pmarlow

I don't consider driving on a flat island at less than 62 mph or a flat valley floor or flat city traffic at less than 62 mph or slip streaming a semi-truck as a real testament of the 47, 47, 47 represented by Ford. With approx. 2500 miles on my C-Max, on a Saturday morning [little traffic] I traveled from San Diego to Mammoth Lakes, CA and back and averaged only 35mpg. Most of the driving was at 70mph, cruise control and open roads. My best mileage experience was a local 10 mile trip from one community to my residence- 46mpg. But, that was mostly downhill at less than 62mph. The real world? Going the other way I got only 32mpg. The reality is that everyone I talk to who owns a Cmax, drives real world varied conditions, up and down roads, that sort of thing, gets what Consumer Report reported- 35-37mpg. Ford misrepresented the car. Had I known of the real mpg for the car I would have looked at a lot of less expensive gas driven cars before making my purchase. By the way, I'm not biased against the C-max. I think Ford put together a great driving car, comfortable and well designed. It's just that the turning radius is like a truck and the 47mpg gas mileage was a misrepresentation to the public.