C-MaxSea

Hey Yak. You may take the prize for last unless someone from Wyoming checks in. Spent a night in beautiful Yakima a month ago at the Rosedell House. (Spent some 'wonder years' there in Yakima too.) Nice weather these days. Nick

Thanks much for the photo eaglover! It looks very good and will likely tip the balance in favor of purchase for us. I like how the WeatherTechs are so easy to clean. Nick.

Fantastic, outrageous, Awesome!!! Glad to be the first in line to congratulate you Doug. Very, very impressive. :hat_tip: :hat_tip: :hat_tip:

"C-Max can't EVEN get close to 40 on the highways .........." Ya, not a chance in heck. 70% highway No, I don't hypermile, no mods, and most importantly, no I don't expect high 40s going 70, 75, 80 MPH on the freeway/Interstate.(EPA numbers do not reflect freeway/interstate speeds for any car) Glad you are enjoying your car,Nick PS Planning, expecting, thrilled with 43,44,45 MPG in the long term.PSS Yes, let's hope the EPA grows up and begins a third element - Interstate Freeway rating for 65-80 MPH. (not 'holding my breath')

Way more! Update, 1,2; Weather 3,4,5,6; Driving habits 3,4,5,6 depending on the geography & individual - a lot of new drivers out there figuring things out, myself included. Just my two cents / crazy guess, Nick

Is right! Big congrats Doug!

I agree with you smithpa. I think the fit is a little weak. Some of the hood & hatch gaps are a bit wide, perhaps engineered to allow for sloppier assembly? I've also noticed the in/out on some panel to panel connections at the wheel well to be off a scosh. Perhaps some due to first year, but not as good as it could/should be. I can easily live with the fit, knowing I'm not driving a Ferrari (or even an Audi) Hope they improve the hatch & hood fit in future models, if possible. (PS My C-Max fit is better than my 93 BMW, and 2001 VW though)

Go for it MTB! No, your foot is not on the brake just to abort, it is on the brake to slow the car down. No, the foot is not poised, it is on the brake pedal lightly the entire operation. No, having your foot on the brake does not defeat the operation. It is easy if you follow the tips above, the directions in the manual, and the instructions on the screen. Grab a friend to watch you from outside the car, and try it on a lonely street with a good sized space. You will like it - remember, you are in control because your foot is on the brake pedal, Nick

and the first shall be last.........born Aug 2012, Washington State ....it's here..... :skateboard: ....happy to be last (at least for the moment). :cleaning: Nick

But is that a hot dog roaster on top?

Thanks Laurel, probably best to stick to US gallons, and not mix it up with Imperial gallons - that only confuses us the more. So, to de-confuse it: Before: 4.0 - 4.1 liters per 100 km = 57 - 59 MPG After: 4.2 - 4.9 liters per 100 km = 48 - 56 MPG Like I said, astounding, crazy, misleading..... ;) ;) ;) (cuss, swear, cuss, swear..... dang .... system) Nick

Zowwy! I just checked your math Laurel - that is baffling,dumbfounding, outrageous, .....................we are not talking 47 vs 43 here, rather, 59 vs 43, a huge difference. Given 47, the lowest they could report converted to liters/100km would be 5.0 - not 4.7, or the crazy good 4.0! That is so egregious it is extremely hard to believe. I'm dying to see the before and after window stickers. (Canadian lawyers salivating (forget the US)) BTW, our window sticker promised nothing, only postulated hypotheticals. :) Been meaning to check for a long time, lazy me. (Someone please correct me if my numbers, thoughts, .......... are faulty) Nick PS Laurel, the only glitch in your statement would be that 4.0 converts to 59, therefore it would be 'up to ' 59, and not "in the 60s" US gallons. PSS Does Canada have a different testing procedure? I guess that must be it - an outrageously misleading one. Drive a very slow 10/20 mile loop at 25-35 MPH and bingo 59 mpg - works for me, as long as it's balmy warm and not the arctic tundra of Canada - hmmmm, I think they forgot to apply the 50% 'Tundra Rule'. But, then again, as they say, 'for comparative purposes only', not..................... ;) ;) ;) (cuss, swear, cuss, swear..... dang .... system)

Hang in there drdiesel1, we all have our irksome moments; your input and opinions are highly valued here too. :) ;) :) Nick

Zowwy Doug, 68 MPG over 46 miles, you are so bit! Siren song 700 is playing you a sweet tune. :dj: Nick

Great note Laurel. Yes braking is key! Never let your foot off the brake until you are in, and slow is the rule. This is not snail slow, but judicious slow as if you were parking without the assist feature. Keep in mind that the park assist does the acceleration, and you are pacing/tempering it. They may need to de-fang the acceleration in the feature a scosh. In addition, as you are easing in with light smooth braking, always be watching your fender corners just as if you were parking without the assist. You still have to know your corners, and bail (brake and abandon the assist) if you sense a problem. Ours has always worked great. Practice on quiet residential streets. It only works with curbs! Nick If all else fails, park like the Romans! (seriously, though, stay away from super tight spaces)

I think it looks great. Was this an Energi? Seems like the university campuses would be a natural for full electric or at least plug-in hybrid. Am I seeing something built into the top (a hot dog roaster or something) ? Nick

Hey Doug, better watch out, those numbers are going to get you the 700 mile tank itch. Nick

And another way to look at it, Doug: massively lower exhaust emissions - ICE only 30 to 50% of the time! Cleaner air! (Can't do that with a 1.4 liter gas only car!) Cheers, Nick

Jus, It would be a hoot to see the GAS boyz stuff, to be sure! Forgot to add that having so many of us doing great mileage without mods is very good, showing what is possible with just a little air. Also forgot to mention that I am still expecting Ford to come through for us on a couple 'mods' for free, or nearly so - 2014 hood seal ........... Hope I'm not dreamin, cause I seriously think Ford owes us even a little more, for being early adopters. Nick

Jus, Matt, .................... would there be any positive effect of folding in the mirrors - never mind, bad question. BTW Jus, you do realize that you are the 'poster child' for no mods! Tough to mod when it works so well without, eh! (Although a case can always be made for minor & or cost effective mods) Hope Matt checks in with some more input / pictures per my note #10. Nick

Those are trophies, to be sure, Doug; and I think you would agree, repeatable. Have you set yourself a new standard perhaps? leg: 11.1 / 18.2 = 61% EV (yields 54.2 MPG) leg; 8.3 / 10.4 = 80% EV (yields 75.7 MPG) and by far the most important because it is a loop / return to same elevation: 14.4 / 20.7 = 70% EV (yielding 61.2 MPG) achieving 50% EV is my 'holy grail' for great MPG's ( for every 70, there is likely a 30, for every 60, there is likely a 40, etc........... Nick

Congrats MM, good to hear, beautiful shot, - 'and many more' as they say. Nick

I'm still working on my disguise so I can go wave at Laurel. :hat_tip:

Well, I understand your amusement Phil, it is certainly that & more I'm sure (like reducing exhaust emissions). Let's just chock it up to "to each his own". I could never imagine touching the mirrors, but if I had a machine shop .............. I'm more than happy, rather thrilled with 45 - 48 MPG with no mods. As long as we can laugh at ourselves, it's all good. Take care, Nick