MacGyver

haha I just thought of another tip if you get pulled over you might want to reset your average miles per gallon display, mine's about 37 right now despite the fact that if I really put my mind to it I can get 40 to 45 which if you get pulled over a cop might look at that and come to one of two conclusions; either you're really really crappy at driving a hybrid, or that you sometimes drive like a maniac

Oh and I was quite surprised and happy to see that I still got 30 miles per gallon average for that crazy fast return from Vegas trip. So yeah I'm okay with going really fast and still getting "only" 30 miles per gallon

Oh and for what it's worth on my wife's previous car a 2004 Honda Accord Costco tires absolutely sucked out loud. One time we got a quarter inch thick (shaft) bolt that punctured her Tire, big ole half inch wide hexagon bolt head sticking out of her Tire. That's some pretty weak rubber. Sure, they give you a road warranty and will repair them as you either sit there and wait for 2 to 3 hours or more likely go in and shop and make them more money... we had so many punctures with Costco tires I lost count at least like 5 or 6 it got ridiculous so we swore off of them, Costco batteries are weak too and they won't install them for you so I had to do it myself which on a 2004 Honda is a ridiculous process: you have to remove the left front headlight in order to get the battery in there, takes like at least 30-45 minutes once I got it down but it has taken up to an hour because it's such a stupid jigsaw space saving puzzle. And the quote unquote warranty on the battery was no warranty at all in that when I took it back they have charged me one time because the price on the battery went up. I asked why are you charging me more since I have the warranty? They replied that well the price went up on it so we have to charge you the difference. I replied well then that's not a warranty that's you selling me 5 years of battery use on a subscription if you're charging me every time I have to bring your weak-ass battery back and put it in myself which takes about 45 minutes to an hour. They got me out of there very quickly before anyone else could wander by and hear what the problems were with Costco Tires and Batteries...

I have 58k on the OEMS and it's time, wear indicators are level with the tread. My 2 cents re the V rating/ie; 100 MPH+; coming back from Vegas I had to get my wife to Firestone to pick up her car before like 4-5 o'clock, and so I probably AVERAGED a hundred miles an hour over the course of 4 to 5 hours, with speeds maxing out at 120-140mph... I have done the math and the extra couple hundred dollars a year I would spend to drive the car in a fun way is worth it to me... It's really funny to me to be able to blow by those "Regulators" who try and force people to go 65mph, you know the type- they'll Cruise along in the fast lane at 65mph right to the left of someone in the right lane and try and prevent you from passing them, so I would slowly creep up until I was within Striking Distance (nothing to worry about here, just a wimpy little HYBRID, <heh> the regulator THINKS; obviously he can block that feeble hybrid if they try and pass, and then, dun dun DUN...) and then floor it and the cmax would just pile up the revs and ZOOM by them, NO possibility of them catching/©blocking you, whether they were a BMW, rice racer, or whatever supposedly "high performance car"... I try and use my powers responsibly and not make people feel bad about their cars, (my wife has a 2016 base model Mustang that I want to race just to find out who's faster, but I don't want to make her feel bad so...) but I have little Mercy for BMW drivers/aholes. They deserve what they get by and large. So for me I definitely need the V rating, as 100mph+ DOES happen occasionally... not often, but I do relish driving at 66-67 miles an hour, just dawdling along like the old man I am until someone's driving is so poor or impolite that I feel they need to be taught a lesson (or if letting them pass me means I will have to wait 20 minutes before I can get past them and go the speed that I want to go again) and then I'll just bust out with it, pass them like they are standing still, and go right back over into the right lane and peg the cruise control at 65.1 miles an hour, then look at them like "you're acting like a dickhead, how about sharing the road so I don't have to spank you again, there's a good lad" as they pass...

