plus 3 golfer

Agree. I've jumped my Nissan with my C-Max using the under hood terminals - just used normal jump starting procedures except C-Max was put in "ready to drive" mode (ICE not running). No issues.

Because the three components ICE, MG1, and MG2 are physically connected, changing the speed of one affects the speed of one or both the other two components. Neglecting the internal gear ratios inside the transmission the speed relationship is: Speed MG1 + Speed MG2 = Speed ICE MG2 rotates proportionately with the wheels. So, if vehicle speed is held constant and MG1 speeds up to slow down ICE, the overall gear ratio will be numerically lower (ICE rpm / vehicle rpm). This is the negative split mode we see from time to time (see quote below) where the HVB has a high SOC and the PCM: 1) stops the charging of the HVB, 2) in essence, runs MG1 as a motor using electric power, and 3) runs MG2 as a generator or motor to regulate vehicle speed. So, MG1 speeds up, ICE rpm decreases and MG2 rpm is held virtually constant to maintain vehicle speed. I don't know of any case where MG1 would be used solely as a motor to propel the car. I've never heard of MG1 being used when the brakes are applied (but I'm not familiar with what other manufacturers might do). My guess is that using MG1 and MG2 simultaneously for regenerative braking might provide too much electrical power for either the inverter or HVB to handle. There may be a current limit that would be exceeded. But, maybe not. Also, at some braking load if MG1 and MG2 were used for regenerative braking, the C-Max may become unstable and friction brakes may need applied to at least the rear wheels in addition to the front wheel regenerative braking. I've also read research papers on regenerative braking and don't recall any that discuss both being used for regenerative braking.

Yes. Read this as it explains what happens in a planetary gear set when an element of the gear set is not spinning and when one or two elements are providing input like ICE and the traction motor at the same time. As an example, when ICE is running, ICE rpm can be directed to propel the car by holding the the generator stationary or can be split between propelling the car and running the generator to charge the HVB. Also when needed, the traction motor can supply additional torque / rpm to the drive wheels and ICE rpm can be backed down or perhaps held constant in which case generator rpm would be increased. Thus, the overall gear ratio (ICE rpm/transmission output rpm) is variable.

I think the issue might be that some may not appreciate the magnitude of the electrical losses associated with regeneration and use of the stored regenerated electrical power from the HVB in EV mode. I think one needs to define /look at the losses that are eliminated with "gliding" in the C-MAX by feathering the throttle such that there is no energy flow into the HVB vs foot off the throttle "gliding" with regeneration. MG1 and MG2 spin in either case in proportion to vehicle speed (since ICE is off and not spinning). So, the frictional losses of the drive train should be about the same in both. But, the losses that are eliminated by feathering vs foot off the throttle "gliding" are virtually all electrical losses associated with reducing / eliminating regeneration and the reuse of such in propelling the C-Max in EV mode. This should save fuel since by reducing / eliminating these losses, the C-Max will glide further. IMO, gliding losses with foot off the throttle associated with regeneration are at least 25% of the KE at the wheels. So, "gliding" with foot off the throttle is returning only 75% of the KE back to the wheels. By feathering the throttle the C-Max can use nearly 100 % of the KE at the wheels (but for some energy to maintain a zero HVB power flow) and glide further until minimum speed is reached.

I don't know what the effect might be at 6 feet, but I have experimented with drafting behind a semi and a car in my TDI in the past and saw the instantaneous FE go up by about 50% behind a semi at around 25 feet at 70 mph and virtually nothing at 100 feet. I don't recall any gain drafting a car at about 25 feet. Also, I am sure it annoys others drafting that close especially the truckers as it does me. So, I don't do it. Here's the link to the Mythbusters test.

A little bit off in the number. Mythbusters obtained a 20% gain in FE at a distance of 50 feet and a 11% gain at 100 feet at 55 mph behind a semi-truck. But I agree with the safety concerns of drafting - at 100 feet back, it takes about 1 1/4 seconds to close the 100 feet at 55 mph (80 feet/second). This has been discussed in other threads and IIRC most believe that the two second rule is a safe driving distance behind another vehicle. So, two seconds at 55 mph is 160 feet which would be very little if any FE improvement from drafting. Now having said that, driving the freeways around Phoenix, it's virtually impossible to maintain a two second rule. At 70 mph in rush hour, I'd say the traffic is generally less than 100 feet apart. At 100 feet cars will be filling the 100 foot gap.

