plus 3 golfer

I think people are missing the point of this thread which is not whether Brazen had a lapse in judgement (he admits that in the first post) but whether Ford's safety recall 13C07 for failure to implement certain aspects of FMVSS 114 is a means for Brazen to be reimbursed for the damages. As it turns out the current FMVSS 114 (which Ford failed to follow) apparently does not cover this situation. But, if one READS the proposed changes to FMVSS that I linked to in another post, one will see NHTSA believes what Brazen and others have done could result in harm to life and limb and propose to modify FMVSS 114 to warn of such lapse in judgement through a different, louder alarm and so forth as stated in the proposed rule to hopefully prevent injury. NHTSA cites the advent of keyless ignition and push button start / stop as a contributing toward such incidents. IMO, the issue that should be discussed is how far does NHTSA go to try to protect oneself and others from their own stupidity (lack of judgement). Had NHTSA's proposed rule on FMVSS 114 been adopted and implemented in Brazen's car, my bet is his accident would not have occurred. The proposed rule:

Paul, check your e-mail.

It appears that a proposed rule on FMVSS No. 114 would warn the driver of this situation has yet to be adopted. Comment period supposedly ended in March 2012 and I guess NHTSA is taking their time in proposing a final rule (if at all). NHTSA summarizes complaints that are similar to Brazen's experience in the proposed rule. Thus, it also appears that Safety Recall 13C07 is moot but it doesn't hurt to ask NHTSA about applicability of 13C07 to such a complaint. Since the existing FMVSS 114 apparently doesn't cover the issue, there is no safety requirement for manufacturers to meet that covers this issue. But I would still file a report with NHTSA as others have done on this issue to support the proposed rule. Bottom line: IMO, Safety Recall 13C07 did not cause Brazen's accident! :) (Maybe a title change is in order) ;)

Brazen, the manufacturer is required to reimburse an owner for damages caused by a safety defect. So yes, you should try to get VW to pay. The legal issue (if any) might be that the safety recall has been out for a month or so and the owner should have been made aware of the defect by the manufacturer. However, it's not the owner's responsibility to know of the defect. It's the manufacturer's responsibility to notify owners of the safety recall. AFAIK, a safety recall does not expire. But there may be a time limit associated with reimbursement for damages occurring after a safety recall. I would file a report with NHTSA on the incident and contact VW. You could also call NHTSA (# below) and ask about the manufacturer's liability for reimbursement of damages caused by the safety defect. Here's the Safety Recall: Report Receipt Date: OCT 17, 2013 NHTSA Campaign Number: 13V475000 Component(s): ELECTRICAL SYSTEM , EQUIPMENT All Products Associated with this Recall Details 4 Associated Documents Manufacturer: Ford Motor Company SUMMARY:Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2012-2013 Focus Electric vehicles and 2013 C-Max vehicles equipped with the Intelligent Access Push Button Start System. In the affected vehicles, there is no audible chime when the vehicle is operational and the driver's door is opened. Thus, these vehicles fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 114, "Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention." CONSEQUENCE:Without an audible door chime, a vehicle owner may open the door and exit the vehicle without being reminded that the vehicle is still operational, leaving the vehicle susceptible to theft. REMEDY:Ford will notify owners, and dealers will update the software for the door chime, free of charge. The recall began on October 30, 2013. Owners may contact the Ford customer relationship center at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's recall number is 13C07. NOTES:Owners may also contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.safercar.gov.

Where am I is on the Information screen for those with the 3.6 update. At the bottom of the screen you will see GPS coordinates along with Alt.: xxxx

Nothing missing. If you pull up slightly on the plastic trim piece that runs down the side of the windshield, you can see that the body panel is one continuous piece and forms a channel around the windshield. Water that gets in the channel between the windshield seal and the roof channel and side body sheet metal is channeled between the windshield seal and the body sheet metal surface and would drain at the bottom of the windshield in the cowl area . Now having said that, should debris collect in the channel and not be cleaned out, it's possible that the metal surfaces in the channel could be prone to rust. That's probably why most vehicles have a trim piece or rubber seal that covers the channel.

In theory, it makes it sense but it's likely not practicable given the degrees of freedom. One can likely tune for better performance or better FE. The ECO button makes sense. There have been many papers written on the subject of optimizing the Hybrid Power Split Transmission. Ford will likely continue to tweak the C-Max over time. The real question though is how much FE improvement would one expect to see in the C-Max for such change and how would such change affect performance. The C-Max weighs about 600 pounds more than the Prius, has a Cd that is 20% higher and likely has a larger frontal area. That likely accounts for nearly all the FE difference we currently see between the two vehicles.

