plus 3 golfer

Yep, forums need to hear all sides. We really liked the 164. I spent many weekend with a hose throwing water everywhere and no water would enter the cabin. I had everything pulled out of the cabin that was easy to remove. IIRC, it did not have a belly pan or inner fenders. So, my theory was during heavy downpours, the tires sprayed water underneath / against the firewall and there was a way for the water to get in on the driver's side (maybe around the steering wheel penetration, a/c penetration and so forth). Could have simply been a missing gasket but I couldn't see it and the dealer never could find the problem in about 4-5 attempts. We almost bought an 1800es in this color instead of the 164e in a deep burgundy. IMO, the 1800es is a classic. I'm not sure the 240 series was out in 1973 when we made the purchase.

Because people seem to think this forum is Facebook where one selects their friends and only "good" things are said. :) I knew it was only a matter of time before JD and CR were thrown under the bus and the data would be questioned. :) Shouldn't everyone have access to ALL data and make their own decision. Well my Volvo 164E had a body leak that the dealer couldn't find / fix. Every time I drove it in a downpour (SW PA) the left side of the floor boards filled with water. There was no buybacks then. So when there was a forecast of heavy rain, I didn't drive it. I ended up getting rid of it at 28k miles for a loss of $500. And guess what I haven't owned a Volvo since even though it was one of the best cars I've owned.

Yes, I agree that the OP saying: "Stay away From the CMAX People" is tantamount to being a troll. I hope that was not the OP's intention. IMO, criticism of a product (supported by facts) drives change. But, give the facts and let each individual decide their course of action.

I'm not sure what you really mean but I (and likely many) expect Ford to fix issues when paying $25k+ for a vehicle and to build cars with fewer issues not more than the average. Customers want products like MFT but it's got to work. All vehicles have issues but the C-Max has significantly more than others. Brand loyalty is highly dependent on issues and past dependability results affect prospective buyers' purchase decisions (see quote below from JD Powers.) Everyone is not married to the same brand purchase after purchase. So, it's not about whether one can overlook an issue(s) and be happy with a purchase. It's about the manufacturer (Ford in this case) fixing issues and selling products that "beat" the competition in initial quality and dependability. What would Ford's C-Max sales be like if the car really got on average 47 mpg and was a class leader in initial quality surveys and ultimately in dependability and what would resale value be like? We as individuals will make our own judgements on the C-Max and whether we purchase another Ford product in the near future. But the results of surveys have to weigh on Ford.

Also, with respect to what is "problematic", lest we forget (as was posted on June 20, 2013) this JD Powers survey shows Ford well below average. Here's the survey results on the C-Max and repeated below. Also Ford is just below average in JD Powers 2014 Dependability Survey of 2011 vehicles (includes 3 years of ownership). We'll likely have to wait 2 more years to have the C-Max included in the Dependability Survey.

The C-max has a fill plug, drain plug and check plug. The fill hole is accessed from the top after removing air intake stuff and cowl panel. After draining, add 5.4 liters, run engine for one minute, wait 5 minutes and drain excess oil from check plug shown in post 2 above. I would not use the check level hole to add 5.4 liters as the manual show using a syringe to top off when checking. It would likely be a tedious process like fotomoto describes. Also, to get an accurate fill level, fluid temperature should be between 20*C - 40*C (remember the dipstick fluid method had a hot and cold fill line). Also, I see no reason to change fluid at 10-20k miles. But it's not my $$$.

Ford ranks below average in the JD Powers surveys likely because of all the trips to the dealer to fix issues. I only had 3 trips to the dealer (and am not counting the MFT/Sync update I did at home.) That's really 2 too many in one year (the musty air is a known issue for a/c systems and is easily remedied). Now I don't have Navigation or the foot operated lift gate which for those that do likely resulted in more trips to the dealer. Now for the unlucky few that have 12 V battery problems, the trips might double. Point being trips to the dealer for whatever reason indicates the cars are problematic for the owners and will likely affect the surveys no matter what the severity is of the issue. Now if we look at reliability, CR surveys shows a 1/2 black circle (below average for the Electrical System) which is likely driven by the 12 V battery issue and a full black circle (much worse than average) for the Audio which we know the reasons why (just read the threads here). Now if we look at the owners of EV, PHEV and HEV vehicles would buy again, 67% said yes for the Hybrid but this is 4th from the bottom. The Optima, Sonata and Insight are lower. But the Energi is third from the top at 84% with only Telsa and the Volt higher. Could the reason be the 12 V issue which appears to be more prevalent on the Hybrid (and the SE models as that's where most of Ford's fixes seem to be targeted towards). I am by no means unhappy. As I've said many times I like my C-Max. I knew when I purchased in Dec 2012 that I would not get 47 mpg on average and expected around 40+ish which is what I'm getting. But to some 47 mpg is an issue and I have a feeling that the 12 V issue is a lot more prevalent than we see on this forum. So, I had to respond to mtb9153 as the C-Max is a below average car for many consumers compared to the field and it started with Ford's 47 mpg debacle. There are a lot of consumers that love their Prii for their mileage and reliability and the surveys show this. But you couldn't get me to buy a Prius over a C-Max.

