fbov

Laurel, that would be love that kept them together. She's lucky she found him again, as too many of us make the "smart" choice, not the "right" choice. You would be a very different person had you not had that Walter Mitty upbringing. We're all who we're supposed to be, regardless how we feel about that... And I'd not read Flanders Field before... thanks for the opportunity! Frnak

In the spirit of info sharing... I finally finished enough runs to end the tire pressure test (still need to document it) and was getting antsy for better highway mileage before the snow flies, so... I didn't use GasPods, I bought AirTabs, a competing vortex generator product that traces its design to the original Wheeler patents, but was developed to improve tractor-trailer performance. As such, they are larger in cross-sectional area, and I suspect, create a far more powerful vortex, and in pairs. Most impressive was the range of third party wind tunnel testing (vs. simulations), including automotive applications. As we'll see, application is critical. Having done a tuft test to analyze the car's air flow patterns and issues, my plan was to attach these to the sides, from thebeltline down. Tuft testing showed excellent ariflow off the roof and around the side glass at the rear, but lots of turbulence coming off the sides of the car. I figured one VG behind the taillight above the crease, and another below, with additional VGs trailing down behind the wheel well. Then I thought the better of placing them in separated flow (vortex generators only work well in laminar flow) and resigned myself to having extras. Then I tried dry fitting them... FAIL. The bodywork is subtly curved, while AirTabs are rigid plastic with a flat base, perfect for applying to the side of a trailer. Their function is dependent on a flush lead edge, and there was no way to bend them around the contours. (I'll be working on that this Winter.) As delivered, the roof and rear hatch were the only places I might fruitfully mount them! So, I mounted them where I knew I didn't need them, because it was the only place they fit. I then defined an "aero-drag stress test" - a short round trip on the interstate. 10 miles on the NYS Thruway, exit, re-enter and repeat. I did 2 runs, installing AirTabs on the front edge of the rear hatch in between. Data is taken from the internal mileage display, reset at a specifc mile marker, each way. I included a 7 mile warm-up run and plenty of time to come up to speed. I did double-click the cruise when cresting hills, but at these speeds, it had little affect. Control 47F @ 17:00, Eco Cruise set at 70 (and reading 70) Westbound: 37.9 MPG Eastbound: 37.5 MPG Test 48F @ 18:00, Eco Cruise set at 70 (and reading 69) Westbound: 36.5 MPG Eastbound: 36.9 MPG Not a very good test, but one that should not have shown poorer performance unless the test parts were a real step backwards. I expected a toss-up - no difference within noise - not a clear failure. I consider a 1MPG reduction with test parts to be a failure. Conversely, this is a perfect place for confirmation bias to rear its ugly head. Could my knowledge of the car's air flow cause me to do something subliminally different for the test runs? If anything, I consciously erred in favor of the test by leaving Eco Cruise set a little lower and running at a little warmer temperature (warm evening with rising temps). Regardless, Porter is back to stock configuration, and I'm thinking in terms of sanding mandrels and heat guns for shaping VG's for the sides... And wondering if smaller devices might have beneficial effects... application is everything when dealing with aero-magic. HAve fun, Frank

salsaguy - posted links on tuft test thread... not hiding anything but my video production skills. 11STI, I like the flat black on white look... But I think you all are putting them in the wrong place. The tuft test looked great over the entire glass area, with attached flow down the back window to the bottom edge - tail light level - where the problems (and so opportunities) start. I know I'm among those who have looked at data and judged there was a benefit, but my skepticism remains. A little personal testing has only strengthed it (see the other Gaspod thread). Such is the nature of aerodynamincs... and remember, we're starting with a Cd of 0.30... lots more potential to degrade aero than to improve it!!! HAve fun, Frank

