plus 3 golfer

I disagree that if Ford installed block heaters as standard, Ford has an out with owner complaints. C-Max sales would plummet if Ford told owner's they had to plug-in or not get close to the advertized EPA FE. That's the only FE number that matters. The benefit of block heaters diminishes quickly with the distance of the trip and the ability to plug-in at both ends of the commute. So, a 2 mpg improvement from 40 mpg over a 10 mile city trip, twice a day for 250 days would save about 6 gallons of fuel or about $20 annually. IMO, it's would be considered a nuisance or would be impracticable to plug-in and plug-out out for the majority of owners once a day let alone at both ends of a commute for $20. The primary benefit of block heaters in cold climates is to help ensure that one's vehicle starts. The ancillary benefit is faster warm-up time and better FE during the warm-up period. So, a block heater makes sense in extremely cold climates as a hedge against a no start. Also, a typical block heater might be 1000 Watts and likely needs plugged in at least one hour and likely longer. That's 500 kWh per year (500 plug-ins x one hour x 1 kW). At $0.10 per kWh that's $50 a year in electricity. The small oil pan heater are about 150 Watts and likely need plugged in for many hours to get the equivalent heat into the engine. Also, one would likely need a timer as plugging in these heaters 8 hours or so would make one's electric costs even more. The primary benefit of a block heater / oil pan heater is to help by allowing easier cranking of the car during extreme cold spells. The C-Max simply doesn't require one for help in starting as MG1 via the HVB starts ICE - there's plenty of cranking power.

The EPA Emissions and FE tests specify the conditions in the 5 test cycles. Block heaters would not be permitted to warm the engine. Most manufacturers don't run all five cycle but run just the old two cycle tests for the EPA FE - the City Cycle and the Highway Cycle both run at 75F IIRC. The City Cycle test has a cold start (vehicle would be heat soaked at 75F) and a hot start in the cycle. There is a Cold Cycle test which is the same as the City test except the ambient temperature is 20F IIRC. The other two test that are generally not run are the High Speed test cycle and the High Temperature AC test cycle (95F). Remember, Ford used the more aerodynamic Fusion Hybrid two cycle test data for the C-Max Hybrid which is the primary reason why the C-Max original EPA rating were too high (7 mpg too high on the highway test). :)

Great job. How do you plan on recording the data? Have you thought about finding a data logger like this or this one. This would be great evidence to document the issue especially for arbitration / law suit if lemon period has expired. Manually recording the data every few hours for several weeks or so of no abnormal activity may become too tedious to continue as the frequency of the battery issue seems to be months between events.

What Paul says. Do you know what the diagnostic trouble codes were for the check engine lights? They should be on the service order.

Actually, the number we should be looking at is $/mile as the money going out of our wallets is real. :) The gallons we think we filled up with and the gallons the car said we used are not. There is no flow meter that measure fuel used. It really depends on how Ford is calculating FE using sensor data, injection pressures, injection pulse width, emissions data, tank gauge and so forth, what assumptions they use in the calculation, and what corrections Ford might make (if any) over time to the calculation. As far as temperature, the fuel is stored in underground tanks that will have a fairly constant temperature year round. Yes, if no one has used the pump in hours then the first few gallons out of the pump could be at ambient temperature which could be significantly different than the temperature of the fuel in the storage tank. Also, IIRC some state require fuel pumped to be temperature corrected. As far as evaporation, modern cars all have EVAP systems so fumes don't escape into the atmosphere. But, see below as to the purged fuel from the EVAP system may not be counted. Below are recent quotes by GM and Honda on the subject. Also, note in the link the suggested procedure to calibrate the displayed value. On my 2009 Jetta I did similar and could adjust a multiplier in +- 1% increments via a scan tool ($250) to get the displayed FE more in line with tank hand calculated. The problem is that conditions change over time such as tires wear / tire replacement and as such the distance recorded by the odometer changes versus a standard mile.

The problem with the Ford solution to the musty odor in using YN-29 (combination of an acrylic resin and powerful antimicrobial formula eliminates) maybe the method used in applying it (or the tech applying it) and hence why it works for some (like me) and not for others (Riggo on FFH forum). Also wab, it's not a lifetime cure. It will "wear off" (protects for 2-3 years is what Ford says). Mold growing in the HVAC box and on the evaporator core is a common problem across manufacturers. The problem is moisture remaining in the box. Get rid of the moisture and no problem. So, running the blower or heater (as drdiesel suggests) after A/C use for a few minutes should "dry out" the box. Here's an old VW TSB (around 2006) on the issue:

mtb9153, people claim they have had success getting rid of the musty smell using Lysol sprayed in the vents and down the cabin air intake in the cowl area. The problem though is one needs to get the evaporator car and box saturated with the disinfectant which is hard to do by spraying in the vents. Hopefully, the dealer will do yours under warranty. In other forums, typically the dealer will do under warranty within first year or so and not much later as the cause is not usually a defect unless perhaps the evaporator core drain line line was somehow restricted. Mine had a faint musty smell like yours from day one (December 2012) when first turning on the blower. The smell would then diminish (or maybe we got use to it) as the blower ran. It wasn't until a few months later when we started using the AC more frequently, that the smell seemed to get worse (likely more moisture supporting the mold growth than in the winter). I believe it was in May 2013 when we took it in for other work and had the dealer do the "musty smell treatment" that I described in another thread. I also asked them to make sure the drain was not clogged. Big Rocco, as far as whether the cabin filter is before or after the blower / evaporator core, it's before as one doesn't want debris collecting on the core for obvious reasons as you describe. When you change the filter, it's obvious that the air intake (on the dirty side of the filter) runs to the cowl area. Also, I've had several cars with the cabin air filter under the cowl and one issue that is common is water leaks via poor seals especially if cowl drains become somewhat restricted from debris allowing water to collect up to the level of the seals during heavy downpours. For that reason, I like the cabin filter under the dash although it does require a degree of flexibility to contort ones old body to change it.

Has any Ford engineers (or others with second hand reports of engineers thoughts) talked to you about possible causes during your buyback process? So are you saying Ford has bought back a car when the first instance of a dead battery occurred after the state's lemon law had expired? I wonder if Ford ever refused a buyback and the owner had to escalate it to arbitration or lawsuit. It actually may "pay" Ford to buyback these problematic cars rather than to face a lawsuit opening Ford up to discovery.

Welcome :) and I think all of us would like to know the "real" failure rate but I doubt Ford will ever tell unless forced. VW Jetta TDI owners thought similar on high pressure fuel pump failures after VW revised the pump at least 3 times since 2009 MY (Ford issuing several software updates supposedly to fix the dead battery in the past year or so) and after every subsequent year people bought new TDIs saying but my pump has been revised. 2013 TDI owners are having failures as have owners who got new pumps to replace their old failed pumps in early models. Because there is a NHTSA open investigation into the HPFP, VW has continued to replace the entire fuel system ($8K) under good will for owners well past warranty (150k miles or so). Time will tell whether Ford has solved the issue and salman's 2014 dead battery is a one-off condition - probably what Ford will say. The real concern to me is what will Ford do after the 3/36 b2b warranty expires if they ultimately find the definitive cause(s) and a fix. There are several members that have passed the 36k mile period. For example, maybe the solution is a larger capacity 12V battery and Ford redesigned the back compartment area for a larger battery but the existing C-Maxes won't have space for the larger battery and would require a significant mod. In addition, what happens if there are multiple causes and the software updates fixed some of the conditions but maybe there are other conditions where the time to occurrence is longer (years / mileage related) and deteriorates over time and the lemon law (and warranty) have expired. The C-Max is a great car and I'm not sure whether there will be anything available soon that compares to it. I had a high pressure fuel pump failure on my 2009 TDI at 44k miles and subsequently traded for the C-Max shortly after my 60k powertrain warranty expired at 70k miles. If I begin to have 12V dead battery issues, I would likely get rid of the C-Max after 36 k miles if Ford can't point to a definitive cause and fix. So, I think that tells you what I would do if I were in your situation. :)

Yes, the metric system simply uses the rate of fuel per unit distance and thus one can use the simple average for equal distances. This may be what salsaguy was referring to above. But I have no idea why he brought up the median. So, in the metric system pure EV FE = 0 L/100 km where in the mpg system full EV mpg is not defined. Also, for those interested, to get the harmonic mean one takes the reciprocal of the average of sum of the reciprocal mpg = (1/((1/20)+(1/80))/2) = 32 mpg. In my graph above, the average FE = 1/((1/200)+(1/28.6))/2) = 50 mpg. It's a little hard intuitively to compute average FE over equal distances in the mpg system. :)

I have had the issues described above on occasion. Sometimes, I do have multiple windows with threads, gallery, and so forth open for long periods of time. So, fbov is likely correct.

