CNCGeek

It was nice finding this thread, it reminded me to remove the sticker.  Gonna try the dental floss trick I saw somewhere - just use it to remove the sticker, and then see if wd40 will take the residue off.

I still think it would be covered under warranty. :)

 

Paul

Thanks, I hope that is the case, however this is not something I can duplicate yet. 

Update - nope, they cannot duplicate it, so they cannot check it (I cannot duplicate it either, so hard to argue with that logic).  I did not push this beyond the SA since I feel that sooner of later Ford is gonna expand the recall if they find more seats outside the recall scope that have provable problems, and are fixed under warranty.  I get these safety related recalls done ASAP, and I don't like waiting for something like this to break, but I tried.  I doubt that anyone who gets this recall (and has the seat frame replaced) will be shown the part they pulled, but it would be interesting to know if that happens, what the problem "looked" like.

How could your VIN not be in Ford's system? Assuming it's a covered item, and with the recall that may not matter, you should b e covered.

 

I'd contact one of our Ford reps, Rebecca or now Crystal by PM (so your personal data isn't in the clear) as they're here to help with just this kind of thing!

 

HAve fun,

Frank

Sorry I should have clarified, the VIN was not in the computer as being part of the recall.  I am waiting for the service advisor to check if they will still check the seats though.

Thanks Bill and Paul.  Thats bad news for me since I cannot duplicate the noise.  I think I am going to request that the dealer take a look at the seat when I take it in for the other recalls, but only if they will cover it under the warranty.  Even though my vehicle was built near the beginning of the recall period, it seems unlikely the seats will get checked under the recall based on an initial discussion with the dealer (service advisor is going to check).  I called the Ford 800 number, and they were nice, but not much help.  Basically if the VIN is not in the computer, they probably won't look at it under the recall.

My C-max was an August 2012 build, and I did not get the recall notice, but this has me a bit concerned.  Based on this, I don't get a warm feeling that they can be certain they have all the VIN's covered.   

I recall feeling a pop/clunk in the driver seat several times since I purchased it, but I wouldn't be able to reproduce it (thats what raised my suspicion regarding this recall and my vehicle).  For folks who have had the problem, was it noticeable, or did you ever have a reason to suspect a problem?

I'm not sure about the validity of this, but I read on the Internets that (some?) tire shops will not repair a tire that has been plugged with the cord type plug kits.  Probably a mix of liability and selling another tire.  I still carry one though since it provides an option.  I also bought a spare from a Focus IIRC, and a jack from Harbor Freight, for longer trips. 

Can anyone comment on the noise level with the aeroblades installed? I guess Thule says no fairing is needed, as the aeroblades were designed to eliminate the need for fairing. Also, how about MPG hit? Thanks.

Hi Bro, I can't speak for the mpg hit, but they are quiet and I have never really noted much noise from the aeroblades.

Thanks Frank, although it is hard to disagree with the EPA (ahem...47mpg), I think I will still drop the $10 to swap the filter when I think it is dirty.  In another car I would just check it, maybe vaccum it out and call it good - as you said, if I can see light through it.  However with the C-max, they make it so difficult to swap the filter, it is not really worth checking - just swap it and move on.  On point 2, I agree that filters get more "efficient" at trapping stuff, but they are also getting less efficient at allowing air to move through (more work required to move the same volume of air though the filter).

It may also be the case that a generalization of a handful of cars (1972-2007 models) is not going to apply "apples to apples" to our Hybrids with small 2.0L engines and tiny filters.  Since I live in a dusty region, I will still stick with 15-20k intervals on the filter, possibly less depending on the number of dusty storms the car is subjected to.

I replaced my CAF and engine air filter today (less than 15k miles).  The car was driven through several big dust storms in the mid-west so I did not want to take the chance.  The CAF looked really bad, the engine filter looked OK, but dusty.  On another car I would have vacuumed it out and put it back, but since it is not a simple job to swap it, I dropped a new FRAM in there.  The filter area is pretty small also, but so is the engine.  They certainly did not make it easy to swap the filter (remove 2 hoses, 2 bolts on the engine cover, remove the MAF connector, PCV valve and clip, wrest the engine cover out, then 5 bolts on the air filter cover - and the put all that suff back).  I especially did not like that the MAF connector has to be removed each time, that is asking for trouble in the long run.  30k miles may be pushing it if you live in a place with dust, I think every 20k may be closer to ideal.

