Munro predicts Ford will switch to NACS only (Tesla standard) based on their announcement from last week.

[sotek2345]

I don't think anyone (even Ford) knows for sure what the long outcome will be. I'd bet that Tesla is hoping the long-term outcome will be the dominance of NACS as a de-facto standard.

The one thing that we do know for sure is that existing Ford EV owners will be able to get a NACS to CCS adapter and software updates that allow it to work with FordPass and Tesla Superchargers. Given the way NACS works, my guess is that this adapter will only work for DC fast charging at Supercharger stations. AC charging will be via the J1772 receptacle only (if you need to charge from a Tesla Level 2 EVSE, there are existing NACS to J1772 adapters for that).

If it is possible to make a NACS to CCS adapter, then it is also possible to build that adapter directly into the vehicle, wired in parallel with the existing CCS plug. If this is the case, it would have the same limitation (no support for NACS AC charging) as the adapter solution. I suspect purely from a we-need-to-get-this-out-the-door engineering perspective that this may be the initial solution. It'll mean a larger charge door (or as someone said, CCS on one side and NACS on the other), but it should be dead simple from an engineering perspective and relatively inexpensive.

It would only be a little more complicated to add a switch so that the NACS plug connects to either the J1772 AC lines or the CCS DC lines depending on what kind of charge the NACS charger is sending. This would allow the CCS and NACS plugs to be used interchangeably. If I were in charge of the program, this would be the initial solution that I aim for.

Long term is a bit more murky, and there are a couple of competing ideas:

• There is some push to have vehicle-to-grid capability for near-future EVs, and Ford has reported considerable interest in vehicle-to-home capabilities. Tthere are standards for this in the works on the CCS side, but I believe that Tesla lags on V2G and V2H capability (I don't know if this is because NACS makes it more difficult, or because Tesla would rather sell more PowerWalls). While Ford's current Whole Home Backup doesn't follow the CCS V2H standards, it is possible that future Ford EVs might retain the CCS plug so that they can provide V2H and V2G capability.
• On the other hand, if other EV makers (and EV charging providers) get on the NACS bandwagon, it is quite possible that NACS will become the de-facto North American standard -- and in this case, CCS might go the way of CHAdeMO and the dodo.

Agreed on the technical side.

How about this - make the extra port an option for future models. It involves extra hardware on the vehicle, so I have no issues paying for it.

Sponsored

 

[The Weatherman]

I just don't want to have to replace my home EVSEs when we upgrade our cars, or deal with using an adapter every time plugging in at home.

Ah well - curse of being early adopters.

I agree with your comment, except I would have used the word privilege in place of curse.

 

[Yellow Buddy]

I am fine carrying a NACS adapter for my F150 Lightning. The ability to use CCS and Tesla Superchargers is a real competitive advantage. I am sure that buyers of NACS adapter Fords will be carrying CCS adapters as well. If we have a mix, and you can charge at any of them, that’s a real win.

Now, I just can’t wait to get my adapter. I will be watching the message center for updates.

Anyone notice the cable is on the passenger side? Meaning it’s closer to the door that’s not currently utilized. That means Ford has a retrofit option coming for the Tesla plug. This was intended all along. I knew it. That’s why early people got a Tesla adapter, it wasn’t to charge Teslas. It was for future retrofitting.

#NACSConspiracyTheories

 

[Kev12345]

If they switched, does the NACS accommodate the H.I.S system needs?

does the current H.I.S work? i've heard some stories...

 

[Kev12345]

Anyone notice the cable is on the passenger side? Meaning it’s closer to the door that’s not currently utilized. That means Ford has a retrofit option coming for the Tesla plug. This was intended all along. I knew it. That’s why early people got a Tesla adapter, it wasn’t to charge Teslas. It was for future retrofitting.

#NACSConspiracyTheories

cut open the dummy charge port door and find a tesla port in there!

 

[Yellow Buddy]

does the current H.I.S work? i've heard some stories...

The issues with the current ones may be foreshadowing the future…One where Ford switches from Delta/SunRun to powerwalls.

It would be a win/win for Tesla. Sell more backup packs without having to deal with pack warranties on the cars.

It would certainly be interesting…

 

[shutterbug]

Put the NACS port in the drivers rear. Put in front first to CCS stations, and back into a Tesla station.

Seems logical.

Actually no. What is really needed are more pull-through stations. Then it really doesn't matter where charge port is.

 

[TheBigBezo]

Actually no. What is really needed are more pull-through stations. Then it really doesn't matter where charge port is.

Have to imagine that they will as the Cyber Truck comes online. Despite my serious doubts about it's actual usefulness, Tesla can't market it as a long range work truck if you can't easily charge with a trailer. Maybe they'll do truck stop big pull throughs, 2 or 3, at every charging station.

 

[mastapsi356]

If they switched, does the NACS accommodate the H.I.S system needs?

Yes, NACS has compatibility for V2X.

 

[sotek2345]

Yes, NACS has compatibility for V2X.

