HannahWCU

I guess I am one of the few that really had no complaints with my sync from the beginning (v3.1.3). Most of the complaints I have read about sync, I either didn't have them (Nav issues) or didn't find them that big of a deal (slow response). Or maybe I am one of the lucky few who's sync worked just perfect. :dance:

ME TOO!

Or a car payment!

"Because this voluntary step results in miles-per-gallon values different from the original C-MAX Hybrid label, Ford also is making a goodwill payment to current C-MAX Hybrid owners for the estimated average fuel cost of the difference between the two labels. Customers who purchased their vehicle will receive a check from Ford for $550. Customers who leased their vehicle will receive a check for $325."

I wonder what the new rating will be and what they will do for those of us who already own one. A friend of mine had a Hyundai Elantra that had the FE restated. The combined number went down 1 MPG (I think). He told me that the way Hyundai did it was that every time he took it to the dealer for service, he got money for every mile he had put on the car since the last service. But it was like a penny for every mile driven. I did some quick calculations, a drop of 4MPG (combined) and using an average price of $3.50/gallon the difference is $0.0069/mile. Yes thats less than 0.7 cents per mile. Over the 15,000 miles I have driven that amounts to almost $104. Not much, but hey, free money is free money.

Looks good! Mine is up to 44.4, but my last 10 fill-ups on fuelly show me approaching 46. My Cmax likes a well broken-in engine (15k+) and warm weather!

There is another thread on this here: http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/412-c-max-as-a-ups/ I don't think it has gotten anywhere though. Although I rarely loose power (knock on wood :banghead: ) I would be interested in this too.

Saw this article this morning. Haven't had time to read it completely, but noticed new wheels and maybe a revised front end (?). Also, article states it has a 195HP combined horsepower. Thats up slightly from our 188HP. http://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/ford_c-max_2014

Well how about that. Morganton is halfway between Marty and I! Small world.

Welcome to a fellow North Carolina CMaxer!!

I just got the update yesterday and decided to read all the posts in this thread. I have to say, I noticed the same thing about the car seeming to be more aggressive about keeping the battery charged. I was thinking that they might have adjusted the programming to charge the battery more aggressively. The more I think on it, the more this makes sense. We all know that when the ICE is running and charging the battery, we get poor FE, But how much worse would the FE be if they added 10 or 15 or even 20% to charging? I bet the FE hit is not linear. So a 15% increase in charging amps might only cost 5% in FE and if your only getting 20 MPG while charging, this is only a 1 MPG loss for that extra 15% speed in charging. Just a thought.

I have no answer for this. But I will tell you my experience on a mountain of a hill. First a little about the grade I am descending. It is on I-40 East out of Asheville, NC (near Black Mountain, NC). Here is a note I found online about the grade: By law, all trucks except pickups and vans are required to stop at the top of this hill and read the information posted about the eastbound descent ahead. The top of the hill is near milepost 67 just east of Black Mountain. The grade is posted as 5 miles of 6%. It is a strong 6%. There are three runaway truck ramps, all of which are short sand beds with sand piles at the end. There is about a mile of grade left after the last escape ramp. The westbound descent is about 1¼ mile of 6%. I have descended this grade with hill decent on and hill decent off. With hill descent on, when the battery gets very close to 100% (I have a scangauge to monitor this) the ICE will kick in and rev very high (as Noah Harbinger pointed out above). While the ICE is engaged, it does not use any fuel. I left the hill descent on for the length of the grade. The ICE does a very good job of holding back the car during the descent and I used very little brakes. The last time I descended this mountain I did so with hill decent off. Normal regen (foot off both the gas and brake) does NOT hold the car back at all on a hill this steep. When I would press on the brake pedal to slow the car, the regen symbol (blue circle) would come on until the battery hit 100%. Once the battery was at 100%, sometimes the display would show regen sometimes it would not. But I do not think the friction brakes engaged by themselves with the hill descent off. If they had, my brakes would have been smoking by the bottom of the grade. I have seen where drivers have dragged their brakes the whole way to the bottom and you can smell the brakes burning by the bottom. I could be wrong though. I will point out that even with hill descent on, regen alone did not keep the car from accelerating on this grade.

