Hyundai to introduce extended range electric concept at Geneva
A123 Systems and SAIC Motor to expand Li-ion partnership in China; evaluating new plant for local manufacturing of 20 Ah prismatic cells

Ford Focus Electric EPA-certified at 105 MPGe combined; 110 MPGe city, 99MPGe highway

Ford’s all-new Focus Electric has been certified by the EPA to offer 105 miles per gallon equivalent (MPGe) combined, with 110 MPGe city and 99 MPGe on the highway. Combined cycle consumption is 32 kWh/100 miles. These ratings rank the the Focus Electric as the most fuel-efficient five-passenger vehicle.

As a comparison, the Nissan LEAF is EPA-certified at 99 MPGe combined, 106 MPGe city and 92 MPGe highway. Consumption is 34 kWh/100 miles, combined cycle. The smaller Mitsubishi i-MiEV is rated at 112 MPGe combined, with consumption of 30 kWh/100 miles.

The EPA-approved Focus Electric label also certifies that the car has a range of 76 miles on a single charge compared with the 73-mile range of the Leaf. The Focus Electric can be driven up to 100 miles on a single charge depending on driving habits. The average driver drives 29 miles a day, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics website.

The approved label also will say customers could save $9,700 in fuel costs over the course of five years compared with the average new vehicle.

Focus Electric features an advanced charging system that allows the car’s battery to fully recharge in four hours—nearly half the time of Nissan Leaf—using available 240-volt outlets that can be installed in residential garages. Faster charging with 240 volts also can extend range as drivers can more quickly recharge between stops—up to 20 miles per charge hour.

To cut charging costs at home, a value charging feature powered by Microsoft is designed to help owners in the US charge their vehicles at the cheapest utility rates. Other standard features on Focus Electric include Ford’s Rear View Camera System, MyKey, rain-sensing windshield wipers and Reverse Sensing System.

Ford will ramp up Focus Electric retail production in the first half of 2012 for dealership availability in California, New York and New Jersey. By the end of 2012, Focus Electric will be available in 19 markets across the US.



More EV choices. A 60 mile range could cover most daily corporate HQ/campus/factory trips.


It seemed the Escape hybrid was partly a promotional vehicle as Ford didn't increase supply to match demand. This Focus sounds good, but a bit worried that it might be similarly limited.


Let's not forget that the above BEVs mpge is based on the USA's primary power generation current mix which is composed with a very large number of older polluting coal fired units. The mpge would vary considerably according the primary power generating units pollution level.

In our area, primary power is very different with about 95% clean Hydro, 2% Nuke and 3% Wind. That could give a mpge of 300++ for most BVEs.


I do not know how they compute it, it seems like a pure energy basis and not the efficiency of electricity production at all.

Nick Lyons

I think SJC is correct, or should be. The point of MPGe is to let a prospective buyer compare the relative cost of fueling different cars, not the efficiency of the fuel producer.


Well...if you rely on 32% efficient dirty coal fire power plants + 28% efficient on-board ICE to charge the on-board super heavy battery pack and about 18% (tank to wheels) mechanical power train to move a heavy PHEV on highways, it is no surprise that you would get a mere 50 to 60 mpge.

Large Hydro turbines are a lot more efficient and water is clean, renewable and free but not COAL. The production cost (over 50+ years) of large hydro power plants is often under $0.02/Kwh vs about $0.08/Kwh for large wind turbines.

The average national (USA) power mix is probably used to arrive to mpge for PHEVs and BEVs.


1 gallon of gasoline=33.7 kWh


LG Chem Compact Power supplies Ford and GM with LiMn4O2/Graphite batteries. LG Chem claims their energy density is >100 Wh/kg. I guess that means <200.

Envia's battery is 400 Wh/kg and cheaper per kWh. So the Focus range could soon be >200 miles.


I think it will be hard for most buyers to accept the $23,000 difference between the gas-powered Focus and the electric focus. I also still think it is a mistake to build a battery-only vehicle. Installing a small range-assist engine could be paid for by reducing the size of the battery pack. In this way I think the Volt is a better setup than an electric-only vehicle.


Nick has it right, they do not take into consideration the efficiency of electricity production.

It would be easy to average the efficiency across the U.S. and come up with a real number, but they do not.

Dave R

@HarveyD - The EPA MPG/MPGe numbers are from the wall/pump and do not include upstream emissions/efficiency.

Good to see that Ford has come out with competitive efficiency numbers beating the LEAF a bit. I wonder where the Focus beats the LEAF, whether it's in charging efficiency, drivetrain efficiency or vehicle drag.

6.6kW L2 charging capability is definitely a perk over the 3.3kW L2 charging the LEAF/iMiEV are limited to. But the LEAF has the advantage of DC quick charge - tough to beat a 80% charge in 30 minutes and full charge in 1 hour.

Note that storage/trunk space in the Focus EV is horrible - there is very little room back there. Drawback of a conversion vehicle.

Anyone know what the curb weight of the Focus EV is?


SJC and Nick are again correct.

The EPA tries to compare the energy in the battery to the energy in the fuel tank. This misleading at best and a flat out thermodynamic disaster at worst.

I agree with SJC that the EPA should calculate the MPGe with the average US power generation efficiency to make a legitimate comparison between a work conversion device (BEV) and an energy conversion device (ICE).

