mlsstl

As a commercial insurance broker for the past 38 years, insurance does its best work when the scope of the potential loss is very high compared to the cost of insuring it. At its most basic, an insurance policy is simply a written contract between two parties -- you agree to pay a premium and the insurance company agrees to compensate you for certain types of losses. For many people, their home is their single largest investment, so it makes sense to insure property worth tens or hundreds of thousands for a relatively small premium. Same with your car -- one momentary mistake could cause you to injure others who could sue you for all you are worth, and damage your own car. (The public liability portion is typically a greater portion of a car insurance premium than the physical damage part.) However, when you begin asking insurance companies to insure the small, everyday stuff, either though very low deductiibles or by purchasing types of coverage that don't have a true catastrophic exposure, you begin "trading dollars" with the insurance company. Over the long term, this is very inefficient as the insurance company not only needs to charge for the losses they pay, but also need to cover their overhead & profit. Extended warranties fall into this latter category. You may come out ahead or behind depending on what breaks and when, but the difference between the premium paid and the losses compensated is never going to be much, typically a few thousand at most, and that for a small percentage of buyers. So, over the long run, extended warranty insurance does not make statistical financial sense for the majority of buyers. However, this does make sense is if you are the type of car owner who values budgeted peace of mind over the premium paid. For those people, it can be worth it.

The current EPA test (updated back in 2007 or 08 or so) includes speeds up to 80 mph, though that doesn't last long. So the "average" figure is just that, and includes a variety of speeds and a couple of stops, too. Note that their "average" speed even for the high speed segment is only 48 mph. Full details and a chart of the test cycles can be found at: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml -- click on the tabs to review the various segments.

I really didn't want to start a fuss with anyone, but one of Ford's original mistakes with the C-Max was when they claimed 47 mpgs for city & highway. One of the issues is they "borrowed" the figures from the Fusion Hybrid which apparently has a better shape for highway driving. Failing to take that into account was an issue in mpg revision number 1. The physics are pretty simple. It is harder to make a boxy MPV such as the C-Max as efficient at higher highway speeds as it is in the city. The same is true of SUVs. That was only point I was trying to illustrate.

Wasn't trying to compare my Outback to anything. Just thought it made a very good example of the impact of any car's aerodynamics on highway driving, especially into strong headwinds. This particular trip provided one of the clearest illustrations I've seen, since the weather changed dramatically right after finishing the first leg of the trip and filling the tank. The C-Max also suffers in highway driving with poor aerodynamics and the loss of brake regen for long stretches, but that shouldn't surprise anyone around here.

Drove one of these a few days ago. Fascinating car. Driving dynamics are very good -- it is rear engine drive with a 170 hp electric motor and 184 ftlbs of torque. Off-the-line pickup is amazing. The interior is very Scandinavian and organic -- very neat if you like that stuff. It is also very roomy and comfortable. Now admittedly this car is really not direct competition for the C-Max. The i3 is truly an urban city car with no highway or long distance pretensions at all. i3 range on the BEV (electric only) is around 80 miles and you can double that with the Rex model. The latter model contains a small motor that is a generator only -- no gas power for the wheels at all. And thanks to California regulations, the gas tank is only 2 gallons for true emergency back-up only. Pricing is also in a different league as the cheapest model starts at $42K. However, they have some very aggressive lease options right now, which fits well for those who want to try the car but aren't sure they want to commit to an outright purchase. We're shopping for a possible replacement for my wife's Mini Clubman right now. Not sure if we will pull the trigger on anything. I still like the C-Max but my wife is rather tepid toward it. The good news is that I'm getting to test drive lots of different cars!

