plus 3 golfer

Yes. ForScan several months ago added many service procedures to their IOS and Android Apps including the Battery Monitoring System reset which zeros out the cumulative charge and discharge counters for the various states the car can be in. Thus, the algorithm can compute battery losses and better estimate the SOC of the 12 V battery. The 12 V battery age is also reset to zero and thus indicates how long ago it was reset from the current date. I don't know the precise 12 Volt Battery Saving algorithm but it seems that battery age (or accumulated battery losses), the current battery SOC, and the function (puddle lights, overhead lights, radio, cigar lighter outlet and so forth) affects the timing of shutdown of a function. Supposedly, these BMSs can extend the life of a battery by "smarter" charging and by cutting off power to devices after a period of time so not to discharge the battery too low which will affect the battery life or perhaps put another way, allow devices to operate longer without affecting battery life for the benefit of the user of the devices. My history: 1) June, 2015: Dealer replaced my original battery after 30 months in June 2015 and did not reset the battery monitoring. I did not realize this until over a year later. 2) March 13, 2018: Radio test was around 1 minute until turn off. SOC generally in high single digits, low teens. Battery Monitoring age (since it was not reset) was about 1923 days (about 64 months). But, replacement battery in June 2015 was only about 1000 days old. 3) March 13, 2018: Downloaded ForScan for Windows and got free extended license to do Battery Monitoring Reset. Reset battery monitoring and radio test was exactly 10 minutes until off. Over the next month or so, SOC climbed into the 50 - 60 %. 4) Today: Battery Monitoring age is 593 days but battery age is actually 1593 days old. SOC = 49%. Radio test = 10 minutes.

Do this: Start car, ready to drive. Turn on radio. Turn car off but do not open doors. Stay in car until radio shuts down. Should take 10 minutes exactly if battery is new and battery monitoring was reset. Maybe Ford changed the algorithm for MY 2016, but I doubt it. The correct name is “Battery Monitoring System Reset.” See pic If you don’t reset the battery monitor, the battery will be charged as if it has lost some capacity. So, the SOC will be lower than it should be. Since starting the C-Max requires minimal charge in the battery unlike starting a car engine, the C-Max will likely start with battery voltage as low 10.5 V which is 0% SOC by definition. So, if one drives the car daily, there will likely be no issues with starting. However, any excessive battery drain or perhaps not starting the car for a week or so could result in a dead battery, no start conditions as the battery continues to age.

I won’t buy the Ecopias again. Positive: ride comfort and very quiet. Negative: wet handling like the E/S. The Ecopias absorbed bumps very well as the sidewalls seemed to flex a good bit. It seemed I had to corner slower as the tires might start to slide. Might be more slip than The E/S and AltiMax. Rear tire cupping / feathering of Ecopias was more severe than the E/S as tire noise at 75 mph was unbearable at just under 42 k miles compared to just under 48 k with the E/S. FE was slightly less than E/S but still good. When I bought the Ecopias EP422 Plus, the tire had just come out replacing the original EP422. I thought the “Plus” should be “better” than the non-Plus in its poorer rated categories. But, I guess not. Marketing wins again to boost sales. I guess you can’t design a tire to max. FE, great handling, and tread life in the same tire. Throw cost into the mix and what to buy.

It's hard to tell because I had Ecopias in between and I paid more attention to achieving higher FE early on with the C-Max than I do now. I also don't live in the same area now as I did with the Michelins. So, there's no comparative, repetitive trips. But I'd say around a 3 % difference overall. If one does research on Cooper tires (which I did when I bought the Altimax), most Coopers perform poorly in FE. Look at the Cooper CS5 in the CR list, their RR is 11.2 pounds. So, if one would drive mostly city at slow speeds, I could see I don't believe the Defender's strong point is FE either but better than the Coopers. You can't beat the E/S for FE. What Goodyear tires did she have on the car? The Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max is rated excellent by CR in FE. So, there would likely be a very large FE hit replacing worn Fuel Max with New Cooper tires.

