plus 3 golfer

No, here's a better pic of the specs below. The specs for front toe are between 0* and 0.2*. So, the techs will likely shoot for around 0.1* toe each side. What I'm saying is to have them shoot for 0*. The total toe would be between 0* and 0.4*. Same with the rear toe but for the rear total toe, the total toe should be between 0.18* and 0.58*. So it's not possible to set each rear toe to the minimum of -0.01 and meet the total toe spec. Since the vehicle is in essence unloaded when doing alignments, toe at ride height would be toe at curb weight. But there may be owners that carry significant additional weight in their vehicle all the time. So, that's probably why it says ride height and those owners should leave the additional weight in the car when doing alignments. Also, if altering the ride height via suspension or perhaps taller tires, one probably needs to do a new alignment.

My guess is that anything that causes the tire to "scrape" more will decrease FE - probably toe-in and then thrust angle more so than camber. Note that the camber front RH and LH specs are not the same. The specs are slightly biased for right hand driving roads. If you are serious about this and the garage is willing to do so, I'd try setting the front toe in to near 0* and the rear toe in such that the total toe in is minimal. If there is an effect on FE, my guess is this would have the largest effect. It will be interesting to see how the car tracks with virtually no toe in. Maybe EPAS will compensate and keep the car going straight. :) ;)

Pretty much sums up my thinking of sunroofs. :) But maybe a fixed panoramic roof as the link says "offers a level of openness to the driving experience that make them a treat to drivers and passengers alike". But I hate a bright, sun filled cabin (would be virtually every day in AZ). Also, isn't the pano roof essentially behind the driver's head? So, is there really a driver and front seat passenger $1200 / $1300 benefit? IMO, skip the pano roof and buy the 2014.

The quick, double horn honks is to alert you that the car is in ready to drive mode, you exited the vehicle with your keys, and closed the door. What I do know (for the Hybrid and I assume the Energi) is that if you leave your keys in the car in ready to drive mode and leave the car, the 12 V battery and HVB will not discharge completely as ICE will 1) start up to maintain the batteries (ICE charges HVB, HVB via DC/DC converter charges 12 V battery), 2) shut down once charged, and 3) repeat the on / off cycle until ICE runs out of fuel. Apparently, this did not work per the owner's manual: "Accessory Mode Battery Saver for Intelligent Access Keys (If Equipped) If you leave the ignition on after leaving your vehicle, it will shut off 15 minutes after you close all of the doors."

No, it's not a seat belt issue. The parts are of limited supply. So, the dealer will only do the recall if one has had the problem. I still haven't had that recall done. I believe we should get a letter from Ford when the parts are available.

I assume it's a Ford dealer selling the car? The Ford dealer should be able to give you the service records. If there's no history of the issue, then buy it. We don't know "how bad" the no start issue is (% of vehicles affected). We also know one recent poster indicated 7 no starts. If you can live with the possibility of "no starts", then buy it. You can carry a Jump Start battery in the car which virtually always will get the car started thus mitigating inconvenience (there may have been one time I recall where it failed to start the car). I'm not familiar with what Certified means with respect to Ford. But, the no start issue is likely a 3/36 warranty item. So, since the car is past 36 k miles, will it be covered? Otherwise, IMO the C-Max is a very reliable car with great attributes. :)

Really????? I suggest you do research on E85 and then decide whether you want to put it in your C-Max.

Yes there is. It's called dealer ineptness. I doubt they want to put that on the service order. :) At the center console gear shifting mechanism : There appears to be a retainer of some sort to hold the cable in place. But there would be no need to do anything at this end when replacing the transmission. At the transmission: There is an adjuster mechanism on the cable end that attaches to the transmission shift lever arm at the transmission. It appears that the mechanism likely snaps in place over the ball stud on the shift lever arm (no retainers shown). The mechanism has an "adjuster lock" that can be pulled up / pushed down apparently to release / hold the cable. There is a slider that can be moved (maybe spring loaded) to hold the adjuster lock in the down position. IMO, this is where the problem occurred as the cable / mechanism would have to be detached to remove the transmission and then reattached and likely readjusted when the new transmission was put in.

Probably got a good deal on Lithium Ion battery meant for the Dreamliner. :) 45 incidents, 18 fires -- not good.

