plus 3 golfer

Here's a link to the assembly I referred to above on e-bay with a better diagram. You would have to take the inside door off and remove / disconnect some electrical components to get to the assembly to make sure this assembly is the issue. It doesn't look difficult but it looks to be very time consuming.

I looked at the service manual and the parts diagram and my guess is the part(s) that broke is what I have circled (probably the brown one) but FordParts shows that one must buy 219A64 which includes more than the likely broken part. The parts circled are referred in the manual as "Exterior Front Door Handle Reinforcement". So, the $600 might make sense - about $300 for labor and $300 for parts.

Click on "More Reply Options" at the bottom right of the reply screen. Then use the "Attach Files" at the bottom left of the more reply options screen. Make sure you add the File to your post. Here's my alignment when I put on the RT43s showing -1.9 and -1.7. My previous alignment had camber at -2.0. and -1.8 IIRC. img022.pdf

What was the rear camber? IIRC, the spec allows camber to be -2.4 degrees. Many performance cars will not have near that much negative rear camber. The closer one gets to zero, the less inside wear one will have on the tires. One member put a kit on to reduce their negative camber. IIRC, when I was researching camber, the Prius spec was less than -1.5 degrees. I believe the high C-Max negative camber is for the rear of the C-Max to handle better given the extra weight of the HVB over the rear wheels. But tire noise is the tradeoff.

Perhaps the fact that you run 50+ psi lessens the inside tread wear and feathering. In addition, my "unbearable" noise is at speeds of 72+ mph. If I would drive at less than mostly 65 mph and with no 2000 mile cross country trips on the horizon, I could likely live with the noise for many more miles. Also, I rotated my Michelins myself and did the recommended rotation sequence about every 7500 miles which effectively means the reverse rotation happens every 15 k miles. So, perhaps crisscrossing every tire rotation would help as that would provide 2X the opportunity to offset the feathering.

IMO the tire noise is caused by the high negative rear camber causing inside tire wear and feathering. When driving in a straight line, negative camber will increase tire wear on the inside edge of the tire. High negative camber benefits cornering when driving agressively. There is no rear camber adjustment on the C-Max. I would say about 80% of our driving is high speed at 70+ mph. So, I believe the inside rear edges are scuffing / feathering perhaps more than "normal" driving driving at lower speeds. Tire rotation doesn't prevent this but may mitigate the onset of the noise and miles until the noise is unbearable. One would have to dismount the tire and reverse it on the rims to perhaps wear the edges more evenly and thus keep the noise at an acceptable level. When one adds cost to the equation, it is not cost effective to dismount 4 tires, reverse mount and balance them every 5-10k miles to maybe squeeze out another 10k miles.

Tire noise was the reason I bought new tires twice now (Bridgestone Ecopias at 48k miles and Generals at 88k miles). In both cases I likely could have got another 10k more on the replaced sets but for the unbearable tire noise especially on the Michelins OEMs. With nearly 8k on the Generals, there is no abnormal wear. I just measured tread depth in every groove on the four tires and all grooves are at 9/32" - 17/64". Original spec treadwear depth is 10/32. So, my guess is I'll get around 55-60k miles on the generals assuming no noise issues before I change them. I've set the tire pressure at 48 psi. Generals ride and handle a lot better than my other two sets. The only negative is fuel economy which is down from the Michelin energy savers and Ecopias. I would expect you will loose 5-7% in FE with the Generals over the OEM tires. I would buy the Generals again.

Ford, "we've had a problem". https://blog.caranddriver.com/swollen-lug-nuts-are-costing-ford-drivers-time-and-money-lawsuit-claims/

IMO, you do not want to use an "oversize" socket on a nut as it will round the corners because the area of contact of the socket with the nut will be smaller and more towards the edge of the nut. My guess is that with our clad lugnut, it is likely that the clading will deform more using an oversize socket or a 12 point socket than the proper impact socket. My impact socket set is over 25 years old and has the rounded interior corners like in SS's link above. Like SS says when using the proper socket you can see the impact area on the nut is well back from the corner whether its a solid or clad lugnut. On last thought and that is I would expect the life of our clad lugnut should be at least 50 cycles and likely much more as lugnuts are not normally considered a consummable (assuming use of proper tools and applying spec. torque). At a 5k tire rotation schedule, one would expect maybe 20 cycles per 100 k miles.

Have you replaced your 12V battery yet? Your issue with transmission staying in L, audio system shuts down, FOBs won't open door might be due to low voltage - bad 12V battery or charging. Are you using the slot in the FOB to gain leverage when turning key by inserting end of key in slot and then turning?