I got mine jack!

"The only negative I see about getting the Windstar tire is that it may be dirty and need some sanding and paint for the spare is outside the car.  Mine while 13 years old does not look dry rotted to me."

     Obob, I was appalled at the condition of the original tire on my Freestar when I removed it at 9 years and 50,000 miles.  Still don't know why it hadn't disintegrated on the road.  From the following:

https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=138

 

The current industry association recommendations regarding inspecting and replacing tires due to age originate outside the United States.

The British Rubber Manufacturers Association (BRMA) recommended practice issued June, 2001, states "BRMA members strongly recommend that unused tyres should not be put into service if they are over six years old and that all tyres should be replaced ten years from the date of their manufacture."

"Environmental conditions like exposure to sunlight and coastal climates, as well as poor storage and infrequent use, accelerate the aging process. In ideal conditions, a tyre may have a life expectancy that exceeds ten years from its date of manufacture. However, such conditions are rare. Aging may not exhibit any external indications and, since there is no non-destructive test to assess the serviceability of a tyre, even an inspection carried out by a tyre expert may not reveal the extent of any deterioration."

This is interesting, but makes sense for normal tires.  Spares are normally stored inside the vehicle so that may help with mitigating some of the factors that degrade the rubber, though certainly not the ideal conditions they mentioned.  The big problem I see is that you can't really find any place that sells a replacement (new) spare, in a lot of cases, so seems to be a catch 22.

I just picked up a scissors jack from HF, and had to go through 5 of them before I found one that did not have a bent screw.  Not sure why they had so many that were messed up (they did not appear to be used).  I'd suggest checking it out first - should be able to turn the screw by hand without too much trouble, if not it is probably bent.  There is a 25% off coupon out there right now.  Also picked up one of these.

I went for the 2012 focus spare since it is newer rubber and may last longer (I don't know how well spares last over the years).

Any update on this - got some pics?

Hi Reedmother, thanks for sharing the extra info on the problem.  Did they replace hardware or just re-program the computer?  Did you see anything related to a body control module "BCM" or powertrain control module "PCM" in the gibberish which they provided on the printout?  I also found a TSB which sounds like a possibility - it would be listed in the printout if they related it ( TSB 13-4-22 - for c-max vehicles built on or before 4/9/2013 ) - I found that in this post.

When my battery died, everything was dead so it makes sense it was the computer (since yours would not start, but otherwise could turn on).  I'm sure they tested your 12v battery when you had it in so if they did not replace it, it is probably fine.

I have had that problem many times but I just turn it off and restart and it goes the second time or as mentioned some times it will go the first time after a few seconds. After all the updates mine has not had any problems with this at all. Ready to go when I put in in reverse.  

Thats good news.  I am going in next week to get the recalls taken care of and the system update programmed.  So far though, the car's hesitancy to go into reverse has been an almost daily occurrence.

Me too, I'd like to research roof boxes on a roof rack. Any part numbers that people are using?

 

Rick

I used 53" Aerobars (second hand from a Subaru Legacy I believe).  The traverse mounts and Fit Kit 1683.  I searched for second hand parts and got everything but the fit kit together.

As an aside, I purchased a kayak rack (INNO INA 450) which is great and very secure (though I mount the post in the center of two kayaks unlike their pic).

This is awesome, I have been away and not checking this forums, but stopped by to check something else and saw this.  I've never been convinced about the mpg numbers from Ford with regard to the C-max, but they are still pretty decent for the utility and features of the c-max so I was not disappointed too much.  $550 back in my pocket is certainly a nice gesture by Ford though, just need to keep an eye out for the Fedex guy/gal.

My goodness, that is terrible!  Ford is going to have to re-badge the C-Max and call it the Edsel II.

