C-MaxSea

Beautiful tint & tank Trevor - luv it! Nick

Congratz GaryM! I concur, hate to reach a nice hilltop with a full battery when there is a nice coast charge ahead. Yes, the old 75 mph will punish the MPGs, but the update will definitely help. Nick

Cheers Kansas C-Max! Best of luck & welcome. Love your line: "What sold me on the C-Max was the spacious cabin, elevated driving position, and the fact that you can own a hybrid that still has some of the must-have features." Nick Living in a city, I love that it puts out exhaust only half the time (or less) - the air we breath matters!

Nice shots ScubaDad. Looks like a great trip was had! Real world travel driving. I find the MPG's of the C-Max adds to the joy of road tripping. Nick

Agreed: Regards, Nick The Ford C-Max: A remarkable new twist on fuel efficient driving! PS (full disclosure: Have never owned a Ford, only BMW, Audi, Volvo, VW, & Renault. Favorite: Volvo 240 (B-200 eng.))

Lumike, your patience is admirable, and certainly shows the favor many of us have for our C-Maxes as well. Sure hope they treat you right, and reward your patience with good service getting another one. I certainly understand why some folks just have to move on to other vehicles (and not always C-Maxes). Best wishes & luck in all regards. (You too Linda (47.7 exc.!)) Ford really needs to get a handle on this. Nick

Congratz REC & Michigan Max ! :victory: :victory: REC, I have had two similar tanks where the fill-up was sign. greater than the gallons used gauge. I question the accuracy of both, and have split the difference (say 12.7). In your case; with 19 miles to empty, having used approx. 12.7, and the right bar gauge perhaps showing a snuff, I would guess you safely had 20-40+ miles to empty. Just my best guess. I agree MM, the check is a bonus for us , we are quite pleased with what we are getting :hi5: . Looks like you also played it safe with plenty left in the tank. Good move. Nick

Big Congratz to Ptjones, SnitGTS & bberg! :rating: You guys are making it look easy (and I know it ain't - at least 700, that is). Nick PS My favorite quote of the week: "Wife made me break the 700 mark and wanted me to go until the car ran out of gas and battery." What a mate, Pt! (Glad you exercised some caution there.)

.......... and I would still like to see a 'nex-gen' battery under the Christmas tree some year - dreamin, I know.

Good question Mark, 55 mph on the freeways - no way. I drive ECO Cruise 58-60 in 60 mph speed zones, and 65-67 in 65 or 70 mph speed zones. Occasional limited AC. 'Lifetime' 47.0,1,2 Nick (did drive a little slower at first) PS Hint to EPA: Try considering three levels of MPG ratings - 'City' (up to 35 mph), 'Highway' (typical 45-55 mph), & 'Freeway' (60-70mph). Duh, when did we get those new-fangled high-speed Interstates ??? (1960-1990 ish !!!) (or just scrap the whole thing) PSS BTW, 47 is not the published EPA rating anymore, it's 43.

Adair, gotta side with the apples & four P's too ! Laurel, you must be thinking of Adam Scott, not Jus ! (Go Lefty ! PM that is) always ready to duck, :stirpot: Nick

PT, another take on this: 12.9 (gauge) plus 13.9 (Pump) = roughly 27. Dividing by 2 = 13.5, the published volume. Perhaps the most accurate measure of our gallons used (and therefor MPGs) is just that; the average of gauge value plus pump value. The reason I bring this up is to account for the discrepancy. I have had two tanks where this made a significant difference; and I don't seem to fully trust either one - at this time, at least. Nick I would love to trust the gauge, of course - always lower gallons used (& higher MPGs). :)

JohnnOhio, I'm convinced that your issue had to do with the 'gearing' / 'gearbox' / CVT, and certainly hope it was unique. Somehow the 'update' misfired and scrambled the 'gearing' intelligence, and had you stuck in a 'low gear' range, inspite of always being in 'D'. My closest encounter was a week or so ago when I left the house and drove an uphill route away. I was happily in ICE for 2 or 3 blocks and turned a corner where I usually drop it into EV - and it refused to go, tried again, slowed down and no luck. Then I noticed I had it in L - eeek on me! It is indeed scary to think that the updates can go so very wrong. (I'm paranoid now that my update is only 98% correct, sure hope the system checks/diagnostics are reliable) Nick

Kind regards Laurel, sorry if I get Maxed out writing sometimes. :headspin: nick OOPS, looks like we latter folks have gotten our threads mixed up, this is the 3.6.2 thread - apologies for the departure.

