Ford's E.V. Charger Mandate Shows How Broken Dealership Laws Are
The current franchise dealership model does not benefit consumers. It also may not benefit dealerships.

Ford Motor Co. is openly chasing after Tesla, which manufactures 70 percent of all electric vehicles (E.V.) sold in the U.S. Earlier this year, Ford announced it would be restructuring its business, equally investing in both E.V. and internal combustion production, putting $50 billion into E.V.s by 2026 and considering options like online ordering and "transparent non-negotiable prices" with no unnecessary extras and no need to haggle. Tesla currently offers versions of these options.
Last week, InsideEVs reported that Ford is imposing new rules on its more than 3,000 franchise dealerships. If any dealer wishes to continue selling Ford electrics, it must pursue one of two levels of E.V. certification. The lower tier, Model E Certified, requires a dealership to install a direct current (D.C.) fast-charging station for public use. D.C. chargers, also called Level 3 chargers, can fully charge an electric car from empty in minutes, as opposed to Level 2 chargers, which can take hours. Conversely, D.C. chargers are extremely expensive and use direct current electricity rather than alternating current that comes from the electrical grid.
Ford estimates that becoming Model E Certified will cost about $500,000, nearly all of which will come from installing chargers. But even then, there would be an annual cap on how many E.V.s a dealership can sell. To avoid the limitation, a dealership must be Model E Certified Elite, which requires installing two additional D.C. chargers, plus a Level 2 charger. Becoming fully certified will cost a dealership between $1 million and $1.2 million.
If a dealership does none of the above and installs no chargers, it must discontinue selling Ford E.V.s by 2024. It can change its mind later but must opt out for at least three years. All dealerships must decide by the end of next month which choice to make.
The choice that Ford is foisting upon its franchisees is difficult. In 2020, the average dealership earned just over $2 million in profit, a sharp increase over the previous year. Now, Ford is asking its dealers to spend 25–60 percent of that total to take part in a fast-growing segment of the automotive market.
Ironically, the difficult situation is the result of cronyist dealer franchise laws that car dealers initially fought for.
Beginning in the 1930s, dealers pressured states to adopt laws regulating automotive sales. The terms vary, but most states forbid auto manufacturers from selling cars directly to consumers without going through a franchised dealer. This means that unlike nearly every other consumer good, potential motorists can't go on a manufacturer's website and customize a car to be delivered to them directly; a dealership still has to act as a middleman.
Now, as Ford Motor Co. tries desperately to catch up to Tesla's E.V. sales, Ford dealerships are on the hook for costly upgrades despite the fact that they are not even playing by the same set of rules.
Tesla switched to all-online sales in 2019. The move required lobbying state lawmakers directly for carve-outs that would allow the company to circumvent dealer franchise laws. For example, Nevada passed Assembly Bill 2 in 2014, which allowed Tesla to sell cars in the state without franchise dealerships. (Meanwhile, Texas, the automaker's new home, forbids direct sales. Texans must pick up their cars from one of the state's eight Tesla service centers.)
Of course, lobbying states for carve-outs is not an ideal system either. The best option would be for states to simply scrap the franchise laws and let the market decide the best ways for consumers to buy their cars.
A 2015 paper from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University argued that a built-to-order direct-to-consumer system with no unnecessary middlemen could save purchasers over $2,000 per car. In a direct-to-consumer system, dealerships could still exist; any shoppers who wish to take a test drive or get service work done at a brand-licensed location would be free to do so. But consumers would also have more freedom over their purchases—both what they can buy and how they can buy it. (Interestingly, Ford CEO Jim Farley estimates that Tesla currently has a $2,000 price advantage per vehicle, so scrapping the dealership system could also help Ford stay competitive.)
The auto dealer franchise model hasn't benefited consumers for some time, and with Ford's new move, it may not even benefit dealerships anymore. States should set motorists free to make their own purchasing decisions, however they see fit.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fucked Over Rebuilt Dodge
Fix Or Repair Daily
Found on Road Dead
First. On. Race. Day.
