Riddley

Way to go Hannah!!!

Verizon HTC 8X (Windows Phone) No problems with Sync functions, Bluetooth or streaming. The phone reads text messages to me while I am driving (when they arrive) and prompts me to reply verbally. It will read back what I said verbally to check for accuracy before sending. It has been so reliable at pairing that I don't think about it anymore. It even paired with my phone when it was in the very back of the car in a backpack. I love the Windows phone interface. It is different from the iphone and Android interfaces, and I like that. I've been able to find and install all of the Apps I need and I don't think I've spent more than $5 total for all apps. The HTC 8X has been a dream, but an alternative is Nokia (very reputable hardware), which has been selling the most Windows phones.

You can do it Hannah!!! When I broke 600, my MPG for the tank was 46.6 (by the C-MAX gauge)! You are showing 49.2. You can do this!!! Here is my gauge when entered the club:

Jus - I've been away for a while and missed your 700 party. Sorry I wasn't there to buy a round for you! I just wanted to chime in to say WAY TO GO MAN!!! I also need to shout out to orphoto. WAY TO GO ORPHOTO!! I agree with you that Matt will keep pushing you both, even with a 300 pound anchor in the back no less! Thanks for the tips on what to expect regarding surface roads VS freeways. I agree that the window sticker should up the number for City, and perhaps lower the number for High Way. Considering break-in and weather impacts, I'd feel fine if the sticker said about 53 CITY and 43 HYWAY.

I'm with JUS on this one. If I could have just one thing as a present related to my C-MAX, it would be tinted Windows - and I live in the Puget Sound region!! In Texas it would be a necessity.

That's fascinating zalusky! You do realize that to fully test your theory, you will need to swap cars with your wife for some period of time. Do you think she'll go for it? ;)

It might not hurt to ask one of your local dealers if they will let you test drive the car for 24 hours. You are on the right track to purchase through AAA or COSTCO, whichever gives you the best no-haggle price. I've noticed that the prices available through Costco/AAA seem to change slightly from place-to-place and from time-to-time, so you can't be certain which is better until you look at them both at the time you want to close the deal. Either way, you should be near invoice (+/-). The Costco price here a few months back was at invoice, and I read on these forums that in one location, AAA came in just under Costco. I should also point out that when I discussed Costco pricing with one dealership here, they said that they could do Costco pricing, even though it wasn't promoted or listed as being in the program. The fleet manager explained that they were actually in the program, but just not listed. It may be possible that in that case, Costco/Ford wanted to funnel Costco sales through one specific dealership, so it was not promoted, and hard to discover at other dealerships.

Excellent report Michigan - and all the better for including a photo, which is seals the deal. I know for sure if I have a windshield problem, I will be looking for this post. Perhaps it should be pinned so folks can find it when needed.

You should start getting commissions for those ChrisMax.

600 or 700 sounds so much better than "Over 55MPG after 12 or more gallons of gas." But your point is valid (Noah and salsaguy). Once I did 600, I stopped running the tank below E. I agree that it doesn't make much sense to go to that extreme if you are already in the club. Now - once my car starts to show 53 or 54 MPGs over a tank, I'll sit up and pay closer attention, and probably run it to the end to try to get 700. Since my daily commute is all freeway, I am unlikely to see those kind of FE numbers any time soon. As it is, I am usually going 60+ for most of the drive.

Way to go orphoto!!! I had a feeling you would be in the 700 eventually - but this soon?!!!

Note to crew - take evasive action. Subject is starting to become suspicious.

Welcome viennacoup!! With those numbers, you should be in the 600 Club! Excellent first tank!

I found this to be informative: A Chemists View on Octane and Gasoline Brands. It supplements information on Top Tier Fuel here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Tier_Detergent_Gasoline. And here: http://www.toptiergas.com/index.html

I found an interesting take on this from a Chemist. I'll post it in a new thread.

That was a fabulous first tank result SnitGTS!!

