plus 3 golfer

LW48033, you need to make Ford aware of this (probably need to let dealer look at car) along with filing a report with the NHTSA.

So, underneath the driver's seat, you don't have 2 compartments under one lid? I jam the jumper cables in the forward driver's seat compartment (lid is slightly bowed) and put a first aid kit in the aft compartment. My tire plug kit is in the compartment under the passenger seat along with the C-Max tire kit / compressor.

I jumped my Nissan a few months ago with my C-Max. I did nothing different than one would do with two non-hybrid vehicles other than turning the fans on in both vehicles as the owner's manual says to do to protect from power surges. Instead of carrying a spare battery or a spare tire, I carry jumper cables and a tire patch kit in the rear floor compartment. Given the C-Max battery / no-start issue, I believe the likelihood of me needing a boost is far greater than me having a blowout.

When you go back write down the VIN so we can enter it into etis and see if the axle ratio has changed. It looks like the aero add ons to the glass can likely be made by a vendor (GAS PODS) if Ford won't sell them.

If one goes to etis and enters the VIN, it shows the axle ratio of 2.57:1 for the 2013 C-Max Hybrid the same as the FFH. If someone with an C-Max Energi, FFH, and Fusion Energi could do the same and post, we can validate the axle ratios. I believe we will find both hybrids are the same and both Energis are the same as reviewers have been stating for some time. When I had my one month membership to the service manuals one could print off a detailed spec sheet and detailed build information for any VIN. My printout shows 2.57:1. Also, here's a snip of my etis below showing the 2.57

Please look at the data again. :) I have looked at the data many times. The 2013 EPA data shows the Ford C-Max PHEV (Energi) with the 4:09 (there are 4 line items) and the Ford Fusion Hybrid HEV (2 line items) with the 3:61. Ford did not test the C-Max Hybrid but used the Fusion Hybrid data for the C-Max Hybrid nor did they test the Fusion Energi. The 250 pound weight difference is the difference between the Fusion Hybrid and the C-Max Energi which has the larger Battery Pack.

In various reviewers tests, reviewers seem to get about a 2 mpg difference. Of course generally the reviewers aren't comparing the two cars at the same time and likely not under the same driving conditions. (I'm editing my post above) I didn't want to bring this up in my post above but I question Ford's original rating of 47/47/47 for the Fusion Hybrid. The Fusion Hybrid is almost in Prius hatchback EPA FE range. It makes no sense that the EPA FE of a 600 pound heavier car with a higher Cd and larger frontal area could be that high without a few more "loopholes" in the testing procedures. IMO, the EPA retest of the C-Max Hybrid has to raise concerns about the Fusion Hybrid FE rating and rating of Hybrids in general. As has been discussed before, EPA is supposedly looking at the Rules for Hybrids, going to close loopholes, and hopefully make changes to better reflect the real world.

Using those dimensions, I get that the CdA of the C-Max is 20% less aerodynamically efficient than the Fusion. The 20% is not the FE difference. The effect of the 20% varies with speed. At lower speeds below 40 mph, the effect will likely be less than a 10% change in power requirements. At 70 mph the effect will likely be around 14% change in power requirements. The change in FE depends on where ICE is running on the BSFC. Given that the PCM can change where ICE runs by operating MG1 and MG2, the effects of the increased power requirements on the C-Max FE can be minimized. This raises questions on Ford's EPA 47 mpg rating of the Fusion as a 6 mpg overall difference between the Fusion EPA rating and the EPA re-tested C-Max Hybrid rating of 41 mpg seems more than one might expect for the aero differences (6/41 = 14.6%). As a reference, here's a table showing aero data for various vehicles. Note the Prius 2010+ has a CdA of 5.84 compared to my calculations of the CdA of the C-Max and Fusion of about 8.05 and 6.68, respectively (using the frontal area calculation in the table). IIRC, the Prius V has a Cd of 0.28 and a larger frontal area than the Prius hatchback. So, I would expect the CdA of the Prius V to be around 7.0+.