Welcome to the forum and the wonderful, surprising and counter-intuitive world of hybrid driving! I typed up a big long thing o tips last night, then accidentally erased it when the text field lost focus and I back-spaced, taking me back a page... ouch. Quick and dirty; read the tips, you can improve your MPG 10-20% easy, lots of advice to be had here. Drive faster than you'd think would be efficient. C-max is engineered to not only save fuel, but to be the least amount of compromise necessary to do so. In other words, a more pleasurable car to drive. Use the "Hill Assist" on downhills to recharge battery faster. That's straight from a ford engineer from one of their online chats. I leave mine on pretty much always now, wish there was a way to have it stay on when the car turned on. Use the "Empower" screen, which tells you when you're on the verge of engaging ICE via blue bar=EV. Press just a smidge harder on the gas, engage ICE. Get briskly up to speed, then cruise vs. long slow climb to speed. Long slow climb to speed=low battery=bad. Briskly up to speed=high battery & NO long drain on battery, less time at low mpgs. Get a $9 bluetooth OBD2 off amazon and free "Torque" app for iphone and android to get a NUMERICAL INSTANT MPG READOUT to see when you're driving most efficiently. Lots of other info too

A way to manually open the hatch in case of battery failure It should tell you when the A/C is on if the temp outside is LOWER than what you set the A/C at. Don't count time parked with car switched fully on for power or heat/A/C against lifetime mpg, or have dual readouts to show both... For pete's sake, put an instant digital readout including tenths in the dash! make the speed limit notification 4x as big as it is now. make the steering wheel 4 arrow+OK buttons work with the center touchscreen I got a million of em

I don't know how much the scangauge costs, $100-$200, but for $14 ($9=OBDii $5=Torque) you can have a far more advanced interface, "Torque" for both iphone and android I believe, measures and displays about a zillion (well, maybe 100 or so) data points. Highly recommended. Speaking of which, I've found that Torque is about 10% ... optimistic. That is, when the C-max displays 40mpg on the instant mpg bar, Torque will display about 44mpg. Now, the good news is; even if it is not accurate to the tenths, it is still useful in that it indicates peak efficiency, if not entirely accurately, and this also explains the disparity when others have tried to replicate my 75mph peak efficiency claim, and have not seen the same 45mpg-60mpg. I've been keeping an eye on the instant mpg readout, and while EV up to 15mph then a measured acceleration- sub-2000 rpms being the benchmark discussed in this thread as the easiest benchmark of peak efficiency, but the instant mpg seems to indicate that your previous finding of 2-2.1 bars is MORE efficient, (which makes a lot of sense really, the engineers would most likely have put the bars at the best efficiency points) as the instant mpg CLIMBS with speed when accelerating slightly more aggressively than the 2000rpm, which results in a really sloooow build to speed and then cruise (which FEELS ECO, but the instant mpg indicates is not the most efficient), which makes sense when you realize the CVT is able to adjust to higher gearing, which means less load, which means better mpg. As has been noted many times over on the net, there is no "the" best way to drive to achieve best mpg, there are too many factors changing second by second to ever truly master all of them all at once, uphilll/downhill, traffic, temperature, weight of passengers/items/gas, wind, battery level, etc., so having that instant feedback is crucial, which is either really sloppy of Ford to have not given this tool to those in hybrids trying to maximize and game-ify their driving, or a masterstroke of publicity strategy, i.e., speedos are mis-calibrated to show 2-3mph MORE than actual, causing drivers to drive slower than speed limit, at less than peak efficiency, months pass while C-max STILL outsells Prius even WITHOUT equaling or surpassing its mpg, and becomes known as a better car in terms of style, comfort, ride, technology, etc., THEN, BLAMMO, SHOCKING NEWS, the C-max has been MORE efficient than Prius all along, but a simple error in the display made it seem as if it weren't!

Agreed that we're chasing that last 5% of efficiency, which is ok as long as it's not affecting your life in a negative way- Also, I find it hard to believe someone hasn't figured out this already, but at the same time, to be the one doing this cutting-edge research is catnip for me, just wish I were independently wealthy so I could just drive around all day testing this stuff.

I did manage to get Torque to create a line graph of fuel used, but it's pretty limited, i.e., x=time y=fuel used, but I can't get it to display more than one factor at a time, i.e., fuel used/load/rpms/degree of uphill-downhill, etc.,etc.,etc. so I could easily test and retest the same street using different acceleration curves to determine the most efficient one... There is a "track recording plug in" that WILL display all that info and let you play it back, but then you'd have to create a line graph by hand... maybe I'll get around to that when I'm not in the middle of my busy season, say after march or so.

That's my contention, and I'm frustrated that I can't prove it by getting Torque to actually do the line graph that (technically is one of its features, but it crashes) would show fuel used via slow 2000rpm burn reaching speed then cruising vs. moderate acceleration (2000-3000rpm) then cruising vs. fast climb to speed then cruising (pretty sure this isn't the way to go, but scientists shouldn't not test something they THINK won't work, plus, initially, this worked better than my overlong sloooow climb to speed using EV only by 0.1%, so significant). I'll get it eventually, or just plot it out by hand, just too busy right now.

