plus 3 golfer

Don't confuse Cd with Road Load HP coefficients and how RLHP coefficients are derived for use in EPA emissions testing on a dyno. We don't know what errors Ford made that resulted in lowering the EPA FE but it applied to several models (see below), What we know is that the RLHP coefficients changed such that the RLHP increased resulting in lower FE. Generally, the coefficients are determined by coast down data. I doubt it is the published Cd that changed as the Cd, AFAIK, for 2013-2015 Fusion line (conventional, HEV, and PHEV) and the C-Max remain the same. "Ford identified an error with fuel economy ratings for certain vehicles through its internal testing and notified the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ford worked with the EPA as the agency retested the vehicles, which resulted in lower fuel economy ratings for Ford's 2013- and 2014-model year hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles, as well as most 2014-model year Fiestas." - Ford "Ford discovered that it underestimated some of the real world factors, including aerodynamics and tire friction that are important inputs into fuel economy testing." - EPA

It's C2280E and PIN 2 is the power ground for the Body Control Module. So, perhaps such bad ground doesn't doesn't allow the car to "sleep" properly and drains the 12 V battery. :) If you think you may want to see / refer to the images below again, please copy and save as my image limit is near 25 and I delete older images on occasion.

I think speed has a lot to do with it as at 25 mph one likely will get over 5 miles per kWh and it a lot easier to stay in EV/EV+ mode and even go up moderate grades in EV.

Is 2 miles a straight line shot to the EV+ destination? Down hill / uphill? Elevation change? What is the SOC at the start of EV+ and the SOC at the EV+ destination (or battery symbol % if SOC not known)? Assume one can get 5 miles kWh at a slower speed. Then, the energy required to go 2 miles = (2 miles) / (5 miles / kWh) = 0.4 kWh on level ground. SOCMax. = 0.69*1.4 kWh = 0.96 kWh. SOCMin. = 0.33 * 1.4 kWh = 0.45 kWh. So, the usable energy from the HVB is around 0.5 kWh. I wonder if the algorithm keeps track of continuous distance in EV mode when approaching an EV+ location such that the EV+ range might be incrementally changed based on such distance and the direction of approach. This would make sense to do especially in the Energi.

Good point. I do seem to recall that there was something around the frame that the black plastic moulding snaps / clips into. I'll watch / take pics of the install.

All you need to do is look at the various forum topics, thread titles of interest, and read. Good = FE, performance, comfort Bad = FE, no start dead battery issue Ugly = MFT and Sync

Just ran some tests to see what the maximum distance from my home (straight line distance) when EV+ came on with very high SOC at 95 F ambient, no AC on. Ran tests twice in three approaches to home. Speed limit is 25 mph which I tried to maintain. As I said above there's no way I can get anywhere near one mile from home when EV+ kicks in based on my tests since the SOC in the tests are above any SOC threshold before EV+ would kick in. Approaching home from North (about 35 feet uphill): EV Mode begins about one mile from home with SOC = 62.7% EV+ kicks in at SOC = 53.8% and 0.32 miles from home Approaching home from South (about 35 feet downhill): EV Mode begins about one mile from home at SOC = 62.4% EV+ kicks in at SOC = 59.1% and 0.34 miles from home Approaching home from East (fairly flat): EV Mode begins about 3/4 mile from home with SOC = 60.2% EV+ kicks in at SOC = 58.4% and 0.32 miles from home A couple more comments. I also circled the block in EV+ mode until ICE on threshold dropped and EV couldn't be sustained to see the SOC when ICE kicked in. To speed the process up I turned AC on maximum to deplete the SOC rapidly. ICE kicked in around a 34% SOC. In a couple tests I saw SOC as low as 33.3 % before ICE kicked on. Normally my SOC coming home from the North is around 50%, the EV+ range is between about 0.21 and 0.24 miles. My guess is that Ford's 1/8 mile range of EV+ uses a very conservative SOC (probably 40% or so). It would be too time consuming (for me) to run more tests trying to get a specific EV+range vs SOC curve. I forgot to mention that once entering an EV+ location and then leaving the EV+ location during the tests, the exit distance from my home was virtually the same as the entering distance - within a couple hundred feet which leads me to believe that the radius of the EV+ circle range is fixed until one exits the range. Again it would be good to validate this with more tests.

