plus 3 golfer

I agree, I would think that if the Monroney sticker on the vehicle was not the latest one, then one should get the rebate. I don't recall whether Ford put a sales hold on dealer inventory until the stickers on the inventory cars were updated or not.. Either way, Ford would have to wait for dealer input as to sold / inventory cars to know with certainty whether a vehicle had an old or new sticker on it. That may be why Ford said: "payment no later than September 30, 2014". I would think that cars shipped after the press release should have had the new Maroney sticker. I know it has taken over a month for an FSA to be removed from my ETIS after the dealer performed the FSA. Also, my Goodwill check should have cleared a month ago yet 14B03 still shows up on my ETIS. So, I can see that it could take time for Ford to determine the eligibility of certain inventory and sold vehicles around and shortly after the press release.date. Also, IIRC someone had an issue the first time Ford issued a Goodwill Payment in that they had an old Monroney Sticker on a car purchased after the press release but didn't get a payment until they contacted Ford. So, it wouldn't be a bad idea to contact Ford if one has an old Monroney Sticker and nothing on ETIS especially after 9/30/2014 passes.

Here's where 14B03 shows up. It usually takes some time before an FSA shows up and also some time before an FSA is removed after completion For example, I received my check at least one month ago.

See here. Tax credit phases out after 200,000 Ford EV and PHEV vehicles sold. Qualified Plug-In Electric Drive Motor Vehicle Credit (IRC 30D) Phase Out The qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle credit phases out for a manufacturer’s vehicles over the one-year period beginning with the second calendar quarter after the calendar quarter in which at least 200,000 qualifying vehicles manufactured by that manufacturer have been sold for use in the United States (determined on a cumulative basis for sales after December 31, 2009) (“phase-out period”). Qualifying vehicles manufactured by that manufacturer are eligible for 50 percent of the credit if acquired in the first two quarters of the phase-out period and 25 percent of the credit if acquired in the third or fourth quarter of the phase-out period. Vehicles manufactured by that manufacturer are not eligible for a credit if acquired after the phase-out period.

It really depends on how fast you drive. On a 4000+ mile RT from AZ to PA and back, my actual FE was a little over 39 mpg. My average speed was a little over 69 mph (moving time speed). I generally set the eco-cruise to 3-4 mph above the posted speed limit which meant about 78/79 mph on the interstates in AZ, NM, TX, and OK where the trip computers would show about 36-38 mpg depending on conditions. In addition, the vast majority of our local miles (around 70%) are on Phoenix area freeways at about 68-70 mph. Our overall actual FE in nearly 30 k miles is 41 mpg. Also, we use the AC about 7-8 months in a year which in the summer periods decreases FE by about 5-7% depending on conditions. If I stay off the freeways and take the side streets (which adds considerably more time), I can easily get around 50+ mpg on the trip computers and if I employ FE techniques I can get over 60 mpg (but adding even more time to the trips) instead of the high 30s in the summer and low 40s in the winter taking the freeways.

From one who has owned two VW diesels, the VW CR TDIs will get significantly better highway FE than the EPA estimate. What I found is that the higher FE of the TDIs offsets the higher price of diesel fuel such that highway fuel costs are virtually a wash at freeway speeds. My cross county trip in my C-Max averaged about 39+ mpg at an average moving time speed (4035 miles door to door round trip) of about 69+ mph. My TDI averaged about 43+ mpg for the same round trip. But overall I'm at 41 mpg in my C-Max and averaged 42 mpg overall in my TDI. So, the C-Max fuel costs are slightly less overall. The timing belt maintenance is 120 k miles not 100 k miles and finding diesel has never ever been a hassle for me since I purchased my first diesel in Dec.1976. Routine maintenance will be more on a TDI. The VW DSG transmissions appear to be holding up very well but do require service every 40 k miles. We still don't know what major failures might occur on the C-Max. I never had a turbo fail on a diesel. If I had a long (say over 15 k miles a year) highway commute with higher speed limits like 70+ mph (which likely means going 75-80 mph), I'd buy a TDI. Wnuk, ICE engines are not very efficient. I'd say about 35% for the newer direct gas injection engines. Toyota is testing a new Atkinson cycle engine that is claimed to be about 37% efficient. Atkinson cycle engines have poor lower range torque performance but are a good fit for hybrids which use the electric motor for starts where high torque is required. Also, remember when ICE runs, some of it's power is likely going to propel the car and some of the power is likely going to charge the HVB. So, trying to compute the FE of ICE is generally meaningless. There are times (negative split mode operation aka "high ICE" mode), when one can look at the FE gauge and get a fairly good idea of the FE being provided by ICE as the HVB is not being charged.

