plus 3 golfer

Yes, same thing applies when one has an issue with the energi on a road trip and there are plenty of Ford dealers near but none authorized to repair the energi as they have no training and likely any special equipment for the energi.

Shorter the better: MAXer

What I find is that most times these simplified approaches comparing vehicles do not work for me. This one gives a ranking based on fuel costs only. I always construct my own spreadsheets. There are many other expenses in the cost of ownership that should be taken into account. For example, in AZ the annual registration cost is based on the original price of a vehicle. This can easily add a $100+ a year to the Volt over the C-Max Hybrid. Annual insurance premiums likely vary by vehicle. Ones cost of capital (or financing) should be taken into account since the initial cost of the vehicles vary. The sales tax on the purchase price will differ. How about resale value (depreciation), look at what one can get a used Leaf for especially in Phoenix. Based on my expected operation of my C-Max SEL vs the Energi, I could not justify the $2k+ premium (X-plan pricing, after tax credit, cash incentives, registration, sales tax and so forth) of the Energi over the Hybrid. The biggest issue with the Energi for me was range. We have no "daily commute" and many times make two trips a day. So, range (and ability to recharge) affect my cost. In addition, we'll make at least one long trip a year (4160 miles RT) and likely many shorter trips of another 4000 miles. So, the mileage penalty of the nearly 300 pound weight difference of the Energi over the Hybrid on long trips quickly eats into any short trip mileage benefits of electric only use even at $0.085 / kWh off-peak. So, I beg to differ with the title of the thread: C-Max Energi Plug-in Costs Less than Hybrid, After Incentives. :)

When I look at the + Battery post in the engine bay and the wiring to it from the inverter and the wiring to the 12 V battery, the wiring looks of sufficient size to handle several 100 A. The + battery post also appears to be connected to the fuse box adjacent to it which houses high capacity fuses. It really wouldn't surprise me if one couldn't get 3 kW of 12 V power from that post. But I'd like to see the wiring diagrams and the specs on the C-max inverter. It would be easy to connect (when needed) #4 - #8 AWG wire to the post and a ground point in the engine bay and run the two wires to a terminal block on a wall that supplies a 1 - 3 kW inverter mounted near the terminal block. You'd want to keep the wire runs as short as possible to reduce voltage drop. Otherwise, one might want to increase the wire size. The basic 1 kW inverter being sold by that company connects to the 12 V battery of the Prius via jumpers. The larger inverters appear to have wiring way too small for 12 V and thus almost certainly connect to the HV battery. The advantage of connecting the UPS to the HV battery directly is one eliminates the car's inverter from the UPS and thus its energy losses. But the price of one HV / 120 Vac inverter is likely significantly more than several 12V /120 Vac which are readily available.

Spending extra $$$ for "pure sine wave" inverters is not needed. A basic kit with chopped sine wave is perfectly fine. If the 12 V battery charging current is limited to 100 A on the C-Max (like supposedly the Prius), then I suspect that one could buy an inverter of around 1 kW sustained power output and tap the 12 V posts in the engine bay. But, I'd still like to see the electrical specs and a wiring diagram for then entire car. It may be feasible to supply X times the (100 A * !2 V) = 1200 W I would think that the average load on the 12 V system at any time could be well in excess of 1200 W (audio system, cooling fans, blower motor, windshield wipers, electric heated seats, electric window defroster, charging 12 V battery, and so forth). Also, do we know if the C-Max computers have the capability to continually cycle the engine on / off when stopped indefinitely.

Two points, first we all know that slowing down helps FE and any one can achieve 50+ mpg with their C-Max under the right conditions. But on Phoenix freeways (and most interstates) you can become a hazard at 55 mph. I (and apparently most based on traffic flow) don't drive to be a hazard. Second, slowing down on short trips adds a few minutes of time and saves $$ but on long trips it can costs $$. When I go back East, if I slowed to 55 mph, the extra night lodging / food expense cannot be recovered in reduced fuel expense. So, ones value of time varies and FE numbers alone are not the bottom line.