I see improvements when drafting semi-trucks too, but short term ones, both because it usually results in EV only power being slowly but surely exhausted, then switching back to ICE until battery reaches a sufficient state of charge to re-engage, by which time, unless we're in traffic, the truck driver will typically start varying his speed to make it not worth my while/annoying to draft him. Also, that means my mpg is 60+ while drafting, so I may have gotten lucky with my break-in or whatever separates the high from the low mpg cars... I'd really recommend getting Torque, the smartphone app that, coupled with a $9 bluetooth OBD, gives you instant feedback of when you're driving well and what doesn't work... my lifetime average is around 40-42mpg, depending on how careful I'm being, but seeing highs like 72mpg or even 83mpg (personal best trip mpg) keep my spirits up despite that rather mediocre lifetime average. (I sometimes speed, gun it, am too busy to value 10 cents worth of gas over getting there ASAP, do hours of paperwork / administration in my car which can drag down my average mpg 2-3mpg... Also, there's a solid 5-6mpg discrepancy in Torque's analysis of my efficiency that I've yet to find a way to overcome/verify as in/correct/account for. Which is in large measure what I base the actual numbers I report on. Which is not to say that I'm recanting that 73-75mph is the most efficient speed, far from it, I'm just saying that instead of 40-60mpg, it might only be 40-45-50 or something. Most efficient gearing and load is going to be the same whether you're burning this much fuel or a little more or less.

Simple, same reason my Grandma's 1997 Lincoln towncar (what a car!) gets 25-30mpg on the highway once it gets up to speed, that is; low engine load (low engine load=small demand for power from ICE engine to maintain speed) and high gearing. Just as when you're on a bicycle and work your way up to higher gears where you're pedaling the same speed or possibly less to maintain a higher speed than you could say, run, the car, once it reaches 75mph (or so, I suspect my speedo to be reading as much as 2-3mph fast, that is, my 75mph may ACTUALLY be 72-73mph going by OBD and GPS speed readouts on Torque) it has reached the sweet spot where the ICE engine is not working hard to maintain that speed, and the point at which it maxes out its aerodynamic slipperyness. Any faster (I've tested up to 90mph, which progressively worse instant mpg) and wind resistance fights down your efficiency. I know, it was counter-intuitive to me too, tested it MANY MANY times before I believed it and became convinced it wasn't just wishful thinking (instant mpg readout jumps around between 40-60mpg at that speed, given that you're at the top end of the efficiency performance envelope and any little headwind, up or downhill will affect instant mpg). Try it , you'll like it.

yeah, that's kind of like jay Leno's volt, he drove it less than 40 miles to work each day, so practically never used gas, so his mpg ended up being something ridiculous, I forget the actual #, but it was like 10,000mpg because all his miles were EV. I could get my C-max trip mpg to read 999.0mpg if I make a short trip all electric. Or just drive forward a foot. Or coast downhill.

According to your signature, you should have between 8000-9000 on the odometer unless that's outdated info, I have 18,400, maybe my engine's just more broken in? I think I might see what you're getting at re; Not 100% sure/clear on what you're saying/asking here; "Are you saying the ICE is more efficient at that range by having slightly higher instant MPG at 73-75MPH speed? Not the overall mileage of the C-Max? If "Overall"= average mpg? If so, I could do a reset of the lifetime average, but my routes always vary, so it's difficult to use that as a reference... I do get high trip mpgs on a regular basis... in the 40's and 50's when I'm really hypermiling, but during the day, I'm doing so much even while I'm driving, calls, navigating, etc., and a LOT of paperwork/administration sitting in my car (sometimes with the motor on to run ac or heat or just to listen to my podcasts over the car system) that really impacts my average. I travel with about 100lbs of tools and what not, I'm 230lbs. Ok, 235 but I'm dieting. I'm mostly at sea level. Tujunga is the highest elevation I get to on a regular basis, which ranges about 1300-1800 feet.