There are energy losses in charging the HVB. Your losses appear to be 0.93/3.43 = 27% or your charging efficiency = 73% which I believe is in the ballpark using 120 VAC charger. IIRC, using 220 VAC will get the charging efficiency up over 80% but at an additional cost of the 220 V charging station and installation. The energy cost of an PHEV or EV is significantly less than an ICE vehicle But, the overall benefits of a PHEV or EV are highly dependent on the cost premium of a PHEV or EV, electric rates, fuel prices, EV range, expected EV miles and so forth.

From the service manual:LowThe range selector LOW position provides:• engine braking.• improved traction on slippery roads. L does not increase regeneration. It engages ICE. Correct, There are no conventional gears to change in the transmission. Effectively, when in L, the PCM changes the speeds of the planetary gear set by altering the speed of MG1 and MG2 by using or producing energy which allows ICE to engage and spin and act as an engine brake if no throttle is applied or to provide power both at a lower effective drive ratio than normal. Engine braking when going down hill. I use it all the time when descending longer, steep hills in additional to grade assist. Grade assist provides additional regenerative braking and engine braking to maintain speed going down hill but L will add additional engine braking which typically reduces speed .

The reference is for the OP since she said her friend has a model with a key which is the SE. ;)

Good point. I just looked at my headliner. There is no question that the soft padded fabric covering which is apparently glued to and overhangs slightly the rigid headliner surface at the front is slightly turned down at the overhang (not unglued though) and looks a little dirty.. It's likely given the frequency of use of our sunshade, that it may start to fray at the edge in a few more years. So, we are going to start using the visor and not tuck it under the headliner. Thanks for the tip.

Yes, I agree on the confusion. I know the Ultimate is significantly more expensive but IMO is well worth it. IMO, I think the issues with sunscreens for the C-Max stems from the fact that the windshield is huge compared with most cars. For example IIRC, the C-Max windshield is over 2000 sq.in. (car not home now to validate) and my Nissan Rogue is about 1500 sq. in. So, a C-Max sunscreen would be about 33% larger than a sunscreen for my Nissan (we have a custom roll-up one for it). This size difference alone would make a C-Max sunscreen more difficult to handle than a smaller one. I've got to believe (from experience with roll-up screens) that a roll-up for the C-Max would be more difficult and probably more time consuming to install and take down than the Ultimate. The time to put up and take down the Nissan sunscreen is slightly more than what it takes for the Ultimate on the C-Max.

I have to disagree totally if you are talking about the ultimate Intro-tech fold up sunscreen as I have used the ultimate for nearly 1 1/2 years. I just went out and timed putting it up and taking it down. It takes less than 15 seconds to reach in the back and put the sunscreen up and less than 10 seconds to take it down. Even doubling the time should one mix up the top and bottom and have to refold and reverse when putting up is a fraction of 2 minutes. RockwallRick, the ultimate does fit virtually all the windshield area except around the mirror. As far as ease of use, one has to "learn" the best technique for putting it up and taking down. I've found that laying it folded on the dash, unfolding, sliding it forward to base of windshield, lifting into place, and then snapping / securing behind the headliner is rather easy. Taking it down requires popping it out from under the headliner with right hand under the sunscreen in the middle holding it up, let it start to fold in the middle, and then complete the fold up on one side then the other (it naturally falls into place with virtually no effort). Once mastered, taking it down is simple and quicker than putting it up. IMO, storing is not much different than a roll-up one. Also, my wife uses it all the time as she drives the car more than I do. It's the best sunscreen we've ever owned as we've used roll up and the snap fold up sunscreens on other vehicles. We use it virtually every time we are out and about from 10 minutes to hours at a time.

Yes, the epoxy works great but get it done before any "dirt" gets in the fractures and like Jus says before it cracks more especially if you don't have full glass coverage as the C-Max OE windshield is expensive (when we had ours replaced there was no aftermarket windshields available for the C-Max). Road debris put a small chip with hairline cracks smaller than a dime in our windshield. The next day the windshield cracked to the edge while my wife was driving requiring replacement.

