plus 3 golfer

Seems to me this is a good question for the Ford rep that monitors this sight to find the answer to. How long can the HVB be left idle? IIRC, lithium ion batteries can lose about 5% charge per month (I assume this applies to the C-Max HVB too). Also, I believe the owner's manual is silent on the HVB when storing the C-Max (this may mean there is no issue with the HVB). ICE will run when the car is started in cold weather. AFAIK, ICE should then charge the HVB if it needs to be charged without driving the car. I think the bigger issue will be the 12 V battery. One needs the 12 V battery connected to start the car. I think the self discharge rate of a lead acid battery can be greater than 5% a month. There has been much discussion on the SOC of the 12 V battery. It appears that the C-Max charging algorithms may not fully charge the 12 V battery to 100% SOC as many have observed when taking voltage readings across the battery. So, I would put the 12 V battery on a smart charger to keep it fully charged continuously to ensure the 12 V battery will be charged sufficiently to start the C-Max. There was a member that stored their car for a longer period of time (a few months IIRC). I can't recall how everything went.

Welcome aboard. Here's brief answers to your questions. 1. What is the voltage of the HV battery, and is it called the HV battery as Toyota calls their 208V battery the HV battery? About 300 VDC 2. Is there a step-up converter for the C-Max? Prius uses 208v battery to 560v converter. NO 3. Is the 12v battery charged by a power inverter like it is in the Prius? Prius uses a 1000W inverter. How many watts is the C-Max's? Yes, there is a DC/DC converter with a capacity of about 145 A or around 2000 W (14 V * 145 A) 4. What is the aimed state of charge for the HV battery? I think Prius aims to keep the battery about 30 - 60% charged during use. About 30 - 70% SOC is the apparent working range but in typical driving the range is around 40 - upper 50%. 70% SOC can be reached going down a longer,steeper grade or from higher speed stops when the HVB is in the upper 50s. I haven't seen a SOC below around 35% when I monitor SOC. 5. Is the HV battery externally vented and internally cooled? Prius has an external vent to vent gases during charging, and it uses a blower motor to keep the battery cool. The parts diagram shows a vent for the Energi but I don't see one for the Hybrid. Both have blowers and are air cooled. 6. Is the AC compressor electric and ran by the HV battery like it is in the Prius, making for a completely beltless ICE motor? Yes 6.5: On the Prius, if you let your foot off the gas but dont touch the brake, while traveling at speed, the vehicle will apply a slight charge to the HV battery. Does the C-Max do the same? Yes, this is regenerative braking by the traction motor to simulate engine braking. 7. In what other major ways does the C-Max hybrid system differ from the Prius' other than the C-Max can run EV at a much higher speed? Don't care to know details about the Prius. ;) :)

Of course by the time there's enough data for the C-Max, I likely won't own my C-Max nor will I be looking to buy a used C-Max. :) Here's a link to A car dealer's scientific guide to the most durable used cars. "The Over-300,000 Club Is Still Pretty Exclusive: Five types of vehicles make up more than 60% of the cars and trucks with at least 300,000 miles. They are: GM full-sized trucks and SUVsFord full-sized trucks and SUVsFord rear-wheel-drive V-8 carsHonda four-cylinder carsToyota everything (except Celica and RAV4)" Here's the link to the Long Term Quality Index. "We've recently updated the way our 'Quality Index Score' is calculated to give a clearer picture of the long-term reliability of used vehicles. This score now runs from 0(chronic reliability issues) to 100(excellent reliability), with 'average' being in the range of 45 to 60." Here's Ford's data and Toyota Data (see Prius) for comparison.

