plus 3 golfer

C-MaxSea, if you have facts that the C-Max data is questionable please post. Innuendos don't work. I am not beating the CR drum. I am simply pointing out the likely reason why the poor ratings from consumers. I never stated that the battery issue is being ignored by you or anyone on this forum. The quotes around "ignore" is simply indicating that I will continue to link the battery issue to the likely consequences (poor C-Max reliability) ratings in response to the "Enough guys." I will be clearer next time.

All one has to do is read this forum and recognize the C-Max has issues ("real world" data :)). IMO, one should give the consumer the positives and negatives. One can believe whatever they want to believe and rationalize their way to that belief. The decline in C-Max sales started about the same time as the JDPowers IQS and well before the CR survey results. I doubt most consumers want to buy a car that seemingly randomly won't start even if the chance is very small. Ratings / rankings are relative. A consumer expects a new car to start. Also, I showed the results of a safety recall study here which may affect an owner's perception of their vehicle. The details of CR's negative ratings are presented by systems (but you have to pay to see them). I know I reported these negative ratings prior. The C-Max gets one full "black" circle for Audio which encompases the infotainment system and a 1/2 black circle for electrical. Most other ratings are full "red" circle - the best The ratings are relative. So, if the survey data for all manufacturers improves each year and one model stays the same / falls behind, it will move down the results for that year. The C-Max is 143% below average. There's no question that details will not be available to the reader as is the case in virtually all consumer surveys unless one pays extra. That's why consumers should go to forums / other reviews to weigh what owners say against survey data. As I continue to say, it's up to Ford to get it right and improve their position in the surveys. Time will tell whether consumers report an improvement in the Infotainment and electrical system via the surveys. But IMO, to say "Enough guys, pretty please?" defeats the purpose of a meaningful forum. ;) I certainly want Ford and the C-Max to succeed but I will not "ignore" the dead battery / no start issue (which apparently continues) and the consequences (reliability rating) even though my C-Max has not had the issue.

Here's a chart showing how the C-Max and Fusion Hybrid Sales trends compared to all other Hybrids and all auto sales (excluding C-Max and Fusion Hybrid data) trends.

LOL, well that explains it. Under Electronic Throttle Control in the Ford OBD Operations Summary manual: P1674 – Internal control module software corrupted (MIL, hazard, wrench light for Gen3 / Gen4) You probably had an anomaly with software / messaging and thus perhaps sensor inputs couldn't be reconciled and the PCM started ICE. Since the CEL illuminated, it was deemed a hard fault (not intermittent). Did the CEL go out? Did you clear the stored code? Is everything now okay? I would have gone to the dealer to document the DTC for warranty purposes. The dealer would probably run pinpoint tests for wiring continuity and proper voltages. I doubt the dealer would reload software unless Ford directed such. P1674 is a manufacturer specific code and appears to be a "catch all" when there is not a specific fault found in a component which should throw a specific code for the issue. This is for VW : P1674 - Data Bus Powertrain, Implausible Message from Instrument Cluster Symptoms: Function lossPossible causes: Wiring and / or connections faultyFault code stored in corresponding control moduleControl module incorrectly codedPossible solutions: Check / repair wiring and connectionsCheck / erase fault code in Control ModuleCheck / repair coding in relevant Control Module

Well, if you want to hedge your bet on gas prices get the NRG but EIA (April 8, 2014) shows this as their short term forecast. Looks pretty flat with seasonal variations. Long term forecast do not show $5 gas and in real terms show a declining price for gasoline. There is plenty of natural gas and crude oil to meet projected demand. But, WWIII could change this. :)

Yes, occasionally it seems that my MYVIEW gets changed. It happens very infrequently so I just reset it.

