plus 3 golfer

I also thought we had a "news worthy" event. Certainly a misleading title with the use of "I'm" instead of "My C-Max". We'll so much for my wasted 30 seconds reading / responding. ;) As least one gets a bump so more don't miss this "exciting" thread. :)

Exactly the reason why Ford should have ran the 5 cycle EPA tests rather than being allowed to only run two tests (with the City test having very mild acceleration rates) and then using the 5 cycle data based off other hybrids like the Prius and Civic in the MPG approach to come up with numbers for the 3 new EPA tests. Can one achieve 47 mpg in the C-Max. Absolutely, but it's what one has to do to achieve it. The addition of the 3 EPA tests were suppose to bring the EPA numbers closer to "real world driving". The goal is not to publish FE numbers that can be reached by driving certain ways but by the way cars are driven in the real world. Unfortunately, we will likely never see a full 5 cycle test for the current C-Max.

Think what might be if Ford ran and posted the likely lower 5 cycle EPA tests as the EPA numbers. They likely would have come a lot closer to UNDER promise and OVER deliver. Owners would be happy; hypermilers, likely ecstatic; but what about sales, if the 5 cycles numbers are under Prius V??? :) The more aggressive acceleration rates under the city portion of the new high speed test cycle would likely reduce the City EPA number more than using the mpg approach when ratios are based on cars like the Civic and Prius Hybrids. The folks at cleanmpg.com seem very knowledgeable. For those that may not have read their comments on the C-Max: To read more go here.

I believe Ford will continue tweaking FE for future MYs but would Ford have offered a free upgrade to current owners had there been good FE reviews? IIRC, didn't CR say they were going to retest the C-Max with the PCM upgrade.

LOL, you probably were writing while I submiied it. It happens to me all the time. This is why I continue to believe Ford has no ethics. I believe Ford knew if they ran the full 5 cycles (or perhaps they did), that the highway FE would be significantly lower than the mpg approach. The C-Max is a far different hybrid than a Civic or Prius. But since the mpg approach is Approved by EPA, use it, develop misleading commercials knowing the mpg approach overstates the 5 cycle tests, then after negative FE reviews, tweak the PCM with an update to hopefully improve FE.

Are you 100% sure? Do you have a source? I have perused a lot of EPA documents and looked at the test data submitted by Ford and can only find results for 2 cycles for the C-Max. When I read the documents it appears that since the 5 cycle tests have been run by Honda and Toyota on the Prius and Civic Hybrids (and maybe more since the document was published), it appears that Ford can use ratios developed form these 5 cycles (called the mpg approach) as long as Ford runs the 2 cycles and certain other parameters are met. This was supposed to stop in 2011 but it appears the EPA still allows it. Here's a couple links below to read found here and here. I see no requirement that a manufacturer has to run the 5 cycle tests if certain conditions are met including 5 cycle tests have been run on similar vehicles (not limited to the manufacturer's vehicles). EPA believes the ratio approach will adequately represent the 5 cycle tests. I could be wrong. It would be helpful if someone else could peruse the documents and see what they can find. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/carlabel/documents/420r06017.pdf http://www.epa.gov/otaq/tcldata.htm

Do 10 miles minimum (10 out, 10 back) because the difference in state of charge of the battery can significantly affect FE over shorter distances. If you could take pics of trip 2 to show battery level at the beginning and end of a run, that will help in assessing the effect of a change in SOC. Also, my headliner and PCM recalls were completed in 4 hours with no issues. There's no question that full EV operates up to at least 70 mph (fastest speed I tested). In about 25 miles of driving with Eco Cruise set at 70 mph with GPS, the HEV system operated much like it does when under 63 mph. The battery level went up and down and appeared to not go above about 75%. There was definitely more EV assist at 70 mph (frequency and level) than prior to the update.

I think after several tanks you should know (assuming your trips are similar) whether you see a difference in FE. Have you looked at the climate control usage screen to see if usage appears different when using the AC? Since we have a rather crude analog display of usage, it might be difficult to tell whether the update lowered usage by observing the screen. Also, on my way home from the dealer, I should be able to see if / maybe how the update affects the previous "high" ICE threshold. But, I don't have anywhere I can test it much above 70 mph until I have a trip on the 75 mph interstate.