Yes, I do recall there's a difference between the two using Low. I forgot that you have an Energi. There were discussions on this in the past. For those with Hybrids, it's easy to see that shifting to L starts ICE spinning. Put RPM in MyView and drive shifting in and out of L. I don't recall anyone who has documented / described the hybrid mode operation in the Energi. I would think the hybrid mode algorithms are the same except perhaps threshold levels in the Energi might be increased - but why? running ICE just to charge the big HVB (in positive split mode) even now with low gas prices would likely cost (in Phoenix with about $2.64 / gallon) over twice as much to charge the HVB with gas vs electricity. But when descending a hill in the Energi, it makes sense to maximize regeneration whether the car in in D or L. So, ICE should not spin in L to slow the car down like in the Hybrid.

Describing how L mode works in mountainous driving in not off-topic as I use it all the time descending steep, curvy mountainous roads to control speed when grade assist can't adequately control speed regardless of the SOC of the HVB so I don't have to use the friction brakes very often if at all. Your high level description above (highlighted in red) as what is happening in L mode when the battery is full (knowing full means about 70% SOC) is not technically correct except if you mean MG2 not MG1 the generator. The traction motor MG2 provides regenerative braking slowing the car down when the battery is not full with ICE off. This is to simulate ICE engine braking when coasting. When regenerative braking is not sufficient to slow the car down, shifting into L aids in braking the car. L mode causes the engine to engage and spin even if the battery is not full. As I've said before, negative spit starts when the battery is around 56% SOC. So, positive spit mode ceases (MG1 charging the HVB). The HVB will continue to be charged via MG2, regenerative braking up to around 70% SOC What I care about is that posts are representing conditions correctly and are not ambiguous. There's a big difference between MG1, the generator and MG2 the traction motor. Wording (semantics) is extremely important. ;)

MG1 (the generator) is not spinning to bleed off excess energy. It's using energy to control engine speed - in negative split to more efficiently run ICE (like up-shifting a conventional transmission to a higher gear) and when in "L" mode to increase engine speed perhaps for engine braking or because the driver wants ICE to run in an effective lower gear. Speed up MG1 and the engine slows down (assuming car speed hasn't changed). Slow down MG1 or reverse MG1 rotation and engine speed increases - "L" mode (like downshifting to a lower gear in a conventional transmission). De-fuel the engine (take foot off accelerator) in "L" and engine becomes a load on the drive train (engine braking) which can help in controlling / reducing vehicle speed especially going down hill. If the battery is not full, the PCM will use MG1 as a generator to increase engine load requirements and ICE will increase rpm / fuel to meet the additional load. ICE should be operating in an more efficient range (than without the additional load) similar to when the battery if full but at decreased load and rpm. The PCM should control MG1 and thus rate of charge for best efficiency. There is no benefit to simply bleed off energy. Once the battery reaches its threshold capacity for hybrid operation, the traction motor (MG2) can act as a generator at the same time the generator (MG1) can act as a motor. The PCM should effectively use MG1 and MG2 to minimize input energy (fuel) effectively changing the gear ratio for best overall efficiency. Sometimes, one might see the battery being charged and sometimes one might see the battery being discharged. The net effect as I've stated before in monitoring change in battery energy in negative split was a slight increase in state of charge of 2% points over 4 miles. Going down hill for several miles using regenerative braking can increase the state of charge up to it's limit of about 70% SOC given a long enough down grade But there's nothing one can do about that. Just like a convention vehicle, one may lose some of the available potential energy going down hill because there is no room to store any more energy.

AFAIK, no one has reported any issues with the HVB. Ford appears to be operating the Lithium-ion battery for a long, long life (charge / discharge cycles or miles). Here's key life test and real world results. Since the max. and min. operating range of the HVB appears to be limited between 70% and 30% for the Hybrid and more like upper 50% to low 40 % in typical driving, the HVB should last for virtually the life of the car. If one assumes 0 miles on the graph is 100% working capacity, it appears that the working capacity will still be around 80% at 300 k miles which is still higher than the max. operating range of 70%. Ford's confidence in lithium-ion is based on so-called Key Life Tests. The tests predict that the working capacity (y-axis) of lithium-ion batteries (green line) will be greater over a high-mileage lifetime (x-axis) than that of nickel-metal hydride (yellow line). Past field data for nickel-metal hydride (blue dots) has shown that the testing results are conservative -- that is, batteries generally do better in the field than they do on tests.

