Though both BEV & PHEV plug-in to household electric utility, PHEV is a better match with rooftop photovoltiac solar panel arrays that are subsequently 1/3 the size and less costly.

In an emergency grid failure, a PHEV allows household electronics, especially communication devises - telephone, TV, radio, computer - to remain operable, a lifesaving advantage. Utility grids gain efficiency as hours of surplus electricity can be stored and afternoon hours of high demand met with PHEVs. No doubt utility company stakeholders do not want customers to even learn that such an investment gives them a say in electricity rates. A PHEV offers a choice whether to use electricity for driving or for household uses and the means for energy conservation follows. Imagine a test emergency drill grid failure: Turn water heater off, throw other circuit breakers, monitor minimal consumption, take steps to reduce waste, etc.

Possibly the most important advantage, a PHEV with a typical driving range of 10-20 miles on the battery pack, encourages shorter routine driving whereby more trips become possible without having to drive. No doubt car manufacturers, finance and insurance companies do not want customers to learn how cars could last many years longer, save lives in an emergency and reduce energy consumption.


"The PHEV battery pack is 1/3 the size of BEVs, enabling a wider market demand as well as larger class of vehicle application. BEVs are compact class to minimize weight and maximize driving range. More standard drivetrain vehicles can be converted to PHEV than to BEV."

At the moment batteries are expensive and don't have a lot of capacity. Those conditions are unlikely to continue. Batteries should be considerably less expensive to manufacture than an ICE.

Converting an existing car to a EV is easier than to a PHEV. Jerk out the motor, install an electric motor and some batteries. With a PHEV conversion you have to find some way to fit in a different ICE and a generator.

" PHEV is a better match with rooftop photovoltiac solar panel arrays that are subsequently 1/3 the size and less costly."

Solar is becoming so inexpensive that you'll save a lot more money by installing more panels and doing all your driving with electricity than doing a good portion with fuel in a PHEV. (You seem to be suggesting 2/3rds with fuel.)

"In an emergency grid failure, a PHEV allows household electronics, especially communication devises - telephone, TV, radio, computer - to remain operable, a lifesaving advantage."

The Nissan Leaf comes with an inverter which can run your house during a blackout. In Japan, Nissan says there’s enough power to run the average Japanese home for up to two days. If one cut back to only the essentials they could probably get by for four days or so.

Solar panels on the roof could let your EV give you 'off the grid' capability.

You could drive over to a Level 3 charger along the highway and charge up in 20 minutes or so.

PHEVs are a great stepping stone to fully electric personal transportation. And they might survive long term as a niche solution. But I don't think they'll do well against the batteries we're likely to have in a few years.


SJC, add the energy losses to explore oil, drill oil, transport oil, refine oil, transport gasoline, pump gasoline, etc. and figure ICE about 10% energy efficient.


Mile(s) deep offshore, Arctic conditions oil may be closer to 5% energy 'to wheel' efficient vs over 60% electric efficiency, esp. with solar.

I am not defending oil nor internal combustion engines, I am pointing out that the efficiency that is talked about with EVs does not take into account power generation.

If you want to go all the way back in EROEI then you have to go back to the coal mines, the natural gas wells or the uranium mines required to generate electrical power.

If you compare a LEAF with a Prius on a BTU per mile basis, they are close to equivalent efficiency. Put 100,000 BTUs into a turbine generator, transmit it, charge it and get it to the wheels, then put 100,000 BTUs into a Prius at 50 MPG and compare.

Bob Wallace embraces a purist viewpoint. All electric is not necessarily better than hybrid. The high-speed rail movement is failing in part because all-electric 200+mph rail systems are double the cost and impact of diesel/electric systems. Once completed, 200+mph systems serve fewer communities and fewer people who can afford the higher fare. Incidentally, diesel/electric locomotives can run all-electric in low-speed urban settings where emission reduction is warranted. Purists have fallen into the trap of wanting something that can't be built; a trap set by utility companies that prefer consumers remain dependent upon their monopoly. Whose side is Bob on?