I tested speeds all the way up to 90mph, and 75 seems to be the upper limit before mpg starts dropping. The surprising part is that 55 used to be considered the most efficient speed before you generated such wind drag that your mpg started dropping. I'm as surprised as anyone that the most efficient speed can be that fast, but I've seen it over and over again on the instant mileage readout on Torque. Not 100% sure/clear on what you're saying/asking here; "Are you saying the ICE is more efficient at that range by having slightly higher instant MPG at 73-75MPH speed? Not the overall mileage of the C-Max? But basically I'm saying that 75mph is the peak as far as GEARING RATIO/engine load/mpg combo, delivering 40-60mpg. Both ICE and EV are more efficient there, as this is the sweet spot combo re; gearing/wind resistance/(lift? the cmax is kind of wing shaped...) And of course a headwind is going to bring that down, even a slight up or downhill will affect the instant mpg dramatically, as at 75mph, you're right at the very EDGE of its performance envelope, the instant numbers jump around like crazy at 75mph (in a good way, like 45-60+mpg)

Thanks again John, I've increased my mpg by about 7-10% so far by slowing down and using this method, but my android app that gets data from a bluetooth OBD is seeming to indicate that the CVT changes the formula for best mpg to make it more complex, such that "load" may be as or more important than simple rpm (or some combination of the two), since with the CVT we go faster and faster with the same RPM given careful acceleration and level ground... I've seen my instant MPG actually go UP by increasing my speed and level of acceleration, which kind of makes sense given my discovery that the C-max's most efficient speed is 75mph... however, I think I need to calibrate my Torque better to work with the C-max, it's very much a work in progress, the hybrid battery level readout doesn't even work yet... suspect C-max specs are different than prius, maybe that's all the torque can understand at this point? More news and data as I get it! I think I should be able to get line graph readouts from Torque of "burn" levels and acceleration, enabling easier analysis of efforts to maximize MPG!

I've been testing the heck out of your 2000rpm lately, with very encouraging results, on the order of 50-60mpg regularly. Thanks!

More data; I'll be having the bottom airshield reinstalled on my C-max thursday, it seems to have shaved some efficiency off the top end- 65-73mph now yields no more than 40mpg. I would see some spikes to 45, even 47mpg, but not the 50-60 that I got before. Wanted to alert everyone asap not to repeat my experiment, or at least have the dealership retain their airshield for possible reinstallation... sorry for any inconvenience! The vibration I was also trying to eliminate is still present, thought to a lesser extent, so it makes sense to have the better mpg and seek another solution for that, maybe have some thicker steel welded to the bottom of the drivers floorboard....

A rocket scientist or a science fiction reader- "burn" is slang commonly used for seconds of rocket thrust expended to change direction and/or velocity...

Hey John, great post- I tested your 2000rpms method some today with encouraging results- it's interesting because I've used "Torque", an android app, and a bluetooth OBD sensor to determine that the optimum speed/gearing is between 70-73mph, which results in 40-60mpg on level ground (minimal engine load=instant mpg volatility), and even remains the most efficient when going uphill- Torque has an instant MPG readout accurate to a tenth of a gallon (well, I'm assuming it's accurate anyways, and you know what happens when you do that) and 70-73mph=20-23mpg whereas slower speeds=19mpg or less. Yes, I know that seems counterintuitive, but those are the numbers I get from Torque. Torque also has a Load readout so you can more accurately guage how much work those rpms are doing... and lots more- for a total investment of $15 I was surprised to find that 65mph was more efficient than 55, and in general, had been finding that faster was better than slower for FE, butt still was failing to reap really high FE #s, so am quite excited to find almost 20mpg during accelleration whereas before I was following the quick accelleration to speed then cruising at much higher FE. So far, this seems to be more efficient.

Darn, I thought this was going to relate to the vibration I feel through the floorboard under my feet at all speeds- I think just due to the c-max's lightweight construction and my exceptional touch sensitivity. I've actually had them remove the bottom air shield in an attempt to eliminate the vibration, but it persists, though at a less annoying level. MPG seems unaffected or even slightly improved by the removal, so I've left it off. Seems counterintuitive, but google the mythbusters tests of truck MPG relating to tailgate up or down to get a full explanation of how the air bubble created by tailgate up and truck bed area causes airflow to slide over the open truck bed area much as I'm sure the bottom of my car does.

