Ford will add NACS to next gen EVs!

Next gen Ford EVs will include NACS port. Also will have a NACS to CCS adapter for existing Ford EVs and will be made compatible with Tesla Superchargers via software update.

Honestly never thought any other automaker would take up NACS so this is very surprising.

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2023/05/25/ford-ev-customers-to-gain-access-to-12-000-tesla-superchargers--.html

Moderator note: The first couple pages of this thread are a merge of two different threads on the same topic.

 

[chinney]

It's my understanding that Tesla released NACS as a fully open specification, with no strings attached, late last year. Prior to then, Tesla claimed that the Tesla connector (as it was then known) was free for anybody to use, but it had significant strings attached, so nobody would want to use it under those terms. Today, though, anybody can build a NACS product without licensing it from Tesla.

What's more, I know of two providers that have already announced they plan to add NACS connectors: Freewire and Flo. In addition, EVgo has long provided Tesla connectors via Tesla's CHAdeMO-to-Tesla adapter, but those are limited to 50 kW, and I'd expect they won't work with Ford and GM vehicles with NACS ports (assuming these EVgo adapter-based Tesla connectors are still in operation in 2025). I fully expect to hear more such announcements very soon.

Agreed. This is the (potentially) dark side to this shift that's lurking in the back of my mind. Monopolies are rarely good for consumers. The potential positive take on this is that, because the current CCS networks will soon be directly competing against Superchargers, it will force the current CCS providers to put more resources into improving site reliability. I'm not an expert on what's going on in Europe, but I get the impression that non-Tesla DC fast chargers there are more reliable than they are in the US, so it does seem to be possible using more-or-less the same hardware. (I'd be interested to hear from somebody with more direct personal experience of the charging situation in Europe.)

I also see an opportunity for some providers to specialize in ways that Tesla isn't doing. For instance, Tesla is focusing on larger and larger Supercharger sites; in the US, they now average at something over 10 stalls per site. (That average includes older installations; I don't know what the average size is for new sites.) There is room for smaller installations, though -- at out-of-the-way restaurants on small rural highways, at convenience stores and coffee shops in urban or suburban areas, etc. Some of these were the sorts of sites that EVgo and ChargePoint were focusing on five years ago, and with Tesla focusing on the big mega-sites, doubling down on the small-site strategy could give these competing networks some breathing room. OTOH, it may be easier to make the mega-sites profitable, so there may be challenges to this approach.

That's a point that's getting overlooked. Some of the problems with the CCS networks relate to signaling incompatibilities caused by the complexity of the CCS protocols and the number of parties involved in implementing them. Tesla opening the Supercharger network to (potentially) any manufacturer that adopts NACS will make it subject to these same issues. That said, if non-Tesla automakers start designing with Superchargers in mind, they're likely to do extensive testing on Superchargers before releasing new vehicles, so reliability on the Supercharger network, at least, should be fairly good -- assuming Tesla doesn't constantly tweak the software on its end, in ways that might be disruptive.

Great post. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I wonder which manufacturer will be next in announcing they are moving to NACS. Volkswagen would be significant, as would Kia/Hyundai.

 

[israndy]

Both have cars that charge from 800v chargers, that's not gonna play well with current 400v Superchargers, I would think another 400v manufacturer would be more likely, love it if we got Volvo/Polestar or Rivian. No better time to change direction on the Rivian Adventure Network, there are only gonna be MORE trucks that they need to covert to NACS when they finally do decide to switch.

 

[smogne41]

Both have cars that charge from 800v chargers, that's not gonna play well with current 400v Superchargers, I would think another 400v manufacturer would be more likely, love it if we got Volvo/Polestar or Rivian. No better time to change direction on the Rivian Adventure Network, there are only gonna be MORE trucks that they need to covert to NACS when they finally do decide to switch.

They are 800V native but can still charge quite efficiently at 400 V with their onboard boost converters. For the Ioniq 5 it is 18 minutes 10-80% on 800V but only 25 minutes on 400V. They would be fantastic on current Superchargers. Also, V4 superchargers will be 1000V.