I've always had that very slight pull to the left when coasting (is this the regenerative braking this refers to?) at speeds of about 30 mph or less. The pull is not noticeable unless I let the steering freewheel. I will see if it exists when coasting if I apply the brakes to increase regenerative braking at slower and higher speeds. At 21k miles my tires show no unusual wear. I will also see what happens if I coast in neutral.

Which is exactly what I did in my response to the OP. . :) "Wendelina Stout, good luck with your buyback. I've only owned 3 Ford vehicles (1965 Mustang, 1986 Sable Wagon, and the C-Max). As you see I'm not a Ford fanatic and likely will not buy another Ford product even though I've not had the issues that many have had with their C-Max." I edited my original post to put the quoted sentences first rather than last as in my original post as evidently their was confusion as to which post "I think your math is wrong" refers to. I fail to see how my response to mtb9153's post negatively affects whether the OP comes back.

I know different type of problem. The principle is the same but the severity of a dead battery hasn't put one in harms way like a HPFP failure nor has it been an expensive failure yet. Fortunately, no one has been injured AFAIK by the HPFP failing and the car shutting down on the freeways. VW has been covering failures past warranty even most for second owners after the NHTSA investigation was opened. Many owners footed the bill prior to that point in time. Many including me believe that if NHTSA fails to act forcing a recall, VW will stop covering failures past warranty (here's one covered today with 143k miles). If this happens, the value of a used Tdi will tank (more than it has already). There are many new used Tdi owners that have had HPFP failures that were not aware of the issue when they bought the car used and thought they got a great car. As C-Max owners IMO we need to keep this battery failure issue active. Otherwise, Ford gets off the hook too easy and may not cover such issue after warranty or if they ever definitively find the root cause.

You know the old adage: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I like my C-Max too but I'm not sure I'd get another one if I had the battery issue. :) I liked my 2009 Jetta TDI too but after an $8k fuel system HPFP replacement at 44k miles covered under warranty and no apparent fix for the HPFP problem I was not going to chance keeping the car and risk another failure which might not be covered. So, at 70k miles I traded it for the C-Max when it was obvious that VW in their last response to NHTSA on HPFP failures in Dec. 2012 did not acknowledge a design defect but continued to blame the issue on "bad" fuel. HPFPs continue to fail on 2009 - 2013 Jetta TDIs. Time will tell whether the battery issue will ever be resolved by Ford.

The cost analysis of $187 apparently is for only 2014 (about 2 months) not since you've started tracking in fuelly. Here's the numbers since you started tracking in fuelly. $3.83 Avg. Price/Gallon$47.14Avg. Price/Fuel-up$0.091Avg. Price/Mile$1,367.16 The dealer did something similar to this video to get rid of the musty smell.

Wendelina Stout, good luck with your buyback. I've only owned 3 Ford vehicles (1965 Mustang, 1986 Sable Wagon, and the C-Max). As you see I'm not a Ford fanatic and likely will not buy another Ford product even though I've not had the issues that many have had with their C-Max. mtb9153, I think your math is wrong. $187 buys me less than 60 gallons of fuel in AZ and in CA that's probably less than 50 gallons. 50 gallons times 41mpg is only 2050 miles not 24536 miles. Also, 24536 times $0.088 is $2159 not $187.73. In addition, the C-Max is a problematic car compared to other vehicles. It started with the 47 mpg fiasco. How many recalls / trips to the dealer does it take? The sum total of recalls for my last 2 new cars in 225k miles was one and for warranty repairs was 2 (seat belt buckle and trunk hinges). My C-Max has been to the dealer 3 times (twice for recalls and once for musty AC smell). I have said this in other threads, buybacks are rare on several other non-Ford forums I follow. But not so on this one. When Ford can't fix problems in 3 attempts something is not right. ;)

It's also interesting that Ford.com makes no mention of a different transmission. It's described as an eCVT.

Interesting as it's showing up as features in the 2014 C-max description. I wonder if a 2-speed gear box was added before the final drive gears in the differential. How about if the Ford Team looks into this?

I'm assuming that the graph represents 100% SOC or 1.4 kWh of capacity at 0 miles. If the working capacity is a max charge of 70%, then we should see no loss of working capacity for the life of the vehicle and thus no affect on FE due to battery capacity degradation. Paul, what's the max SOC you've seen on your scan gauge?

I agree the thresholds should be part of their test parameters as the tests are supposedly based on "working capacity". Otherwise, their tests aren't of much value. I did reference the graph in the link many months ago but had to delete the curve due to potentially running out of storage capacity on this site (and not wanting to move all to photobucket or similar site. I really wanted to find a test of an individual li-ion cell with similar chemistry to the Ford cells rather than something that's a decade plus old but couldn't to show how charge level affects cell storage capacity. Based on the linked Ford article, Ford's not charging to 100% (using working capacity), and the curves of the cell above as a reference, it's a good indication as why Ford engineered many of the PCM features like EV+ the way they did. That's not saying that Ford won't change in the future as they gain more real world experience with battery life. What I'm not sure is if Ford ever lets the charge go to 100 %. Next week I should be heading north and will descend many long steeper grades that will charge the battery to max based on their algorithms. I'll (if I remember to take my IPad), record various parameters as I'm ascending and descending the grades.