I always try to time lights and have been doing that since the 1970s. Time is virtually the same whether one has to stop for a light or coasts to a light. My point on time is using P&G on highways not in drafting on the highway. If one accelerates from minimum speed to maximum speed such that speed / time is linear for 1/3 distance, then coasts for 2/3 distance, the coasting is not a linear function with respect to speed vs time. Thus, the average speed over the distance is not the simple average of the maximum and minimum speed but something less. So for a true test of the benefits of P&G. One needs to compute their average speed over a route using P&G by distance / time and then set eco-cruise at that average speed over the same distance. Then IMO, one has has a good comparison of the difference in FE using P&G vs eco-cruise. Also, I note in the Prius P&G link provided by Frank that the average speed is very low at 36.5 mph. So, the effects of aero drag are not very great. I'd like them to test P&G at say an average speed of 65 mph to see the results. In addition, P&G likely result in a lower average speed and thus longer time than what one could do without using P&G due to driving constraints. So, if one wants better FE, one likely spends more time on the road whether it's simply reducing overall speed or using P&G.

But doesn't it to an extent boil down to trading time for FE. At what speed does one have to pulse up to take full advantage of 2/3 glide such that ones overall time covering a distance is the same as simply setting eco-cruise to say 55, 65 or 75 mph. Has any Prius owner conducted a test keeping average speed the same (distance / time) using P&G and then eco-cruise to quantify the "real" benefits of P&G? Aero drag will eat into benefits if one has to pulse to very high speeds.

If I understand it correctly, coasting in D with no throttle will provide regeneration when HVB is not "full" (ICE off) or normal engine braking when HVB is "full" (ICE is spinning). Coasting in D with slight, correct throttle will provide just enough regeneration (ICE off) to offset normal car electrical loads (like DC/DC converter) such that the HVB is being neither charged nor discharged (no battery arrows). So, this would be very similar to an ICE vehicle when shifted into neutral where ICE would remain running at virtually idle rpm and turning the alternator which would supply normal electrical load. In both cases, energy is being used to supply normal car loads (KE for the hybrid and ICE for a conventional vehicle). In both cases, ICE engine braking is not contributing to slowing down the vehicle when coasting. So, for the hybrid one can, in essence, coast in N legally - there is no ICE real or simulated engine braking via regeneration. This should improve overall FE because one is reducing the electrical losses associated with regeneration. Does this sound correct? I'd love to run tests and record data to estimate the benefits of keeping the SOC "constant" by feathering the throttle while coasting in D to simulate coasting in N vs foot off the throttle with engine braking regeneration and also compare it to coasting in N. But it just takes so much time to do properly and analyze the results.

It's clear to me you don't understand / comprehend what is being said. I can't make it any clearer. A communication error can be an emission related problem because without communications there is no way of knowing if components and systems pass. Your credibility continues to fall IMO. I'm done with this and won't respond anymore. The readers can decide what they want to believe. Here's what Ford says with my highlighting and note in red pointing to the applicable text. ;)

Yes, faults related to the power train (transmission, communications and so forth) can be deemed "emissions related" because such faults can cause the vehicle to exceed emissions standards. Again, by definition faults that set the MIL are "emissions related." Just read the Ford's shop manual which is where I pulled the quote above from. Just to be clear MIL is commonly referred to as a CEL. Since this started with failing TX emissions, here's a quote from the TXDPS: "Remember: The transmission is part of the vehicle's power train, so a transmission problem will turn on the MIL and can cause the vehicle to exceed emissions standards." Yes, as far as reading detailed DTC that further define the issue, code readers may not scan all modules. But, there should be a manufacturers' enhanced code stored in the PCM for the issue like a code in the P17XX range for a transmission problem. AFAIK, a code must be stored in the PCM if the MIL is set. I'm not aware of any change to that requirement of OBDII. The benefit of a high priced code reader to most is virtually zero because they aren't going to be able to fix the issue anyways. A less expensive OBDII code reader may not give as much info but it will give the owner an idea of the component / system that set the MIL.