I finally checked my odometer with GPS yesterday. My current error is 2.1%. GPS miles are 2.1% greater than the odometer reading. I have checked my Garmin GPS many times on long trips vs mile markers vs odometers and always find the GPS to be within a few tenths of a mile of the markers over a 100 miles. When I do take the C-Max on a long trip on interstates with markers, I will check it again. Also, I've never had an odometer show this much error using OEM tires. Of course, this error is good for warranty purposes. :) If my fuelly was corrected, I would show 39.7 mpg instead of the 38.8 mpg at 1388 miles. I would expect a error reduction from the current 2.1% to about 0.6% at the time I would replace the tire (around 3/32). So, if I were to make an adjustment (which I am not going to do) to fuelly, I would adjust the miles for this set of tires by (2.1 + 0.6) / 2 = 1.35% for each fuel up.

Pulse "punch" and glide works whether going uphill, downhill or on level. You just have less distance to "glide" going uphill. Remember the principle of efficient pulse and glide requires a vehicle that will free wheel (engine disconnects from the transmission and shuts down). So, you pulse to a range of efficient rpm on the BSFC, then glide (engine rpm = 0) rather than maintaining a constant speed and likely less than optimal area of the BSFC while also removing engine rotational losses during the glide. The addition of a hybrid system can amplify the pulse and glide benefits by storing energy during the pulse phase when the engine is operating efficiently for use later. So the bottom line is to find what combinations of operations maximizes FE for varied driving conditions. For me it's just a pain to try such continually while driving especially in traffic. :)

Seems to be a wide 0-60 range (see below) but still better than the Prius and one of the many performance reasons I bought the C-Max over the Prius. TFLCar - Tech Demo - 10.7 sec. at sea level and 3 people in vehicle c/d - 8.8 sec, .Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 8.6 sec CR - 8.6 sec. MT - from dead stop took 8.2 seconds Edmunds - 8.1 seconds (7.7 seconds with a one foot roll out as on a drag strip) mpgomatic - 7.6 seconds Truth about cars - 7.05 Seconds

Yep, very good review. C-MAX scores 83 out of 100 vs the Prius 80 score. The only downside is a below average rating for cargo area.

Ah but then you will have to continually adjust as your tires wear or you'll be overstating. At about 4/32 tread depth you'll be near zero adjustment and at wear bar height of 2/32, you'll have to reduce mileage several tenths of a percent.

Thanks, I hadn't seen this review before. It sums up why I bought the C-MAX over the Prius --- "The only measurable way the Prius is better than the C-MAX is real world fuel economy where the Prius will save you a few Grants a year. In every other way the C-MAX is superior to the Prius and even the Lexus CT 200h. Does this compensate for the “lackluster” fuel economy? It does in my book. If you’re willing to spend $144 a year in higher fuel costs for a more entertaining ride, this Ford’s for you. The C-Max isn’t just a shot across Toyota’s bow, it’s the first honest-to-goodness competitor on the market. Better yet, it’s not a me-too Prius, it’s a unique and compelling alternative."

The manual is a parts on-line manual at ford parts.com not a shop manual.

To confirm everything I'd have to remove the bottom belly cover and look. Looking at the parts diagrams, there is a separate CVT cooler which looks to be behind the lower front grill. There also are 3 electric coolant pumps, - one for the engine (shown in another diagram), one (8C419B) not sure what for yet (possibly for heater core, electric motor) and one for the inverter (8C419A). The one for the inverter appears to be connected to the CVT cooler. Note on the CVT cooler diagram there appears to be a visible coolant connection above the CVT connection. Again, this needs to be verified by pulling the lower cover off and tracing the coolant lines.

There is a dual cooler located behind the lower grill on the C-Max for the CVT and inverter.

I bought it knowing that I would likely not get 47 and my mpg would likely be around 40. CR and other reviews were out. Performance, handling, and styling / comfort / interior rank higher than FE for me. In it's price range, it best met my criteria.