Observations are fine but I've seen too many posts here and other sites where anecdotal evidences is suspect like I get mid 43-44 mpg at 70 mph cruising or my average speed is XX mph and I get YY mpg. For example, what really does 60 mpg for 11.5 miles relate to in a time of 41:24. Time will tell whether one's overall FE has taken a jump after the update. If it's a significant change, the change should be readily apparent and FE should continue at a new level. What I can't do is determine what someone else's FE will be. What I can do is compare various similar data from before and after the update and estimate what the effect of the update might be on my FE at a constant cruising speed. Problem is I haven't recorded any recent data. But it should give me a good idea of the magnitude, if any, of FE changes at higher speeds as I can adjust for a number of conditions. Like I said in another thread, from what I understand to be the operation of the Hybrid Powertrain system, "freeing up" the control algorithm to run up to 85 mph on EV should provide more opportunity to improve high speed overall efficiency. It also appears that the grille shutter operation will now likely reduce aerodynamic drag at higher speeds. The only way I can test grille shutter operation is to put my camera back on the grille shutters and observe its operation for changes in speed and coolant temperature like I had previously done. However, since my laptop is older, it won't support recording of the video.

Yes. I use the OBDII capabilities of this software.

My C-Max is getting the headliner and PCM update as I type this. I will use my laptop and record various data and compare such with previous recordings I have made at 70 mph when time permits. There will be "no guessing" as to what is going on under various scenarios.

Probably due to this safety recall. I would assume there's a hold on Canadian cars too. http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/2502-new-fsa-notice-13c02-headliner-head-impact-protection/

Your belief is not correct. ;)

"It is NOT compatible with hybrid engine options, propane, or natural-gas."

Just so you know if you buy an electric one and use it a lot it likely will need internal check valves / seals replaced in a few years. This seems to be a fairly common replacement part. It's actually not difficult to do and IIRC, the parts were around $20. Also, 1600 psi is max pressure and many complaints from owners are that it doesn't clean very well. My experience is it will still do a good job cleaning but the wand needs to be very close to the work and it's thus slow as the cleaning area is fairly small with a low flow rate. I did sell my Karcher for $50 when I got my gas pressure washer. The only problem I had with the gas one was that I left fuel in it for nearly a year between starts and I had to disassemble the carburetor and clean the orifices and so forth - not a difficult job. After cleaning, it started right up. Now, I try to run it every few months or drain the fuel out of the tank and carburetor float bowl if I think I may not use it for an extended period of time. Also, Harbor Freight has coupons available through the end of the month as shown below in case you can't find them.

Adair, when you talk to the woman from Ford and get her email address, I'd send the timeline to her while on the phone. I don't know what she will say but if she tries to "push" this back to the dealer with another conference call or get you to feel compassionate for the work that the dealer / Ford has already done, be nice but say things like "I understand this issue may be a difficult one to diagnose, I understand that Ford is committed to fix the issue, I understand that not many may have had the issue, I understand the dealer many not be able to reproduce the problem, I understand "xxxxx" but the bottom line is the problem is still not fixed after a X visits to the dealer and my car is still at the dealer (I haven't been closely following this but I take it that your car is at the dealer now)." I would not be afraid to put the onus on Ford by asking for a drop dead date and what does Ford propose if that date is reached and the problem still exists? I really don't think it is beyond reason to demand a replacement vehicle (say trade-in rather than buyback or lemon law) at virtually no cost to you (you have less than 10k miles and considerable inconvenience). Then, Ford engineers can take their time in studying, fixing the issue and still sell the car. Also, have you checked into the lemon law in MI with an attorney yet? From the MI statute it appears that a or b below triggers the lemon law: The operative word in (a) may be "substantially". Does a malfunctioning Sync system substantially impair the use / value?