To answer to your question, using X-Plan can be beneficial depending on market conditions in your area. I believe you can always do better than true car by negotiating and true car can be better / worse than X-Plan. But my guess is given current market conditions you can do better negotiating with several dealers. I bought mine under X-Plan in Dec. 2012 when some dealers in AZ were adding as much as a $2000 "market premiums" to the MSRP. :) Read my post on the X-Plan I also had a $1000 Private Cash Offer ("the brochure cash") that had to be used by 1/1/2013 and a $1000 Ford retail cash offer that expired on 12/31/2012. So with X-Plan pricing I saved $1640 from MSRP including $399 doc fee and I got free window tint when other dealers were not willing to negotiate much, if at all. If I recall correctly, true car prices at that time or shortly thereafter were around MSRP.

7X dead battery, 4X towed to dealer..... What are you waiting for? -- a miracle. :) Seriously, I'd put Ford on notice immediately which should give them one last chance to remedy the issue. When you elevated the case, did you put it in writing to start the clock on the lemon law (make sure everything is included that is required to put Ford on notice). The process will likely be lengthy as Ford will likely have you go to arbitration if when the issue reoccurs and you may have to file a lawsuit if you are not happy with the arbitration decision. The question I always have on the lemon law in situations like this, if Ford says there is nothing wrong and hence nothing to fix, does one have to wait for another occurrence of the issue after giving Ford the notice? 7X clearly indicates an unresolved issue, IMO.

There's nothing around the windshield that I could see that could cause / exacerbate a chip to turn into a long crack. The windshield sets on top of about a 1/4-3/8" of rubber sealant. This time in breaking the rubber seal between the frame and windshield the techs used a device with several rollers with a cutting string attached to the device. The device was suctioned to the inside of the windshield. A loop of the string was forced through the rubber seal. The tech then pulled more of the loop of string out such that he could place the string under the outside edge of the windshield against the seal. Then by ratcheting the device to put tension on the string, the string began to cut the seal moving along the windshield. The tech re-positioned the device several times to complete the cutting of the seal. On the previous installation the tech used a knife like device to manually cut the seal. This device scraped the painted surface (not the exterior) in several areas especially at the base of the windshield mounting. The tech did apply a silver / grayish "paint" to the scrapes and there was no signs of rust from the scrapes after 14 months.

Finally got the windshield replaced last evening. Safelite replaced my 2013 C-Max windshield with DW02197 with rain sensor which is listed in this PDF as for the 2015 MY. DW01911 is shown for 2013 and 2014 MY. Here's what's interesting, Safelite to be "safe" also brought out a DW01910 windshield without rain sensor (MYs 2013 and up) in case I didn't have the rain sensor windshield so the techs wouldn't have to waste an hour getting it if I didn't need the one with rain sensor. A computer generated PO shows the following for pricing: DW02197 List Price = $585 Selling Price = $216.45 Labor = $124 Kit = $30 DW01910 List Price = $704.60 Selling Price = $260.70 Labor = $124 Kit = $30 Why would the windshield with rain sensor be less expensive? Also, 14 months ago when I had the windshield replaced with DW01911, the List Price was $715 and the Selling Price was $265. I wonder if the pricing for the 2197 and 1910 are reversed or is 2015 windshield (2197) different in some way from the 1911 windshield other than price.

Welcome aboard. I find it hard to believe a mouse entered the HVAC system from the exterior of the vehicle.unless it chewed through what looks like a semi rigid, insulated type cover over on the firewall and there are openings into the fresh air plenum area. I read your post while Safelite was installing a new windshield in my C-Max. They had the intake air shroud / cover off at the base of the windshield which covers the fresh air intake plenum. The shroud is sealed and there are screens over the intakes. With the shroud off I could see no visible openings. If a mouse made it in through the fresh air plenum, there appears to be a inlet air door actuator that can likely blend recirculated air / fresh air to the cabin air filter. So, it seems possible that a mouse could make it to the blower via the re-circulation path. To me a more likely path for a mouse to enter the car is through an opening that may not be properly sealed - electrical, heater circuit, ac circuit and so forth. Once inside it would likely be easy for a mouse to follow an outlet vent into the HVAC box. I'd at least remove the cabin air filter (search for procedure) and get a mirror and light and look inside. You might see it. :)

