plus 3 golfer

That's a good question. Because once the battery is full how does the algorithm simulate "engine braking" of a conventional car when coasting. My guess is the engine begins to spin once the battery is full. I doubt there's a heat sink (although I suppose the algorithm could use the friction brakes). I really never monitored engine rpm going down a long steep hill. In a few weeks I should be able to test this out. I also don't know whether my battery was completely charged in prior uses of "L" as the hills were not that long just steep. When you shift the hybrid to "L", the generator MG1 must supply holding torque to the sun gear so that ICE begins to spin if ICE were stopped or spins faster if ICE were already spinning. The increase in rpm of the spinning engine (no additional fuel supplied) acts as additional load on the final drive to slow the car down. So there is energy being used by MG1 to increase ICE rpm, slow down MG1 and slow down the car when one shifts to "L". The traction motor could also be used to help simulate this shifting into a lower gear by generating energy that then is directly used by MG1 to keep ICE spinning. So the net affect might be near zero change in electrical energy but for MG1 and MG2 losses. The more I think about it, I believe ICE has to start spinning when the battery is near 100% full.

With my C-Max once the battery level is virtually full, I "downshift" / "upshift" between "L" / "D" to help control speed going down long, steep grades and thus limit the use of the friction brakes and potentially overheating the brakes.

Yes, just to be clear, the FE meter shows FE based on ALL fuel used by ICE instantaneously irrespective of why the fuel was burned by ICE.

It's shown along with GPS coordinates on the "WHERE AM I" screen. Go to the Information screen and in the left hand column select the Where am I button.

Exactly and that's why I continue to say the issue is not what FE I get or you get. It's about what the fleet gets and how well the EPA estimates match the fleet FE. The only samples we have of the fleet are what's reported in databases on line like fuelly.com and so forth. The EPA estimates are "to reflect the ‘real world FE’ customers may experience, the EPA redefined the FE label calculations based on real world driving data sets. The derived calculations were based on conventional vehicles." Of course, everyone's FE will vary. But, if the fleet FE is too far away from the EPA estimates, it calls into question the validity of the EPA FE cycles especially for hybrids and certain other rules allowing manufacturers to not run all 5 cycles. And of course why would a manufacturer run tests if it cost more money especially if it might result in lower FE numbers.

Sorry to hear your misfortune. Check NHTSA website http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Owners/ and search complaints by C-Max owners. There is one complaint about 5 separate occurrences about acceleration without stepping on the accelerator. You might want to report it to NHTSA. "CPM TAKES OVER VEHICLE OPERATION AND ELIMINATES USE OF ACCELERATOR. VEHICLE SELF ACCELERATES TO MAXIMUM OF 35 MPH."

This is what I'm interested in as I will heading East (2080 miles one way) on I40, I44, and I70 in late August. My average (moving time) speed is 68+ mph which means I have to set the cruise at about 3 - 4 mph over the speed limits. It appears I'm seeing nearly a 2 mpg improvement after the update in about 300 miles of our normal around the town driving.

The city is easy to beat as I posted above getting 65+ mpg. The EPA combined FE rating is based on 55% city / 45% highway. My driving is more like 30/70 and soon to be higher highway as we head back East in late August. But according to the EPA of 47/47/47, it really shouldn't matter what ones split is but it does. I knew going into the purchase of my C-Max that I would not get the EPA rating and expected to get what I am currently getting and have no complaints. But many very early adopters and those that failed to do research after the reviews of the FE of the C-Max came out expected something near 47 should not be told that they need to drive differently because they bought a hybrid as that is not the intended goal of the EPA in publishing FE numbers. If one drives differently one should be able to kill the EPA numbers like my 65+ mpg shows. So, are we suppose to do P&G, time lights, slow down because we bought a hybrid. The argument that drivers need to drive differently to approach the EPA numbers because they bought a hybrid flies in the face of what the EPA numbers supposedly represent. Blame the EPA or Ford (for it's clever marketing and perhaps gaming) but not the consumer. How many consumers "really" understand the EPA tests and that Ford can "game" the tests in their hybrid control algorithms and use "loopholes" in the EPA procedures. Also, I forgot to attach the slide presentation to my post above. This gives insight into what manufacturers could do to game the system for hybrids. It appears Argonne used a 2010 Prius as an example. My bet is the C-Max would be quite a bit different given the higher EV mode and HV battery storage than the Prius. This coupled with Ford not doing the full 5 cycle tests likely inflates the C-Max EPA numbers significantly more than the Prius EPA numbers. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/merit_review_2012/veh_sys_sim/vss065_lohsebusch_2012_o.pdf

It depends on conditions. Increase speed on flat roads or hills while charging and it can easily drop into the 20's or less.

