fbov

Near term, check tire pressure and up it to sidewall rating. Long term, you want a tire that gives you fewer "revolutions per mile" than the OEM's 803 revs, as that's a direct measure of on-road diameter. For Energy Saver A/S, I'm seeing: 235/50R17 & P235/50R17, both 791 235/55R17 - 766 P215/65R17 - 742 P225/65R17 - 730 These will fit OEM wheels, but you have to check for mechanical interference under all conditions of lock and rebound. That's where you'll find the rub in your plan. HAve fun, Frank

Only if he owns a hybrid... I think you're safe in Nevada.

Just to be clear, I'm talking about adhesion between tire and road, not fuel economy...

I didn't suggest heat as a wear factor, but rather as a traction factor... they only work well when the slip angle can create high temperatures at the rubber/road interface. It takes very little water to quench that energy and cool the tire in my experience. HAve fun, Frank

Not really... C-Max is not involved. "Court documents from a 2013 class-action lawsuit filed in California show Ford engineers were worried about the “unsaleable” system from the outset of its 2010 launch..." (emphasis added, ed.) We have the second generation system. Lawsuit involves first gen. Third gen, based on RIM software, works. Have fun, Frank

Michelin Energy Saver A/S in OEM size P225/50-17 will vary slightly from year to year, as will the price, due to raw materials variations. Tires are cheap right now. Your description matches my tires; they need heat to give any grip. Wet and snow performance is poor, but dry characteristics are very good, given the life and RR. Your recent fuel mileage data indicates you don't drive fast enough to wear tires! Have fun, Frank

https://avt.inl.gov/vehicle-button/2013-ford-c-max For those interested, here's a link (you've seen before) to current DOE test data for 2013 C-Max, now out beyond 100K miles. The only thing changing is capacity, dropping about 10%, but... - discharge curves coincide down to the capacity limit - internal resistance doesn't change with age up to 80% of capacity - pulse charge/discharge power is stable or improving - available power vs usable energy is similar, same or better than when new So while absolute capacity and energy content do decline, they're the least important aspect tested, given the HVB operates in a 30% to 70% state of charge. The important stuff is very stable. Paul, your comment about how far down the hill you can go before running out of regen capacity, while achieving new mileage records, is consistent with these resuits, to my eye. Have fun, Frank

Yes, console 12v plug is switched, the one in the trunk area is not... got lots of parking lot footage on the dash cam using that outlet. Using the front one, the camera beeps when I open the door, as it's power is turned on. Frank

I have no problem understanding your manual's Information Display section, starting on page 90. You'll want to look at the MyView options as it's the easiest way to see coolant temperature and RPM. If you prefer to hack, Plus already gave you the manual directions, but it's easier to comprehend when you know all the options present. And welcome to the fold! Frank

Proof positive that any "degradation" in the hybrid system's capability is more than offset by a little patience! Nice work. Frank

Looking into this, there's a reason... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_brakeforce_distribution http://www.aa1car.com/library/brake_balance.htm "On vehicles with electronic brake proportioning, the REAR brakes may actually wear out faster than the front brakes...." Rear brake wear is one downside to regen in a car with full electronic wheel control. Note the links refer to conventional drivetrains. Regen only makes it worse. I think this also explains that feeling the brakes failed as you enter a turn. It's gone now that the back brakes are working properly. Have fun, Frank

From the Detroit News article, this immediately preceeds the "turd:" "Court documents from a 2013 class-action lawsuit filed in California show Ford engineers were worried about the “unsaleable” system from the outset of its 2010 launch..." This isn't us, it's the first generation. My Microsoft-based MFT/Sync system was it's replacement, followed by the RIM system now in use. Articles are popping because the class-action suits are starting trial soon. Engineers tend to report what they observe... Have fun, Frank

Agressive capability, based on the prior generation's power/energy profile. EV up to 75 MPH looks good. Have to wait and see... I was referring to cars that had grass under the hood (if you were parked on the lawn). I didn't appreciate that there was a belt-driven starter motor on the engine, that also had charging capability. We drove the C-Max to the dealership, not the trade-in... convenience features are not all they're cracked up to be. Conversely, it's easier to ignore a capability you have, than use one you don't have. I have sunroof envy. No mention in their documentation The 2011 video that may not apply to the 2016 (different engine, "all new" drivetrain). Thanks for your interest. I'll let you know, Frank

But you can't beat the fuel consumption!!!

We have turned to the dark side, in the form of a black 2016 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid. Unlike our cars, it has a 6-speed transmission with a parallel hybrid power plant. It's unconventional in that the single motor/generator and clutch replace the torque converter in the tranny. ICE is a 2L non-Atkinson direct-injection 4-cylinder which combines with the 38kW MG for 193 total HP. Battery has 1.6kWh capacity, and based on AVT test data for the prior Li-ion battery, it should provide comparable performance to Ford's battery. No idea how they handle regen through the transmission gearing. I've only driven it once... Nice simple dial display of power requested clockwise and regen braking requested counter-clockwise. Dual fuel gauges for gas and HVB. Three modes, ECO, normal and SPORT. And the high-end version had an "Ultimate" option package with a panoramic sunroof that opens. So we have all the bells and whistles... She saw the sunroof and that was that. Given my wife wanted a hybrid when she first bought a Hyundai in 2011, this is perfect for her. Very happy she waited for Li-ion technology! Not so happy to have an all new drive train again... or so many bells and whistles. I liked simple cars before these hybrid things came along... HAve fun, Frank

Thanks for understanding that it's all about understanding.

