The greater range point was stressed in their Ford C-Max Energi pih/phev radio ad. It began with people can not go far on $50 of gas these days. One female actor responded with, "Yah, like, that is going to take me anywhere ...". Then the male Ford rep actor responded with, "Well, did you know you could drive to Tahoe for that much ..." (meaning you can go much farther, ergo better mileage with their pih).
[For those that are not familiar with California and the SF bay area, some people like to drive east, through the gold country, up and over the Sierra Nevada mountains to Tahoe, either to access to the Nevada side (gambling) or to go skiing. But the Ford C-Max Energi pih does not have AWD (its front wheel drive [ http://www.ford.com/cars/cmax/specifications/ ] ), so while the ad did not mention that, some listeners are going to think the pih will not need chains when it snows.] Note: Automakers get CARB credits for pih they sell, they get more if they sell EVs, but several Automakers seem to focus on selling pih instead. I researched videos on their Ford C-Max Energi pih, and found plenty. I found this one hilarious as the Cnet reviewer was complaining that the right most indicator in the driver's cluster was too-confusing: "Why don't they just show a light, green you are saving gas, off you are not ... ". I think it would be wise to have both (in detail and a lead-foot idiot light) on both EVs and pih. That way the savvy would have the info they want, and the challenged-minded could live their lives clueless http://reviews.cnet.com/wagon/2013-ford-c-max/4505-10866_7-35536085.html I also took a look at what Ford Focus Electric ads I could find: very few, and no where near as much effort made by Ford to sell their EVs (yet they say the Focus Electric is not a compliance-car, ... hmm?) http://youtube.com/watch?v=E2Dk6Ut-ye0 This one is a recent video posting, titled as the 2012 model but it is the same video from a year ago. If you notice, they did not even change the description (it says 2011) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kSj-OpO3tA [In Italian] is a talk over of the PR from a while ago about the Schneider EVSE / Ford hookup (note how they played the Ford supplied video twice) http://www.theenvironmentalblog.org/2012/09/ford-schneider-electric-ev-charging-station/ As a Corporation, they have sales researchers for targeting specific groups of potential buyers, in this case http://youtube.com/watch?v=6nMkKgb2vqI Ford Launches New Ad Campaign Targeting African Americans TheAutoChannel Aug 11, 2010 Partnering with CBS Sports' James Brown, the campaign features print, radio and digital executions, including a series of web videos highlighting some of the African American executives behind the walls of Ford. So if Ford were really serious about selling EVs, then they could just as easily target the Leaf, and Tesla markets. But something has changed. With all the newswires I sieve through, Ford just isn't of a mind to try anymore. And neither are a couple of other Automakers. If the evdl members will remember I posted about Sep 2012 just after a successful Silicon Valley EAA Rally where the Toyota RAV4-EV was really promoted, Toyota announced they are backing off EV R&D efforts (record scratch sound ... huh?!?). [OT warning - please take OT discussions off-line asap. Because fuel cell vehicles (fcvs) are OT on the evdl, I did not post that three Automakers are switching to focus on fcvs http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/01/hydrogen-trio/ http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/three-automakers-combine-forces-on-fuel-cell-cars/ (I am sure nothing could make NY Times more happy after the Millions they cost Tesla http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2013/02/26/elon-musk-bad-review-in-new-york-times-cost-tesla-100-million/ ) So, why would the Automakers do that? Could it be like they and Tom are saying that they want to sell long range vehicles? These Automakers would not bother with the effort to sell EVs or pih if it weren't for the California ZEV (restriction) program http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/newsrelease.php?id=282 Taking a look at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevprog.htm fcvs are considered Electric Vehicles even though these can not be recharged off renewable-energy electricity sources, and their h2 is reformed/derived from natural gas (methane from fossil sources). / OT-off] EVangels note: It just smells too-much like what happened in the past, Deja Vu. The Automakers may have found their loop-hole to not produce grid-recharge-able EVs. If we do not inform the whole plugin community of this, and keep a close eye on the dealings at the CARB meetings, it could all happen again (Automakers backpedaling/about-face, and not producing EVs). {brucedp.150m.com} ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Nevada_%28U.S.%29 - On Mon, Mar 4, 2013, at 07:40 AM, tomw wrote: > Likely because they think they have a much better chance of selling the > PHEV > than the EV due to the much greater range, hence the emphasis on driving > a > longer distance to Tahoe. You can't drive the Focus EV to Point Reyes, > Shasta or Lassen, or Tahoe on the weekend from the Bay area, and they > likely > see this as an unacceptable constraint. > > If you've worked in the automotive industry for years focusing on > performance of ice vehicles and surrounded by others doing the same, a > vehicle with 75 mile range likely seems ridiculous. I'm continually > surprised at the surprise of people on this forum at the reaction of such > people to EVs. Those people don't drive an EV, spend their time thinking > and writing about EVs, and talking to others who drive EVs like you do. > They are not immersed in the world of EVs, rather, they are immersed in > the > world of ice vehicles with expectations set by years of using such > vehicles. > Why would you expect them to think any differently? > > Sure you can use an EV for all local travel, trips within a 35 mile > radius > of home, or longer trips if stopping to charge away from home is > acceptable > to you and there is a charging station on the way or at your destination. > But that all seems quite inconvenient compared to jumping in your ice > vehicle and going without concern of how far, whether you will be able to > get fuel if you need it, or needing to take an hour or more to refuel > since > most would charge from level 2. Most people are not EV advocates, and > though they may say they care about the environment, they aren't willing > to > spend any of their money to do anything to prevent damage to it. They > just > self-justify to convince themselves there is no reason to do so. An EV > is > just another car to them, which they compare to other cars for > performance > and convenience. At the current level of EV performance/cost there needs > to > be other motivating factors, such as (real) concern for the environment, > the > desire for something new and different, etc., that compensate for the > difference in performance in order for a person to want to purchase one. > That will change if price and performance approach that of ice vehicles, > and/or the price of gas becomes very painfully high. - {brucedp.150m.com} -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