I only have 700 miles on the car (not broken in) but like I said this is consistent with the controlled tests ptjones ran. Look at the graph and you will see that your numbers are very high compared to the graph. The mpg difference between 70 mph and 68 mpg is likely around 1.5 mpg. Also, It doesn't take very much of an elevation change to affect your mpg significantly especially in shorter trips. I suggest you run some controlled tests at 70 mph (GPS) and then post the results. I highly doubt one will see a significant difference in mpg between cars in a controlled test except for break-in mpg difference. My speedometer reads higher than GPS speed (about 1 mph higher at 70).

That is what I'd normally do but my guess is that the coasting plus battery operation offset the extra fuel used to accelerate and recharge. The point was to measure the difference in mpg not particularly the mpg at 70 mph. There was no question that the mpg differnce for the uphill portion at 70 mph was about 2+ mpg also. Yeah, I know especially since I have little use for this data at 27F in Phoenix. You've convinced me to forget about spending $7.50 for gas tomorrow morning to validate this cold weather performance.

As some may know I purchased a set of grill covers from ptjones. This morning with winds calm and temperature ranging from about 26-28F, I tested the covers over a 15 mile loop as follows after engine temp reached 85C+, with HVAC off, headlights on : 1) accelerated to 70 mph (GPS), set cruise (ECO) 2) reset Trip 1 2) drove about 7 miles with an elevation gain of 90 feet 3) exited the 4 lane divided highway to a stop sign, turned left and turned left again to the on-ramp 4) accelerated briskly to 70 mph and resumed cruise before entering highway 7) drove about 7 miles with an elevation drop of 90 feet 8) noted Trip 1 data at about the same location when Trip 1 was reset. 9) repeated the loop 3 more times. So, the data was loop 1 (no cover) 31.3 mpg, loop 2 (with cover) 33.4 mpg, loop 3 (no cover) 31.2 mpg loop 4 (33.3 mpg). The test took slightly over an hour and the temperature was dropping. When I started the test the ambient was 28F and when I finished it was 26F. The EV use was 0.5 miles for each loop all when exiting the highway. I took ptjones graph and added my two test points to it as seen below. My data seems consistent I got a 6.7% increase with the grill covers in place. The coolant temperature runs about 5-7C higher with the grill covers on. You cannot see this difference on the temperature gauge in the vehicle. I will repeat this test tomorrow morning and plan to run additional tests at higher temperatures. I plan to run a few more tests for typical trips I make during the day. I did try to run tests a few days ago at 55 mph, but the issue is that ICE shuts down and one runs on the battery. So, there needs to be some adjustment made to the data for the initial battery charge and ending battery charge. For example, if one starts a test with a full battery charge and ends with it nearly discharged, one could see a significant change in fuel economy in a 15 mile loop. If the car can run 1 mile between full and depleted charge, that amounts to 1 mile where no fuel was used or about a 1/14 or a 7% possible error. Similarly, if the car starts depleted and is fully charged at the end of the test, the car used more fuel to cover the 15 miles and the error could again approach 7%. I also want to say your mileage may be different and perhaps my additional test results will be too. :)

That is a generalized statement. Todays modern tire / tread design doesn't "balloon" in the center like the old bias ply, non-steel belted tires did when overinflated. Increasing pressure keeps the sidewall stiffer and thus there is less sidewall deflection in normal driving and especially in cornering such that the tire edges won't wear as fast. I have always found that if I inflate to recommended pressure, the edges wear out faster than the middle. Increasing pressure seems to balance tread wear for me. Again, I have not seen anyone post on forums that say that when they increase pressure above recommended, that the center wears out faster than the edges.

