plus 3 golfer

The Cd = 0.3 MythBusters ran tests on FE vs drafting distance and got the results shown below. I don't believe you will see much affect at 3-4 seconds at 65 mph (around 300+ feet). Now if you mean 3 - 4 car lengths, the FE affect will be significant.

Bump for a very well done review.

Like I've said several times before, one can get 50+ mpg if they choose to - that's nothing new but how one gets 50 mpg is what is important to someone that is skeptical ("have heard" the C-Max isn't capable of good mpg's). Let the skeptic then determine how plausible it will be for them to achieve such FE if they purchase a C-Max vs another brand. Again I always look at the premise behind threads and screen shots alone without comment are of little value except I guess if the premise is let's post screen shots because "it's good for the soul". ;) :) I truly hope people will only post round trips (to negate elevation change and possibly wind) and comment as to what the conditions were to get 50+ mpg. FE on one way trips can be significantly affected by elevation change and also by wind. As I said, I got 53.8 mpg round trip and chose to increase my driving time by about 25 minutes on a normal 55 minute, 36 mile round trip by driving about 24 miles at likely less than 30 mph (on average) on ancillary streets vs on the freeway at 65 mph to achieve the 53.8 mpg (a gain of likely 9 mpg from similar freeway trips). Simply posting the screen shot of 53.8 mpg is IMHO misleading without explanation. .

Here's two pics of a trip today from my home to the mall. The first is the outbound trip and the second is the round trip. There was one significant difference that accounts for the large difference in FE and that is the mall is about 450 feet lower than my home. Had I posted the return leg it would have been about 43.5 mpg. So, which one accurately depicts the capability of the C-Max? And most would not think that the elevation change was 450 feet since it averages only 25 feet / mile and the terrain is flat. One need to look at a topo map to see the change. Secondly, in order to achieve these FE numbers I had to take the ancillary streets instead of the freeway for about 24 miles with about 40 traffic lights and try to time lights. There were two occasions where I got caught and scored in the 50% range on the brake score. There was also 2 miles of residential, 2 miles around the mall, and about 8 miles of 55 mph divided highway with 3 lights. My average speed for the RT was likely about 30 / 32 mph not counting when the car wasn't in motion. So, I added about 25 minutes of time to a round trip that 1) normally takes 55 minutes, 2) is about 3 miles shorter, but 3) only yields about 45 mpg overall (about low 50s out and high 30s back). Again, my point is a screenshot is not always worth a 1000 words. ;)

I opted for the month subscription and began printing files to pdf. As I suspected there are tons of files. So, I'm saving the ones appropriate for me like descriptions of operations of systems, testing, diagnostics, DTCs, wiring and service procedures for services I will likely perform.

So what's your overall FE at 1323.2 miles? That's the important number. And of course without knowing how one achieves the FE numbers, the numbers are always suspect. ;) For example, I can get over 50+ mpg every time I leave my home and head towards Phoenix for at least 25 miles provided I keep the freeway speed between 61 - 65 mph and don't use A/C. But then when I turn around and head home, I have to climb back up to 1835 feet elevation (terrain can look flat but the average drop is about 30 feet / mile but affects FE significantly). So, my overall drops to mid 40's. :) This also adds some time to the trips, requires more attentiveness on the freeway (traveling slower than most traffic), and is not comfortable when the ambient gets above 80+F with full sun. I can also make over 50+ if I take the ancillary streets instead of the freeway for many of the above trips provided I drive conservatively (P&G), coast to the many stops, and don't exceed 45 mph. But this adds too much time to the trips and employing certain driving techniques all the time, can irritate other drivers. Your premise for starting the thread was I believe to show that the C-Max is capable of 50+ because there are naysayers out there. But the naysayers will still look at real "real world" overall FE like fuelly statistics, fueleconomy.gov and so forth (IIRC, 2013s currently averaging under 38 mpg). Until the overall FE of the C-Max fleet approaches 47 in the "real world", I doubt showing trips above 50 will convince them. Hopefully, the fuelly stats will climb as the 2013 fleet breaks-in and has at least a full year of operations. Bottom line: there's nothing magical about making 50 mpg on various trips but the inconveniences and so forth to do so for me (and especially my wife) are not worth it. If I would choose to post pics of 50+ mpg, it would be misleading without full disclosure. I would suggest that with each pic posted, a table be filled in with such data as: elevation change, ambient temperature, average speed, terrain, techniques employed and so forth. Then, we have more meaningful data.

Great, that's what I wanted to hear. I'll likely then get the 72 hour subscription which should allow enough time to save them but the monthly one isn't really that much more.

