SnowStorm

Instructions for resetting it are in the manual. Crazy sequence involving holding both pedals down - I have to look it up every time.

OK Frank, so you hit on one of my pet peeves - people making statements that, though correct, aren't quantified and may have little or no significance! However, in this case (and to keep this forum alive!), I'm going to take possible issue with "less than 10% at 54 MPG" and "You won't notice a 1% effect." gmcgliss didn't say how fast they drive to get 54 mpg - I've gotten over 50 mpg at 55 mph, even 65 mph on "rolling hills" where EV mode cuts in a lot. At these speeds wouldn't aero losses be more like 50% with a density effect upwards of 5%? In any event, I could quickly agree that a cold engine is far more significant.

Cold air is more dense so mileage will drop in winter even if nothing else changes - sadly its unavoidable. But there are things you can do: Use a grill cover to help warm up the ICE more quickly and keep it warmer. A warm engine is more efficient. ptjones and others have a lot of experience with them - read their posts. I have no experience with this item but others have tried various ways of preheating the ICE in the morning. Use seat heaters if you have them instead of heating the whole car. Its amazing how much warmer you feel. Use recirculate with the heater as much as possible. A lot of us run tire pressure at 50 psi or close to it - might help a bit. Use no ethanol gasoline if available. (I use it exclusively.) Use premium octane fuel. I have no experience here but others do and see better mileage since the engine computer adjusts for higher octane making the engine more efficient. Better mileage but higher cost per mile.That 54 mpg average is fantastic!

Not really. If you drove an EV in the same manner as your C-Max, your EV cost would likely be under 3 cents/mile. That compares to about 5.8 cents per mile for your C-Max using $3.454 current US average cost of premium fuel and 60 mpg. Oil doesn't add much per mile (one or two tenths of a cent) but I still find changing it a nuisance. So, the EV still comes in at about half the cost.

kostby's latest post links this article where Bill Ford says: "...Ford is committed to ensuring our trucks continue to power the world in a sustainable way – whether they are powered by EcoBoost engines, hybrid powertrains, or are fully electric,” I take that statement to mean "fully electric" trucks are on the way! I've had some fun suggesting the idea of electric motorcycles to bikers; I plan to have even more fun touting hybrid and fully electric pickups to the much larger truck owner crowd! Also, that plant's aluminum recycling and other environmental solutions are quite amazing and wildly commendable.

Based on my sad experience of accidentally shooting tire goo into a bicycle tire, I would remove the Ford canister, throw it away and get a separate can wherever you like. Much cheaper and no danger of hitting the wrong button on the compressor!

So Paul, isn't it about time you go for that 1000 mile tank? :) Better do it before the new tires go on.

