plus 3 golfer

Interesting because when I saw the $11k offer, there was no obvious mention on the Ford website when you build the car that it applied to leasing. I recall doing a quick internet search and others also assumed it was a purchase discount. When I called the local Ford dealer, I specifically asked the salesman about the tax credit and he never mentioned that the $11k offer was a leasing offer and indicated that the tax credit was in addition to the $11k. Anyways, since the dealer said a few days later they couldn't get a Focus EV, I didn't pursue it any further. I just looked again on Ford's website and built the car. The build clearly shows the $11k incentive (no mention of lease) taken off the MSRP and when you click on the available incentives balloon in the build, the reference was program "RCL Available Cash: program 50256". Googling 50256 does show it's their "Red Carpet Lease" program. I hate to say this but when is Ford going to stop with misleading the consumer and bring transparency to their business. I guess the consumer is suppose to know RLC = Red Carpet Lease. ;) So for purchase, it's $13,500 (cash and the tax credit benefit) off the MSRP which is okay but I probably wouldn't have purchased one at that price. Also, I don't think the Ford Electric is part of the "X Plan" program.

If you can use an EV, Ford has $11k cash off MY2014 Focus Electrics in dealer stock. With the Federal tax credit of $7500, that puts the cost generally less than $20k. AZ has no Focus Electrics in stock. Most MY2014s were sold when Ford offered $6k cash several months ago. I guess Ford is clearing them out for the 2015s which may be in production now. The C-Max is a better driving experience for me. Sitting higher is better - easier entry and better sight lines in C-Max. C-Max is quieter - sound level @ 70 mph is 64.1 db for C-Max vs 66.5 db for the Focus per Edmunds. C-Max should get better overall fuel economy - see if you can test both for a few days and drive both over the same mixed routes and check the average mpg you get from the displays.

Here's the press release http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/2014-us-initial-quality-study-iqs Ford improved in 2014 to the industry average of 116 problems per 100 vehicles from 131 pp100 in 2013 with an industry average of 113 pp100.. Looks like Ford's ranking in the 2014 JD Powers Dependability study is still one notch below average. Ford is now at 140 pp100 compared to the industry average of 133 pp100. In 2013 Ford had 127 pp100 compared to the industry average of 126 pp100. http://autos.jdpower.com/ratings/2014-Vehicle-Dependability-Study-Press-Release.htm

I agree. But as I said before in the revised testing Ford chose to run the 2 EPA cycles (ambient in the 70s) on the C-Max. Ford could have chose to run all 5 EPA cycles which includes the UDDS Cold Start Cycle (same as City Cycle except the ambient temperature is at 20F). But Ford didn't. Why? Likely because it would have lowered the EPA numbers even more. A vehicle like the C-Max is likely to have a wide range of reasonable FE numbers depending on geographic location and how it's driven - just like the VW ad I posted in another thread from the 1960s. It's 54 years later and some things never change. :)

I agree. I also have said that if Ford could have got better FE numbers by running all 5 EPA FE cycles they would have rather than rely on the standard factors used to lower the raw FE number to account for ambient temperature, AC and other factors accounted for by the 3 additional cycles. Paul, note the benefit in the FE in the UDDS cold start cycle at 72F vs 20F. Like you've said oil / block heaters will help significantly by eliminating / reducing the warm up time. I also had my climate screen displayed today with ambient around 100F and full sun (probably around 800 W/m^2 given we are approaching the summer solstice). The climate usage varied between about 600 W to 900 W after the initial cool downs - average of about one HP whether stopped or going 70 mph. So, travel times for the same distance will affect the amount of fuel used for AC. Thus, for slower speed driving is can result in a significant hit to FE. Whereas, if one is cruising the interstate at 75 mph, the FE hit of using AC will be a lot less.