Now we have all the data - thanks to Nick Here's the data in graphical form (I think I copied the data correctly from the monthly sheets). :) I never like comparing monthly data y/y as it's hard to pick up trends. So, here's the Hybrid data for a 3 month moving average. It appears that both Fusion and C-Max Hybrid sales began dropping by May 2013 and it certainly appears that the August 2013 revised EPA rating for the C-Max Hybrid is the likely reason the C-Max Hybrid sales fell faster and for a longer period of time than the Fusion Hybrid sales. Both appear to be on the uptick from their lows in late 2013 / early 2014. We will need to wait a few more months for future sales data to see if this continues (hopefully it will). Also, in doesn't surprise me that the C-Max Hybrid sales got off to a blockbuster start for two reasons: 1) - drive one you'll likely end up buying one (the new C-Max Sal commercial) and 2) the Prius V vs C-Max silhouette commercials.

Economics is only one factor for me (and down on the list) but I and the OP are comparing virtually the same car but for plug-in capability (and hatch space if that is an issue). If the OP wants a greener car, then trade for the NRG. The original post is very clear on what is being considered. This thread is not on whether "no one is buying a personal car based solely on ROI" but on making up the cost difference between similar cars. To your point though, I guess that's why people are still buying Leafs - save the environment not their pocketbook. IMO, the current Leaf make little economic sense as the Leaf has a significant HVB degradation problem especially in hotter climates which will significantly limits their range until the HVB is replaced (again and again) at big $$$. There are similar / better cars available (C-Max for one). To get around this degradation issue it seems NIssan has good short term lease deals on MY 2013 and also has offered a $100/month HVB replacement lease / extended warranty. So, IMO, the Leaf with the HVB degradation issue is a "throw away" car - lease it 2 years / 20k miles to save likely $40-$80 a month in fuel costs over a 50 - 30 mpg vehicle and then "throw" it back to Nissan lest you want to buy it by paying a residual value higher than current resale values indicate it will be worth and then start paying $100 / month for the battery lease. But people will do it. :confused:

C-MaxSea, on 24 Apr 2014 - 1:24 PM, said: ..Good grief, the Fusion sales are booming and it is essentially the same car - why?.. Are you sure the Fusion Hybrid and Fusion Energi sales are booming? The Fusion Energi sales data is virtually the same as the C-Max Energi from Feb. 2013 (Fusion Energi sales begin date) through Mar. 2014. I'm still looking for the Fusion Hybrid data. C-Max Energi - 8449 Fusion Energi - 8300

Use the AdBlock extension to block the ads at the top of the page below the Search and shrink the white space. I also use the Ghostery extension to block the Infolink in-text ads and trackers (I assume these ads are still showing up).

RMS13, I have been doing extensive research analysis on PHEVs, HEVs, and EVs for several years (since 2008) hoping to find a PHEV or EV that met my needs at a reasonable price - I couldn't. These are just a couple things I considered when looking at the NRG vs the Hybrid. 1) EV Range - at a nominal 20 mile range if one can only charge once per day (my case), that would mean that one's annual EV plug-in miles would be about 7300 miles maximum annually. Although some days when we make multiple trips, I could perhaps charge 2X a day but there would likely be many more days when the car was not driven. 2) Cost of Plug-in Energy - I feel most underestimate this cost neglecting the energy losses in charging and the cost of a higher level charger. The NRG comes with a level 1 charger that plugs into 120 VAC which is not very efficient (around 70+%). A level 2 charger (240VAC) will require additional equipment plus perhaps installation (not insignificant costs) but is 80+% efficient. 3) Cost of Non-EV miles - I don't know what the average FE might be in non-EV mode for the NRG but given the shorter transmission final drive and extra weight, I've got to believe that at freeway speeds the NRG will likely get poorer FE than the Hybrid. I believe a 2-5% reduction would be reasonable. We take many longer trips a year. Bottom line for me was that I'd save about $300 per year on 20k miles of driving per year on an NRG vs a Hybrid. It would have cost $2300 more (after Federal tax credit) to buy a base NRG vs my base SEL Hybrid in Dec. 2012 not counting a level 2 charging equipment. Add say $700 for a DIY installation. That puts the total cost at around $3000 with savings of around $300 per year or a payback of 10 years. Payback could be less but best case would be gas prices increase more than electric prices and I don't buy the level 2 charger. I could possibly have seen a payback in less than 7 years. If you only drive 7k miles a year or can recharge twice a day and extend the EV range to 40 miles per day, the savings could be $400 - $800 a year. We haven't even factored in depreciation on the trade. I don't believe many could TRADE their Hybrid in for an NRG and come out ahead (assuming no state Tax credit for the NRG). Depreciation even with very low miles on a Hybrid will add several thousand $ to the cost difference and as Edsel says "The money you lose on the trade will likely pay for all of the gas you will use in the hybrid.(maybe even more) I didn't do the math, but I bet I'm not far off". Does it make sense loosing $3k and probably more on the trade in depreciation alone?