To Noah, headwinds can be a big issue on the highway. Took a trip north, to Minneapolis from St. Louis, on Thursday in our Subaru Outback. The first leg was pleasant weather around 70 and got 31 mpg. On refueling in Waterloo, IA, we immediately passed through a front coming through and had a 22 mph headwind per the US Weather Service. 70 mph plus a 22 mph wind dropped our indicated mileage down to 24.8. Ouch. What was interesting was, when drafting behind a semi, one could watch the instantaneous figure increase 5 or 6 mpg. However, the second you pulled into the passing lane to go around, it dropped quickly. Aerodynamics are a big issue for highway driving.

maerlim said >> "Another dealer I went to said they couldn't keep them on the lot because they were selling so fast." I do not believe that. When I started shopping for a new car last Spring (I spent 8 or 9 months test driving and researching before I finally made a purchase), I followed dealer inventories very closely for the three cars I was considering. C-Max was one of them and I kept close track of this car's inventory at basically every dealer in the St. Louis area. No one had many and the inventory turn was very slow. And when they were sold, they were either not replaced or done so with glacial slowness. Even though I have my new car now (Subaru Outback), I still check the Ford dealers from time to time. (Still thinking of a C-Max when my wife replaces her car down the road.) While a few 2015s are now on the lots, it is bleedingly obvious that no one around here is stocking any more of this model than they really have to.

mtb9153, I can see that in California. Bloomberg reports that the Prius is the number one seller in California, with a percentage of the market that is three times or more anywhere else in the US. I can see the C-Max doing much better in that environment. As noted before, car dealers think very much in the short term. Fast inventory turn is one of their biggest goals and the last thing they want is a car sitting on their lot for a long time. So there is a catch-22 -- if a model isn't popular, they don't want very many in stock, and if there aren't many in stock, it's tough to generate consumer interest.

I've never seen that commercial. I'll admit I'm not a rabid TV watcher, but between sports, news and the few other programs I do watch, it surprises me I've not seen it. Wonder if there are regional variances? Well, enough of my comments from the sidelines. I'll let you guys get back to your owner discussions. ;-)

On what type of media & program did you see the ad? I've not heard anything outside of the rare "proud sponsor" intros on a few public radio programs. When I was still shopping and mentioned I was considering a C-Max, people looked at me like I had three eyes. I understand that the current C-Max is going to be dropped in a year or two and replaced with a newer hybrid, but it still strikes me as odd that Ford is doing so little promotion in this area. If they are in this game for the long term, you really have to start at some point. The lack of dealer inventory is a bit more understandable -- dealers are very short term thinkers and if it is not selling "right now" they don't want to stock it. But Ford corporate is a mystery to me. Why bring out such a distinct car and then do almost zero to promote it? Makes me worry about their long term commitment to the car.

I came very close to buying a C-Max last year but ended up elsewhere. They are still on my list for the future but it is rather distressing to see how little effort Ford corporate puts into advertising them. I've heard a handful of radio ads on NPR stations, but nothing much beyond that. And then, in my area, the C-Max is pretty much non-existent in dealer inventory. Of the dozens of Ford dealers in the metro area, the most anyone has on the lot is two, usually one Energi and the other an SE or SEL, but not both. Unless you order, there is virtually no choice in color or options. Pretty tough to build a following for a car when the company doesn't advertise them and the dealers don't stock them.

I finally got to the formal car-buying stage in September and noted the selection of C-Maxs in the St. Louis area has been pitiful - virtually nothing to chose from at any of the dealers, save some leftover demo stock. My take on the local C-Max scene is that the Ford dealers don't have much interest in carrying or promoting this model. I noticed a few 2015s finally showed up this week, but the selection is still terrible. While I didn't buy a Ford, I came very close to getting a C-Max. However, with the underlying origins and solution for the battery problem still in fuzzy territory and concerns about both Ford's and the dealers' long-term commitment to the car, I just couldn't bring myself to pull the trigger on it. Still hope they get their act together on this.