Welcome aboard. Members have had the "stop vehicle immediate" message but I don't recall whether issues were ever found or if any diagnostic codes were stored. Of course a trip to the dealer would answer that question. But you might have to pay for a diagnostic scan. My guess is there was an anomaly in the control logic that couldn't be reconciled and a restart of the car cleared the anomaly and you may never see the message again. There's a OBDII diagnostic program called ForScan that can be loaded on a IOS smartphone or windows computer from ForScan.org. With the correct wireless adapter ($20) to plug into the OBDII port on the car, you can run a scan of virtually all the control modules in the car for fault codes. Search the forum for ForScan for more info.

IMO, the simple solution (albeit not a popular one) would be to raise road use taxes for everyone. Even if the truckers might not pay their fair share, the deficit would be a subsidy by the consumers for the lower shipping costs of consumer goods. The Oregon mileage based program has merit especially for PHEV and EV vehicles. Thus, higher retail fuel prices should provide increase revenue for road infrastructure and provide incentives for consumers to purchase fuel efficient, smaller vehicles. With respect to current fuel taxes, the US ranks virtually at the bottom of countries with the lowest fuel taxes added to a gallon of fuel. Just look at the fuel taxes the EU countries pay. Giving incentives like the GA $5000 or CO $6000 subsidy to promote alternative fuel vehicles is the "easy way" out for legislators. The legislators look good and the programs "work" for a small % of the total number of vehicles but it is not a long term viable solution. Increase road use taxes from the around $0.50 per gallon to $2.50 a gallon (yes, over time). :) That $2 increase should go a long way in infrastructure improvement, put lots of people to work, and reduce pollution. BTW, I'll take advantage of any subsidies / rebates and so forth that makes economic sense for me. If AZ offered a charger subsidy and 20% of the retail price subsidy ($5000 limit) on EVs like GA, I'd likely own a Focus Electric. But that doesn't mean such is fair. Those $ have to come from someone.

Whatever is fair. ;) It's the EV "cry babies" calling foul when they might lose their "EV only parking spaces", HOV access, their EV and charging station subsidies, and lower registration fee or have to pay for something they use. :) One poster on the Leaf forum says: "I've just taken the state for $10 k, making it nearly free for me to drive for the last 2 years and the next 2 years. If they want $200/yr, fine... it'll take 50 years at that rate to break even with me." Even $300 is not even close to fair. :doh: To some it's okay to others it's "highway robbery". Why should EVs use the roads for virtually nothing (note highlighting below)? "States are also addressing concerns regarding the effect that the growing use of electric vehicles may have on funding for transportation infrastructure, which relies heavily on gasoline taxes. Colorado, Nebraska, North Carolina, Virginia and Washington have adopted fees for electric vehicles and several more states have considered legislation. In Michigan, the legislature also passed a measure in 2014 that would create a new fee for certain hybrid and electric vehicles. However, Michigan's proposal must first be approved by the voters and it will be included on a state ballot measure in May 2015. Additionally, Oregon has agreed to a 5,000-vehicle opt-in program beginning in 2015 that allows drivers to pay a fee based on miles driven rather than gallons of fuel purchased. The Road Usage Charge System adopted in Oregon has the potential to separate transportation revenues from gasoline consumption." - from National Conference of State Legislatures.

My point is a subsidies generally benefits those that can afford the alternative vehicles absent the subsidy. IMO, one needs to look at this on a macro not micro level. Why should anyone receive a "wind fall" from a subsidy AND reap the fuel savings of an alternative vehicle over an ICE vehicle. Someone is "paying" for that "wind fall". It's time for HEV, PHEV, and EVs to pass the economic test absent subsidies. Let the free market work and raise gasoline taxes to shift the cost / benefit towards fuel efficient, less polluting vehicles. GA is getting it, IMO. Of course as the fleet of vehicles becomes more efficient (and the average vehicle uses less fuel), states need to find alternative means to capture road use tax other than on the fuel purchased. This is not much different than what we are seeing in residential PV solar. PV solar is also coming under fire for subsidies that solar owners receive at the expense of non-solar owners. State utility commissions are rethinking these subsidies as more customers invest in solar. Put another way, my annual return on my 1st solar system was in excess of 33% per year (payback of my initial investment was less than 3 years). My solar was being heavily subsidized by others. So, why didn't more customers put in PV solar if the return was that good? They simply couldn't afford the upfront cost or be subject to the conditions of a "leased" system should they want to sell their home. Just like PV Solar, subsidies for PHEV, HEV, and EVs will eventually have to drop / stop as the burden on others increase.