IMO, the OP is simply introducing himself and giving a brief status report on his C-Max. He's not a newbie to the C-Max and has obviously read posts / threads on the dead battery issue here and is looking up info on a lemon. Seems to me his post and thread in "Welcome" is appropriate whether he responds or does not respond. I might not respond either, as I would not be looking for condolences but rather a solution to the dead battery issue from Ford which apparently he has not got and is researching info on lemons (hence his title "Lemons?" with a question mark). No one has responded to his specific request. I agree with missti that such restrictions proposed on newbies will have a detrimental effect on whether someone joins and as such, will likely limit the diversity of data and information (the "private club"). Also, one could simply start 10 / 25 threads (or whatever the requirement might be) in the test forum. :)

Lance, to get 70+ mpg, the average speed likely has to be less than 30 mph, one has to employ hypermiling techniques - coasting, moderate acceleration, P&G and so forth. This is not easily done give traffic conditions and so forth. Remember, what matters is over FE not what one might / can get under ideal situations. You must be willing to sacrifice time for FE as virtually all hypermiling techniques will result in lower average speed and thus a longer time behind the wheel. I have demonstrated many times that I can get 60-70 mpg (displayed not actual) consistently for 45 mile round trips if I take the side streets with stop signs and traffic lights (vs the freeway) and employing many hypermiling techniques (coasting to stops, timing lights, accelerating moderately to near speed limit which varies between 35 mph and 55 mph). My average speed is virtually always between 25 - 27 mph. Taking the freeway instead of side streets, I average around 45 mpg (displayed not actual) at an average speed of around 60 mph (freeway speeds up to 72 ish mph) for the same 45 mile round trip. But the 45 mile round trip takes about one hour longer than the same trip using the freeway. ;) Note: average speed counts all time including time stopped at lights and so forth (it's not moving time as GPS navigation can show). The one hour saved in time is much more valuable to me than a $1 or so in fuel savings for the 45 mile trip - I'll drive the freeway. How else can I fit in golf, the gym, and especially time on forums wasting a hour driving to save a buck. :) Lance, do the math (run driving tests) for your situation and see if increasing your FE via hypermiling is really "worth it". The C-Max gets great FE driving "normally" (although driving in your winter climatic conditions will likely result in a large hit to your FE ).

LOL, I knew it was a test forum. Probably should have just deleted the chart and link and edited the text to "test" before anyone commented on it. I don't believe a poster can delete a post once submitted. Anyways, great spreadsheet and removing the Energi data shows the dramatic decline in Hybrid sales starting in Aug. 2013. If you bought a Hybrid after the Monroney sticker change you wouldn't get the $550 check from Ford. That payment with the new EPA numbers likely caused many to not buy a C-Max or buy the Energi instead of the Hybrid. So the question becomes what if total C-Max sales stay at these post-Aug 2013 levels (40-50% decline from previous year levels). Does Ford rethink / redesign the C-Max for 2015? I doubt the current C-Max can survive the way it is on sales of 30k units per year. How much can Ford cut the price of the 2014 C-Max? as I believe that may be the only way to stimulate sales of the current C-Max. IMO, Ford needs to shave weight (maybe 200 pounds) and improve aerodynamics (new body design) to get better FE out of a new C-Max sized/style vehicle. BTW the Energi data came from the Priuschat forum where they compare various Priis? sales with comparable other cars. (for example: Prius Plug-in vs Energi sales data and so forth).