Well, yeah. They show up first. To fix it up from the last race and get it ready for the next one. That takes time.
have you seen what they're calling Mustangs these days? hurts my feelings
I have. Some of them look like Hondas. What happened?
Everything has to look the same now because of safety and efficiency regs.
Your democrat friends happened.
I work from home providing various internet services for an hourly rate of $80 USD. I never thought it would be possible, but my trustworthy friend persuaded (amu-09) me to take the opportunity after telling me how she quickly earned 13,000 dollars in just four weeks while working on the greatest project. Go to this article for more information.
.....
——————————>>> https://cashprofit99.netlify.app/
A friend of mine had a Mustang. It had the same engine as a Tempo. A pony logo don't mean it has balls.
true. muscle costs but is worth it.
On the other hand, doesn't this mean the Ford Tempo I had to drive in high school had a Mustang engine?
considering the original mustang was just a re bodied falcon. it all about the motor and little else.
That fable was never true. The Mustang was a whole new type of car . . .that, frankly, the Ford execs thought would be the next Edsel, which was why the early Mustangs were build on a budget and forced to use a lot of parts from other models.
You’re referring to the 4 cyl engine Ford offered in the base third generation mustang circa 1990. I knew a few people that had that. Modern mustangs are nothing like that. The base eco boost mustang makes 310 hp and 350 lbs. of torque from a 2.3L turbocharged 4 cyl. The GT makes 450 hp and 410 lbs, of torque from the 5.0L V8. Then they have that electric crossover that is inexplicably called a mustang.
The GT is still the Mustang to have.
I hate how new cars all have the big gaping mouths now. I think it's because of some pedestrian safety regulations or something like that.
I was enjoying the amalgamations of old Mustang into new. mine is a '13 it looks like a "68 and a '70 had a baby
Yeah, they were looking pretty good for a while there.
The 2005 - 7 were the best looking Mustangs since the early 1970s.
Uh, if I'm not mistaken, the actual area of latest-gen mustangs actually has less open area than the 60s-era ones and if you take into account the overall larger/more beefy nature of the car, they're relatively less 'open mouthed' than the 'classics'.
Maybe they slope away from the grill giving them more of a mouth-like appearance, but I've always found the Gen 1 mustangs to be lacking in musculature. To the point that, while I wouldn't declare Gen 2s to be better, they certainly look more like a car with muscles.
True, that was a design feature of many earlier muscle cars. But now it's universal and instead of looking somewhat big and butch, everything is all rounded an squishy looking.
A cycle coming around? People described the car design trend of the 1990s as the "melted jellybean" look. Computers were finally advanced enough to design complex shapes. Manufacturers spent so much time thinking about how they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.
It’s ruined the kidney grills on new BMW’s. Fucking hideous.
As the owner of a 1967 Mustang with a 289 V-8 in it, it breaks my heart.
To be honest, I'm a little shocked by the utility bills because every time I get my bills, those are some huge numbers. I'm thinking of using the services of one of the commercial electricity providers I found not so long ago, because the rates on their website seem quite attractive to me. In any case, the prices are definitely not higher than I usually pay.
I do like the logo. They circle the problem.
More "green" bullshit. Converting AC to DC is one of the most inefficient things that you can do with electricity.
"The converter and conversion losses in the DC nanogrid are comprised of Using efficiency curves the efficiency of AC to DC or
"Converting AC to DC is one of the most inefficient things that you can do with electricity."
The numbers:
DC to AC (Grid-tied inverter) conversion is considered as 92% with an 8% loss whereas DC to DC conversion is considered as 95% efficient with a 5% loss."
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Typical-AC-DC-and-DC-DC-conversion-efficiency-curves_fig2_221926555#:~:text=The%20converter%20and%20conversion%20losses%20in%20the%20DC,considered%20as%2095%25%20efficient%20with%20a%205%25%20loss.
