plus 3 golfer

I agree. IMO, BEV have there place but for the time being PEV and FCV make more sense on a longer time horizon because of the range / charging issues of a BEV. We could live with one smaller BEV but not two as we need another vehicle for trips, I certainly don't want to stop every few hundred miles to waste time for an 80% charge to complete and driver slower to extend range as such additional time could easily add an additional overnight stay and such expenses on longer trips. But IMO, it will take considerably more time before a FCV will be able to compete with PEVs and also be available to the majority of consumers. So, the question is what market segment is the FCV to compete with? Manufacturers seem to be shying away form BEVs. Are there studies on this? Is CA wasting consumer $ on FCV infrastructure? If seems that PEV with a larger battery may be better than an FCV. Also, wouldn't it make more sense to build FC generating stations as the electrical infrastructure is in place. Utilities are planning to shut down many older coal fired plant which will result in cleaner air.

...

Exactly what I've been saying since I joined in Dec. 2012 when the FE fiasco started. Unfortunately, as I've stated many times although in other words - make a mistake (like error in judgement about using Fusion Hybrid test data for the C-Max Hybrid EPA numbers) and you might be penalized for it for a long time even after it is corrected. We've seen the IQS improve significantly from 2013 MY to 2014 MY for the C-Max. I hope we see the CR reliability surveys improve for MY 2013 as I believe many of the problems centered around navigation and MFT which have been corrected but it likely will take another year or two for the improved reliability data to show up in the surveys. There may not be enough MY 2014 data for CR to get meaningful results as it's introduction was in early 2014 and I believe the CR surveys may have ended already.

My degrees (BSEE MBA) and training including graduate level courses in applying statistics to real data like - designing components, systems to meet reliability targets using real failure data at certain confidence levels - are not relevant. What is relevant is that I will call into question / critique posts that I highly doubt are correct and can't be backed up with hard evidence. In order to make a worthy point without hard evidence, one needs to gather circumstantial facts and make a sound argument defending their position / statement. The internet is full of statements that posters "state as true, that they hope are or want to be true" likely because they don't like the results of something. I'm not talking about posters' opinions like whose going to be the next President of the US but about discrediting results. Also, potential issues with conducting surveys are well known. But stating such potential issues doesn't mean that a specific survey is faulty and is a poor basis for an argument to make a point. I'm not an expert in statistical mathematics but I do know a little about using results of statistical analysis for reporting and management of risks. The last 5 years of my career was heading up our risk management group with several employees working for me with PhDs in Physics applying statistical analysis to our portfolio of market assets. The CAO and I drafted much of the sections (referenced below in Ford's 10K) for our annual 10K. I'm sure Ford uses more survey data than we can imagine in assessing / managing risks. Take the Infineum World fuel surveys as an example as I know Ford reported using these surveys to NHTSA with respect to their diesel vehicles. Note the small sample sizes in various countries. Here's the link to Ford's 2013 10K which is primarily a discussion of results and risks facing Ford. Statistical analysis (including market based surveys, projections and so forth) plays a key role in assessing / managing risk and the success of a company. See ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS (page 10) - "We have listed below (not necessarily in order of importance or probability of occurrence) the most significant risk factors applicable to Ford and Ford Credit:..." and ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK (page 43) - "We are exposed to a variety of risks in the normal course of our business. Our financial condition depends on the extent to which we effectively identify, assess, monitor, and manage these risks." I'm done with this survey subject. :) :)

We'll likely never see model data unless we pay for it or if such a model stands out from the data (the C-Max) and such is released for its "dramatic" effect which one can argue should not be done without fully explaining the driving data behind the results. The IQS data is IIRC in the first 90 or so days of ownership. The complaint data is IIRC last 3 years only. It can be a problem comparing model data if a model is not at least 3 years old. Statistics are not precise for obvious reasons and there are many statistical tests that can be performed on the data that give additional insight into the data which we don't see. But the top level statistics do serve a purpose. I always say statistics are only a tool to be used in decision making. The internet provides easy access to an abundant resource on cars and most other products. Surveys are likely the only way the consumer is going to find out about the extent to which products have issues. Manufacturers aren't going to provide the data freely. I also believe such survey results push the manufacturers to improve their products. But Eve, did mom know how her kids compared to all kids. That's the reason to randomly sample all kids and compare groups of kids to the averages. Data and statistics can be manipulated and presented to appear more / less favorable. But when several different reputable sources reach similar conclusions, one should accept the sources as reliable, the data being correctly gathered / interpreted, that changes are explained within the context of margin of error / confidence level and so forth. There are simply too many groups doing independent surveys / statistical analysis of data for one to publish out-of-context results and not get hammered by others (and sued by manufacturers and so forth). Even in political polls, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN and so forth seem to always show similar results. Some may hold off making a call longer than others though. Statistics should be used to make better judgments / decisions and reasonable / fair arguments. IMO, to pooh-pooh statistics out of hand likely shows a biased agenda because one doesn't like the results.