I had to stop by the dealer I purchased my car from yesterday so then I went back to the service department and talked with a SW about the clock issue (mine reset for the fourth time two days ago). She said that Ford is likely aware of the issue as Ford has issued an update for Edge vehicles that corrected a similar reset issues. I also asked if they could document my reset issue with Ford. Her response was the procedure would be for me to schedule a service appointment and then they call Ford on the issue since there is no procedure / technical bulletin to fix it. She said the response from Ford will likely be we are working on it and there is no fix at this time. My guess is now the dealer gets $ from Ford for the "service" on my vehicle. Then, I called Ford CC and explained the issue. After a few minutes the rep came back on the phone and said that he will escalate the issue to a CC Manager who will contact the dealer. I said I don't want you to contact that dealer which is 30 miles away but a dealer 5 miles away. That seemed to be a problem as he said well you will need to go to that dealer then and schedule a service appointment. I said I didn't schedule one with the first dealership as I don't want to waste 1/2 day of my time for an issue that likely won't be fixed. So, then he came back and said you will have to make the local dealer aware that you are having an issue and likely have to schedule a service appointment. When my wife returns with the car, I will drive over to the local dealer and see what they say. I guess I have to follow procedures. :banghead:

Why do you say that? Any facts? I have never experienced premature wear from increasing tire pressure above the manufacturer's recommendations and I've been doing this for about 20 years. I haven't read that anyone else has either. In fact, my tires wear more evenly across the tread and hence last longer with increased pressure. The only downside I've noticed is harshness of ride in some vehicles. Handling improves with increased pressure. I have been running about 90% of sidewall maximum cold pressure in MBs, Nissans, Toyotas, VWs and now my Ford. Currently, I have 45 psi in my C-Max instead of the recommended 38 psi. As far as FE increase, I would expect that FE might increase slightly with higher tire pressure but it would be difficult to quantify. Going from 38 psi to 45 psi might result in a 6% decrease in rolling resistance (per an old Firestone study / formulae). But since the rolling resistance drag is a small part of total drag on a car especially at higher speeds, I wouldn't expect any more than a few tenths of a mpg improvement which would be very difficult to quantify in normal everyday driving. I know there are those hypermilers that claim a significant increase in FE by inflating tires up to or even beyond Max. cold pressure but they also likely do not drive very fast. :)

I checked VCDS for other temperature data and there is nothing for the inverter. I did look at the coolant lines that run from the inverter. There appears to be a split cooler located behind the lower grill. It appears the inverter may be cooled by the upper part and the CVT by the lower part. I tried to find the a/c condenser. I would think it would be in front of the radiator. When I have time I'll take the lower cover off and then I should be able to see everything. In any event, one could leave the bottom cover off and thus provide sufficient cooling to the split cooler. The battery data point says "Battery Pack Rem. Life" and for me showed 40.0% so it is the HV battery. I also saw in a search for Ford scan tools that for 2013 vehicles the old "cheap" ford scan tools won't work. The new tool is in very expensive. I believe I read that the lite version of VCDS supports reading only one OBDII data point at a time instead of four. It should be on the Ross-Tech site.

I recall seeing some type of battery charge % or something like that. When my wife gets back, I'll hook up VCDS and look. That's a good point on the inverter. I would assume that one would get an alarm if inverter temp was exceeded (for example if electric pump fails) or that the inverter would simply shut down when too hot and one would only run on ICE. I also don't know whether it's possible to somehow select data addresses that are not visible under the OBDII function of VCDS. There will be some ambient temperature and load that will require significant air flow through the grill. Right now we only have the coolant temperature to monitor. Once I find the conditions that cause the coolant temperature to exceed a certain number whether that is 205F, 215F or when the coolant fans come on, I will test the cutout cover against the full cover and removal of the lower cover. It's likely that in the heat of the Phoenix summer (mid May - mid Sept), I'll remove the lower grill entirely and even the cutout upper grill.

This morning I looked at the data again and realized I misstated the coolant temperature by 10C when I read the graph as I forgot the scale on the y axis starts at minus10C. Note on the first graph that at the bottom of the screen, the actual temperature is displayed at 83C when I paused the playback. So, this is significant as the coolant is only at 181F. My guess is ICE is still not up to full efficient operating temperature cruising between 65 and 70 mph at around 40F ambient temperature for 15 minutes or so. Can't wait to test the grill covers. :)