Yes, I too enjoy reading about the systems. Are you able to print / save the documents available in the subscription service? or do you have to do screen snapshot of every page and print / save each individually?

Here's a link to Ford manuals and technical information. There are many interesting documents that can be down loaded free under the Non-Subscription Resources tab. Here's a few: 1) OBDII system operation - beginning has a good description of the operation of the C-Max powertrain. 2) C-max Emergency Response Guide - shows how to disconnect HV battery 3) Link to Owner Guides includes owners manual and other guides Enjoy and mods feel free to move to a more appropriate section.

For some reason, I just received a Ford brochure in the mail with the $750 Private Cash Offer as a coupon card. My initial brochure that I received for $1000 offer was twice the size of this brochure and there was no coupon but a page within the brochure with my name on it, code, and the $1000 offer. As, I read the restrictions on the offer, it is valid for X-Plan pricing but not the A/D/Z Plans but can't be used for other private or commercial offers. It makes no mention of excluding cash rebate incentives. Since one can definitely get general cash incentives with the X-Plan pricing, I see no reason why one can't use the $750 private offer with any cash incentive like the currently available $750. So, it certainly looks like hybridbear's analysis should be more in line with my analysis in post #16 of $1937 as the additional cost of the Energi over the Hybrid (in most states but obvious not in CA). :)

Why would a bicycle pay anything? They cause virtually no damage to roads. Wait, I guess we should tax them since we have to paint those bicycle lanes on the roadways :).

I suggest you look it up. I have no problem referring to it as a "gas tax" provided people understand it's history and that it really is a road use tax. A convenient method to collect the road use tax when it was implemented was to place it on fuel sold. The OP posted a letter written by Mr.Coulter who IMHO feels privileged evidently because he owns a hybrid (apparently Mr. Coulter purchased the vehicle because of the "inherent value of going green and saving gas" ) and takes offense at now having to pay more for using the road than he otherwise would under the old method of collecting the road tax. Mr. Coulter offers no alternatives and letters like his are of little value in solving a problem. The issue IMHO is really not about a $ amount as much as it is about how to collect for the use of the roads in a fair way. VA method does single out a specific type of vehicle but it's a start (albeit maybe not a good start). A weight / mileage basis would seem to be better but implementation would not be easy. Also, simply licensing a vehicle means road are built and those roads need to be maintained regardless of how many miles one drives or how much fuel one uses. So, a fixed component of the road use tax also makes sense. IMHO, a better solution would have been to add a graduated tax based on EPA fuel economy (for lack of anything better) on all vehicles. So, even a gas-guzzling vehicle (also likely heavier) pays a fixed amount per year in addition to the current tax on fuel. A more fuel efficient vehicle would pay a higher fixed amount but at least now all share in the revenue shortfall. In addition, study after study has shown that damage to roads is not a linear relationship with weight. Here's one quoted by the Va. Bicycling Federation "road damage from one 18-wheeler is equivalent to 9600 cars". I highly doubt we will ever see an 18 wheeler pay 9600 times what a car pays in road use tax or even say 2400 times based on say a 4X FE ratio of the average car vs 18 wheeler and the current road tax collection method. Someone has to pay for revenue shortfalls from the tax on fuel, as fuel economy increases.

LOL, why, it's very obvious that there are some that believe their use of the roads should be subsidized by less fuel efficient equivalent vehicles. I agree with a weight use tax. So, it's your state make your voice heard where it counts.

It's not a gas tax. It's a road use tax collected on each gallon of fuel sold. An equivalent gas, diesel, EV, or hybrid vehicle should pay the same amount of tax for use of the roads.

I always find it amusing that some feel privileged and should be excused from paying a fair share for the use of public roads.

Hard to argue against "peace of mind." I believe that is the reason most do it. They read forums and the anecdotal facts of others make them paranoid and fearful that their oil is about to lessen their engine life from 350 k miles to 50 k miles. Black stone perpetuates this by saying stuff like XX is not normal and suggest shortening the OCI to 9 k from 10k and we'll check again in 9k miles. Well, they dangled the bait and likely set the hook.

Did anyone address this "murky green" with the dealer? Maybe Ford used oil that was murky green depending on build date. If mine was murky green, I'd have given the service department a call.