All EV+ does is to increase the power level threshold of when ICE would otherwise come on. I have never seen anything close to a one mile "range" for EV+ (but I don't pay much attention to it anymore) and I virtually always have a relatively high SOC approaching home as I slow down from high speed driving about 1+ miles from home. Since it is relatively flat and since the threshold will also increase at higher levels of SOC of the HVB, it is easier to stay in EV mode a long time sometimes until I get about 1/4 mile (street wise) or about 1/8 mile (as the crow flies) from home when EV+ illuminates and the ICE on threshold increases. I suggest you look at the Empower Screen and you will see the Engine On/Off threshold level increase in EV+ mode. Here's a quote from the owner's manual: "The EV indicator will display EV+ when this mode is active. You should see this approximately 1/8 mile (200 meters) from a frequent destination." Wnen one drives aggressively, it is very likely that the power demand exceeds the threshold and ICE kicks in or one depletes the SOC in EV mode such that the threshold is lowered and it it more difficult to engage EV mode. Here's what Ford says in a news release: When the feature identifies frequent destinations, the way electric power is used changes. Specifically, when within a radius of 1/8 mile, or 200 meters, of a frequent stop, the vehicle has increased capability to stay in electric-only mode, the internal combustion engine stays off, and an “EV+” light appears on the dashboard.

Well our C-Max windshield needs replaced again - about 14 months after 1st replacement which was 14 months after purchase. The photo below is from the recent crack which is almost identical to what I recall of the first crack (I didn't take pics of the first). It appears that a small stone chip near the edge of the passenger side of the windshield initiated the crack in both windshields. The length of the crack is about 15". We've driven the car twice since the crack and it grew about 3" each time but not while driving. Perhaps the heating of the interior / glass while parked outside in the sun (sunscreen not used) caused the crack to grow. Fortunately I have full glass coverage as Safelite says the total cost is $426 about the same as last time. Last time the techs that came out indicated they had replaced several C-Max windshields. I'll ask again Saturday when they come out to replace it.

It's too bad you are having these issues. What model do you have SE or SEL? The C-Max is a very reliable car but for a small % of owners who have had multiple "no start" dead battery issues. Just to be clear, I take it that for the early no start issues that you did not take it to a Ford dealer for documentation of the issue? Do you have a CarFax on the C-Max? How long is your daily commute? There is a TSB (not a recall IIRC) on the issue that you should demand that the dealer perform (if not already done). Also, I doubt this TSB will show up on etis.ford since it is not a recall. The dealer can look up the service history for you. If applying this TSB to your car doesn't fix the issue, there are ways to "live with the issue" and mitigate the time it takes to get the car going or maybe the issue itself: 1) carry a set of jumper cables but requires another vehicle to jump start the C-Max 2) carry a jump start battery which should start the C-Max most of the time 3) use a battery tender to maintain the 12 V battery charge while at home but requires connecting and disconnecting daily 4) monitor the 12 V battery voltage with a metering device that plugs into the cigarette lighter to see if one can predict when the battery is not being properly charged by the displayed voltage (don't really know anyone that uses this with predictive results).

I provided the link to the PIDs above. I have EngineLink but since my old IPad cannot be upgraded past iOS 5.1.1, I cannot upgrade my old version of EngineLink to the current version which I believe requires iOS 6. Hence, I don't use EngineLink much anymore.

Don't buy it. All the Apps I mentioned above read and clear fault codes that set the CEL - Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) and monitor the "readiness" bits for emissions inspections. If the fault causing the CEL has been fixed or otherwise goes away the CEL will be turned off. Clearing a fault code that is still active may cause the CEL to be turned off but during the next OBDIi check cycle, the CEL will again illuminate until the condition triggering the CEL clears.

