plus 3 golfer

I have no idea other than to even out wear. Pulled from Ford Owner's Manual. I've watched Ford dealer do a rotation on mine and this is what they do. MaxHeadroom, next time "be clear" what you are trying to accomplish and you likely wouldn't have got some of the comments. You never said you are using these for snow tires in your original post. I'll bet most thought you were replacing your OEM wheels like I and Homestead did. ;) Also, the rear cupping which is being referred to appears to be related to rear camber not shocks or balance. Rear camber is not adjustable on the C-Max. You need to replace hardware. Someone did it and can't remember who ($200 or so IIRC)..

Welcome, it's in the manual but you'd likely skip right over it as it's a black and white image. I guess Ford saved a little money on printing.

I doubt many will follow your logic to save a few $ with wheels that are not close to looking similar.

You will when you rotate tires. ;)

See this post. http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/4461-c-max-failed-emissions-test-for-inspection-sticker/?do=findComment&comment=53325

Sound like the car is "not ready". The emissions readiness monitors must be in the "ready state". If not ready, one must drive the car under certain conditions so the emissions monitoring systems have a chance to complete. This prevents owners from clearing fault codes and passing emissions. Usually normal driving for a few days with several cold starts is enough.

I agree. Thanks for posting the pic and link. See post 6 (over 3 years old) which references the Spicer study although the link to the study is now broken. Obviously what the study neglects is what the downside of passing more dirt into the engine with respect to future engine maintenance / repair. Does it "really" matter with respect to the engine that the K&N is say only 97% efficient. I suppose it also depends on where one lives as some areas have a lot more dirt in the air than others. I always thought the Phoenix area had clean air. Well after spending 9 recent years there, it's the "dirtiest" place I've lived (lots of dirt in the air from the desert areas). I suppose most areas that receive little rain would be like that. I used a K&N in my 1982 MB 300SD for over 250k miles. The only benefit of the K&N that I observed was that I saved $ over buying replacement paper air filters. The downside - dealing with the oily K&N filter. :)

I use Board 2.0.3 with Chrome, run adblock, have view new content bookmarked and use that link to enter the forum. I have no issues.

Here's a blog I found when searching. As with much on the internet, readers should take what they want from the bog and pitch the rest. I copied and pasted the 0W20 test results below since Ford recommends using 0W20 in the C-Max. I've been using Mobil 1 AFE since my first OC at 10 k miles. I now have about 65 k miles on my 2013. I guess I'll switch to Quaker State so I can maybe get 50%+ more wear protection. Now maybe my C-Max might get over 600 k miles instead of say 400 k miles before I need an engine rebuild. :) I wonder why the guy didn't test Royal Purple or Amsoil?

I can't readily find the study Ford participated in a while ago (I may have it on an old hard drive that I'll search). But, this recent study supports extending the OCI. I believe most branded, high quality synthetic oil would provide similar results in tests. IMO, the only reason for car owners to do UOAs is to extend the OCI. But, one needs to add IMO the most critical element in a UOA and that is the TBN test at an additional $10. :) Wear metals mean little as what is one going to do if their UOA is above average: tear the engine apart?, sell the car? do more frequent oil changes? switch oil? BTW, I doubt taxi drivers are concerned about break-in. :) Amsoil Study Conclusion: "Field testing proves that AMSOIL Signature Series Multi-Vehicle Synthetic ATF and AMSOIL Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil provide superior protection against sludge and wear for extended drain intervals in severe service."

As far as comparing wear metals to averages or more frequent OCIs, wear rates decrease as oil ages (more miles). Ford participated in a study a few years ago (when I have time I'll see if I can find it) on a taxi fleet. The bottom line was that more frequent oil changes resulted in more ppm wear. The reason is believed to be due to the detergents in new oil stripping the protective boundary layer (which one wants between surfaces which is the reason for anti-wear additives) and then when the detergents are depleted (within a few k miles), the boundary protection is built back up (I'm not a tribologist so likely not using proper terms). So, by changing oil more frequently one is operating their engine with less "protection" more of the time than one that is changing their oil less frequently. Studies like this resulted in auto manufacturers increasing OCI. So, changing at 5k miles instead of 10k may result in more wear than leaving the used 5k oil in. But you won't be able to determine that. You are not going to be able to draw any meaningful conclusions from your UOAs. Why, because you don't know what the wear rate is at 50 miles, 100 miles, 500 miles and so forth. Yes there is some break-in as the piston rings seat. I don't recall the numbers but most break-in done in the first few hundred miles (hence the 1000 mile number) unlike many decades ago where break-in was measured in many 1000's of miles. IMO, any differences will be noise unless you tested a fleet of vehicles under similar conditions.