I interpret the quote below from Ford that the 2014 C-Max Hybrid will have an effective taller final drive ratio than the 2013 Hybrid (hardware changes for more efficient drive ratio). I don't believe that the shorter final drive ratio of the Energi will be more efficient in the Hybrid. IMO, the C-Max FE suffers at higher speeds (higher ICE rpm that may not be the most efficient point on the BSFC) and will benefit from a taller final drive. But time will tell. The dyno factors in "road drag" including aerodynamics. A number of years ago EPA allowed wind tunnel data to be use in computing the "road drag" to be used in the dyno tests. Prior to that, coast down data was used to determine road drag. Both procedures may still be allowed but would have to research. Also, in the retest of the C-Max Hybrid, the reason given as to why the Fusion Hybrid was not a good proxy for the C-Max in the EPA tests was aerodynamic drag difference between the Fusion and C-Max. Prior to the reprogramming of the Hybrid the EPA test numbers were 40 highway, 42 city, 41 combined. The difference is 6 mpg combined from the 47 mpg rating which was primarily attributed to drag. The Cd of the Fusion is 0.27 and may have a smaller frontal area than the C-Max. The Cd of the Hybrid is 0.3.

Ford needs to shave about 4-6 hundred pounds from the C-Max (not an easy task from a 3607 pound car) and with the aero enhancements the rating could get to 47 mpg overall. Also, you might want to edit the "42 hwy" number to "40" mpg as 40 is the revised EPA number. The 2014 EPA numbers for the C-Max Hybrid haven't been released yet likely because Ford is testing the "enhanced" 2014 C-Max and will certify the results to the EPA for the Monroney sticker.

hybridbear, the Prius weighs about 600 pounds less than the C-Max, has a the 17% lower Cd and less frontal area than the C-Max. This accounts for the lower power requirements of the Priis vs the C-Max at highway speeds (not programming). A simple spreadsheet on drag demonstrates this. At 65 mph the C-Max will require about 22-24% more power to overcome drag (frontal area of C-Max est) than the Prius. No matter how one programs the powertrains,about 23% more power will require the C-Max to burn more fuel. Wayne Gerdes (cleanmpg.com) tests show the C-Max at 44 mpg at 65 mph vs the Prius at 52.2 mpg or about a 18.6% advantage for the Prius. I have yet to see anyone show that the C-Max is not programmed efficiently given it's weight, drag, and larger HVB differences compared to the Prius. I would argue that the programming of the Prius and C-Max are comparable - the Prius requires about 19% less power than the C-Max at 65 mph and gets 18.6% better FE than the C-Max at 65 mph. ;)

Ford ran the EPA FE tests on the Energi which yielded 41 Highway and 44 City (43 Combined). EPA ran the EPA FE tests on the Hybrid and got 40 Highway and 45 City (43 Combined) post 13B07. EPA also ran the tests pre 13B07 and got 40 Highway and 42 City (41 Combined). The tests are run on a dynamometer with a driver "trying" to follow the EPA prescribed driving schedule for the particular test. I don't recall how much "driver" deviation from the schedule is permissible for a valid test. But, there will likely be variances in the test results based solely on the driver. But, it does make me wonder how the 300 pound heavier Energi with a shorter final drive ratio gets 2 mpg better EPA FE than the Hybrid pre 13B07 and basically the same FE rating post 13B07. The 2013 Hybrid has taller gearing which should at least yield better highway FE than the Energi all other things being the same. It wouldn't surprise me if the 2014 Hybrid EPA FE Highway numbers surpass the Energi by 1 or 2 mpg based on what apparently is even a taller final drive in the 2014 than the 2013 (and likely reprograming of the PCM) and the aero enhancements. Ford will be running the 2014 EPA tests with their likely "programmed" driver. ;)

