plus 3 golfer

LOL, who said Ford is the only one??? At least bring something to the table when you post. ;) Where's your proof??? It's a fact that EPA ran tests on the C-Max and before the PCM update the EPA got a difference of 6/5/7 mpg lower than the 47/47/47. A difference of 12.8%, 10.6%, and 14.9% for the combined, city and highway FE numbers. Of course with the PCM update, the combined improves by 2 mpg and the city by 3 mpg. Show me where the EPA ran tests on other manufacturers and got as much or more of a difference. You really believe this: FORD ... thought the differences would not be that much different ... didn't have time to do a year's worth of testing to verify the two cats (cars) were vastly different. I believe Ford knew exactly what they were doing when they published the 47/47/47 - that actually testing of the C-Max would result in significantly lower numbers but they would be covered by the EPA rules for not testing should their published numbers never be questioned. This is a corporation with market cap of $65 billion not fledgling start-up company.

When one promulgates rules the intent of the law is certainly looked at. So long as the rules are in accordance with the law everything is fine. You are misinterpreting my intent. :) Ford had a choice: they could have run the 5 cycle test on the C-Max or do what they did. Ford should have ran the 5 cycle test as that better represents the intent of the law - perfectly within the rules and provides a much better estimate of "real world FE". Unethical behavior is not unlawful, but Ford's choice because of the degree of difference in the two methods is IMO unconscionable. Also the EPA did run the tests according to the statement they recently issued with the PCM updates and without the PCM updates. The new EPA numbers are with the PCM updates. As I said in another post a voluntary restatement is in both Ford's and EPA's interest. Here's the PDF that the EPA issued. EPA Revised FE statement.pdf

Exactly, especially given the potential adverse effects that inflated FE numbers have on both the EPA and Ford. Saving a few million by not running the tests especially when Ford knew that the aerodynamics of the Fusion and C-Max are significantly different doesn't make sense. I wonder how far up the chain of command people "really" understood what was going on with the EPA numbers. I'll bet there were lower level Ford engineers cringing knowing that the FE of the C-Max and Fusion Hybrids simply couldn't be the same given the same set of driving conditions.

Most consumers "trust" that the EPA numbers are representative. A consumer should not be required to "understand" the rules and how such rules were applied in deriving the numbers. The EPA and consumer groups are the watchdogs. Consumer ignorance is not what this is about. It's about consumers' trust in Ford and the EPA. In most environmental matters, the effect of gaming the rules on the consumer is not readily apparent (and I worked in the energy arena including environmental for 34 years) nor is it felt by the consumer. The consumer is not laying out $25 to $30k in one shot based on manufacturers "gamed" numbers in these other instances. The argument that gaming the EPA numbers is an acceptable business practice is a very weak in defense of Ford's actions for its 47/47/47 numbers. IMO, Ford violated that trust by gaming the rules and more importantly promoting such numbers through their clever ads and commercials. So, because the rules evidently don't specifically mention "aerodynamics" as a reason vehicles may be different, it's alright to mislead the public and EPA by using the test results of a Fusion that have significantly lower drag at higher speeds than the C-Max. I call that unethical behavior (not illegal). IMO, malfeasance is generally thought of as an intentional illegal act. As I've said before I like my C-Max and knew going into the purchase based on my due diligence that 47 was quite a stretch and based on my typical driving would likely get in the low 40s. But there are likely many consumers that "trusted" Ford and the EPA to do the right thing. Again, if Ford believes they did nothing unethical, why offer a payment and lower the numbers. Why not simply say "consumers are ignorant", "don't know how to drive a hybrid", "consumers speed" and so forth and move on. Likely, because the EPA was ready to do battle and that's not good for Ford. I call it as I see it :) and this time Ford loses - they gamed the system a little too much. Ford knew of the aerodynamic difference between the Fusion and C-Max and it's affect on FE. ;)

Exactly, so then why is Ford lowering the numbers. Like I said before a "shady" manufacturer takes advantage of the situation likely knowing full well they are stretching the intent of the Rules. The rules were put in place because the manufacturers complained that running similar vehicles through the 2 cycle tests let alone the 5 cycle tests would be too costly. I'll bet the EPA was not happy with Ford "taking advantage" of the rules and hence there was an agreement that Ford would lower the ratings appropriately. An ethical manufacturer would have gone to the EPA prior to the release of the numbers and pointed out the issues with the rules and how the rules could be used to inflate the numbers. Had Ford not lowered the numbers, the EPA would have most certainly issued findings on their preliminary investigation which would make Ford look a heck of a lot worse. It appears both Ford and the EPA come out ahead by Ford "voluntarily" lowering the numbers.

