RaPieR

Great post kostby, just a small correction. The Wayne Michigan Ford plant only produces the C-Max and Focus variants. The Fusion is built in Flat Rock Assembly. I've slowly started to hear C-Max advertisements on the radio but they now only mention "total system horsepower." No mention of fuel mileage. Ford probably doesn't want to remind anyone of the MPG rating fiasco.

Hello welcome! Congrats on the new C-Max!

My SEL was build Oct 2012. We've driven 57,000 miles and other than the TSB(s) we've only had a blown out brake light.

From www.americanmuscle.com: Year: Factory Wheel Sizing Factory Bolt Pattern Stud sizing Center Bore Offset Max Wheel Size 1979-1993 Mustang 14"x6 4"x108mm 1/2"x20mm 63.4 15-25mm (M) 20 inches 1985-1993 Mustang GT 15-16" 4"x108mm 1/2"x20mm 63.4 15-25mm (M) 20 inches 1994-1998 Mustang, Mustang GT & Cobra 15-18" 5"x114.3mm 1/2"x20mm 70.3 35-50mm (H) 22 inches 1999-2004 Mustang, Mustang GT & Cobra 15-17" 5"x114.3mm 1/2"x20mm 70.3 35-50mm (H) 22 inches 2005-2009 Mustang & Mustang GT 16-18" 5"x114.3mm 1/2"x20mm 70.3 35-50mm (H) 22 inches 2010-2014 Mustang & Mustang GT 17-19" 5"x114.3mm 1/2"x20mm 70.3 35-50mm (H) 22 inches What model year Mustang are you looking at? Only the 1979 to 1993 Mustangs share the same bolt pattern. 1994 and later has a 5x114.3 bolt pattern that doesn't match up with the C-Max.

Hmm, that piece price doesn't seem worth the trouble consider how much it probably affects actual mpg.

I'm pretty sure that the Oxford White still has clear coat since the clear coat is really important for UV protection for the paint. I've gotten a lot of rock chips on my blue candy c-max. Luckily, they are all fairly small because the touch up can't seem to match the color of the original paint. Or maybe I was applying it incorrectly but even though it's slightly off color/darker the chips are pretty hard to see after touching up.

Very cool info thanks Plus 3!

Really? Whenever I bring up the navigation on the driver cluster all it shows is a basic compass and if I have an active route on the navigation then it displays upcoming turn directions but it doesn't show the active map. Is there an option or button press to active the map into the driver cluster?

That's pretty neat that they can display the navigation right into the driver information cluster. Besides the stability Ford needs to add more computing power to make the system more responsive.

The rear deflectors look like they are just adhesived on the rear windshield. Any pics on what they look like from the inside? Thanks!

Great pictures! Can you take a picture of the rear windshield too? I saw an aero piece there on the prototype C-Max I saw a while back and I'm thinking that it would be another add in part that should be easy to install.

Just read this article that was posted on CR. Don't usually read often from CR but a tidbit from their article is interesting. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/02/ford-pairs-with-blackberry/index.htm I hope that part about downloading the new OS for MFT is true and I hope it doesn't apply to just the Edge and Flex.

The only issue I've experienced with the navigation is on long road trips. I drove from Michigan to Texas last December and it calculates the route just fine but when I deviate from the route (I want to take a specific route to avoid traffic or construction) the navigation keeps trying to reroute me back to the original route it had calculated. This goes on over and over until after a while it'll give up and display a "route calculation failed" error. This error will prevent me from inputting the same address again and calculating a new route based on my current position and route. It didn't go away until I merged back into part of the original route or got close enough to it. It wasn't a big issue because I've completed this trip multiple times so I know where to go but if I had never driven that route and the GPS started doing that error then a person could get lost or be forced to go back to the original calculated route.

Blackberry is not doing well but QNX is a subsidiary under RIM. QNX is actually an industry leader in embedded operating systems. Audi, BMW, VW, Chrysler/Dodge are among the manufacturers that use QNX. This could be a good thing for Ford. I do hope that they keep ahead with other developments when they mature (Apple and Android) but right now they are looking for stability which Microsoft has struggled to provide in MFT.

Ford was supposed to be rolling out an update that would enable Applink support. I remember reading/hearing about it a while back but haven't heard anything else since.

Wonder what this means for current MFT/SYNC vehicles that are powered by Microsoft.

Considering how much heat Ford received from the initial EPA ratings for the C-Max, I doubt they would be stupid enough to do something like make the trip computer more inaccurate to "hide" fuel economy.

LOL, that's a possibility that it was a defective badge. It would have made more sense if it was an "ST" badge since they build C-MAXes with all the Focus types in the same plant.

Ford usually had an "S", "SE", and "SEL" model codes. For the Escape, I think they dropped the "S" and just kept the "SE" and "SEL"

It's not a C-Max but interesting video I just saw on the Fusion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o8xvuzyowU Wonder if they have a similar video for the C-Max somewhere. Found a snippet for the 5DR Focus which has a closer body style to the C-Max http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjqINNH8Rzg

That sucks, hope everyone in the accident were ok.

As posted in the other 2014 thread, some of the aero improvements have been pictured. The only ones that have yet to be confirmed is transmission gearing, and hood seal. The changes probably isn't raising the overall MPG but maybe it's reducing the variability that people have been seeing with the 2013s.

Cool, I haven't been autocrossing for very long but based further reading the increased grip on wider tires may be attributed to softer compounds vs narrower tires. I always assumed that tires of the same models would have the same compound make-up but increasing width would provide more grip. On another note, the 225 wide tire was picked by vehicle engineers for the C-Max. If they could put a smaller or narrower tire for increase mileage without negative impacts to driving dynamics they would have done so. The C-Max is pretty heavy so how narrow could you go before you experience tire deformation that would negatively affect driving dynamics or mileage.

My logic is based on autocross/road racing experience. With the same tire type/compound, changing to a wider tire provides more grip. This is of course on clean dry asphalt. The wider tire would have worse performance if the road is wet/gravel/snow etc. This is evident in rally racing where their snow/gravel setups use narrow tires and for dry asphalt their setups use wider tires. I found a short article that I've linked below that seems to make sense. http://www.datsuns.com/Tech/tech_tires-2.htm Also have another link from an experienced autocross that discusses tire pressure. http://www.awdriven.net/autoX-tire-pressures.htm Hmm, just saw this article a short while later. And maybe the same tire model/brand with different widths don't use the same compound. Which is why a wider tire has more grip because it is a softer compound and has less stress/heat during braking/cornering. http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_108915/article.html

A tire with the same rolling resistance as the stock tire but narrower might give a very slight increase in MPG but it would increase braking distance because the C-Max is so heavy.