SnowStorm

There seem to be several options for the rear camber adjustment: Fixed length replacement arm with +1 degree change Adjustable arms (seems like the "proper" way to go) Replacement bolts with off-center bushing (use original arm but may have to cut off a welded on nut)Any experience or thoughts on the adjustable options? BTW, tried the "shade tree" camber measurement where you stand a level vertical next to the wheel and measure the distance to top/bottom edges of rim. I got 3/4" difference on left & 5/8" on right with a rim diameter of 18.5" (at measurement point). Now arcTan(0.75/18.5)=2.3 degrees (considered negative) and arcTan (0.625/18.5)=1.9 degrees. Exact same numbers as alignment shop!

My April 2013 build SE has the 15B04 (along with three others!). Maybe I should take it in - but I want to know what it entails. Don't want to "magically" loose something else like Lifetime stats or ??? ETIS also shows mine as 2014 Energy on the "Vehicle Line:" - might be a catch all for all C-Max models. Or it could be that my "Hybrid" is really a "Non-Plug-In Energi". :lol: After all, the Energi is the true "Hybrid" (uses two types of fuel). So, calling the "Hybrid" a "NPINRG" makes more sense! You gotta love semantics.

Well I jumped the gun - should have waited for your answer. Shop had a 3:30 opening today so took it in. Before | After values are given below (of course a lot of these can't be adjusted anyway): Camber LF = -0.7 | -0.7 RF = -0.6 | -0.6 Caster LF = 4.6 | 4.6 RF = 4.2 | 4.2 Toe LF = 1/16" | 1/16" RF = -1/32" | 1/16" Total Toe = 1/32" | 5/32" Steer Ahead = 0.09* | 0.02* (the RF Toe and Steer Ahead were flagged as out of spec) Camber LR = -2.2* | -2.3* RR = -1.8* | -1.9* Toe LR = 3/32" | 3/32" Toe RR = 1/16" | 3/32" Total Toe = 5/32" | 3/16" Thrust Angle = 0.05* | 0.01* So it looks like I ended up with more toe in than before! So much for +6 mpg! Not sure yet how to convert inches to degrees (crazy system - what's wrong with degrees?) The -2.2* rear camber is near the limit, flagged "yellow" on their system, but that's the one that needs a replacement control arm to correct (gives a fixed +1* correction). Don't yet have a price but there's some suspicion that it might help the inside edge wear problem (if you call a bit of abnormal wear at 65k miles a problem). Other option would be to reverse mount the tires half way through their life and re-balance - that costs $60 total. Paul, how much was the new control arm and how far off was the alignment before replacement? I guess I'll drive these settings for a bit and see. Then maybe get it redone when new tires go on. We normally have a total load of about 400 pounds, sometimes more, rarely less. +3, are you saying it would be best to weight the car with a "normal" load and then get it done at 0 toe? Thanks everyone.

Thanks! Does anyone know what Toe "@ curb ride height" means? I'm guessing "ride heaight @ curb weight", that is, car empty. Hope to get it done this week and, assuning its out, get an idea this weekend about any improvement. +3 I see the front Toe is already 0 and rear is quite small so maybe the standard settings are already optimized for mileage. One would think so.

"The Enterprise" has entered a negative time loop - I'm getting younger! Lost two years already! Tried to calculate the average but the screen just says, "Thanks For Driving A Hybrid!" :sandman:

"The Enterprise" needs wheel alignment (inside edge wear). Does anyone have the alignment specifications - preferred values and allowed ranges for each parameter both front and rear? What values would give the lowest rolling resistance? Have read that the allowed ranges are not just a "tolerance" but there to allow adjustment for preferred handling characteristics. Would like to have the details before going to the shop. (One F150 owner noted 2 mpg increase after alignment and an Escape owner claimed 4 mpg! Extrapolating to the C-Max should give, maybe, 6 mpg! )

Two choices: 1 - Buy 2013 2 - Buy 2014 and have it installed!

