plus 3 golfer

People are estimating the Escape Hybrid MPG at 38 mpg as Ford has said the range will be about 550 miles. With a 14.2 tank, the mpg = 550/14.2 = 38.7 mpg. The 2019 Rav4 which is AWD (for comparison to the 2020 Escape AWD) has a Cd = 0.30, a height of 67" and a width of 73". This will yield about the same frontal area as the Escape. The weight of the Rav4 is between 3755 - 3800 pounds. The Escape hybrid with AWD weighs 3706 pounds. EPA for Rav4 is 41/38/40. I would expect the Escape EPA highway mpg to be below 38 mpg, since the Rav4 Cd is likely 5-7 % lower than the Escape (estimated at 0.32). Of course as Paul says, one should be able to average above the EPA estimates with conservative driving and so forth.

The width of the 2020 Escape excluding mirrors is 74.1”. Height is 66.1" without roof rack. Weight is 3554 and 3706 AWD for hybrid, 14.2 gallon tank. PHEV FWD only is 3884 pounds and 11 gallons. The 2020 Escape has a frontal area that is likely about 6.5% greater than the C-Max. Weight of Escape is slightly less than the C-Max. The 2019 Escape has a 0.34 Cd. My guess is that the 5 % aero improvements of 2020 over 2019 relates to a lower Cd for the 2020 of likely around 0.32. IMO, 40 mpg for the 2020 Escape hybrid will be a stretch. https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/product/2020/escape/2020-Ford-Escape-Tech-Specs.pdf

https://www.edmunds.com/ford/escape/2020/ I like the looks. plug-in battery will have a capacity of 14.4 kWh - 30 mile range seems low unless Ford is only going to allowing charging to about 70% or so. Ford will begin shipping all versions of the Escape except the plug-in hybrid, which will be released about six months later in the spring of 2020.

So, did Ford 60 years ago. :) I'm still trying to imagine - assuming "replacement energy capsules" is a charged battery bank because I believe that's what it will take. "The car companies themselves, as much as anyone, were promoting the idea of a radical shift in automobiles in the coming decades. The April 25, 1959 issue of the Chicago Daily Tribune relayed the beliefs of Ford VPs, who touted the flying car as one of the many innovations still to come: Can you imagine an autoist driving up to a “gas” station 50 years from now and receiving replacement energy capsules for his car instead of getting a tank full of liquid fuel? Also, can you imagine flying automobiles directed by automatic guidance systems? These were possibilities discussed last week by Dr. Andrew A. Kucher, Ford Motor company vice president in charge of engineering and research, in an address at Northwestern University."

Great news looks like the "ICE age" can continue for another 140 k miles for about $3 k. :) :)

Several things: Energi has a different final drive gearing, it has an electric pump to circulate fluid for cooling, and there could be an issue with software with VIN not matching Energi transmission code. I wouldn’t do it unless dealer “guarantees” in writing it would work.

It's the 6 wire gray connector.

It would be nice to know whether there are any DTCs associated with the ACM and Digital Audio Control Module C. There are DTCs associated with the microphones. In the trouble shooting there apparently are conditions where "a loud, low frequency noise is heard from the audio system with the audio system off." If no DTCs then, there are pinpoint tests, ground tests and so forth for the microphones. The noise cancelling microphones are input into the DACMC along with an Amp enable signal from the ACM and the left and right speaker channels. Power is from fuse F22 in rear junction box. The DACMC outputs to the speakers. So, you should test to see if the noise is present with F79 and F69 in place and microphone connector pulled from BCM and fuse location under glove box. This will eliminate the microphones and circuits if noise is still present. Also, this test might be supported on the SE:

So, the loud pops occur even if the radio is turned off? Have you tried disconnecting the noise cancelling microphones?