I used to be a Michelin Man too. :) But, tires have come a long way since my first set of Michelins in the early 1970 (Michelin Radial). I really don't believe Michelins have any advantage with respect to "flats". I get just as many screws in Michelins as any other tire. The only blow out I had was with a Michelin tire in the early '80 but that's because I hit a large pot hole. I will say: about the only thing that hasn't changed with Michelin's is their high price. ;)

I looked at CR tire ratings compared to the RR pound values in the list and found the following: Excellent RR <= 8.2 8.8 <= Very Good RR <= 9.8 10.1 <= Good RR <= 10.9 11.1 <= Fair RR <= ? ? <= Poor RR Attached for comparison are RR values of some of the most popular tires in 2007 from a NHTSA study published in 2009. I also want to point out an example of TireRack's testing of FE of tires. Here is a link to a FE test which includes the Altimax, the Advantage, and the Pirelli P7 for which we have CR pound data and the Firestone Champion Fuel fighter which is rated Excellent by CR. The tire which gets worse FE than expected based on CR tests compared to the Altimax and the Advantage is the P7. But, as TireRack concludes: "Larger differences in consumption between tires may indicate a difference that might be experienced on the road, while smaller differences should be considered equivalent. As they say, your mileage may vary." :)

My guess is that the CR tests use a standardized test pressure for all tires when measuring RR. There are standards for virtually everything. EPA likely requires Ford’s RLHP coefficients to be based on their recommended tire pressure. The point is that the CR data allows one to better compare different brands of tires RR and the RLHP data is specific to the C-Max. So, we have a good estimate of the likely % difference in FE of two different tires on the C-Max at ones average driving speed.not some FE test of tires on a Prius for example. The assumption is that all other things that can affect FE would be the same including tire pressure. I’m going to look at CR category ratings of the tires in the list compared to the RR pounds and see if I can estimate the category ranges. There are many variables that can affect the % distribution of RLHP in the real world like road surface, environmental conditions, driving techniques and so forth. But these would generally just offset the RR percent of RLHP. For example, assume rough road surface increases RR force by 10%. So, total RLHP goes up as does the RR component of RLHP. The % RR RLHP would increase, FE would go down and so forth. It would be very easy to run sensitivity analysis on the effect of rough roads, hypermiling changes in FE and RLHP. Also, I buy tires first based on handling, second on mileage ratings, and lastly on overall cost. Others may put overall cost first. I replace tires well before the tread is down to the wear bars. So, my choice of tires will likely be different than others.

There are a lot of threads on tires and what effect do LRR tires have on FE. Recently, CR published a short list of tires (see attachment) from their testing to determine the Rolling Resistance force of the tire in pounds on a dynamometer. CR then, based on the dynamometer results, rates rolling resistance of tires in 5 categories: poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent. However, we don't know the force in pounds which define the categories but can deduce what they might be from the published list and rating categories. This data allows one to compare FE effects of RR, all other things being the same. Second, we know the Road Load Horsepower coefficients that Ford determined for the C-Max to use in EPA required emissions testing. I assume Ford used the Michelin Energy Saver tires which are the OE tire. The equation for RLHP is shown in the chart below. One can research how RLHP is determined. I took the Ford RLHP coefficients determined by Ford and produced the attached chart for various speeds. The blue bars are the RR component of RLHP. For example, at a speed of 30 mph, RR accounts for about 50 % of the power required to maintain 30 mph and at 75 mph RR accounts for only 16 % of the power to maintain 75 mph. So, if the ES tire has 20% lower RR than another tire, the FE effect if one switched to the other tire would be about a 10 % decrease in FE because RLHP has increased 10% (assume C-Max FE is a linear for a +- 10 % change in RLHP). Now at 75 mph, the same non-ES tire will result in about a 3.2 % (20% X 16%) lower FE than the E/S. So, when looking to buy tires, one might want to take into account how RR differences affect fuel economy at different speeds. Lets, take an example: my General Altimax RT43 (9.4 pounds) and BFG Advantage T/A Sport (10.6 pounds) which are both on the CR list. The Altimax are 1.2 pounds (about 11 % lower) in RR force than the Advantage. At an average speed of say 50 mph, I should expect about 3 % better FE with the Altimax than the Advantage. CR rates the Altimax RR as Very Good and the Advantage as Good. Let's next assume the Michelin E/S has an 8.4 rating (not tested by CR recently but in older tests of RR, the E/S was rated excellent). So, going through the same calculations as above the E/S RR is about 11% lower than the Altimax. So, at 50 mph, I might expect to lose about 3% in FE with the Altimax. This is right in the ball park of my actual FE hit with the Altimax vs the E/S. The E/S RR would be 21% better than the Advantage or the Advantage will lose about 6% in FE vs the E/S at 50 mph. So, what tire to buy based on overall cost? I estimate that 70 % of my miles are at 65+ mph. When I go back East (over 4000 miles RT) my average moving speed is above 68 mph. Most around town trip miles are on freeways - 65+. So, at 65 mph, my Altimax tires take about a 2% hit in FE vs the E/S. So, the E/S being a lot costlier than the Altimax will never pay for its additional cost over the Altimax with fuel savings. Being extremely optimistic with a 4% hit, 70 k miles of life of both tires, gas at $3 a gallon and 38 mpg with the E/S, I would optimistically generate $230 in savings with the E/S (which is below the initial cost difference). A good base case: a 3% hit, 55k miles life, $2.75 gas and 37 mpg, my savings would be $123. It's not intuitive but the higher ones overall FE, the lower the FE savings of LRR tires. If I change the 37 mpg to 50 mpg, my savings with the E/S is only $94. In order to match the optimistic $230 if I got 50 mpg in the E/S, my FE with the Altimax has to be 7% lower than the E/S. In summary, to achieve maximum savings benefit of higher cost LRR tires, one has to drive fairly slow. The best LRR tires would likely be ideal with respect to savings for slow, long commutes but not cost effective for higher speed driving. :)