I didn't take it that way, one of the crucial values of this forum is to ask pertinent questions others might not have thought of in our search for knowledge and truth. I think I'll stick with Macgyver, just wanted to point out I realize how crazy some of the stuff I'm saying sounds and wouldn't say it without a reason... I'm pretty good at keeping my ego out of our discussions, I'm still not perfect but I'd say I'm about the last person you need to worry about hurting their feelings by saying I might be wrong about my approach to hypermiling- I've honestly approached the question and tried to keep my ego out of it even while I'm happy to be on the cutting edge of discovering the C-max's performance envelope. On the question of premium vs. regular gas, I'm on the side of regular, though I keep an open mind, the atkinson engine might work differently, though it would take some doing to convince me that a basically incorrect (premium) fuel mixture would perform better than regular, given that it would be starved for oxygen to efficiently combust. And as far as my contention that 70-73mph is the most efficient gearing, I'd abandon it in a heartbeat if it were shown to be wrong. I've already revised it from my original observation of 75mph once I realized that in Torque, I have readouts for both GPS and OBD speeds, and they mostly agree with each other, (about 0.1 to 0.5mph variance) while hovering about 2-3mph slower than the cars speedo. Or the car might be right and those are wrong. And the Torque instant MPG reading might be completely wrong, or off 5-10% or whatever. So when I mention my wife destroying the average, that's not equivocating or making excuses, it's data, that tells the reader just how to weight the report that MPG seems to be unaffected and possibly improved by removal of the air shield. So have no apprehension about "disagreeing" with me, I don't see it that way, to me, it's a lively discussion and what I came here for. Plus the fact that you're getting better average MPG than mine- (mine hovers around 40-41 high of 43 recently, yours is what, 46 or more? Plus, my route is always changing, and sometimes I drive like a maniac too, sometimes you have to in L.A. since no one will let you change lanes if you put your blinker on) hard to argue with numbers, you're doing something right... we're all just trying to work together to figure out how to get the best MPG we can!

I know, I'm considering changing my forum handle to "Captain Counterintuitive"- all I can say is that's what Torque is telling me as far as instant MPG, just like how 65mph is more efficient than 55, 70-73mph is the highest gearing (miles per piston bang) and thus the most efficient speed. I'll try "2 bar accel" vs. 70-73mph to see which is more efficient, but I can't help thinking that load is not going to be as important as the final gearing and work accomplished (distance traveled) in relation to how much gas spent, This convo has given me an idea; I'm going to activate a "fuel used" or "gas flow rate" on Torque to see what gas consumption is at 50% load, 75% etc, vs RPMs, speed, etc. How steep is sherwin grade? Never mind, googled it; Old Sherwin climbs about 3,500' and has a few somewhat steep sections (up to 10%). another result says 6%, which I would say is a bit more than uphill to tujunga. Any grade like that is at least gonna cut MPG in half, for me, I just try to figure out what the most efficient speed is to miniimize that grade's impact on average MPG. In other counterintuitive news, I finally had the air shield on the bottom of the car removed before a trip to vegas, (because it was partially causing an annoying vibration in the floorboard under my feet, which is still present though to a lesser degree due to the lightweight construction of the C-max I guess) and MPG seems to be the same or slightly improved. See the mythbusters testing of "tailgate up or down for maximum MPG" for a more detailed explanation of why, but quickly; the air pocket/bubble created by the bottom of the car is as or more slippery than the air shield. needs more testing, (wife drove part of the way, ruining mpg by driving like a maniac as if every second of vegas time were precious or maybe they're going to close vegas or something, so vegas trip average is not to be trusted as accurate,) but I've seen my average increase, and have not noticed a drop in MPG, though I have noticed less vibration.

Naw, I have to agree with you on that, I've added lots of stuff to mine, but have tried to keep a somewhat uniform modern aesthetic... that thing looks like it's from 1968- or one could like it as looking "industrial" and thus strong. For me, "Torque" iphone and android app is muuuch prettier, flexible, tons of data measured, and a $9 bluetooth OBD wins hands down. link; http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0090ZJPMK/ref=oh_details_o07_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 V1.5 Super Mini ELM327 Bluetooth OBD2 OBD-II CAN-BUS Diagnostic Scanner Toolby OEM 84 customer reviews| 8 answered questions Price: $9.73

I don't even know the # or whatever, but it has definitely improved the smoothness of braking- just before they fixed mine, it would LURCH badly when braking on a downhill or when braking and turning off the cruise control, as if the brake pedal had to travel so far to activate the switch that cut off the cruise control that you would simultaneously be braking while the engine was still trying to pull the car forward, then a bit more pedal travel would cut cruise and thus engine power, resulting in a LURCH.