(https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Typical-AC-DC-and-DC-DC-conversion-efficiency-curves_fig2_221926555#:~:text=The%20converter%20and%20conversion%20losses%20in%20the%20DC,considered%20as%2095%25%20efficient%20with%20a%205%25%20loss.)
That depends entirely on how you do the conversion. Most commercial (and pretty much all retail) AC-to-DC conversion uses far less efficient protocols than described in your linked articles. 70-80% efficiency is more normal for commercial-grade conversions. If you look at the 'clipping' inverters that most people use to charge their USB devices, efficiencies well below 50% of not uncommon. The rest of that energy gets wasted as heat - which we then spend even more energy to get rid of through the home's air conditioning system.
EVs are still far more efficient than ICEVs even with a 20% loss rate. A 50% loss rate that you quoted is complete fiction. If you had read up on this you would know that the 20% loss rate is on the high end. It can be as low as well under 10% with modern equipment.
If you're charging a battery, somewhere along the line you have to convert to DC, unless you're got the battery hooked up to some kind of rectifier system.
As an electrical engineer, the statement that AC to DC conversion is inefficient is absurdly incorrect. That trophy applies to incandescent light bulbs which convert about 90% of the very high wattage used to heat. A 100 watt incandescent light bulb the anti-green yahoos still embrace consumes nearly 200 watts in electricity if the heat the bulb gives off is fighting the building's air conditioning.
In addition, AC is 0% efficient in charging a battery because AC cannot be used to do so. Stop pretending you know what you're talking abut.
Thank you for taking jimc to school. He needed a lesson.
"transparent non-negotiable prices"
Ford already offers X-Plan pricing to anyone who actually gives a shit.
‘Non negotiable’ = higher transaction prices.
I live in Nevada and I know people who can't get their Tesla's serviced. HAHAHA yeah lets go direct to manufacturer sales and watch your service fall off the cliff! Prices will go up and service will be non existent. Careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
I've never taken my ic car to a dealership for service. So wouldn't be an issue but I only buy used cars because to hell with paying a premium on a new one. Tesla being EV creates new challenges for the marketplace but eventually I'd venture you'll see independent service stations spring up to service them.
Or not, and franchises will have an advantage. No need for a law.
Tesla being EV creates new challenges for the marketplace but eventually I'd venture you'll see independent service stations spring up to service them.
Nope. That's the 20th century business model. In the 21st, any such 'independent service stations' will be officially licensed by Tesla and locked in to buying Tesla parts directly. If not contractually, then through the use of proprietary parts and software. This is the 'right to repair' issue that's been raging on for the better part of a decade against Apple, John Deere, Tesla, etc. You will own nothing and like it.
There are already independent Tesla repair shops. Rich Rebuilds comes to mind.
Fuck off you ignorant, disingenuous shitbag. You're so stupid you don't even realize how much ignorance you're projecting. You don't watch Rich Rebuilds. If you did, you'd know he constantly laments that he has to fish used Tesla parts out of a junkyard rather than buy them new, direct from Tesla, has to constantly void warranties and employ software hacks to (re)gain otherwise normal functionality, and is constantly getting shit on for Tesla by doing so. You'd know that Rich effectively operates a custom rebuild shop, not a maintenance and repair shop.
Tesla might make that very difficult.
"Don't give me choices. I don't want choices and you shouldn't either."
You'll just make the wrong choice, better to let him choose for you.
" a built-to-order direct-to-consumer system with no unnecessary middlemen "
A very, very small fraction of buyers actually want to order online and wait 4 months for the car to arrive.
They much prefer to buy a car *today* for all sorts of reasons.
Hmmmmmm. Two consecutive articles that aren't about HUMAN TRAFFICKER Ron DeSantis.
Everything OK at Reason HQ?
They hit him so hard this morning that he's still reeling. You can bet your ass that they'll get a couple clean nut shots in tomorrow.