It was a Chevy Tahoe. Actual EPA numbers for 2007 Chevy Tahoe (5.3L): EPA HWY rating is 5 mpg reduction from 20 with regular gas to 15 mpg with E85 = 5/20 = 25% Edmunds got 18.3 MPG with regular and 13.5 MPG with E85 or a reduction of 4.8/18.3 = 26%. 2013 Ford Focus: 10/32 = 31% 2013 Dodge Dart 8/27 = 29.6% 2015 Chrysler 200 7/27 = 26% 2019 Dodge Grand Caravan (3.3L V6): HWY reduction = 7/25 = 28% CITY reduction = 5/17 = 29% Of course how one drives makes a difference in FE but the the reduction ratio for switching from regular gas to E85 should be very similar. If ethanol was economical, all manufacturers would be promoting the savings and people would be buying flex vehicles. Gas stations would all have E85 pumps. The public hasn't accepted flex vehicles.

josh678, where did you get "will receive 10-20% less fuel efficiency". I understand you want to run high mixture ethanol tests for "clean air" reasons but please document your sources for your data. EPA says the lower bound fuel efficiency is 15% for E51 vs E10 and 27% based on FE tests for E85 vs pure gas (see footnotes below). Around here, IIRC, the lowest price I recall seeing for E85 (E51-E83) was about 10%-15% cheaper than E10 when gas spikes up to around $2.80+ a gallon. Here's Edmunds test of E85. It supports the EPA 27%. ConsumerReports did 150 mile test in 2011 and got similar results as Edmunds (see attachment below). The EPA FE Ratings for ethanol - gas vehicles under alternative fuels in Fueleconomy.gov is reduced significantly when using E85 vs Pure Gas. EPA FE is based on using pure gas for tests. IIRC, EPA is considering changing to E10 in the FE testing and ratings. From the EPA: "Flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) are designed to run on gasoline or gasoline-ethanol blends of up to 85% ethanol (E85).1 Except for a few engine and fuel system modifications, they are identical to gasoline-only models. FFVs experience no loss in performance when operating on E85, and some generate more torque and horsepower than when operating on gasoline. However, since ethanol contains less energy per volume than gasoline, FFVs typically get about 15%–27% fewer miles per gallon when fuelled with E85.2 Blends of 51%–83% ethanol can be labelled as E85 according to ASTM Standard D5798-11, "Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/D5798-11, www.astm.org. The fuel economy difference between using E85 and gasoline is presented as a range since it depends on the ethanol blend and the vehicle: The lower bound (15% mpg decrease) is based on the difference in the energy content of a 51% ethanol blend and that of gasoline, which is typically 10% ethanol. The upper bound (27% mpg decrease) is based on the difference in official EPA fuel economy tests of recent-model FFVs operating on ethanol-free gasoline and operating on E85." Attached also are the latest (Jan. 2019) prices and equivalent energy content prices for alternative fuels report. Also, note table 8 prices for New England region in the report. Table 9 shows historical E85 and gas prices back to 2011. Since BTU content of fuel is the overwhelming driver of fuel economy, it's clear from the attachments and link that E85 is far from cost effective with respect to cost per mile.

It appears that the long term fuel trim could handle up to about E50 maybe E60 fuel before the stoichiometric ratio is not maintained. The algorithm has a limit on long term fuel trim adjustment. It might be because of the effect on components and the additional fuel mass that would be required to meet higher torque demand with E50 and higher ethanol blends. When charging, torque demand on ICE increases significantly. Perhaps, Ford simply did not feel any need to certify ICE for alternate fuels. About 1.6 gallons of ethanol has the same BTUs as one gallon of gas. One gallon of ethanol weighs over 10% more than one gallon of gas. So, E50 would require 20% more fuel for the same BTUs as E10 or 25% more fuel than pure gas. E85 would require about 50% for fuel than pure gas for the same BTUs. So, adding ethanol to pure gas (or E10) reduces MPG, reduces range, and adds weight to the vehicle. I don't see how the cost of E85 fuel no matter how it's mixed with E10 can be economical and convenient to actually use. Right now E85 costs more than regular gas around here. So unless gas prices increase substantially compared to E85, E50 (assuming that is as high as a C-Max can use) is a loser economically. It may help save the planet though. :)

Agree with Paul on the extra space in the hybrid. Also, when we (my, wife, and dog) take long road trips (many 4+k round trips), the Energi’s raised floor in the hatch would require us to pack stuff to the roof blocking view out the rear view mirror. Here’s a couple of links on INL testing and graphs of battery degradation and a recent thread on the Energi forum on a recent purchase of an Energi with significant battery degradation. Do your due diligence on any prospective purchase of an Energi. . http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/7101-hvb-tests-c-max-hybrid-idaho-national-lab/?do=findComment&comment=69889 http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/7404-battery-degradation/?hl=degradation&do=findComment&comment=71648 http://fordcmaxenergiforum.com/topic/7979-thinking-of-buying-a-2013-energi/ Excerpt from third link. “Fully charged the c-max today. It took about 4 hours. Got in the car to drive and it showed 92% battery after just backing out of the driveway. My daughter did some leisure driving around the neighborhood which is moderately hilly. Had defrost on and radio and her seat warmer was on 1. Battery went completely dead after 9.6 miles and 3.2kwh.”