AFAIK, no one has demonstrated that a battery charger prevents a no start condition. If you want to go through the hassle of connecting and disconnecting a charger everyday make sure you get a "float charger / smart charger" not a "trickle" charger. A float charger will maintain the battery at full charge while a trickle charger can overcharge a battery since it won't have the circuitry to reduce charging current which is not good for battery life. Since we don't know what the current draw is overnight that depletes the charge of the battery such that the battery won't start the car in the morning, one probably should buy a smart charger capable of putting out at least 10 A or higher (not cheap). Even 10 A may not be enough to prevent discharge of the battery overnight if the current drain on the 12 V battery is significant. Another alternative is a jump start battery. The jump start battery is only connected to the battery terminals, if the car will not start. I believe this is what tow drivers use when jump starting cars. I believe at least one owner tried using a small, inexpensive jump start battery when his car would not start and it did not work. Commercial jump start batteries are not cheap and really not very portable for a typical car owner. If the 12 V battery is completely dead, one might need a commercial grade jump start. The alternative I use as a hedge against a no start is a set of battery jumper cables. I carry a set in my C-Max even though I've never had a no start. Of course one needs a second vehicle to connect the jumper cables to. Jumper cables have been used to successfully to start a C-Max. So, decide which alternative you want to deal with 1) nuisance of connecting a smart charger daily, 2) carrying around a smaller jump start which may not start the car. or 3) carrying a set of jumper cables (assuming you have another vehicle at home to jump start the C-Max). Then, there is the decision on how many $$$ does one want / need to spend to ensure a start if one selects option 1) or 2).

The short answer is I am not aware that Ford has found a "permanent fix(es)" for the dead battery issue. Ford has tried a few software update but AFAIK, owners have had issues after the updates. Other "fixes" IIRC were to replace connectors / wiring, 12 V battery, electric coolant pump and likely other hardware that may have put a parasitic load on the 12 V battery or kept electronic modules from going to "sleep". Others that have had battery issues can tell you what the Technical Bulletins and software updates are that relate to the dead battery issue. One other point, have you opened a case with Ford? IMO, the battle is with Ford, not the dealer. The dealers are likely going to be little help (unless you simply want to trade for another Ford product). I'd keep on "friendly" terms with the dealer. I'd want the dealer to assure you that they've applied all the TBs and updates on the issue and acknowledge that they haven't fixed (can't fix) the issue despite their best effort AND help from Ford.

theseeleys welcome. It's too bad you got a "lemon." Do you have an SE or an SEL? If SE does it have MFT? I've not had a battery issue. But my take on Ford buyback is that early on Ford appeared to be more receptive to a buyback. It seems (although one never knows the whole story), that more recently Ford has taken a harder stance. You may have to go to arbitration (don't know SC law). It might not hurt to talk to a couple of "reputable" attorneys and get their take on the SC law and your chances of success since you are apparently beyond 12 k miles. Also, very recently one member apparently had the battery fuse assembly (150 A fuse) which is part of the cable assembly attached to the + terminal of the battery develop high resistance and apparently wouldn't allow for proper charging of the 12 V battery (too much voltage drop across the fuse) which could perhaps explain why some people are having dead batteries over and over again. Ford replaced his DC/DC converter on the basis it had failed. But I'm wondering whether the converter really failed as with a new converter the dealer could only get around 13.5 V instead of around 14.4 V. 13.5 V is not sufficient to properly charge the battery. So, you might want to have the dealer look into this as a possible cause of your battery problems. Unless Ford has issued a TB on the fuse assembly, I seriously doubt most dealers would check this. Keep us informed as that may help others with the dead battery issue.