That seems low by several $1000 (maybe as much as $3000) Is there not a market for C-Maxes in central PA? What about buying over the internet at a Ford / Chevy dealer in the Harrisburg or Philly area. They should be able to give a trade-in price provided it's still in excellent condition (no issues / accidents and so forth).

Okay, I see your point but the survey questionnaires (at least the ones I've seen and filled out) should be structured / designed to mitigate bias. So, without hard evidence, making generalized statements to blindly discredit is "meaningless".:) If one has problems with a brand, they are less likely to buy that brand again. So, a manufacture likely does not want to be in the bottom quartile. So, I guess the JDPowers 2013 IQS survey is meaningless then because it's virtually impossible to completely eliminate bias. But wait, does that mean the 2014 IQS service is meaningless also. Did the C-max really not improve in 2014 or wasn't it really that bad in 2013. No the answer is Ford fixed many of the initial problems and we expected the 2014 C-Max to improve signicantly in IQ and it did. As I've said before, one should do due diligence and weigh all their findings in their purchase decision including price. To some apparently though surveys are meaningless when they don't provide favorable results or the results they've experienced with their vehicle. I like my C-Max and have not had any significant issues as some have had but the 2014 still appears to be about average with respect to initial quality. It is not bad to be average when one spends less than $30k for a car that beats it's completion in so many ways. If I paid $40k+ for a similar vehicle, I'd expect it to be above average in IQ.

It appears that the complaint data is for the manufacturer not specific models. Thus, I'd assume that the sample size is relatively large for each manufacturer. Therefore, for a 95% confidence level my guess is that the margin of error is a lot less than 5%. A few thousand samples from each manufacturer will get the margin of error to less than 2%. It only takes a several hundred samples to reach a margin of error of 5%.

I understand that it was a solid oxide fuel cell. But 100 k miles proven? Then, what after 100k miles? Please provide the study results, so we can make our own assessments. FCs always "sounds" like a great idea until one has all the facts. ;)

The concept has been around for a long while. $499 is a steep lease price for a Tucson with limited range, poor performance, and virtually no infrastructure. I wonder what the residual value is. Also, my guess is that the fuel costs of an FCV might be as or more expensive than the gasoline version of the vehicle. So, it will likely be a long while before an FCV gains favor of the consumer. I wonder who foots the flatbed charges when one breaks down runs out of fuel 130+ miles from the dealer. :) Right now its a novelty / discussion item. Give it another 15 years or so and maybe an FCV will be at least where the PEVs and HEVs are now - under 4 million total sales since 1999 which is a small % of total US auto sales - see attachment. EVTC-RR-01-14.pdf

From what I recall from the mid 1990s, the issues with fuel cells centered around dissipation of heat and durability of materials. I visted the Westinghouse Pittsburgh R&D facility many times for presentations and updates on their FC power test systems. Every time it was 2-3 years before they would have the commercial system ready. That was nearly 20 years ago. I'm not sure whether circle W ever commercialized fuel cell power systems. So, I really doubt this is just around the corner for the auto industry. I would also guess that durability of a FC system in a moving vehicle could present problems. IMO, it will take heavy subsidies before such a vehicle will be able to compete with HEVs and PHEVs. Also, what about the infrastructure to support a FCV.

Nope, I never said it was pointless But, most likely don't understand what the voltage reading "really indicates" and are simply giving a quick test to see if the battery may be the cause of a no start due to a low voltage reading (SOC). Most aren't going to have the proper test equipment to test a battery fully like a shop will have. So, using a multimeter to measure voltage (including when the car is being charged), driving the car for some distance to charge the battery back up (or buying a "home" charger), and then testing with a hydrometer will give one a very good idea whether the battery cells can hold the charge. The problem is that SOC indicated by voltage measurement doesn't tell you whether the battery is "good" and can provide enough current / voltage when load is applied. But, if your battery is "good", the voltage method is a good indication of the SOC and since the battery is "good" but has a low indicated SOC, the battery can be recharged. Now, if your battery is "bad" (one cell limits current in the series of cells), a voltage reading (with minimal load on the battery) will likely indicate typical voltage. But when the "bad" battery is placed under load, the battery current will be limited to the current of the "weakest" cell and voltage could then drop below a starting threshold. So, if one wants to know the health of the battery one should check each cell for its specific gravity to see if any cell readings are abnormal. If one has a low voltage reading indicating a low SOC, they should charge the battery and then check each cell with a hydrometer to make sure the cells are okay. Better yet, one can take the car to a shop that has the proper equipment to test the battery to see if the battery is "good" or "bad".