And here's an annotated still, showing what to look for... Viewing the videos, you have to watch for fast moving tufts. In areas of laminar flow, the tufts don't move, so they're easy to see like parallel toothpics. When flow separates from the surface, the tufts go wild. You have to watch the video to get an idea how fast they move in turbulent air. I've circled an area that's particularly telling - the rear window boundary. The tufts show a strong laminar flow along the side, around the RAS sticker. Turn the corner onto the back glass and the flow is laminar, albeit at much lower speed, but perpendicular. That indicates a very clean break with no wrap-around turbulence reaching the glass. The same cannot be said for air along the flanks. Above the wheel well, flow remains attached until the tail light, when the bodywork wraps slowly around the corner. This slow curvature is perfect for the front of the car, but killer here, as it results in flow propagation around to the back of the car, unlike the clean break up by the rear glass. At wheel well level, the turbulence coming off the rear wheel never reattaches before the bodywork curves away and pulls this air in with it. My aerodynamic conclusion is that the greenhouse above the beltline is well designed with good control of airflow over the glass surfaces on all sides. At the beltline, body contours begin to have a negative effect, causing turbulent flow separation at the rear, worsening as wheel well turbulence makes its presence felt lower on the body. What do you see? Frank

Several folks have asked, so I am making the tuft test raw video available. While full resolution, the image is upside down, and not centered when it's interesting. If anyone with video edit capability is willing to help... http://youtu.be/TJ-82y81_Lw doesn't get interesting until 1:40 into the 2:00 file http://youtu.be/aMdQqjd2KPM interesting at 0:30 Have fun, Frank

Well put.

I posted my results on the Ecomodder forum, and got a very concise assessment of the car's aerodynamic characteristics and my options in that regard. *In elevation,Ford has done the K-form body, respecting boundary layer requirements for attached flow. *In plan-view, they're borrowing from Paul Jaray's 1921 'Kombination-form' greenhouse. *Both are truncated at a 'practical' length. *You do have nice clean laminar flow up to where Ford exercised some aesthetics with the truncation. A trip down a dusty road would reveal your actual separation line. *The wake is exactly as one would expect it should be. *For lower drag you'd just elongate the body, picking up where Ford left off, extrapolating the curvatures along imaginary 'ideal' pathways. *The effective-fineness ratio determines,more than any other factor,your potential for low drag. If you understand all this, you're a better man than I. However, I learned a lot looking up what I didn't know. Ford did their homework aerodynamically, at least. Have fun, Frank

This would be a lower limit, as I don't see any compensation for the test equipment. While the bulk of it's placed well, one would expect increased drag from the gas analyzer conduit and the open window where it enters the passenger compartment. Notice there are no picutures of the drivers' side of the car, only the cutaway diagram? While it's oriented substantially parallel to the flow, I'll wager the flow is significantly disrupted, with negative impact on FC as speed increases. I suspec tthey ignored it because it's a small effect, but one that can only raise the number. Original EPA rating's looking better and better... HAve fun, Frank

Me, too. I was an interstate guy through and through until this car came along. Now, it hurts to get less than 40MPG! I had planned to wait for nice weather to return before testing things for high speed improvement, but I got impatient, and we've had an unusually nice Fall so far... I'll make hay as long as the sun shines. But, despite my impatience to test, I will delay reporting some things (like results) until I see a stable pattern or can no longer take relevant data (hopefully for reasons less catastrophic than Jus). Once the snow starts, the next experiment starts - snow tires! I will also admit that the GasPods are a lot easier on the eyes than some of the other VGs on the market. If only they had data behind their product claims, I'd be testing them too. HAve fun, Frank

Here's a link to some testing of pressure drops that may give you some guidance on your choices. Frank

Yes, you will need help. My wife obliged me by driving for my test, but I'd have dearly liked to have the camera in hand, not tied to the chase car. My video is also inverted - the dash cam is designed to dangle from above, not mount on a tripod from below. And plan several hours to tuft your car. I was amazed... I used about 400 tufts, and I only covered rear wheels back! Had to cut another 80... twice! Use a bright contrasting color; I did white string on the glass, dark yarn on the rest fo the car, but bright RED would have been better. Another member has offered to try and edit my video; if he's successful, I'll post the snippets - they're only 10 sec. long. The full vids are on YouTube, but unlisted. I can send you the URL if you'd like... HAve fun, Frank

