SnowStorm

Well its a few weeks down the road and you can see why you might not want to trust one data point. ;) Not sure what happened but I can't find a mistake. The second point after 10,000 miles had a lot higher percentage of 65 mph so the lower mileage is expected. Or maybe that 48.8 point was a tank not quite full which then hurt the following point. Anyway, looks like we must go a bit longer to get this "after FE upgrade" to settle down. EV mileage since upgrade is now at 42.1% versus 34.9% before. Lifetime is up to 47.5 mpg and Avg MPG (indicated) since upgrade is at 49.1. Again, this is my pump based cumulative MPG average (odometer corrected) with the average restarting after the upgrade (which was just before 10,000 miles). Still crazy about the car. Really like the power for passing (you do get some opportunities on those two-lane 55 mph roads). Shucks, I almost look for a slow car just to have the "excuse" to stomp on it and go zooming ahead! :drool: What fun! Oh dear, what's happening to me? :headscratch: Slow cars used to be a pain! I finally "realized" that EcoCC resume function starts working at 20 mph. So after a stop, accelerate to 20, tap resume and get a nice steady acceleration back up to speed. For so many years I did it manually to prevent cars from surging ahead like idiots!

Garden and apple trees? Certainly no apologies needed! You jus' gotta' :love_shower: those apple trees. Grew up around those guys. Eating a good juicy apple straight off the tree beats driving a C-Max! Hmmm...maybe try both at once! You know what they say, an apple a day keeps the doctor away - and hunched backs and oxygen tanks and ...

I still think hills save gas. See my topic here: http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/2113-can-hills-save-gas/ Everyone seems to believe in kinetic P&G but some still argue against potential P&G. Its a lot easier to set EcoCC and ride the hills than work your foot off doing kinetic P&G on a flat. I don't see whet conservation of energy has to do with it and its certainly not perpetual motion. As mentioned, its all about that BSFC graph we can't get a hold of! (Higher altitude is a separate issue but quite an interesting one.) My undocumented experience is that I get 51 to 52 mpg on the flat at 55 mph (high ICE) but more like 55 mpg with EcoCC on hills at the same speed. At this point I've done thousands of miles on 55 mph roads. Ideally, I would think, the hills shouldn't be so steep that the battery starts recharging on the way down.

Not very often - but I was there once!

Well yes - at least if you have more sense than SnowStorm! Wife's bicycle tires needed air so I thought it would be good to "get familiar" with the TMK. Got familiar with it all right! :rant: Took it out, unwrapped the cord (nice and long - that's good :)), plugged it in, found the hose (nice little cap on the end to keep dirt out?), screwed it on the tire. Now what are all these stupid symbols - hate the bloody symbols :rant2: - been reading since I was in the first grade! What's the little button, a light? Oh yes, looks like the gauge IS illuminated! Would really help at night (but I wouldn't be able to read the stinkin' symbols :rant: )! And the big switch marked "Press"! What is this anyway? Alice in Wonderland? There was plenty of wonderin' going on about then. :headscratch: Looks like air on the left and a light on the right. (Where's that light anyway?) Went for "air" and hit the "power" button (only recognizable symbol on the crazy thing). It roars to life, the hose turns white - white? - WHITE??? :gaah: Sure glad that old 24x2.125 tire didn't have a TPMS sensor! :clapping: And bet her front tire won't be leaking any time soon! :victory: Hit the power button real fast and unscrewed the hose. White poisonous, latex infused, skin and respiratory traction (sic!) irritating, TPMS deactivating, tire valve clogging, clothes removal necessitating sealant runs all over my hand (no gloves!), the poor innocent tire, and the carport to-boot! :sos: The nearest sink showed it to be quite water soluble and a hose sent the stuff out the driveway and into the grass (hope ethylene glycol is a good fertilizer!). And for an encore? - SnowStorm read the manual! After which he recommends removing the canister, throwing it away and getting a separate can of sealant so no one can make the same mistake! Or at least preset the "Press" switch to the right and add some TEXT (and maybe labels on the hoses)! So here's your hobson's choice of the day: (1) If you think the TMK stinks, call Ford and say: "TMK stinks"! (2) If you think SnowStorm is a bumbling idiot, call Ford and say: "TMK stinks"! :lol2: (PS You can't have more than 10 emoticons!)

Really don't want to rain on anyone's parade but we can't "average" mpg the normal way (mpg1 + mpg2)/2. You have to take the reciprocals, average those and take a final reciprocal. Which equates to: 2/(1/mpg1 + 1/mpg2). Now if we all used L/100km (like Laurel and all our friends in Canada), we could just do the normal average and it works. (Either way, miles must be the same.) So we can convert to L/100km (helps get us used to these values), average normally and convert back. The conversion factor is 235. So: 235/33.5 = 7.01 L/100km (guessing at the .x) 235/95.2 = 2.47 L/100km Average = (7.01+2.47)/2 = 4.74 L/100km Avg MPG = 235/4.74 = 50 MPG (rounding off) Still a fine result! BTW, the original 47 mpg rating is an even up 5.0 L/100km. (Or just take total miles divided by total gallons - in which case miles need not be the same.)

"Conspiracy theorists are optimists!" - SS

Well, I figured it was White Sands - awesome place. It was subject to closure way back in '79 too when my sister and I went through. Had to sit on the road :waiting: for a while until we saw why. A mid air missile interception right there in front of us. Pretty cool!