Here's a possible solution to get lift gate to open when stuck (12 V battery good). While trying to open lift gate squeezing handle on lift gate, push down on the handle / lift gate at the same time. Raja on Energi forum says a friend does this when stuck and it works every time when it won't open by normal means.

Good point. But the new TSB 17 0039 which replaced TSB 16-0105 appears to be consistent throughout the documents in the adding of the some 2016 C-Maxes to the affected vehicles. Old TSB 16 0105 says "Some 2013-2016 Fusion, MKZ and 2013-2015 C-Max vehicles" and the procedure has the 2015 date multiple times. So, if the 2016 was incorrectly added to the TSB 17 0039, Ford would have likely issued a correction. Ford may have discovered after the old TSB was issued that some 2016 C-Maxes were built on or before the August 15, 2015 date which is the date of concern not the MY. My guess is whoever put together the new TSB just used the wording from the old TSB and changed the 2015 to 2016.

Your CEL will automatically go away if the issue causing the problem has gone away. You can drive the car following the Ford "drive cycle" and if the issue is fixed the CEL will go away. It you manually clear the DTCs with a scan tool, the CEL will simply come back on as the OBD monitors run through all the emissions related checks. The fuel filler inlet would be under the EVAP in the drive cycle. So, after ICE is warmed up (wait for temp gauge in left hand display to move past the first line), drive the car as required under the EVAP section 6. Some monitors have to run several times with no issues before the CEL is cleared. So, shut the car off for at least 4 hours and rerun the EVAP. My guess that you have likely run the EVAP monitor many times in normal driving and whatever is causing the issue isn’t fixed.

WhiteKnight, there are 4 PIDs that supposedly measure the cumulative charge / discharge of the 12 V battery. See the attached screenshot. Can you check what your 4 readings are? I’m trying to figure out what the units are. Mine show cum charge at 41units and if I total up the cum discharge = 37. So, I assume my 12 V battery losses are four units. But what are the units. The capacity of a new 12 V battery is around 43 Ah. Also, I believe your 60 months is the age of the HVB as the 12 V battery age PID in the BCM is in days. The screenshot shows my HVB battery age at 83 months which is correct as my car was built in Nov. 2012.

The 2015 owner’s manual indicates that DRLs are either configurable via the left hand display or non-configurable - which to me indicates different models of the C-Max handle DRLs differently. I’d post on the FORScan forum as someone may know if there are certain data which can be changed to add the display screen (likely IPC module which is the gateway for driver vehicle configuration data from the instrument panel to other modules) and perhaps the BCM can then process the driver input from the display.

Dealer may be correct. The 2015 Energi (base has same features as the SEL) supposedly has an on/off selector in the left hand display. Page through the menus in your left hand display. Someone with a 2015 SEL Hbrid can verify whether there is such a feature. Fuse F74 is only for the high beams. Pulling other BCM fuses under the hood like F3, F4, or F15 will likely disable a host of functions and maybe the BCM itself. :)