Typically what I've done on my other cars (like VWs) when changing transmission fluid / checking level with no dipstick is to do the service after the car has been off for a while and when the ambient temperature is above the specified check level temperature which in this case is 20C. Then, I add fluid to overfill slightly via the fill plug. So, if you believe that you lost up to 0.6 L, I'd add 3/4 L via the top fill plug. Then, run the engine for one minute. The transmission pump only runs when the engine is running. This will ensure that fluid has circulated through the cooler and it should be full. You do not have to drive the car. Then, turn off and wait 5 minutes. Remove the check level plug and excess fluid should drain out. If no fluid drains out, you'll have to add more fluid - that's why I like to add excess fluid and not have to repeat the process because I didn't add enough initially. If you don't want to use the top fill plug when filling, then a funnel like the one below makes sense for filling via the check plug (but also will likely make top filling easy). You can suspend the funnel above the check plug from the hood with a line to the check plug. Insert the end of the line in the fill plug and open the valve on the funnel allowing fluid to fill the transmission to the until fluid drains out. The problem is that you can't overfill. So, once you start the engine and run for one minute, you might have to repeat the process several times via the check plug to ensure the oil cooler is full.

Welcome Thomaz :) This is the spec. for the transmission fluid: WSS-M2C938-A MERCON® LV. So, it looks like the RAVENOL ATF F-LV Fluid is okay to use. Here's the drain and fill plug locations. The check plug location was shown in an earlier post in this thread. Also, see my post here on temperature and other instructions.

fotomoto, are you clear yet??? :) :) What a statement to make. I guess they could care less about manufacturers' specifications and engine warranty ("use whatever you want"). As I've said before Blackstone's comments are generally generic and meaningless. I guess I'm expecting too much from them.

This has been discussed before as the Ford 0W20 spec encompasses the 5W20 spec. Finally, on March 12, 2014 (see post 37) Ford issued this

^Agree^ - there appears to be significantly more SELs than SEs. Arizona Ford dealers (I think I got them all) have 86 C-Max Hybrids listed in inventory - 49 SELs and 37 SEs. Anytime I've checked there were more SELs in inventory than SEs.

Probably true, if the load is there all the time. But, apparently whatever triggers the event happens infrequently. One would likely have to put monitoring equipment on the circuits of buyback cars, put the car back into use under similar conditions that caused the dead batteries, and hope the problem reoccurs. Even, then it may very difficult to trace the problem to a sequence of events that caused a module to wake up, an intermittent path to ground, and so forth because the cause may no longer be active.

Actually the 2013 C-Max hybrid FE in fuelly hasn't improved over time. It's fallen. You need to filter the recent fuelly data for the C-Max as Energis are now included in the overall average. The 2013 C-Max hybrid peaked last summer at IIRC at over 40 mpg maybe around 41 mpg (I think I may have a snippet of it somewhere). The 2013s Hybrid appear to be under 40 mpg now. Here's a link where I downloaded the fuelly data in May 2014 and computed the standard deviation of the Hybrid at about 4 mpg (I excluded several low mileage C-Maxes that were not Hybrids but it hardly made a difference). I do agree that the characteristics (constraints) within the algorithms of the two cars have to differ based on physical characteristics of the vehicles and thus affect operations but the higher road load of the C-Max will limit the FE of the C-Max to a number significantly less than the Prius. But again there's nothing that I can find where the theory behind the algorithms differ. I would say the C-Max drivers have a better chance of reaching the 47 mpg in mostly city and suburban driving where year round ambient temperatures are mild. Higher speed driving of the C-Max will have a greater affect on FE as the RLHP increases rapidly compared to the Prius. Also, air density play a significant role in FE as ambient temperatures vary. That can't be overcome but for moving to a warm climate.

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. The Ford Warranty covers the hybrid components for 8 yrs / 100k (longer in CA). See below for Hybrid components covered. Major emission systems are covered for 8 /80k (see below). The rest of the Power Train is covered for 5/60. 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. I will likely reach 100k miles in less than 6 years and expect to pay considerably less than the Ford Plans. The bad - I've got to stay with GEICO and should the C-Max 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. So, I believe MBI is the way to go rather than the Ford Plans. But if you are risk averse, get the Ford Plan as it's a fixed price. I can make a case for forgoing an extended warranty as the expensive stuff is covered for quite a while.

