plus 3 golfer

I believe the front wheels need to be turning (traction motor, differential, transfer shaft and gears, and ring gear must be spinning) as the issue is a bearing on the transfer shaft (see quote below as this is all I can find on 14B07). So, it would be hard to put a long screwdriver on the tranny when the car is moving. :) But, the screwdriver trick or any long bar, pipe does work in listening to engine noises. BTW, I can only hear those noises I mentioned a few posts ago with the driver's window down and at low speeds with ICE off. At higher speeds or with ICE on there's too much wind / engine noise. So, when in EV+ with window down and say less than 15 mph, the noises are barely audible. For those that have had their tranny replaced, are the noises audible with the windows closed and coasting at high, medium, and low speeds? I also continue to monitor transmission fluid temperature and it appears normal although I'd probably not notice a 5 / 10 F increase in TFT since I don't have any comparable data saved. TFT seems to run at least 30F+ lower than ECT under normal driving. Excessive regeneration when going down steep hills can cause TFT to be higher and ECT lower and thus the 30 F differential doesn't always hold.

Hot Potato, you first reported an issue in August 2015 at 39 k miles. In August 2016 you were at 53 k Miles. Did the noises get worse over time and thus easier to be "heard" by the dealer? So, apparently it took over 14 k miles before the dealer agreed that there was a "noise" and that the TSB applied. Why did it take 2 weeks to fix? Was your car not drivable for 2 weeks until the new transmission came in? It seems that once the diagnosis was made (that it needs new tranny), you could have driven it for an additional 2 weeks or so until the new tranny came in. I've got 75 k miles on my car and began hearing noises recently that I don't recall hearing about 5-7 k miles ago (4 - 5 months ago). The noises are best described as small rocks rotating in a can (grinding) and a slight whirring / humming noise both when moving. I will be putting on about 6 k miles between now and the end of the year. I have a feeling that if I took my car to the dealer now, the dealer would say "they all do that". So, by the first of the year, I should have over 11 k miles on since I began hearing the noises and about 81 k miles total on my car. If the noises are worse in Jan. 2017 than now, I will make the trip to the dealer and follow your advice insisting the SA (and Tech) go for a drive with me.

:needphotos: Pics might get the attention of Ford (via their site reps) and pics are especially worth it for others that may have a similar issue.

This sums it up: "It is one of the cheapest all-electric cars available, but the trade off is that it's slow, clumsy, stiff riding, and Spartan inside. With its seating for five, a roomier interior, and more comfortable ride, the Nissan Leaf is a better choice."

Here's the key from the owner's manual for navigating the left hand display: • Press the up and down arrow buttons to scroll through and highlight the options within a menu.• Press the right arrow button to enter a sub-menu.• Press the left arrow button to exit a menu.• Press and hold the left arrow button at any time to return to the main menu display (escape button).• Press the OK button to choose and confirm settings or messages. So, press the left arrow button as many times as it takes to get to the Main Menu. Scroll up or down to get to the Display Menu. Press the right arrow (or OK) to enter the Display sub menus. Use the up and down arrows to scroll through Engage, Empower and so forth. When you get to My View, you can hit the right arrow to allow changing / selecting what to display in My View. Hit OK and use the left and right arrows to alternate between the left and right portions of My View. Use the up and down arrows to scroll through the data that can be displayed in My View. Once you have selected the two displays you want in My View, make sure you hit okay to save the new settings of My View. Hope this helps.

How else? I just let my wife drive the car and waist electrons/gas. ;) :) No problems yet with rotors in about 78 k miles.