A typical "homeowner" power washer might have a pressure from about 1500 - 3000 psi. Your city water service will likely be less than 100 psi. The city service pressure is simply not enough to remove the "baked on" bugs. A pressure washer used properly will not damage / dull the surface. I've used a gas power/pressure washer (2800 psi) and an electric pressure washer (1600 psi) many times on my previous vehicles (not on C-Max yet) and it will remove virtually all the bugs from the painted and Clear Bra surfaces. The electric one does a decent job but the more powerful gas washer is better. But I never run the gas washer at max. pressure or get too close to the car painted surface with the wand as once on my 2000 Passat I did peel a small dime size strip of paint from the lower front bumper cover when I put the nozzle very close to the bumper cover. I believe the spot I was trying to clean was actually a paint scrape with the gray bumper cover showing which I thought was grime. If all you want to do is to clean a car and do other small jobs around the house, I'd recommend an electric power washer as it is very convenient, cheap, stores easily and has adequate pressure for most jobs. If you want to also periodically clean decks (composite or wood), bare concrete, patios, lawn furniture, screens, windows, sides of your house and so forth, the gas ones with a higher flow rate and higher pressure will do the jobs a lot quicker but are significantly more costly. A number of years ago I bought a Karcher electric pressure washer at Sams Club Auctions for about 1/2 the retail price and a "close out" gas one for $170 (over 1/2 off) at Checker Auto (bought out by O'Reillys).

If the clear bra is installed properly, it will not lift at the edges. Those that get dirt under the edges likely were not careful in washing, claying, polishing, waxing their car. The worst thing one can do is run a fingernail or other hard object along the edge to remove dirt residue as it can push the film back a little and push the debris under the film edge. Worst cast is that one trims the edge back 1/64" - 1/32". I've used both the "leather" bra and clear bra on previous cars and have the clear bra on my C-max. After 6 years, 115k in PA, the "leather" bra was worn and ratty looking but did a superb job of protecting. I had a 3M clear bra on for 4+ years, 70k miles in AZ. There's no question that one could tell the Clear bra was not as vibrant as when first put one. But there were no stone chips. There was some "dirt" along some edges which I easily trimmed back. I don't like the look of the "leather" bras and is why I went with the clear bra on my last two new cars.

Did you send Mulally a first email or was the email referenced sent to someone else? You're not overreacting by sending an email but IMO, the email is actually fairly benign. Like fotomoto says you never want to be disrespectful to Ford or the dealer. Here's my critique below. I would be a lot more direct and succinct. Nowhere do you voice your displeasure in a forceful manner. "Like, I expect Ford and the dealer to remedy this issue in a timely manner as Sync currently is not usable to me for it's intended purposes. I am very dissatisfied with Ford with the lack of progress to date on my Sync issue. If (or when) you send another one, I would enumerate in the email (like an attachment / appendix) a chronological events list with dates and time in the shop including when it worked when it didn't and so forth. Put as much detail in to get the points across so that one doesn't have to refer to other documents. Also, next time I would demand action not ask what to try next and that should be in the opening paragraph not at the end. Also, I wouldn't indicate "you love the car". How can one "love the car", with such problems. Maybe "like" instead. If Ford fails to replace the ACM or the problem continues after replacement / dealers next stab at fixing, I would then demand that everything associated with Sync be replaced or buy back the car with credit given for your significant inconveniences and extra costs (for example Sirius).

