CNCGeek

It does not make much sense to look at the extremes on things as subjective as fuel economy (since there are too many possible variables at both the high and low end). The Prius V average is 42.3mpg on fuelly and thats really what matters.

Sounds reasonable, the factory wheels are designed for both cost and fuel economy. An aftermarket wheel can be optimized for FE if somebody is willing to pay for it. Thats how engineering works.

Not a vegan, but I also find it odd that leather is required on hybrids. I have never really liked leather as an interior, it's hot in the summer and cold in the winter, on the wheel it does not bother me so much. I think I would probaby not mind a non-leather wheel though I am not sure what that would be. As an aside, the Lexus ct200 has a really nice synthetic leather interior - and it is a very nice (but small) hybrid - not sure if the wheel is leather or synthetic, or if there is a cloth option though.

This is how skynet got started.

That pretty much goes for most cars these days. Other than trucks, there is very little that could be considered a bumper on the front of many new cars.

When it comes to hybrids, there is a bit of an unwritten rule thanks to the Prius, that the EPA rating should be achievable in real life. Nobody really complains about EPA ratings on non-hybrids. But I think people have a valid point when complaining about the C-max, or at least the marketing of it against the Prius V on the grounds that it gets better mpg. I almost feel there should be an asterisk next to the EPA rating. It seems like Toyota has no problems designing for the real world, and that is probably why there won't be a Prius "killer" anytime soon.

Please keep us updated on this, losing power would be extremely dangerous on the freeways where I live.

Hopefully Ford will sell a lot of these, they are a nice looking car.

I agree, the manual is sorely lacking basic info for people who do the basic maintenance themselves. Ford neglected to even provide a diagram of the jacking points (there is another thread on that). Hopefully there will be a third party service manual for the C-max soon.

I disagree, the EPA's 47mpg hwy seems pretty hard to achieve. I may have misunderstood "given these tests" - but I don't think anyone is questioning the ability of the C-max to get the EPA rated mpg in the EPA test scenario.

I'm considering a roof rack, but the more I look at them, the more I don't like the idea of leaving them on my car for an extended period (I think they could leave scratches on the paint or mess up the rubber trim on the doors, not to mention the hit to fuel economy). The cost is a bit less with a hitch also. Have you been able to test the hitch with a bike carrier? How did it do?

That is true, but mpg is still a very big factor in the purchase decisions of most buyers, and also in Ford's marketing for the C-max, so it is still relevant.

The headline sounds like a good way to spin it, but it is best (for everyone) to aggressively fix the problem before somebody does get hurt. The worst part (aside from cars burning up) is that "Repair procedures are not currently available." - imagine if all 89 thousand vehicles were actually brought back to dealers for this issue, and Ford has to arrange alternative transportation - thats gotta suck. I almost bought a 1.6L ecoboost powered Escape before I considered the C-max, I hope they can get a repair kit going asap.

I did not purchase the warranty, but when I was asked about it again after the sale, my dealer finance guy pretty much had nothing to say when I asked him if they would match the online price. The difference was around $500. So far this place is the cheapest I have found online for the Ford ESP warranty: http://andersonandkoch-ford-warranty.com

If the biggest factor is fuel efficiency then I would say the C-max is not for you. I think it's unfortunate that the advertised mpg was 47 since it is unlikely (from my experience) to get that under nomal conditions. I feel that 47mpg only serves to disappoint people when they don't get within reach of it, which is not really fair to an otherwise nice vehicle. 42mpg is probably about it for me, and that is without hypermiling except for the pulse and glide technique which I have been trying when it is safe to do, I am also doing pretty well on the scores (upper 90's IIRC). The C-max probably would have been my choice for several reasons over the Prius anyway, but if the additional hp, and subjective things like the design, handling and interior features do not appeal to you then I can't see how it would beat a Prius. I look at the C-max now as comparable to the V in rated mpg, with a smaller cargo capacity, but the V just remided me of middle age in suburbia more than the C-max does.

That'a a pretty good deal, I just signed up for their spam list in case they send any more coupons out. I won't be getting their catalog in time though.

Woohoo! I'm getting (almost) the same fuel economy as the Energi! :happy feet:

Man, I feel for you. Yours may be the one that rolled off the line at 4:59pm on a Friday.