That was true until 2008 when the EPA changed the way FE was calculated a second time. Most changes resulted in vehicles dropping 10%+ in FE in 2008. Also, I believe the EPA 2 cycle tests were originally developed in the 1970s and IIRC the first change in FE calculations were in the 1980's to better represent current conditions (a lowering of which I don't recall the approx. %). The point being the EPA has changed procedures in the past when the FE numbers were out of whack. It may be time for another change but don't expect the methodology to be based on anything other than an "average" driver anytime soon. I've posted this VW 1960 ad shown below before. I think it accurately represents the range one might expect from an old Beetle. So, if one wants to get 50 mpg in their C-Max, follow the advise of VW in the ad. Time doesn't change what one has to do to get great FE or poor FE. It's not about driving it "like a Hybrid" it's about driving it like one would any car to get good FE. The Hybrid has some unique features, displays, coaches and so forth that can help but it boils down to the driver. Perhaps if gas rose to a very high price (for example, $10 a gallon) and stayed there for many years, drivers would change their driving style and the EPA would likely change it's methodology to reflect the "new" average driver. Also, note that VW says to expect 40k miles out of the tires. I can say I was lucky to get 20k out of a set of late 1960 tires. I never got 40k miles out of tires until I bought a set of Michelin Radials about 1972/3.

C-MaxSea, all cars benefit in caring/careful driving. One simply notices the variables that affect FE more in the C-Max because the variable that affect FE like speed, temperature, use of AC require similar amounts of additional fuel for similar cars but such required amount of fuel is a greater % of the fuel used in the C-Max than most non-hybrid cars that get significantly lower FE and thus it affects the FE on a % basis more for the C-Max than a non-hybrid car. But that doesn't mean that the extra fuel is not being accounted for correctly in the EPA tests. Ford chose to run the two cycle tests. The complete five cycle test would better account for variations in speed, temperature, and use of AC. If Ford believed they could squeeze out a better rating using the 5 cycle tests, it would make sense to do it. But they didn't. I do agree that their should be more EPA ratings for each vehicle because of the discussion above but that might confuse the general public. FE of vehicles is increasing and small changes in fuel used have a big % impact on FE. Other than cost considerations for the manufacturer, running tests for 20F, 72F and 95F seems reasonable. Then, the 47/47/47 may be a good rating at 72F and the 20F rating might be 35/35/35. Here's a graph of C-Max test data from Argonne dated Oct. 2013. So maybe a range for the average driver say 35-47 mpg might be a better alternative and then list the factors that contribute to increasing / decreasing FE (probably just as confusing). I seriously doubt we will see anything like this soon though. The process to make such changes would likely take years to complete.

The hardware is similar just different size. I agree that the C-Max can run at higher speeds in EV and has a larger battery but I haven't seen any evidence that this makes the C-Max significantly more efficient than the Prius. At higher speeds ICE is running at higher rpm and likely an efficient point on the BSFC (the High ICE mode). So, I don't see that increasing rpm to store more energy for future use has significant efficiency benefits at higher speeds. Yes, one can likely always find specific instances where efficiency might improve significantly (like hypermiling using hills) where the extra battery capacity and the ability to run more in EV helps. But that's the exception rather than the norm.. At lower speeds, both should be about the same in efficiency. The target coefficients must be matched to dynamometer coast down data. So, the dyno software determines the vehicles losses such that the dyno set coefficients are equal to the target coefficients (from coast down data) minus vehicle loss coefficients. The set coefficients are also reported in the EPA test data. The set coefficients for the C-Max are: -2.54 0.2511 0.01829 and for the Prius V are: 14.533 -0.17206 0.023768 13.56 -0.23424 0.024158 So, using the target coefficients at 50 mph yields: Prius V = 8.7 and 8.3 HP and the C-Max = 7.4 HP. This is significantly below the curves using target coefficients and likely incorrect for the C-Max. We need to see what the data looks like once EPA posts the new coefficients.