The generator is run as a motor and thus speeds up. Watch this video on the Prius hybrid transmission. See if that clears up anything. The equation for rotational speed (from the document I attached and neglecting the internal gear ratios inside the transmission) is: Speed MG1 + Speed MG2 = Speed ICE So, if MG2 is spinning at wheel speed and doesn't change and one wants to decrease ICE rpm, MG1 needs to speed up so that ICE rpm drops (look at Fig 1 in the attachment). MG1 is attached to the sun gear, MG2 to the ring gear, and ICE to the planet carrier. MG2 will act as a generator / motor to balance power requirements out as road load change to maintain speed. To much change in road load can kick in EV mode. Of course one can also ease up on the throttle slightly to try to stay in negative split should road load increase say due to a slight increase in elevation. To tie this into the Prius vs C-Max, the Prius EV mode operation is limited to around 40 mph (? IIRC) So, the Prius should run in negative split a lot more than the C-Max. One more point I forgot to mention is that why not lower ICE rpm by kicking in electric assist? Because when ICE rpm drops due to electric assist so does load on ICE. Thus, ICE is not operating as efficiently. I think what is overlooked is that all energy in the hybrid comes from the fuel burned. One does not want to use electric assist unless conditions require it or it improves overall efficiency like lower speed acceleration from stop, larger changes in road load, harder acceleration and so forth. Using electric assist to deplete the HVB for no efficiency gain doesn't make sense when one can take advantage of the hybrid transmission and keep ICE load up and lower rpm to improve overall efficiency. You need to understand the BSFC map.

No, that is not a correct characterization of what happens. There is no bleeding off of ICE energy. Don't confuse energy with power or torque. Energy input is a function of fuel burned. Energy output is the integrated instantaneous power over time. The torque / power requirement can remain the same over time, but lowering ICE rpm can reduce fuel input. So, the efficiency of ICE improves - output / input increases. Again MG1 acts as a motor using energy, MG2 acts as a generator producing energy. The power requirements of ICE hasn't changed. But what changes is the rpm of ICE and thus ICE operates more efficiently (uses less fuel because it's operating at a more efficient point on the BSFC map). If the torque / power requirements change (road load changes) MG2 makes up the difference by either producing or using power. Again, this is no different that shifting a manual transmission from say 5th gear to 6th gear. Road load hasn't changed. But ICE efficiency likely improves and ones FE goes up running in a higher gear. There is no bleeding off of ICE energy. What changes is rpm goes down (same as Hybrid in negative split) and fuel use goes down because one is likely operating ICE on a more efficient point on the BSFC map. Again, the generator MG1 will use energy to slow engine rpm to increase ICE efficiency (road load requirements haven't changed) and the traction motor MG2 can use energy or produce energy to cover load variations to keep ICE at an efficient point on the BSFC. SOC as I've observed, recorded, and graphed in negative split mode over about a 4 mile stretch with eco cruise at 55 mph started at about 56% and leveled off at 58% in the first 1/2 mile or so and remained at about 58%. I couldn't drive any further in negative split because I was approaching a red light. What's important is for the negative split algorithm to operate the vehicle most efficiently. The efficiency of the Hybrid transmission can and likely goes down in negative split mode.due to additional energy losses in MG1, MG2, Inverter and so forth. But an improvement in ICE efficiency by lowering rpm should more than offset these energy losses. FE thus can go up. Also, I think it was member Valkraider that would partially fill his Energi "big" battery when going down a mountain from skiing. He had pics that showed starting at the top with energy only in the "little" battery. After 16 miles of mostly downhill IIRC he had around 4 kWh in the big battery.

