plus 3 golfer

Do you need / want all the options on the Energi vs the Hybrid SE? If you do, than paying $1000 and trading your SE in appears to be a very good deal based on clean retail values in the US. I would expect a normal consumer trading in an SE with 30k miles for a fully loaded Energi with 60k miles would have to pay at least $3000. Also, doesn't Hydro-Quebec have the lowest cost electricity in Canada and likely less than virtually all suppliers in the US? This coupled with your relatively high cost of gasoline should give you fairly quick payback of the $1000. I'd do it even with the 30 k mileage difference.

Get the ForScan App for a smartphone and an ELM327 adapter (total cost excluding smartphone should be less than $30). There are Ford specific codes and modules that a generic OBDII reader may likely not scan.

In my post above on leasing vs buying, I didn't mention the heavier discounts on MY 2016 Energis until 7/5/2017 if you can still find them. For example, the discounts for leasing are $13,007 (includes FIT credit) and for purchase are $8,500. Add in the FIT credit if purchasing and one can own a 2016 C-Max Energi (XPlan pricing) for about $19,000 or perhaps less. The 2016 Hybrid will be about $20,000 with all discounts and XPlan pricing. So, why buy a Hybrid if the Energi costs less? Of course, one needs to see a dealer as one might even get either for less.

Ford currently is offering incentives (includes FIT credit) on leasing of $8,257 on the Energi as shown below. The issue is the residual value and market price when the lease is up. You may be able to buy a used C-Max for less than the residual value when the lease is up. In which case, you should walk away from the lease. This lease shows a monthly payment of $259 for 36 months or $9,324. You can buy it for $27,930 (includes Retail Bonus Customer Cash of $1,900 and XPlan discount) and 0% financing for up to 60 months. Of course you can always negotiate and likely get a better deal than the XPlan. Let's assume you use the $4006 FIT credit to reduce the $27,930 to $23,926. The monthly payment for 60 months would be about $399 per month. So, after 36 months you'd still owe $9,570 and have paid $14,356. To further complicate matters, let's say you invested the difference in payments to a tax free fund for 36 months. So, the future value of an investment of $140 a month at say 3% after tax return would be about $5,267 or one is ahead about $267 leasing vs purchasing after 36 months due to the investment. If I walk away from the lease after 36 months, I'm out-of-pocket about $9,057 since I invested the difference in payment. This means that if I buy the C-Max and choose to sell the C-Max after 36 months of ownership, I need to sell it for $9,570 (the amount I still owe) + $14,356 (the amount paid for financing for 36 months) - $9,057 (the net amount I paid to lease) = $14,869 to break even with the lease. How does this amount compare with the actual residual value of the lease in the contract. Let's assume Ford charges nothing for the lease just like the 0% financing for 60 months. Then, the residual value would likely be $21,573 - $9,324 = $14,249 which is virtually the same as one needs to sell the car for if one owned it. :) Ford then is indifferent to whether one leases the car or finances the car through them. It's the consumer's choice. However, although Ford may be indifferent to lease vs buy, a consumer needs to consider many more factors into his lease vs buy decision. Each consumer will likely have a different view depending on their situation. There is no right or wrong answer. It depends.

LOL My only "run-in" with a Prius was on I40 heading West from Albuquerque in very light traffic about 6 months after I bought my C-Max. I had my cruise set at about 78 mph (speed limit 75 mph). While going down a long grade, a Prius blew by me in the passing lane. And, then we had to go up hill at which time he pulled back in the slow lane. It didn't take long before I caught him and passed him. He had slowed down considerably (probably to 65 mph) going up hill. I didn't think too much of it until a mile or so later going down hill he goes flying by me again. This happened several more times over maybe 10 miles. Finally, as he was going to pass again near the bottom of a long hill, I floored it and continued up the hill leaving him in my exhaust fumes, waving as I passed. He was not seen again in the next 20 miles as that's where I got off I40 to head South to Phoenix. What a nuisance (the Prius). ;) Why would one want a Prius? (rhetorical) It just doesn't have the power for me to maintain speed going up hills or accelerate quickly when one needs to. Before I bought my C-Max when looking for a new car, a Phoenix neighbor (Prius owner) "warned" me about the lack of performance of a Prius when driving in mountainous terrain when leaving the Valley of the Sun. I expierenced it second hand (and glad it wasn't first hand). :)