Just came across a June 1961 Science and Mechanics magazine (35 cents!) with an article "How Economical IS the Rambler American?" It had the 196 cu. in. flat head 6 with 3 speed manual (didn't have the overdrive option). The fine print test data filled an entire page! Some highlights: General road and weather: "Portland concrete, generally smooth and level", dry, 25 to 45FRegular gas, SAE 20 oil, 2560 curb weight, 24 psi in tires, spark at 4* BTC @ 500 rpm!"True MPG" at 40F, 75% humidity, 29.4 in Hg, 500 pounds "carried weight": 30.7 (20mph), 32.1 (30mph), 28.8 (40mph), 25.4 (50mph), 21.8 (60mph), 17.8 (70mph) They also give "True Ton MPG" figures which are 1.53 times the above ones! Rather bizarre! The ratio obviously comes from the cars total weight (2560+500) divided by 1 ton. Seems quite worthless to me, especially for steady state driving!"Traffic Fuel Consumption" of 17.8 MPG @ average speed of 21.8 MPH"City-County Fuel Consumption" of 24.4 MPG @ average speed of 32.7 MPHOverall mileage was 18.3 MPG and oil consumption was 4000 MPQ! (That compare to our C-Max at 47+ MPG and maybe 100,000 MPQ!)Acceleration was 17.3 sec 0-60 and 20.8 sec 20-60 in 3rd gear! (I think I'll take the C-Max!)Quarter Mile: 65.0 mph, 20.9 sec.Best acceleration 0-60 with driver alone, premium fuel and best spark setting was 15.1 sec! (Sorry Paul, but they were doing this kind of thing 57 years ago!)At 65 mph speedometer read 70 mph! (Holds down on speeding tickets!)Then a bunch of stuff about Lateral Sway, Cornering, Brake Fade, Longitudinal Dip and Parking Brake tests."Chassis Dynamometer Horsepower": 49 HP @ 65.6 mph, 2900 rpmA bunch of other wild stuff like "Average piston speed" and "Power performance factor".Other specifications: 90 HP @ 3800 rpm, 160 ft-lbs @ 1600 rpmCompression 8.0 to 1Minimum road clearance: 7.5" at differential (Isn't that SUV class?)Highest curb doors will clear: 12.9"Highest curb bumper will clear: 9.8" (What's the C-Max? 4 inches?)20 gal gas tank (You'll have to hold it to about 35 mph to get that 600 mile tank!)17.5 cu ft luggage spaceOther standard dimensions and things I've never seen before like windshield and rear window area and "Driver's eye-to-road distance"!Comments from the review: At $1845 (2 door) it was the "lowest of any U.S.-made sedan." (With inflation, this would (supposedly) be $15,550 today.)"King-size wing vent windows"Almost an entire paragraph praising the ashtray! "The ashtray in the American is a masterpiece,""Almost complete absence of gear noise"Limited back seat hiproom; "Makes two in back company, but three a crowd."The engine "has an 8.0:1 compression ratio that should tolerate Regular gasoline most anywhere in this country"Now SnowStorm's first car was a 1964 Rambler American with that same lousy "flat-head" 6 (but I had Overdrive!). Before overhaul, there was so much blow-by that under heavy load the smoke from the oil filler tube would drift up the steering column and come out around the steering wheel! Now you know why I say the C-Max is the best car I've ever had! :lol: So, the "good ol' days" weren't all that good after all.

Hmm... the harness "can wear away over time, generating heat." Seems an odd way to put it. The insulation might wear away resulting in a short circuit - that could make some heat! I guess they look for the most benign sounding way to word it. Not much of a recall though compared to 20 million air bags!

The Battery Show also happening at the same place/time. I would like to go too but just too busy right now.

I don't have MFT but the other screens have brightness controlled by the sensor at front center of dash. We used to have state inspection stickers placed near center of windshield and when the sun was at the right angle the sticker would cast a shadow that caused dash lights to change brightness as car turned slightly - but wouldn't describe it as "flicker". It had me baffled for a while though.

At least you have a pristine unscratched control panel!

On the plus side, Ford might put a bit more emphasis on their other alternatives to the C-Max (whatever they are!). The Focus was hardly a C-Max replacement option here - really want an EV or at least a PHEV crossover with a bit more ground clearance and light towing capability. Still expect our next car to be 2 or 3 years out so can wait and see what we have then. And, oh yes, want it built here too!

The actual Ford announcement explicitly states the affected vehicles, assembly plants and build dates. Any confusion will come from "the cloud" which is very good at making something that is very clear into something very hazy! For example, two articles I saw start with a close-up picture of an SE HYBRID logo! Too much trouble to find an ENERGI logo I guess. According to Ford the problem can be caused by defective/improper outlets. Some articles say that 3 fires were from use of extension cords and the cause of another is inconclusive but likely not the cord. So, people don't follow instructions, outlets are junk, but its Ford's problem somehow. ;)

I'm suspicious as well. Read this article about "warped rotors".

Does it only happen after being parked overnight and then only the first time (or first few times) brakes are applied? My car is normally in a garage but there have been a few times when I have heard what could be called a whooshing sound the first time I applied brakes (end of driveway) after being parked outdoors. I have assumed it was a bit of rust on the rotors from sitting outside on a damp night. Of course I don't know if its the same issue - just my experience. With light braking in a hybrid, regeneration is used but the friction brakes get applied when the car is almost at a standstill since no regeneration is possible if the car isn't moving. It seemed that this possibility explains my experience.

I think the article says that the Lincoln MKC is plug-in (variant of the Escape). Anyway, why is a plug-in out of consideration? The following points (if true!) could still make the Escape a good option for you: The battery should(!) be packaged better than in the C-Max Energi so cargo space is not ruined. The price may no longer be that much lower for a hybrid variant since (1 battery cost is dropping, (2) it may be possible to use a smaller gas engine, and (3) Ford does not have to develop 3 different models. I expect this article is simply wrong - perhaps the worst one I have ever read. I still hope my next car can be pure EV - like the 300 mile Model E, or whatever. I wish we would hear more about that one.