 

[israndy]

We'll see

 

[SVMike]

GM is following. GM Electric Vehicles Will Use Tesla Charging Network Starting in 2024

Got to give them credit since they were on the path to nowhere and have suddenly realized their mistake

 

[SageBrush]

Got to give them credit since they were on the path to nowhere and have suddenly realized their mistake

Agreed. Heck, next thing you know, GM might stop lobbying and litigating behind the scenes for climate change. At least until the next moron enters the WH

 

[Exelion]

-800V is desirable, but if someone needs a charge, they will use 400V if it is available. Charging speed is not a huge deal as....

-Reliable chargers. I use CCS1 periodically, and have gotten the *stops charging after 10 minutes* errors. Honestly, I think anyone who thinks CCS1 is superior to NACS probably doesn't own an EV.

-I don't think overcrowding will be a problem because Tesla builds chargers and stations very fast. Just this year I already saw two sites up and running in my area, with more to come. More revenue from Supercharging means even more Superchargers. And even then......

-NACS cars can charge from CCS1 with an adapter that already exists. Not that we want to, but we CAN if we NEED to. CCS1 is the electricity version of the diesel car in a gasoline car world, where, not all gas stations sell diesel.

-If an interim CCS1 car -> NACS station adapter is to be released, it will definitely need a adapter connected to a long cable. Tesla already made a cabled adapter a while back, remember Tesla's CHAdeMO adapter? Granted, the cable was super short, but it was still a cable nonetheless! and it held up a super heavy clunky adapter on the end too. Without a cabled adapter, Superchargers will be a mess of cars parked all strange taking up unnecessary spots. Somehow I think part of Ford/GM adopting the NACS plug means they will also be putting their ports on driver's side rear left as well.

-With just two other major automakers signing onto NACS, all the rest will soon follow. Their goal is to sell CARS. They will equip whatever customers want in the CARS to sell them. They didn't *throw in the towel*, they didn't *give in*, they basically said, if they equip their cars with NACS, more customers will buy them. (and they are right). Automakers are in competition with Tesla's CARS, not Tesla's charging infrastructure, especially since no major manufacturer (besides VW) has any hand in EV charging.

This is all good news!

 

[SageBrush]

With just two other major automakers signing onto NACS, all the rest will soon follow. Their goal is to sell CARS. They will equip whatever customers want in the CARS to sell them. They didn't *throw in the towel*, they didn't *give in*, they basically said, if they equip their cars with NACS, more customers will buy them. (and they are right). Automakers are in competition with Tesla's CARS, not Tesla's charging infrastructure, especially since no major manufacturer (besides VW) has any hand in EV charging.

Until recently every car manufacturer other than Tesla was steadfast in their support of CCS. They wanted to believe that a generic charging network would eventually eclipse the Supercharger network, giving them a competitive advantage. Dieselgate and Biden's EV infrastructure bill were strong shots in the arm.

So what changed, and what changed so fast ?
1. Tesla developed the CCS to Tesla adapter. This was the free market killer of CCS because it gave Tesla cars an unassailable massive DC charging advantage over every other competitor.
2. Tesla opened the Supercharger Spec. This removed overnight the vested interest that every 3rd party manufacturer had in CCS support, and it removed the political backstop against subsidizing proprietary protocols or equipment.

Check. Mate

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Until recently every car manufacturer other than Tesla was steadfast in their support of CCS. They wanted to believe that a generic charging network would eventually eclipse the Supercharger network, giving them a competitive advantage. Dieselgate and Biden's EV infrastructure bill were strong shots in the arm.

So what changed, and what changed so fast ?
1. Tesla developed the CCS to Tesla adapter. This was the free market killer of CCS because it gave Tesla cars an unassailable massive DC charging advantage over every other competitor.
2. Tesla opened the Supercharger Spec. This removed overnight the vested interest that every 3rd party manufacturer had in CCS support, and it removed the political backstop against subsidizing proprietary protocols or equipment.

Check. Mate

The funny thing is that people who want an open standard shouldn't be complaining. They should see it as a win and thank NEVI. NEVI kept the CCS funding going.

Result: CCS with a better plug.

 

[Earl]

NACS station adapter is to be released, it will definitely need a adapter connected to a long cable

There may be a current limitation with a long cable adapter. It will also be bulky unless there’s some clever thermal management (eg. Liquid cooling) in the cable and connector.
Remember that the CHAdeMO adapter only supports up to 50 KW (although I’ve never seen more that ~47 KW).