How does your brake score compare between the 2013 and 2016? It would seem that it might be easier to get a higher brake score with a higher level of regenerative braking but that doesn't necessarily translate into higher FE because one should get better FE with less regenerative braking when one is not coming to a complete stop. Ones best FE would be to coast in N (no regenerative braking) to a stop. Based on my testing a few years ago, regenerative braking losses are more than most think such that the difference between say an overall average 95% brake score vs a 97% brake score saves very little energy. But, for those drivers that have difficulty getting 90% and now using the new eco mode can achieve 97% with the extra regenerative braking in Eco mode, they will likely improves their FE slightly when comming to a complete stop. With ForScan, I can watch brake pressure in real time. So, one can develop a "feel" for when one applies to much brake pressure and the friction brakes are applied. I would rather have full control of regenerative braking from none to maximum using the brake pedal. As I've said before, I'd like a threshold screen for regenerative braking much like the threshold screen in Empower for EV operation. Also, the 2016 has the aero mods that the 2013 doesn't have. There are probably other tweaks like the new Eco mode that might improve FE in the 2016 over the 2013. Hasn't it been verified that the 2016 is limited to about 65 mph in EV only mode?

Why? All you need to do is look at the pricing structure of the C-Max Energi vs Hybrid over time. For MY 2013, the Energi was about $2200 more than the Hybrid SEL and around $5000+- more than the Hybrid SE. Also, IIRC any incentives for the C-Max were about the same for both models. For MY 2014, the FIT credit for the Energi was increased by about $260 and Ford began giving more incentives on the Energi than the Hybrid. This has been discussed many times in the past which virtually made the Hybrid SEL and Energi about the same cost to the consumer For MY 2016 Ford came out with the Energi SE priced lower than the Energi Titanium. So, now the Energi with FIT credits is less costly for the SE line and the Titanium line. Hence, unless one wants more cargo space, many will likely buy the Energi over the Hybrid since it has been less expensive than the Hybrid for several years after tax.

FIT credit is around $4,000 for the Energi and Ford has been discounting the Energi significantly more than the Hybrid (currently at $1,000). So the Energi after taxes and incentives is less expensive than the Hybrid.

xx

In the ready to drive position. I have push button start. Yes, the DC/DC converter is supplying the load (like a conventional alternator would do) whether ICE is on or off. But unlike a conventional car, ICE in the C-Max will be off until the HVB is below a threshold level. ICE will then start to charge the HVB up to a certain level and then shut off. This ICE on/off cycle will continue. This is significantly more efficient than running a conventional car continuously for auxiliary power. The 12 V C-Max battery does not get depleted as the DC/DC converter keeps its charge up. Like I've said several times in other threads, I've done this to keep car cool (AC on) with my dog in the car. IIRC, you have to lock the car with the key FOB. IIRC, the black button on the handles won't work to lock the car with the car in ready to drive. It's probably illegal to leave the car "running" in most jurisdictions. But when I've done it, I've parked somewhat away from where most are parking so as not to attract attention with a pet in a "hot" car and an unattended running car. When I first started do this, I checked about every 10 minutes or so to make sure the all was fine. Don't know about a keyed ignition system. But I assume that if you start the car by turning the key, you are in ready to drive just like with push button start.