I have not seen anything that indicates that the C-Max adapts to driving style. The only thing that I know that is adaptive is the fuel trim. So, over time the long term and short term fuel trim should be optimized. ICE should not run too rich or to lean but just right. If there is a PCM reset, the fuel trims would be reset to default values which may affect FE. There are other sensor input values that are monitored for variance and may be modified by an exponentially weighted moving average. Again if there is a reset, these values (especially long term values) could affect performance until the PCM relearns the variances.

If one wants to know SOC of the 12 V battery, I suggest buying a hydrometer and measuring the specific gravity of each cell as an indication of SOC of each cell. In normal driving there really isn't much benefit in charging a battery externally. But, if one makes many short trips it is good practice to charge the battery periodically externally or to drive the vehicle on a longer trip say 30+ minutes every week or so to charge the battery back to near 100% SOC.. This is assuming that the battery is not "dead" (very low SOC). Our other vehicle is used for very short trips (one mile to the golf course, one mile to the fitness center, 2 1/2 miles to supermarket) as we use the C-Max for our normal 12+ mile trips. So after 3-4 weeks of such short trips (maybe 100+ starts), it's very noticeable that the engine cranks slower on start up. So, I make a significantly longer trip or put the charger on the battery periodically. So, the issue with the C-Max (especially on shorter trips) really isn't much different than my other car except one really can't determine when the 12 V C-Max battery is losing and not replenishing charge (like slower cranking on my other vehicle). The C-Max starts or doesn't start (no cranking). Add to this a possible parasitic load and significantly lower 12 V battery capacity of the C-max and one can see why the C-Max might not start because of a low SOC 12 V battery. IIRC, one of the "fixes" for the 12 V battery issue was to increase the charging voltage of the DC/DC converter slightly thereby increasing the charging current. Having said the above, this does not get Ford off the hook. Ford could monitor SOC of the 12 volt battery by coulomb counting and voltage readings as a way to estimate SOC of the 12 V battery and keep the DC/DC converter active to charge the 12 V battery after the car is off for a period of time and also alarm for abnormal conditions. Of course since this battery issue apparently affects a small portion of its C-Max fleet, Ford likely won't implement such.

Logically, one would think that the EV+ algorithm would get the GPS coordinates and compute the distance to EV+ locations when the car is started and periodically thereafter. On start up EV+ does not come on if one is already inside the EV+ turn on range of an EV+ location. Then, as Jus experiences once outside the range of an EV+ location, GPS turns on when he enters the EV+ range of the golf course, then turns off when he's briefly goes back outside the range, and then back on when he renters the EV+ range of the golf course. So, the algorithm "knows" when you enter or exit an EV+ range. All it needs to do is to compare your current location with your EV+ locations. If you are inside EV+ range on start up, no EV+. If your are outside the EV+ range, EV+ will turn on when you enter an EV+ range.

ICE charges the HVB not the 12 V battery. There is a DC/DC converter that supplies power from the HVB to the 12 V system. There is no alternator on ICE. My understanding is that when charging the Energi, the 12 V system is active and used to power necessary control modules needed when charging the HVB and thus the DC/DC converter is active.which should keep the 12 V battery charged.

l mentioned this in another thread. JDPowers 2014 IQS showed the C-Max to be the most improved vehicle with respect to initial quality improving 110 problems / 100 vehicles. That still leaves about 112 problems / 100 vehicles which is slightly better than the industry average of 116 problems per 100 vehicles for a new car. My guess is most of the improvements were with navigation and MFT issues over the 2013 MY.

I assume most know that the C-Max platform is about 11 years old and the US C-Max is the 2nd generation C-Max platform which was first built in Europe in 2010. In 2018 the C-Max platform will be about 15 years old. It's likely time for a change and a redesign to build a platform around hybrid equipment. I also hope Ford keeps virtually all the attributes mentioned above. But my guess is Ford will shrink some of the dimensions to reduce frontal area and redesign the body to be more aerodynamic - lower Cd. Ford also needs to reduce the weight which obviously would be hard to do with an existing platform. If Ford can find get more cargo area by relocating the HVB and so forth, I could live with a couple inches less headroom and less vehicle weight to reduce drag and improve FE. But I can't live with a Focus sized C-Max vehicle.