I mention rail travel as an essentially fuel/energy efficient travel alternative to long-distance driving.
Purists support electric charging stations that can supposedly recharge BEVs to maintain currently excessive driving. Rail travel offers economic benefits to station areas that surpass the potential of electric cars. The more effective application of all-electric transit is inner-city light rail and streetcar rather than intra-city high speed rail.

Vehicle battery prices should decrease, but the larger the battery the higher the cost. The same principle applies to the cost of photovoltiac solar panel arrays. Conversions to PHEV offer the means to keep the battery cost down and spread the battery resource to more households.

"I am not defending oil nor internal combustion engines, I am pointing out that the efficiency that is talked about with EVs does not take into account power generation."

Power generation efficiency may be why Tesla sets up solar stations.

I have run my electric bikes off a <$500 solar system for years.

"I am not defending oil nor internal combustion engines, I am pointing out that the efficiency that is talked about with EVs does not take into account power generation."

We are in the very early days of a transition from the 20th Century which was powered largely by fossil fuels to the 21st Century which is almost certainly going to be powered by renewable energy.

The efficiency of coal and gas plants will become less and less a factor as we move forward. Coal has already dropped from over 50% to 36% of our electricity supply and it will continue to drop.

“I have run my electric bikes off a <$500 solar system for years. ”

What a clever idea, Kelly is so smart. I think I will go get a $500 solar panel for my bike.

Wait a second my 25 year old SPECIALIZED HARDROCK MOUNTAIN BIKE runs on mussel power. Furthermore, I have yet to spend $500 on bikes even when you consider our two boys.

The steam turbines and ICE convert heat energy to motion providing an alternative to human slavery. We now even let dinbats like Kelly vote. Isn't freedom grand,

The problem with BWV is that they are inherently inefficient. The power requirements of accelerating BEV with several passengers requires large batteries and big motors to carry the current. If people were content to only go 15 mph to 15 miles then BEV charged with solar PV would work just fine but then so would my bike at a fraction of the cost.

Again the fallacy of BEV is that they do not actually save energy because they are inefficient. The may use a lower cost energy source but the cost of storing the energy is greater than the savings.

"All electric is not necessarily better than hybrid."

In some cases hybrids may be a better option than EVs. But as batteries improve and drop in price the hybrid/PHEV niche will strink.


"The high-speed rail movement is failing in part because all-electric 200+mph rail systems are double the cost and impact of diesel/electric systems."

HSR is failing? Where do you find that data? The world is building more and more HSR and we're going forward with our first line in the US.

Double the impact? HSR run with renewable energy will have much less impact than diesel.

"200+mph systems serve fewer communities and fewer people who can afford the higher fare"

My experience with HSR in Europe is that there are high speed trains with limited stops and other trains making the local stops. Exactly how express/local trains and buses work now.

Higher fare? As compared to their alternative - flying - I don't think so.

"Rail travel offers economic benefits to station areas that surpass the potential of electric cars."

Correct, some of the time. If only one person is traveling then taking the train is likely to be cheaper. Several people, and the math changes. Especially if you would have to rent a car on the other end.

"Vehicle battery prices should decrease, but the larger the battery the higher the cost. The same principle applies to the cost of photovoltiac solar panel arrays. "

Solar panel prices have dropped for around $100/watt to well under $1/watt. There's no reason why we should not see very large decreases in battery prices.

"Whose side is Bob on?"

Um, the planet's, or more precisely ours. We've got to limit climate change or really suffer.

And on our bank account's side. Which feeds back to the climate thing. People are unlikely to give up their cars and quit using electricity in order to avoid severe climate change. Our best shot is to give people acceptable alternatives at the same or better prices.

Let people walk into their dealer's showroom and see two equally priced versions of the same car, one burning gas and costing $0.10/mile to drive and the electric and costing $0.02/mile to drive and most will pick the EV and we drastically cut our CO2 emissions.