The engine efficiency is measured by input energy divided by output energy. This is not the same as the fuel economy of the vehicle. During charging, part of the power from the engine drives the wheels and part charges the battery. The algorithm that calculates FE divides miles traveled by total fuel used. So, during the time of "heavy" charging of the battery, the instantaneous FE will be very low because all fuel burned is included in the FE calculation (not just an estimate of the fuel used to propel the car). When the battery is supplying all the power to drive the car, the instantaneous FE will be infinite because the engine is off (no fuel is being burned) and the FE gauge will show the blue 60+ mpg as an indication of infinite FE (distance traveled / zero fuel burned). Over the course of many charging cycles of the HV battery, the average FE will be higher than it otherwise would have been absent the charging because the engine was operating more efficiently during charging. For example, I posted a typical Brake Specific Fuel Consumption curve before (probably a diesel but the principle is the same) as shown below. The left access (y axis) is torque (load) and the bottom axis (x axis) is rpm. As one can see the engine is more efficient (the curves on the graph show fuel used - lower number is better) when the load is higher (blue shaded areas on the graph). During low speed cruising (say 1200 - 1500 rpm at low load, the BSFC (fuel use) would likely be in the green areas (300 - 500 grams / kWh). But if charging brings the load up to the blue areas of the graph, the fuel use could be in the 240 - 260 grams / kWh. This might be an average increase in fuel use efficiency of 37.5% = (400 - 250) / 400. But, there are losses (generator, inverter, HV battery, motor, wiring) to convert the fuel used for charging to drive the vehicle. So if one assumes 1/2 the fuel used during charging was used to charge, 50 % of the 250 grams / kWh would be subject to the conversion efficiency of the electrical hybrid components (assume 80%). Thus, the effective fuel used during charging ( the 250 number) becomes (50% * 250) + (50% * 250 / 0.8) = 281. So, the overall effective increase in fuel efficiency use might drop to 30% = (400 - 381) / 400. So, if one would normally get 32 mpg running the gas engine only, the hybrid powertrain operation might improve the FE to 41.2 mpg = (32 * 1.3). Of course we don't know the actual BSFC of the C-Max engine, loads at various rpm, nor the conversion losses. But this does show how charging, storing the energy, and using it later improves overall FE.

Again not a very good argument. If one drives a non-hybrid vehicle "conservatively", one can also "kill" the EPA rating. ;) And it's not about what I get or you get or how I drive or you drive. We also know conditions affect FE. It's what a typical driver (EPA has done much research into this) has to do to achieve the EPA rating - where does the EPA or Ford say that one has to drive conservatively to achieve the EPA ratings. IMO, the EPA FE regulations need to be updated especially for Hybrids and EPA needs to require a manufacturer to actually run the 5 FE cycles which data are used to compute the EPA sticker numbers. The city number appears to be reasonable. It's the highway number that appears to be overstated IMO. Ford did not run the High Speed cycle and apparently used similar vehicle data to estimate the high speed test data which includes a more aggressive city cycle and higher speed highway cycle up to 80+ mph. Here's a very good slide presentation on the High Speed test. As long as Ford followed the EPA procedures, the law suit will likely go nowhere.

Oh, I understand (maybe some don't). I posted the table below in another thread on my last 6 vehicles. I drive all my cars about the same - average acceleration, coast to stops and time lights, drive the speed limit to about +3 mph on interstates. Seems like people on fuelly can't achieve the EPA rating with the C-Max either yet they can like me achieve it with the other cars I've owned. So, it's a nonsensical argument that one has to drive the C-Max "differently than other cars." I can get 65+ mpg in 113 F temperatures (see below) if I want to go "slow" (take nearly 50 - 60% more time than I would take typically). Why can I (and others) achieve EPA ratings on other cars but not on the C-Max under ones "normal" driving. The EPA ratings aren't supposed to be based on "conservative" driving.

For all non-Nav owners, "Where am I" finally displays the proper coordinates after the update. Select "Information" in the upper right hand corner of the MFT screen and Where am I is in the left hand column.

Did you use ac on the first trip?

The video is good (it's been posted several times before) but the Doc link shows a physical layout of the HF35 on Page 8 and as such it is much easier to see how things actually work. The video guy needs a layout such as slide 8 to augment his demonstration and then it would be a "great" video. I simply remember that sun gear is connected to generator (MG1); ICE is connected to planet carrier; the traction motor (MG2) is connected to the ring gear and final drive. Then, it's fairly easy to visualize what happens / needs to happen to start ICE, drive the car in full EV, drive in ICE only, charge the battery, or drive in split mode (both negative and positive), coast (with regen) and so forth.