We're not trying to make sense out of it or play with semantics. Systems and components that affect emissions (including continuity of circuits if appropriate) set the MIL and OBDII compliant code readers will read P0 and P1 codes and a lot all P codes and other control modules. If JulieB failed emissions (excluding trying to reset the readiness bits by driving the car), there will be a DTC code stored. When the MIL comes on, there will always be a OBDII DTC. Again we are not trying to determine whether we believe some codes should set the MIL and others should not. Remember this discussion is about failing emissions. The EPA wants to make sure that issues that can affect vehicle emissions get fixed. States are responsible for implementation of the emissions testing pursuant to the EPA rules and regulations. States and areas within states may have different or no emissions testing. In essence, there won't be a code that triggers the MIL that is not by definition "emissions related." It's the regulations. I've seen similar stuff (lack of knowledge on the regs, misunderstanding what is being said) on EPA emissions certification of vehicles and their EPA fuel economy rating.

Have you read the Federal Register on the requirements of OBD? This is what Ford says: "The MIL notifies the driver the PCM has detected an on board diagnostic (OBD) emission related component or system concern. When this occurs, an OBD DTC sets." All such OBD DTC must be able to be read by Non-Proprietary OBDII readers (EPA requirement). There may be other codes that may further define issues but only emission related component or systems will trigger the MIL. Can it be any clearer than that. There are likely very old code readers (prior to OBDII) that only read the original OBD codes but since mid to late 2000s all readers that I'm familiar with will also read the enhanced OBDII codes (I believe those are P0 and P1 codes). In any event, I'm still waiting for a code that is not emission related that triggers the MIL ;) :) .

Yes, I've said similar before - traffic constraints and my time dictate what I do. It simply takes too long to coast in gear from 70 mph to the exit ramp for it to be practicable for me given the traffic conditions I drive in. So, I do brake fairly hard once I hit the exit ramp and then apply moderate braking once speed is reduced trying to achieve a good score. In suburban and city driving where speed limits are generally in the 35 - 45 mph range with lights every 1/2 to 1 mile, it's a lot easier to coast and time lights plus the amount of KE is so small (that would not be captured by coasting) that it matters little on braking technique. Increasing braking score amounts to very little additional energy captured. Bottom line: I'm not going to alter my braking techniques - that's why I quit trying to develop a regeneration model after Ford got the RLHP coefficients correct. Also, we don't know the exact algorithm used in regenerative braking but can guess at the max regen kW and the coasting regen kW to simulate ICE braking (difference between my coast down runs in gear vs in N). Anyways it's fun to try to understand the physics behind regenerative braking. Tying this back to the topic, regenerative braking style / technique IMO matters little to FE given traffic constraints most drive in. Decrease ones overall driving speed and watch FE soar. :)

The question though is how efficient is the capture and reuse of the kinetic energy. In my research and testing, I believe the following to be realistic: the traction motor is likely between 90 - 93% efficient, the inverter efficiency is likely 90-95 % efficient, the battery is likely around 90% - 95% efficient. So how much of the KE at the wheels can be captured and returned to the wheels. wheel to wheel efficiency might be as low as = 0.90 * 0.90 * 0.90 * 0.90 * 0.90 = 60% wheel to wheel efficiency might be as high as = 0.93 * 0.95 * 0.95 * 0.95 * 0.93 = 74% So then, if losses in the regeneration process might be between 26 -40%, is it better to use the losses even at higher speeds to offset road load by coasting or is it better to brake harder at higher speeds to store more of the KE to slow the car down quicker and reduce road load quicker? I have modeled this before but am looking at it again. Also, my guess is that when slowing down to a stop, many are seeing the PE of a slight drop in elevation also being captured. Here's a quick chart showing the KE and PE of the C-Max. So, at 70 mph exiting an interstate down a 1/4 mile ramp with an elevation change of 10 meters, the C-Max has 0.25 kWh of KE and around 0.05 kWh of PE or 0.30 kWh of total energy. So, what's the best course of action to capture the most energy in this 1/4 mile? Or should one back off the throttle at 1/2 mile or more and coast in gear to scrub speed? We know coasting adds time but it also saves fuel for 1/4 mile.