Yes, the inverter needs to be close to the C-Max to minimize 12 V losses. Once at 120V AC, a heavy duty 50 foot extension cord to the stove would be okay. A workable solution to the "pellet stove" problem IMO depends on the frequency and duration of grid outages. Remember the HVB will likely cycle between about 38% SOC and 55% SOC. So, I would not be worried about several hundred of these cycles a year on ICE of the HV to operate the pellet stove during limited outages. The issue with a deep cycle battery is one still doesn't want to cycle it below about 70% (50% in an emergency). So, for a 100 Ah battery, one has about 30 to 50 Ah of usable capacity or 360 to 600 Wh of energy available before it should be charged back up. How is one to charge it back up when the grid is down for extended periods of time? Of course a portable generator would work - but isn't this what we are trying to eliminate? Plus you need a charge controller. So, IMO unless one is in the back woods with several hours of outages several times a week, I would use my C-Max rather than a battery off-grid type system. The question is at what point are the grid outages deemed critical. If grid outages are minimal, using the C-Max makes sense. If one might be without power for days at a time, a portable generator with battery backup seems the best solution. Back to using the C-Max as the generator. I believe these connectors would work great for a permanent installation for providing 12 V to the grille area for connecting inverters perhaps up to about 500 Watts (45 Amps). I would make a dummy connector to cap the 12 V connector on the wires going to the + and ground. Pull dummy connector off and plug in the inverter connector. It looks like the connectors accept up to #10 wire which should be good as long as the total length from the Battery Junction box to the inverter is not too long. Here's a link showing length vs current for 3% and 10% voltage drop. Don't know what the AC starting current is of the motor, whether it has a starting capacitor, or how well a 300 W pure sine wave inverter reacts to a large current spike or large input voltage drop. If I were in an area that has longer grid outages (hours at a time not days at a time), I would seriously consider doing this as the car engine will quickly charge the HVB such that one would likely have a long time between ICE starts. A 300 W inverter load plus the "ready to drive" C-Max load is likely less 600 W. The SOC HVB range between ICE running to charge and ICE off is likely around 20% or 280 Wh. So, one might expect ICE to start about 2 times an hour for a very short period of time to replace the 280 Wh depleted from the HVB. IMO, this cycling would not make a dent in the life of our HVB.

As I said in a post above, the battery fuse is 150 A and "the Direct Current/Direct Current (DC/DC) converter control module is capable of outputting as many as 145 amps to the 12-volt battery." I would wire the new inverter to the positive between the 150 A battery fuse and the 175 A converter fuse. The positve connections in the Battery Junction Box or the battery posts under the hood would be a preferred location IMO. For a permanent installation rather than using the posts under the hood, I would find a spare fuse slot in the Battery Junction Box (there are several) under the hood and wire a cable to the fuse slot and ground. I would route the cable to the grille area and put a 12 V plug on it so that the new inverter can be connected to the cable plug. The real question is what size inverter should one use for a 100 W steady state motor load? I would think a 300 W inverter would do. So, the wiring would likely need to handle at least 30 A @12 V and kept as short as possible to minimize size of cable due to losses and voltage drop. Most pure sine wave inverters should have a fairly wide range of input voltage for a nominal 12 V input. There are wire size charts depending on desired voltage drop %, continuous Amps, and lengths.

xxx

I have left my C-Max "on" and car locked, with AC running for cooling when traveling with our dog and stopping for 40 - 60 minutes to dine. ICE does start when the HVB falls to a low level. So, be aware of potential exhaust fumes from ICE based on power draw of the stove and outage length. It shouldn't matter whether the load is internal to the C-Max or attached to the 12 V battery except that the 12 V charging circuit has a 175 A fuse (about 2100 W) and the 12 V battery is fused at 150 A (1800 W). So, I'd keep the 12V to 120V AC converter as small as possible to avoid blowing either of these fuses.

Let me rephrase as "time" is not about speeding to get to a point at a certain time. It's about hypermiling which is stressful for me and costs "time" vs using eco-cruise at a speed one is comfortable with (for me that is 3-5 mph above the speed limit). It virtually impossible for me to hypermile vs setting eco-cruise (and tapping to disengage when approaching traffic and reengaging when the traffic clears) and cover the same distance in the same time. I can use my example from another recent thread on a 31 mile round trip where I hypermiled on side streets instead of driving the freeway using eco-cruise. There was a lot more stress driving the side streets with speed limits of 55, 45, 35 and 15 mph (school zone) with traffic, lights, and stop signs than the freeway. I added 30 minutes to the normal trip time taking the side streets but I did get IIRC 67.4 mpg on the side streets vs the interstate where I would get about 40 +ish mpg.