To close the loop on why "the CMax hasn't achieved its original MPG ratings", I have plotted the Road Load HP based on the EPA coefficients from coast down data. The EPA data for the C-Max HEV has been updated in the EPA data base to reflect the latest revised C-Max HEV EPA FE numbers. This is the data that is used to set the coefficients for road load in the dynamometer testing to get the raw data in the EPA FE test cycles. The raw data is plugged into equations depending on the test cycles run to make further adjustments to better reflect typical driving conditions - hot conditions, cold conditions, start-ups. For example, the coast down data is done on a dry surface, not on snow, in rain and so forth and thus reflects ideal conditions. To answer the inevitable question as to but why do I get 47 mpg?. Because you are likely driving the car using a conservative / hypermiling approach, in a milder climate mitigating the need for much heat or AC, on dry pavement virtually all the time and so forth (I don't recall the last time I drove on wet roads). If the C-Max had RLHP like the original C-Max coefficients (red curve) which is basically the same as a Prius hatchback, ones actual 47 mpg would be significantly greater - probably in the range of 55 mpg under the same driving style and conditions. So, beating the original 47 mpg is a moot point. If's not the number to beat.

Here's a graph for demonstration purposes only. The graph is intended to represent general relationships not precise numbers of the C-Max, Prius, and Prius V. One can also look at the EPA dyno coefficients and should see similar relationships between the C-Max and Priis (there's another thread where I plotted the C-Max's incorrect 47 mpg coefficients vs the Prius V curve). I'll have to look to see if the new C-Max numbers are in the EPA data base. The graph shows the approximate Horse Power (HP) required to offset aerodynamic drag and the rolling resistance force at various speeds (MPH). If one takes a look at the relationships between the C-Max and the Prius, one sees that at 70 mph, the Prius requires about 18 HP. The C-Max requires 18 HP at about 63 mph to offset the drag forces. At 70 mph the C-Max requires about 23.5 HP. That is about a 30% increase in HP to go 7 mph faster and hence requires significantly more fuel. It's easy to see that the Prius will get significantly better FE at 70 mph than the C-Max assuming both are operating in virtually the same efficient area of the BSFC All energy comes from the fuel ICE burns. My point in showing the graph is to illustrate that the primary difference in FE of similar cars is the power required to over come road drag which difference can be significant. I have seen no evidence that the power train of the C-Max or the Prius is more efficient than the other. The same applies to the algorithms. Most driving tips and tricks can be used on virtually any car and generally decrease average speed and hence increase FE. But there is no magic. Road drag reduces the C-Max FE significantly over the Prius. There are three general ways to improve FE: 1) reduce the drag forces on the car - primarily reducing speed, weight, and the rolling resistance coefficient (tires and tire pressure); and improving its Cd (aero mods) and 2) finding ways to operate the power train more efficiently at a given speed and anticipated conditions keeping ICE near it's optimal point on the BSFC curve (this is where the tips and tricks come in including using engine block heaters) and 3) conserving / recapturing energy (reducing AC, heating, audio loads and so forth and regenerative braking). IMO, the PCM algorithms do a fine job of using ICE / EV appropriately given what I have observed and recorded. But the algorithm cannot anticipate conditions or perhaps anticipate incorectly. For example, some believe using EV+ increases FE while others believe it hurts FE. The answer may be it depends.