Agree with obob. Find another shop quick. Here's my post (#48) from above link: "You certainly can't believe what every shop says. My car went in for inspection a month ago at a local shop and they failed the rear brakes for "rust" or some such foolishness. I had it "rejected" and went to my Michelin dealer whose inspector nearly went ballistic over the fact that the other shop rejected brakes that were very much OK - even though they don't look as "smooth" or "even" as the fronts. This was with well over 90k miles." Years later with 162k miles my original brakes still pass and work great.

Possible injector problems is one reason I have always used ethanol free gasoline. Of course I don't know why yours failed.

That's what I figured! So to get to 50.2 by the end of the year (about another 15k miles) I'd have to get around 70 MPG! Still ain't gonna happen! (But don't let me stop you!)

So how do we catch Paul? Curiosity got the best of SnowStorm so after some hybrid algebraic shenanigans the following equation blew out the tailpipe: ME = MN*(RT/RN - 1) / (1 - RT/RE) where: ME = "Miles Extra" or number of extra miles I must drive to catch up with Paul! MN = "Miles Now" or present odometer reading RT = "Rate Target" or fuel consumption rate (i.e. MPG) that I want to get up to - my "target" MPG (e.g. Paul's 50.0 MPG) RN = "Rate Now" or preset fuel consumption rate (i.e. Lifetime MPG) RE = "Rate Extra" or fuel consumption rate (i.e. MPG) I must maintain while driving the "extra" miles. SnowStorm is presently at 48.9 Lifetime MPG with 160637 miles and wants to get to 50.0 MPG Lifetime by driving at 55 MPG. How many miles must The Enterprise cover to catch Paul? Simple! :) ME = 160,637*(50/48.9 - 1) / (1 - 50/55) = 39,749 miles! Oh dear, I have to drive for over a year at, maybe, 10 mph under the speed limits! Relax Paul, it ain't gonna happen! :sad: Disclaimer: Calculations not guaranteed - use at your own risk! YCMV. :lol:

Well, well, congratulations! We should all come down for a party! Don't think The Enterprise will ever make it to 50. After being at 49.0 for a long time its slipped back to 48.9 at 160k+ miles. Mileage hasn't been that great this spring/summer - new tires, a trip north that wasn't too efficient, some trips with smelly cargo where I couldn't use recirc with A/C - excuses, excuses! Still, great fun leaving 47 mpg in the dust!

In 160k miles I've added fluid to the inverter twice, I think. Don't recall about the engine - maybe once.

More on inside edge wear problem. A few months back The Enterprise got new OEM spec tires at 152707 miles. Went in for the first rotation at 160299 miles. It looked like there was some inside edge wear starting on the front! Back tires were fine. The Michelin Man confirmed this and suggested rotating fronts to back crossed, so direction would reverse, which they did. My alignment technician looked at the tires and said there really wasn't anything to do (except the rotations) since the front camber is not adjustable! (I had thought only the back camber was fixed.) He then said the car companies keep making his job easier and easier as they remove adjustment capability! Well, I'm getting 70k+ for tire life so there's nothing to complain about. Maybe I should start putting all the heavy things we often haul around way in the back?

I'm not so sure about some of these arguments... Of all the car buyers out there, I doubt there is 1 in a 1000 that has ever heard of the C-Max; and out of those, I doubt 1 in a 100 have heard about the 47 mpg thing (that was over years ago!). So how can that fiasco have killed sales? Then we say that people stopped caring about efficiency because of low gas prices but won't buy the C-Max because it doesn't get 47 mpg? Seems like a bit of a contradiction. (The difference between 40 and 47 mpg is about 1 cup of coffee per week.) If Ford really wanted to sell the car, they should have pitted it against some classy European models, not a Japanese econo-box (OK, its not a box). After all, the C-Max design and name came from Europe. Ford may have intended it as a real world test bed for lithium-ion and newer hybrid technology. If something really serious had gone wrong, they wouldn't want a million cars out there to fix.