Singoffpitch, I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of breaking down your nearly 1200 word paragraph into several paragraphs for easier reading and commenting on. My comments are in red above. It's too bad that your car is so problematic. I'd probably keep it until your extended warranty runs out.

Probably not unless you have access to public charging stations and can spend the time necessary to allow a full charge. There is only one HVB (not two like Wnuk believes). It's my understanding that when the EV allocated portion of the HVB is depleted, the NRG operates in "hybrid mode". So,in normal driving, the PCM algorithm would operate the system like a C-Max Hybrid. There would likely be little opportunity to increase energy storage much beyond the normal limits of hybrid operation. One exception would be If you had significant elevation change for many miles, there would likely be excess energy that could be captured and stored in the NRG that would otherwise go to waste in the Hybrid once the HVB in the Hybrid was full. I'm not aware of any way to run ICE in the NRG solely to charge the HVB. Even if there was a way, it would be significantly less efficient to charge the NRG with ICE vs kWh from the local utility.

I posted this before in another thread.. The Ford Warranty covers the hybrid components for 8 yrs / 100 k miles (longer in CA). See below for Hybrid components covered. Major emission systems are covered for 8 /80 k miles (see below). The rest of the Power Train is covered for 5/60. So, if one is buying an extended warranty because of the new hybrid technology, it's already covered for 100 k miles. I chose the Mechanical Breakdown Insurance offered by GEICO with a $250 deductible. It covers everything for a 100k miles except the exclusions below. My costs were so far: 1st yr premium = $27.76; 2nd year premium = $27.64. I will likely reach 100k miles in less than 6 years and expect to pay considerably less than the Ford Plans. So given what's covered by Ford, I don't expect the Geico rate to change much in year 3 and only increase slightly as the 3/36 B2B expires. I would expect an increase again at about year 5 when the power train warranty expires and maybe slightly again after the emission warranty expires. The bad - I've got to stay with GEICO and should the C-Max fleet experience significant out of warranty repairs at significant costs to GEICO, GEICO will increase the rate. But, the major component that I worry about are the hybrid eCVT, the HVB, and the hybrid electronics which are covered by Ford for 100k miles. Quote

My point though is it's the drag forces acting on the C-Max that lowered it's FE from 47 mpg to 40 mpg EPA combined rating. The energy to overcome these forces comes from the fuel . There are no tips, tricks, algorithms that can overcome these forces. Ford made it clear from the beginning that it designed the C-Max to drive and feel like a normal car (would have to look up there exact wording). Toyota apparently designed the Prius for FE (low Cd, weight and likely constraints on operations). Change the Cd and add weight to the Prius and the Prius EPA rating would fall. If fact Toyota did that with the Prius V for a 42 mpg overall rating compared to the Prius hatchback rating of 50 mpg overall; Add more weight to the Prius V and increase Cd slightly so that the Prius V and C-Max have identical drag forces and the Prius V FE would likely drop to the same as the C-Max 40 mpg overall rating. By looking at the curves above on RLHP, it's easy to see why the FE dropped. The effect of external influences like temperature will have virtually the same affect on the Priis and the C-Max. Here's a paper on the hybrid power split transmission with 5 modes of operation - the names may be different but the functions appear to be the same for the C-Max and Prius. Comparison of Hybrid Transmissions.pdf

Great find. Technically, the video is simulating the efficiency gains of an Atkinson cycle engine by effectively shortening the intake stroke by leaving the intake valve open for part of the compression stroke. Here's a video of a true Atkinson cycle engine. It uses a conventional Otto cycle engine and "the clever arrangement of levers ... to cycle the piston through all four strokes in only one revolution of the main crankshaft, and allows the strokes to be different lengths..The Atkinson cycle in the Lexus video (like the Otto engine) takes two revolutions of the crankshaft to complete the cycle.

Current X-Plan pricing would be $24,289 (including the $2500 incentives and $825 delivery) + up to $100 dealer documentation fee + tax/tags. X-Plan is currently $1206 off MSRP for a base SEL. You should be able to get at least $1206 off MSRP. Here is the calculation for X-Plan: X-Plan Price = Dealer Invoice - (0.4% * Dealer Invoice) + Administration Fee ($275)

So 12 days after you started this thread you start another one on the same subject?????????