TopherTheME

I'm looking for TPM sensors for a winter wheel set but don't want to pay $60 a sensor from the dealer. The Ford OEM part# for the original sensor is 1A189(TPMS-12) but I can't find it from other suppliers. Will any Ford TPM sensor work with the C-Max? For example like these from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/GENUINE-MOTORCRAFT-PRESSURE-SENSORS-DE8T-1A180-AA/dp/B0034ROE76/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1409673417&sr=8-2&keywords=ford+tpms Or are these the same part just different part#?

In the short term I don't really think the FCV is to be targeted at any specific segment. There are so few FCVs being sold/leased over the next 5 years their sales will be negligible. There are quite a few studies on FCVs and how they compare to other technologies like BEVs. In summary most of the legitimate ones say BEVs are more cost effective for ranges up to about 150mi, after that FCVs become more economical. The ultimate value is in plug-in FCHVs. I don't think California is wasting money. If the US is to compete with other countries already developing an infrastructure we need to at least start from somewhere.

I'm not gonna even touch this one its so controversial. I'll just say solid state batteries have their applications, but EV's isn't one of them.

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt we will ever see a conventional sized car with 500mi range that charges in <5min. About the most energy dense battery we can build is the Li-Air battery and even with that kind of energy density a target of 500miles would be difficult. Charging in under 5min is nearly theoretically impossible for batteries of this scale, not to mentioned the power requirements for it.