What we can hope for is that Ford can now better optimize the overall efficiency of the C-Max by allowing EV operation up to 85 mph. Here's a link to a very good slide presentation on power split transmissions. As slide 33 says: The consumer preference apparently is for better high speed FE. I would expect the efficiency map on slide 33 showing both ICE and the motor/generators would be representative of the C-Max. I would guess that most drivers do not drive on a perfectly flat road. There are bridge over / under passes, slight changes in elevation and so forth and thus changes in torque / power requirements. By allowing the traction motor to assist more one can better optimize efficiency. For example, one can be going up / down a slight hill at say 75 mph where if ICE were to supply virtually all the power, the engine rpm may fall outside its most efficiency operating area. By allow the traction motor on uphills to assist to a greater degree or by having battery storage capacity now available to run the generator to store energy (since more traction motor use at higher speeds will drain the battery), ICE can now likely run in its most efficient operating area more of the time than with the 62 mph restriction. Obviously, the control strategy Ford chooses could hurt some drivers depending on their unique driving situation but I believe for cruising the interstates and freeways at 65+ mph this control strategy (along with enhanced, optimized grille shutter operation) should improve cruising FE for most drivers. I also wouldn't expect this "cruising" control strategy change to not affect FE below 62 mph. I know there are those concerned about the "high" ICE mode - negative split mode where the battery is near fully charged (virtually no room to store additional energy) where FE is higher. This generally requires a slight downhill grade. This higher FE is because the control strategy is keeping ICE in its efficient operating area. But to do this, the generator use energy to reduce engine rpm to operate the engine to maintain high torque, low speed at its most efficient operating points. Using the generator to reduce engine rpm in the negative split mode likely uses less energy than the energy lost by ICE had ICE moved out of it's most efficient operating area. The "freeing up" of the 62 mph restriction and allowing the electric motor full EV mode up to 85 mph, should provide more opportunity during higher speed driving to better use the HEV system. ( These are my thought and time will tell. I eagerly await the update. :)

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/tcldata.htm

I believe there is a lot of confusion over the EPA tests. I suggest that one read the Federal Regulations. Suffice it to say the the City and Highway EPA FE numbers are not the result of one test. It's a weighted mix of portions (up to 100%) of several of the driving cycle tests. For example, see below. The high speed test US06 has an average speed of 48 mph with a top speed of 80 mph with about 19% of the time above 65 mph. There are also several stops and brisk acceleration periods. The fuel used in the test is broken into a highway portion, a city portion, and I believe startup fuel. The SC03 is the "ac test". The HFET is the "highway test" where the average speed is 48.6 mph and a maximum speed of 60 mph and no stops.

Non-engineers ought not to delve into the unknown. :) ;) I think we know what is intended but for clarity: Aerodynamic drag (d) commonly referred to as wind resistance increases by the square of the velocity (v): d(v) = f(v2) . The power (p) required to overcome aerodynamic drag increases by the cube of velocity: p = d(v) * v . An exponential increase in "d" from 60 to 70 to 80 would mean that a constant change in velocity would give the same proportional change in aerodynamic drag or exp(v): d(v) = f(ev). In other words, if drag increases exponentially with speed, for the same change in speed say 10 mph (from 60 to 70 mph, 70 to 80, or from 10 to 20 mph), the ratio of the change in "d" would be the same. Of course we know this is not the case with aerodynamic drag. Also, the 62 mph is IIRC around the max. speed in the EPA "highway" test procedure. In 2008, the EPA added 3 additional supplemental tests to the "city" and "highway" tests including a high speed test (US06) which IIRC has a max speed of around 80 mph . Then, several formulae are used to compute new "city" and "highway" fuel economy numbers. But manufacturers do not actually have to run the new "high speed" test but can compute the high speed number. If Ford did not run the high speed test but used the existing highway test and applied "adjustments" (perfectly allowed under the current procedures), the "high speed" calculated values could be overstated especially with hybrids that stop full EV at 62 mph and hence the calculated "highway" FE is likely overstated. By Ford now allowing EV operation above 62 mph all the way to 85 mph, such increase in EV operation hopefully will enhance overall efficiency and improve real world high speed cruising FE. From my research looking at the actual 2013 EPA spreadsheet data which includes all manufacturers' data, it appears that Ford did not run the US06 supplemental high speed test for the C-Max. As a reference, the 2013 EPA spreadsheet contains 894 unique vehicle Ids. US06 is shown for only 168 of the Ids or 18.8% of the vehicles.

No need for second thread. http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/2565-autoweek-2013-ford-c-max-hybrid-sel-review/

Are you aware of the Ford update to enhance efficiency? You will get a letter perhaps by the end of this month for the free upgrade. http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/2536-ford-to-offer-free-updates-to-boost-hybrid-vehicle-efficiency/