EV+ discharging HVB works great now since I pass within the trigger range on a parallel street most times but still have to travel over 1/2 mile to get home. SOC generally ends in the mid 30 % SOC when I get home. When I start the car the next morning I have seen as low as 32% SOC and ICE immediately starts. I would also think Ford will still use the EV+ algorithm in the future even though they may not indicate its use to the driver. Yesterday, I monitored HVB temp, cooling fan speed, inlet temp at BECM (the location of the sensor appears to be under access cover to the BECM, TCM, and DCDC converter) with AC set point temp at 74 F, ambient at 89 F, speed at 75+ mph. Inlet temp showed 79F, HVB temp was 86F and fan speed between 2250 - 2400 rpm. When I got off the interstate with speeds in the low 30 mph, inlet dropped to 77F, fan speed was around 1000+ rpm, and HVB temp 84-85 F. I’m going to run some controlled test and record data but it certainly seems like the HVB cooling algorithm uses 86F as the maximum desired temp. Problem though I doubt we will see 100F ambient temp until next May. I do want to see what happens in cooler temps in 40s.

Okay, I finally had time to look at the C-Max service manual and I doubt the HVB of the Escape Hybrid will be any different with respect to "best temp for LION battery." "The ideal High Voltage Battery temperature is 25°C (77°F) with a desired range of 20°C (68°F) to 30°C (86°F)." - 2014 C-Max Service Manual As I said previously, "It wouldn't surprise me if your thinking is correct." ;) With a liquid coolant loop for the HVB and a heat exchanger that taps the HVAC refrigerant loop (or something similar or separate system), maintaining a temp below 86 F should not be an issue except: what happens upon start up when the interior has been heated up to 130+ F in the Phoenix summertime sun? The C-Max HVB appears to handle the temp but the HVB is generally around 50% SOC or less. Again, since the Escape will only have a 1.1 kWh HVB, what will its normal SOC be? How long will it take after startup to cool a several hundred pound HVB with liquid coolant to 86F or below from 105+ F midday garage temperature for around 3-4 months? I'm still concerned.

Didn’t know that the Honda Accord Hybrid had the 2 motor, clutch transmission. Now I know why CR got 52 mpg on the highway in the Accord hybrid besting the 47 MPG rating . It uses a clutch to provide a direct connection of ICE to the drive wheels. Thus, at higher speed, ICE can operate at a lower rpm with a higher gear ratio and higher torque which can increase FE with EV assist if needed and the electric motor can also be used as a generator to charge the HVB while not increasing ICE rpm. ICE can continue to operate at low rpm, high torque. At lower speeds, ICE only turns the generator (clutch open) providing power to the motor which power drives the wheels wheels or to charge HVB. So, the single drive gear for ICE can be at a very high gear ratio. See video below. The C-Max can effectively change the final drive ratio by operating in negative split mode (generator consumes power and spins in opposite direction to reduce ICE rpm). But, after a few miles, the HVB needs charged and the car switches to positive split mode (generator produces power and causes ICE rpm to increase). Thus, unlike the Accord, ICE rpm has to increase to charge the HVB. ICE Is likely then not operating at it’s most efficient point. I I will take a hard look at the CRV hybrid. I’ll bet the CRV will have a highway EPA FE rating around 10% better than the Escape. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fmMb45PPrmg

Rear suspension camber causing premature wear of tires and unbearable tire noise at 70+ mph, otherwise for me a great car (assuming tranny holds up a little longer at least a couple more years).

1) new tires get about 2% less in FE than old tires due to increase in diameter vs old resulting in odometer recording less miles traveled with new tires than old tires. 2) new tires will have higher rolling resistance than when the new tires are worn assume 20% or a 2% reduction in FE. 3) if old tires were the Michelin Energy Saver, then the RR of the new tires is significantly worse than the E/S. See this chart in link below which shows your RR force at 8.8 pounds which is good but the E/S are likely around 8 pounds or lower, say around 10% lower which equates to around a 1% reduction in FE. 4) inflation pressure affects RR and the effect will be different on different brands. So, it wouldn’t surprise me if the new tires have lowered FE by 5% or more. Colder weather will require ICE to run longer to reach operating temperature. Colder weather means the air is denser and increases aerodynamic drag lowering FE. Dealer will set tire pressure at the pressure on the door jam. Increase your tire pressure. The linked thread talks about tire pressure. http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/7794-figuring-out-the-right-tire-pressure-to-use/?p=73572