Virtually all the emissions and fuel monitoring systems require between 120F and 150F engine coolant temperature for monitoring entry. The algorithms will favor ICE over EV to achieve these temperatures. This doesn't mean one can't get into EV mode. But the goal is to operate ICE so that emissions and FE are optimized. For example, the Stoichiometric Closed Loop operational monitors require engine coolant temperature to be around 135F - 150F before entry. So, the air / fuel ratio may not be optimized until 150F. When using ICE you want to be in this closed loop operations to enhance efficiency. BTW, most fuel monitors "exit" point will be around 235F. So, monitoring stops. There is a fail safe strategy for engine overheating based on cylinder head temperature which may result in shutting off injectors. Doing 3 UOAs in 10k miles? It's your $ but Why?

Here's the issue. You have a 2014 and the 2014 owner's manual lists 2 bulbs - one for the turn signal and one for the park lights. Can you see two bulbs through the lens of the headlight assembly or one bulb with a dual filament which is what the 2013 owner's manual shows. See the attachment below from the 2014 manual showing the 2 bulbs. I can clearly see the dual filament bulb in my 2013 C-Max.

Get the ForScan smartphone app and you can monitor data from all the modules in the car including engine coolant temperature which is really a computed value by the PCM of the actual cylinder head temperature or you can pull up the coolant temperature gauge on My View on the left hand screen or you can get into Engineering Test Mode when you start the car and page through the screen to get a digital reading of ECT. I've found ECT generally averages around 7*F cooler than CHT.

XX

Take your car to the dealer to document the whining noise. It may be the Hybrid transmission starting to fail. The Hybrid transmission is covered under the Hybrid/Electric Unique Component warranty for 8 yrs / 100 k miles. In states that have adopted the CA emissions warranty, it's covered for 15 years / 150 k miles.

Your car may be totaled given what you describe as the value of your 2013 is likely around 40% of MSRP. Figure $14 k average. If it were my car I'd want it to be totaled. There can be a lot of hidden problems after such an accident. Your car may never be the same as it was before the accident. I'd push the insurer to total it with stuff like the hybrid components including the HVB and electronics may also be damaged and I may not know this for years later.

15e03 is rather cryptic in that it says some vehicles may have been reprogrammed with a service calibration which may cause emissions data to be lost under some conditions. Perhaps ICE never / takes longer to go into closed loop operation because of this "lost data". FE will not be good. Let us know if your FE improves.

You should get your battery tested. Not strange. A car will usually start when jumpered. Measure the 12V voltage now and tomorrow morning and see how much the voltage drops

Have you tried the procedure in the owner's manual to disable the shift interlock with a screwdriver? That will allow you to get it out of the garage. What does you 12 V battery voltage read? Did the charger indicate the 12 V battery was charged? on most "regulating" chargers a light will change color indicating charged and the charger will apply a float charge to the battery. Voltage should be at least 12.7 V or a little more. Do you have an SEL or SE? Batteries do fail. Mine lasted 30 months in Phoenix. Have you tried to jumper the car? You can also remove the battery and take to Autozone and have them test it.

On 4/19 I received this e-mail from Mobil. I just checked the status and got "no submission was found" and "wait a week and try again." Time will tell. :)

Thanks for the pic. There was a discussion thread on the repairable area of tires. There are some that would say that puncture is beyond the "tread" repairable area. There are some pics of the repairable area that show the repairable area is between the two outside grooves of the tire. I don't have an issue with the plug as shown and have had similar repairs in that location with no issues. What's the tread depth of each tire? Front tires generally do wear faster. The "words of wisdom" by tire manufacturers is that if you are going to replace 2 tires, the new tires should go on the rear. I'd just wait until the 3 tires need replaced and then replace all four.

Somehow I got about 3250' elevation for Cuba when I looked it up (which is not correct and off by a factor of 2.2). Must have got another Cuba somewhere. :) I also used 4200 pounds (fully loaded 1.167 heavier) and 30% ICE efficiency (3.33 X), 10% ethanol fuel not E0 (about 1.033 less energy) and rounded to 1/2 gallon for ease of showing difference in FE. :) So, I think we are the same with the corrections 2.2*1.167*3.33*1.033= 9X So, using 1800 feet or 55% of what I used as elevation, the fuel used for the elevation change would be about 1/4 gallon not 1/2 gallon.