According to the NHTSA recall attached below, your car is not included in the recall. This is the recall that showed up last week about the same time I received my letter from Ford (about 10 days ago). The letter notification (and perhaps the notice on Owner.Ford) to affected owners is phased as the recall date is 9/2/2016. Homestead said his showed up in mid September. Recall Date: SEP 02, 2016Recall Title: DOOR LATCH REPLACEMENTNHTSA Recall Number: 16V643Ford Recall Number: 16S30Recall Description: A DOOR LATCH WITH A FRACTURED PAWL SPRING TAB TYPICALLY RESULTS IN A "DOOR WILL NOT CLOSE" CONDITION. A DOOR THAT OPENS WHILE DRIVING INCREASES THE RISK OF INJURY. AS OF 9/2/16, FORD'S INVESTIGATION INTO THIS CONCERN HAS IDENTIFIED A TOTAL OF ONE ALLEGED ACCIDENT AND THREE ALLEGED INJURIES THAT FORD BELIEVES MAY BE RELATED. ONE ALLEGED INJURY WAS TO AN OCCUPANT'S ARM FROM A DOOR THAT REPORTEDLY OPENED AND BOUNCED BACK. ANOTHER INJURY INVOLVED A DRIVER WHO ALLEGED HER HAND WAS INJURED WHEN TRYING TO GRAB A DOOR THAT OPENED. THE THIRD INJURY WAS TO AN OCCUPANT WHO ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED SCRATCHES FROM A REAR DOOR THAT OPENED WHILE DRIVING. FORD HAS NO FURTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THESE REPORTS. THE ALLEGED ACCIDENT OCCURRED AFTER THE DRIVER'S DOOR REPORTEDLY OPENED IN A PARKING LOT AND RESULTED IN BUMPER DAMAGE, BUT FORD HAS NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.Risk to Safety: A DOOR LATCH WITH A FRACTURED PAWL SPRING TAB TYPICALLY RESULTS IN A "DOOR WILL NOT CLOSE" CONDITION. A DOOR THAT OPENS WHILE DRIVING INCREASES THE RISK OF INJURY.Remedy Program: OWNERS WILL BE NOTIFIED BY MAIL AND INSTRUCTED TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLE TO A FORD OR LINCOLN DEALER TO HAVE ALL AFFECTED DOOR LATCHES REPLACED WITH A MORE ROBUST SERVICE PART. THERE WILL BE NO CHARGE FOR THIS SERVICE. PARTS AVAILABILITY IS PRESENTLY VERY LIMITED. IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN FACTORS AFFECT THE RATE OF REPORTS AND MAY BE USED IN PRIORITIZING THE PHASED MAILING OF REMEDY NOTIFICATIONS AS PARTS BECOME AVAILABLE. FORD PROVIDED THE GENERAL REIMBURSEMENT PLAN FOR THE COST OF REMEDIES PAID FOR BY VEHICLE OWNERS PRIOR TO NOTIFICATION OF A SAFETY RECALL TO THE AGENCY IN FEBRUARY 2015. THE ENDING DATE FOR REIMBURSEMENT ELIGIBILITY IS OCTOBER 31, 2016. FORD WILL FORWARD A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION LETTERS TO DEALERS TO THE AGENCY WHEN AVAILABLE.Status: 12 - RECALL INCOMPLETE. REMEDY NOT YET AVAILABLE.Manufacturer Notes: TO CHECK FOR NON-SAFETY-RELATED PROGRAMS APPLICABLE TO YOUR VEHICLE, SEE HTTP://WWW.FORD.COM/OR CALL YOUR FORD DEALER.RCLRPT-16V643-8175.PDF

Get ready to say farewell to a lot of electric cars :headscratch: "That's because the narrative in the future of mobility is shifting."The ICE age is not ending. :confused:

Even with the "big stick" that the Feds and some states are using aka "tax" credits or other incentives on EVs, electric cars aren't selling well. "The problem is that electric cars cost too much."

Yes, a 3 phase motor / generator can rotate in either direction (swapping 2 phases) and can act as a motor or generator in either direction based on the phase angle between the voltage and current. Papers and Ford use "control system speak" when referring to negative split mode. They are talking control algorithms for a specific purpose not general operation of a motor / generator. So, there's no confusion, I edited my previous posts. :)

I'll run a test on E0 regular also. It may be awhile until I can get to it.