There are a couple issues with fuel cells: pollution - to refine one barrel of oil into approximately 19 gallons of gasoline you also need: electricity, water & another hydrocarbon fuel to burn to create heat, an EV can drive the equivalent distance of a gasoline car with 19 gallons of gas just from the electricity used in refining, meaning that an EV leaves you with: all the water, other hydrocarbon fuel & one barrel of oil, creating much less pollution. Fuel cells have a similar issue. The energy required to make H2 available as a fuel is very high and an EV can do so much more with so much less energy. The key to reducing GHGs in the atmosphere and addressing climate change is to reduce overall energy consumption, the efficiency of electric motors and battery packs allows this. Reducing energy consumption solves all the other issues (GHGs, pollution, etc). The well-to-wheels (w2w) efficiency of an ICE vehicle is about 14%. The w2w of an electric vehicle is about 28%. However, because about 70% of the electrical energy in North America is derived from coal, its actually more environmentally friendly is most cases to drive a regular ICE vehicle than a BEV. For example, a Mazda 3 has about the same environmental impact as the Tesla Model S (85kWh) in many parts of the US. (322gCO2/mi and 320gCO2/mi in Michigan, check it out at fueleconomy.gov) The car with the least environmental impact isn’t a BEV at all, its the Toyota Prius at 222gCO2/mi. The reformation process of nat gas to H2 is about 85% with newer plants, fuel cell efficiency about 60%. After the H2 is delivered and compressed FCVs produced about 300gCO2/mi for a small SUV, depending on which study you prescribe to. With the infrastructure the way it stands, they are actually on par with BEVs and HEVs for GHG emissions. Heres a neat breakdown (although I think a little bias to FCVs): http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdf fuel cost - Toyota says that optimistically a fuel cell vehicle will cost the same to operate as a 20 MPG gas car. An EV costs the same to operate as a 100+ MPG gas car. Why in the world would anyone want to have a FCV when you could drive an EV, hybrid or diesel (or even a 2.5L gas Ford Fusion) for less money? The average cost of a kWh in the US is around $0.10/kWh meaning it would cost about $8.50 to fully charge a Model S for a range of 265 miles. Toyota (and other organizations) estimate a kg of H2 to be about $8 with minimal infrastructure. A tank of 5kg of hydrogen would take you about 430 miles in a similar sized car (Toyota FCV example) for a cost of around $25 for the same range, or 3x more. Why would you buy one? Well the same reason you would buy an ICE/PHEV over a BEV, for the range. At $40 to fill the tank for 430 miles its on par with petrol for fuel cost. infrastructure - EVs can be charged anywhere there is electricity, which is pretty much everywhere in this country, fuel cell vehicles need specialized fuel stations which are very expensive to build due to the equipment needed to store H2. Another study suggests that a $1 billion investment is needed to bring H2 costs down to $7/kg. This cost would be equivalent to your average new gas only car sold today. Again, this cost is about 4 times what it would cost to operate a BEV sold today. These projections assume that gasoline vehicles become no more efficient or less expensive and that EVs also become no more efficient or less expensive. Yes, they require a significant investment of infrastructure. But so do BEVs, and on the same scale. Sure a BEV can be charged almost anywhere, but the current electrical grid isn’t capable of supporting BEVs on a large scale. vehicle cost - FCVs cost way more than BEVs This is relative. Cost estimates for the Toyota FCV are $50k for a vehicle with 430 miles of range and that can be refueled. The Model S is about half the range realistically starts at around $80k. who sells the fuel - the same companies that currently sell gasoline want to sell you H2. The companies selling H2 are also for-profit companies. One expects to be profitable selling H2 in just a few years. Electricity usually comes from utilities which are regulated and are not allowed to price gouge and are even required to return profits to their customers in some areas. Any landowner can also generate their own electricity by purchasing PV panels or through other methods. This is not correct. The same companies that want to sell you H2 are the chemical companies that have always produced it. For example, Praxair, Airgas, etc. Selling H2 is already profitable, it’s a gas that’s already used on a large industrial scale. But yes, these companies are not immune to price gouging, just like the petrolium companies. I don't think that BEVs are practical for cross-country travel or as the only car in a one-car household. Even Teslas with SuperChargers aren't practical for road trips in my mind. What I could envision for the future is a world where a multi-car household has at least one BEV and at least one PHEV or diesel depending on their needs. For residents in rural areas who do a lot of high speed driving with minimal traffic, diesels are the most efficient mode of transport. For city dwellers who spend lots of time commuting in traffic, BEVs are the best option as a primary vehicle. Since most households have more than one car, the secondary or tertiary vehicle should be something with "limitless" range - a PHEV or a diesel. For people who need a maximum amount of cargo space a hybrid or diesel vehicle will suit their needs while reducing resource consumption. I agree. However H2 has the ability to be produced in many sustainable ways from solar and nuclear far more efficiently than electricity can. Why not just replace the gasoline with a fuel like H2 that has the potential of being sustainable? We’re going to run out of gasoline eventually anyway. The key in all of this is to reduce resource consumption. That is the key to addressing the global issues. Any project that doesn't address resource consumption won't help. FCVs don't fix the resource consumption issue, that's why the oil companies like FCVs. I hate to be cynical, but I don't understand how any car company could promote FCVs over BEVs. The only way I can rationalize the position taken by Toyota, Honda and Hyundai is that they're being paid off by big oil. Otherwise how could they justify the R&D dollars for FCVs when it's clear that they'll never work in the real world. All that they manage is to stall the BEV revolution and keep big oil happy and wealthy. The whole system is corrupt. The oil companies don’t like FCVs, they lobby them just as much as BEVs. The reason major auto companies like Toyota and Daimler are rejecting BEVs are because they see the big picture (and to remain competitive of course), not because they are being paid off by big oil. That’s our government’s job. Batteries are an energy storage device and will never be a replacement for an engine. Eventually we will have to stop using fossil fuels one way or another. The laws of physics and chemistry dictate that hydrogen is the best fuel to do it. Its all about having a closed chemical cycle transportation system and H2 + fuel cells is the only technology that can do it. If that argument doesn’t do it for you, just believe that these auto companies employ some of the best and brightest scientists and engineers in the world in the field of alternative energy so they sure as hell better know what they are doing.

Its going to be hard to find that information about vehicles from OEMs in any official manner since its proprietary but you can just google it and find companies that that predict 100k mile lifetime based on ALT. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hydrogen-fuel-cell-thats-as-durable-as-a-conventional-engine-213225731.html The DoE has reports showing lifetimes of 75k miles. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/accomplishments.pdf "Then, what after 100k miles?" Good question. As of right now its the same answer as what to do with a BEV after 100k miles. You either just deal with the reduced performance or you get a new car.