Reason’s hard hitting articles have thrown the DeSantis administration into a tailspin!
The problem isn't Ford, the problem is the government mandated phase-out of the ICE. In order to meet government targets, huge numbers of chargers need to be installed and paid for, otherwise the government mandates can't be met.
The $500k dealers need to pay just make that amount of money visible. Don't worry: it will get passed on to you.
And I'm still not seeing much being done to address the problem of a reliable electricity supply to charge all these EVs.
They're breeding hamsters. Lots and lots of hamsters.
I think that was Kia, actually.
I thought that was Tony. I'm sure he's at least attempted it before.
Ford's E.V. Charger Mandate Shows How Broken Soft-Fascist Libertarians Are
FIFY
I mean Ford (and Chevy, and GM...), a private company, giving up selling motors, transmissions, frames, parts, distributing specs for massive OEM parts market, contract parts market, service, etc., etc. to capture the comparatively minuscule cradle-to-grave, locked-in, EV ecosystem is just a business decision, right?
The contractors getting $500K for a battery charger install are killing it. There's no way one freaking charger install cost half a million dollars. I need to start a franchise installing car chargers, because there's a LOT of fat in that price.
You got a loicense for that charger install? The margin is fat because peons like you and I aren't allowed to compete.
The margin in construction is typically 2-5%, no matter the sector.
Unless you do insurance work. There are serious margins earned selling to the insurance company rather than the homeowner.
When I take a damaged car in for a repair estimate, first thing they ask is if insurance will be paying for it.
Then walk right out, because they have revealed themselves as dishonest.
Rest assured, they will lie to you as smoothly as they lie to insurance.
There's no way one freaking charger install cost half a million dollars.
A dedicated charger that can bring an EV from dead to full charge in two minutes absolutely can cost half a million dollars. Not only do you need the charger itself, you need a place to put it and you need to get power to it. Just because something seems simple in concept, that doesn't mean it's simple in practice.
I wouldn't be surprised if the cost was even higher considering that often a dealer may have to bring in a lot more power from the electric company and that can affect everything down the line. If you don't upgrade the lines then you would have to have transformers and batteries on site to store energy if you want to charge more than one car a day.
I looked online, and it looks like a level 3 charger goes for $60-100k. That leaves 400k for the actual installation. I'm still seeing a lot of fat in that number. I think the writer pulled out of their ass.
That price...
Installation starts with a new electric service entrance and high-amperage wiring to wherever you want the charger. It may also include paying the power company to put in a larger transformer and upgrade the power lines for several miles.
Why would I open a dealership to let people test drive cars they won't buy from me because they can get one for a dollar less online?
Because the profit isn’t in selling cars.
'Doordash by Ford' will allow you to test drive a car while you deliver food. For a small fee*.
*Plus fuel surcharge, tax and 18% gratuity
Why open a dealership to let people test drive cars, when they won't buy from me because they'll drive into the big city and get the same car at a huge discount? The way most dealership systems work is that the dealer gets bigger discounts the more they sell, so a small town or midsized city dealership can't compete when the customers learn they can drive down to the big city and get the same thing cheaper?
Back in my younger days I sold cars. And I recall one customer who drove four hours to Los Angeles to save fifty bucks. Really cheesed me off at the time. But was explained to me by fellow lot jockeys that the dealership would make it back and more with service. Because the customer wasn't going to drive four hours each way for service. And they weren't getting a service discount from us because they bought elsewhere.
My friend owns a dealership in my tiny home town. He makes damned good money because his dad spent decades building up good will and reputation. Big city folk don't care about that much anymore, but small down folk still do. So that's why you still open a dealership, if you're prepared to much up the difference with good service. Screw those who will drive four hours to save fifty bucks, you want those customers who will buy their next car from you too.
The dealership system was started by the dealers. If they're not longer benefiting from the government privilege odds are they won't want to keep it.