We have a 2013 SE (no MFT) at 64k miles. Still crazy about the car and looking forward to the next drive. Had two dead batteries in Jan 2014, one from leaving the ignition on (apparently) and the other most likely one form of the "problem". Dealer changed the 12V battery and may have reprogrammed something. Anyway, no problems in 16 months. Bottom line: Knowing all I know now, would buy the car even quicker today than when I was "blissfully ignorant". Knowledge of faults hasn't removed the bliss!

My tires have done the same thing (also did it on our Fit). Tire dealer says they should be rotated every 5k miles. The "undriven" tires tend to develope the flat spots. In the "old days" it was the fronts, now its usually the rears. Rotating back to front and driving several thousand miles can smooth things out somewhat but I'm still paying for not rotating often enough. Had a couple of friends in the car the other day and one asked if I was running snow tires! Not a good way to advertise the C-Max! Also have some edge wear for not getting an alignment soon enough. But at 64k+ miles on original tires I can't complain!

This site helps you find E0 gas and this one shows labeling laws by state. A bunch of states don't require labels at all for the nasty stuff.

Does it help the handling any? :lol:

Was that 87 octane? We are fortunate to get E0 87 at about $0.20 extra. I do it for longer engine life (so I understand), not just higher mileage. E10 would be cheaper in terms of just MPG I'm sure. But then we pay more for food. ;) What we need is E100 where the 'E' stands for 'Electrons'. :)

Hmm - memo didn't make the east coast either. 48.1 mpg lifetime at 64k miles. Present tank at about 500 miles and 51.5 mpg - all "highway". :) So Jus, if not "test drivers" or "owners", what are we? ;) Virtually nonexistent I suppose. Now I'm wondering how many folks have a lifetime of 47 or above. Glad the C-Max was on top but, IMO, they should have kept the comparison to the V model alone.

Nice to know - it works. Checked both 30 sec and 3 min modes. Open door and double flash and all outside lights are off - but inside ones stay on.

Only if you consider doubling the tax rate on electric cars "right". The national average gasoline tax is 49.5 cents/gal - about 1 cent/mile for many hybrid drivers. Using the "EPA average" of 15,000 miles/year, that $300 is 2 cents/mile! If you only drive 7500 miles, that's 4 cents/mile making it more expensive to fuel and drive (about 8 cents/mile total) than a hybrid! I call that "highway robbery"! I wonder what group of large corporations might be behind this one. Look out folks, here comes... "Who Killed The Electric Car? - Round Two!"

Welcome! Our C-Max was up in your corner of the Provinces last summer. Great trip. Enjoy your new car!

Wouldn't you know - the May QST has an article on this very topic (page 35/36) where, under Figure 2 it says, "The correct way to power your ham radio is at the battery positive terminal and the chassis ground point, with fuses in both power leads." You can't connect to the negative terminal because the "electronic load detector" is located there.

This discussion sent me back to one of my OBDII data logs. I found an extended period cruising along at 54 mph with several cycles of EV versus ICE. First, when ICE is on it goes to about 85 ft-lbs and 2000 rpm which is 32 HP or 24 kW. Looking back through the graph you can see an obvious "preference" to run the ICE near these values so, having no BSFC map :sad: , I'll take that as the most efficient point. Second, the limit for ICE charging of the HVB is 35 amps (it never goes higher) which is about 10 kW. So for peak efficiency with a low SOC (HVB charging at 10kW) you need to use 14kW (17 HP) to run the car. If you don't need that much power, the ICE is forced to run below the peak - no way out. As SOC goes up, the charge rate starts to drop off. I can see an earlier point where, after an extended ICE run at 55 mph, the HVB current was near 0 and the ICE was at 60 ft-lbs and 1550 rpm (13kW). So much for steady speed. When accelerating, we still want to stay on top of the magical BSFC mountain! But its quite a balancing act between SOC, car speed, traffic, hills and fun! Forgetting traffic and hills for the moment, below are some observations/suggestions (all subject to peer review!). If you accelerate too slowly with ICE on, you may not use all 24kW of peak efficiency power. Not good. Accelerate too hard and you will push the ICE past peak and/or pull battery power to help. Keeping RPM below 2500 certainly seems advisable. Keeping SOC low in stop/go driving seems good since it gives a place for any excess ICE power to go (you can't always use 24kW) and helps prevent negative split mode. It seems good (as several have suggested) to start in EV for a bit. Helps keep SOC low. Once ICE comes on, push it to the "no charge" point but no further. Its more fun! Might be more efficient as well.We don't have any regular daily commute to do comparisons on so must leave that to others. (P.S. I think this post about "braking techniques" is feeling hijacked!)

