fbov

Entering my second C-Max winter, the only add from me is to set the heat at 60F. I've found that setting climage control temperature to 60 allows heat to be on, with minimal impact on EV capability once you get into EV. One still needs to warm the engine to get heat, but once a little warm, this greatly improves my EV drivability. Bumping the temp up just a little, 62-63, negates the benefit; you must set it to 60. We're in single digits recent mornings, and I've been able to achieve low-mid 30's MPGs down to 0F this year, on the same route that gave me 55-60 MPG in August. Have fun, Frank

Because... And... Your posts display what's known as confirmation bias... when someone disagrees with you, you misrepresent the dissenting argument, so you remain apparently correct. It's very common on the internet, as I said, but a fatal flaw in engineering and the natural sciences. Take GM's ignition switch problems, or Takata's position on air bag ignitors as current examples. Have fun, Frank

If I proved you point, it's only because you missed mine... for the same engine intake displacement, the Atkinson cycle has comparable power. For something I would call a signficant difference, compare the Focus' normally-aspirated specs with those for the Ecoboost turbo... 57% and 85% increases are a great improvement, especially given a 15% hit in EPA mileage! Have fun, Frank

My thought exactly. It's not as if they promised you Sync 3 and delivered Sync 2. Car features change, year-over-year. If you want next year's features, wait a year until they come out! Then complain because they discontinue the model you wanted last year rather than upgrade it. There's no limit to your dissatisfaction if you want to be unhappy. Happiness is a choice!! Have fun, Frank

One must be careful when researching things on the internet. Unsubstantiated opinions get repeated until they're accepted, regardless their basis, applicability or veracity. (That's one reason I hate poliltics.) I linked that site for it's animations, not it's (faulty) explanation. Your link is a great example; at least the author provides references. She also used the animation site, so I'll use her other reference to make a point about the quality of unsubstantiated opinions: "In terms of power the Atkinson engine lag behinds the Otto cycle engine due to the amount of air it takes in; the Atkinson engine does not take in as much air as an Otto cycle engine resulting in greatly reduced power." All true, until we get to a misleading use of the word "greatly" without qualification. Let's see how "greatly" reduced an Atkinson's power output really is... From 2014 Ford Focus Specifications: Engine type 2.0L Ti-VCT GDI I-4 Horsepower (SAE net@rpm) 160 @ 6500 Torque (lb. ft. @ rpm) 146 @ 4450 Compression ratio 12.0:1 Bore x stroke (in.) 3.44 x 3.27 From 2015 C-Max Specifications: Engine type 2.0L Atkinson-Cycle I-4 Hybrid Engine Horsepower (SAE net@rpm) 141 @ 6000 rpm Torque (lb.-ft.@rpm) 129 @ 4000 rpm Compression ratio 12.3:1 Bore x stroke (in.) 3.44 x 3.27 I don't have a reference for the Atkinson displacement ratio of 90% (1.8L intake, 2.0L exhaust displacements) 90% of 160 HP in the Focus = 144, compared with 141 in the C-Max Atkinson 90% of 146 lb-ft in the focus = 131, compared with 129 in the C-Max Atkinson 90% of 12.3 compression ratio in the C-Max = 11.1, compared with 12.0 in the Focus (The only thing that doesn't scale closely is compression ratio, and that's not a fair comparison. This 2L has GDI, gasoline direct injection,not conventional port injection. One might expect direct injection enables higher compression ratio.) I conclude that an Atkinson engine gets the same torque and power output as it's conventional brethran, when scaled for intake displacment, and at lower RPM. Output is not "greatly" reduced, it's reduced in proportion to the intake displacment reduction. If one thinks these output levels are low, keep in mind that the Porsche 944's 2.5L made 143HP@5500 RPM. The true disadvantages are that an Atkinson is larger than a conventional engine of the same intake displacment, and has poor drivability in a conventional drivetrain. Power density, HP/lb. is lower than it would be in a conventional engine, and it won't rev as fast, so it's not well suited for use in conventional drivetrains. Stating this Atkinson engine is somehow low on power or torque is just plain wrong, and I trust you now see why. Have fun, Frank