So, can I Jonn. :) Like I said many times I can get 60+ mpg anytime I want to by staying off the freeways, turning off AC, and using hypermiling techniques and I use up to E10 every fillup. Just because I can "beat the EPA" numbers doesn't mean the EPA numbers are wrong. The EPA numbers were wrong at 47/47/47 and at 45/40/43 because the numbers were based off bad input data to the dynamometers. In brief, Ford used the UDDS (City Driving Cycle) and the HWFET (HighWay Driving Cycle) in determining EPA FE. The two test schedules are followed by a driver on a dynamometer. The dynamometer is set to simulate road load by entering road load coefficients derived from coast down measurements of the vehicle. A driver then follows the schedule to the best of his ability. For the original C-Max HEV FE of 47/47/47, the adjusted raw results of the City and Highway driving cycle were 65.3mpg and 65.6 mpg respectively based on the Fusion HEV (loophole in the procedures allowed Ford to use the Fusion data). Upon retest with the C-Max road load coefficients, the City and Highway adjusted raw data dropped to 61.8 mpg and 57.5 mpg respectively which yielded the Aug. 2013 FE of 45/40/43 mpg. Now Ford says the coefficients for the previous test are in error (we don't know the new values yet) and when Ford retested with the proper coefficients got even lower raw data values which resulted in new EPA ratings of 43/37/40 mpg. So, if one drives the test cycles one should get very high FE numbers (I do if I choose to drive that way). But that's not the whole story with the EPA numbers. The raw City and Highway data is then put into formula to adjust the raw numbers downward to account for real world conditions including cold starts, ac, colder and hotter ambient temperatures, road variation (IIRC), higher speeds (IIRC) and likely other factors. The results rounded to the nearest integer are the reported City and Highway FE numbers. This is representative of what an average driver might see. fuellyeconomy.gov and fuelly (prior to their rework) support the new C-Max numbers. If one doesn't use ac, drives in temperate climates, doesn't have a lot of stop and go and so forth, such driver will likely beat the EPA numbers. On the contrary, there are drivers who drive a lot in the winter, accelerate briskly, speed, and so forth. Those drivers will likely get worse FE than the EPA numbers. EPA in several years ago in addition to the City (UDDS@72F) and the Highway (HWFET@72F) adopted 3 additional FE tests to be used better gauge higher speed, more aggressive driving (US06@72F), hot temperature, AC use (SC03@95F), and Cold Temperatures City (UDDS@20F). Because manufacturers complained about the costs of these additional tests, the EPA extended the time frame to implement all 5 cycle testing (have to look up for how long). So, Ford chose to run the the two older cycles and used the "standard" adjustments to downward adjust the raw data to account for real word driving.

John, you need to understand why the C-Max rating of 47 mpg is not correct and why the Aug. 2013 EPA rating of 43 combined is wrong. You also need to find out how the EPA numbers are actually calculated. ;) It has nothing to do with people not driving like the drive cycles. It not about what FE you get. It's about how Ford misled the public twice about what real world FE might be - which is the fundamental principle of the EPA FE rules and regulations. Some drivers will get more than the EPA numbers some will get less. fueleconomy.gov shows the 2013 C-Max Hybrid average at 39.3 mpg - which is good. :) Interestingly, it looks like fuelly has now combined all C-Maxs (gas, diesel, Hybrid, NRG into one.

I don't think the efficiency of the drivetrain of the C-Max vs Prius would be very different - both use atkinson cycle engines and a similar drive systems. Both teams of engineers should be optimizing software for their powertrain components and so forth. But, the coefficients above are based on roll down / coast down data with the engine not running. Remember we are talking about one significant component in the EPA FE tests - the target coefficients that are used in setting up the dynamometer used in the various EPA drive cycles - not what one can achieve with mods, driving style, and so forth. Reduce rolling road drag / road HP and FE should increase. Tires are likely set to manufacturer's specs for the tests. Marc Smith, I wonder if the two sets of EPA target coefficients aren't for different option package on the Prius V (like wheels and maybe other items that affect FE).