Hi Catsailor! First, I agree that many new owners benefit by the sage advice provided here. They will be quicker on the FE curve, having the tips and tricks early adopters had to learn by trial and error. Still, by your own admission, you have gradually improved to the point where you are now getting 48.3 in your C-MAX which you've had for 8 or 9 months. That is way better than me. My best is only something like, 46.6. But - if I compare your results to the reports from a few of the new owners... ScubaDadMiami in thread "I Think This Car Likes Me" (reports 48 MPG in 1st tank)SnitGTS in thread "600 Mile CMax Club" (reports 49 MPG Avg in 1st tank)SnowStorm in thread "600 Mile CMax Club" (reports 49 MPG Avg in 5th tank)... then I still must wonder if there is a more probable explanation than that new owners just are better informed. Second, everyone agrees with the fact that the C-MAX will improve in FE over time and miles. Jus and Matt suggest the improvement will continue from 2K to 20K, and then possibly plateau. This fact has no bearing on the topic of this thread (was there possibly some slient tuning by Ford in more recent production runs). The fact that the car should improve in FE over time and miles actually supports the "silent tuning" theory. Third - that the weather and the change in summer fuel are the biggest factors is promising. Regarding the weather theory, I admitted both in the title of this thread and in the opening post, that the weather could help explain what is being reported. However, we can still observe that there are a lot of owners from warm to mild climates that didn't see 49 MPG/tank until after many months and thousands of miles were logged in the car. I don't know of a single owner in a warm climate that achieved 48-49 MPG right from the start. Many owners in warm climates have not ever reached 49 MPG/tank. The weather effect is slightly suspect for these reasons. Regarding the quality of summer Fuel. I know nothing about this, so I can't even suggest a reason why it might not explain what is being reported by new owners. However, consider that you yourself, with the many miles you have on your car, are using the same summer fuel, and are not getting 49 MPG. I'm another example - I am also using summer fuel. I am a fairly good hypermiler, having eclipsed 600 miles/tank, and I still have not yet averaged over 47 MPG. These facts might suggest that the summer fuel theory is also slightly suspect. So, to me, this continues to be an interesting phenomenon that is not yet explained.

I'm rooting for you SnitGTS!!

Me too! I wanted Ruby with the light interior but would have had to wait an extra 4-5 weeks, so I grabbed a Ruby with black leather that was just rolling off the assembly line. I have come to really love the Ruby/Black combo. But yes - I am saving up for tinting the windows now - even though I live in the Puget Sound region.

Nice post HPRifleman! I agree that the Panoramic roof should extend a little further forward - if only to enjoy the view when stopped at a light :) I also agree that storage cubbies for little things is something that could improve the experience. For example, where do I put my cell phone so that it is accessible when it is plugged in and charging? The center console provides some slots that allow for a device to be outside the console when it is plugged in inside, but where to put the device? When it is plugged in near the shifter, where to put it? I might install a cradle to solve the problem, but it would have been nice to have a special place designed into the interior by default. Diddo on the "video game" effect! It certainly makes the car more interesting to drive.

Is it time to start looking at a 700 club? To get to 700 miles per tank, you need roughly 54 MPGs over a full tank (700 miles/13 gals). Considering these facts: Matt has eclipsed 700 three times so far, the first two unmodified.Jus is flirting with 700, reaching 679.4 with a tank average of 52 MPG. Jus - you should be there at 700 in no time!!!There are four additional members that have exceeded 50 MPG for a full tank: rmcmast [52.9], orphoto [51.4], frbill [51], and Jaz [50.3].A few additional members are pushing 50 MPG: SnowStorm [49.6], Stobro2 [49.1].I think 700 might be the new 600. That said, I believe that the 600 club is a worthy and venerable accomplishment. I haven't put my own name in the above musings about 700, because I am still at "base camp" regarding that pinnacle.

Yes, Sorry for the confusion... I should have wrote that more clearly. I've identified you as being in the set of new owners who are showing amazing FE results. The reference I made was to a post you wrote in the "600 Mile CMax Club" thread, and that you are averaging about 49 MPG - which is simply amazing to me in the first tank! I have little doubt that you will go into the 600 club very soon, based on these averages.

There are a lot of early adopters in warm climates that have not experienced anything close to the early high FE results that are being reported by recent new owners, despite being relatively isolated from the weather effect. I think it is very unlikely that Ford would confirm any tuning changes in later production runs. Assuming a tuning change was implemented (hypothetically), I don't think 3.5.1 will make a difference, as that is SYNC/MFT, and does not control engine functions (to my knowledge). Analysis of available data - possibly from Fuelly - would add some weight to the theory. The way that would look would be a different efficiency curve over time for the average CMAX. Ten or a hundred vehicles produced in late 2012 - from warm climates - would show an average efficiency curve over time that would be lower than a similar sampling for vehicles purchased more recently.

Hi folks, Something about recent trends has me wondering if Ford might have silently tweaked the computer tuning for fuel economy in more recent production runs, or if what we are seeing reported is due only to more favorable weather. As evidence of what I am sensing, consider recent posts from newer owners: ScubaDadMiami in thread "I Think This Car Likes Me" (reports 48 MPG in 1st tank)SnitGTS in thread "600 Mile CMax Club" (reports 49 MPG Avg in 1st tank)SnowStorm in thread "600 Mile CMax Club" (reports 49 MPG Avg in 5th tank)These are just a few of numerous examples. Against my theory that this might be evidence of a silent efficiency tuning in later production runs, we see Jus and Recompence hovering around the 700 mile tank (+/-), which might suggest the differences we are seeing are universal, and might be due solely to more favorable weather. I'm curious about this, but not a big fan of conspiracy theories. I also don't despair that there might have been a tweaking that might benefit future owners. Thoughts??

Mr. Green Jeans: good tips to consider. What auto insurance do you have?