I ran tests yesterday and today in the mornings (around 7:30 - 8:15 am) with ambient temperatures around 50 F and no wind with regular 87E10 TopTier Mobil ($2.059 per gallon) and with 93E10 TopTier Mobil ($2.599 per gallon). I depleted the 87E10 tank to a few gallon and ran a test loop of about 45 miles with about 42 miles on I-81. When completed, my MTE showed 21 miles. I put in about 4.5 gallons of 93E10 and drove yesterday after the tests for about 20 miles which should have used up any 87 octane in the fuel line. I assume that I had around a 92 octane mixture in the tank when I ran the second test. I removed my golf bag with clubs and balls (around 20 pounds) in the second test since I likely had around 2+ gallons or more of fuel in the tank on the premium test vs the regular test. My average I-81 interstate speed was 66.5 and 66.4 mph (including 2 exits to turnaround). The interstate terrain is hilly. I used eco-cruise. There were a few times I had disable eco-cruise and slow down because of traffic and a few times I accelerated moderately to around 70 mph to quickly pass slower vehicles. There was no "aggressive" driving. The overall average MPG and MPH shown on the attached graph is derived from the trip data and thus time includes slow downs and stops at 2 turnarounds and at 2 traffic lights. Bottom line: spark advance increased significantly using 93E10 over 87E10. But, the slight increase in FE of 0.7% with premium is within the noise of the tests, IMO. See attached graph. The bins used are in 2 degree intervals. Thus, for example, the bin labeled 33 would include spark advance data that is greater than 31 up to and including 33 degrees. This is virtually the same as I observed in the summer on I-40 with three successive fill ups of premium fuel as I pointed out in the AAA fuel quality study thread. As I said in that thread on spark advance, it appeared the frequency of higher advance increased using premium but I didn't record any data. This test shows that spark advance does increase significantly. There are a lot of caveats including that we don't know what the specs of the gasoline really are and that these tests should be run many more times. But I have never seen any evidence that supports a significant increase in FE using premium E10 over regular E10. Because modern engines when in closed loop run a stoichiometric mixture of fuel and air, virtually all fuel should be burned. Thus IMO, heating value of the fuel will be the primary determinant of FE of a modern engine designed to burn regular fuel. I will deplete the 93E10 tank to a few MTE and put about 4 - 5 gallons of 90E0 in the tank and run the test again when ambient temps are around 50F and no wind.

I think we are saying the same. Here's some excerpts from the manual: "The generator motor is a three phase permanent magnet AC motor connected to the sun gear of the planetary gear set. The generator power inverter is internal to the TCM and receives a DC current from the high voltage traction battery. The DC current is inverted to an AC current, which is controlled by the TCM. The generator is used as a starter for the internal combustion engine, charges the high voltage traction battery, and controls the engine speed. " "The TCM is responsible for torque determination and energy management functions. The TCM monitors gear selector position (PRNDL), brake pedal position (BPP) and accelerator pedal position (APP). The TCM then makes a torque command determination. Positive torque is perceived as vehicle acceleration and negative torque is perceived as braking. Based on the amount of torque requested by the driver, the TCM decides which power source has to deliver the torque to meet the driver demand while the powertrain system is running most efficiently." "The traction motor is a three phase permanent magnet AC motor connected to the ring gear of the planetary gear set. The traction motor is connected to the drive wheels through a series of gears and rotates whenever the drive wheels rotate. The traction motor power inverter is internal to the SOBMDC and receives a DC current from the high voltage traction battery. The DC current is inverted to an AC current, which is controlled by the TCM. The traction motor delivers positive torque for the vehicle in the forward or reverse direction. The traction motor also provides negative torque during the regenerative braking to function as a generator." "In order to achieve optimum fuel economy and lower emission levels, the TCM torque determination and energy management strategy controls the powertrain system with specified operational conditions. First, the torque determination and energy management strategy determines the torque the driver is requesting and the amount of torque each power source can deliver to the drivetrain. Then applies the most efficient power source for that operational condition. Some of the inputs to the energy management strategy include driver demand, high voltage traction battery state of charge, performance limitations of components, battery life, driveability, ambient temperature, and barometric pressure."

What were you paying for the fuels? When I look on gas buddy, it looks like currently 91E0 is over 25% more expensive than 87E10 in Rochester. I guess I'll have to do a test with 93E0, currently $2.79 / gallon vs 87E10 at $2.05 / gallon or about 36% more expensive. I'll be heading to Pittsburgh in a few weeks. I'll fill up with 93E0. I'll need to get over 54 mpg to break even. If I get 50% of the needed mpg improvement to break even, I'll be near $5 per tank poorer each time I fill-up. If I used 93E0 for a year, it might only cost me out of pocket $200 which is no big deal. But my hobby is golf. I'd rather buy a new putter even though I have plenty. :)