Great job, Paul. "... Again, we can see how you do it but I'm afraid I'm still a bit too lazy to give up on Eco Cruise..." SnowStorm Agree but it's not only about FE but time. The video is great for how to do it. But, there's a balance between FE and time that is likely different among drivers. There's no question that hypermiling (when I try it) reduces my average speed considerably and adds significant "stressful" driving time to my trips. There's also no question that shifting to N increases FE (as does drafting behind semitrucks and simply reducing average speed). But, hypermiling require more "stress" and time than simply using eco-cruise set at 3-5 mph above the speed limit, at least for me. I want a less stressful drive especially when I'm driving across country. Paul, IMO you need to hypermile and calculate your average speed and then make a run using eco-cruise set at your average speed such that time of the trips are virtually the same. The effect of average speed (time) is now minimized. You should reset the trip computer once on the highway at cruising speed. Do the same for the return trip. Also, I've always found that you need to go at least 20 miles to minimize the effect of SOC change. You wouldn't need to record the eco-cruise run. I believe this is what most drivers want to see - how much money am I saving by hypermiling.

Purchased Dec. 2012. Currently, I have 86 k miles on my C-MAX with about 65 k miles at 3-5 mph above interstate and freeway speeds. Actual FE is 40.4 mpg. On my trips, I usually get killed on FE because of at least one "bad" tank due to unfavorable weather conditions. For example, last night we returned from Pittsburgh area to eastern TN with rain / snow, 20+ mph sustained frontal, quartering wind for most of the trip trough PA, WV, and VA and temps in the low to mid 30s. Return FE was 34.4 mpg (on the trip computer) which normally is around 40 mpg. So, actual FE was likely around 33 mpg for the 384 mile trip. Windshield replaced twice. 37 k miles on my second set of tires. One alignment at 27 k miles.

IMO, the EPA unadjusted FE tests are as accurate as one is going to get using a dynamometer (assuming inputs are accurate) for comparing FE of similar vehicles. Below is a comparison from the 2017 EPA data base. We know that we can get higher and lower fuel economy numbers than even these unadjusted numbers as actual FE depends on conditions and driving style. I've demonstrated this years ago with the following screenshot of the C-Max for a round trip. IMO, we are beating a "dead horse" on comparing the Niro, Ioniq, and C-Max FE. Given the EPA numbers below and my beating the C-Max unadjusted numbers by about 10 mpg, the 84 mpg, 10 mile trip of the Ioniq is achievable, IMO.

Bridgestone also offers the $70 rebate on a set of four. The issue is timing your tire purchase to the active rebate. The Michelin rebate was not on when I bought the Ecopias. Since my tire noise was so bad on my return 2000 mile trip and since I was leaving again on a long trip in a week, I "had" to get new tires. So, with the Ecopia $70 rebate I actually saved about $170 (includes sales tax savings) buying the Ecopias over the Energy Saver at full price.

Agree with obob. Just drive, enjoy and don't worry. The Ford engineers are using a very small piece of the HVB. In normal driving you are likely driving between a SOC of about 42% and 55% of the capacity of the battery. So, those charge / discharge cycle will have little impact on longevity. The max SOC is about 70% (going down longer / steeper hills). The minimum SOC is slightly above 30% but you'll have to "try" to deplete the charge to get that low. So, how many times a day / year does one charge to 70 % and deplete to 30+%? - not very many. Even the 70 / 30 cycle is not really that severe. There's a graph that show Fords testing and modeling of HVB life. When I find it I'll post it. Here's the link.