You need to know the algoritm used in setting alarms / DTC and then maybe one can figure out what the threshold temperature is for triggering. It's likely not one instantaneous value. Usually, there is a sampling rate and a time constant used to compute a weighted average value. When the weighted average value exceeds the threshold, an alarm or DTC is initiated. IIRC, the threshold for the PCM to limit fueling on over temperature is 270F (I read that in either the service manual or perhaps the OBDII operations manual). So my guess is that the over temperature warning threshold temperature would be between say 240-260F. I have seen instantaneous temperatures climb into the mid 230F with covers and ambient temp near 70F at 67 mph going up grades and then fall back to low 220F once over the crest of the hill.

Here's some issues. The first 3k and maybe 5k miles (depending on EV use) should be disregarded as that's break-in miles. So that's likely 2-5 months of initial ownership data. Tires wear resulting in increasing FE. Driving styles / conditions are likely not the same. I for one am driving slightly less efficiently now. The novelty of obtaining higher FE has worn off on me. On the contrary there may be some now that drive more effectively for FE, made mods, and so forth that has increased their FE. Such a small change in FE for 13B07 implemented over many months will likely simply be noise in the fuelly data and likely indistinguishable. The credible way to measure the difference is to run tests just before the update and just after the update. EPA did that and got a 3 mpg city increase and no highway increase. CR did that and got less than 1 mpg increase in overall FE. Again the test methods aren't the same. Bottom line: The credibility of "long term tank" data being able to positively identify the effects of 13B07 on FE will be suspect especially if the analysis purports to substantially increase FE whether by an individual or groups of people like on fuelly.

One more point on Suzuki / CR as this has come up in other threads when posters dis on CR credibility. I can now see why Suzuki settled with no $. "According to CU, Suzuki internal documents indicate that the company was aware of the Samurai’s rollover problem. A Suzuki memorandum dated July 14, 1985 stated: "It is imperative that we develop a crisis plan that will primarily deal with the ‘roll’ factor. Because of the narrow wheelbase, similar to the Jeep, the car is bound to turn over."[8] Over the years, over 200 Suzuki Samurai rollover lawsuits have been settled and Suzuki's own expert witnesses testified the automaker was aware of 213 deaths and 8,200 injuries involving Suzuki Samurai rollovers.[8]" - from wiki

CR did not quote fuelly. This is how threads go awry. CR tested the C-Max immediately before and after the software update 13B07 and found that the software update increased FE by less than one mpg. CR said the increase was insignificant. CR's overall 37 mpg FE rating was based on their tests which they indicate is different than the EPA testing. Also, for those that want to learn about the EPA rules and regulations on FE, I suggest reading the Federal Register and EPA documents on EPA FE regulations and rules. Suffice it to say that EPA documents indicate that the new EPA C-Max FE ratings were based on only two (old Highway and Old City test cycle) of the five EPA test cycles. The three newer tests were adopted by EPA to complement the old tests to yield a better indication of what the average city and highway FE on a vehicle might be in the real world. So, it very likely that had all five tests been run on the C-Max, the new EPA numbers would be lower. The new lower EPA numbers for the C-Max basically account for the new software update and the aerodynamic differences between the C-Max and the Fusion. I use CR as one reference when making buying decisions. There's plenty of resources on the web to gauge virtually any product one wants to buy. Different testers and reviewers will get varying results and have different opinions. In the case of the FE of the C-Max, I don't recall any reviewers off hand (please post if one finds one) of the C-Max that got the overall new EPA number of 43 mpg. Also, consumer data on fuelly, fueleconomy.gov, truedelta.com support the reviewers numbers. Bottom line: it seems some like to dis on CR (likely on anything they say) but can't provide sound, relevant, rationale or current facts that support their position but for a very old misstep by CR testers in July 1988 (Suzuki Samurai). In fact, the parties ultimately settled with no $ changing hands and no apology from CR.