The C-Max engine is an Otto Cycle engine but with delayed intake valve closing (simulated Atkinson cycle). So, the effective compression ratio is lower than the actual - likely around 10:1 or less compared to maybe 13:1 (don't hold me to these numbers :)). Thus, IMO the efficiency of our engine is greater because pumping losses are reduced during compression but allowing full expansion during the power stroke. This reduced loss would not be affected by gasoline types. EDIT: Below is the actual variable cam shaft operations for the C-Max. The AAA test engines may have similar controls to help reduce emissions and improve FE. I don't know. But I doubt this operation would be affected by Octane in the gas. Octane affects detonation and vehicles have knock sensors. The PCM would retard timing when the threshold level of detonation is reached. All modern vehicles do this. The question is how far do the PCMs allow timing to be advanced? Again, my guess is modern engines would all have similar control logic. "Variable Cam Timing (VCT) enables rotation of the camshaft(s) relative to the crankshaft (phase-shifting) as a function of engine operating conditions. There are four possible types of VCT with DOHC engines: • Intake Only (phase-shifting only the intake cam);• Exhaust Only (phase-shifting only the exhaust cam);• Dual Equal (phase-shifting the intake and exhaust cams equally);• Dual Independent (phase-shifting the intake and exhaust cams independently). All four types of VCT are used primarily to increase internal residual dilution at part throttle to reduce NOx, and toimprove fuel economy. This allows for elimination the external EGR system. With Exhaust Only VCT, the exhaust camshaft is retarded at part throttle to delay exhaust valve closing forincreased residual dilution and to delay exhaust valve opening for increased expansion work. With Intake Only VCT, the intake camshaft is advanced at part throttle and WOT (at low to mid-range enginespeeds) to open the intake valve earlier for increased residual dilution and close the intake valve earlier in thecompression stroke for increased power. When the engine is cold, opening the intake valve earlier warms thecharge which improves fuel vaporization for less HC emissions; when the engine is warm, the residual burnedgasses limit peak combustion temperature to reduce NOx formation. With Dual Equal VCT, both intake and exhaust camshafts are retarded from the default, fully advanced position toincrease EGR residual and improve fuel economy by reducing intake vacuum pumping losses. The residualcharge for NOx control is obtained by backflow through the late-closing exhaust valve as the piston begins itsintake stroke."

Yes, I thought about the ballast. I always adjust mileage for significant differences in SOC. Over 50 miles several % points won't matter. A 10% difference (SOC 45% to 55%) is around 0.14 kWh. At 4 miles / kWh (very optimistic), that's only 0.56 miles or about a 1.1 % effect. I agree if FE is a hobby, then economics is not material. But, for the general consumer as AAA says: "Today, many motorists believe that Premium grade gasoline will give engines designed to run on Regular a variety of benefits, including more power, lower tailpipe emissions, and better fuel economy." That's like me trying to convince a beginning golfer to believe that spending $1500 for a new set a golf clubs will improve their game when a $200 set of used clubs will be just as good. There's really not much benefit between the two. Don't expect to lower your handicap by 22% with new clubs. :) Yet, the hobbyist by neglecting to point out the opportunity cost of buying new clubs vs used or premium gas vs regular does IMO a disservice to the unwary consumer. There's a station about 1 mile from me that sells only pure gas. E0 regular is currently $0.44 a gallon more than E10 regular and E0 premium is $0.74 a gallon more than E10 regular. I'll let someone else run that test as we know just from a BTU standpoint that E10 will decrease FE around 3% (2 - 7% decrease in FE has been reported). "Pure gas gives better mileage than E10, and much better than E85, simply because gasoline has higher free energy than ethanol. The free energy of gasoline is 34.2 MJ per liter. The free energy of ethanol is 24.0 MJ per liter. That means E10 (10% ethanol) has a free energy of 33.2 MJ per liter, and E85 (85% ethanol) has a free energy of 25.6 MJ per liter. As a result, your mileage is reduced by 3% with E10 over pure gas, and 25% with E85 over pure gas, all else being equal. Mileage will be reduced even more if your engine doesn't run as well on E10, which is often the case with older vehicles."