I've monitored HVB State of Charge while in negative split mode and the SOC stays virtually the same. MG2 can generate the energy required to run MG1 as a motor with virtually no change in SOC. See this post. Also, attached is a good pdf on Hybrid transmissions. This is how I summarize the various modes: Series - speed is zero and engine is on. Split - Positive - engine is on, engine power is split between charging battery via the generator and driving the car Split - Negative - engine is on, engine power is split between the generator consuming power and driving the car Parallel - Generator is stopped (not spinning), engine power and battery assist power (traction motor) driving vehicle. The point I was making is that when ICE has to run because the HVB is above a threshold level, there is a physical lower rpm limit and it can be reached when MG1 acts as a motor slowing down ICE rpm. A numerically lower final drive ratio should allow ICE to operate at a lower rpm and likely increase FE at highway speeds (even though MG1 may be consuming power). There is simply no other way that I am aware of slowing ICE rpm to put ICE at higher efficiency with the hybrid split transmission. I think many of us were hoping that Ford would lower the final drive ratio and that might allow an improvement in highway FE perhaps at the expense of a drop in performance. Comparison of Hybrid Transmissions.pdf

Correct CVT infinitely variable within hardware constraints (includes MG1 and MG2 rpm constraints and the final drive gearing. The best one could do (tallest overall gearing) is to put a holding torque on MG1 so that it does not spin when the engine is running. Then, all engine rpms would be directed to the output shaft. So, a numerically lower final drive ratio would yield lower engine rpm than a higher final drive ratio at the same vehicle speed. For highway cruising one wants to run ICE at the most efficient area of the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption map which is generally low rpm, high torque. It's like up-shifting a conventional transmission to a higher overdrive gear to lower engine rpm to improve FE. This should be achieved in Negative-Split Mode Operation (from the Ford OBD System Operation Summary for Plug-in and Hybrid Vehicles): Prior to a PCM update of the Hybrid to increase the EV top speed from 62 mph to 85 mph, it was quite easy to get into negative split mode by controlling the throttle and to stay in this mode for some time. With EV operations now up to 85 mph, it harder to get into the mode (keeping the battery charged near its upper limit) as any slight decrease in power requirements can trigger EV operation at higher speeds. The different final drive ratio for the hybrid and NRG supposedly was to improve performance of the NRG given it's extra weight (larger HVB) such that both vehicles would be very similar performance wise. My guess is the PCM algorithms for both the NRG and Hybrid are the same once the NRG enters Hybrid mode operation. So, by numerically increasing the NRG final drive over the Hybrid ratio, the NRGs low end performance would be improved somewhat.

This is what Ford said Look at 7H348A - the Auto Trans Transfer Drive Gear. The part number is the same for 2013 through 2015 MY. But there are two choices for MY 2013 and MY 2015 - one for the Hybrid 2.57 and one for the NRG 2.91. But for 2014, there are 4 choices: 2 for build dates before 8/3/2014 and 2 for build dates after 8/4/2014. However, the 2 choices before and after the build dates still show the same final drive ratios as MY 2013 for the Hybrid and NRG. So, based on the above either Ford didn't change the final drive ratios (and changed something else with the drive gear assembly around 8/4) or there are errors in the Ford Parts listings.

I probably got the same survey but for our C-Max as it appeared to be related to ones expectations on Monroney Label FE vs actual experienced and importance of FE in ones decision making. I also gave my contact info. There were also several questions on actual FE (hand calculated) vs displayed FE by the vehicle. It also contained questions on what one thought the EPA City, Hwy numbers meant and what I thought affects FE. It asked what ones FE is, how it was obtained, and whether it's what one expected. Bottom line, I told them I'm getting what I expected when I bought the car - around 41 mpg with around 60% highway above 65 mph.. I hope I'm contacted and am interested in seeing the results.