To be fair, those 28 H2 stations are capable of serving thousands of FCVs a day (assuming there is that many) while those 175 charging stations, only around a few hundred BEVs.

95% of H2 produced today is from reforming natural gas. So yes, in this case H2 would come from fossil fuels. But electricity for our NRG's comes from fossil fuels as well (70% of it in the US). :) I'm assuming you are referring to CO poisoning of the anode, which isn't that big of an issue anymore. CO poisoning isn't something that permanently damages PEMFC and doesn't necessarily require any vehicle service to be fixed. I'll reserve judgement about the link you posted but I'm very skeptical.

This is probably more of a lab experiment than actual technological breakthrough. I can electrolyze water with a 1.5V battery as well as water begins to electrolyze at 1.23V at STP.

Lets try and keep the facts straight. The fuel cells being developed by Westinghouse/Siemens are solid oxide fuel cells more suited for stationary applications. Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cell technology is what is being proposed for transportation. Durability is always a concern, but 100k+ mile fuel cells have already been proven. Your modern car fuel cell exceeds 10k hours of service and has greater life in terms of total energy throughput (which is what really matters) than lithium batteries used for cars.

I've been very surpised by all the negativity around Hyundai's FCV Tuscan and the upcoming FCV sedan from Toyota. All the comments sections of the "green" car sites are filled with comments about how hydrogen and fuel cells are less efficient than gasoline and are a total scam. And that companies like Toyota are just out to scam people and meet standards for CARB since they don't want to mass produce BEVs and that BEVs are the future of transporation. What are your thoughts? I know all the technologies very well but will reserve stating my opinion (and facts!) but what does that average techy and informed consumer think?

Sounds like they fed you a line. The dealer I bought my NRG from still has a 2013 NRG in stock: http://gornoford.com/Detroit/For-Sale/New/Ford/C-MAX/2013-Energi-SEL-White-Car/18272394/

To be blunt, if you're concerned about snow don't get any of those cars, get a Subaru Forester. Yes, its very similar to the Crosstrek but the Forester is bigger and still gets great fuel economy and really its just a better value. But bottom line, the Forester is going to handle the snow better than any other car except maybe a Toyota 4Runner or Jeep Wrangler. Plus, it gets better fuel economy than the Escape as well. However, Ford has done something very interesting with both the C-Max and the Escape, and that is they've included a limited slip differential and torque vectoring. These are features you used to only be able to get in higher end sports cars. In a nutshell, all this means is that the C-Max (and Escape) will handle better in the snow than your average 2WD car will but will never be as capable of a Subaru. Subaru just simply has the best and most advanced AWD system you can get without spending a fortune. Now with that said, I live in Michigan and experience similar snow fall and also drive quite a bit. To me, a C-Max with good snow tires is adaquate for driving in the snow and although I haven't owned it for a winter yet I'm not really concerned about it. I too almost bought a Subaru for the very reason you are considering one but figured that 1 or 2 days of bad snow out of the year isn't enough reason to justify not buying a hybrid.

I just got my car windows tinted all around in 3M Crystalline 60 with exception of the windshield. The heat rejection is fantastic and hopefully in the future my left arm won't be darker than my right one. The only issue I have is not with the tint but how it was installed, the tinter seems to have botched the rear window as it has a bunch of smudge and tool markings in it. Will probably get it redone. I would be careful about tinting the windshield as its a very hard windshield to tint. The tint shop I went to suggested Suntek CXP 80 on the windshield as its the most optically transparent in the 80+ catagory but the tinter couldn't get it to apply without wrinkling. From my research here's a brief breakdown of what I found on most windshield tints. - 3M Cystalline: causes a wavyness or distortion on steep angled windows like the c-max since its so thick - Llumar Air Blue: has a fine graininess to it which causes a speckle pattern and halos on bright lights at night - Suntek CXP 80: has had a bad reputation for being hazy and not very clear but apparently Suntek has addressed this problem. Didn't get it so I don't know. - Pinnacle Forumla 1: Same film as Llumar Air Blue - Huber Optek: too thick to apply on windshields - Photosync: very expensive and hard to find

Put the two side by side and its very clear that the V has a lot more space in the back. I almost bought one over the C-max for this very reason but unfortunetly it comes up short in just about every other aspect.