Why? I've never done one but have reviewed 100's. I can see doing a few UOAs for fine tuning the OCI but only if one operates their car in extreme conditions or wants to extend the OCI. UOA will tell you the condition of the oil and then one can decide whether to increase / decrease the OCI. My guess is that if one uses Mobil 1 (don't know enough about Ford oil), the OCI can be extended beyond 10 k miles. But it costs about $25 to do a UOA, so one might as well just change the oil at 10k and for go the UOAs to "fine tune" the OCI. Secondly, (I believe this is why most want to do UOAs), is the worry about wear rates. If one gets a higher than "normal" wear rate what is one going to do? People will say that well they can monitor the wear rates, change oil trying to reduce wear rates, and preemptively take action -- what does that mean - tear the engine apart? How do wear rates correlate with the life of engine? Blackstone doesn't know. UOAs are very beneficial to equipment that runs virtually continuously / lots of miles as once one has a history, one can optimize OCI and save $ since an OCI likely involve gallons of oil (not quarts) and equipment overhaul can be done perhaps before a catastrophic failure occurs. From an expert on BITOG:

I don't know what to make of your "green oil" if I recall correctly. Something was amiss like Ford forgot to drain the oil-used for engine run-in at the factory and refill with proper oil. That's why one should check ones oil regularly (I checked mine at the dealer before driving off the lot) and if it doesn't "look right", change the oil. When I got free dealer oil changes with other vehicles, I always checked the oil before driving away. My oil at 4 k miles and my guess virtually everyone else's will look to be a golden color (not a murky green). The filter will capture all particles large enough to cause damage and particles small enough to pass the filter will be suspended by the dispersal additives in the oil and will pose no problems. Early oil changes are not needed nor are they recommended by Ford.

joe, there is a general lack of understanding on motor oils (including me since I'm not a tribologist). You'll hear anecdotal claims on type of oil to use and the frequency of oil changes relative to the life of the engine and so forth. But, why would one deviate from the manufacturer's recommendations? Many believe that more frequent oil changes than recommended reduce wear rates and are "better for the engine". Studies show just the opposite including one that I recall reading where Ford was a participant. Here's a good summary from BobIsTheOilGuy.

Well turning off the phone book update didn't solve the clock problem but i believe this was the longest time between clock resets---about 2 weeks.

Really????? I'd say you need to try a little harder and push "the limits". :) Heck with over 2 gallons of fuel left you could have reached 625. I'll give it too you though, since I wouldn't want to run out of fuel trying to reach 600. :worship: What I think is impressive is the 306.5 EV miles out of 534.3 or 57.4% EV miles. I'd say we need a few new clubs like the 55%, 60%, and 65% clubs with a minimum of say 550 miles (so we don't have to run the tank dry).

So, you need to find out if the $750 hybrid rebate can be used with the brochure discount for the hybrid like I could when I bought (although I did buy under the X-Plan which may be different). The dealer should be able to look up the brochure discount on-line and then check what other incentives / rebates can also be applied. Others have indicated that the brochure discount could not be used with the A&Z and D plans. My X-Plan price was $1169 more than the A&Z plan and $1061 more than the D plan prices. So, maybe Ford has a bottom line amount of total discounts that they will provide to an individual. Also as I recall, I didn't request a brochure but simply filled out a form online in the Spring 2012 for Ford to "keep me informed" on the C-Max availability and received a brochure in the mail in October 2012 with the $1000 offer. As I recall the instructions were simply to take the brochure to the Ford dealer and they will know what to do with no other caveats (but I could be wrong). Also, if your parents own Ford stock, at least in the past they could qualify for the X-Plan pricing by filing out a Ford form and then get an X-Plan number from Ford to take to the dealer.

Unless Ford changed it, the brochure "private cash" could be combined with x-plan pricing. I did it and so did many others on the C-Max and other Ford models. So, the private cash should be good on both models while the incentive is only good on the hybrid. The other "feature difference" that I took into account" in my Energi vs Hybrid decision is cargo space albeit hard to quantify $ wise. If one needs cargo space and if one takes longer trips, the Hybrid wins on more space and also better highway fuel economy due to the lesser vehicle weight.

Here's my comments on your analysis: 1) Below is the current Ford pricing and incentives for zip code 55401 2) I don't see any cash incentives listed for the Energi and what is the hybrid rebate? 3) So, the difference in price after your discounted tax credit is 32,950 + 2,094 - 28,365 - 1,816 - 750 - 3,676 = $1,937 (assuming my math is correct) and does not include the hybrid rebate. 4) 6.5 kWh may be low to travel 20 miles. I have yet to see any actual measurement of metered kWh to charge. There will be conversion losses. My guess would be at least 5% (maybe more). 5) Are there any vehicle license taxes in MN like AZ based on the MSRP of the vehicles? In AZ, the Energi will result in an $80 first year tax premium over the hybrid. 6) Are the annual insurance premiums higher on the Energi than the Hybrid in MN? When I did my similar analysis for AZ with a higher state sales tax rate and $1000 cash incentive difference, the payback period (in years) was way too long for me but of course everyone's rationale for buying an Energi vs Hybrid will be different.