The thing I like most about forums is that I learn things from other posters, and from researching my replies. One of them was that "moot" didn't mean what I thought, in fact, it's quite the opposite - debatable, contentious, disputable - which is not what I think you meant, either. In that vein, you may want to look deeper into Atkinson-cycle engines. It's actually a dual concept of asymetic intake and exhaust volumes (or compression and power strokes), in an engine that achieves all four strokes in a single crankshaft revolution. Atkinson was apparently trying to get around Otto's patents. Only the first aspect is used here, and If anything, intake/exhaust volume assymetry improves low RPM torque over a conventional Otto-cycle engine, at the expense of high RPM performance. Torque comes from expansion during the power cycle. By allowing the expansion to continue past the original intake volume, the engine produces more torque for a given intake volume, thus better volumetric efficiency. The many BSFC charts in the link in post 13 bear this out; all show lots of output below 2000 RPM. For me, data trumps opinion.... As we agree there is no free lunch, there is a price to pay (two actually), and the first is in the engine's ability to accelerate, to increase engine operating speed. This is the only sense in which an Atkinson is "low torque." In conventional engines, cylinder pressure when the exhaust valve opens is much higher than when the intake valve closed. The piston approaches bottom-dead-center with greater pressure behind it, a force which is carried over to the intake stroke, and requries intake throttling to control RPM. The Atkinson is disadvantaged in this respect by the reduction in piston acceleration approaching bottom-dead-center, due to the energy extracted by the longer power stroke. The second price you pay is power-to-weight ratio. The C-Max has a 2.0L engine mass, but the output of a 1.8L engine. Power density, HP/lb, is lower, so vehicle weight is higher than it might be. That's again a reasonable tradeoff, as regnerative braking negates much of the inefficiency of increased vehicle weight. Ford's initial prohibition of EV above 63MPH certainly supports your last point, but I don't see Atkinson having any advantage at high RPM, and the strong negative correlation between average speed and mileage bears this out. Conventional cars (especially diesels) do better at speed due to gearing that increases engine load and reduces operating RPM, allowing them to run at wider throttle settings. At low speed, they waste energy accelerating mass, only to dump that energy into the brakes as heat. You have made me curious about the Energi's regen behaviour on long, downhill runs. Hybrids quickly run out of room in the battery. I would expect an Energi to keep charging, given 5x the capacity. You ever get into the mountains? HAve fun, Frank

You're dancing around your assumption that we all have plug-in's, and ignoring the consequences of that assumption. There's still no way to charge my HVB without using fuel. Your mileage may vary, but your statements are false. Frank

http://www.curtmfg.com/part/12092 I stand corrected... but I'd still go with the Toklift for it's 3-point attachment, regardless the rating. Frank

I was responding to you, Steve, and I'm glad to hear we agree on the overall process. It's my understanding that the Energi is a "hybrid" hybrid, in the sense that acts like a plug-in (i.e. FFE) in some cases, and like a standalone (i.e. C-Max Hybrid) in others. You may be right that in an Energi, the ICE will not charge the full 7.5kWh battery capacity, but it's misleading to state: "it makes no sense to use the ICE to charge the HVB. Both Toyota and Ford choose not to do this..." as that statement is patently false! In the absence of a plug, all HVB charge comes from the conversion of fuel by the ICE, 100% of it. There are no other paths available. You're reasoning from the specific (this is how my Energi works) to the general (this is now all Ford and Toyota hybrids work), which is a very dangerous thing to do if you want to reach accurate conclusions. TANSTAAFL* certainly applies. HAve fun, Frank *There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Yes, and No, respectively. Any time you mix water with something, you raise the boiling point and reduce the freezing point. It's why we treat our roads with salt when it's cold out. The effect in this case, however, depends on the mixture freezing, as the freezing process will tend to concentrate the vinegar as water molecules shift from liquid to solid state. That results in a higher-concentration bottom layer that is weaker mechanically than the bulk ice that forms on top, which should make removal easier. As to damage, consider that lemon juice is about as strong an acid as white vinegar, and there's lots of water around to dilute it. Thanks for asking, as I wasn't thinking in terms of a mechanical effect until I read that link. I learned something, too! Have fun, Frank