Paul, I always weigh the opportunity costs for decisions or actions like in this discussion. :) Significant to me means that any actions taken must be more than break even. Close is not good enough. So, even if premium resulted in a 10 % increase in FE, I wouldn't use premium unless regular gas was near $5.00 a gallon assuming a $0.40 additional cost for premium. The % FE improvements needed to break even on premium gas or NOs is simple math and only depends on the difference in price of premium vs regular gas, the additional cost of NOs per gallon, and the expected % FE increase. Ones actual FE doesn't matter. For example, assume premium gas cost $0.40 per gallon more than regular. Then for a 10% increase in FE using premium, regular gas prices must be greater than ($0.40 / 10%) = $4.00 per gallon for it to be economic to switch to premium. If FE increases only 5% when using premium then the break even regular gas price is $8.00 per gallon. I don't ever recall seeing $4 per gallon gas. :) Using NOs has a higher break even. Working backwards, assume that regular gas sells for $4.00 per gallon. If I could pay $4.40 for premium, I would need a 10% FE increase to break even filling up with premium vs regular. Same logic applies for NOs. Here's my anecdotal test of premium gas. On our last trip to Phoenix in July 2016, I filled up with premium fuel on three successive fill-ups on I-40 between Memphis and Amarillo (eco-cruise set between 73 and 78 mph based on speed liimit) and closely watched FE for the tanks and spark timing and compared actual FE with the tanks with past performance. I had made that same trip across I 40 5 times in the preceding 13 months - June 2015, July 2015, August 2015 and 2 times in September 2015. I can say with certainty that there was not a 10% FE improvement (would need 3.8 mpg increase) using premium on any of the tanks, not even a 5% FE improvement (around 2 mpg), but maybe a 1 - 2 % improvement (around 0.5 mpg). Second, spark advance may have been slightly higher on the tanks as it appeared that the occurrence of higher spark advance data appeared more frequently although I saw the max. advance (40* IIRC reading somewhere) on many occasions with regular and premium. I'll do this, I'll buy a can of NOs and run tests before and after trying to keep conditions similar at high speed on the interstate and at lower speeds 35- 55 mph or so. I'll record the spark advance (and other data available on that module), snap pics of the trip displays and so forth. I may not get to this for a month or so. I would drive about 5 miles to reach operating temperature. Then, fill the tank up with regular at my regular Mobil station. Drive about 50 mile round trip back to the Mobil station. Dump in the NOs and drive about 20 miles or so to ensure the NOs is mixed and being burned. Repeat the 50 mile round trip. It will likely take me over 2 hours to complete. The 2nd other option is to start the test with maybe 1/2 tank of regular and complete the 50 mile first leg. Dump in the NOs and fill with premium. Continue the test. This would get me close to a 93 octane on the last 50 mile round trip. I think I should do the 2nd option which would yield a higher octane fuel in the 2nd loop and better chance of seeing a FE increase.

I've never seen a study indicating that premium gas provides any significant FE benefit over regular for engines that are set up to burn regular fuel. I find it hard to believe that Ford has any magical equipment / software that can extract significant FE benefits from premium gas that others can't or wouldn't implement. Certainly nothing that makes using premium economical. I believe I stated in prior threads that I could only believe that FE would likely increase using premium for 2 reasons - spark retard during faster acceleration with regular over premium and premium might have more BTUs than regular. Here's one finding in the study: "Differences in vehicle performance / control of ignition timing were apparent only when the test vehicles were operated in an aggressive manner. In the study, certified testing of the gas showed the regular fuel had 0.6% more BTU content than the premium fuel. There is certainly a possibility that marketers may sell premium fuel with a lower blend of ethanol than in their regular gas and hence the premium gas may give significantly better FE because its BTU content is significantly greater than the regular. But when comparing regular and premium in real world driving, we don't know the ethanol blend that we are purchasing. All we know is how much more we are paying for premium over regular. Are we paying for more BTUs also? So, if the gain in FE using premium doesn't pay for the extra cost of the premium fuel, consumers are wasting dollars on premium fuel. Here's the study and for those that don't want to read it, the FE graph from the study. The FE increases using premium are marginal (tenths of a MPG or 1% on a few of the test cycles). Even if one could "hypermile" appropriately and increase it 5X to say 5%, economically using premium makes no sense which I believe is the main point AAA is trying to make - "U.S. drivers waste $2.1 billion annually by putting Premium gasoline into vehicles designed to run on Regular." Premium-Fuel-REPORT-FINAL.pdf

See this published today. AAA finds no benefit in using premium vs regular gas in most cars. So my presumption is that AAA wouldn't find a difference between 85, 86, or 87 octane fuel either. I would think that using Techron every so often would offset the advantage of Top-Tier gas has over non-Top-Tier gas relative to the amount of detergent additives in the gas. Also, BJ's may have more additives than required and simply choose not to become a Top-Tier marketing. I think I said this before but my 2000 Passat would "carbon up" (symptom lots of misfires, hesitation on hard acceleration) every 12 -15 k miles (first time VW dealer used a BG system to clean injectors, piston top and cylinder). I subsequently began to put Techron in every 10k miles or so and had no more issues. Eventually (maybe 2005 or so), VW came out with a TB indicating that owners should use Top-Tier gas in their vehicles because of the additional detergent additives. That's when I started using Top-Tier gas in all my vehicles. Even though I do use Top-Tier gas, I still dump a bottle of Techron in every 20 k miles or so. Quote from link above: "Researchers tested the vehicles on a treadmill for cars, called a dynamometer, to evaluate the effects of using premium in cars that did not require it. The lab testing found no significant increase in horsepower, fuel economy and tailpipe emissions. “Premium gasoline is specifically formulated to be compatible with specific types of engine designs, and most vehicles cannot take advantage of the higher octane rating,” said Megan McKernan, manager of the Automobile Club of Southern California’s Automotive Research Center."