At current the US electricity mix, you should see (like Harvey pointed out) that most BEVs are the same efficiency as a PHEV, i.e. 50-60 mpg.

We should really be talking about cleaning up the grid first before getting too far down this BEV road.


The mpge is theoretical energy density of gasoline = 37 kWh or 125,000 BTUs. I also think this is a strange measurement because consumers want to know the cost of fuel, which depends on efficiency and the cost of fuel.
However the theoretical value is the only constant.

Efficiency is dependent on car size, driving habits, engine, altitude, etc. Typical efficiency of an ICE is something like 25% and BEV is about 85%. So the real mpge should be 100m/34kwh x 37kwh/1g x .85/.25 = 370.


Cares should be completely redesigned to put batteries in the right place, i.e under or in the floor to lower the vehicle gravity center. The booth and spare tire could be up front and could become a shock absorber to protect the driver and front passenger.


Focus Focus:
drag coefficient: 0.295
KWh: 23
Weight: 1674lbs

Nissan Leaf:
drag coefficient: 0.28
KWh: 24
Weight: 1521kg

Anyone any idea what on earth is going on here?


This entire discussion is irrelevant.

What is relevant, however, is that Envia Systems came up with an entire new battery, which they announced this week.

With this new battery Ford Focus will most likely have the range of 200-300 miles. Same will apply to the Leaf and other EVs.

Nissan wants to quckly mass produce its EVs, up to 200,000 this year, I believe. Where is Ford and other manufacturers ? We need lots of EVs, and fast !


"This entire discussion is irrelevant"

Well we kind of like our discussion, so you can take your opinions and leave.

The EPA tries to compare the energy in the battery to the energy in the fuel tank. This misleading at best and a flat out thermodynamic disaster at worst.
Should the EPA instead have a spreadsheet of MPGe figures so that consumers can determine how well they do according to which individual US powerplant they're charging from at the moment?  They could hang a thumb drive from each car's sticker instead of putting a number on it, or have a dot code link to the file on the EPA website.

Ridiculous.  The efficiency of the powerplant has nothing to do with the car, and the grid mix is changing all the time.  To the extent that a bunch of EVs allows greater penetration of wind power or substitutes for fuel-burning spinning reserve, they could have effects far beyond their own energy consumption.


How come people never ask about how dirty the source of their gasoline is? Did come from tar sands? Was it shipped from the Middle East? Why do they assume that gasoline only produces emissions at their tailpipe?


I think the efficiency of the motor does have something to do with the car. For a small motor in a large car, the transmission will be geared low for good torque, so the motor runs at high RPMs on the average. The ICE motor's efficiency is higher at high RPM (2007 Ford Focus has max eff @ 4,500 RPM). Put the same motor in a small car and the transmission can be geared higher and with lower RPM.

If I'm right, the load on a motor (weight of the car) affects it's efficiency if average RPM is different. I wouldn't expect it to be much different and fuel consumption will probably be greater in the big car even if the motor's efficiency is greater.


"We should really be talking about cleaning up the grid first before getting too far down this BEV road."


If you wait for a 100% clean grid, and THEN start developing BEV's, you're too late.

Perfecting batteries, installing charging infrastructure, developing viable V2G schemes, and then replacing the entire vehicle fleet. You're looking at a process that will take decades. What to do with all that clean electricity in the mean time?

And btw, talking about V2G, (or, less extreme, smart charging) it is a good complement for fluctuating renewable power. Win-win.

The current sales of EV's are so small that they are completely irrelevant for the big picture. That will remain so for the forseeable future (in my opinion at least 20 years). In that 20 years, we can make considerable progress towards clean electricity, it is only a matter of will. The two developments must take place in parallel, not one after the other.

And last but not least.


Good picture of a more sustainable form of transportation, an EV by a garage covered with solar panels.

If it does take 20 years to have a lot of electric cars on the road, what do we do in the mean time? Do we just keep importing more and more oil? I hope not, that is why I advocate synthetic and biofuels used in HEV/PHEV.


I think in the mean time the only option is fuel efficiency. And pray that better biofuels (based on algae or cellulose) will become viable quickly.


Oh, there is another option, one that many think is a good idea for other people to do: drive less.


I would separate solar power and cars.
If you want solar power, stick up some panels.
If you want and EV, get one, and charge it fro the grid.

Get a smart charger if your utility provides one (and a discount charging fee for using it.).

If you can charge at work, do it, but with a smart charger.

You cooud imagine a "very smart" charger for areas with a lot of wind - it might postpone charging one night if a lot of wind was promised the next.
(On the other hand, there is nearly always surplus electricity at night, so you might not need to postpone to another night).

You could have a high frequency smart charger which would stop charging during times of increasing (rather than just high) demand.

I am not sure about V2G - I would not want a lot of extra cycles on my precious car battery.

Or just cycle for shorter (< 5 mile) distances, or get an E-bike for slightly (<10 mile) distances (especially in good weather).
E-bikes use so little electricity, it doesn't matter where it comes from.
They are small and easy to park and inexpensive (compared to cars), so get one as well as a car and use it when the weather permits.
That will get your fossil fuel usage down.

The comments to this entry are closed.