Before you make a decision, be sure you understand how you need to operate the Energi to mitigate the degradation of the high voltage battery. In addition, you’ll want to know how much the HVB has already degraded by fully charging it and drive it in EV mode until It kicks into hybrid operational mode and read the kWh of energy depleted from the HVB. This is the EV usable kWh of the HVB which when new is around 5.5 - 5.6 kWh. Go to the C-Max Energi forum and read. The issue with the Energi in cold weather, especially if the HVB has significantly degraded, is your usable EV range may approach single digit miles at higher speeds, the engine may need to start anyways just like the hybrid would, and you may freeze your butt off when turning off the electric heat to conserve energy in the HVB. :)

Cost has nothing to do with MPG (see below). Your statement "and plugin whenever I stop" may be problematic. Have you gone to the C-Max Energi forum? They will be able to better answer your questions and you can read how some recommend to treat your battery (rbort has very good posts on how to operate an Energi to minimize high voltage battery capacity loss) . Do you know how many kWh of usable capacity you have? Normally, it's around 5.5 kWh when new and can be significantly less depending on how the High Voltage Battery was used. You do not want to charge to full capacity multiple times a day nor when temperatures are extremely high as you will accelerate capacity loss. "So how does the EPA get from 32 kWh/100m to 105 MPGe? To create the mpg equivalent, the EPA uses an established energy standard of 115,000 BTUs (British thermal units) per gallon of gasoline. Grossly oversimplified, this means that if you ignited 1 U.S. gallon of unleaded gasoline, it would generate that much heat. To create the same amount of heat, you would need 33.7 kilowatt-hours of electricity." MPGe = (33.7 kWh / gallon) / (32 kWh/100 miles) = 105 How many kWh did you use to go 24 miles? So, if you went 24 miles on x.x kWh, MPGe = (33.7 kWh / gallon) * (x.x/24 miles) If x.x = 5.5 kWh, then your MPGe = 144 and your equivalent gallons are 24/144 = 0.167 gallons Now, if you drove another 8 miles on 0.2 gallon of gas, then your MPGe = 32/0.367 = 87 Your cost of the 5.5 kWh, is your electricity all in variable cost rate ($/kWh at either the average rate or marginal rate) multiplied by the amount of electricity at the electrical outlet where you plug in. There are electrical losses to convert the wall power to DC power to store in the high voltage battery. If it took 7 kWh to put 5.5 kWh in the HVB at $0.10 / kWh, then the cost to go 24 miles would be $0.70 or $0.029 per mile. If gas cost $3.00 per gallon, it cost $0.60 for 8 miles or $0.075 per mile.

After looking at the manual "carefully", Paul is correct. Who said a picture is worth a 1000 words? :) I looked at the last 1/2 dozen pics in the procedure showing a crane lowering the engine / transmission with the last few pics showing the transmission being removed from the engine. The crane was shown in prior pics being raised when the engine / transmission was on the lift table shown in Paul's pic. Other parts were then removed before the last pics.

It’s 14b07. https://ford.oemdtc.com/2846/customer-satisfaction-program-14b07-transmission-inspection-and-repair-2013-2014-ford-c-max-fusion-hybrid The transaxle and engine come out together from the top with hoist. When one looks at various TSBs and when I look at the manual for removing unit, it’s labor intensive - about 10+ hours shop time is generally what is shown. It does involve working with the HV system. So, many independent shops could do the job but may not want to work on it. If the leak is from where the damper housing bolts to the engine, then it’s likely the input shaft seal. If the seal is a rubber seal, maybe stop leak might work.