Glad to see your issues resolved JohnnOhio. Your lifetime numbers are very good, and recent trips extremely good. For it to move from 45.2 to 45.8 in one trip must mean low miles in your 'lifetime'. We are 4,000 some odd miles odometer and lifetime, and get barely a 0.1 notch change on any trip now. I don't think we have necessarily seen the end to MPG updates myself, just me speculating - yikes on both counts? Even though most of us 'felt' that the car was 'better' before the update, it is likely an overall improvement. I perceived our car was a bit smoother before (& peppier?), but not likely. I have had a couple occasions since the update where I felt it difficult to drop out of the ICE, and think it was exercising too much 'control'. In hind sight, I have to remind myself that the ICE needs to run at certain times and that perhaps I am too EV greedy. Anyway, it still seems that minor tweaking of the system may still be in order. Hmmm, perhaps I am asking too much out of the car, assuming the ICE/EV algorithms need to work in such climatic and geographic extremes. It is a challenged, sophisticated system (& our expectations tend to creep up). Better luck going forward, Nick

Laurel: "Our mileage is not nearly as good as yours was i.e. 5.4 L/100km. We will take ours in next month and hope they don't make it worse. We love our car and the only complaint is the terrible in town mileage. It truly can be dreadful for our short little hops ie. 9.8 L etc Supposedly the C-Max is better in town than highway but you can't prove that with us. With our way of driving it i.e. six blocks here, 30 blocks there etc., we would have done better with an Energi." Wish I had the right tip for you Laurel. The old 'short trip' MPGs can be all over the map, and really short trips especially problematic due to ICE warm up. If we do a short one down hill it can go off the chart, 60, 70 .., but needless to say, if we head out up hill, it can be in the 30s. (elevation (PE/KE) is huge for MPGs) An example in your neighborhood was our last visit to your neighbor Surrey - we drove a short route from Madrona Dr over the hill past Semiahmoo Mall to Ocean Park & on down to Crescent Beach and got somewhere around 80 or 90 mpg. Driving back to Madrona, we probably got 30 something. Anyway, the only thing that matters are the round trip & tank averages. We are always trying to combine trips of course, and we certainly coast the hills when possible (minimizing the number of ICE squirts where possible). If we get beyond 3,4 miles in city driving the numbers can shoot way up. We would have gone with an Energi as well if not for the loss of space in the back (not to mention the lower MPG's on the hiway due to the additional weight). Nick PS We have all of the updates and are comfortable with them. I believe they help primarily at freeway speeds. I believe they will have another upgrade for MPGs in the future to further smooth out the continuum. The biggest challenge with the C-Max is that it is so different than non-hybrids which we are all trained to drive / have been driving our whole lives. It does take a different driving style to optimize. PSS And yes it is very different than (most/all ?) other hybrids as well. Would love to know which other hybrids, if any, operate on the same/similar ICE/EV algorithms - coasting recommended / required to exceed expectations!

Congratz Stil & Danut! I'm hearing a little voice behind me, the siren song whispering "650, 660, 670 ......700 ....... " (The gamer's itch) Hypersssmiling, Nick

My hat's off to you Shelly :hat_tip: , the officer was in some state of shock, and likely needed all of your help to steady his nerves - miracle no one was hurt. Shows how important it is to know what is happening in the old rear view mirrors. Nick PS and I nominate you for best use of emoticons for this week.

Way to go Danut! Is that Bellevue, WA? Looks like we are tracking similar MPG averages. Nick - Ballard

Great points Noah, very well stated. Yes, "calibrating (MPG) expectations", is huge. For myself, I 'expected' about 38-40; was extremely pleased when I was 'off the lot' with 42; ecstatic to see it creep past 45; 'out of this world' when I have an urban/rural run of 50+. I now have to watch my expectations, which have slipped up into the greed category. We do know / expect our MPG to drift down eventually, especially as the temp drops (not too far here, thankfully). Happily creeping toward 43 someday. Nick PS 598 mile road trip this past weekend over mtns, through the canyons, along the mighty Columbia ................... 48.0 MPG. :jump_earth:

mtb, I think your numbers are looking good. Keep in mind that often we folks here report our 50+ MPG triumphs more often than our ho hum 38s. What matters are the averages, and if you are pushing 43 or 44, that is very good and reasonable. Nick

............. and many more. Congratz Maxus & MT!

Very well stated Noah. (...although, I do like the 'platform' / eurobox / hatchback package - spacious 'living room' on wheels, good music, conversation........ 'pass the poupon'. Perhaps not the best aerodynamics, but definitely good enough, no, near perfect for us!) Nick

Now that is true Hypersmiling - 52 MPG and 40 cents/gal off the gas price. Sweet!

SCIENCE RULES! Love how the eyes roll when I tell people I'm driving a physics experiment. PE, KE, ..... elevation, gravity...............Newton................... Hypersmiling, Nick PS Actually it's a little frustrating when their eyes roll. PSS I guess our physics exp. is really just a little more sophisticated than theirs.