IMO, the seats are very comfortable. I have the SEL. In Aug 2013 I drove back East (2040 miles one way) - 20 1/2 hours the first day and 10 hours the second day. I've made the trip about a dozen times in 4 different cars - 1995 C280, 2000 Passat, 2009 Jetta TDI, and the C-Max. Even though all the cars had power seats, I could adjust the C-Max seat to a higher position and thus get a more upright leg position with good thigh support without having to move the seat back as opposed to a lower seat height with legs more extended and seat farther back. For me it's more like sitting in a chair as opposed to reclining in a recliner and more comfortable for me. With that position the side of my Lower right leg lays against the contour of the center console. In my other cars it seemed that my right knee would hit / rub against the center console. After a few hours, the knee rubbing became quite irritating. So I suggest trying a seat position such that the knees are naturally more upright. The C-Max has coniderably more head room than most cars. So raising the seat height should not present a headroom problem.

I edited my post above to show the monthly Energi sales data. I think one has to consider how the pricing differences changed between the Hybrid and Energi and how that change might affect a buyer's purchase decision of whether to purchase and Energi or Hybrid. The deeper discounts Ford was giving for the 2013 Energi over the Hybrid could have swayed potential Hybrid buyers to the Energi in later 2013 and early 2014. When I purchased my base SEL Hybrid in Dec. 2012, the best I could do for a base Energi was to come within about $2300 after Federal tax credit of my Hybrid price (no state tax credit in AZ). IIRC in late 2013 / early 2014, Ford was offering about $1000 or more additional incentives on the Energi over the Hybrid plus the Federal Tax Credit was bumped up about $250 from when I purchased my C-Max. It wouldn't take much of a shift (150-200 units or so a month) of Energi sales to Hybrid sales to balance out the decline in C-Max sales evenly between the Hybrid and Energi models.

CR did not trash the C-Max. Blame Ford for their own miscues - especially having to revise the EPA estimate which IMO is the likely reason for the decline in C-Max Hybrid sales after the Aug. 2013 EPA mileage revision. Fact - Original C-Max Hybrid EPA estimates were based on the Fusion Hybrid. Ford revised the estimates downward by 4 mpg in August 2013. Virtually all reviewers got significantly less FE than the original EPA estimate when doing reviews in the late 2012 - early 2013 time frame. CR review was published in Dec. 2012 many months before Ford's Aug. 2013 new EPA estimates. Fact - Surveys of owners show significantly more trips to the dealer for the C-Max than the average. (CR and JDPower findings from surveys). Time will tell whether the survey data improves. CR survey data IIRC was in late 2013 well after Aug. 2013. Fact - Consumer Union likes the C-Max.

First, the sales shown in the first post are for both the C-Max Hybrid and C-Max Energi. Ford has sold about 11,161 Energi models through Mar 2014. So, Energi sales account for about 20.6% of C-Max sales. Second, Energi sales for the first 5 full months of sales (Nov. 2012 - Mar. 2013) compared to the 5 month period (Nov. 2013 - Mar 2014) are virtually flat - 3396 vs 3401. Lastly, if one removes the Energi from the statistics shown in the first post the Hybrid sales decline is worse than shown. C-MAX ENERGI 12-Sep 0 OCT 144 NOV 1259 DEC 971 13-Jan 338 FEB 334 MAR 494 APR 411 MAY 450 JUN 455 JUL 433 AUG 621 SEP 758 OCT 1092 NOV 941 DEC 827 14-Jan 471 FEB 552 MAR 610

From Michelin, below are the specs for the two Energy Saver A/S tires for the C-Max. The P225/50R17 93V tire (OE on C-Max) weighs 22.2 pounds with a temperature rating of A while the 225/50R17 94V weighs 21.6 pounds and has a temperature rating of B. Also note the designations under the availability of the tires. Costco only shows the 94V for $182.99 on their website. Since I take many long trips at sustained high speeds at high ambient temperatures, I always buy tires with an A temperature rating (even though a C rating tire would likely be okay).

