Smiling Jack

Good points. To this I would add that as a result of the cut in MPG numbers for the Hybrid and with no change in the numbers for the Energi, some buyers would calculate the "payback" of the extra cost a little bit more in the direction to favor the Energi.

Thanks to +3 for the added info ! Conversely, I suppose that this means that if the Hybrid data are removed, then the Energi sales look just fine - in spite of the other bad PR associated with items that that presumably cuts across the two models: 12-volt battery, flaky my-Ford touch, sync troubles, etc.

EPA ratings did not change for the C-Max Energi. Did the C-Max Energi sales not fall off ?

Could it be the CR effect?

With a lower max pressure, other things being equal, one would guess that the newer tire would have GREATER rolling resistance.

Probably not any other vehicle on tires. Possibly something on rails - a hybrid on rails ? But then Deisel-electric locomitives are, in fact, Hybrid Vehicles by our present-day definition, anen't they ?

I infer that the 0W20 should be good for all climates and seasons.

Presumably yes. The was the stated reason why Ford made the change. Others have posted opinion of mpg improvement. I believe that I experienced better in my Camry Hybrid, but have not tried it in the C-Max yet.

I always presumed that we would eventually get the ok from Ford to use the 0W20 full synthetic in our 2013 C-MAX(s), and now it seems that we have it. I had feared that it would take a year or so. I am pleasantly surprised that the green light came this quickly. I am still disappointed that we had to endure all of the mis-infomation about possible engine design changes, etc. and the bad advice that we should not use the 0W20. Big thanks to ceemax71 for posting this !!!!!

So, when it comes: CarPlay diem ! (I couldn't resist.)

I have a comment of strong opinion on the value of "real world" vs. lab testing that applies much more broadly than to this particular thread. First let me try to establish a bit of credibility. I am an engineer with a professional license and an earned doctorate. I have about 50 years of experience including a good deal of laboratory and field (real-world) testing of products in industries from aerospace to offshore structures. I was on the flight test evaluation team for early Apollo missions, and I conducted laboratory reliability tests on components of those vehicles. The results of my analyses of both field and laboratory testing are cited in international standards. Observation: A strength of laboratory testing is that it can be done under controlled conditions (notably including extreme conditions that are unlikely to be seen in field testing within practical time limits). A strength of field testing is that it can be done at actually occurring "real-world" conditions (notably often including actually occurring conditions that may not have otherwise been forseen in a program of lab testing only). Opinion: Both laboratory testing and "real-world" field testing are indispensible to good product development. Lab testing can best determine the cause and remediation of problems. Field testing can best determine both what the important problems are and whether the remedies are effective.

But, in the case of a simple puncture, I would first try using the pump only (without the goo) and see if that would get me to a location where I could get the leak fixed. If the tire would not hold air long enough for that solution, I could still, then, try the goo.

My vote is with your girlfriend. for an HV battery engineer not to drive a plug-in would be like the proverbial shoemaker whose children went barefoot. And: if you wanted a car tht approached the roominess and utility functionality of the Forester and approached the range and fuel economy of the volt, the C-Max Energi was not only the best choice; it was really the ONLY choice. Happy motoring !

Interesting move ! I have long maintained that the C-Max is essentially a hybrid version of the 2013 Escape. Others disagreed. I would be extremely interested to read your personal comparison review of the C-Max and the 2013 Escape (mpg and recall issues aside).

Paul, I believe, is correct. I have not had this problem in the C-max, but I did have it several times in my Camry Hybrid. The Ford system is very, very, similar to the tToyota system (cross licensing). In my Toyota experience, it did, in fact, come down to how low the 12-v battery was. If it was just a bit down, hardly any amp-hours were required. I just connected an auxiliary battery, and the car turned on immediately. Others posted that a laptop computer's battery was enough. I keep a very small re-chargable 12 v battery in the car just for such use. But if the "12-v" battery has been totally drained, you would need to supply enough cherge to bring it up to near 12 volts before the relays will be energized. In the worst case I'm guessing that you might need to supply a charge equal to a goodly portion of the rating of the car's 12-v battery.

Foto, Many thanks for posting this, and for taking the trouble to do the temporary light-up to show the full effect. This is one of the very best looking cosmetic C-max dress-ups i've seen, and absolutely the best "bang for the buck" ! - or should I say "bling for the buck" ? Please do post as to how the relay lighting goes. Jack

Thanks, Paul.

Was the roof rack in question here a ford product ? If it were not for your pano roof, woult this rack have been specifically recommended for the C-max?

Today I parked the C-max next to a (2013) Ford Escape. I was reminded how nearly identical these cars are. Then I noticed th roof rails on the Escape. It sure looks to me like these would mount on the C-max exactly as ehey do on the Escape. Has anyone investigated or even tried this?

Please do post as to whether using both heaters gives a better result.

My 2013 C-max energi has this problem. I've had the car for nearly a year, but I noticed the problem only over the last few weeks. In my car. the problem occurs not only while playing radio, but also while playing music from either USB or audio input or from Pandora via either Bluetooth or audio input.