This certainly sucks, but I don't recall hearing much of C-max's dropping like flies on the road (maybe I need to catch up).  :)  Mine (SE) did have a 12v battery problem early on, but that just failed to start (battery was replaced with no further problems), sounds like a similar problem though.  Since the dead battery, I carry a Black and Decker battery booster with me, since I am like my family's AAA anyway.

This is my update for anyone else considering hauling a kayak.  I purchased the Inno Dual Carrier (INA450) and have to say I am impressed.  I bought it since it is more flexible to have the option of carrying 2 or 3 kayaks when friends want to hitch a ride.  I only had to get 4 longer bolts for the center post (used on the clamps, then moved the longer clamp bolts to the side with the knobs), now it fits my Thule Aerobars without a problem.  I hauled a 10ft, 50lb kayak about 180 miles round trip recently through wind and rain, and though I was a bit concerned, the kayak remained solid.  Compared to another trip, my mpg dropped about 4-5mpg on the way up, I did not check it on the way back - going up was mostly uphill.  I think if I had covered the open cockpit it would have helped shave off some drag, I may try that next time.  The kit does not come with the front or rear straps which I have seen in some kits, but I used some additional straps around the front and back of the kayak which I then tied to the rack for a bit of extra security.

On ebay I saw some nice looking seat covers from Greece for the C-Max.  They are $122 for a pair for the front seats.  All different colours. I know nothing about the quality, but they looked good.  http://www.ebay.ca/itm/for-FORD-C-MAX-High-Quality-Two-Front-Soft-Durable-Custom-Seat-Covers-/120997373509?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item1c2c016645&vxp=mtr

 

Actually they may be for the European C-Max--darn.

The headrest covers look strange since they do not cover the sides.  Also the backs of the seats are not covered with those, which can be a problem if you have kid in the back that likes to kick the seat.  I am still using my cheap covers, which are a bit wrinkled, but holding up well - but I am still on the lookout for a good seatcover under a couple hundred bucks.

Went out to my car today and found all the windows all rolled down, with a present from a bird splattered on the door card.  I last left it the previous night with the windows rolled up, and I did not do the keyfob press thing, I am sure of that.  I've only seen the windows auto roll down once before on their own (not due to the remote) and I think that was before the 12v battery died.  I'm a bit ticked off that this car does it's own thing sometimes, but happy that I did not have anything worth stealing in the car.

I thought it was a little chain saw running under the hood, at least I know what it is now.

Thanks for posting the pics, but that looks very awkwardly secured - due to the curve of the roof and the blocks not sitting fully on the roof.  It also looks like it is very close to touching the roof in the center of the kayak.  You can get some closed cell foam padding at Austin Kayak which could be placed in that area which could help if it is bumping - but obviously make sure the roof and foam are very clean or else it will scratch (since foam likes to pick up dirt sometimes).  The foam would probably also need to be secured somehow to the roof or kayak like you secured the blocks.  Something like these or these (or a simple DIY copy) could also give you an alternative to mount the front ties.

I had to laugh when I read that they call the sales to owners of other makes, "conquests".  That seems typical of the auto industry, thinking their customers are "theirs".

I have yet to see many C-max on the road, though one day I saw 3 (near a dealer however).

I looked up the article cited in the federal register, and I believe that report misunderstands the published rules:

 

Federal Register: Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles: Revisions To Improve Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates

 

Let's take this quote (pg. 77882, 2nd column, last paragraph): 

 

 

Since there is only one other vehicle in the Ford fleet with the same fuel economies as the C-Max Hybrid (the Fusion Hybrid), the only way I can construe this to mean that the mpg-based method could apply to the C-Max's fuel economy is if on the old Highway (HFET), old City test (FTP), or both, the C-Max scored the same as the Fusion, and based on that the Fusion's fuel economy was applied to the C-Max. 

 

Perhaps that is possible - the Fuelly.com average for the Fusion Hybrid is 2MPG higher than the C-Max Hybrid.

 

But it still renders bunk the concept that the fuel economy just 2-cycle test * adjustment factor. 

Thanks for finding that, I saw it referenced in a few places but could not find it without having to log in somewhere.