But there still is a benefit to them. They don't have to compete with the manufacturer. I was in an sales shop where one primary supplier did go into business directly completing with the retailers. And it was a major pain in the ass. Even competing on the quality of service was hard, because the supplier could undercut our prices significantly. But even then I did not side with the domestic protectionism, because I wanted a free market. Principles are still principles.
The issue now is whether competing directly with Ford is less painful than adhering to their silly dealership rules.
I would think it's a requirement that that a dealer is selling EV's needs someway to charge them up quickly, on the premise. I would think an EV would be delivered close to 100% full. This sounds like it's misdirection of some other issue.
Also, EV's aren't much more than a niche market for people who don't understand hybrids. What's wrong with a >50 MPG vehicle that can be fueled up anywhere?
Because the consider petroleum to be evil and should not be used for anything. Someone needs to explain tires to them.
Explain tires as in 'around the neck and on fire' or as a compare-and-contrast with rail (as in 'tarred and feathered and run out of town on')?
I vote for number one.
hat's wrong with a >50 MPG vehicle that can be fueled up anywhere?
Because it's been mandated out of existence.
It really is a bizarre contrast (or a typical stare into the abyss) of how the 80s-era evil conspiracies about oil companies assassinating the inventor of fuel from water or the 100 mpg engine have transformed into the 20s-era environmentalist whackos overtly killing off the more viable, more green hybrid engines.
I’m pretty sure even a modestly well executed diesel-electric pickup would be a smash hit. I can only assume no one’s doing it because the line will be guaranteed to be assassinated by regulation.
Tesla switched to all-online sales in 2019. The move required lobbying state lawmakers directly for carve-outs that would allow the company to circumvent dealer franchise laws. For example, Nevada passed Assembly Bill 2 in 2014, which allowed Tesla to sell cars in the state without franchise dealerships. (Meanwhile, Texas, the automaker's new home, forbids direct sales. Texans must pick up their cars from one of the state's eight Tesla service centers.)
Sooo, if I'm reading this right, then Ford should lobby the state governments and get a carveout so they can sell their cars direct instead of going through the dealer. That way the dealer doesn't have to make these expensive upgrades, but then they're no longer necessary to the process of Ford selling cars.
FYI, if I'm looking at these old post-it notes I have all over my monitor, we should be able to buy an all electric car online and it should be delivered to us... driverlessly. The dealer plugs in my address, hits 'GO', and it parks in my driveway a short time later. We should have all that by *checks post-it* 2018.
Is the Post-It noting that these driverless EVs, despite having the same footprint, will need less asphalt to commute and park still up?
The EVs have a LARGER footprint, because they’re heavier and contain more wire, mined rarities, and plastic components
The battery weight will ruin roads faster.
The other crap will require more use of petrofuels.
No I meant actual 2D/3D spacial footprint. One of Reason/Cato’s big wig contributors (Robert Poole IIRC) several years ago said that with self-driving and/or EV cars, we’d need fewer parking spaces and less asphalt for roadways as a direct result (i.e. no mention of making smaller cars because the driver needs no/less room). Essentially saying the problem with our inability to violate the laws of physics is purely a logistical one.
Why would anyone who owns an EV even care of the dealer has a charger, I don't drive all the way to the nearest dealership to fill up on gas. What is needed is to standardize the battery charging. Ford uses the same size nozzle as Chevy, Toyota etc. Why have we allowed different manufacturers dictate the charging ports? I hate to say this because it hurts to, but we need a law that standardizes the charging stations, if we are all going to be forced into EVs.
i'll never be forced into an ev. i have no interest in owning such a retarded vehicle. i'll drive an ice for ever. even though my state has gone along with commiefornia i will just drive over the border to idaho and buy my new f150.
The most ironic part of having to switch to an EV is that with most households being 2 income families, most families will have to have two EVs. And if the commute is more than ~25 miles each way, maybe a third vehicle. If you try to charge your EV residentially on 120v lol lol lol! Want to go out with the family to do shopping? Winter setting in and things getting chilly? Takes longer to charge! Your battery is 3 years old? Longer to charge and less capacity! Yay!