The ELM327 wifi and bluetooth adapters that I have are plug-n-play. I bought mine on Amazon. The only change I've made to the adapter is in a delay setting from 100 msec to 10 msec as FORScan indicated that my delay of IIRC 123 msec was "bad". All the OBDII scan software that I have (FORScan, DashCommand, Torque Pro, EngineLink) automatically find the adapters. You will likely have to pair the bluetooth adapter to the smartphone. So, all you do is download the OBDII software to a smartphone, tablet, of computer and run the App / program. The benefit of FORScan over other Apps is that it is specifically for Ford products and thus scans virtually every module in the car for fault codes (DTCs). Also, virtually all specific PIDs for Ford products have been implemented so there's no need to enter manufacturer specific PID data (if you can find it ;)) as one generally has to do in other Apps.

.... especially if using FORScan. The $25 spent to enable running FORScan IMO will be the best OBDII scanner for the C-Max but for a Ford IDS VCM 2 (at several $100 on Ebay but probably Chinese knock-off). My guess is if there was a DTC set that triggered the tire pressure warning message, FORScan will report it. FORScan for Windows (Windows 2000/XP/Vista/7/8/8.1) and FORScan LIte for the Iphones (iOS v 6,0 and higher) is available now while FORScan Lite for Androids is in Beta testing.

LOL, I had a similar experience recently. One evening I went in the garage to start the C-Max to test Forscan from my desktop computer and placed the Key FOB in the center cup holder. After maybe a 1/2 hour or so of playing around (getting in / out of the car several times during the testing) , I went inside for the night thinking I had shut the car off. The next morning as I was getting ready to leave for golf, I couldn't find my keys and after some thought realized that I must have left the keys in the C-Max. I went into the garage and was struck by how warm it was. I opened the door of the C-Max and it was even warmer inside the car. That's when I realized the C-Max must have been running and sure enough it was in ready to drive mode. When I got out, I felt the hood of the C-Max and it was very warm. FE for that tank slipped a little. :) I figured at least 3/4 gallon of fuel was burned over about a 12 hour period. I'm surprised that I or my wife didn't hear it running but there's the garage door and a laundry room door in between plus the bedroom door when sleeping. I did recall that our dog barked at least once which is an indication she heard something. My 12 V battery was fully charged though. ;)

fotomoto tried to see what the lowest brake score return % he could get. Even with ABS activation, he achieved 9%. So, it appears that there is always regenerative braking (unless the HVB is full).

Did you buy it from a Ford dealer and is all software / recalls up to date? What's the manufacturing date (on placard / sticker on inside front door jam) and here for date and Outstanding Field Service Actions (ETIS gives correct data for my VIN except wrong model).

Just a couple of comments. Early on the automatic phone contact updates when left to "on" would some how cause incorrect time. Turning auto updates off solved the issue. I also believe that a new MFT / Sync update in 2013 should have solved this. Also, make sure when resetting time that AM or PM is correct. During the time when the auto updates were causing the time to change on my C-Max, I thought the date had changed after I reset the time but concluded that I neglected to set AM or PM.

If rural interstate speed limits were set based solely on safety, we'd likely have interstate speeds of around 60 mph maximum. The approach I like is the 85th percentile engineering approach on rural freeways and interstates (the speed at or below which 85 percent of the free-flowing vehicles travel). Let drivers determine the "safe speed". :) From TXDOT: "Research has shown that speed limits set below the reasonable speed of most drivers do not significantly reduce the number of crashes on a road. In fact, crashes may increase with unreasonably low speed limits." Here's a good read on speed limits that's a few years old.

I agree with Kelleytoons. It's too bad that Ford has yet to articulate if they have found the issue(s) that cause recurring dead batteries. Since, we don't know why some have recurring dead batteries, I'd also suggest carrying a Jump Start Battery or jumper cables in the car to mitigate being stranded for a longer period of time should the car fail to start due to the dead battery issue. Unless the battery is bad and completely dead, owners have had success using the Jump Start Battery. I believe there may have been one where the Jump Start didn't work. I'm not aware of anyone that has been unable to jump start their C-Max using jumper cables (of course you need another car around willing to lend a hand). I've never had a dead battery but I do carry jumper cables tucked in the compartment under the driver's seat. Some have also suggested using a battery tender to maintain the 12 V battery when at home. One should not have to do these things but if one is going to keep the car and does not want to be left stranded, it's cheap "insurance" against being stranded.