FWIW, below is a table of Rolling Resistance force of selected tires measured on a dynamometer in pounds by Consumer Reports. Of course, ones RR force will be higher numbers because actual road surfaces are not steel and smooth. There are tables that show the approximate % difference from a smooth concrete surface (should be close to steel). But the % difference in force between tires should be the same as the % difference in RR when comparing tires. The NHTSA document linked below shows that for a 10% decrease in RR, FE increases by about 1% - which is based on the EPA FE cycles. So, if my FE with my AltiMax tires dropped about 2% from the E/S tires, the E/S pounds should be 20% lower than the 9.4 pound or around 7.5 pounds which would be the lowest number if on the table. Here's the NHTSA link to download a report on testing of tires related to rolling resistance and its effect on FE, dry traction, wet traction and so forth. Very good read. Now, I -know why the E/S wet traction is worse than my AltiMax tires. :)

and maybe even the E/S. :) ;) I posted a link to a very lengthy NHTSA report on the Pneumatic Tire - It's somewhat dated but the principles and laws of physics don't change. Lateral forces, sidewall stiffness, and psi are linked. We don't know what psi is best for cornering (handling lateral forces). Based on my experience with the E/S, Ecopia Plus, and General AltiMax on my C-Max, I believe that the PSI for best cornering is not the same for each tire and not the maximum pressure. As the link states at some PSI the cornering stiffness peaks and starts to decline as PSI is increased. So there is likely a point at some PSI after peak stiffness that increasing lateral forces and declining cornering stiffness will cause the tire to slide. Again based on my experience, the AltiMax is the best performing tire of the three in cornering and in wet conditions, the E/S next and the Ecopia far behind the other two. There is a very short on-ramp merge lane with a curve just prior to getting on the freeway. One has to have quite a bit of speed around the curve to merge seamlessly with the fast moving traffic. The Ecopias appeared to slide a lot at 50 PSI (as I increased psi thinking that would solve the sliding) but I settled on around 44 psi, the E/S slid somewhat at 50 PSI (at very high speed), and the AltiMax virtually no sliding at 50 PSI. Of course add wet pavement, and the sliding gets worse for the E/S. I did not trust the Ecopia in dry or wet conditions in emergency handling situations at any PSI. The E/S dry emergency handling seemed OK but not the wet handling for me. Tire Racks tests of these three tires seems to support what I experienced. Consumer's rate the AltiMax significantly better than the other two in handling. Of course, I understand some value ride quality, cost, or maximizing FE above handling and choose brand and model based on such.

Remember, new tires travel less revolutions than the old "worn" out tires per mile. Assume about 2 * 9/32" or 2% increase in diameter of new tires over old. So, you can expect your FE will go down by 2% just due to the miles recorded by odometer being lower with the new tires. Just got a Costco email and there's a $100 off on the BFGs. So, price shows $547.92 + taxes including the $100 off. So, your deal looks great. By comparison, the ES have $150 off and are priced at 753.92 + tax including the $150 off. So, you likely saved around $264 plus tax. That buys about 100 gallons of gas around here.

I looked at the Takoma Park gas station converting to EV charging on google maps and virtually nothing noteworthy around but a lot of cars evidently waiting for RS Automotives to repair. It's an older residential area on the outskirts of DC. So, I googled MD EV vehicles and charging initiatives and the MD Public Utility Commission issued an order in 2019 based on utilities input to establish charging stations to anticipate the growing demand for EV . I didn't read the entire order but utilities can own a % (IIRC 50%) and there are some ratepayer subsidies of charging stations. "In today’s decision, the Commission noted that it is in the public interest to approve the modified pilot programs, which test a limited EV charging deployment at a reduced cost to lessen exposure by Maryland ratepayers. The utilities noted that their proposed offerings do not place all costs associated with the proposed charging infrastructure on ratepayers....The Commission gave the green light to the utilities’ plans to provide rebates to customers for the costs of chargers with advanced, or “smart,” functionality." Like I said it will take a socially mandated program to build the infrastructure because as the Commission says "it is in the public interest to approve the modified pilot programs." It wouldn't surprise me, if RS Automotives got incentives from MD / PEPCO (local utility) under this order or other programs to build the charging station.

The Alexa device likely has minimal power draw such that its effect on FE will be noise (not measurable). Cars don't like shorter trips and cooler temperatures for a lot of reasons including it takes longer to heat engine to operating temperature, normal operating temperature in cooler temps will likely be lower than in normal summer temps which decreases engine efficiency, cooler air is denser and increases aerodynamic drag, tires lose about one psi per 10 F drop in temperature. A 5% change in FE at 42 mpg is 2.1 MPG which seems like a big change. Wait until winter temperatures hit. ;)

Looks like a great place to sit in your car for several hours while you wait for a partial kWh fill up.