SnitGTS, you make some good points about the stronger electric motor (I call the C-Max a "strong hybrid") and the wider range in MPG results. I noticed that difference too but not that it was double. The greater EV power is exactly what you want in a hybrid - I wish it had even more! I hate to see the car or it's design philosophy drug down by this rating fiasco. I have NO interest in defending Ford's "copy and paste" rating but they still deserve credit for coming out with such a great car and hybrid drive-train. That part, as well as $550, is looking out for the customer. Would we really prefer a "weak hybrid" without the $550?

I expect you're right, but it is called a "goodwill" payment. Putting us through "track your mileage", "go to the dealer", wait for a card", over and over every year wouldn't build much goodwill with me. I hate those kind of hassles. And if you sell or trade the car (even for another C-Max, I expect) you don't get any more money. The up-front payment is definitely the right thing for Ford to do. I might just set ours aside for a 2014 model! :drool:

I'll take the one time cash up-front any day over all that hassle!

Everything certainly makes a lot more sense now - both old ratings (how they came about) and new ratings (the numbers). I never expected to get 47 for "high speed" interstate driving - as you say, the physics is against it. (My LT is at 47 though.) I also aways wondered why the Energi was so much lower. Yes its heavier, but it has a lot more EV power available too for "normal hybrid" mode. And how could two cars get exactly the same numbers both city and highway, and why couldn't I find the C-Max in the EPA spreadsheet - just the Energi and Fusion IIRC? I just hope that: All this confusion is really settled now, It doesn't happen again, The EPA can move to tests and rules that work better, AND: Car makers and buyers get a lot more interested in aerodynamics! Its been my pet peeve for years how little car makers do to reduce drag. It looks like things are finally changing. If the 2014 aero changes can't be retrofit, I might just have to trade in!

Excellent point, and especially considering the fact that, I believe, the tests were originally created for pollution testing - and then the results found useful for mpg ratings. A single speed test would be really easy to meet from a pollution standpoint. This may be the reason the tests are not that good for mpg - they were designed for something else.

Right behind you at 46.9 with 11k miles! :hi5:

Great photos and report! Also love that night shot with the stars and the plasma jet off the engine! Sure looks like places I visited out there in'79. Boy does it get chilly at 9000' under a clear sky!

What a great car it is! I'm hoping the best thing to come out of all this will be to get everyone interested in better aerodynamics. :flyaway: It has taken decades to get people generally interested in fuel economy - now maybe we'll start seeing real progress on the aero side. For high speed driving, that's where its at.

Another factor in the rebate difference could be that in Canada the C-Max was rated at 4.0/4.1 L/100km (city/highway) while in the US it was 5.0L/100km. So there would be a greater "expectation" difference. 4.0 L/100km is 59 mpg US. Then there's the exchange rate but that's rather small right now.

Jus, about the model year, maybe wait and see what the 2014 ratings are. I tend to agree with C-MaxSeatle though, just note the year.

A "way to go" from Virginia as well! :victory: (About the check, I just hope there isn't this fine print that says "FordCmaxHybridForum 600+ Club Members are exempt from receiving a check". When I told my wife, she said I wouldn't get one!) :cry:

OK, but there are several issues: 75 mph only works for about 20% of the US population. Most everyone else is limited to 65 or 70. The limits in the link are maximums - many sections of road (especially metro areas with heavy traffic) are lower. There are many "highways" posted at 55. (About half of my highway driving is at 55.)It won't be easy to come up with a test that works for everyone but it shouldn't be biased to just 20%. A graph of mpg versus speed would be nice but how many general car buyers would put out the effort to compare that kind of detail. This kind of discussion could go on for a while - and probably should! YMMV won't go away any time soon. BTW, it is interesting to compare the following maps for speed limits and population density (from Wikipedia):

Maybe to save "wear" on the battery - oh, but then you're adding wear on the ICE. :headscratch: Or maybe to avoid seeing 20 mpg while recharging (even though you get infinite mpg in EV). I really don't think we can outsmart the cars algorithms relating to use of ICE versus EV (except where we know upcoming road/traffic conditions). I've never really bought the "high ICE" thing but I'm not trying to argue the point either.

The other thread had the number sold through July at just over 23,000. Add a few more for August - maybe 25,000 or so - about $14 million. You can also compare to the price of the car - about 2%. I'm sure the whole publicity / customer satisfaction thing is a lot more important to Ford than $14 million. There might also be a plus side for Ford - lots of articles in the press just send out the word about the C-Max. I just talked to a co-worker who had never heard of it. I'm sure most car buyers haven't heard of this controversy either. We early adopters just lucked out this time! :)

So we get a 2% price break (pays the 47/43 difference on about 80,000 miles) and those of us who don't speed 5 to 15 mph over the limit will go on our merry way getting 47+ MPG combined! :shift: Not bad. I really don't understand why EPA tests need to cover a national pastime of breaking the speed limit. :redcard: (I'm not saying there aren't other issues here but that seems to be a big part of it.) What will be the replacement? Just curious.

See my report here (Aug 11 post): http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/1386-waiting-in-the-shenandoah/page-4 My first week (900 miles) gave +3 MPG over previous cumulative average. :)