 

[stopcrazypp]

The funny thing is that people who want an open standard shouldn't be complaining. They should see it as a win and thank NEVI. NEVI kept the CCS funding going.

Result: CCS with a better plug.

To be fair, NACS is not quite fully a standard in the traditional sense. Tesla still is the sole party that controls the specifications. Until an organization like SAE, IEEE, DIN, or IEC adopts it, the people calling for open standards likely won't be satisfied.

Some also hate the idea of Tesla "winning" (or Tesla fans being "correct") and despise Tesla largely because they have a distain for the fans (claiming too many are under a "reality distortion field," similar to how many people say they dislike Apple for a similar reason), even if objectively they admit Tesla's connector is a superior design.

 

[Earl]

Some also hate the idea of Tesla "winning" (or Tesla fans being "correct") and despise Tesla largely because they have a distain for the fans (claiming too many are under a "reality distortion field," similar to how many people say they dislike Apple for a similar reason), even if objectively they admit Tesla's connector is a superior design.

Yes, some people will have a hard or impossible time admitting they were wrong.
Queue: ‘sour grapes’, denial, projection, and the rest of the cliche defense mechanisms.

 

[SO16]

Some also hate the idea of Tesla "winning" (or Tesla fans being "correct") and despise Tesla largely because they have a distain for the fans (claiming too many are under a "reality distortion field," similar to how many people say they dislike Apple for a similar reason), even if objectively they admit Tesla's connector is a superior design.

I have no use for people who want to stick with a crappy plug/charging experience simply due to “I don’t like Tesla”. That shouldn’t even factor into the equation. Cutting off nose to spite the face is not a good strategy. I only care about legitimate concerns and the only one I’ve heard worth thinking about is that it doesn’t support 3 phase power.

Regardless, it’s happening. Great for EV adoption in the US long term.

 

[SageBrush]

To be fair, NACS is not quite fully a standard in the traditional sense. Tesla still is the sole party that controls the specifications. Until an organization like SAE, IEEE, DIN, or IEC adopts it, the people calling for open standards likely won't be satisfied.

I read 'traditional' and shake my head. But no doubt this lack of 'traditional' standard is why all these people also refuse to use PDF format.

Oh wait, -- never mind

Kidding aside, I'll guess that the main practical problem that has been resolved is that now 3rd party manufacturers are free and free. No license fees, and no restrictions building the spec. That is vastly better from their POV than most generic standards that come out of committee.

 

[Allx]

Haven’t seen any details about the conditions of the deals with Ford and GM in articles - whether access to the supercharger network is for a certain number of years or guaranteed going forward for example. I’m guessing that’s not public ?

 

[stopcrazypp]

I read 'traditional' and shake my head. But no doubt this lack of 'traditional' standard is why all these people also refuse to use PDF format.

Oh wait, -- never mind

PDF is an open standard in the ISO since 2008. The risks of adopting it is much less than adopting a charge connector standard, even when it was fully proprietary.

PDF - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Kidding aside, I'll guess that the main practical problem that has been resolved is that now 3rd party manufacturers are free and free. No license fees, and no restrictions building the spec. That is vastly better from their POV than most generic standards that come out of committee.

I don't think that would satisfy open standard advocates. The "traditional" part isn't only for show. An adoption by a committee typically comes with requirements that any associated patents are available to license under RAND terms (Reasonable and non-discriminatory). These terms are legally enforceable (and have been enforced in other cases, an example being Qualcomm h.264 related patents). Does not necessarily have to be free, but it ensures Tesla can't legally turn around and start having ridiculous license terms or even refuse to license to certain parties in the future (which so far there is nothing that legally prevents them from doing so, as far as I can find). It also ensures Tesla won't make revisions that can cause problems for companies that have adopted it. Tesla even mentioned they are working with standards bodies to get it adopted as a public standard, so some manufacturers may want to wait until that actually becomes true.

I believe someone asked in about thread what related patents would Tesla's previous "poison pill" policy cover. It's actually on their website, if you click to show the patent list:
US D694188 Vehicle charge connector
US D724031 Vehicle charge inlet
Additional Resources | Tesla

These patents cover the connector and inlet of NACS respectively if you look them up. I looked in the NACS page and specs. It does not say anything related to patents, so presumably legally Tesla can still enforce those patents under the previous poison pill terms. So there is still a a practical reason for companies to wait until it is actually adopted by a standards committee.