In the case of the C-Max, the stinks over the gas mileage representations and the battery problems have been neither "inaccurate or unfounded." In the gas mileage debacle, the issue did not start with social media but rather the traditional car review media, with Ford fessing up that they had not actually tested the car but rather borrowed numbers from another model in the lineup (which also ended up having its mileage rating downgraded.) No way that Ford can blame that one on the internet. The allegations concerning the battery issue are also well grounded, though admittedly the internet has the adversely impacted the ability of Ford (and other car companies with similar problems) to keep things quiet. It is standard corporate practice to minimize a problem and I don't have much sympathy for their decreased ability to play cover-up. Of course, everything has a downside, and in this case, they do have to worry about unfounded rumors. However, I can't think of a good example where Ford has been recently damaged by unfounded allegations so overall I think the new balance is a good one for consumers.

Comment deleted.

As I noted in another thread a month or so ago, the complete randomness of the battery problem and Ford's apparent inability to diagnose it and come up with a solid fix cost them a sale to at least this buyer. (And yes, I've followed the threads on this site closely and seen all of the competing arguments that it is due to this or that, and can be fixed by checking whatever or following a special routine that no other car I've ever owned has needed....) I remain interested in this car but am waiting for the "Aha, we found it!" declaration from Ford. It is very disheartening to know that this issue has been going on since the car was introduced two years ago, and despite the software updates, parts replacement and buy-backs with Ford engineers all the while studying things under a microscope, the whole thing still remains a mystery. I've happily owned Fords before (starting with a '64 1/2 Mustang V8-260) and have no intrinsic problem with buying them in the future. But it is rather sad that they have built such an interesting, fun-to-drive and utilitarian vehicle and that after two years of investigation, it still leaves a lot of owners and potential buyers with no confidence in its reliability.

Another option is to use a razor blade to scrape off the dried droplets off the glass. (Obvious disclaimer - don't do this on the paint and also be very careful what solvents you use on the paint.)

As noted, it depends on the carrier and circumstances. Progressive is reasonably good with relatively low dollar physical damage only claims where their driver is clearly at fault and has admitted such. In my case, due to being flipped upside down, the car (a Ford Focus) was only 18 months old and was totaled plus I had the ER visit. While the injuries weren't severe, any third party bodily injury often makes a carrier much more difficult to deal with. If she was on the job when rear-ended in her work truck, that should have been a workers' compensation claim and her medical would have been paid 100% with no deductible. If she lost wages past the state's waiting period (varies by state), she would have been partially reimbursed for her lost wages. As for the other auto insurance carrier, that whole scenario sounds a bit odd to me. Most states have laws against bad faith claim adjusting that can get a carrier in trouble with the insurance department. It is often worth calling the state insurance department's complaint hot line and have them check into things. As such, it is fairly rare to hear of an insurer casually blowing off a claimant. I suspect the other driver gave them a story that alleged your daughter was either at fault or contributed to the accident in some way. As a broker (I don't work for an insurance company), I've heard a lot of client stories over the years. While I've seen my share of situations where I believe the insurance carrier has handled things incorrectly (I was even an independent expert witness in one case a few years back), I often find that important facts go missing as horror stories make the rounds. Insurance policies are legal contracts and most possible scenarios have been well litigated giving precedence. Details that may seem unimportant to consumers often play an important part in how claims are paid, or not paid.

Note they didn't deny the claim but rather delayed until their file was documented. That's not a "lie" on the carrier's part. (That's not to say the driver they insure hasn't told them a story that varies from reality. That happens quite a bit and can take some time to sort out.) Some companies are bigger jerks than others about having all the paperwork even in fairly obvious cases. I see this quite a bit and have even experienced it personally. About 13 years ago I was rear-ended and flipped upside down exiting a highway and it took over a month for Progressive (the other guy's carrier) to pay for the accident. While Progressive has a decent reputation for how they treat their own insureds for physical damage claims, they are pretty big jerks as to how they treat people who are struck by the drivers they insure. In such a case, if you need to fix or replace the car quickly, your only choice is to make a claim under the physical damage coverage portion of your policy and let the two insurance companies sort out the subrogation issue later on.