It's the FE of the fleet that is relevant not an individual's FE. As I've said several times, I like my C-Max, am averaging just under 41 mpg in 18k miles (with one year of ownership) and can easily beat the EPA numbers (if I want to). But IMO, most owners will not drive the way one has to maximize FE, will not sacrifice comfortable HVAC operation to improve FE, will not mod their cars for FE improvement, or don't live in an ideal climatic area of the country favorable to higher FE. Fuelly was continually quoted here during the summer when it was increasing but now that it has fallen from it's high, apparently it's garbage. Time will tell but I believe CR's retest of less than 1 mpg improvement from the summer tweaks will still show the C-Max FE average will be under the EPA numbers by a greater % than the PriusV. Why it is so hard to accept that virtually all C-Max reviewers' and consumers' average reported FE numbers are significantly lower than the EPA is beyond me.:). So, I guess all the reviewers including cleanmpg, MT, C&D and so forth are wrong and that there is so much "bad" consumer reported data, that the average consumer FE (which supports the reviewers' FE) should be disregarded. If someone has better data post it. But like I said in another recent thread when one doesn't like the message, why shoot the messenger (reviewers and consumers), shoot EPA and Ford. The message is in the thread title.

"yawn...wake me up when there is something new & exciting" - That's how I feel about many threads on this forum. ;) Irrelevant metaphors do not make an issue go away. To me it's clear that the difference between the C-Max EPA FE Ratings compared to the FE testing by reviewers and the average FE that consumers achieve are significantly more than when compared to similar vehicles. I and likely many consumers believe this is an issue. Without discourse of issues, change will be slow and likely non-existent. If facts are in dispute, one should provide argument to support their view on the facts in dispute. Potential consumers should have the facts so they can make a better decision. What's "new" but perhaps not "exciting" to many is that Ford's summer tweaks helped less than 1 mpg in CR tests and that the new C-Max and Fusion EPA numbers are still a long way from "reality" based on most recent FE data. So EPA and Ford, why are the differences in the C-Max and Fusion EPA FE rating compared to "actual" numbers so large when compared to the Prius V and Camry Hybrid and when EPA are you going to "fix" the rules and Ford when are you going to run the 5 EPA tests? Below is a quick snapshot of some current FE data (rounded in some cases). We have discussed likely reasons for differences in many other threads. EPA changes in Rules will take time but Ford could do the right thing and at least run all 5 EPA tests (especially since the 2014 C-Max is to supposedly have aero enhancements).

The "Red" text added above to the OP is the remainder of the CR article (Same as DaveofDurham likk) which was published Dec 2013 and will be in the February 2014 CR magazine. You may need a subscription to view it. Also, CR fails to mention that the EPA has a high speed test that was added a few years ago (along with two additional tests for a total of 3 new tests) to supplement EPA's two older tests -the highway test and the city test. But as I've stated many times, the EPA allows manufacturer's to not run the 3 new tests and get by with some adjustments to the two old tests to better account for higher speed driving, AC use, cold weather operation, and quicker acceleration. After looking at newer C-Max data in EPA spreadsheets, it appears that Ford (nor the EPA) ran the three new tests in determining the new C-Max EPA FE ratings. IMO, it's time for EPA to change the Rules and require manufacturer's to run the five tests rather than allow various provisions of the Rules to "taint" FE results. Otherwise, manufacturer's can play "games" with the powertrain coding to maximize FE (especially with hybrids) when only using the older City and Highway tests.

I always find it amusing how some "shoot the messenger" for reporting "unwelcomed" facts and likely have not even read the CR review of the C-Max. ;) Ford ought to be "shot" not CR. It's clear to me that CR likes the C-Max (see excerpts below) but consumer's have (are still having) reliability issues. CR reports the results of their consumer surveys and hence the poor reliability rating. I've been on a lot of forums and don't recall any new cars with the manufacturer buying back so many cars for not being able to resolve a "no start" (aka "dead battery") condition.