Just a couple of comments. The two biggest reasons C-Max drivers have a harder time achieving its original 47 mpg rating in the EPA tests are its weight and its coefficient of drag (along with a larger frontal area). These two factors (along with frontal area) add significantly more load that has to be overcome in a C-Max than a Prius or Prius V. The C-Max weighs 18.6% and 10.2% more than the Prius and Prius V, respectively and has a 20.0% and 3.4% higher coefficient of drag than the Prius and Prius V, respectively. It's difficult to find accurate (precise) frontal area numbers but it appears that the C-Max may have about a 14.1% and 6.2% larger frontal area than the Prius and Prius V respectively. My drag models show that if the C-Max had the Prius or Prius V specs for Cd , frontal area, and weight, I would have no problems increasing my 41 mpg to similar FE numbers of a Prius of Prius V and not change my driving style. Apply hypermiling driving techniques to a C-Max of lower weight and lower Cd and one should be able to achieve greater FE than the original EPA number. All cars take a hit on FE in cold weather and it is factored into the EPA FE calculations. The hit is more noticeable in higher FE cars than lower FE cars. But, obviously drive more in cold weather than what's factored into the EPA numbers then FE will suffer more. Drive in Phoenix in the winter and FE is affected very little by cold weather. Block / oil pan heaters can mitigate this FE hit. However, hypermiling is not for everyone - eg, driving at speed limit or less, coasting to stops, P&G and so forth. But, not hypermiling and not using block / pan heaters should not be used as a justification as to why drivers have a hard time achieving the original EPA numbers. Employing hypermiling techniques and using block heaters in any car will significantly increase FE. On running exclusively in negative split mode, one can get a lot higher FE than around 40 mpg in negative split mode. It also depends on one's speed (load requirements). I posted the graph below from recorded data some time ago showing about 47 mpg in eco-cruise at 55 mpg into a strong headwind in negative split mode. Had I not had a light change on me, I think I could have ran a lot longer in negative split. And that's the problem with negative split mode, it cannot be maintained for long periods as the road and other changes dictate changes in load requirements and the PCM algorithm will adjust power train operations. If load requirements are increasing, one can bump the speed down to try to stay in negative split mode but then one give up time for better FE. Same thing applies with P&G (which works for non-hybrid cars also). If load requirements are decreasing one can try and bump the speed up to stay in negative split. But usually, the PCM will switch to EV operation (the Empower threshold). I wouldn't quite characterize the Prius as the master of the negative split mode. It's simply easier for the Prius to stay in such mode as the Prius can only run up to about 47 mph off the HVB. So, ICE has to run above about 47 mph. I have not found any basis that the Prius algorithm is any better than the C-Max algorithm in efficient operation. Again, it's weight and Cd that allows the Prius to get better FE than the C-Max not the algorithm. per se. But, like you say in comparing ease of getting higher FE in the Prius vs the C-Max -- "It doesn't require much technique but there are tradeoffs. The tradeoffs are power on demand, styling, ride comfort and noise" - big issues for me and my family" and me too. I've said before, Ford needs to shave some weight from the C-Max and lower Cd - without sacrificing power, ride, comfort and noise (styling will probably have to change somewhat).

It's not about smearing Ford or praising vehicles. It's not about their right to post. It's about their mocking the original post- to attack or treat with ridicule - by using the word "SAD". So, what is the purpose of using "SAD" but for mockery. Sad refers to the fact that Ford hasn't fixed the problem yet. Nothing else. And it's well know that brand loyalty depends in part on the quality / dependability / reliability of the product. When one has issues with a product, one is less likely to buy that brand again. The fact that my TV sound great and has great picture quality but has been replaced twice under warranty likely means I won't buy that brand again. So what's wrong with being dismissive of a brand. Attack it with logic and facts not mockery and anecdotal evidence.

Just leave out the "SAD" comments and no issue. ;) IMO, using "SAD in the two posts I quoted is a mockery of the dead battery issue. Quoting the reference post about the battery problem: "It is sad about the continuing problem with Ford Hybrids." Attacking the dismissive comment about not buying any more Ford products because of having a the dead battery problem is fine. Personally, I will not buy nor would I recommend buying a C-Max SE (used or new) until there is strong evidence that whatever is causing the issue has been fixed. We really don't know the extent of the problem. But, IMO, it is likely far greater than we think. I heard the same chatter on TDIClub about the 2009 MY TDI with respect to high pressure fuel pump failures. "The vast majority of owners don't have the problem, the car gets great FE, fun to drive, I talked to my dealer and he hasn't fixed any failures and so forth so drive more, worry less." About 220 failures were registered on TDIClub out on nearly 40,000 vehicles sold or 0.55% after 4 years of ownership. But, fortunately, VW had to submit data to NHTSA on such failures for a safety investigation. I analyzed the various spreadsheets and found that after 4 years, MY2009 had 4.45% failures not the 0.55% registered on TDIclub. The MY2009 failures continue.to increase and likely are now at 6% or higher. What was very obvious after analyzing the data was the dealers that claimed no failures had many failures, the data showed no failures for the first year yet we knew of failures, known failures that should have been in the data weren't listed. Suffice it to say IMO 4.45% is conservative. So, I give little credence to the anecdotal arguments that the battery issue affects a very small number of vehicles based on what is reported here.