 

[SO16]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1667567434252025856

 

[rlsd]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1667567434252025856

Everyone follows the money. No surprise. If the charging companies don't change now they will be out of business soon.

 

[rlsd]

To be fair, NACS is not quite fully a standard in the traditional sense. Tesla still is the sole party that controls the specifications. Until an organization like SAE, IEEE, DIN, or IEC adopts it, the people calling for open standards likely won't be satisfied.

Some also hate the idea of Tesla "winning" (or Tesla fans being "correct") and despise Tesla largely because they have a distain for the fans (claiming too many are under a "reality distortion field," similar to how many people say they dislike Apple for a similar reason), even if objectively they admit Tesla's connector is a superior design.

SAE. The only thing I know about it is the oil can label. But I don't buy oil anymore.
"In April 2007, MIT canceled its subscription to SAE because of required Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology implemented on SAE web-based database of technical papers."

SAE International - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[srs5694]

So what changed, and what changed so fast ?
1. Tesla developed the CCS to Tesla adapter. This was the free market killer of CCS because it gave Tesla cars an unassailable massive DC charging advantage over every other competitor.
2. Tesla opened the Supercharger Spec. This removed overnight the vested interest that every 3rd party manufacturer had in CCS support, and it removed the political backstop against subsidizing proprietary protocols or equipment.

Remember that Jim Farley commented in an interview that Ford and Tesla had been in discussions for "a couple of years" prior to their announcement. That's an imprecise number, but if taken literally, it means that Ford and Tesla were in discussions for at least a year prior to Tesla's opening the NACS spec, and also prior to the release of their CCS1-to-Tesla adapter. (I don't recall precisely when that became available. About a year ago in South Korea, maybe...?) Anyhow, for those looking for causal connections, the length of the Ford/Tesla talks, out of the public eye, is important to remember. Tesla's publicly releasing the adapter and opening NACS might have served goals in their negotiations with Ford, either to put pressure on Ford or to demonstrate a good-faith effort by Tesla to accommodate Ford's desires and concerns. I'm sure that someday somebody will write a book about this, or at least a chapter in a book (like Elon Musk's or Jim Farley's memoirs). I expect it'll be interesting reading.

Given how quickly GM's announcement followed Ford's, and how long negotiations like this typically take between big companies, I think it's virtually certain that GM was in negotiations with Tesla for months, if not years, as well. Perhaps Tesla reached out to a bunch of automakers two years ago and has been in discussions with several of them ever since. This raises the question of who else might be in talks right now. Of course, even if the answer is "nobody," the existence of two model deals means that negotiations with other automakers are likely to take much less time.

To be fair, NACS is not quite fully a standard in the traditional sense. Tesla still is the sole party that controls the specifications. Until an organization like SAE, IEEE, DIN, or IEC adopts it, the people calling for open standards likely won't be satisfied.

With Tesla, Ford, and GM on-board with NACS, I think the odds that it's not making its way through a standards committee somewhere are basically nil. For the reasons mentioned in other posts here, I think it unlikely that Ford and GM would rely on a design controlled exclusively by a competitor; and of course they likely have inside knowledge of how the standardization process is going. If nothing else, the three of them could create some new standards organization, with the three companies collectively controlling the process, and maybe invite in other automakers or DC fast charging equipment manufacturers to join the new organization as they adopt NACS. So there are a lot of ways this could go, but the current publicly-visible status quo of Tesla effectively controlling NACS as a de facto standard seems unlikely to me, at least in the long term.

Haven’t seen any details about the conditions of the deals with Ford and GM in articles - whether access to the supercharger network is for a certain number of years or guaranteed going forward for example. I’m guessing that’s not public ?

I also haven't seen any solid public information on this, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't covered in negotiations and in whatever final contracts they've worked up. As it's clearly in neither Ford's nor GM's interests to agree to terms that would let Tesla unilaterally terminate the agreement and leave their drivers stranded, I figure there must be some pretty strong guarantees in these agreements, but that's an inference, not a known fact.