As far as the "anomaly", it sure appears that you were in negative split mode where MG2 (traction motor) is generating, MG1(generator and starter) is using power and thus is reducing ICE rpm. The torque requirements of ICE haven't changed. But ICE rpm have been reduced and thus ICE is operating at a higher efficiency point on the BSFC. This usually result in higher FE - many time around the 60+ range. The chevrons may not be displayed if the net effect on the HV battery is zero (in essence, MG2 electrical energy produced = MG1 electrical energy used). Generally, one needs a virtually full HV Battery (see description below) and to be going slightly downhill or on level ground. I would see this alot pre PCM update as about every mile on the local freeways there are either over passes or underpasses with gradual slopes. I might see the chevrons disappear for about 2 - 3 seconds or so but never for 15 seconds as a slight change in torque requirements usually means that the net HV energy is not a net zero and thus the HV battery is either being charged or supplying energy. After the PCM update my HV battery is rarely near full charge at 65 - 70 mph cruising on the freeways as it would have been pre PCM update and thus I now rarely see the chevrons "disappear".

My guess is that those that practiced P&G and used "high ICE" will find it more difficult to realize their increased FE benefits at higher speeds as often and thus may see no change in their FE or a slight drop in higher speed FE with the PCM update. Those that set the eco-cruise at 65+ mph and let the PCM control the powertrain may now see slightly better FE as there should be more opportunity to optimize higher speed FE with the increased use of EV assist and full EV operation. I agree with salsaguy in that it's likely possible for the driver to "relearn" how to again employ hypermiling techniques at higher speeds but there's likely less benefit to be gained given the PCM update. As far as the lawsuits, had Ford initially published the "appropriate" FE numbers based on the C-Max and not the Fusion Hybrid, my guess is the lawsuits would not have merit and likely not have been filed. The EPA tests showed pre PCM update that the revised C-Max FE numbers would be 41/42/40 - combined, city, highway. That's a huge difference from 47/47/47. CR got 37 mpg overall in their 150 mile test (that's only 9.8% less than the 41 but 21.3 % less than the 47). CR highway FE was 38 mpg - now only 5% less than the C-Max revised highway rating of 40 not 19.1% lower than the 47. After the PCM update, the C-Max revised FE numbers are 43/45/40. The fact that the masses and reviewers weren't / couldn't get anywhere near the 47 numbers warranted questions and lawsuits. The EPA FE numbers are supposedly based on how the "masses" drive not hypermilers nor how reviewers may drive.

Do you have the BSFC for the C-Max? If so please post it.

Have you looked at the new EPA Revised FE Statement of the C-Max before and after the PCM update? City FE rating is 3 mpg higher post update. Highway pre and post update are the same. Also, IIRC the free update is for one year. Ford could charge for the update after one year or simply not offer it. I'd say since you'll experience cold weather living in CO, I'd get it as cold weather operation has been improved with the update.

So, apparently the fuelly numbers are inflated by those that use the dash gallons. :) There's more than one on this site that have indicated they use the dash gallons in fuelly. My Lifetime Summary is 41.4 mpg but my FE based on pump readings is 40.3 mpg. That's about a 2.7% difference. Also, I believe ptjones said he adjusts his fuelly numbers up for his odometer error of IIRC of about 1.5% (his actual distance traveled is greater than the odometer indicates). But as tires wear such odometer error will decrease and one should then continually adjust as tires wear and then replaced. Over the life of the tire such error should decrease by about 1%. My odometer when I checked after I first bought the car was indicating an error of about 2% but I do run 44 psi which could increase the diameter slightly and contribute to my odometer reading being less than actual distance traveled. So, if I adjusted for my odometer error when my tires were new and used dash gallons, my lifetime FE number would be 42.2 mpg. Bottom line: report whatever you feel comfortable with to fuelly. I feel fine reporting data that gives me 40.3 mpg as my overall FE.