As I've posted in another thread I've done coast down tests on the C-Max over the past year and have been looking at the EPA test data during that time including the Road Load HP (RLHP) coefficients. The EPA target RLHP coefficients (based on coast down data) didn't make sense when comparing the C-Max with other cars. Below is a graph of the RLHP to reach the speeds shown based on EPA coefficients. As you can see, originally the C-Max used the Fusion data to get the 47 mpg - the red curve. In August 2013, Ford revised the data as shown in the blue curve. Note that the revised data yields a significant increase in RLHP and thus will result in a drop in FE. The drop was to 43 mpg or 4 mpg. I also plotted the curve for the Prius V for comparison. There were six Vs shown in the EPA data - three using the first set of coefficients and three using the second set of coefficients. I don't know why the need for the two sets of data. But the curves are very close as seen on the graph. Note that the C-Max Rev. curve and the two Prius V curves are very close to being the same and hence the FE of the Prius V and C-Max revised ratings were very close to each other - 44/40/42 vs 45/40/43. Now, Ford discovers an error in the coefficients that lowers the C-Max EPA rating to 42/37/40. So, when we see the new coefficients, one can expect a new curve likely as high above the revised C-Max rating as the revised rating was above the old 47/47/47. IMO, these EPA coefficients and the resulting FE numbers when compared among vehicles should have triggered Ford engineers working to dig into this difference. I have said this for over a year, how can a heavier, less aerodynamic car, with more frontal area achieve 47 mpg or even 43 mpg in the EPA tests and other hybrids that are lighter, more aerodynamic, and with a smaller frontal area can't. This is physics not magic.

Larry, welcome. As you have probably read many members have had the "dead battery" issue. It's hard to believe 3 batteries were defective. So, there's a problem Ford can't find and now they presume a grounding issue. Sounds to me like a runaround for not doing the buyback. Why did they say no to the lemon buyback? Is it because Ford says there's only one occurrence related to a suspected bad ground? Do you have to waive your rights to pursue a lemon issue or any warranty rights in the future if you accept the money? Ask the dealer for a trade-in price on a new car (even a new C-Max) and see what trade-in value you'll get. Remind them that the car is still covered under the B2B warranty. Then, I'd sign the paperwork to accept the $8k and trade it. I might even consider taking the $8k and trading it for a different brand.

38.5 mpg for a 15 mile city commute sounds low. Describe what the commute entails. To see if you got the update, get on the interstate and get your speed around 70 mph with eco-cruise on. With the battery indicator above 1/2 way and on a flat or slightly downhill grade, bump the "-" button one time on the cruise control and your car should immediately switch to EV mode if you have the upgrade and continue in EV until the battery level drops too low or ICE needs to come on to supply more load. ICE should shut down. To see if ICE shuts own, you can set RPM in MY VIEW and it will go to zero or do what Paul says. Also, there have been several members where the update didn't evidently take correctly and they did get lower FE post update than pre update. Yet the dealer insisted the update was okay. The dealer had to reinstall the update and IIRC it took some convincing of the dealer to reinstall it. There is a Ford rep, Ashley that monitors this site and can help you.

Enter your VIN here and it will list outstanding field service items.

I believe had Ford got the FE right in 2012, eliminated many of the infotainment issues prior to selling, and used the "Sal and Family" type commercials instead of the C-Max beats Prius V commercials, that reviewers would have been ecstatic over the C-Max. But the poorer than advertized FE and many MFT issues were highlighted in the reviews even though virtually everyone that drove the C-Max thought it was much better than it's competition. It won't take much for the 2014s to beat the IQS of the 2013s. Also, I would expect the reliability ratings of the 2013s to improve but that could take a few more years of owner's surveys before the 2013 rating changes. Hopefully, it's not too late to save the C-Max.