IMO, the question is why did it take about a year after the 1st FE change for the error in the dyno coefficients used for road load HP be discovered (2nd change). One would think that Ford would and should have been all over the EPA test procedure and discovered the dyno error when retesting for the 1st FE change. If EPA's investigation finds the error truly was "inadvertent, then perhaps no fine. But shouldn't there still be a fine as no fine indicates that it's okay to be lax in following EPA testing procedures (for vehicles, point sources and so forth) as long as it was inadvertent? IMO, no fine sets a "bad" precedence. EPA issues fines often for point sources albeit rather small. The fine for Hyundai per affected vehicle is rather small at $250 (300 million / 1.2 million). How many Ford cars are affected by their error? 60,000? That would be a fine of $15 million for Ford should EPA decide to fine Ford and use the Hyundai number as a basis (which makes sense to me). Also, just like other EPA compliance testing and monitoring, it's up to the owners of the business to monitor, test, and report EPA compliance data. So, I doubt we will see any change for vehicle emissions testing and FE data even though it may be a recipe for disaster to continue to let auto manufacturers do their own certification. Ford's reimbursement to owners for the two FE changes is likely around $35 million. But what about the emissions over and above the EPA certified amounts? Shouldn't there be a penalty for that? One more point as to why I believe Ford should be fined. The issue with Hyundai FE appears to be the similar to Ford's error in that the Road Load HP is too low and thus there will be less fuel used and less emissions certified. In fact EPA says the Hyundai affected vehicles will emit "4.75 million metric tons of greenhouse gases (GHG) in excess of what the automakers certified to the EPA." "The United States alleged that each Hyundai and Kia vehicle identified by the table below has a higher road load force than was described in the application for the COC for the vehicle. Accurate road load force is critical for obtaining accurate results in the vehicle emission testing that determines GHG emissions and fuel economy. Therefore, each production vehicle within the test groups identified by the table below does not conform in a material respect, namely road load force, to the vehicle specifications described in the corresponding COC application. " = http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/hyundai-and-kia-clean-air-act-settlement

Agree as apparently Voltage below 12 V is considered normal when the car is off. Below is an excerpt from the service manual. When the car is on, alarms (DTCs) aren't triggered until the voltage falls below 11.5 V and the converter will continue to supply power down to 8 V. But we still don't know the minimum voltage needed start the car. The answer might be the minimum voltage spec. for closing the relay that connects the HVB to the car. A quick search of HV, 12 V relays shows that the minimum operating voltage might be around 75% of rated voltage or 9 V. I also believe that what was experienced by the OP is a one-off event and not associated with the "dead battery" issue some have experienced multiple times where the car is off and then won't start because of low battery voltage. As I've said in two other threads, the OP needs to file a complaint with NHTSA to document his experience as it appears it may be a "safety" issue.

Sound familiar: "In the largest-ever penalty for a violation of the Clean Air Act, the Korean automakers Hyundai Motor and Kia Motors will pay the federal government a combined $300 million as part of a settlement for overstating vehicle fuel-economy standards on 1.2 million cars... For years Hyundai and Kia built their brands around the idea that their cars got better mileage than their competitors, a claim they promoted in ads that denigrated less efficient rivals.... But in 2012, Hyundai and Kia, which are both owned by the Hyundai Motor Group, acknowledged that they had overstated the fuel economy of vehicles sold in the United States over the previous two years. The admission came after an E.P.A. investigation into consumer complaints that their cars were underperforming the official mileage estimates on the window stickers of new cars. Hyundai and Kia apologized for what they called “procedural errors” in testing that resulted in incorrect mileage stickers on some of their most popular models, including the Hyundai Elantra and Kia Rio. On Monday, the companies continued to say that the misstatement of fuel mileage was inadvertent and that they did not intentionally mislead customers.... Hyundai .. reimbursed affected customers and fully cooperated with the E.P.A. throughout the course of its investigation... This is the first enforcement action we’ve seen on greenhouse gas regulations, and they came out of the gate with the largest settlement in the history of the Clean Air Act"- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/us/politics/us-fines-korean-automakers-for-misstating-mileage.html

After thinking about it, 1/2 V drop is way too high for a metering circuit on a 12 V system. I checked ETM voltage readings with DashCommand and the readings are identical for On and Start modes. The interesting thing is that when I shut the car off, DashCommand is still scanning and the voltage reading decreases gradually to 11.8 - 12.0 V (in about 5+ or so seconds of scanning). Thus, in the off mode, the voltage readings in DashCommand and via a voltmeter are the same. Yes, I wonder if increasing the battery capacity would affect the voltage readings. Remember the Service Manual says to replace the battery with one of the same size as it will affect "something" as the Battery Control Module monitors the 12 V battery.