OK, I've been lurking on this thread for a while now and I've finally decided to add a few bits to the discussion. I grew up in Philadelphia. Living there, I had heard of electric block heaters, but even though we usually had a fair amount of sub-freezing weather every winter, no one I actually knew had a block heater. I live in Houston now. Hardly anyone here (and no one at my auto dealers' parts counters) even knows what a block heater is. I had my first real encounters with block heaters when I spent most of my winters for 5 years working north of the Arctic circle in Alaska and Canada. There using block heaters was a way of life and, in a sense, a suvfival mechanism. Thinking about the benefits of easier starting and quicker cabin heat, I came to wonder why they weren't much more widely used in even moderately cold climates. In addition, many of those those who used block heaters were convinced there were also big benefits to be had in engine life and in fuel economy. If that were true, I wondered why the things weren't more widely used everywhere. Prior to my C-max, I had a Camry Hybrid. Now I normally make a lot of short trips from a cold start; so I soon began to see what a lot of C-maxers have posetd here: Short trips from a cold start are disastrous for fuel economy. This is true with any car because a cold engine uses a lot more fuel than than one that is fully warmed up. It's not merely the energy needed to warm the engine up. It is also because a cold engine runs a a much richer fuel-to-air mixture. The richer mixture is necessary because gasoline condenses out on the cold cylinder walls and exits the combustion chamber unburned. Yes, it is completely wasted. Even worse; the gasoline that condenses out on the cylinder walls washes off the lubricating oil. Still worse: the unburned gasoline winds up in the crankcase where it contaminates the oil and ultimately causes addditional wear on bearings and other parts. This is why cold starts are blamed for most engine wear. As if all of this were not bad enough, for a lot of Hybrids (definitely including the Camry Hybrid, Prius and Escape Hybrid - and from what I read here, probably the C-max Hybrid as well) it gets even worse: Various controls on the hybrid systems prevent full hybrid operation until the ICE is fully warmed up, further reducing big fuel efficiency opportunities. All of this in mind, I put a block heater on my Camry Hybrid and used it over several years. Now by this point you will be suspecting that I am quite opinionated about electric block heaters, and I am, but so far this post has been factual, and I'm going to keep it that way, reserving my opinions - possibly for later posts. My electric block heater for the Camry Hybrid cost me about $40.00. Self installation did not require raising the car, and it went fairly quickly - less than an hour as I recall. My electric block heater drew 400 watts or less, according to both the specs and my Kill-a-Watt meter. Effectively warming up the engine took about 30 minutes on the average, a bit more in the winter and a bit more in the summer. An extra hour plugged in would raise the temperature gauge a little more, but did not seem to bring any real benefit. At the time I paid an average of about $0.10 per kilowatt-hour for the electricity. My short trip mpg for trips of 2 to 4 miles went from typically typically under 20 without the block heater to typically over 30 with. (At the time I was getting over 40 mpg on long trips.) I normally used the block heater only at home, usually on a timer to turn it on about a half an hour or so before my usual morning departure. I made a large number of comparisons of fuel consumption with and without the block heater assisted warmup, summer and winter, with same trip lengths and at comparable ambient temperatures. Even on extremely short cold start trips I used a minimum of 0.03 gallons less with the block heater than without and about twice that much on somewahat longer trips. At the time I paid between $3.00 and $4.00 a gallon for the gasoline. I figured that with regular use of the block heater only once a day, my fuel savings, accounting for the cost of electricity, could retire the cost of the block heater in less than a year, and have the savings for free after that. In addition, I would have other benefits: reduced engine wear quicker cabin heat, plus better mpg bragging rights and a bit less personal contribution to our local air pollution problem. One remarkable thing that I had not expected was that the fuel savings were to be had even in the summer in Houston even when our morning ambient temperatures were in the 90's.

and let's make that "under the FRONT OF THE FRONT seat." Related question: How can we lock the tailgete so that it can NOT be opened with the foot sensor or with the fob or with the handle touch or with the driver's area button. ; e.g. so that the parking lot attendant can not access the storage area behind the rear seat. (Note: there is no lock on my glove compartment either)

I could easily refer to my (2013) CMax transmission as CVT (since it is definitely continuously variable ratio) or as eCVT with e for electric (since the ratio is definitely controllled by the electric motor) or as eCVT with e for electronic (since the moyor conyrolling the ratio is, in turn controlled electronically) or as a 2 speed transmission (referring to "L" and "D" which definitely result in different drive ratios) or as a 2-speed automatic, since it is definitely automatic. or as 2-speed CVT or 2-speed eCVT by combination of the above. As to what Ford chooses to call it, I would suggest that this is primarily a marketing decision, and in this connection i note that "CVT" has a bad reputation as a result of consumer dissatisfaction with the. belt drive units And while I'm at it, I can not resist: I could call my C-Max a hatchback, since it definitely has a hatch on the back, and since Ford describes it as a hatchback in some literature, or I could call it a wagon, since it resembles som vehicles called wagons, and since some of the reviewers have described it as a wagon (and, if I'm not mistaken, Ford may also in some places), or I could call it a small SUV or a compact crossover, since it is essentially the same vehicle as the 12013 Escape, which is uaually so described by Ford and others, and since it is very similar in overall form and (especially interior) size to a lot of other vehicles that are so described ( CRV, Rav4, Rogue, X1. Q5, SRX, RDX, QX50, XC60, Tucson, Sportage, Tiguan, etc.) In fact, I do not think that anyone would have batted an eye if Ford had called the C-Max a 2013 Escape hybrid, but I suppose that would have been tipping their hand since the C-max was introduced in 2012, and they had not yet introduced the reconfigured the Escape, waiting until 2013 to put it onto the "C" platform and style it like the competition (i.e. like the C-max) rather than as a minature Explorer. (Don't get me wrong; I liked the mini-explorer style. I originally would have preferred my C-max styled that way. I'm getting used to the newer style, however.)

In my experience, a change in applicable specifications or in toloerances would always require an engineering change order and a change in drawing number or drawing revision number.