plus 3 golfer

Paul, if I can find a long USB male a / female a extension cable, I'll do it (or a cheap cable at Walmart). My son might have one. Again, as I said in the "Ford engineer" thread I have empirical evidence that the shutters were likely open when I ran my grill cover tests at 70 mph. The coolant temperature was 7.5 *F higher when going uphill with the grill covers on vs grill covers off. There is no logical explanation for such but for the shutters being very inefficient in blocking air flow or being open not closed at 70 mph. Here's a summary of coolant temperature data that was recorded about every 2/3 seconds via the OBDII port during my test runs of about 15 miles or so with ambient at 27*F. As I said I believe the engineer misspoke. There's got to be others that can record a video of shutter operation as they drive.

I assume that cars are no different than point sources. If the control strategy is changed via software, I believe re-certification is necessary. For the manufacturer this is no big deal, since they likely have rigorously tested the new strategy. The question is whether allowing for more battery storage changes the control strategy- I doubt it. The tuners try to get around the issue of control strategy change by marketing their tunes as "off-road" use only. But EPA recently came down on one tuner. I'll find a link and post. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/0f84561e0cf2ab7f85257af6006c4dbd!OpenDocument I believe Ford would have tested all operational modes. AFAIK, the test procedures are much like the EPA FE tests with various driving cycles except emissions are measured not FE.

I believe the certification is a lot more than a "sniff" like many driving cycles on a dyno and analyzing exhaust gases. This is not to be confused with states implementation of individual vehicle compliance checking "sniff" tests. It likely simply too cost prohibitive for a tuner to do a certification of a tune when they are selling tunes for several hundred dollars even though their tunes may have lower emissions.

I'm all for improving FE but I'm not sure I'd want a tune while still under warranty. Secondly,given EPA's recent crackdown on one diesel tuner that I'm aware of (and likely sent a signal to others), I'd want the tune to be "certified" by tuner with EPA. Emissions are more import to me than FE. Lastly, in selling a tuned car IMHO, not disclosing that the car has a "non-certified" tune could be fraud. Getting back to the point, we don't know why Ford appears to use different logic in maintaining battery level. I know I've seen considerably lower battery levels than 25% on highway driving but not as low as I've seen in EV+ mode. When I have some time, I'll run some tests and record data via the OBDII port while trying to deplete the battery level.

So, there are two battery displays. I wondered about since the battery pics are different. It certainly would be nice to have a % remaining displayed. And, I thought you should have captured a significant amount of the potential energy instead of my interpretation of the battery pics. 4 kWh seems very reasonable out of 6.6 kWh given that the difference then is mostly drag and conversion losses over the 16 miles. So, yes the energi storage capability is a significant benefit going down long hills over the hybrid.

Now please accurately state what I said. The gas was an example of an emergency. "I know you are talking about EV+ mode but in other instances like on the highway it's good to have extra battery capacity in case of an emergency. When ptjones intentionally ran out of fuel, he was able to drive to a gas station. What if the engine failed to restart while traveling 60+ mph in heavy traffic when the battery supply was virtually used up. I doubt Ford would want to comprise safety. I believe it's about safety." What if Ford cuts it too close and there's not enough HV capacity to start the engine on the freeway (plenty of gas in the vehicle). NHTSA investigates and finds Ford's software allowed the battery to discharge too much. It's not always about FE. If that were the case we wouldn't have all the extra weight because of safety related equipment.

But think about it. Ford cuts it too close and there's not enough HV capacity to start the engine on the freeway (plenty of gas in the vehicle). NHTSA investigates and finds Ford's software allowed the battery to discharge too much. It's not always about FE.

I know you are talking about EV+ mode but in other instances like on the highway it's good to have extra battery capacity in case of an emergency. When ptjones intentionally ran out of fuel, he was able to drive to a gas station. What if the engine failed to restart while traveling 60+ mph in heavy traffic when the battery supply was virtually used up. I doubt Ford would want to comprise safety.

Interesting, do you know what the elevation change was? Just looking at a topo map, it looks like maybe 4200 feet (5800 - 1600) at about 16 miles. That's a lot of potential energy - 4200 pounds at 4200 feet = 6.6 kWh. There would be drag losses, perhaps friction braking, and energy conversion losses as one descends. It looks like the charge level at the end of the 16 miles is slightly higher than at the beginning. So, if that's the case you traveled 16 miles "free" and stored some of the potential energy. It also looks like after 5 miles, you used some of the initial stored battery energy and later built that energy back up and even slightly more than the initial level. It would be interesting to see what ones FE would be in a gas only similar vehicle and also what the fuel economy of a regular C-Max hybrid would be over the same downhill route. It would also be interesting to see the overall FE over 32 miles for the vehicles (uphill and back down). No, you're better on flat land. Remember it takes energy to climb 4200 feet and there are losses in converting energy from rotational to electrical and back to rotational. So, overall you are better off traveling 32 miles on flat land than 16 miles up and 16 miles down whether in a hybrid or an energi. :) Most won't have 4200' elevation changes and thus won't have such potential energy to capture / use. The economic benefit of the plugins for most is "filling up" with a cheaper energy source (electricity vs gas).