Toyota and Ford do exactly that in their hybrid models. It's the basis of TRW's power split device. (I find TRW's "Speeder" and "Torquer" nomenclature more clearly convey the concepts than "MG1" and "MG2.") In a non-plug-in car, there's only one energy source - gasoline. Every EV mile you drive is just using energy the car stored when the engine was running. This diagram shows the various options, along with an estimate of relative capacity. - Turn fuel into motion and you have kinetic energy (KE). - Slow down by driving up a hill and you convert KE into potential energy. Recover it driving downhill. - Turn fuel into electricity by using the ICE to run the Speeder (the car can be stationary or in motion). - Turn fuel into electricity by first converting it to motion, then using the Torquer to capture the KE by regenerative braking. - Recover the electricity stored in the HVB by using the Torquer for propulsion instead of the ICE. ALL the energy comes from fuel, unless you have a plug-in hybrid. Now, of course you get poorer instantaneous mileage from the ICE when you're converting fuel into both motion and HVB charge, but charging the HVB just increases the ICE load at that RPM, improving it's efficiency (reducing it's specifc fuel consumption). That's how you get more miles out of your fuel; you store the excess energy until you need it! Have fun, Frank

I assume you're referring to tongue weight? A 350 lb. tongue weight implies a Class II hitch, but then, so does a 2" receiver. I doubt if any vendor would rate a hitch as Class II for a car that's not rated for towing in the first place I installed the 2" Class I hitch from Torklift, based on this thread. About twice the price of a Curt or the Drawtite you linked, but no drilling, and no comparison mechanically. The extra cost buys you 3 mounting points (there's a center bracket) and I suspect it greatly exceeds Class I specs. I didn't stand on it, but I didn sit on our cargo platform, a far greater load than your 230 lb. I'm afraid. It felt like an extension of the car... Given the Torklift fits the car, I'd want equivalent features in any competetive hitch to warrant consideration in your application. Perhaps someone with high hitch load experience will chime in! Have fun, Frank

You get it. Most folks don't... Thanks for the thoughtful reply! Frank

I suspect two things are going on here. 1) Ford had some bad seat heaters in the early production units. My drivers' side heater was unusable in all but the coldest weather because a setting of 1 was uncomfortably hot. After a while, 5 hardly warmed the seats. That's the performance profile of a heater with a short circuit, drawing too much current until it burns out and draws too little. 2) We're checking our seat heaters after the seat back repair. I did, and now have a heating element that's very comfortable (barely warm) at 1, replaced under warranty. If in doubt, check your seat heater before the warranty expires (unless you live where there's no need). Also, try to avoid putting all your weight on one knee in the center of the seat cushion, reaching into the back seat for example, as that's not a nice thing to do to your seat heater! HAve fun, frank

Not here... I'm standing in the same place when I reach for the rear door handle to unlock the front door. Fob and change are the only thing in that pocket, but it does seem to happen more often in Vermont... first noticed it visiting by daughter last Thanksgiving, and it happened again this year. HAve fun, Frank

Per my response on the EV Miles thread, I suspect you have greatly underestimated the "charger" capacity to fill the battery (to use the original TRW terminology). Have fun, Frank

Got a reference for this? Granted, we only use ~40% of battery capacity, but that's still ~0.6 kWh, and mine only needs a couple minutes to charge if I drive it right. Plus, you've mixed your units... Power is kW, a rate of energy delivery. Energy is kWh, power integrated over the time it's applied. Have fun, Frank

As the driver of an oncoming vehicle, I'm extremely glad that the HID conversion did not work, and you retained the warmer, low-scatter, less-blinding OEM lights. Please consider that your retrofit does little more than shift your discomfort to oncoming traffic. You will also find that in marginal light situations, like fog or snow, when visibility really matters, HID lights will reduce your ability to see the road. The C-Max has excellent visibility, as designed, but you can fix that... The reasons involve color temperature, light scatter and human visual response, plus looking at night diving as a system, rather than individual components. Have fun, Frank

EV+ is a prime tool for those playing the hybrid mileage game. The end of most trips, I'm driving at moderate speed through neighborhoods, with lots of turns, hills and stop signs. It's real easy to get into ICE when the SOC is low and there's very little EV power available. It's the unnecessary ICE burns that make the difference when you're only using 2.3 ounces of fuel for a 15 mile trip, so a feature that allows access to more EV power reduces unnecessary fuel usage. I've gotten to the point where I need a specific speed with non-zero SOC rolling through a dip in the road, and I can make it home on EV every time, as long as EV+ kicks in for the last coulple stops and hills. It's fun watching the tank mileage climb, knowing I've used all the fuel I need. Personally, I think that's how the car should work all the time.... Have fun, Frank