Paul, you can attach PDFs to posts by selecting "More Reply Options". The screen will refresh and at the bottom left of the updated screen will be Attach Files. Select "Choose Files".

So, Ford's total sleep mode draw is virtually the same as VW around 40 mA. The preferred way to measure total draw is to use a clamp on meter around the negative cable from the battery (accessible in the rear of the C-Max). So, you don't need the switch. I will say though that most owners likely don't have a clamp on ammeter with a 10 mA or even 100 mA resolution. Once the modules are asleep, the voltage drop method will indicate which circuits have a high draw. It's a lot easier than pulling fuses. One really then needs the wiring diagrams to determine what loads are on the modules to further troubleshoot components of the high draw circuits. I have also measured the current draws on fuses in my VWs when modules are not in sleep mode. Most have found in VWs that parasitic drains are mostly caused by such things as amplifier / radio / other electronic systems not shutting down or intermittent switches / crimped wiring that keeps modules awake. drdiesel1 if you have Ford's method of troubleshooting battery drain (like I attached above for VW), please post it or paraphrase it. Making statements like "You need the switch to do a proper parasitic load test. Otherwise, you're just wasting time and chasing your tail around in a circle" is not correct."

IMO, the best way to measure parasitic load on a circuit is to measure the voltage drop across the fuse on the circuit. If there's current flowing through the fuse, there will be voltage drop. One needs a lookup table based on the fuse (or know the resistance of the fuse) to determine the current draw. VW issued a TB on this with lookup tables (see attachment) many years ago. It works extremely well as there's no need to disconnect the battery and insert an ammeter which may "wake" "sleeping" control modules. Also, there's no need to pull fuses with this method. I don't know what Ford's "sleep" mode current draw is but my guess is that it is well less than 100 mA total. TSB_27_08_04_Matrix.pdf

I had similar thoughts. But NHTSA believes that it may not be appropriate to automatically put a car in "park" / shut the car off -- in essence take control away from the driver which could be a problem if the control system malfunctioned. I can't recall if NHTSA discussed the reasons other than to some extent it becomes a timing issue (how long does one wait until any action including alarming is performed) and there may be a logical reason to not have the car in park with no one in the seat, door open, and so forth (car on jack stands). I also believe NHTSA wants the proposed rule to apply to all types of propulsion systems the same way. Otherwise, the alarm may not mean the same thing in different vehicles and likely only cause more confusion. It seems that a different audible alarm and perhaps a warning message should at least get the driver's attention to then determine what is causing the alarm / warning. Also, if I recall correctly the proposed duration of the alarm is very short and the alarm sound occurs outside the vehicle to warn others not in the vehicle of a potential rollaway. I have read many proposed / adopted rules by a several government agencies over my career and it really is not a simple task to think / cover every conceivable situation that might occur (eg. EPA allowing in the rules Ford to use the EPA FE rating of the Fusion Hybrid for the C-Max Hybrid).

Sad story salprint. Had there been some type of "different warning / alarm" for parking brake on, car in neutral or gear, door open, such a tragedy may have been prevented. The point is to warn the driver that something is not normal and such warning is distinguishable from typical warnings / alarms. Safety is not only about oneself but also about injury and harm to others that may result from a potential operational issue. IMO, requiring reasonable measures to reduce injury and harm to oneself and others is not a joking matter ("fog horn in every car", "install a tazer, "outlawing gum"). ;) Jesting adds no value to this discussion nor to the argument of safety requirements. Who pays for damages is a matter of law and the legal system and has no bearing on implementing reasonable safety measures. Getting back to the topic, NHTSA points out the practical issues with warning a driver of Brazen's conditions and hence any adopted warning / alarm will likely not preclude unintentional driver error and subsequent incidents. Driver's are ultimately responsible for their actions - intentional or unintentional. We are human and make errors. IMO, if a reasonable safety requirement can be implemented to warn of such errors and perhaps save property damage or life and limb, it should be adopted.