Has anyone who installed GasPods on a C-Max done any aerodynamic testing before installing them? Has anyone identified an aerodynamic problem befiore applying them to "fix" it? I ask because I've done a tuft test, and it tells me you all are putting aero devices in the wrong place - no bang for the buck on this roof. The C-Max is not your typical box-on-wheels. It already has a Cd of 0.30, and Ford did things to achieve that. Especially above the beltline, airflow is already benchmark, with very clean breaks on 3 sides of the back window. I see low-velocity, laminar airflow down the window, exactly what you want coming off the roof. Where's the problem? Please, someone, anyone, show us data, before and after, defining a problem and how vortex generators fixed it. I've not seen such data from this vendor, nor have I seen anyone else's data on a C-Max. I mean really... how hard is it to tape some tufts of string to your back window? You're only risking your unsupported opinions... Have fun, Frank

I've used RainX for years, but have yet to convert the C-Max to a hydrophobic windshield (treat the glass and replace washer fluid). As a result, I love auto wipers as I'm already accustomed to a little water on the glass... Just another of those little things I've done for years to amuse myself, that fit the C-Max like a tailored suit. HAve fun, Frank

MPG is outdated; the rest of the world looks at fuel consumption, liters per 100 kilometers. Since we American's are outdated elsewhere as well, it's gallons per 100 miles. You're thinking in a useful direction, but not a practical one. - the energy coming in depends on the quality of the gasoline; how does the car know if you got good gas? - energy drains vary dramatically based on road speed (known) and air speed (unknown), terrain (unknown) and driver intent (unknown to the car). With gaps on both sides of the equation, you can see why no one offers a true efficience meter. Add in the need to know the price of fuel in the tank and you can see this is far from practical... But an interesting topic. What I find is that MPG is a good coorrelate for efficiency over a limited range, and that fuel consumption removes the limitations, even as we continue to use the familiar but outdated metrics. Have fun, Frank

Why not? Pull the ABS fuse and throw on some sticky rubber and the C-Max would be a fine autocrosser, although not as showy, or as (temporally) slow, as Ken Block's videos... but then, he's not racing in them either. Frank

We all come here with varying states of understanding, all imperfect in some regard. The forum discussions promote investigation and finding what's actually happening; we get a chance to learn. I see no reason to treat the more obstinant learners poorly just because they take a while to get it. As long as a thread resolves into accuracy, I see no reason to lock them as the misunderstanding may be commonly held, and so its resolution good reading. Conversely, trolls should be beaten with a stick until dead. It can be hard to tell the difference at times... let's err on the side of patience as trolls will out themselves. Do we have a glossary thread, or just links to hypermiling sites for that? Have fun, Frank

Do a search in this forum for thread titles containing "TSB" and "SSM" and you'll find that one member posts these techincal service bulletin and service manual supplements as Ford puts them out. It really helps when you can ask the service advisor about a specific TSB, so he can't blow you off like that. I'll wager this one sounds familiar; your build date is on the drivers' door jamb sticker. http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/3138-tsb-13-7-10-12-volt-battery-discharged-will-not-hold-charge-radio-with-42-inch-display-only-built-before-6222013-supersedes-tsb-13-04-13/ The other great resource is ETIS. https://www.etis.ford.com/home.do Enter your VIN under the "Vehicle" tab and you'll find out lots about your car, like any outstanding field service actions (ask/search here if you have some). Finally, there's the Vehicle Health Report; the car can tell you if there's something the dealer should investigate. See your owners' manual for info. And Welcome! Frank

Welcome to the fold, buffalofrenchy, and glad to see Laurel's asking the important questions... Ice Storm seems quite appropriate for WNY, but I'd steer clear of Platinum or Oxford whites... too easy to be mistaken for a snow drift. Frank