Based on my understanding, while NACS can do V2X, it would not be compatible with the current HIS.

 

[Blainestang]

I really don’t think any of CCS EV manufacturers are going to switch to NACS plugs. The main reason I think this is because the NACS is a weak design. The small NACS plug amplifies stresses on the port resulting in expensive broken ports.

To be fair, CCS ports also gets broken but the ports are much larger resulting in much lower stress from the same lateral force. The NACS port is what happens when you develop a charging connector without any feedback from industry. The CCS port may be ugly but it’s still a much stronger port compared to the NACS port.

I don't think this is an inherent, unsolvable issue with NACS. Your source example is 3 years old and a quick search shows most posts about this issue are multiple years old.

There are also associated issues with the CCS plug being so huge and unwieldy. I've had to hold/press the plug in place before or the latching/initialization would fail with no explanation, presumably because of the weight pulling down on the connection causing it to "tilt" down. Once the NACS male end is in the female port it's not going to tilt.

More importantly, the end result is that people are far, far happier with Tesla charging using NACS, despite occasionally having a port failure (that may even be solved now).

Without a LOT more data, there's no reason to believe this is a meaningful issue that should keep EV manufacturers from switching to NACS, and there's a ton of information out there indicating they'd be better off with NACS.

 

[Texas Dan]

I don't think this is an inherent, unsolvable issue with NACS. Your source example is 3 years old and a quick search shows most posts about this issue are multiple years old.

There are also associated issues with the CCS plug being so huge and unwieldy. I've had to hold/press the plug in place before or the latching/initialization would fail with no explanation, presumably because of the weight pulling down on the connection causing it to "tilt" down. Once the NACS male end is in the female port it's not going to tilt.

More importantly, the end result is that people are far, far happier with Tesla charging using NACS, despite occasionally having a port failure (that may even be solved now).

Without a LOT more data, there's no reason to believe this is a meaningful issue that should keep EV manufacturers from switching to NACS, and there's a ton of information out there indicating they'd be better off with NACS.

The only reason you haven’t seen a LOT more data is because YOU have not looked for it. There are plenty of examples of broken NACS ports. No amount of redesign is going to change the fact that the NACS connection point is very small and prone to extreme stress.

All it would take is someone putting their weight on the cable and that port is going to break, not the cable but the port in the car. I can easily envision some Tesla or EV hater coming across a line of NACS EVs charging and breaking the charging ports on every one of the EVs simply by putting his weight on the charging plugs. Not to mention non-malicious accidents like someone hitting the cable with a shopping cart or parking too close to a charging EV.

No, you can’t fix this by saying it’s not true.

 

[Blainestang]

The only reason you haven’t seen a LOT more data is because YOU have not looked for it. There are plenty of examples of broken NACS ports. No amount of redesign is going to change the fact that the NACS connection point is very small and prone to extreme stress.

Cool story, but I literally said I did a search for this issue in my previous post. Not an exhaustive search, but I searched for it, and like your 3-year-old source, most instances were years old. Then, I narrowed my search to a Tesla forum (top Google result) that had many results (mostly old) and narrowed to within the last year or so. Then, I presented my findings that it seems like most of the instances of this issue are old, indicating that it may be resolved or greatly improved under normal use.

Furthermore, one of the few instances I DID find of port failure recently (2022), was actually a European *CCS-2* Tesla failing the same way!

All it would take is someone putting their weight on the cable and that port is going to break, not the cable but the port in the car. I can easily envision some Tesla or EV hater coming across a line of NACS EVs charging and breaking the charging ports on every one of the EVs simply by putting his weight on the charging plugs. Not to mention non-malicious accidents like someone hitting the cable with a shopping cart or parking too close to a charging EV.

1. If someone purposely wants to break charging equipment, CCS won't stop them, so that's a flimsy argument against NACS.

2. For non-malicious accidents, again, the proof is in the pudding: Tesla's network crushes non-Tesla networks for user satisfaction. If non-malicious accidents were so detrimental to NACS charge sites, we'd know already.

No, you can’t fix this by saying it’s not true.

False premise. I'm saying Tesla may have improved the design because in my experience (following EVs closely for years) and search, it seems the frequency of this issue is lower.

And again, most importantly, it's clear that this issue has not made Tesla charging relatively unreliable compared to CCS.

 

[Maxx]

cut open the dummy charge port door and find a tesla port in there!

Every thread can use a good conspiracy theory. I say it is an ICE gas tank behind it in case this EV craze is short lived.

Farley and Musk negotiation must have started a while back. Ford engineers with a tight deadline were probably told keep your options open in case we need to go native NACS at the last moment.

With NACS port on the passenger side, Lightning charging head in is like Tesla backing in. We don’t have to ruin two sports to get the cable to reach.

On another note; with supercharger cables being liquid cooled, does that make adding a 5 foot extension to the adapter more complicated? Or just a thicker cable will do it?

 

[Texas Dan]

False premise.

Oh, so you can fix something by saying it’s not true? It must be nice to have that kind of power.

Sponsored