Jack may be smiling but Ford's EV+ programmers are laughing - possibly rolling on the floor laughing - as they read these posts! They put a bunch of "Easter Eggs" in the software just to keep us guessing! Endless possibilities: Turn ON going by any Dealer location (but only if you haven't visited one in 30 days!)Turn ON going by Henry Ford's birthplace (but only on his birthday)Refuse to turn ON if the microphone picked up a naughty word during the driveAdjust activity based on phases of the moon, etc, etcWe bought a GPS some years ago that "magically" started predicting where we are going by putting up messages like "3 Minutes to Dump" or "9 Minutes to Southern States" (gas station) or even "250 Minutes to Home". All without entering any "destination"! Then I have a co-worker who was in a rental car when it said "Turn Left". But the turn wasn't really visible so they missed it and went around the block. GPS says "Turn Left" but again they missed it. Third time around it comes out with "I SAID Turn Left!" Programmers get bored to.

That comment is in the context of maximizing "fun" without sacrificing efficiency. I'm not so much trying to avoid charging - just trying to accelerate using all available energy that's being generated at the ICE's peak efficiency point. If I accelerate more slowly, the control algorithm will run the ICE on up to the peak efficiency point anyway, using the excess energy to charge the battery. You can use all energy to accelerate quickly (and then charge at steady speed) or accelerate slowly while charging at the same time. If the ICE is always at its peak efficiency point, you should burn the same amount of fuel either way. Somewhere down the road you will have stored the same amount of kinetic and battery energy using the same amount of fuel. But I got just a little more "fun per gallon"!

Is it in the same place? Maybe they should look for a burr or something at that spot that's causing the crack.

There could also be a minimum "time off" requirement in the algorithm. We now have 2 EV+ locations but they are both where the car is left "overnight". There are many other locations we have visited far more than 11 times and often at least once a week but no EV+. After all, why set an EV+ location if the engine isn't going to really cool off? (Maybe Jus' golf range stays open all night?) Plus, I expect Ford wanted to limit the frequency of EV+ happening.

I agree with "briskly accelerating" but that's a relative term. Here's a suggestion for establishing an acceleration rate we can all compare to: Set cruise control to Eco mode Go to 55 mph and "set" the speed Slow to just above 20 mph (minimum speed for cruise to work) Tap Resume and keep foot off acceleratorThe car will accelerate smoothly at about "2 bars" all the way back up. Call this rate "Eco Acceleration" which I would call "moderate". Some would call it "slow", others may call it "brisk" - suit yourself. At least its a point we can all replicate for comparison purposes. I feel that "Eco Acceleration" is a good rate for normal driving - one that shouldn't annoy any reasonable driver behind you. It should still be quite efficient - it is "Eco" after all! One variant though is to accelerate harder when you have a low SOC in order to keep the HVB from charging (up arrow) while accelerating. I'll just "step on it" until the up arrow is gone - but no more. The inverse process with a high SOC, however, is rather out of the question. That is, slowing your acceleration to prevent discharge is not practical - the rate will be too slow. So, my summary would be: Accelerate with Eco Cruise if practicalAccelerate harder if necessary to prevent up arrowDon't use EV for acceleration (as many have said before)Don't accelerate past 3000 rpm (if watching the Tach) as that is likely beyond the peak efficiency point.

Welcome! We've had our C-Max for 63,000+ miles and its still fun - still looking forward to the next drive. With warming weather, more practice and perhaps a bit of break-in you'll be past 50 mpg and in the 600+ club on the first tank!

I hope though that we are starting to get past the "making a statement" phase of hybrid and EV buying. I would buy the C-Max again even if I didn't care about mileage (which I do) or didn't want to "make a statement" (which I don't). Even more so for an EV. More buyers just need to experience the advantages - some of which have their own emotional aspects!.