And using electricity for heat in the car really reduces range.
Would somebody like to edit, correct, and clarify this statement:
"Conversely, D.C. chargers are extremely expensive and use direct current electricity rather than alternating current that comes from the electrical grid."
Last time I checked, DC chargers used [lots of] alternating current that comes from the electrical grid. And/or, a gigantic diesel generator running behind the curtain.
“Conversely, D.C. chargers are extremely expensive and use direct current electricity rather than alternating current that comes from the electrical grid.”
Pretty sure most of us understood that the grid A/C has to be converted to D/C to charge the batteries.
"Beginning in the 1930s, dealers pressured states to adopt laws regulating automotive sales. The terms vary, but most states forbid auto manufacturers from selling cars directly to consumers without going through a franchised dealer."
And you are missing out on quality entertainment if you haven't walked into a dealership (either if you work for the company or have a friend who does) with a nice, sporty looking car with loud exhaust notes and first watch the sales folks trip over each other to get to you, then listen to them as they go through their intro, then start talking about a car. When they are done, ask "Nice. What's that cost under X-plan?". They will nearly start to cry and try to hand you off to the nearest Gil Gunderson so they can flee top speed.
Really, its good fun. And (at least back in the late 80's/early 90's) it made you think of getting a job at the local plant. 🙂
Whole thing is idiotic. Ford makes the bulk of their profit off of their trucks, and their electric trucks are far from being pragmatic for probably a distinct majority of their truck buyers. In particular, while they did fine on the road, they can’t tow didly squat. You want to tow a trailer, a camper, a boat, etc? Don’t bother with your electric F-150.
You *can* tow, but just not very far. You might get your big boat to the lake, but probably can't tow it back home without a recharge.
Once upon a time, the manufacturers wanted dealerships, because it allowed them to concentrate on manufacturing cars. But the manufacturers (Big Business) soon made the arrangements abusive, for example, forcing dealerships to purchase (and pay for) inventory shipments even when the vehicles could not be sold (during the Depression). Other abuses of "the little guy" by Big Business auto makers (and usually out-of-state Big Business) caused states to pretty well universally pass laws that protected the local dealerships from the Big Business abuses.
And there was no small amount of cronyism, too. And dealerships are now close to universally despised. And an open market should have room for manufacturer showrooms and local dealerships (if they can provide value-add), with sane contracts between the makers and dealers (of course, abusing the contracts was how we got here in the first place).
But it amuses me how much the left is bending over to support giving all the power back to Big Business (manufacturers) because "green energy". As if Tesla (esp. now that Musk seems to be on the wrong side) and Ford and GM are all somehow going to be great corporate citizens and do all they can to benefit the consumer and save the planet.
In the TARP era, the left would have just as soon lined Ford executives against the wall and shot them, now they're begging for states to "free them", because "green energy".
https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-101-issue-2/tesla-dealer-franchise-laws-and-the-politics-of-crony-capitalism/
For sure non-negotiated prices will mean some will pay more for the same car even among equally skilled negotiators because of overstocks, dealer targets, etc.. But if there truly are $2,000 savings for manufactures, even the best negotiators might not be disadvantaged. Of course, I'm not buying the $2,000.
The biggest problem with nonnegotiable prices is unless trades in are abolished, those amounts will still be negotiated. I can't imagine a dealer allowing the trade in owner set a nonnegotiable price.
And the dealer lobbyists have seen to it that many (most?) states deduct trade-in value from the new car sales tax. That means not trading your old car in to the same dealer you buy the replacement from means you'll pay sales taxes on its value.
” can fully charge an electric car from empty in minutes”
If you can consider 40 – 50 minutes to be ‘minutes’.
The rest of us would consider that to be 'most of an hour'.
Nice try Ford. But how about manufacturing great quantities of EVs or even assisting Customers with EV chaging stations? Not your problem right?