I have one more thought as to why it may be difficult to see why operating ICE decreases EV FE more than operating EV increases ICE FE (which is substance of the OP). Most of us have driven non-hybrid cars and see FE ranges in say the 30 - 40 mpg range. In this 30-40 mpg range, it will be difficult to see any difference in magnitude of FE change between 1) starting with high FE then low FE compared to 2) starting with low FE, then high FE. In other words, going from 40 mpg to 30 mpg in successive miles will yield about an average of 34.3 mpg overall or close to the simple average of 35 mpg. Below is my graph from above with two straight lines added to illustrate this. The straight green line represents what the FE curve would have to look like for the there to be the same magnitude of change going from high FE (200 mpg) to low FE (28.7 mpg) or low FE to high FE. As one can see, the green line is very far away from the FE curve indicating that the relationship between MPG and fuel used is not linear. Hence the simple average of 200 mpg and 28.6 mpg or 114.3 mpg is quite a bit more than the actual FE of 50 mpg. Now, looking at a typical non-hybrid vehicle range of FE of say 30 - 40 mpg, the orange-dashed straight line is virtually the same as the FE curve in that 30 - 40 mpg range. This means that the magnitude of increasing or decreasing FE will be virtually the same. The FE curve is virtually linear in this region and hence one sees a very linear relationship between FE and fuel used. I can then see how one might think that a high FE leg (for example, EV operation in a hybrid) should have a large effect on increasing overall FE. But it won't because such EV operation is at one extreme of the FE curve. So, with the hybrid we need to rethink what we saw in the past with non-hybrid vehicles and recognize this non-linear relationship between FE and fuel used for hybrid operation and how it affects overall FE.

John, I think you are still missing the point. It's where you start (take the snapshot of the FE) not about the load / conditions as changes in load / conditions needs to be held constant in "testing". All that is being varied is the starting point. SnowStorm's curves are simply the application of the basic FE curves in my posts above and show that if one starts with high FE, the FE decrease is greater as you fall to approach the average. Start with a low FE and the increase is not as great (compared to the decrease) as you approach the average. Look at the curve in the 4th post. If you start with EV and then run ICE, FE drops 150 mpg. If you start with ICE and the go to EV, FE increases by only 21.4 mpg. Carry this alternating ICE, EV out and one approaches the average FE over time (SnowStorm's curves). Adding in other conditions, doesn't change this fundamental principle. I think this should answer your questions: "Shouldn't FE go up faster than it goes down" and "This confuses me. Getting unlimited mileage should bring up overall mileage opposed to the ICE bringing it down faster while it is indeed getting mileage out of the gas." As far as the metric - using "L/100km, it doesn't matter. The principle is the same. Don't really know what salsaguy is referring to.

I don't think I got a mini CD (but may have). There are no drivers to install anywhere. Put it in the CD tray on your Mac and see what's on it. It's probably the ELM user's manual if you didn't get a hard copy and maybe a free Scan Diagnostic program to check for trouble codes. I just found this and it describes what I had to do to set up the WIFI in my Ipad. Make sure you set HTTP Proxy to Auto.

Yep makes sense but hard to visualize. :) Here's the same curve above with a simple example for 2 legs: first virtually all EV for a mile and then ICE for a mile. Now add a third mile of virtually all EV at 200 mpg to the example. What's the change in FE after 2 miles from mile 1? shown on graph at 150 MPG decrease What's the average FE after 3 miles? (3 miles / 0.045 gallons) = 66.7 MPG What's the change in FE from mile 2 to mile 3? 66.7- 50 = 16.7 MPG increase What is material is the fuel burned whether ICE runs, EV propels the car, you go up a long grade or down a long grade. So, two legs at 200 MPG + one leg at 28.7 mpg is only 66.7 MPG not the simple average of the 3 legs (428.7/3) = 142.9 MPG. Even if you burned zero fuel in the EV legs, the average MPG = 3 miles / 0.035 gallons = 85.7 MPG up from the 66.7 but not anywhere near the 142.9 simple average of the legs.

It may appear that way but it depends on when you take the snapshot of the FE. A small change to a small number all else being the same results in a larger % change than the same small change to a large number. Think of it as fuel used not infinite mpg. FE = Miles / Fuel used. Dividing by zero has no meaning because any number (X) multiplied by zero = zero. So in the formula FE = Miles / 0 or Miles = 0*FE = zero. Thus, the FE is not infinite but undefined for pure EV operation. So, it depends on the gallons of fuel used when the snapshot is taken and then change in gallons of fuel whether running in EV or ICE as to the effect on FE. Here's a curve that might help explain it. The FE curve is a hyperbola such that when the total fuel used is a very small number (towards zero on the X axis, one will see large changes in FE (Y axis) for changes in fuel used. But if the fuel used is a larger number for the same miles (towards the right on the X axis), then for the same small change in fuel, there will be a small change in FE. So, it matters where one is one the curve when one takes a snapshot of their FE. But it really doesn't matter whether one drives in ICE first or last as long as the distance and fuel used is the same. It's the total miles / total fuel used. Hope this helps. Maybe someone can explain it better.

mtb9153, Palmer Performance Engineering has a forum and you could ask what they suggest about getting log files from DashCommand to a usable form in your MAC. Here's my question on getting log files to PC in usable form. I've noticed that PPE responds quickly to questions.