I tend to agree that the hill climb assist is likely contributing to some of these reports. I have observed the car to seem to pop into motion while backing out, and I suspect that the hill assist is the cause. I have yet to park on a hill or steep incline however - though I could be turning it off with the brake depressed as you mentioned. It is probably the most annoying thing that happens regularly since the car is so damn quiet backing out, and the rear view is not the best. I will check the manual on how to disable this feature since I think I can safely live without it. I'd still like to know more about the way the hill climb assist system senses the "hill", and if there are any sensors which actually sense the orientation, or if it is using some feedback from the motor and speed sensor to determine if it is on a hill. Even when I have parked on a slight incline, it has always been with the front end up, so going in reverse should not require an assist, but I have still had it kick in. I don't think that the hill climb assist was the entire problem when it just would not go in reverse though (until the ignition was cycled). I would not rule out the possibility that I was still in the accessory position (did not turn the key far enough) which would explain possibly one or two occurrences, but I am not sure about the others. I recall that the engine was running, and the battery was low when I first had the problem, and mtberman's post describing the engine in the Prius having to rev to get going up a ramp in reverse makes me think something similar could have occurred - even though the car should have rolled easily on the level surface in my garage - but if the vehicle computer thought it was on a hill, maybe the software was holding it back until it had sufficient juice to back up the perceived hill, which caused the engine to rev (I also recall that stepping on the gas seemed to cause it to struggle, which I cannot explain). The subsequent cycling of the ignition may have kicked it back to reality to see that the "hill" was really not there. FWIW I have not observed the problem recently however.

I don't want to get nit-picky, but I have to point out that your fuelly data shows 42.8mpg average, and the latest 48.8mpg was over only 158 miles. The freeway/city mix on your driving is shown as 15/85 so you should be getting the optimal fuel economy considering most is city (regardless of what Ford's hwy mpg estimate says). What I found most interesting is that your numbers align pretty well with what I am seeing (indicated), and my mix is probably close to the same. I do not consider the C-max fuel economy to be bad, but I am unable to get the advertised mpg on a consistent basis (and I only say "advertised" because of the comparison Ford made with the Prius). I do not use many hypermiling techniques (trying out the pulse and glide where it is safe).

csavage7, have you seen this thread? http://fordcmaxhybri...d-this-morning/ The latest on it was a probably bad fuse box under the hood. I think they were losing power steering as well, and the dealer noted some melted hardware according to the thread. It may be worth asking the dealer to verify it is not the same or similar issue.

I have the base SE, and the only thing I wish I had sprung for was the backup cam. The rear visibility is limited compared to the other vehicles I have owned, and my C-max has the annoying tendency to unpredictably surge while backing out now and then (which could be due to the hill climb assist "feature"). A cam back there is a real good idea. I think you have to bounce up a couple rungs on the options menu to get that however, so that may take care of the GPS concern too. The good aftermarket backup cam solutions are close to $1000, so it is probably worth the extra bucks. I really don't miss any of the MFT bells and whistles though, the base SYNC has app-link which will allow you to control some apps on the phone (strangely this is not available on the MFT).

Thanks for pointing out the molded in arrows, I missed them when I checked earlier. I disagree with it being no big deal though, unless you meant for yourself. I consider it a medium sized big deal because the jacking points (and alternate points) were not shown in the manual, and that is basic info on any car (and Ford and my dealer were not willing to provide the information which is doubly ridiculous).

Thanks for sharing your experience for balance, however as every driver is different, so will every driver's fuel economy. That said, my driving "technique" is going to be different from your technique, just like a fingerprint - no two are alike. Even if we did have the same technique, people carry different weights in their cars, have different roads, routes, different weather, etc. And that is assuming your C-max is identical to my C-max, and that there have been no "tweaks" done in the early production which may have changed the vehicle since the EPA tests were run. It is why they say "your mileage may vary". What I was trying to convey is that while given those variables, the Prius still seems to hold true to the EPA estimates, and will be a tough target for Ford to hit with the C-max. Since Ford targeted a vehicle which is well known for it's real world fuel economy (which is obviously more important than the EPA estimates), their explanation of blaming drivers for the poorer than expected economy only can go so far, and I don't feel it will be far enough when there is more real world data available (on fuelly for example). Additionally most people do not assume they will have to practice hypermiling techniques to get the rated fuel economy of a vehicle. One other point which I did not make, but seems relevant, is that the green car report average was considerably lower than even most people report here, and they were driving vehicles provided by Ford for the reviews. Since they are the "green car" report I would guess that they have some idea on how to drive a hybrid, which makes their poorer fuel economy even more interesting. On the other hand, their second test, which they say was "mostly at freeway speeds" was not the optimal setting for any hybrid, so is was not a fair test in my opinion.

Do you know if the USB port provides current all the time when the car is off? Maybe switching to a CL adapter would keep it from draining the battery (though it does seem a stretch to believe what they are saying). I have a device connected all the time to the front CL jack and never had any problems with the battery. I use the USB for charging my phone, but only when I am driving.