Me too. I keep up with the flow which in light traffic around Phoenix is around 70-72 mph on the 65 mph freeways. For me, time not money is the limited resource. Around town on a 30 mile typical shorter round trip, I can take the parallel streets to the freeways rather than the freeways for about 20-22 miles of the 30 miles, but using the side streets adds about 20-25 minutes to the round trip (more if I hypermile). In normal driving, I will get over 50 mpg on the side streets (and have demonstrated over 60 mpg if I really slow down and hypermile with average speed of around 25-27 mph) but the fuel savings amounts to about $0.30 total or a penny a mile but costing 40 seconds a mile in time. So, assume 10,000 miles per year of such driving, I can save $100 in fuel but waste 400,000 seconds in time (111 hours). This is a conservative estimate as taking the side streets for our longer local trips would result in proportionately higher wasted time. I've also reported a 4000+ mile trip to PA and back a couple of times to illustrate several points. On the trip East I got overall 40.4 mpg - door to door with an average speed of 68.4 mph (gps miles / gps moving time). My average speed on interstates (about 1600 miles) was 72.3 mph. On the trip back home, I averaged nearly 74 mph on interstates mainly because I drove very little during darkness so I set eco-cruise about 1-2 mph higher. I also battled a strong quartering wind from MO into AZ and rain in AZ high country and my overall return mpg dropped to 38.3 mpg. Overall, door to door round trip of over 4070 miles, I averaged 69.1 mph and 39.2 mpg with me, wife, our black lab and luggage (maybe 450 - 475 pounds). As far as economics on the trip, we make the trip of about 2050 miles with one night stay over (about 30.5 hours of driving time). If I would slow down to the speed limits (about 5-7 mph slower than the normal traffic flow), I'd likely add about 5-6 hours to the trip which would require a second night stay. I can buy a lot of fuel for $100. :) So, slowing down in this case costs me $$$ and time. ;)

We need to assure ourselves that should a catastrophe happen to us that might affect our lifestyle, we're covered and thus we can sleep at night and not worry about going to the casino and losing our money. I personally would hate to give up golf (and other higher cost pastimes) if my house were uninsured and burned to the ground. Hence, I carry homeowners insurance. :) But I will not spend several thousand on an extended warranty for my C-Max for an extremely unlikely, high cost, unwarranted repair. MBI makes more sense to me since it really is an insurance product and not simply an "unregulated" (and thus high profit margin) maintenance contract.

If you look at how the City and HWY EPA numbers are computed, only the high speed portion of the US06 is used in the calculation of the HWY EPA numbers. US06 also includes an aggressive City test portion used in the City calculations which are the first and last parts of US06,. IIRC, the average speed of the Highway portion of US06 is around 62/63 mph (including starting from zero mph and ending at zero mph. You can download the US06 test schedule (one second intervals) and average the highway portion. There are documents that in detail describe each test schedule and how data from the tests are used in determining the City and Hwy EPA numbers. The raw numbers also include adjustment factors for real world conditions (like pavement, wind, use of AC and so forth) to come up with an "average" EPA FE rating to allow the consumer to compare FE among all vehicles on the "same" basis. So, trying to relate the raw dyno EPA test schedule numbers along with average speed of the tests as a proxy for what one might see in the real world is a fruitless exercise unless one has the capability to adjust real world FE to account for external influences and follow the test schedules precisely.

ANY DATA DERIVED FROM THE DYNAMOMETER TESTING IS FLAWED. I covered this in another tread. The dyno coefficients in footnote 9 are incorrect. Here's the link showing the correct coefficients (used in 2014 Ford EPA FE update) and the incorrect coefficients (used in Aug. 2013 EPA FE update). Note the difference in RLHP using the latest coefficients. Footnote 9: