plus 3 golfer

NAH, hypotheticals aren't interesting.. What's interesting is comparing actual data. Here's my FE and the Fuelly FE of my last 6 vehicles compared to their current EPA ratings. For ease of viewing green shading indicates beating the EPA combined and red indicates under the EPA combined rating. ;) No falling "2-mpg short" in 5 out of 6 of the vehicles I've owned by me or fuelly owners. Enough said.

These are likely from wrecked vehicles with age unknown. Use at own risk. From Michelin: While most tires will need replacement before they achieve 10 years, it is recommended that any tires in service 10 years or more from the date of manufacture, including spare tires, be replaced with new tires as a simple precaution even if such tires appear serviceable and even if they have not reached the legal wear limit.

Or less than 20 cents an hour to stay cool. Hardly worth moving the set point up to save a few pennies. ;) Comfort over economy for me. I may move it down a few degrees now. Or about 132 ounces to go 50 miles. Not many cars can do that. :)

And also about 2 1/2 times more drag at 45 mph than at 10. Can't ignore drag. :) The goal (albeit not easy to achieve) assuming one will ultimately have to stop would be to reduce speed earlier rather than later. The best way would likely be to virtually coast up to the stop using no regeneration / friction braking but for the last few feet. But we always can't do that. An example would be traveling at 55 mph towards a traffic light say less than 1/4 mile away that changes to red and one knows one can't simply coast to the stop without braking. Applying the right amount of regen braking quickly to reduce speed early will likely allow for the capture of more of the energy that otherwise would be consumed by the higher drag, rotational losses at higher speeds and then coast to the stop vs coasting first and expending the energy on the higher losses and then braking later when the energy has been reduced considerably. This certainly is not the intuitive way but seems logical to me (unless I'm missing something which could easily be the case :confused: ) and would seem to result in more energy being captured. Several times I've recorded the SOC while achieving 100% brake score. I thought I reported this before in posts but can't locate it. IIRC, a rough calculation showed that the change in SOC was capturing only 50 - 60 % of the initial KE + PE at the start of the regen braking until the stop. There's drag + drivetrain losses + conversion losses + load on the HV battery that affects the estimate. Suffice it to say that 100% braking might capture 90% of the available energy at the generator but a lot less of the KE + PE of the car when I ran the tests. But I agree that under normal circumstances where one can anticipate their stops, the "instinctive" way (coast, regen, friction) will not be very different from optimal provided 100% brake score is reached.

Because there are conversion losses (whether during regeneration during braking or coasting), one wants to coast to slow down in the hopes one never has to touch the brakes since braking increases the rate of regeneration over coasting and thus conversion losses are higher than over coasting - thus, the reason why hypermilers never want to touch the brakes. They'll go so far as cutting through corner businesses rather than stop at an intersection to turn and of course start their coasting well in advance of most other drivers to minimize potential braking (likely irritating drivers following them). I agree with fotomoto, if one knows that one will have to apply the brakes at some point in time as one is slowing. Reducing speed (by lightly applying the brakes, don't want to use the friction brakes) sooner rather than later will reduce overall drag on the car as one continues to slow down. Thus, more energy from the reduction in drag losses will be available for regeneration later in time as one continues to slow down. This could be significant for example if one has to slow down from 70 mph to zero (like exiting a freeway to a stop sign).

Good catch. You may have saved someone from going through the replacement twice or worse not noticing it for a year and the glass company refusing to do anything.

Did you read my post here. Yes, actually in the same 109 F temp, my climate usage initially was close to 5 kW, dropped to 4 kW and settled in at about 0.5 - 0.75 kW. In cooler temps, my usage would settle in at less than 0.5 kW. We can estimate the FE effect of a 500 Watts continuous load on FE. The energy to replace that 500 Watts of load, assuming a conversion efficiency of 80% and an engine efficiency of 35% would be about 1800 Watts or 6100 Btu/hr. One gallon of E10 contains about 110,660 Btus. About 0.055 gallons of fuel will be used every hour to keep us cool once the cabin has cooled down (based on my observations with set point = 74 F). So now, if we know the average speed and mpg, we can estimate the FE hit. Let's use cleanmpg.com speed vs FE graph shown below. Based on that speed vs FE chart, one can constructs a table of the the FE hit shown below for steady cruising once the cabin temperature has stabilized. Also, one could correct the FE vs speed chart for higher temperature as the chart is based on 70 F as FE likely will be higher because as the temperature increases due to lower air density, aerodynamic drag will be less. Bottom line, IMHO the FE hit from AC is not bad once the set point temperature is reached. It's the shorter trips (% of initial AC use higher than longer trips) amd stop and go traffic that will kill FE when using the AC.

Just went out and checked and mine's a C-Max.

Yes, with a few pumps (maybe 2 or 3). I have 13 fill-ups with 11 at two different Costco stations and two at one QT. I guess the thing to do is to remember the pump giving a problem and avoid it on future fill-ups.

NOPE, Syncing my iPhone 4 was much easier than before my 3.5.1 update. Just followed the instructions on the MFT screen. Does your iPhone indicate it is in discoverable mode when bluetooth is on?

Rolling the windows down does little with the outside air at 109 F because the inside air temp will quickly drop below 109 F using AC. It's that everything else inside the car is at say a sun-baked 120+ F and takes a while to cool down. When the outside temp is significantly lower (usually below mid 80's), I will open the windows (usually until my wife complains about the windows being open) and then turn on the AC. :) With the lower humidity in AZ, I can drive fairly comfortably with the windows cracked open in the mid 80's using no AC but 74 cabin temp is still better. Also, the effect of humidity on FE can be significant. For example, the ratio of the enthalpy (total energy content) of air at 80% relative humidity over 10% RH both at 100 F and both cooled to 10% RH at 45 F (assumed evaporator core temp) is about 3 times. In other words, three times as much work has to go into removing the heat content of air at 80% vs 10% RH both at 100 F. This is a significant reason why it in makes sense to use Max AC (includes recirculation), especially in areas with high RH. Why keep expending energy to remove water vapor from the outside air over and over again. Let's take the example one step further. Once the cabin temperature reaches the set point say 75 F, the AC has to now run to maintain cabin temperature from the heat gain from solar and convection. So, if one continues using recirculation (pushes the recirculate button) in both cases above, the difference in enthalpy (80% RH vs 10% RH) is over 5 times because now the input air to the evaporator core has been reduced to near the set point temperature with low RH. Bottom line, I always used recirculation back East where low humidity was 40%. But in AZ, I very rarely use recirculate except during the Monsoon season (usually July and August) where RH might be 50 - 60%. When monitoring the climate usage, I can barely detect a difference in recirculate vs non recirculate use. This is likely because the vast majority of climate use once the cabin is initially cooled is to remove the heat gain from the outside sources. I would expect the results of using recirculate to be much different in high RH areas

I did nothing after the 3.5.1 upgrade. It never stopped working from my original setup in Dec. 2012. I don't recall having any issues the first time.

wamba2000, how long was each leg of the trip? Did you see my post here. I said it wouldn't surprise me if for shorter trips, high temps, the FE hit would be as much as 15%.

Why do you think there is tampering? Trip 2 is likely accumulated in a separate location like the module that supports the display since it can be reset while the odometer is normally accumulated in the PCM. Usually, (don't know about Ford) but the odometer can not be easily reset if at all. Trip 2 reads 0.2 higher. I wouldn't worry. Why don't you call the SA, send him the pic, and have him ask a Ford engineer and see what answer you get?

My garage door opener was fine after 3.5.1.

I have been monitoring AC usage for some time. Today it was 109*F (highest temp my C-Max has seen) and clear when we returned home. The car was in the sun for about 4 hours. AC set point temperature = 74 F and auto. When the car is started, climate use jumped to almost 5 kW for about 1 mile - 2-3 minutes where we got on the freeway with eco-cruise set at 67 mph (GPS). Use fell to about 4 kW after about 1+ mile, gradually fell to about 2 kW after another 1+ miles, and to 1 kW after another 11/2 miles. It ran between about 0.5 - 0.75 kW for the next 30 miles. The speed for the last 5 miles was about 50 mph. Total miles = 35.4. FE = 39.8 mpg. Elevation change was + 575 feet. From previous same trips with no AC, I would see about 43 mpg. So that's a drop of about 7% in FE. Once the cabin was cool the climate usage wasn't that bad - maybe 3/4 HP.My guess is the C-Max uses less than 20 HP at 67 mph. So, the FE hit is maybe 4% at 67 mph cruising once the cabin is cool. So, for long term trips in triple digit AZ temps the FE hit will likely approach 4% which is really not that bad. Since the FE hit of AC will depend on the length of the trip, ambient, and speed, it will be difficult to compare ones AC FE hit with others. Short, slow speed trips with AC use will kill FE as the start-up climate use will be a greater portion of the total climate use over the short trip, slower speed means less air through the condenser and less heat removed or the electric fan has to run to increase air flow through the condenser, and this somewhat "fixed climate use" will be a greater % of the engine requirements at slower speeds . I can see a 15% hit for higher ambient temps, slow speeds, and trips say under 10 miles. I have also recorded the climate usage for lower ambient temperatures. When the ambient is in the mid 80's the start-up use is reduced considerably (max of about 2 1/2 kW) and the running use is between about 0.3 - 0.4 kW and reached within a couple miles. For our normal 10 - 15 mile one way trips, the FE hit was between 1 - 2 mpg. Bad news is I've probably seen the end of running the C-Max in the mid 80's until October. One other point and that is the humidity and dew point is rather low in AZ compared to most other parts of the country. So, those in more humid areas will use more kW to remove the water vapor in the air (more latent heat of condensation to be removed) than in AZ. So, the electric compressor will run harder in humid climates than dry climates all else being the same.

I entered the MFT diagnostic mode as suggested by ceemax71 to check the coordinates of the GPSM: The coordinates displayed in this screen are spot on (elevation is still of by over 100 feet but that can somewhat be expected). This validates what Ford says about the Where am I display not being updated and the GPSM is not the problem. So, either Ford needs to correct this by updating the Where am I screen with the correct coordinates or like the current C-Max Owner's Manual says leave the coordinates field blank in Where am I. So now on Monday I will call Ford CS and register my complaint. If those with MFT without Nav can also inform Ford of their displeasure with this and demand that it be fixed as it can be a safety issue, maybe we can get Ford on the next rev of MFT to display the correct coordinates as stated in the older MFT manual.

For run-on to occur, fuel has to be leaking into the cylinder after shutdown and there has to be a source for ignition (upon shutdown injection and spark stop). I always stick to top-tier gas stations or ones like Costco that advertise additive packages significantly greater than the minimum required. So, you may have deposits on the injector tip that allow fuel to leak into the cylinder after shutdown and perhaps other deposits in the cylinder creating hot spots and igniting the gas. Sometimes the cheapest gas is not always the best whether regular or premium. Also, just because gas is premium doesn't mean it has additional additives above the EPA requirements. I'd recommend running a bottle of Techron every so often to clean the combustion chamber if one is not sure of the level of additives in the gasoline one is purchasing. From Exxon:

No, Ford can't sell a "test car" as new let alone roll back the miles and sell it as used. SnitGTS, I would expect you to get over 50 mpg driving as you describe if the car were broken in. Any use of AC yet? I say this all the time it's really not difficult to get 50+ mpg if one reduces speed (which around here means staying off the freeways and taking ancillary streets with speed limits of 35 to 50 mph with traffic lights and stop signs) and practice some basic hypermiling techniques. But in the Phoenix area staying off the freeways adds significant time to trips and the use of A/C is starting to reduce FE significantly (it's around noon, clear, and with current temp of 104.5*F and climbing). We're leaving for lunch and some errands shortly so I'll monitor AC usage as this will be the hottest day for the C-Max yet.

See this for link to the motorcraftservice site. You can find the above under owner guides in the left column.

Online Automotive Service Information System Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS) - electric transmission data OASIS is an acronym used by many industries for an on-line information system. Generally one needs to be a member of a group to get a login ID and password. You can go here and buy a subscription to the Ford system.

Prior to the dead battery. I believe the TSB may "mask" the real issue by insuring a more fully charged battery on shutdown. The "real" issue may now take longer to drain the battery and longer to / never cause a "dead battery".

Did you drive through any rain recently??

LOL, at least it not nearly 50 miles off like mine. IMHO, regardless of what the owner's manual says (nothing is displayed) and the Ford engineer's response to dealer (SA is to provide a copy), if the values are displayed they should be correct. IMHO, it's a safety issue as one might give the Where am I coordinates in giving directions in case of an emergency. BTW my I-Phone coordinates are spot on. If I understood the response correctly when the SA read it to me, it's about software not updating the coordinates frequently enough to be accurate. Of course, I doubt my car (in it's 31 miles from to me taking possession) was in the middle of a National Forest 50 miles East of my home and 85 miles from the dealer. But when I used Sync Voice Navigation, the directions where spot on, the lat. and long. were updating but the longitude was always about 50 miles east. Once I get everything together I will open a case with Ford CS and see what happens.

Thanks Bill-N. I'm going to call my SA this morning and ask to have the TSB for the GPSM mentioned above performed. Edit: I called my SA and the TSB was part of the 3.5.1 update.