Welcome to the world of gas-powered hybrids! You've found one of the oddest aspects: - you want poor mileage when the engine's running, but - you don't want the engine running! Think of what I call ICE mileage = (total miles - EV miles)/fuel used, as a measure of your efficiency as a driver. The lower your ICE mileage, the more energy you're getting out of the fuel when you're using fuel. The idea is based on "brake specific fuel consumption" (BSFC), a dynomometer test that looks at: - brake means power at the dynomometer brake. In the 1960's horsepower wars, engine power was measured at the output shaft without accessories of transmission losses. It gave a higher number, useful when HP sold cars, and analogous to EPA mileage ratings today. - specific means you're looking at energy delivered per mass of fuel, typically grams/kWH - fuel consumption is the inverse of mileage (fuel per mile, not miles per fuel) ... but the resulting charts are not what you might expect. (Scroll down for Toyota hybrid engines, and recent VW diesels) Minimum BSFC is found where you have high load (high power output) and low RPM (low power, because power is proprotional to torque x RPM). You get the most energy from your fuel running at low RPM - makes sense - but only when you have high load! And this is what makes hybrids efficient - only running the gas engine when you can put high load on it. The lower your ICE mileage, the more efficient your driving style at extracting energy from the fuel. My experience is based on having two commuting routes: - a rural route with 12 stop lights and 6 stop signs where I average about 30 mph, door-to-door my ICE mileage this summer was ~14.5 mpg, but my overall mileage over this period was 56.1 mpg, becasue I was only running the ICE 26% of the time - a highway route with 5 stop lights and 2 stop signs where I average about 45 mph, but with 55- and 65-mph speed limits my typical highway ICE mileage is 27 mpg, but my overall mileage over this period was 47 mpg, because I was running the ICE over 57% of the time The other pertinent example is the VW TDI engine, which routinely gets high-40's in highway driving, which I can only match in the best of conditions. The last chart in the BSFC chart link is the 2.0L TDI engine, which is a good 10% more efficient than the best Toyota engine shown (presumed the Prius' Atkinson engine). Diesels have real advantages... The one caveat to all this is RPM management. I improved my mileage 10-15% in my second year driving the C-Max because I'm doing a better job of keeping RPM down, which means slower acceleration and longer time to speed, but also more energy stored in the battery. By keeping RPM down, the longer burns don't use any more fuel, but the higher battery charge means longer EV glides. You'll also find every hill in what you currently think of as "flat" land; use them wisely as hills are your friend! Have fun, Frank

I use pizza pans, and Velcro to get an "aero" wheel cover. - pizza pans need trimming for both diameter and depth of and edge contour. I used a band saw with metal blade on aluminum pans. The front wheels need clearance at the edge, or normal wheel flex will pop the covers. the rears stayed on through the Winter with no issues. - to center the Velcro, apply one side to the high point on the wheel, put on the other side with backing removed, and install the cover. Have fun, Frank

I find 1 piece of pipe insulation per grill works fine... you notch the tube around the vertical stays. Of course, if you have fabrication facilities, go for it! Frank

I did none of these things this past weekend, and had no issues switching to snows with different TPMS sensors. When I installed new snows, wheels and sensors last Fall, I did need to drive for a few days before the light went out. Of course, the dealer's service advisor said he hadn't installed sensors in his snows, and just ran with the warning light all winter... this is good to know - thanks! HAve fun, Frank

No, turning off the heat is a) more effective, but b) far more uncomfortable. I'm looking for a middle ground. Setting to 60F gets you some heat, about what the engine control system requires for the ICE anyway (that maddening ICE "normal operation" mode in the energy flow screen). More importantly, it doesn't reduce the ICE-on threshold when EV-ing, so you retain a degree of drivability that's lost otherwise. HAve fun, Frank

You missed the point... if we take the time to post, please take the time to comprehend what we say. There was no difference in mileage between old 5W20 and new 0W20 in warm weather. Nor would one expect a difference in warm weather. The absolute mileage difference (0.73 mpg) is substantially explained by the difference in ambient temperature (2.2F) and a known temperature affect on mileage (2.2F x 0.28MPG/F = 0.62mpg), based on my own mileage records over that period. and "...the real test would be winter driving..." +1 to Plus 3's discussion. Here's a real good site for oil information. The bottom line remains that mileage depends on the driver more than everything else combined. Have fun, Frank