I just checked and same here, ETM reads about 0.5 V lower than my voltmeter at the under hood battery posts - 12.5 V / 12.95 V and 14.0 V / 14.48 V. With the car "off" and hood and hatch open, I get the same reading at the under hood posts and at the battery - 11.8 V. A "good" 12 V lead acid battery should never read 11.8 V across the battery terminals. However, there is a metering circuit between the ground post of the battery and the chassis ground. So, my guess is that the voltage drop across the metering circuit in the battery to chassis ground circuit is at least 1/2 V or likely more when there is virtually no load on the battery with the car off. The DC/DC converter is not connected to the 12 V system. Now apparently with the car in ACC. / On Mode or start mode, the DC/DC converter is switched on and connected to the 12 V system. My guess is that in the ACC. /On mode (at least initially) the converter is supplying a sustaining charge maintaining 12 V system voltage. But in the start mode, the DC/DC is now acting as an alternator like on an ICE vehicle charging the 12 V battery and hence the higher voltage reading. Now, for why the difference in voltage readings between ETM and a voltmeter. What makes sense is that the ETM is measuring the battery voltage across the terminals of the battery as there is a voltage measurement circuit to the Battery Control Module. The voltmeter however is not measuring battery voltage but the voltage across the DC/DC converter which apparently needs to be about 1/2 V higher than the battery terminal voltage due to the voltage drop across the metering circuit of about 1/2 V for proper operation. So, it appears that 1) using ETM to monitor battery voltage won't work as the DC/DC converter will always be connected and 2) measuring battery voltage with a voltmeter with the car off does not indicate the battery terminal voltage. This is why owners have reported measuring low battery voltages (indicating virtually no charge in the battery) yet the car start. We can assume a 1/2 V difference with the car off but we don't know whether the voltage drop across the metering circuit is constant at battery voltage changes (especially as the battery is discharged). My guess is that it is not a constant. This makes sense to me. Any thoughts? One way to test this is to remove the cargo area cover and actually measure voltages across the battery terminals with the car off against ETM and posts under the hood.

Do you get the same voltages if you check in ETM? I've spot checked mine on rare occasion in ETM and the lowest IIRC that I've seen was 12.3 V. I would suggest that everyone use ETM to monitor voltages for consistency prior to start-up and then after start-up (DC/DC converter charging). Perhaps we should start a new thread on this. Here's my monitoring for the last two days.

The short answer is yes a tri-coat paint like platinum white is tough to match. Apparently, it's the first coat (ground coat), that needs to be perfectly matched. So, how does one do that when the ground coat is not exposed on the car to match. Trial and error on a "let-down" panel until one finds the right base coat such that the let-down panel with all three coats matches the car? I had a Maxima with tricoat that after two repairs, had three different shades of white on the car.

Quite frankly drdiesel1, you need to reread the SPW as your summary is not quite correct. The highlighted text above is not correct. Yes I agree, one needs to watch the wording. ;) First, the SPW covers all parts sold or provided at no cost to an owner. Second, a replaced part under the new car warranty can be warranted beyond the new car warranty period. A part replaced under warranty is covered by the greater of 1) the vehicles new car warranty or 2) 1 year, 12,000 miles whichever comes first. So, it's up to an owner to determine whether a part replaced as time and mileage increase has warranty should the replaced part fail. For example, a part replaced at no cost on a C-Max 10 months ago at 36 k miles under the b2b 3/36k warranty may be under the SPW warranty up to 48 k miles or another 2 months whichever comes first even though the b2b 3/36 likely expired shortly after the part was replaced due to mileage increase beyond 36 k miles.