There are likely many variables that go into how low the PCM allows the battery to get to before starting ICE like rate of discharge for example . At 60+ mph in EV mode the rate of discharge will likely be higher than when nearing home at slower speeds. I've seen the battery indicator level as low as 10% or maybe slightly lower when near home but on the highway I'm not sure I've seen it below 20%. It's just the way the control logic is set up. Also you can use Engineering Test Mode to view 12 V battery voltage. You can also charge the 12 V battery via the HV battery at home. First to check the battery voltage, start ETM but do not step on brake pedal when starting . You will not get the ready to drive message. Scroll to the battery voltage on the ETM screen and you'll see 12.X volts. The HV battery is not charging the 12 V battery. Now, step on the brake and then start ETM again. Now when you will see that the 12 V voltage is 14.X volts and you will get the ready to drive message. The HV is charging the 12 V battery. This will likely time out after a while. I haven't tested the time before timeout though. But just a few minutes should be enough to increase the 12.X V somewhat. I see no reason one couldn't repeat this multiple times to get the battery voltage to near 12.5 - 12.6 V.

I really not sure what you are getting at. The algorithm can't predict what your future use is going to be.

There is a minimum state of charge that must be maintained on the HV battery. Below such level voltage drops considerably. The HV battery is used to start ICE via the electric motor. So, you wouldn't want the charge level to fall below the minimum level + charge needed to start + a reserve. That minimum operating level could easily be 25% of the HV hybrid battery capacity. So, when driving ICE will start at the that minimum operating level to recharge. If you use the HV battery after shutdown, there's the risk that the charge would be so depleted as to not be able to start ICE. I have been monitoring 12V voltage since I became aware of ET mode. I've seen readings between 13.8V - 14.4V. IMHO, that appears to be very poor regulation by the converter. The minimum voltage on a lead acid battery when charging should be above 14 V normally. I've also seen my battery voltage be between 12.2 V - 12.6 V shortly after shutdown and the next morning. My car has always started. Again, something is amiss.

Likely, because the dealer doesn't understand break-in and that even at constant speed and flat terrain, the engine load changes in the C-Max. There is always drain on the HV battery which is replenished periodically by the generator. In a non-hybrid, the engine (via the alternator) continuously supplies the electrical load. The above graph shows significant change in rpm with cruise control set at 70 mph via gps. The stretch recorded at 70 mph (shown on the graph at 110 km/h) is virtually flat (30 feet elevation rise in 8+ miles). Each unit of time is about 2/3 second. In non-hybrids the rpm would have virtually been a flat line for the entire 8 miles. All one wants to avoid is constant WOT acceleration and excessive speed (high rpm) for longer periods of time. I'd say that would likely be above 2500 rpm and certainly above 3000 rpm. I believe this is well above 75 mph. If Ford wanted one to avoid using CC, it would be in the manual.

Just drive normally. There will be plenty of load changes as the engine starts and stops, as the HV battery's are charged by the generator, and as the elevation changes. Even when using cruise control engine load will change.

Ditto

I meant both full grill covers. I'll put the cutout one on.

I have "grabbed" the inverter coolant lines after shutdown and the lines were never hot (just slightly warm to the touch) but I have no means to monitor the inverter temperature. Ford has designed an extensive "fail-safe" system around the coolant temperature to protect the engine. My guess with respect to the inverter getting too hot, would be that Ford would throttle back the use of EV operation. The primary risk that Ford is trying to mitigate with their "fail safe" scheme is a loss of coolant / coolant flow. The cooler for the inverter (like the radiator for the engine) can be punctured by road debris. I would think Ford's design would alert the driver and mitigate damage for such in the operation of the inverter. Like I've said before one should weigh the risks and benefits of their potential actions (mods) and make appropriate choices. Once ambient temps reach a point (probably when highs reach 80+*F consistently) and we will set the climate control to "auto", I plan on removing both grill covers irrespective of coolant temps. The a/c condenser needs air flow. Of course, the other benefit of the grill covers is to allow the engine to more quickly reach and then maintain operating temperature for most efficient engine operations. This is likely a bigger benefit for those that drive at less than 65 mph, for shorter distances, and in cold climates than for me in Phoenix. This is not as easy to analyze as aerodynamic benefits because there are significantly more variable that affect results (speed, time, ambient temps, distance, rpm and so forth).