So let's clarify so there is no confusion on the type of transmission the C-Max has. The heart of the transmission is a planetary gear set with an electric motor (the generator) connected to the sun gear. ICE is connected to the planet carrier. The "effective gear ratio" is controlled by the generator. When one shifts to low, a) ICE starts to spin resulting in engine braking which is the primary purpose of L (ICE can provide power if one provides more throttle but it makes no sense to drive in L) and b) the generator rpm is reduced simultaneously (and possibly reversed within constraints). Thus, ICE rpm will increase simulating shifting to L in a conventional transmission. ICE rpm - generator rpm yields wheel rpm. So, when driving and shifting to L, one normally uses L to slow down rather than to run ICE. IMO, something is indicating to the PCM / TCM, that your car wants to be driven in L. The fact ( moving the transmission shift control cable to the neutral position and back to D corrected the issue) indicates that the sensor communicated the correct shifter positions to the control modules and the car operated normally. I'd first simply adjust the cable and see if the problem returns.

More than likely it's related to the gear shifter, linkage, sensor, selector switch and so forth. I'll look at the manual later to see what can be adjusted. Edit: The cable can be adjusted from underneath the car. It's a simple procedure. There is also a selector sensor which is located internal to the transmission. There are several DTCs related to the sensor. Also, how did get it out of low? Did you bump the shifter toward neutral? or shift to L and back to D?

I just found this in the 2014 Service Manual with respect to the System off to Save Battery message while browsing for something else: "The BCM uses the battery current sensor to monitor the battery state of charge. The battery current sensor is attached to the battery ground cable. With the vehicle OFF and the ignition in ACC or ON, a load shed message is sent over the CAN when the BCM determines that the battery state of charge is below 40%, 45 minutes have elapsed, or 10% of the charge has been drained. This message turns off the audio system to save the remaining battery charge. Under this condition, SYS OFF TO SAVE BATT is displayed on the centerstack infotainment display to notify the driver that battery protection actions are active. To clear the load shed state, start the vehicle." This may be why I would get the message within a few minute or so a lot of the time since my SOC was usually well under 40% with many short trips over a week or so. I just checked and my SOC is just under 38% with car turned off but radio system still on. The message appreared after about 2 1/2 minutes and the audio shut off. There's likely a time delay before the message is sent for the under 40% criterion. It's also possible that Ford may have changed the criteria for when to shut down to save the battery in later MY cars. In any event, one might want to make sure that the dealer does the battery reset when installing a new battery as the SOC will likely not be correct for the new battery unless the reset is performed. I will do some more monitoring especially when the SOC is higher than 40%.

No. Look at the thread on the transmission failures listed on 1st page. There may be proportionate to sales as many Energis fail as Hybrids. This was discussed in another thread and the bearing failure doesn't appear to be related to TFT.

Yes, I agree. This bearing issue was first acknowledged with the SSM on C-Maxes in taxi service (very high mileage vehicles and rather unique operating characteristics), then there were the 4 DOE test vehicles (higher mileage per year vehicles), the CSP, and the TSB which now offers the kit. It could be that this issue is a systemic issue and the bearing is simply the point of failure not the underlying cause. Perhaps, the system design is flawed and can't be fixed given the current transmission configuration. So, all transmissions may ultimately suffer this "failure" given the quality of the bearing, how driven, and miles driven sooner than initial design criteria. As our C-Maxes age and accumulate miles Ford likely expects more failures and now has a TSB that mitigates their financial exposure. Based on averages, 2013 MY would be approaching an average of about 70k miles with subsequent years about 14k miles less per year. Based on my hypothesis above, we should see an increasing number of failures which should lead to independent shops offering to perform the work which should lower costs. This is not rocket science and there are likely many Prius trannies (which are similar to ours) that have been replaced / perhaps taken apart by independent shops. Virtually all quality independent shops should have the subscriptions (like OASIS) and the diagnostic tools to do such work. I've got 95k miles and likely less than 6 months before my GEICO MBI expires at 100 k miles. If mine fails after 100k miles, I'll go to an independent shop for quotes. IIRC, the TSB shows about 12 - 13 hours of labor. So, that's likely somewhere around $1000 - $1200 for labor. Add the kit or a used transmission and $2500 - $3000 seems a likely number. I'd probably do it for $500 -$1000 more if the used transmission were a 2016+ with low mileage.

How about the nearest, large salvage yard? Give them a call to see if they have any C-Maxes in the yard.