I see something of a trend... and thanks to our friend and contributor Bill-N for posting these in a timely manner! http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/3135-tsb-13-11-11-2013-hybridenergi-check-engine-andor-wrench-lamp-and-various-dtcs-tsb-13-6-22-update/ http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/3138-tsb-13-7-10-12-volt-battery-discharged-will-not-hold-charge-radio-with-42-inch-display-only-built-before-6222013-supersedes-tsb-13-04-13/ http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/3142-tsb-13-9-9-clunkrattle-noise-from-front-end-during-parking-maneuvers-andor-over-rough-surfaces-at-low-speeds-between-8-32-kmh-5-20-mph/ http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/3137-tsb-13-6-28-intelligent-access-remote-start-feature-equipped-vehicles-built-before-422013/ http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/3139-tsb-13-10-6-myford-touch-various-functionality-concerns-built-before-8162013-supersedes-tsb-13-8-2/ http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/3140-tsb-13-9-22-sync-various-functionality-concerns/ and http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/3144-ssm-44169-2013-cmax-2013-2014-fusionlincoln-mkz-hybridenergi-pull-during-braking/ http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/3141-ssm-44214-2013-hybrid-cmax-malfunction-indicator-light-mil-on-with-diagnostic-trouble-code-dtc-p1a0c-and-p1a0f-startstall-diagnostics/ Many of these TSBs should sound familiar to anyone lurking on this forum, and many have posted regarding these issues. Apparently Ford has listened and is implementing corrective action, perhaps timed to 2014 model release (fixes going in 2014's getting rolled out to the prior model year(s)). This tells me Ford is listening and reacting to us schlubs and our complainin'. Combine good business results with the news over the summer of additional hiring, and perhaps we're seeing an effort to address the hybrid-intro glitches and clean off the EPA mud gathered this year in hopes of an even better 2014 product! Have fun, Frank

I've taken a very systematic approach so far in assessing C-Max fuel consumption, to the point of - leaving everything stock for a while, including air pressures - baseline performance - getting the PCM update 13B07, but changing nothing else - upping tire pressures and doing some front end air infiltration reductions, but nothing else (yet). In my world, this is called 1FAT - one factor at a time - and using real world fuel consumption results in a weak test - lots of data needed - so thing move slowly. I can say I got a 5% increase in mileage/reduction in fuel consumption from the PCM update in rural driving (35-45 MPH, little traffic) I researched tire pressure benefits, and the prevailing data showed diminishing returns above ~50psi, the OEM tire sidewall rating, but a good 7-8% reduction in rolling resistance moving up from 33-34psi. - I defined a coast-down test course and found a 5% increase in terminal speed just from tire pressures. - my mileage this week has been exceptionally high, but temperatures are up this week, and I need a week's worth of data to say anything meaningful. Regardless, I've seen two hardware changes that both seem to make a difference, but the biggest difference was a software change; the person behind the wheel determines the mileage by driving style and choice of route. Getting up to the 43 range simply makes this latter factor small enough that you may well see measurable gains from the hardware changes, as I am. Re: ride, upping pressure by 50% should have been a huge change in ride comfort. I haven't notices much beyond perhaps better resolution of road defects; I feel the "edges" of the bumps now. But then, I've run sidewall max. pressures for decades... HAve fun, Frank

Energy is energy. The form doesn't matter. If you're driving a plug-in, you're right, as others have noted, to add the miles traveled only on plug-in battery charge to those traveled on gas/battery. If you're driving a hybrid, all your energy comes from gasoline. This graphic helped me see how things interrelate as you move energy from the gas tank into the other three forms a hybrid uses. Have fun, Frank

Doc, stop telling people what to do. We have this thing called "seasons" in the temperate latitudes. Temperature changes, so pressure changes. Get over it.

I just upped tire pressures, from 33-34 to 51 or so, and will report the effect in a couple weeks... need to take data. Frnak

You can see the full size pictrue file by "right-click, save target as." Still, it's not the full HD frame and you lose a lot without motion... working on it. wab, I agree to an extent, humor aside. The point of testing is to see if there if a problem can be identified. without a problem, best leave them in the box. so... Was an aerodynamic problem identified? What would you suggest for remediation? ... these are not rhetorical questions, but rather the point of the exercise! HAve fun, Frank

My small contribution... the first is an astrophotograph of an area just below Orion's Belt, featuring the Horsehead and Flame nebulae to the left, through the Running Man to include the entire M42 Orion Nebula; I like it on the small screen. And a personal favorite, my home wallpaper, the Space Shuttle Endeavor landing for the last time (2nd to last Shuttle landing). I like the composition; returning from the blackness of space ought to be dark... Both from APOD HAve fun, Frank