I would also add that the grill covers will reduce aerodynamic drag at any speeds provided that the shutters would otherwise be open letting air into the engine bay. In addition, there's likely a reduction in drag even if the shutters are closed because the shutters are recessed into the front end likely producing less laminar air flow than the grill covers mounted on the outer surface of the grills. The chart below is a graphical representation of the estimated FE benefits based on my observed tests. In other words, I adjusted Cd and hence the curve to achieve the % reduction in FE that I observed at 70 mph assuming that there is a 1:1 relationship of fuel burned to power requirements. I wouldn't get hung up on the actual data. The point is that a reduction in Cd provides benefits at all speeds. You don't have to drive 70 mph to get a FE benefit from a reduction in aerodynamics drag when using the grill shutters. It would be nice if the shutters were not "dumb". But, evidently Ford is taking a conservative approach by operating the shutters on coolant temperature as observed by ptjones. So, I'll apply my logic with data any manually "adjust" the air flow through the grills in a less conservative approach and thus increase FE. :)

Yes, blocking off air flow through the grill significantly affects Cd. The 0.10 Cd change is in line (probably rounded up a little) with the maximum possible reduction. The chart below is representative of the components of drag for a car with a Cd around 0.3. About 1/3 of drag is due to air flowing through the radiator, coolers, engine compartment, and exiting underneath the car. So, if you could eliminate this component of drag you'd be at the 0.10 reduction. I have done calculations for my C-Max based on my FE gain when using ptjones' grill covers at 70 mph. I attribute virtually all of this gain to aerodynamics. My 6.7% increase in FE equates to a reduction in Cd of about 8.5%. The C-Max has a Cd of 0.30. So, that 8.5% would be a reduction in Cd of 0.0265 (a little over 25% of the Ford engineers 0.1 Cd possible reduction. Remember that the top grill on the C-Max is open for intake air and the bottom and center grill covers likely do not block 100% of the air. So, I believe that my results using the grill covers are reasonable. Also, when I ran the tests without grill cover, it's likely that the shutters were not completely open. The reason I believe that my FE gain was virtually all due to aerodynamics is that I recorded coolant temperatures during my testing of the grill cover. The table below shows the coolant temperature data with ambient temperature of 27*F at 70 mph. Based on the temperatures which ptjones observed the shutters opening, my shutters were likely open to some extent on the test runs. My car was likely operating within the optimal temperature range. I do plan to run more tests at higher ambient temperatures and because I ran the tests with only 700 miles on the car (not broken in yet).

I received the Into-Tech shade today. It is by far the best quality and best fit shade that I've owned. But probably the best feature is the ease of putting it up and taking it down. Lay the bottom of the shade on the dash, unfold, slide bottom of shade to bottom of windshield, lift top of shade up to top of windshield and snap in place. The shade is cut out at the top to bypass the rear view mirror (see the pics on the website) so it slides by the rear view mirror with no bending / contorting the shade. There is a gap between the top of the windshield and the flexible headliner. The top of the shade snaps into this gap. To remove simply push up on the headliner and pull the shade out of the gap. It is rather expensive but IMHO it's worth the $59.

http://accessories.ford.com/cover-10340.html Search the part number for better internet price (maybe $60).

I just checked and it comes up on the website link in the first post. Mine is suppose to ship by 3/8.

10 k miles.

I've used fold-up and roller sun shades and they both have advantages / disadvantages. But the C-Max windshield sun shade is 38" deep which is 9" more than my Jetta custom fit roll up one. I would think that the flexible roll up shade (which requires the sun visor to hold in place) would be more difficult to get a snug fit than the fold out one especially in the C-Max since it is so large. After a few years use in my Jetta, the roll up one was curved at the corners and bowed at the top and would not provide the same fit as when new. I can also say that the "generic ones" that Costco, Walmart sell fit very poorly in the vehicles that I tried then in and simply returned them and bought custom fit ones. As far as size comparisons, you can probably roll up a thinner roll up shade into a smaller space than the fold up one but the tighter one rolls up a shade the more the shade will likely become deformed and not fit as snugly (as I experienced in my Jetta). I opted to order the fold up one in the first post and should have it in a few days and will give my impressions of it when I get it.

My philosophy is to keep a vehicle for 6-10 years / 150 - 200 k miles and hence I've never leased although I have always considered leasing vs buying. If I believed that a new car with new technology would become an issue down the road, I would not purchase / lease such a vehicle to begin with. IMHO, buying / leasing a car every 2 - 3 years is a sure way to lose significant value because depreciation is highest in the earlier years. I can see where leasing makes sense if ones objective is to drive a new car every 2 - 3 years.