bigalpha, have you checked your odometer for accuracy. I like to use GPS and mileage markers over a larger distance (say at least 30 miles). Most find the odometer reads less than the actual distance covered initially but as tires wear the error will decrease since one revolution of the tire will cover less distance as the tire wears. For example, assume that the multiplier used in computing the odometer reading uses 830 revolutions of the tire to cover one actual mile but the odometer might only show the car actually traveled 0.995 miles (1/2% less distance than actual). As the tire is nearly worn out and the diameter of the tire has decreased, it might take 838 revolutions to cover one actual mile (about 1% more revolutions per mile) and the odometer will show that the car traveled about 1.05 miles (1/2% more distance than actual). The net affect of the odometer error over the tire life will be about zero. But when I checked my odometer over a longer distance initially, mine was showing about a 2% error. I do run about 44 psi in my tires which could account for some of the error as the effective diameter is likely slightly larger than running recommended pressure. So, my FE numbers are likely low by about 2% but will decrease as my tires wear. My speedometer jives with the radar signs and my GPS to less than 1 mph at virtually all speeds. Since I don't normally run with the ETM enabled I've never bothered to check the speed in ETM. However, when I've monitored and recorded speed via the OBDII port, the recorded speed (which I assume would be the same as the ETM speed) and gps speed were very close and the speedometer was about 1/2 - 1 mph too high at 70 mph. Of course each measurement (GPS, speedometer, radar, ETM / OBDII port) has inherent measurement flaws but the 3 mph seems excessive.

The EPA tests schedules are run on dynos and drivers must follow the test schedules within certain tolerances. The EPA promulgated 5 test cycles in the rules that supposedly define typical driving patterns including city, highway, high speed, cold temperature and AC use such that the data from the 5 cycles can be plugged into equations to compute the EPA FE numbers. But there are exceptions in the rules such that a manufacturer does not have to run 5 cycles on each model. In fact, Ford chose not run any of the EPA tests on the C-MAX Hybrid as permitted by the rules and instead ran 2 of the 5 cycles on the Fusion Hybrid and used that data for the C-Max. Hence, the C-Max and Fusion had an original EPA ratings of 47/47/47. The EPA then secured a C-Max Hybrid and presumably ran all 5 cycles and got the lower FE numbers as detailed in the PDF below. EPA Revised FE statement.pdf

So would I fbov but you simply can't respond without some sort of ad hominem attack. This is your third offense on me and I have simply responded to them. You may not like my opinion but there's no need for personal attacks.

My "ignorance" is not the issue. I did not presume otherwise. I could easily surmise from your first post that you "feel" you are above most in driving skills. You've now demonstrated that with your resume. So why the threat "but the third time, things may get ugly". Resorting to ad hominem attacks are not arguments that supports your statement in question. So, if a corner is marked with a suggested speed limit, are you saying that electronics are preventing the car from carrying the posted limit through a corner. My previous post simply states that my bottom line is different than yours. I understand that you like to find the limits of vehicles for the track. But you weren't on the track but a public road "testing" the C-Max and state you'll try it again. A couple of rhetorical questions: when is it "wise" to carry speed through corners on public roads and what makes it "wise" to go 10, 20 or more mph above the posted cornering speed limit suggestions. I can't think of any rationale answers.

My bottom line: "other people's welfare make it unwise to carry speed through corners." ;) Save such "spirited driving" for the track not the highway. Have fun, but drive safely. :)

I would probably make 3 test runs of at least 20 mile round trips 1) at slower speeds up to around 45 mph with many stops and starts on back roads, 20 medium speeds cruising between about 45 - 65 mph with minimal stops and then 3) high speed cruising with no stops at 70 or 75 mph. I would record via the OBDII port RPM, torque, SOC, and speed since I can only monitor and record 4 data points at one time via my laptop and Ross-Tech VCDS software. I would use the FE trip screens to monitor FE and snap pics at end of each test. I would repeat the tests after the update and compare / analyze results. It would also be great to monitor / record via a camera the operation of the grille shutters to see if one can notice if the shutters remain closed more often after the update to enhance aerodynamics. My laptop is old (slow) and I have watched shutter operation but cannot record the operation. The tests should be run at about the same ambient temperatures with no ac or other aux. use. There is software for androids and iphones to monitor and graph via the OBDII port using an ELM 327 module. I assume one can save the recorded data for analyzing later. I'm debating whether I should buy an ELM 327 and try out this app for the iphone, ipad.

My comments: 1) Warm-up. - Can't tell until we get colder weather. 2) Power - I agree, seems the same. 3) Coasting - I agree that the car coasts further in "D" than pre-update. This seems to be the case at all speeds and IMO is probably due to less traction motor regen (engine braking) and then perhaps better grille shutter operation. In other words, when traveling 55 mph and have to stop because of a light change, I have to start coasting further back than pre-update. If I start the coast as I previously had done, I have to use the brakes harder, longer and thus must focus more on reaching a 100% brake score. 4) EV driving - I agree, I seem to be able to travel further in EV mode than prior to the update (speed below 62 mph). This may be do to grille shutters (lower drag) and also coasting on slight downgrades where there's not as much charging (and hence conversion losses) assuming the compression braking of the traction motor has been reduced. 5) Charging - I agree as I seem to notice a slightly higher engine rpm when charging than prior to update at higher speed > 65 mph. This makes sense if one is going to allow more EV assist and full EV operation up to 85 mph. I just wish that I had recorded comparative operating data prior to the update and then post update so that I could see if the above rationale would have been born out by the data . Since we don't have a set driving routine each day, it's difficult to estimate the FE improvement per se. But, when looking at fuelly, we are getting about 2+ mpg improvement in mixed driving after the update. My last 2 fill-ups were mileage driven after the update and are the only 2 fill-ups in August so far. I really hope this improvement continues.