Okay, to continue the relevance, lest we forget to keep the pressure on Ford. ;) As I've said before, the CS Reps are the last to know. Unfortunately, CS Reps take the heat for the "slippery management". Raj Nair may be the most "well lubricated" of them - his cockamamie reasons he alluded to as to why reviewers weren't getting anywhere near the original EPA 47 MPG. Why can't the CS Rep find out exactly what hardware gearing changes were made to the 2014 Hybrid that results in a more efficient transmission drive ratio? When is Ford going to let us know this and all the effects of the "aero" changes on the 2014 Hybrid performance? I guess we need cleanmpg.com or others to test the 2014 vs the 2013 Hybrid to know what the effect of the 2014 "efficiency" changes might be. Why all the "slipperiness" Ford?

Exactly. Just another example IMO of how Ford seems to "not quite understand" how important "correct communications" affects their credibility. Having a Motorcraft Product Catalog applications chart showing 0W20 is recommended for MY2013 and MY2014 over 2 months ago and then having the Ford customer service rep on this site contradicting the applications chart with this post: "I have confirmation that you should use 5W-20 for the 2013. For 2014, 0W-20 is recommended, but you can still use 5W-20 if you'd like" shows Ford's indifferent attitude towards their customers.

Here's a recent study of NHTSA safety recalls going back 30 years. Ford ranks 9th as shown below. My C-Max has had two safety recalls: 1) no audible chime when the vehicle is operational and the driver's door is opened and 2) vehicle exceeded a head injury criteria requirement.

The 12 V positive and negative posts in the engine compartment have a direct connection to the 12 V battery. The 12 V power outlet on the center console is not hot all the time and needs a relay to operate to energize this outlet. If the Body Control Module isn't operating, the relay coil won't have a path to ground and hence won't operate. This same applies to the lift gate release relay. AFAIK, there is no way to open the lift gate if the 12 V system is "dead.". So, one would have to get to the 12 V power outlet in the luggage area (which is hot all the time via fuse 27) via the passenger compartment if the lift gate is not operable. You'd also have to deal with the possibility that fuse 27 is blown (not likely, but possible). So, IMO buy a jumper cable that can clip onto the posts under the hood that has a cigarette socket adapter on the other end to plug the simple start into.

Like I said above CR is reporting the results of the surveys. Owners are speaking through the surveys not CR. Based on owners' survey, the NRG and Hybrid based on one year of data ( "Predicted reliability is typically based on the newest three model years if a model hasn't been redesigned in that period"), rank in the top 10 of worst predicted reliability. Do consumers not want to know the facts? Blame Ford for owner's reporting issues not CR. Ford has 5 vehicles in the worst top 10. Only Ford can change it's rankings by fixing issues. As I've said many times, time will tell whether owners in such reliability surveys will allow the NRG and Hybrid to escape the bottom 10. Just because owners have had issues with their car, doesn't mean that they wouldn't buy a C-Max again. Like Sal says in Ford's newer commercials, "if you can get someone to test drive a C-Max, they will end up buying this more times than not." CR likes the C-Max. If an owner hasn't had significant issues with their car, I think they would likely say they would buy again. Lastly, you are misrepresenting the facts. ;) The NRG got a score of 84 in the owner satisfaction surveys. The Hybrid score is 67 which is below the median of 78 (see below). Also, the C-Max models unlike most models are based on only 1 - 2 years of data as indicated by the asterisk. Also, here's a link (one will likely need to be a CR member to see) where one can compare the C-Max model rankings with other non hybrid vehicles.

Sounds like a great idea if one does a lot of driving with their headlights on. Yes, I had reviewed the economics of using LED headlights a year or so ago in my C-Max I never could find a kit though. Can you provide links. Have you reviewed the economic benefit? Also, there have been questions about whether one might get a warning message about "Headlight Failure" due to the current draw being significantly less than anticipated. A few simple calculations under several scenarios show that the likely fuel savings might be between $40 - $100 per 100,000 miles of headlight use. I don't know how much your LEDs might run. My guess is that even factoring in one pair of conventional headlight replacements that one will be lucky to break even at 100k miles of driving. I think you will find that "our glide time on battery would be appreciably extended at night with the headlights on" is not the case. Saving 75 Watts over 3 hours might get you one extra mile. You can travel a great distance in 3 hours at 30 mph average and even farther at 60 mph average. So, I think one will be lucky to save 1% of their fuel costs when using their headlights (lower average speed for the same distance traveled saves more fuel).