On an EV with a large battery like the Mercedes, one can "get away" with charging the battery to a higher state of charge as the discharge / charge cycles would likely be a lot less on such an EV than a HEV or even a PHEV like the NRG. Damn, I've got to wait until at least 2015 in AZ to step up from the "C" class to the "B" class. MB claims 100+ mile range. I wonder if this is with the "up charge" or without as before I buy an EV, I would want a usable range of near 100 miles (and a reasonable price). From MBUSA:

From my experience when monitoring SOC, normally the SOC will vary from low 40% to mid / upper 50%. I very rarely see above 60% or below 40%. The useable life of the battery (number of charge / discharge cycles) depends on the charge level for each discharge / charge cycle. In other words, if you charge back to 100% capacity on every discharge / charge cycle, the life of the battery declines considerably. So, to extend the cycle life, the battery is very rarely charged anywhere near 100% SOC (IIRC someone said it's around 70%). And on the discharge side IIRC the minimum is around 35%. So, the engineers are going to set up the algorithms to stay within limits and likely more in the range of what I see in normal driving and as such the cycle life should be maximized. Playing with the limits on when ICE turns on by allowing for more battery energy to drive the car for longer periods of time (widening the charge / discharge levels to say 85% / 15% will likely shorten cycle life. I can't find any battery curves for the C-Max but here's an old curve (I would think the cells in the C-Max might be better) that demonstrates why one does not want to cycle the HVB to 100% to get more energy from the battery. For example, assume 1000 mAh represents 100% SOC. So, looking at the curve if one charged back to about 100% (blue or red curve), the life (assuming 60% Capacity or 600 mAh) would be between 250 - 375 cycles. Assume one only charges back to the black curve level of about 93%, the life might be around 800 cycles which really is not very long. Now assume that the SOC is limited to 70%. We can assume that the 70% curve would be a straight line but extremely flat. It would have a slope much less than the black curve. One can assume the cycle life would likely then be for the life of the car or several 100k miles. Also, I forgot to mention that I read SOC via the OBDII port not the battery ICON on the display. As others have said (and verified) the battery ICON is non-linear and near full does not represent near 100% SOC and near the bottom does not represent near zero SOC.

For those not wanting to look at the Mobil site, here's Mobil 1 recommendations for the 2013 and 2014 C-Max.

EV+ for me works pretty much as described in the manual. When coming home, I have about a 300 foot climb for about 3+ miles at a speed limit of 55 mph before I turn off the main road at a traffic light and proceed about 1+ miles up another 35 feet to my home. My SOC usually shows about 1/2 - 2/3 when turning off the main highway. With EV+, ICE virtually always runs starting when making the turn at the traffic light. ICE then usually always stays on for at least 1/2 miles (speed limit 35 mph) until I turn again onto a road with a speed limit of 25 mph. ICE will then generally stay off until home but sometimes will continue to run for another 1/4+ miles. EV+ will show up on the display with slightly less than 1/4 mile from my home. But as the crow flies I'm really about 1/8 mile from home. :)

I believe the major cause of injector replacement is due to fouling in lower mileage vehicles (tip wear in higher mileage vehicles) I'd go back to the misfire codes and still run a double dose (2 bottles) of techron through a tank of fuel to clean all cylinders. Rarely is the root cause of failure an inherent mechanical or electrical failure. Also, the air fuel ratio Imbalance monitor allows the PCM to trim fuel appropriately for each cylinder. I would think that if the difference in fuel trim between cylinders exceeded a threshold that a DTC would be thrown. But given that there is now one new injector and 3 old injectors (likely different spray patterns and different flow volumes), one could see slightly different performance characteristics including FE (which a hypermiler might notice). Many times when one injector needs replaced, all injectors are replaced so that the injector characteristics are virtually the same or balanced especially since injectors will continue to wear. I doubt Ford pulled all injectors and tested the characteristics to check imbalance among the injectors. At $36.55 for an injector, it's probably cheaper to replace all than test each one since the dealer likely would have to send out.

Good find. Now, if you select superior protection instead of ultimate protection on the Mobil site, the 0W20 AFE oil comes up again for the 2013 and now also for the 2014 C-Max. Evidently, since Mobil1 now has a EP oil for the C-Max, it shoves AFE down a notch. If you select the lowest level of protection (Premium Protection) on the site, Mobil displays the oils for all levels of protection - Ultimate, Superior, and Premium. BTW, I corrected your sentence above. ONLY FORD IS APPARENTLY PLAYING HARDBALL. I do wonder though why Mobil makes no reference to WSS-M2C947-A (maybe oversight).

It's called "service position" and in the owner's manual.

Not true. EV+ is on hybrid. Unique Driving Characteristics 1812013 C-Max Full Hybrid (34h)Owners Guide gf, 1st PrintingUSA (fus)