Follow the appropriate procedure below and report what you find. Entering ETM with Keyed Ignition From Kotsby: Engineering Test Mode (ETM) is activated on the SE by holding down the left-steering-wheel OK button when turning the car from off to ignition-on and holding OK until the ETM display begins (a yellow ET is displayed in the upper left corner) of the left-hand screen). It is not necessary to actually turn the key another notch to "start" the vehicle. The only way to turn off ET is to turn the key off. Once activated, ET will continue on the left-hand display once the vehicle is started, covering the usual left-hand trip odometers, MyView, and Power screens. Entering ETM with Push Button Start 1) Push and hold the "OK" button on the left input pad on the steering wheel 2) DO NOT STEP ON THE BRAKE. Push the start button while still holding the "OK" button. 3) Engineering test mode will come up on the left hand screen. It might be blocked by another message but you can see the letters ET in the upper left. Release the "OK" button and push it again to clear the other message. 4) The Engineering Test Mode screen should be displayed. 5) Push the up or down arrows to scroll through the ETM screens. Here's what Ford says about the ETM DTC screen: DTC HIST CURRxxxxxx x xxxxxxx xDisplays all of the Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) set (history and current Diagnostic Trouble Codes [DTCs]). An X in the HIST or CURR column means the DTC is active. Three Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) display on each screen. If more Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) are present, there will be additional screens listing them. If there are no Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) in history or current, the display will only be the title row.

My crystal ball says YES. :) The rain sensor is likely an optical sensor that measures the light reflected from an infrared light source. Data from the sensor and wiper switch positions are sent to the BCM which controls the wipers. There are rain sensor DTC for detected malfunctions. Out of curiosity can you check the Engineering Test Mode to see if it shows any DTCs?

The Ford dealer I use has six comfortable fully padded chairs with arm rests with TV in an open area just off the lobby, a semi "playroom" for kids with a popcorn machine with similar seating on the other side of the lobby, a "snack" room with free doughnuts and coffee and vending machines with maybe four or five smaller round table with a few high stools around each with TV, several other similar round table and stools near the service and parts counter areas with TV on the wall, and WIFI. Time spent at the dealer obviously depends on the service to be performed but I've waited as little as 45 minutes for one software upgrade and as long as about 90 minutes for an alignment. The only problem I have with Ford (not the dealer) is that my car has been to the Ford dealer too many times for recalls and upgrades. :)

Duplicate

Does this mean that if slower traffic would keep right there would be less road rage???? The operative words in the "MOVE RIGHT" stature is "driving a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions." Don't mix speed limit laws with MOVE RIGHT laws (which is likely what happens when slower traffic doesn't move right). Slower traffic can go whatever speed they want to as long as they keep right. ;) The law does not say it's okay to drive slower than the flow of traffic because one is going faster than the speed limit, the speed limit, or slower than the speed limit. Taking the law into ones own hand might have consequences. Let law enforcement do their job with respect to traffic laws. What I find is that the slower traffic (not keeping up with the flow) is virtually never going the speed limit in the left lanes. It happens all the time on the freeways around Phoenix. Six lanes of traffic in one direction and there are drivers in the left 3-4 lanes going less than the speed limit and they can virtually always move right. The traffic moving with the flow seems to move right when appropriate such that the flow of traffic is consistent. Of course, there will always be drivers that dart in and out, passing on the left and right to gain a few positions rather than moving with the flow and this excludes rush hour stop and go traffic. But mad at who and for what reason? Mad at other gun owners (other drivers) or mad at the laws? Big difference (not even comparable IMO). ;)

I think the issue is what constitutes hypermiling. I think very few are true "hypermilers". Hypermiling - the practice of making adjustments to a vehicle or using driving techniques that will maximize (emphasis added) the vehicle's fuel economy. Taken to the extreme, it's the driving techniques / style that can get out of hand and anger / irritate others. Almost at every traffic light I approach, there will be those that continue to maintain speed and then brake hard to stop at the light. My wife does this to some extent and I have to bite my tongue as I want to say why don't you back off the throttle now and coast more. :) So, I get what you're saying. I do believe having a fuel efficient vehicle makes one more aware of their FE and the effects of driving style on their FE. But, it's hard to change habits.

So has hybridbear found out what the codes mean? Have you taken the car to the dealer yet?

Probably because there are many HEV, PHEV, and EV drivers who believe they deserve privileges for owning such a car like special parking, car pool lane access, not paying their fair share of road use tax, accelerating like a snail, and driving in the left hand lanes to facilitate their hypermiling. There now it's back on track - I included hypermiling. I'm happy to see not every Prius owner and every driver is a hypermiler. Please drivers hypermile on your time not mine.:)

Irrelevant applies to "this case" which is the quote from the law. Nowhere in this law is the speed limit cited. If you don't like the word irrelevant, change it to not applicable. ;) One is getting a ticket for failure to move to the right not speeding. But I agree I doubt very many tickets are written for the law quoted.