I read this article the other day. And, for the most part, I agree with the author. 10% doesn't sound like much, but being off almost 5 MPG sounds big! On the other hand, if my car was rated at 20 and only got 18 (the same 10%), well, 2 MPG isn't much. Is it? And I do look at my cost per mile (currently $0.079/mile). But what the author does not point out, is that cost/mile changes with fuel costs. Whereas, MPG does not change with the price of fuel. So if fuel goes up 10%, my cost/mile will go up the same 10%, which has NOTHING to do with the vehicles fuel economy. For example. For the month of February my fuel economy averaged 39.6 MPG for the month and my cost/mile was $0.090. For July, my average fuel economy was 46.0 MPG and my cost/mile was $0.074. Comparing the two, Fuel economy was up 16.34% but my cost/mile was down 17.64%. How can that be? Well the average cost of a gallon of gas was down 4.15% from February ($3.557) to July ($3.409). So cost/mile does not tell the whole story on fuel economy. And yes, I am an engineer. :doh:

I have reported this (don't know if I was the one you were referring to). The ICE will engage once the battery reaches 100% charge, but ONLY if hill decent is on. And it is my experience that the friction brakes do no engage unless you press the brake pedal.

In my experience it does not engage the friction brakes. If it did, my brakes would be red hot and smoking before I got to the bottom of the mountain I was on (6% grade for 6 miles!!). (NOTE: when I am discussing battery charge I am discussing useful charge, not actual charge. Useful charge is what the bar graph on the dash displays) Again, from what I have experienced using the scangauge, the battery will not go above 100%. I think that the bar graph in the display is not linear. My scangauge will read 50% when the bar gauge appears to be at ~65%. 90% on the scangauge appears to be very close to 100% on the bar graph. My opinion is that since the bar graph is relatively small, Ford programed the graph to expand the scale in the middle and compress it at the top and bottom. Since, the middle area is where the charge will be most of the time, this makes the bar graph more useful. Your experience is what I notice too. The graph moves very little when the charge is above 90% or below 10% (although it is VERY hard to get the charge below 10%).

OK, Thanks for clearing THAT up!!

I did the same thing (updated on the way to work). Worked out pretty good and I don't loose any MPG that way. 35 minute drive to work and it took most of it. Had to repair the phone, but everything else stayed intact.

Are we still talking about Knickers??

Which Update are you referring to? If you are talking about the My Ford Touch update, no it does not. Check this thread for info on the fuel economy recall (http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/2536-ford-to-offer-free-updates-to-boost-hybrid-vehicle-efficiency/)

I noticed this too. MUCH better. I also noticed that song and artist names are displayed on home screen and they aren't cut off.

Try checking the dipstick on a newer BMW ... They don't have one! I think 2006 or 2007 was the last year for dipsticks in a BMW.

I agree on wanting to see the CMax eCVT, but at least this gave me a basic understanding of the way an eCVT works.

My best trip yet. And for the record, I was not following a motorhome on the highway! LOL

I agree. It was the first wallpaper I changed to, but I didn't even use it for a full day. Just didn't look right on the screen.

This is what I get too. And most people on here have reported the same. I think it was in a thread someplace. I understand why Ford under reports MTE (miles to empty), it keeps people from running out of gas. However, why ALSO under report fuel used? Fuel used should under report also. ptjones in this thread (http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/1321-i-ran-out-of-gas-today-1386gallons/) ran his CMax out of fuel. Pump indicated 13.86 gallons, while CMax reported 13.09 gallons used. I know that they under report fuel used so that indicated MPG will be higher, but I still think they should OVER indicated gallons used.