SnowStorm

I certainly expect to go for the update but would love to see a detailed technical explanation of all the changes first. However, there may not be as much detail as us engineers would like. Automotive software will increasingly become the "crown jewels" and Ford isn't going to give out any more secrets than they can help. In the long run I think the best plan will be to "stay up to date".

I have had the exact same problem - a mountain crossing with 500 feet up then 1000 feet down. I have used P&G on the way up and managed to hit the top with a low battery but it is very tedious and there can't be much traffic behind. Speed limit is 65 but you have to use about 50 to 62 mph P&G to get the battery drained. We really need the "EV Now" mode from the Energi. Tell the car to use up the battery and then leave it drained until you switch back to normal. Its about 3 miles up (5 miles down) so I don't see EV+ doing much good. Anyway, if I get the battery drained, it will just about hold all the excess energy going down at 62-63 mph. The higher EV speed that's coming will let me go full speed on the way down. Long way of saying I don't have an answer.

Here is my average gas pump MPG versus miles driven. Car's lifetime is running about 1 MPG higher. You can sure see the 3000 mile break-in but it doesn't look like its going to get much better - at least not until the August upgrade! But 46 MPG on RUG (mostly E0) just leaves me - :happy feet:

I voted NO since you can't change the EPA results as many have pointed out. I just don't understand why we keep fussing at Ford for publishing the results of highly standardized tests when they have no choice. Ford designed a "strong" hybrid that can use EV mode through much of the testing. That's what you want in a hybrid. But the result is that the EPA test gives a higher number than you get at "typical" Interstate speeds. Instead of fussing at Ford, we should be fussing about all the "weak" hybrids that don't get an EPA highway rating that's higher than typical driving! (And no, I have no association with Ford.) Everyone keeps referring to "real world" driving like it's been defined. My "real world highway" is not 70 to 80 mph but yours may be just that. Point is, the EPA test is very standardized - though, of course, not perfect. I'll take any EPA test over all the unverifiable reports, email quotes and mass user results put together. Detailed user results (like some on this forum) are indeed helpful but we must always have the standardized tests.

It was a Rambler American 330 sedan for me. Dad bought it when I was in college for $500 (I think the asking price was $550) and in bad need of an overhaul. Just a three speed on the column but it had "overdrive"! This was the crazy system that let the car freewheel (no engine braking) until the overdrive was "engaged" by letting off the throttle momentarily. Engine was a "flat head" six - that's before overhead valves which is before overhead cams which is before dual overhead cams, etc, etc. Moments to remember (or not!): - Before the engine overhaul, the piston blow-by was so bad it would come out the vent around the oil filler tube, up through the steering column and out around the steering wheel as little wisps of smoke! - Revved the engine a bit too much in 2nd gear once and there was a bang and a sudden shaking. Pulled over and found coolant everywhere under the hood. Eventually saw that I had managed to throw a fan blade! Called campus police to inform them the car would be sitting there for a few days, pulled the radiator and had it soldered and then, to get rid of the out-of-balance fan problem, sawed off the opposing blade and went on my merry way with a two bladed fan! - On the way to a spelunking adventure (our guide's motto was "you're never lost, you just don't know where you are"!) the back fender was smashed because someone ran a stop sign. I pulled it back out a bit and we went on. Folks said the only evidence of the accident was a small pile of rust!. Insurance totaled the car, paid me $200 or so and I went on my way hoping someone would hit me on the other side! Drove the car as far away as Ann Arbor MI and eventually traded it on our first Volvo when engaged. Unlike many of you, don't think I can drum up enough sentimentality to want it back!

Isn't your trip to work downhill overall? The extra weight does cause a bit more rolling resistance but it also helps push the car forward as it goes downhill. The loss in potential energy may indeed be more than the incremental rolling resistance energy (I'm a bit too sleepy to run actual numbers)! :sandman:

Hooray Adair - glad to see you're in the club! You sure deserve to be. But it leaves one wondering if there are differences in the cars. At 50% EV, 27 mph average and 8k miles driving it seems it should have been easier. Anyway, congratulations!

More evidence that the C-Max can indeed be a "47 mpg car"! Just completed a trip to New England and got - guess what... That's for the whole trip, Interstates and all. "Highway" would have been at least 90%, Interstates at least 75% I guess. No, I didn't hold it at the speed limit all the time, mostly just stayed with the slower traffic. (Then over the limit often in those 55 zones where no one slows down.) Used AC most of the time set at 74 or 75F. All 87 octane fuel. My wife's summary was that it is such an easy car to drive (ditto from SS) - and that was after driving through that sanity challenging section around Scranton! The power is sure nice when you "need" it. The acceleration seems deceptive since the engine is so quiet and doesn't "rev" up and drop back with every gear change. Just a constant purr and then you're over the speed limit before you realize it. I sure didn't expect to end up at 47 - shucks, with E0 gas it might have been 49!