Blaming consumers for getting less than 47 mph because they are "speeders" is laughable. Again someone that needs to do research on the EPA FE rules and regulations.

LOL, exactly what an unethical manufacturer does, blame it on the rules rather than admit to something they likely knew was "wrong / deceptive" all along. Ford Fusion has a lower Cd (0.27 vs 0.30 or 11% less Cd) and a lesser frontal area (about 8% less than the C-Max). That will result in an increase in drag of the C-Max over the Fusion of about 16% at 65 mph and an increase of 16% in the power requirements of the C-Max at 65 mph over the Fusion. I can easily see a 12+ % FE change or 6+ mpg reduction in FE of the C-Max vs the Fusion at high speeds. Dropping from 47 mpg to 40 mpg highway seems reasonable. Also, when I look at the 2013 Ford data submitted to the EPA , I do not see any data for the C-Max Hybrid only the C-Max Energi and I see no data submitted for the Fusion Energi only the Fusion Hybrid and in both cases it's only data for the 2 test cycles not 5 test cycles. Ford still hasn't come completely clean as to how the Fusion and C-Max numbers were derived. Both are likely overstated.

Monitors need to combine the two threads into one, perhaps change the title to include the compensation, lock this one as there are likely going to be many more starting a new thread on this subject (why can't people search first and scan the most recent new threads rather than start a new one) ;) .

The real issue is the amount of KE stored depends on the time one wants to expend on maximizing FE. The goal should be maximizing FE not storing energy. If time is immaterial, coast in neutral all the way to the stop (all KE is used to overcome drag and final drive losses). Of course this results in a significant amount of time to coast to a stop, maximizes FE, and stores no energy in the HV battery. If time is somewhat material, then I believe that 1) coasting in gear applying more regen braking earlier rather than later and 2) at the appropriate time coast in neutral (or in gear) to the stop. In essence, one wants to time the scrubbing of higher speed using regen earlier to slow the car down where the drag is higher on the car rather than later where there is less KE to capture via regen. I have simulated this in my drag model and this appears to capture more of the initial KE although there are many assumptions including do we keep time constant for the various cases. I'm trying to maximize FE including energy stored to be used later. If there's traffic and one doesn't want to hold up the cars behind them (time is material to at least them), then simply brake to achieve 100% braking coach score while not irritating the drivers behind you. IMO, this mimics how I've always applied my brakes and seems consistent with "normal" braking (whatever that is). :)

Well it only took 1/2 hour from my previous post for the compensation and admittance that the 5 cycle tests were not run on the C-Max.

The owners aren't the problem. ;) Perhaps you need to do research on the EPA FE tests. Also, it's easy to beat 47 mpg but it's how one has to drive to do it. :)

It wouldn't surprise me to see Ford offering a payment to all that purchased the C-Max prior to the announcement of a lower EPA rating. It will be interesting to see if Ford submitted revised test data to the EPA (one should see such data on EPA spreadsheets eventually). Again, I believe that Ford's choosing to report only the 2 EPA test cycle data and likely knowing that such results would yield higher FE than the 5 EPA test cycles results is the reason for the lower EPA number. It also wouldn't surprise me that the EPA and Ford reached agreement that Ford needs to lower the EPA numbers as reporting a higher FE number is not in the spirit of what the EPA FE is supposed to be - a reflection of real world driving for the average driver and the reason EPA expanded their FE tests from 2 test cycles to 5 test cycles.

The reason the Prius gets higher FE than the C-Max at higher speeds is virtually all due to it's weight advantage and lower drag. A simple calculation will show that the nearly 600 pounds of additional weight of the C-Max and the additional Cd of 0.05 of the C-Max results in the C-Max requiring about 19% more power than the Prius at 65 -70 mph all else being the same. Hence, the reason the Prius gets 8.2 mpg better FE at 65 mph (18.6% better} and 7.4 mpg better FE at 70 mph (19.4% better) than the C-Max. See cleanmpg.com test result graph below. Hopefully, the PCM update will better optimize the C-Max hybrid powertrain operation and reduce this difference in FE between the Prius and the C-Max.

I'm thinking about trying "Engine Link". I should be able to buy a ELM 327 WIFI and use my IPad or IPhone. http://www.outdoor-apps.com/enginelink.html

It clear in the Ford Warranty Manual that rentals are not covered under the New Car Ford Warranty. It's good will if Ford or the dealer gives one a rental.