As a commercial insurance broker with 37 years experience, the examples cited in this are correct, but frankly pretty rare. Far and away the most common problem with insurance claims is that the other, at-fault driver doesn't have insurance. Depending on where you live, 25% or more of all drivers on the road may be uninsured. You can sue them and you can win -- but there is nothing to collect. Two recommendations -- first, make sure the uninsured AND underinsured motorists limits are your policy are equal to the third-party liability limits you carry. Why would you carry $300,000 or $500,000 of coverage for someone you don't know and not have the same limit for yourself and your family? Second, double check that you have comprehensive and collision coverage on your car with deductibles you can swallow. However, at some point as your car gets older and becomes worth less and less, you might consider dropping the coverage. You won't collect more for your car than the ACV (Actual Cash Value) at the time of loss. Check Kelly's or Edmund's for a good idea of what your car is worth used.

The crack needs to be under a certain size to be eligible for the epoxy fix, but if it is, the system works very well for preventing the crack from enlarging. You may or may not get an improvement in appearance. Sometimes the crack can almost disappear but other times appears about the same after the repair. Check with your auto insurance company. Many policies waive the deductible for the crack repair and pay the full cost since that is much cheaper for them than replacing the glass.

Leasing an auto versus purchasing it represents two fundamentally different financial perspectives about cars. Think of it as a cash-flow versus capital investment issue. Leasing a car offers early cash flow advantages with the lower monthly payment, and generally your sales tax is paid monthly rather in one big lump. However, you end up with a never-ending payment. If you look at cars in the same way that you think of your cable TV or cell phone bill -- a monthly expense that is simply "there" and always will be -- and you don't mind a new down payment of a couple of grand every three years or so, then it makes sense to lease, especially if you like brand new cars on a regular basis. However, leasing is a much worse deal if you look at long term costs. As others have noted, at the end of the lease you have nothing to show for all of your payments -- the car belongs to someone else and is either returned to them or finally purchased. A purchased car belongs to you at the end of the payments and the majority of cars on the market can be driven for several more years with little in the way of repair headache and expense and then still have some trade value. Which is best for an individual depends on each person's circumstances and wants. There is no universal "good" or "bad" answer that applies to everyone.

For a major car manufacturer with a model introduced to the American market only 2 years ago, C-Max ads have been inexplicably rare. However, I was surprised to hear the name of the car mentioned in a program intro as a sponsor for a National Public Radio broadcast about a week ago. Only heard the reference twice, but that's a whole lot more than before. Maybe Ford is finally going to start pushing the car.

Agreed - would love to see the official numbers. But, depending on where you want to draw your circle, there are at least a dozen Ford dealers in the St. Louis metro area who had a combined total of well over 100 C-Maxes in stock last Spring and are now down to a handful (several have none), and the stock apparently wasn't replinished as it sold. That's the basis for my observations. Thus, some people are confident that the battery problems are rare and primarily affect SEs and others of us aren't so sure. My discomfort level was enough that it nixed the purchase at this time. A horse for the course, as they say.

Thanks for the info. As noted, those SE/SEL ratios don't match my experience in St. Louis when I was shopping this Spring, so perhaps it varies by local markets. In any case, the ultimate authority would be Ford's production numbers, which I've never seen broken out by model. Or, perhaps the SE is truly the battery scourge for still unknown reasons. That is certainly a possibility, though none of the models seem immune from the problem. I'm still hopeful that the problem gets clearly and convincingly fixed someday.

Nice theory, but I rather doubt that the SEL outsells the SE. The C-Max inventory in the St. Louis area is very low right now compared to this Spring when I began following the car. It's highly unlikely that model year leftover inventory in August is representative of the overall sales volume of the three model options. When I became interested in the car several months ago, I followed area dealer inventory fairly close. This Spring, when the inventory was much higher than what it is now, most of the dealers had 2 or 3 times the number of SEs compared to SELs, with few new ones arriving as existing ones sold. To me, that strongly suggests that the rate of battery problems is fairly similar between the model types. However, unless Ford releases official sales figures by model along with the battery incident rates, we can only conjecture.