Seth7721, the private owners of a site can do whatever they please with regard to posts. They do not have to honor one's right of "free speech" under the first amendment. They can edit / remove any post they desire. AND I NEVER SAID YOU PERSONALLY ATTACKED ANYONE. Please re-read what I said. The mods / owners need to make that assessment. My comment was directed to closing the thread. Warn people, ban people before locking a thread because of negative / harsh comments. People do need to understand that a forum is not Facebook (nor IMO should it be) where one selects their "friends" and thus all comments are "way to go", "good job", "I agree" and so forth.

But one has to ask why MADCMAX started this thread. MADCMAX deserves to have his decision and "facts" questioned. MADCMAX's post could be considered trolling (sowing discord by starting arguments or upsetting people) and he likely should be banned if it continues. I and my guess is most aren't going to miss him or anyone that decides to leave. Just go away quietly. I would suggest a moderator warn and modify / delete posts that personally attack MADCMAX not close the thread.

The EPA does include a cold weather test (City - Cold Temperature) with ambient at 20 F and a hot weather Air Conditioning test (SC03) with ambient at 95 F along with the City test (FTP), Highway test (HWFE or HWY) and a High Speed test (US06). The problem is Ford only runs the FTP and the HWFE and estimates the other data. For example, for 2013 the data submitted by Ford for the C-Max and for Toyota for the Prius C is shown below. One can then put the Prius C data into the equations below and compute the EPA HIghway rating. But it's not that easy for the C-Max as Ford doesn't run all the tests.

If your outstanding Field Service Actions show up on ETIS (which you can check here by entering your VIN), then the dealer can also quickly check your VIN and will see the same for your car. The dealer can then easily determine what needs to be done. There's no need for confusion by dealer and have to ask for the recall code. But since there seems to be some confusion, rather than wait for Wednesday, check ETIS with your VIN. Then assuming the FSA show up as below, call the dealer back and confirm. This may save you making another trip to the dealer. Outstanding Field Service Actions 13B07 - POWERTRAIN CONTROL MODULE (PCM) CALIBRATION13C02 - HEADLINER HEAD IMPACT PROTECTION

Every car I've owned in the last 13 years has conservatively reported FE and MTE. In my 2 VWs, I could adjust the displayed FE calculation via a VW diagnostic tool in 1 % increments. I never did check whether the MTE changed but I doubt it. Also, Ford acknowledges an "empty reserve" which is included in the advertised capacity = indicated capacity + empty reserve capacity. So, there is a reserve when the fuel gauge and miles to empty show zero. Ford says don't depend on the empty reserve because It can vary. Why have irate customers when they run out of fuel with 1 MTE.

It can also read certain OBDII data from vehicles that use a certain protocol. Hit OBDII on the preceding link and then Mode 1 read data. Then one can select up to 4 points like rpm, SOC, speed, and so forth. VCScope then can record the selected data to a file.

Read the owners manual which is available online or watch this video. MyView starts at about 3:42 and has the temp gauge. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty7FFGWq7S4

ACM = Audio Control Module ACCM = AC Control Module The ACM appears to be behind the MFT screen. I wouldn't think it would be difficult to remove.

C-Maxgo, a couple of questions, do you know the elevation change from the dealer to your home? Did you use the AC? What was the approximate outside temperature when you left home and when you left the dealer? Do you know what the approximate state of charge (battery level) was when you left home and when you left the dealer? The return FE number is impressive but I have a feeling that we may need to make a few adjustments. For example, the battery levels are not the same at the end of each trip and we don't know the beginning battery levels. For example, on the trip to the dealer some of the fuel (0.29 gallons) could have been used to charge the battery to.virtually 100% and should be removed from the FE calculation and on the trip home from the dealer, the battery level could have increased or dropped from the start of the trip and needs to be accounted for in the calculations. Similarly, one would want to make temperature adjustment and potential energy adjustments due to difference in elevation in the trips. That's why whenever testing one wants to test round trips at about the same ambient temperature with the car warmed up to negate elevation and temperature differences..

I wouldn't hesitate to buy again. My build was 11/19/2012. All updates were trouble free (headliner recall, PCM update and 3.5.1 update) and I haven't had battery issues, MFT issues or phone issues. If you have read the reviews and know the issues with the EPA mileage ratings and that in "normal" real world driving you might not get the EPA rating, then I'd recommend the C-Max.