Too many words for a detailed reply. This is the bit where we differ. Put another way, the polarity of generator output remains the same if you swap phases moving through 0 RPM, does it not? If so, direction of rotation gives no information about the direction of current and torque flow, and thus no information about charging status. The generator can charge when turning in either direction (but not at 0 RPM!). I also see no condition under which the generator would transfer torque to the ICE to reduce speed. It's pure waste. That's why I call it "control system speak" to say the generator is slowing the ICE in negative split mode. Providing drive torque, yes, with ICE running at low RPM. It's in the interpretation of the explanation; Ford's not doing wasteful things. HAve fun, Frank

Before you do, consider this. I have my used oil tested at the change. - my first two changes removed Ford semi-synth 5W20. % Fuel averaged 0.9% with a 365F flash point and 44.5 PPM Fe. - my next two changes removed generic and Mobil AFE 0W20. % Fuel averaged 2.65% with a 333F flash point and 73 ppm Fe. Needless to say, I had re-installed the AFE 0W20 before the prior oil's data was available. I plan to switch to Mobil 1 Extended Performance 5W20... in ~6K miles. This data takes time; I need 10K on the 5W20 before I can say anything for certain. Maybe by 2018? Have fun, Frank

The wire is there for aerodynamic reasons. It breaks up the round profile. Very common. Frank

I now understand your interest in the ratios, but not the first part. There are two parts to the tractor and generator equations, rotation direction and electric polarity. Please consider that: - the traction motor produces torque in both forward and reverse directions. - the traction motor produces both torque and braking (opposite polarity) forces in the forward direction. Does regen work in reverse, too? All your timeline chart shows regarding the generator is that at ICE = 3000 RPM, gen is at +2K RPM, but when ICE = 2000 RPM, gen is -2K RPM. That sounds like a reasonable requirement of the power split gearing. I see no reason to expect a change in polarity of the gen output. Very easy to change applied field polarity going through 0 RPM. As to the phrase "generator motor is reducing engine speed," that sounds like control system effects, not a transfer of mechanical torque; batttery is full, so gen load is low, allowing a low engine speed run mode. while the gen is still spinning fast enough to make power if needed. although that may not be part of the control system, per their diagrams. And thank you for your continued contributions, Frank

She's a rare find, indeed! Time to update the sig, too. Frank

Two things. Break-even isn't part of the energy content/mileage discussion. You don't use 93E0 for it's cost benefit ratio. The question was if fuel affected mileage, and the data says it does. If cost matters, buy cheap (but not too cheap). http://www.toptiergas.com/ To maximize the fuel difference, you'd want a test with low parasitic losses, as they act as noise in the tests. Generally, highway mileage is lower with these cars because of higher aerodynamic losses, making low speed routes a more sensitive test. My data was a 15 mile commute averaging 30 MPH, over a period of months, so you see both signal and noise. Comparable highway data (from 2013/14) is far less noisy. HAve fun, Frank

This is the last test I did before retiring, with a resulting lack of data from my daily commute since then. This is two consecutive tanks, over the same range of temperatures. Same route, round trip every day with a cold start at both ends. What's interesting is the pattern of data from 91E0 fuel; note the break at ~ freezing, with a divergent arm reaching higher mileage levels on occasion. It's as though the octane/ethanol didn't matter until the engine temperature at the start of the trip got higher. Then we see high mileages that aren't attained with 87E10 fuel, averaging 12% higher at 50F (no difference at 10F). As to cost effectiveness, I went from $70 in gas every 10 days, to $30/month with the C-Max. The cost differences are small in the scheme of things; I must be a hobbist! HAve fun, Frank

The only thing I've seen chunk a tire is aggressive cornering on full-tread tires. It's the reason you shave full-depth tires before racing (if they aren't molded to that depth to start). Frank

The first thing to look at is the objective of the test. Not the stated objective, that actual objective, as determined by the test conditions. How you set up a test determines the answer you get. AAA used three conventional drive trains (engine, multi-speed transmission). They proved that premium has no benefit for conventional drive trains across a reasonable displacement range, unless required by design.. An interesting test would be to use a vehicle with better fuel economy at low speed than high speed. One whose energy use is actually linked to the amount of energy needed to get from one place to another in a given period of time. Instead, they chose vehicles that waste the vast majority of the fuel's energy content. No one should be surprised at the results. The test is designed to insure those results. That's a rigged test in my book. Puts AAA right up there with Mythbusters. Sad. HAve fun, Frank, who has proven these results to be incorrect. Better fuel gives better mileage, if you're not wasting it.