I have Ecopia EP422 Plus tires currrently on with about 36.5 k miles. Just measured tread depth in all groves and minimum in just under 5/32 in one outside groove with most at 5/32 or just above. Cold tire pressure averages 47.2 psi (measured with ForScan App) at about 60 F ambient. Assuming initial tread depth is 10/32 per spec, I'm get about 7.3 k miles per 1/32 on the Ecopias. I usually replace my tires at just above wear bars or 3/32. So, I'll should get at least 50 k miles out of the Ecopias. I replaced my OEM Michelins at 48 k miles because of excessive tire noise (rear camber issue - developed saw tooth edges and slight cupping on rear tires) with about 4/32 tread wear. Here's SnowStorm's rear camber fix. Without tire noise, I believe I would have achieved 60 k miles on the Michelins if I could have put up with the noise on cross country trips. So, based on my experience, I'd say the Michelins will last longer. Currently, there is some feathering that I can feel on the Ecopias and some tire noise that maxs out at about 45 - 55 mph. We'll see if it gets worse. Also, it's hard to tell if there is a significant fuel economy difference between the tires. But, I will say that I don't believe the Ecopias yield higher FE. Based on simple averages of many longer highway trips, I'd say that the Michelins may be better by a several tenths of a mpg at highway speeds. Bottom line: is the cost saving worth it for the Ecopias? I saved about $100 with the Ecopias over the Michelins (includes $70 rebates for both sets). I'd say gas has averaged around $2+ a gallon since putting on the Ecopias. So, the savings buys at most 50 gallons of fuel or about 2000 miles of driving - probably not worth buying the Ecopias. Also, as far as handling, it's difficult for me to compare as the Michelins were worn and the Ecopias were new. Best bet is to look at Tire Rack surveys. Neither gets stellar consumer ratings. I'll probably go with another brand when I replace tires again. :)

Your 2016 owner's manual should tell you. In MY 2013, there are only messages displayed like oil changed required now (no %). The owner's manual has a page dedicated to the algorithm for oil life determination. The max. OCI on the table (normal duty) is 10 k miles. So, it appears that since we have a hybrid (ICE not running continually, most will get the change oil message at 10 k miles, I do. You'd probably have to tow a trailer continually to get less than 10 k miles. :) I do know that with ForScan you can get the data (can't recall if miles or %) but the data is rather worthless since the OLM algorithm caps the OCI at 10 k miles. You'll always get the message at no more than 10 k miles. I'm doing my oil changes between about 12k and 14 k miles.

The point being Ford made the blunders and Ford marketing failed to turn the consumer towards the C-Max in early 2014 with the "Sal and Family" commercial (before the 2nd FE blunder) and late 2014 with the "go further" commercial highlighting the EPA range of 540 miles (after the second FE blunder). The FE thingy "is" a big issue. Ford could easily see that with no turn around in C-Max sales after this re-marketing the C-Max and with low gas prices, it made little sense to push the marketing of the C-Max further. So, it's apparently been about 2 1/2 years since Ford essentially "stopped" marketing of the C-Max (not as long as many likely believe). Ford isn't going to turn the relatively "high cost" C-Max around with marketing. The model E hopefully will marry the top class performance and comfort of the C-Max with top class FE. "Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time." -- Jun 17th 2014 at 2:28PM

Fuel tank usable "rated" size (13.5 gallons) is less than "fill up" size. There is a standard for tank size rating. For example, filler pipe, vapor air space at top of tank, fuel lines, low area at bottom where fuel pump usually sits and can't be reached by the pump are excluded from the volumn calculation of rated tank capacity. In addition, if you fill the tank beyond the pump shut off, fuel can enter the EVAP system. Filling when not on flat ground, can result in fuel in the air space. It was explained in an ariticle and discussed prior. You can google and likely find it or similar article. So, how did this thread get so far off topic from the dash fuel gauge not showing full? Back on topic. I agree with Louder North. IIRC, the fuel level sensor input is to the the Body Control Module and then to the instrument cluster via the CAN. So, if the instrument cluster is showing an incorrect "full" fuel level but as you use fuel moves lower, it's likely the sensor (including float).

There's been lots of discussion about this and not worth rehashing. Ford made blunder after blunder with the C-Max. It's hard to resurrect a perceived "bad" car especially with low fuel prices now. Consumer Reports always liked the C-Max but Ford made critical mistakes early on which IMO doomed the C-Max. I also get the same response on what is a C-Max when I tell them what I'm driving.