IMO, the "right" thing to do. Giving tax credits benefits those that can "afford" to pay more for an HEV, EV, and PHEV over a conventional ICE vehicle while also giving the alternative vehicles a "discount" for using the roads based on the road use tax on fuel used.

It's not going to matter whether the C-Max Cd is 0.30 or 0.295 or 0.29 in the scheme of things. It's not a material change ;) A 10% reduction from 0.30 to 0.27 might reduce the RLHP by around 5% in highway driving. And a quick calculation of frontal area shows that the C-Max frontal area is likely nearly 10% more than the Fusion. Hence, the Fusion with a 10% lower Cd and 10% lower FA is rated 41 mpg Highway or over 10% higher than the C-Max which is 37 mpg highway.

When I monitored the transmission temperatures in a 30 mile test loop (20 miles of high speed and 10 miles of suburban) including motor and generator coil temperatures, regenerative braking increased the motor coil temperature quickly to the maximum values that I observed while TFT increases lagged the coil temperature rise. Highway cruising at 70 mph caused little change in temperatures and were in the middle of the temperatures that I observed below. Temperature Range: 140 F < TFT < 148 F 160 F < Motor Coil Temp < 175 F 150 F < Generator Coil Temp < 165 F In thinking about this and the Taxi TSB, it seems plausible that since taxis in city service typically accelerate briskly and stop quickly to increase "waiting time" to increase the fare, the use of the motor during acceleration and regenerative braking may raise the TFT more than we think. Since the coolant pump is not running during the waiting time, there's little opportunity to lower the TFT and the cumulative effect might cause excessively high TFT and very high bearing temperatures causing failure. Most owners won't drive their hybrid like this in city driving. So, is highway driving really the issue in the Taxi TSB or is it more of a mileage issue exacerbated with stop and go driving (taxi service type driving). One other point and that is the bearing noise in the TSB is heard whenever the car is moving including neutral. When ICE runs and the car is stationary, everything but the ring gear is moving (the gear connected to the motor and drive axles) and no noise is heard. This leads me to believe the issue is with a bearing associated with the motor gearing / final drive gearing. I will every so often run my 30 mile loop and compare transmission temperatures with my above base line temps.

Then, you haven't looked very hard. ;) Ford's extended warranty coverage for the hybrid system has been posted in many threads and can be found on Ford's website in the warranty documents. :) In California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington the coverage of the components shown below may be longer than the 8 yr / 100 k miles. I'd suggest that owners in those states weigh the benefits of purchasing an extended warranty if worried about expensive hybrid parts failing as the C-Max transmission, for example, may be covered for a considerably longer period (15 years / 150 k miles) than Ford's limited new car warranty. If not sure, send an email to Ford or perhaps your state. "Your vehicle’s unique hybrid / electric components are covered during the Hybrid / Electric Unique Component Coverage, which lasts for eight years or 100,000 miles, whichever occurs first. • The following hybrid parts are covered during this extended coverage period: high-voltage battery, hybrid continuously variable transmission, Inverter System Controller (ISC), DC/DC converter, high-voltage battery connector, battery pack fan assembly, thermistor probe, Hybrid Battery Pack Sensor Module (HBPSM), Battery Energy Control Module (BECM), and the PHEV onboard charger."

Yes, Ford used the Fusion as a proxy for the C-Max for EPA data (the first time) which was corrected about 2 years ago. The use of the Fusion as a proxy with a lower Cd than the C-Max has been discussed many times. My post is in response to stevedebi's referenced link of the C-Max testing by Argonne which used C-Max RLHP coefficients which were incorrect and the statement "Ford itself changed the estimated cD between 2013 and 2014." We seem to be mixing Cd (and possible changes to the Cd of the C-Max over time) with dyno testing of the C-Max using the "correct" RLHP coefficients in arriving at the latest EPA FE numbers.