"Coal has already dropped from over 50% to 36% of our electricity supply and it will continue to drop."

That could be due to a greater use of natural gas rather than renewable energy. We will continue to use fossil fuels for many decades to come.

"Wait a second my 25 year old SPECIALIZED HARDROCK MOUNTAIN BIKE runs on mussel power.", no doubt, mussel is the common name used for members of several families of clams or bivalvia mollusca, from saltwater and freshwater habitats.

Technically, cheap 3X organic solar boost: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121206203419.htm

Gosh Kelly thanks for correcting my spelling. I hope it makes you feel good. Would you like to explain why you think spending $500 on solar panels to charge an electric bike is not an example of wasted resources.

It takes energy to produce solar panels and batteries. Mush of the environmental impact is reflected in the cost.

If the PV panels and batteries do not result in an actual reductions in fossil use, then you are better off just burning coal.

Bob is another naive cheerleader on the side of big corporations who profit from planning but not building effective public transit systems. The impact of 200mph high-speed rail is its extensive infrastructure - overhead guideway, viaducts and bridges, straightening of railway, the loss of views and stands of mature trees, high decibel noise from passing trains through residential communities.

The California HSR project tripled from the state referendum promised price. To salvage the project, top speed was reduced to 135mph with 'hybrid' locomotives that run diesel/electric through rural segments where the environmental benefit of electrification is moot.

Assuming the cost of EV battery packs and rooftop solar panels will go down is similarly wishful thinking. Automobile-related business interests will not allow neither PHEVs nor BEVs to realize their potential. Why else is the Chevy Volt priced in the luxury car market? Why else did the Bush administration push hydrogen fuel cell vehicles whose potential is practically nil? Answer: To keep the public driving for all purposes as much and as far as possible. Battery electric vehicles have the same drawback of doing the least to wean us off our environmentally destructive and economically dysfunctional amount of driving.

Kit P, it is your logic and attitude, even more than your spelling, that is disconcerting.

"Would you like to explain why you think spending $500 on solar panels to charge an electric bike is not an example of wasted resources."

The electric bike reduces/eliminates my short trip cold car mileage expense and pollution. The solar energy also powers some of my workshop and den lighting, nearly for free since installation.

My small solar EV/power system works. Are you using a gasoline hand drill, diesel overhead lighting, an ICE PC, etc.? Do you start your car by hand crank?

The electric trend is clear. My link showing a cheap means of tripling solar cell output can only accelerate solar energy and EV use even further.

The trend is clear, at least to non-Republicans.

@Kelly

If you do not like my attitude it is because I think your logic is flawed. It is not your values that I am questioning, it is how you go about it.

So first off, why do you make short trips? Second why do you not ride a regular bike?

Third is about air pollution. Do check to see what the air quality is before you ride your electric bike? I suspect that improvements in the ICE is the reason have already eliminated air pollution where you like.


My family room and workshop do not need lights when the sun is out. Rather than use PV, I use the the ON/OFF switch.

'The electric trend is clear '

Yes, 70% of our power comes from a mix of fossil fuels. Increased demand comes for fossil fuels. That means inherently inefficient BEV are charged with fossil fuels.

Turning the light off may be a Republican value. Buying a $500 PV system rather than conserving must be a Democratic value.

The difference is taking wise action instead of stupid actions.

"Coal has already dropped from over 50% to 36% of our electricity supply and it will continue to drop."

That could be due to a greater use of natural gas rather than renewable energy. We will continue to use fossil fuels for many decades to come.

Yes, a lot of the coal we no longer use has been replaced with natural gas generation. (We've also grown non-hydro renewables to 3.5% and could hit 5% next year.)

But the issue under discussion was greenhouse gases? Natural gas creates roughly half as much CO2 as coal per unit electricity generated. Moving from coal to NG makes EVs cleaner.

--

We're transitioning. It will take a few decades to get off fossil fuels. If we were smart we'd get off in two decades, but humans are not as smart as they should be.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Green Car Congress © 2013 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group