Yes, testimony to the resale value of the C-Max. I think you got a great car at a great price. Just to be clear, the above bold text (plus break-in) is what Ford blamed the poor mileage on that owners and reviewers were getting in 2012, not the fact that Ford didn't run any EPA tests on the C-Max Hybrid but instead used a loophole in the procedures that allowed Ford to simply use the Fusion Hybrid EPA numbers for the C-Max. Is that transparency, Raj? Is using a loophole that is not intended for such purpose (cars with same powertrain but significantly different road HP drag numbers) ethical, Raj? I believe those in the know at Ford looked the other way when the original C-Max and Fusion EPA numbers came out as they wanted to get products to market that beat their competitors in FE. As an engineer it was obviously to me when I bought the car in Dec. 2012 after reading reviews, specs on the cars and knowing the EPA test procedures that the 47 mpg couldn't be the right EPA FE number. It would be obvious to any Ford engineer that something was amiss. Now Ford also finds a significant error about 2 years later in the dynamometer loads used in the the initial EPA testing of the 2013 Fusion testing and again about one year ago when Ford actually tested the C-Max Hybrid that led to the revised EPA numbers in August 2013. It certainly appears to me with this latest finding by Ford, that there may be a basis for civil case against Ford (although I'm not an attorney). IMO, there's got to be documents within Ford that cast doubt on this FE issue going back 2 years. Someone knows something.

Will you be satisfied if your car was totaled tomorrow and you get $5000 less than than you might otherwise get had the 47/47/47 been the correct numbers?

THIS IS NOT ABOUT HOW WONDERFUL THE C-MAX IS TO DRIVE. ITS ABOUT FORD'S MISCUES AND THE HURT SUCH WILL INFLICT ON OWNERS. I knew it was only a matter of time before people started talking about how great the C-Max is. This is true IMO also. But that has little to do with the value of the C-Max in the marketplace. I also bought knowing I get around 40 mpg, but that doesn't get Ford off the hook for those that were duped by Ford - especially the very early adopters. Also, many later buyers probably didn't do appropriate due diligence. Why do people apparently think it's okay that Ford slipped up and 1st year cars are expected to have issues. And to those that are going to say well I get 47 mpg now (or close to that), you'd likely be getting 55 mpg if the C-Max 47/47/47 were the correct numbers.

catsailor, it depends on the letter obviously but I will support such a letter. IMO, keep it simple focusing only on the issue: 2 downgrades in EPA rating, higher fuel expenses over the use of the vehicle and most importantly diminished value of the car if one trades a car every few years. If one keeps the car for 200k miles, the resale value is likely not going to be affected much by the drop in FE rating. But the current goodwill payment likely will cover about 1/3 of what ones additional fuel expense will be. If one trades the car in now, I suspect the trade-in value is significantly lower than it otherwise would have been. Take the Prius V - five vs the C-Max SEL base models. If I did the numbers correctly, the 2013 Prius V with 25k miles and clean condition has a trade-in value of 78% of it's MSRP including destination. The C-Max SEL with 25k miles and clean condition has a trade-in value of 60% or MSRP + destination.. This is a loss of over $5000 on the C-Max if the C-Max would have retained 78% of it's value or $22,683 vs 60% or $17,359. This $17,359 will likely go lower once the 2nd FE downgrade becomes widely known. But even if one plans to keep the C-Max "forever" to negate this diminished value, an accident that totals the C-Max will pay what one can purchase the replacement car for.

I agree. Forget about resale value now. And can you "trust" Ford after this debacle with anything they say. I've said this before Raj Nair should be fired. That's the Ford guy in Dec. 2012 that gave flimsy excuses as to why people / reviewers aren't getting 47/47/47. I also questioned the C-Max and Fusion EPA numbers after the August 2013 revision. It's been nearly two years for Ford to come clean with the FE numbers (or have they). Think about the lost Prius sales due to Ford's 2012 silhouette commercials: C-Max beats Prius V in mpg. Doesn't Toyota have a case against Ford? I can't believe someone in Ford didn't know what was going on. Sometimes it takes a while to get to the bottom of the mess (we still may not be at the bottom) ;) . The damages by Ford's ineptness is significantly more than Ford's "goodwill" payments to owners. The $1025 total payment at an national average of $3.65 / gallons covers the difference in fuel cost for about 75k miles of driving. For me that's less than 4 years of driving. IMO, what Ford needs to do is also offer a large discount (good for say 5 years) on a purchase of any Ford product - like $5000 for those that bought under the 47/47/47 EPA numbers and maybe $2500 for those that bought under the Aug. 2013 Monroney sticker. Raj, apologies and $1025 isn't enough. How could one not question the differences between models and tests??? Why did it take until August 2013 to become "transparent" on the use of Fusion data for the C-Max EPA numbers???