Wow, oh wow! Man, if Ford had you drive the EPA tests the C-Max would have a 50+ MPG rating! June 27, 2013 - a day to remember. 8338 - the number to remember. 64.0 MPG, 3.67 L/100km Jus' Awesome!

Congratulations!!! Make a palindrome number while your at it. Will it be 818, 828, 838, maybe 848....???

If I remember correctly, I have the same problem! There - now he has to take on both of us! :hi5: (He'll probably just add "no short term memory loss" to his list of "nothing to complain about".)

Cold turkey? Go for it! Have an enjoyable and safe ride and hey - you're still going to get twice (yes, 2x) what we got in the "sixties". My MPG interest comes the old fashioned way, "inherited" from my dad. 60 years ago he was thrilled to break 20 mpg in a Rambler Classic sedan with a good ol' OHV straight six, three speed on the column and, oh yes, overdrive! And that would have been on 55 mph roads. Plus you don't have to change oil every 3000 miles, change spark plugs, points and condenser over and over, adjust the "dwell" and the "timing", get new tires 4 times as often, fiddle with all the carburetor adjustments, get a "grease job", hope the "choke" worked properly in cold weather, remember the different starting techniques for cold weather, hot weather, cold engine, hot engine, flooded engine - good grief - I better stop. So yeah, just relax and enjoy your C-Max! :)

I tried holding my fingers and then a hot rag on that nub but could never get the OAT reading to change. This was in the garage with the car on (didn't try it while driving!). It seemed like the value was "frozen" as it was certainly reading different from the temperature in the garage at the time. Yet when driving it seems to work fine. So I don't know if the sensor is in the nub or not. (Or if the value gets "latched' until a certain point after you start driving or what.)

Hey - I feel left out. :sad: No bug in mine! But it is most certainly a beetle known scientifically as the Cmaximus Brakus-Lux. :hysterical: Rare in Europe and previously unheard of in the US.

fotomoto - Are you the guy that removed your right side mirror? Looks like a bad connection to the sensor - jerking it one direction or the other. The numbers are -40 to 75C, probably the limits in the software, and then --- when it decides "bad sensor". Hope it's easily fixed!

The C-Max has an Atkinson cycle engine where, quoting Wikipedia, "The effective compression ratio is reduced". The 12.3 value is most likely the expansion ratio (actual change in cylinder volume). We can't compare the 12.3 ratio Atkinson cycle to the same ratio Otto cycle. For me, I'm not convinced either way yet but am leaning toward the possibility that higher octane could give better mileage. From a marketing standpoint Ford would hardly dare to specify premium even if it gave better mileage. It just wouldn't fly in the hybrid buyer market. I've used E0 87 so far and may try 93 at some point but it will be a difficult comparison to make - too many variables.

Nice pics! Had to laugh at the sticker though - guess you didn't need the trim kit for "wider openings"! This thread could start a whole new series of pictures of wild and crazy loads in the C-Max. We've had a dryer in ours - fit great even on its side (less chance of snagging things). Doors too, but we let them stick out (short trip).

Go Jus! Now really though, we all know you have a great car and you're a great driver but secretly we think you've simply found an M. C. Escher route that's always downhill! Seriously, I'm still predicting that 1000 miles is possible. At 79 mpg that's only 12.7 gallons. It might take a special run with everything optimized but - who will do it first???

So who's going to be first taking a C-Max to 1,000,000 miles? :shift: And who's in the lead, anyway?

Now that you describe it, I think I have seen something similar - very high indicated mpg while not in EV. The car does use the battery (charge and discharge) while running the ICE. Also, it doesn't take much of a downhill grade (almost imperceptible in fact) to send your mileage very high. Maybe you were on such grade. The car will also go faster than 63 mph in EV mode if it started EV below that speed and sped up due to going down hill (if I recall correctly).

It seems I once had the opposite problem - I couldn't get the AC to turn OFF using the AC OFF button (or what ever it's called). It also kept showing power on the climate power meter. Turned temperature up and tried turning entire system OFF but it kept running (drawing power). Only after stopping, turning off the car and restarting did it start working properly. I have not had any strange sounds. Climate meter will show up to 2 kW (2nd major bar) at first turn on and then drop to about 300 watts with recirc and 75 to 76F setting. Have had outside temps to 88 or 90F. Have any of you with loud compressors checked the climate power meter while the compressor is making a lot of noise?

We've never been much for naming our cars but it looks like we've settled on "The Enterprise".