After thinking about the transmission issue from the earlier CSP and the latest TSB linked to in my previous post, Ford with the kit now has a way out to not replace any transmission under the unique Hybrid Warranty "caused" by the bearing failure after the 3/36 warranty runs out. IMO, anyone that does not have an extended warranty will llkely get "screwed" by Ford for this bearing issue since the 8/100 Hybrid Warranty is worthless for this issue. I would take the trade-in value for your C-Max vs paying $8300 or even 1/2 that to fix it.

Exactly what the Ford rep said. But the point is we should not have to "convince" the dealer that they can't charge us for the update per 12M02. Also, this begs the question as to how are owners to a) know there are updates available and b) know they are free. This is the reason Ford needs to at minimum show all updates for Sync on the Ford site and for dealers to "know" to do such updates for owners if they take their car to the dealer for any reason.

This is the exact issue that I harped on I believe about two year ago when V3.8 came out. Remember that the Ford rep said essentially that even if the Ford site says you are up to date with older version, you can go to the dealer and they will install the latest because of the 5 year warranty on Sync for free. My response was essentially, I doubt it since Ford says I'm up to date. Who wants to argue with the dealer. Ford could have easily sent out a CSP to owners on new updates but they didn't. Why, likely because Ford wants the 5 year warranty to expire. Also, remember the Ford rep said essentially that Ford was fixing the issue of new releases not showing up on the Ford website. This is about the time the Ford reps apparently have "abandoned" this site. ;)

What's the rating of the BrakeBuddy.? My guess it's 1 - 2 Amps (trickle charger = $17). That's likely not enough to keep the C-Max battery charged when in N. That's only 12 -24 Watts. The active modules likely use more than that. The Toad Charge = $80 appears to be a 10 Amp maximum output which would be able to keep up with about a 120 Watt load. Most times you get what you pay for. :) By directly paralleling the C-Max and MH batteries, your MH voltage regulator is now trying to regulate two batteries as one AND the C-Max battery can also supply load to the MH. This is why the Toad Charge has this feature: "The TOAD-CHARGE™ kit consists of several components: The Charge Controller installs in the towed vehicle's engine compartment - It monitors the charging current and prevents reverse current flow when the motorhome engine is started." So, the issue is that you will have different voltage drops across the batteries when charging because of the different wire lengths (resistance) involved and the batteries are not the same size which they should be using two wired in parallel on one charge controller.

Look at this post and attachment and subsequent posts as perhaps instead of spending about $4.8k for a new transmission the "kit" may work. It's $4.8k for a new transmission vs less than $1k for the kit. Also, you may be able to get a used transmission for around $1500+ but IMO, make sure it is out of a 2016+ MY as it appears the "transmission issue" has been fixed with MY 2016.

I think you need to look at this post and attachment and the subsequent posts. Post #1 in this thread is old data. IMO, to be "more" certain that the problem was fixed, one should buy a 2016 MY or above.

Generally, the failure of a covered part whose failure was caused by a non-covered part is NOT covered. The real issue is it is very hard to dispute the dealer's word on what caused the covered part to fail. How does an owner know which module failed first? or even if there is a causal relationship between the failed parts. I would question the dealer as to how they know which module failed first and how they determined that the covered module didn't cause the non-covered module to fail. If you can't get satisfaction from the dealer, open a case with Ford. I would argue that each module is independent and operates based on data exchange over the Control Area Networks and thus it would be virtually impossible for one module failure to cause another to fail as each module should have internal checks on data and fail safe operation. Also, get a breakdown on the $3400 along with the exact modules that are to be replaced. Hopefully, you can get Ford to pick up the majority of the cost. Also, the dealer is likely billing their labor rates not the rate Ford pays them. Big city Ford dealers' hourly rates are likely low 3 digits. You may have to pay something, but $3400 seems very high.

Your letter is virtually identical to the letters sent to owners under CSP 16b32 except for the expiration date of the CSP. From 16b32: REASON FOR THIS PROGRAMIn all of the affected vehicles, the electronic throttle body internal motor contacts may developcontamination resulting in increased electrical resistance. If this condition is present, the malfunctionindicator lamp will illuminate, diagnostic trouble codes P2111 and P2112 will set, and the vehicle mayenter a Failure Mode Effects Management (FMEM) of default throttle position with fixed RPM. In thismode, while engine power and vehicle speed are reduced, the power steering, power braking,lighting, and climate control systems remain fully functional.

Click on "quote" to respond to a post. Click on "more reply options" at the bottom right. At the bottom left click on "choose file" under attach file. Select the pdf file on your computer and click open. It will then be uploaded. Then click on "add to post". Then "add reply."