plus 3 golfer

The PCM does not know what fuel is in the car. It operates from a base timing map advancing and retarding timimg based on real time operating conditions. It will only retard timing more from the base map if the knock sensors detect detonation. Under normal driving most cars requiring premium can run on regular without detonation. Thus there would be no difference in performance. Under more spirted driving, regular fuel in cars requiring premium is more likely to detonate. The knock sensors detect this and the PCM retards timing, thus reducing performance. Also, detonation can occur for a number of reasons like hot spots in the cylinder from deposits whether using premium or regular fuel. Again, it's not material to the PCM what fuel is in the car. What matters is if there is detonation detected by the knock sensors. It's just more unlikely to have detonation running a higher octane fuel than required by the car.

Me too or those stations that state like Costco - 5X the EPA detergent additive package for both premium and regular. Here's the irony I see in using premium vs regular. Premium gas can deliver better performance and FE for the times that the knock sensors indicate to the PCM to retard timing but most looking for increased FE are not driving for performance and thus the PCM would likely never need to retard timing. Engines are mapped for using a certain octane fuel. An engine mapped for using premium fuel can generally run regular (providing one does not drive as such to continually trigger the knock sensors. I believe most cars will through a diagnostic code for excessive knocking. Engines mapped for regular fuel can run premium but generally any actual FE gain would be small. This is because the PCM will follow the base map in controlling timing as it has no way to know when one uses premium or regular fuel. Of course the above assumes the specs of premium and regular are the same including heating value but for octane and the C-Max control algorithms for ICE emissions and performance are like other gas engines. I and others have found through testing of premium and regular fuel in our 1.8t and 2.6 liter B5 Passats (both require premium fuel), there was no conclusive evidence that premium delivered better FE than regular although IIRC my many tanks of premium averaged a few tenths of a gallon better than regular (like around 1% better). Of course the C-Max may be different / noticeable as it gets 1.5+ times the FE of the B5s but I doubt any increase will pay for the additional cost "premium" of premium --- at Costco "premium" = $3.539 / $3.339 = 6%. Like Jus says "Its a free country" do whatever one believes in. Also, testing is extremely difficult to do as there are simply too many variables affecting FE and it would require many, many tanks of regular and premium to draw a conclusion. It's also difficult not to bias the tests (since it's not a blind test) when one wants to "prove" a particular point. ;) Thus, I will not be doing any tests on the C-Max (not even one tank as that proves virtually nothing). I will simply rely on what I know about fuels, how engines operate, and the price spread between premium and regular fuel. Here's a link to an article in Scientific American (how can this not be true). http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-premium-g

Average is not worthless in fuelly because it's based on total miles driven divided by gallons consumed. This is not the housing market where the sales value varies by square footage, location, amenities and so forth such that one $10 million sale might be the equivalent of 50 median priced home sales. In the housing market, median is appropriate. In FE (assuming sample size is appropriate), average or median is fine as there's likely little difference between the two. Look at the graph and data below, there are 211 C-Maxs for 2013 (with 1 being labeled a diesel). The median falls in the 40 mpg bin. The average is 39.6. Looks like very little difference between median and average to me. Certainly nothing to worry about and it's a long way from 47 mpg. It's simply not the same as the housing market. ;)

This is not about that Ford has to qualify their quoting of EPA mpg numbers (we know they have to do that). That qualification is for their C-Max claim of 47 based on the EPA 47/47/47. It's about representing something that may not be true in the real world as true in the commercials -- C-Max also beats the Prius V with better mpg. I would have no issues if the saying said "C-Max also beats Prius V mpg with better mpg in the EPA estimated mileage ratings. Actual mpg of the Prius and C-Max may vary." Also, it's not about when new models are introduced or how one person can drive a C-Max and get 47+ mpg. It's about a real world comparison as cleanmpg.com and others have done comparing the FE of the Prius V and the C-Max. In a head to head comparison, the Prius V virtually always beats the C-Max in MPG. Do you really believe Ford didn't know this prior to releasing the commercials. It's also not about blaming the EPA, of course that's what Ford did when their numbers weren't materializing in the real world. It's being ethical in what one says and does. Remember Ford's slogan of yesteryear "Quality is Job 1". Apparently, that has yet to materialize as is their claim on mpg. On last point as I've said many times, I like my C-Max and knew before purchasing that I'd likely get in the low 40s and not 47 as I drive "normal" as most reviewers do. I have no intentions of selling my C-Max. I also guess you didn't see my recent post about my FE driving "normally" in my most recent 6 vehicles. My FE in all except the C-Max has been above the combined EPA number as have the Fuelly averages. Here it is again below. I didn't see any "bogus" EPA number. ;) So what is really the true problem? Could it be FORD is gaming the EPA tests in it's design and algorithms - not illegal but results in hard to achieve ratings in normal driving. For example, I believe the final drive ratio (2.57:1) could be lower and thus should yield better FE at 65 - 75 mph cruising but then the EPA tests would likely result in lower numbers since the lower final drive ratio would likely hurt lower speed driving. The Energi does have a higher final drive ratio (for better response because of the additional weight) and is one of the reasons it's EPA rating is lower. I do agree that the EPA tests need to change and a range would be great as I've suggested in other posts.

Well said. My feelings exactly. As I've said before where are Ford's ethics? They hid behind the 3 seconds of small print at the bottom of the screen on the clever silhouette commercials --- EPA-estimated 47city/47hwy/47 combined mpg. Actual mileage will vary. Hard to read, especially given about 3 seconds.. Here's two of their clever mpg claims. the mpg challenge - "C-Max has lots more horsepower than the Prius V, a hybrid that C-Max also bests in MPG." the one-kick foot activated liftgate commercial (which didn't work for most with one kick as shown in the commercial) - "but that's not all you'll see, cause C-Max also beats Prius V with better MPG"

I believe you can cancel the Ford ESP within 30 or 60 days with no proration and maybe no cancelation fee. It should be spelled out in the paperwork. The only issue will be if the extended warranty was financed. Then, the dealer will have to give the refund to the finance company.

I don't recall the deductible for the $1800-$1900 X-Plan price I ask about. It probably was $200 deductible. Also, I did a quick internet search again for the Ford ESP and the rates are less than what I remember from about 3-4 months ago. Here's the link. http://www.floodfordesp.com/esp_plans.php?PlanDetailID=31&ModelID=29&VehicleYear=2013&VehicleMileage=1000&StateID=3&Surcharge1=0&AWD=0&Surcharge4=0&Surcharge2=0&Surcharge3=0&Submit=Continue It appears to be the same prices as in above links except all plan rates are on one page. Other than paying early, Flood Ford appears to have rates that may be very close to Geico's MBI (PremiumCare, 7/100k, $200 deductible for $975. These are certainly more realistic prices once one removes most of the "dealer profit" from the MSRP price.

Dealer said MSRP for warranty was around $2800-$2900. With X-Plan, it dropped to around $1800-$1900. I recall searching on internet and found a few dealers that quoted around $1400-$1500. Also, you might want to see if your auto insurer offers Mechanical Breakdown Insurance. I switched to Geico and picked up MBI. The car has to be purchased new, be less than 15 months old, and have less than 15k miles on it. It's coverage is for 7 years / 100k miles with $250 deductible and covers everything but routine maintenance. Reviews about Geico handling claims under MBI are excellent. My 6 month premium is $13.88. It can (and likely will go up over time). I've heard that an increase of about $30 per year should be expected. So, I figure I'll pay around $30 the first year, then $60, $90, $120, $150, 180, 210 = $840 total. What I like is the low upfront costs and if I accumulate miles such that I reach 100k before 7 years, I will pay less than $840. In addition, because the Ford extended warranty is prorated and the MBI increases over time, if I keep the car less than 7 years (and don't exceed the mileage), I would end up paying even less for the MBI coverage vs the Ford coverage. Also, it's likely that if one files a claim under the Ford policy, it negates any proration for terminating early. Update: Geico 1st yr premium = $27.76; 2nd year = $27.64 3rd year = $30.90

There may be recalibration of position sensors and so forth (that is an ongoing process) that could have been lost during the upgrade and took a few driving cycles to adjust. This could affect FE and emissions (and the reason for the on-going process). But this has nothing to do with learning - re-learning driver habits and tendencies. If you have any facts that the C-Max learns tendencies of the operator, please post the references / links. AFAIK, the only route data saved are GPS coordinates of the most frequent destinations such that if EV+ is enabled, the PCM will try to use EV mode for the last 1/2 mile or so.

Obviously, you haven't driven in the winter yet. :) ;) You'll want to get ICE up to operating temperature as quick as possible. As Stobro2 says - "When the engine is cold after sitting all day or overnight it will run after start up just to get it to the proper temperature for the catalytic converter and all of the various emission controls. Since the engine has to run anyway, it might as well do some good and charge up the HV battery as it warms up." The quicker you reach operating temperature, the better your FE will be.

I agree. I can't think of a reason to not deplete the battery using EV+. The goal on cold start would be to warm up ICE quickly to reach closed loop operation. Charging the battery helps by adding load. Also, generally a higher load will allow the PCM to operate ICE in a more efficient part of the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption curve. IMO, this is likely the reason for EV+ as it should improve FE (on the Energi, it also makes sense to deplete the HV battery since replacement energy would be cheaper from the grid than from ICE). On a hot start, it really should not make a significant difference whether one used EV+ or not.

Where does JD powers say "that the problems are mostly non-fixable design flaws?" If you are going to post, at least get your facts correct. There's a big difference between what you say which I bolded above and what is actually in the article which I quoted above. As I said before if you think Ford was not fair with you and didn't resolve your issues satisfactorily, go see a lawyer. How is complaining here solving your issues?

Here's another link that shows the Ford brand ranks 27 / 33 in the 2013 survey with an overall brand score of 131. The C-Max at 222 is abysmal. So, why is the number so high for the C-Max. Is the 222 due to higher % of design complaints than the industry average of 2/3 My guess is that given the "no start", tail gate, and the MFT issues, the C-Max has a far greater % of design complaints than the industry average of 2/3. If that is the case, perhaps most of the "design" complaints are fixed in 3.5.1 and other TSBs (or perhaps will be in later software updates). For example, I did respond to a survey a few months ago and reported the clock resetting as a problem. Since 3.5.1 was installed in late May, I have not had the clock issue. From the article:

56th street is about 1590 feet but it's flat until you get to about Princess. Then it drops to about 1290 feet elevation at Indian Bend. So, you're dropping 300 feet in about 7 miles (about 42 feet per mile). That will definitely help FE If I make a rough calculation, the potential energy that you used in the descent from 1590 to 1290 feet would be equivalent to the energy saved by lowering your speed by around 6 mph from 72 to 66 mph for the 7 miles. Or put another way the 300 feet of potential energy offset the increase in drag by going from 66 mph to 72 mph for the 7 miles. Like I've said before there's nothing magic about the C-Max or the "illusive MPG sweet spot". AFAIK, the C-Max obeys the laws of physics. :)

That can certainly happen especially on downhill grades (what freeway and approx.start and finish points). Also, the electric motor can / does provide brief assistance when needed. The amount of EV will be slight and barely noticeable on the screens. I see this all the time driving west on the Superstition Freeway (US 60) from about Apache Junction on a 15 mile stretch where the elevation drops about 400 feet. The freeway looks level but isn't. But, I don't see the 60+ white mpg for 7 continuous miles as ICE picks up more load going over the overpasses on the freeway and mpg drops usually into the 40's.

For about $3000 more for the SEL over the SE one gets: Heated Mirrors Leather MFT Fog Lights Rain Sensing Wipers Auto Dimming Mirror Garage Door Opener Power Drivers Seat Push Button Start Security System Rear Center Armrest IMHO, if one wanted leather to begin with the other additional features are well worth $2000.

The Fusion Hybrid has a Cd of 0.275 while the C-Max is reported at .30. That's over an 8% reduction in aerodynamic drag. My calculation would indicate that at 45 mph, the the energy required to overcome drag for the Fusion might be 5% higher than the C-Max (at 20 mph, about a 2% difference, at 70 mph, about 6.5%difference. This looks too coincidental based on the 2 MPG Fuelly difference and that Ford could have used the MPG approach based on the Fusion 5 cycle tests for the C-Max. Edit: The above assumes frontal areas of both are same. But height x width (excluding mirrors) shows C-Max is about 8% greater. If this 8% approximates the frontal area difference. The energy required to overcome drag at 45 mph would be about 17% more for the C-Max. Also, CR got 39 mpg with Fusion Hybrid and 37 MPG with the C-Max - a 2 mpg difference.

You're kidding right? I think I'll correct mine for the fuel I think I would have used had I "hyper-miled". ;) Did you see the link above? There are some diesel owner's (fuel tanks are usually the same as ones used on gas vehicles) that "vent" their tank. Since diesel is not as volatile like gas, the "vapor" space is really not needed. All that needs done is to let the air out of the vapor area when filling. This can generally be done by removing a valve in the filler neck or by adding a line from the top of the tank (vapor space area) to near the top of the filler tube and the vapor space can then be filled easily. Just rocking the vehicle back and forth can allow air to be replaced by gas. On VW TDIs, use of this vapor space can increase a nominal 14.5 gallon fuel tank by 3+ gallons. Ever notice when filling that one can fill to the brim normally and then if one waits a while one can usually add more fuel. Where does the added fuel go - into the areas used for the EVAP system including the vapor space.

PINNED??? This whole thread ought to be deleted. ;) Unless one has a certified container, pumping gas into a container is a useless exercise to check the accuracy of a pump.

I think the 7 in red should be something less than 7 like 5. The 7 mpg drop from 47 is the break-even number. If you actually got 40 mpg instead of 47 you'd buy 3.72 gallons of extra fuel for the loss of 7 mpg going 1000 miles which is virtually the same as you'd buy had you got 2 mpg less on a 24 mpg car which is an extra 3.79 gallons of fuel. Remember it's the EPA giving the example and IMHO is annoyed at the attention (attacks, publicity) they are getting because of their testing procedures for a 7 mpg difference. It's a big departure from the EPA 47 mpg but is no different in extra fuel required than in a car where the EPA rating was 24 but the owner got 22. Yet, there is not a big stink about the 2 mpg difference in a 24 mpg EPA number.

You don't have to wait 6 months. You can cancel anytime. I call within a week or so after the start of service and cancel effective on the normal termination date 6 months out. I've done this probably 1/2 dozen times in the past with no issues. One time I tried to cancel immediately while still on the phone with the rep that signed me up but I got the story that the system couldn't handle it until the system files were updated which he thought was overnight. By cancelling earlier, you'll also then likely get email / mail renewal reminders that your subscription is about to run out. Otherwise, since it's on auto renewal at the then current rate, I doubt you will see any reminders. :)

I believe Wherly is an EPA engineer. The C-Max falls 7/47 = 14% short and the 2/24 car falls 8 % short yet he equates the two in terms of both being the same $ short implying that people notice the 7 mpg and complain yet they are no worse off than the 2 mpg short car whose owners likely don't complain. The implication is that C-Max owners can "afford" the FE hit as owner's of inefficient cars evidently do as they evidently don't complain as much. Why else would he say that. Maybe I'm reading to much into this. I said this before that Nair is backpedaling (primarily in response to CR'S FE results) and not addressing the "real" issues in their EPA tests in essence he's hiding behind the small print of "your mileage may vary". This is the ethical part - hiding behind the EPA numbers and pointing out that slowing down Increases FE and so forth rather than point out the flaws in the EPA testing procedure which Ford likely is well aware; and then, aggressively marketing the 47, 47, 47 EPA number. I've worked with enough Wall Street bankers in the '90s and early 2000's to know what greed is and what lengths they go through to seal the deal. This looks similar. The C-max is a great car but think what will happen if we can beat the Prius V in mpg.

I am well aware of how to get higher FE and the operation of hybrids, diesels and so forth. I choose to drive the speed limits if not slightly above conditions permitting. AZ interstates are 75 except in Tucson and Phoenix and other select areas where the SL is 65 mph. But how does any of this justify the implication that one can "afford" to take a 7 mile hit in FE with the C-Max and be no worse off than someone that takes a hit of 2 mpg from 24 mpg. Are they then suppose to accept that as the norm instead of 47. This is not about me but the C-Max fleet FE, the EPA possible "loopholes" in their procedures, and Ford's ethical behavior (not illegal actions) promoting the EPA FE numbers likely knowing the EPA numbers are not realistic for the average consumer.

Have you ever owned a diesel? I bought my first diesel in Dec. 1976 and have put about 700k miles on MB and VW diesels. We are perfectly happy with 40.7 mpg and the C-Max.

Our normal trips in the C-Max is 10% city, 35% suburban and 50% freeway. I can easily get over 50 mpg (displayed) in the C-Max if I stay off the freeways, reduce my speed slightly in suburban driving, and employ some hypermiling techniques. But time matters more to me than saving a $125 a year in fuel by increasing my FE from 40.7 to say 45 mpg actual (not displayed). ;) Also, in the first, third, and fourth vehicles listed were 12 round trips between PA and AZ. I easily beat the EPA highway numbers running about 4-6 mph above the interstate speed limits when I could by 1-2 mpg. My average speed (distance traveled / moving time) for the trips was around 68 +- 0.5 mph. Time will tell whether the C-Max can do the same. My point on the quote is that my FE and many others' FE for the C-Max (rated 47 across the board) is well below it's EPA rating while other cars are not. In fact, all others are above the combined rating. To try to justify a lower than actual EPA rating by implying that one can "afford" a significantly higher % hit in actual FE with the C-Max than the EPA rating when compared to an inefficient car is a nonsensical argument for the C-Max's 16% hit in FE (Fuelly). I've said this before what matters is the fleets FE not one owner's specific FE. Time will tell. We have 6 months to get to 47 mpg or hopefully at least surpass the Prius V in FE. :)