I wouldn't worry about a torque wrench. If you can get any size wrench on a bolt, just tighten it up about the same as you would tighten spark plugs. Below are a parts diagram and list of parts for the HF35. Looks like there are three shaft seals (input, left and right half shaft), a manual control lever seal. Then, there's would be the sealant for the damper housing and the end cover. I don't see any seals for the electrical connectors so maybe a sealant is used. Item.pdf

Here's 3 pics of the transmission. The TSB describes the leak between the damper housing cover and transmission case. If fluid leaks only when driving, the leak would likely be above the fill / check plug. Perhaps, if you removed some of the stuff on top of the engine, you might be able to see enough of the top of the transmission to find the leak. Also, maybe try tightening some of the bolts you can reach. I have never looked at how accessible the bolts are. 18 lb-ft of torque isn't much if you can get a wrench on many of the 22 bolts. Dealer likely won't do that as it's not fixing the issue - sealant failure. 1st pic: The damper cover is shown in blue. It bolts onto the transmission body. Fluid is on the transmission side of the damper cover. The upper image shows where the RTV sealant is applied. The damper would be between the cover and the engine (not shown here). 2nd pic: The pic shows the damper cover attached to transmission and then the assembly can be bolted to engine. If there is transmission fluid on the engine side of the damper cover, the transmission input shaft seal is likely bad. 3rd pic: The upper image of pic show the engine with damper in place but damper cover (transmission) not attached. The damper of the damper assembly which connects the flywheel to the input shaft of the transmission has been removed in the lower image.

I wonder if TSB 15-0174 describes the issue: RTV failure of damper to transmission case seal. I don’t believe the stop leak products will “work” on RTV sealant. https://ford.oemdtc.com/1036/transmission-fluid-leak-at-the-damper-housing-2013-2014-ford-Lincoln Note this TSB applies to transmissions prior to 12/1/2013 in case you decide to replace with a used transmission. I would assume the damper housing would be included as part of a used transmission.

Maybe try a dose of transmission stop leak? Might make it "driveable" until the transmission fails because of noise (bearing?). How did they know the transmission needs replaced as I thought there is a kit to replace the bearing as long the damage wasn't severe. But, IIRC, they have to remove transmission to check. There's a TSB that describes it.

Says name expired on 3/3/2019 pending renewal or deletion.

I didn’t remember the Nucleon name or that Ford was the one talking about a nuclear fueled car until I looked it up. My neighbor back in the 70’s was a nuclear engineer and we would BS a lot about nuclear power and it’s potential uses. We were playing cards in the evening of the day TMI had a partial meltdown. He was with Westinghouse nuclear working on a new plant in TX. He saw the hand writing on the wall after TMI and left Westinghouse to work for the owners of the TX plant. The Nucleon https://macsmotorcitygarage.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/1958-Ford-Nucleon-360.jpg

and how after over 100 years this statement still points to the fundamental problem of electricity storage - energy density. "The problem so far has been to build a storage battery of light weight which would operate for long distances without recharging." Take a look at the energy density of gasoline vs a lithium ion battery in the attached table. IMO, how to move from the ICE age to the EV age will be solved by those that "carry a big stick" not a technological kWh storage break through. unless we can "harness" nuclear energy and put a small reactor / battery / generation in each vehicle. Nuclear has been talked about since the 1950s. Ever hear of the Ford Nucleon.

Exactly, you can buy an ELM327 for well under $20 and spend $4.99 for the ForScan App. I assume everyone has a Smartphone. :) The Service Manual has typical reference values or many PIDs including TFT for different speeds and so forth. I've said this before, ForScan is worth it just to monitor tire pressure. Ford could have easily developed an App for Sync 2 and displayed PID data like temps and pressures on the center display. But, I understand these Apps aren't for most owners. See Transmission Oil Temperature (TOT) in the attached chart. Here's Ford's comment on the reference values: "Reference values may vary 20% depending on operating conditions, altitude, and other factors. Values are taken at an altitude of approximately 189 meters (620 ft) above sea level with the engine at normal operating temperature and accessories off." Ambient Air Temperature is around 75F and Cylinder Head Temperature (used to estimate ECT) is in the 195 to 205F range for the reference values. IIRC from my recording Engine Coolant Temperature vs CHT, ECT is around 5 to 7 degrees less than CHT. So, by displaying AAT, CHT, ECT, TOT and Vehicle Speed Sensor one can get a good feel as to what the normal relationship is among these variables and should be able to see if any are out of line like TOT might be on low fluid. There are software monitors that check PID values on startup and continuously and will issue driver warnings and throw DTCs. But a driver does not want to continually see warnings for small imbalances. So, the trigger values are generally to prevent damage to the powertrain components. One can likely operate on a considerable loss of fluid before a trigger level is reached.