My "Chinese" ELM :) has been plugged in continuously since summer 2013 and works with both DashCommand and EngineLink. Specs say power consumption is 0.75 Watts. This is only about 60 mA maximum. So, unless the 12V battery is failing, you should be okay for several 100 hours of discharge although my car never sets for more than a couple days without being used.

I have the ELM 327 WiFi and it works great with my iPad for both Engine Link and Dash Command. With Engine Link you can enter custom PIDs but it needs support for the data logs as they are difficult to work with for analysis. Dash Command does not support custom PIDs but you can capture data and import the data into Scan XL for use in spreadsheets. Download the free trial version of Scan XL from Palmer Engineering onto a PC. http://www.palmerperformance.com/downloads.php Also, there's a second OBDII port under the dash below and to the right of the port behind the door. You can leave the ELM plugged into it with no issues.

The dealer had 35% already on driver's, passenger's, and the two little front windows and had 20% on everything else. The window tinting listed for $599 with lifetime warranty and was 3M color stable series. I negotiated the window tint for free (I'll bet dealer markup was 100% on the tinting). The color stable series cut film for the C-Max is $153 on e-bay (retail $204). Generic film is selling for about $30 on e-bay cut for the C-Max. I had the standard Suntek film put on my 2009 Jetta and had no issues in four years - 70k miles for $220 ish.

When I look at the rating categories and the ratings of such categories, I question whether the SEL will score higher than an SE. The Controls and Display in the Comfort and Convenience category is the only category I see that might be rated differently for the SE and SEL models. Most reviews indicate the MFT (standard on the SEL) as complicated and as a "con" in their review. The SEL could get a lower rating in that category but I doubt it since the rating of the Controls and Display is only average. I doubt CR will test a 2014 C-Max. But maybe if they did test a 2014, Ford's "improved" functionality of the controls could raise the rating of this category to "above average". Of course we also don't know how much this is weighted in the 83 number. Like AE is suggesting, 83 is a great score. CR likes the C-Max. It's the owners' surveys that yield the black circle in predicted reliability and "average" rating in owner's satisfaction. It's up to Ford to improve the C-Max and the owner's should then respond with less problems and likely higher satisfaction. Since I haven't had the issues that many have had in 21k miles, I expect that my C-max will be very reliable in the future and after 100k miles of ownership, I will be able to say that my C-Max is one of the best cars I've owned. But, to the owners that heavily contributed to the 3%+ problem rate (see quote below) that yields the black circle in reliability rating, they will likely not rate their car as one of the best they've owned.

duplicate

Yes, the manual doesn't say it but I'm fairly confident that I read that in a Ford document like tdefny says and I thought it was more like up to one mile away from an EV+ destination that ICE may run to charge battery. Ford has been known to make contradictory statements. That's why I ask when does EV+ show up on the display. A Ford video and the manual says EV+ shows up when "EV+ is active" which one assumes is when in EV+ Mode - about 1/2 miles away from destination. Mine doesn't show up then. Edit: Here's the entire section on EV+ in the 2014 manual. It makes clear that EV+ turns on about 1/8 miles from the destination. I wonder if the algorithm was changed with one of the PCM updates and Ford decided not to try explaining the EV+ logic in new manuals going forward as software updates could tweak the logic and thus make the previous manuals misleading / incorrect. Less is sometimes better than more. :)

Copied right from the manual including punctuation. :) You're right. But what turns on or when does the EV+ symbol show on the display? According to Ford's video it turns on when EV+ is active (whatever that means). For me it seems to come on no further away from home than 1/4 mile. I don't ever recall seeing EV+ come on 1/2 mile from home. About 1/2 mile from home I turn off the main road and accelerate to about 30 mph climbing about 30 feet in a 1/4+ miles. ICE starts because EV threshold is too low and I'm climbing requiring more power. When I ease off the accelerator and slow down to about 25 mph, I then go below threshold, ICE shuts down, I'm in full EV mode, but EV+ isn't displayed until I get to less than 1/4 miles from home. Anyways, I'll watch things a little closer now and test various scenarios. Also, I'm pretty sure I've read in a Ford document that ICE will run if the HVB is low when nearing an EV+ locations implying that ICE otherwise wouldn't have run if not nearing the EV+ location with no mention of the threshold changing (I'll see if I can find it).

Yes, it's in the manual. If you are within about 1/2 mile of an EV+ destination, ICE may run (charge the battery to a higher level) if it's below a certain threshold ("your vehicle starts to raise the accelerator pedal based EV mode threshold.") I see this a lot. Sometimes, I can keep ICE from starting if I back off the accelerator (slow down) but most times it still turns on.