No it doesn't. Typically generation cycle is ~5 years, not the 2 to 3 that the vehicle has been out. The C-max, Focus, Escape, Kuga, and Transit are all on the same platform which is the "C" global platform. When the C platform gets updated then so will the C-max. I would guess around 2017 with a new generation of the hybrid powertrain.

I've heard many rumors through the automotive grapevine that the next gen Prius is going to be a game changer. A revolutionary new powertrain with significantly higher efficiency allowing the original Prius flavor of the car to have an EPA 60mpg combined rating. If Toyota would give the car a convenctional and half way decent interior and a somewhat comfortable ride I think they could easily double their sales. I for one am a huge advocate of fuel cell technology. Energy storage will always have range issues and slow charging. As for the shape of the car you can't really do much about that as its determined by physics and personally I don't mind the aesthetics of the prius.

I'm not sure if the increased sales of EV's and PHEV's is a good thing or a bad thing. Its nice that more people are choosing to drive more efficient vehicles and all, but this means more competition for finding an empty charging station. :)

kostby, my mistake. Apparently there has been more Model S fires than I am aware of. Heres another from earilier this year in Toronto: http://www.businessinsider.com/february-1st-toronto-tesla-fire-2014-2

I really like this and as an engineer in the field of battery and fuel cell powertrains I completely agree with Elon. Patents hinder progress and are no longer an instrument for protecting a single person intellectual property. They have been twisted to become a corporate tool for creating lawsuits and generating revenue for lawyers. Down with patents but more importantly down with patent lawyers! Only one of the fires was caused by road debri. The rest were caused by normal accidents.

Absolutely. CVT's tend to hinder driving experience rather than enhance it, the eCVT from Ford is an exception to the rule. Most CVTs are rather loud and buzzy sounding and also give you a rubber band or lash effect when accelerating and decelerating. This powertrain from Ford doesn't really have any of these characteristics and is exceptionally smooth. I think that its easily quieter and smoother than the 4th gen Prius. As for Ford's double clutch tranys I think they are more of a work in progress. Great idea in concept, they just need some refinement. After a couple years I'm sure they will behave much more like a conventional torque converter couple AT.

I don't know about the report but the data from fueleconomy.gov/EPA includes the energy for refining and deliverying fuel in the upstream GHG calculation. Also, thats not how power plants work. Power plants don't produce excess power when the demand isn't there, they follow the demand. So yes, charging your EV at night still causes the power plant to produce the same amount (roughly) of CO2 as charging during the day.

At least according to fueleconomy.gov and based on my region. The C-Max Hybrid has a tailpipe score of 260 gCO2/mile while the Energi is 270 if upstream CO2 generation is considered. Basically, Michigan produces most of its power from coal fired power plants which as I'm sure everyone knows is a very dirty fuel, far worse than gasoline. So even though the processes of burning coal in a Rankin cycle power plant, generating power and sending it through the grid, then charging a battery, then driving an electric motor is suppose to be more efficient than a gasoline engine, it still produces more CO2. If you live in a region like New York where most of the power is generated from nuclear and other sources the Energi's score drops down to 200 gCO2/mile. Here's a list of scores for other vehicles in my area: - Cmax Energi - 270 - Cmax Hybrid - 260 - Toyota Prius - 222 - Toyota Prius C - 222 - Model S (85kWh) - 320 - Chevy Volt - 300 - Nissan Leaf - 260 - Mazda 3 (2.0L) - 326 So if you live in a region where you get your power form coal fired plants your all electric Tesla Model S has about the same impact on the environment as a Mazda 3.

I find it very hard to believe the car didn't generate at least one DTC, the dealer probably just didnt know how to look it up. A vehicle shut down is a major fault and is usually a last resort kind of thing unless something physically fails. Maybe try taking it to another dealer and see what they can find because problems like this have a history of repeating themselves.

I chose my dealer because they gave me $1500 more on my trade in than anyone else would.