I'll bet the additional HP for the Hybrid is due to the PCM upgrade. Here's Ford's engine specs for the 2013 C-Max

Another clueless dealer but who knows what might happen so you might as well take along both keys. :) Also, you might want to take a copy of the OASIS report from here and copied below so they know what IDS software and VCM to use. 6427 - Field Service Action 13B07 - Special Instruction Certain 2013 Model Year C-MAX, Fusion, and MKZ Hybrid Vehicles - Fuel Economy Improvement - Powertrain Control Module Calibration. When updating the PCM and SOBDM-C modules as part of FSA 13B07, use IDS R85.05 and either the VCM I or the VCM II. If the IDS software has been updated to R86.00, the user must update to R86.01 and use the VCM I. Do not use the VCM II and IDS R86.01 to perform FSA 13B07.

NOT TRUE

If Ice only engages when hill descent is on, how does the algorithm simulate engine braking when the battery is full and hill descent is OFF? I doubt there's enough load on the HV battery to allow MG2 to generate to simulate normal engine braking especially on steeper hills. Something has to provide engine braking otherwise in effect the car is free wheeling and it wouldn't take much of a hill to rapidly increase speed.

I don't believe there needs to be since the PCM controls MG1, MG2, and ICE. It's not like "L"is a fixed gear ratio like in a conventional transmission.

Also, what do you call "good" mileage? We get "good" mileage driving virtually like we have always done. We value time more than FE so we use the expressways (rather than suburban, city streets), drive speed limit plus 3-5 mph generally, use cruise control, coast as much as practicable upto stops, try to time lights, accelerate moderately with traffic, use AC. My wife drives more aggressively than I do and puts about 70% of the miles on around town. We are not obsessed with watching the screens. About the only thing we do is try to get a high brake score. If we stayed off the expressways, I'm confident we could easily average around 47 mpg. The use of AC about 7-8 months out of the year and the higher speeds are the major contributors towards the difference between 47 and what we get. If you are in Kittanning PA (spent 25 years working in the Pittsburgh area), the winters will significantly affect your FE especially if your trips are relatively short. Ford's latest update includes software changes to help FE when the engine is cold.

No, I really haven't checked shutter operation as that would require me to mount my camera and simply observe and I really don't have a good baseline for comparison (I couldn't record the time I did observe the shutter operations because my old laptop is to slow). It's going to be hard to determine individually the FE effect of the PCM upgrade, AC efficiency improvement, and the shutter operations improvement. I think we just have to drive more, worry less about the FE improvement and wait to see whether our overall FE has improved from prior to the update. It seems that I'm getting maybe 2 mpg better at higher speed cruising (65 - 70 mph) but it's difficult to assign the improvement to PCM, AC, shutters or something else.

The Hybrid tank is 13.5 gallons and the MTE has a reserve built into it. It's in the Owner's manual. The advertised capacity is the indicated capacity and the empty reservecombined. Indicated capacity is the difference in the amount of fuel in afull tank and a tank when the fuel gauge indicates empty. Empty reserveis the amount of fuel in the tank after the fuel gauge indicates empty.Note: The amount of usable fuel in the empty reserve varies and shouldnot be relied upon to increase driving range. When refueling your vehicleafter the fuel gauge indicates empty, you might not be able to refuel thefull amount of the advertised capacity of the fuel tank due to the emptyreserve still present in the tank.

I agree there's simply more opportunity to run the hybrid powertrain more efficiently including providing higher levels of EV assist to maintain speed for example going uphill for short distances rather than run ICE in an inefficient operating range. I also am not convinced that "forcing" EV operation at high speed makes a lot of sense unless one is trying to do high speed P&G (IMO tough to do at 75+ mph on a freeway) or anticipate conditions (drain battery fully going uphill to allow capture of more kinetic energy going down hill but that will likely happen now anyways). When I'm cruising at 75+ mph for hours, I want to set eco-cruise, relax and let the PCM choose the most efficient operation. I really don't see any benefit of kicking down the cruise a notch or two (1-2 mph) just to run in EV at high speed. Effectively one has slowed their speed down and will get better FE (less drag). If one wants to get better FE, reduce ones overall average speed.

Quite frankly if the PCM update "took", one can easily see more EV assist as one cruises above 65 mph up slight grades and full EV use at 70 mph going slightly down hill and backing off the throttle slightly or by nudging cruise control down. It was readily apparent to me after a couple miles of cruising at 70 mph that the PCM algorithm had changed. I never look at the hybrid display so don't know whether one can see any indication of whether the upgrade took.