I Harbor Freight does have a lighter one that is 1 1/2 tons. I don't have a spare tire so I don't carry it. But, I'd probably secure it in the hatch area if I carried it. Hasn't leaked in about 4 years of ownership but I only use it maybe 10 times a year (40 times lifting). This floor jack replaced an all steel, heavier floor jack that was probably 15 years old that did begin to leak. I would top it up but eventually it wouldn't hold enough pressure to get the car off the ground.

Harbor Freight several years ago like this one. I've seen this one at a lower price occasionally and you usually can find a 20% off coupon on one item. Just a caution and that is a floor jack doesn't work well unless its wheels / rollers can roll such that the jack moves as the car is being raised.

Paul, I have to check whether I kept the original log files from DashCommand which will have CT. I may also have saved the original data exports to ScanXL but I usually only export the data I need from ScanXL to spreadsheets. I think the temps were below 210 and 215 for the stock run. I know for the runs with covers the max exceeded 230F but did fall quite a bit during coasting. So, it's possible that the shutters started open and closed during the coasting. Since the covers aren't air tight the data may have been affected if the shutters changed position. I'd like to run more tests but like I said, I have to drive about 35 miles to get to flat lightly traveled roads where the risk of getting a speeding ticket is virtually nil. I might have time to do more tests in late summer as I will likely be in that area then.

Snowstorm, I've done coast down on two separate occasions over the last year logging variables with DashCommand. What I do is to minimize the square of the difference between actual speed and calculated speed. My intent was to see if I could notice any aero difference among stock, grille covers, and gas pods. The bottom line is that when I would add the gas pods, the data got worse. The grille covers reduced the Cd. One potential issue is the grille shutters. There’s no way no know with certainty what position the shutters are in when conducting the tests as I have to accelerate briskly to 75 mph (and coolant temperature does rise), then shift to neutral and coast (and coolant temperature does come down). If the shutters aren't in the same position during the test runs, then the data is suspect. Also, any wind gusts or increase / decrease in wind speed could affect results. Here's a curve with actual data and a curve fit to each run. The return runs are the lower set of curves. The curve that seems in error is the lower blue curve. It is significantly lower than I would have thought it should be. BTW, in an attempt to cancel wind and elevation change, you run in one direction and record results (out), turn around, and make the run back to the starting point (return) and average the results. There was about 10 feet of elevation change per mile. The scan interval of DashCommand varies but is generally every 250 milliseconds. The speed from DashCommand is recorded in integers which means there will successive scans at the same speed which shows up on the graph as there are multiple circle markers at a given speed. I curve fit the data and used the equations to compute speed vs time for the runs and then averaged the return and outward run times to get the composite speed vs time data to go into the model. I then compute the square of the difference between actual speed and model speed for each time increment. I used Solver to minimize the sum of the errors. I made multiple runs with different frontal areas but kept Cd stock = 0.30. I found the most consistent results were when FA is 2.27 m^2 and Crr = 0.0132. If I changed FA too much the minimized error would grow and the results made little sense. The road surface was rough and tires at 44 psi and I would think that some of the rotation losses (axles, traction motor and so forth) are also affecting the data and shows up as a higher Crr than one might expect. Here are the results: Cd stock = 0.30, Cd grille covers = 0.279 and Cd covers and pods = 0.315 with Crr = 0.0132 for all runs. rho = 1.132 kg/m^3 g = 9.81 m/s^2A = 2.272 m^2M = 1770 kg I ran similar tests again several months later at a different location and got similar results with and without grille covers. I ran a pods only test this time and there appeared to be no significant difference between stock. Since I can't control the shutters and wind and since I have to drive about 20 - 30 miles to find flat, untraveled roads, I've decided not to run any more tests. :) I would caution against using this data in determining the benefits of grille covers or gas pods. ;)