We are talking about Top-Tier gas not premium gas vs regular gas. Look on Gasbuddy.com, select the Map display and then select to display TOP-TIER stations only. Currently, near me (within 2 miles) Top-Tier Mobil is $1.99 (regular) and $2.45 (premium) and non branded is $1.97 (regular) and $2.39 (premium). The leak and shutdown of the Colonial Pipeline has caused about a $0.15 per gallon increase in Eastern TN gas prices since mid last week. Supposedly tomorrow, fuel will start flowing again in the pipeline. We'll see how long it takes stations to lower prices $0.15. :)

There have been discussions in the past on quality of gas, specifically Top-Tier gas vs non Top-Tier gas. Here's AAA recent take: “AAA was surprised to learn the extent to which detergent additives impact gasoline quality,” revealed John Nielsen, AAA’s managing director of Automotive Engineering and Repair. “As advertised, tested TOP TIER gasolines kept engines remarkably cleaner than other fuels we tested.” Link to Article “When it comes to selecting a gasoline, automakers got it right – TOP TIER gasoline performs best,” continued Nielsen. “By selecting a quality gasoline, drivers can minimize engine deposits, increase vehicle performance and improve fuel economy.” I've been using only Top-Tier gas for the last 10+ years and it's generally within few cents of the cheaper non-branded gas.

LOL, you've been living with the ADS for nearly 2 1/2 years since I posted about blocking the ads. Try ublock as it seems to block more ads than adblock on other sites. I generally leave both enabled. See this as to the difference between adblock and adblock+. I disabled / removed adblock+. Also see this about adblockers including the link about adblock+ at bottom of the linked article.

I had a little time today so I analyzed some real time data on my C-Max that I recorded several months ago. I recorded speed data of the various components of the Hybrid transmission using ForScan to calculate certain fixed ratios so that one can compare the 2013 ratios with newer MY ratios as Ford said that they made “hardware” changes to the transmission for MY 2014. “The upgrades build on powertrain software updates Ford announced last month for the 2013 C-MAX Hybrid. The 2014 C-MAX also will benefit from several hardware changes, including: Gearing changes that result in a more efficient transmission drive ratio” - FORD Of course now we need someone to do the same for MY 2014+ so that my 2013 data can be compared with MY 2014+ data. The attached chart shows the relationship of the motor, generator, and ICE speeds and calculated speed ratios. 1) Vehicle speed averages 72.2 mph as recorded. “The hybrid vehicle uses three methods to calculate vehicle speed. The PCM uses the ABS signal if available, and will substitute the motor speed if the ABS signal is missing. The PCM will use the engine and generator speed calculation if both the ABS and motor speeds are unavailable.” 2) Tire speed is calculated based on changing the tire revolutions per mile to yield the 2.51 axle ratio. The tire revs per mile needed to get a 2.51 ratio was 811. The spec tire ratio is 803. This is a difference of 1%. However, “a tire transitions from an unloaded to loaded state as it rolls, continuously flattening where the tread footprint comes into contact with the road. These continuous transitions result in some tread slippage, again increasing the tire revolutions per mile beyond what simple math would indicate.” 3) (Motor speed / Tire speed) ratio is calculated to be 9.0 4) (Motor speed + Generator speed) / ICE speed) ratio averages 3.55. The variances from the 3.55 are attributed to variances in scanning frequency when there are large, quick changes in the variables (for example ICE ramping up / down). The ForScan scan rate averages 83 milliseconds with a standard deviation of 20 milliseconds. Thus, the time from the first data point scanned to the last data point scanned during the large, quick changes will likely affect the calculated ratio since I'm not using the time stamp associated with each variable but rather the time stamp for the first variable scanned (too difficult to try to sync the time stamps for each variable scanned). Below are observations from the chart. 1) When ICE speed is 0 rpm, the Motor speed and Generator speed are equal but of opposite sign. 2) When Generator speed is zero, the overall ICE / Wheel ratio is 2.51 – the axle ratio. 3) The Generator effectively controls the overall ratio in this case from a numerically high ratio of 3.3 (ICE RPM about 3000) to a low ratio of 1.7 (ICE RPM about 1660).