BrentWI, I've done detailed economic analysis of the plug-in Energi and the Hybid. The question of the Energi vs Hybrid for me was a pure economical one. My off-peak energy rates are less than 8.5 cents/kWh but I have a PV solar system on my roof which would have lowered my electric cost to charge the Energi to 6.8 cents / kWh. So the cost to charge for me would have been around $0.50 per charge had I bought the Energi. Based on the premium of about $2200+ (after tax credit) I would have paid for the Energi over the Hybrid (base Energi vs base SEL Hybrid), because I got an extra $1000 off the Hybrid that I didn't get off the Energi and how many miles I was going to drive beyond the all electric range, I could estimate my annual fuel and electric costs and compute the time until I would break even. Based on my analysis I would have had to average of about 70 mpg in the Energi from my current 40 mpg for my Hybrid to have a payback of the premium of the Energi over the Hybrid in about 10 years. The Energi was not cost effective for me. I would need about a 40 mile all electric range or the ability to charge away from home for the Energi to make sense. So, people buy cars for all reasons (not just economics) but if you are considering the Energi because you think it may be the most economical choice, I would do a "realistic" spreadsheet analysis to see if the Energi makes sense. Also, remember the electric range depends on how fast you drive as aerodynamic drag eats up energy (electric or gas) in a hurry.

I doubt most will have to worry about HV battery life if we drive the US average of about 14k miles per year. Note the expected degradation of the NiMH vs the L-Ion based on Ford's accelerated 10 month Key Life Tests. Also note that most of the NiMH field test data for the NiMH is above the projected yellow performance line. From Ford:

Ford only ran the the old 2 cycle EPA tests (city and highway) and used "multipliers" for the parts of the 5 cycle tests to compute the their EPA numbers. They did not run the new high speed test which includes a city portion and highway portion. So, my guess is that had Ford run the all 5 EPA tests on the C-Max Energi, the highway and city mpg would drop for the Energi and end up below the C-Max because the Energi is a heavier car. Although I don't recall EPA stating this explicitly, I believe the EPA ran all 5 tests for the new EPA ratings of the C-Max Hybrid. So, basically one does not have a consistent set of test data to really draw any valid comparisons.

I agree completely. As I said in another thread: "EPA has to be smarting over this as it shows a lack of responsibility / leadership /motivation / $$$$ in their budget (or something) for letting such a situation develop to begin with."

It's darn impossible to outwit physics. :) I've said this before that one can hypermile and greatly improve virtually any cars FE but that's not how most people drive nor what the EPA tests represent. I can't remember where (probably multiple places) but there have been discussions on how can the C-Max and Fusion get exactly the same EPA rating recognizing the aero differences and how can the C-Max beat the Prius V in EPA rating so handily given the weight and Cd advantage of the Prius V. From fuelly (C-Max will likely climb slightly due to recent PCM update): 2013 C-Max hybrid L4 - 177 @ 40.0 mpg 2013 Prius V----------------- 75 @ 43.0 mpg 2012 Prius V--------------- 266 @ 42.1 mpg 2011 Prius V------------------ 2 @ 46.0 mpg From Fueleconomy.gov, now the C-Max EPA rating makes more sense.

One other point on the EPA testing of the C-Max, the C-Max without the PCM update tested at 42/40/41 City, Highway, Combined. Cleanmpg.com in early 2013 suggested these numbers as more representative of the C-Max FE rating 41/37/39 and didn't have to run any sophisticated tests. I ask who should the consumer believe the next time a new hybrid is brought to market when FE is of highest priority: a manufacturer's testing per the current EPA rules or a group of recognized reviews of cars. EPA has to be smarting over this as it shows a lack of responsibility / leadership /motivation / $$$$ in their budget (or something) for letting such a situation develop to begin with. If each test really only costs $25 / $50 k to run that's minimal costs to run all 5 tests for "all" new models. As I've said all along, I believe EPA needs to change the rules and use this situation as an example. So there, for those who believe we should not shoot the messenger (only). :)