BIG ROCCO

Used Hill Assist on long steep downslopes in the AZ White Mountains over Thanksgiving weekend. If driving slowish, it seems to be only regen braking. If driving faster, or if the car begins to pick up speed, the engine is engaged, at rather alarmingly high RPMs - I think I saw 4,000 RPM +. The weird thing is I noticed that even if I disengaged the Hill Assit, the engine stayed engaged, albeit at slightly lower engine speed, like maybe 3,000 RPM. Switching to Neutral would disengage the engine, so it would be off, but shifting back into Drive would re-engage the engine at the same ~3,000 RPMs, without stepping on the gas or brakes. Believe it or not, the only way I could get the engine/trans back to normal was to step on the accelerator for a few seconds...that finally got the engine turned off. I need to experiment with this some more, the next time we drive up North (between XMas and New Years), and will report back what I find.

Or maybe the Grand C-Max could be a wagon, to complement the hatchback, like the Prius V does to the Prius hatchback

We have had our C-Max for only ~ 6 months 5,000 miles - no problems whatsoever, but big deal, it's a brand new car. I just recently had to take my 2012 Buick LaCrosse in for the first warranty repair, after 2 years and 30K miles. There was an issue with the trunk sometimes not opening, and opening by itself other times. They had to order parts and gave me a free loaner to use until it was ready. So, what I'm thinking is that the Buick needed 1 minor repair in 2 years, and maybe a Honda or Toyota would have needed none - that means the Buick has a much worse repair record - 100% worse...but it's still been a good car and reliable enough for me. To put it another way, I think that while some auto brands are more reliable than others, nowadays all cars are pretty darn reliable.

What I don't get is the wide range of results we all get with the same vehicle. For example, we went up to the AZ mountains over Thanksgiving, cold temps and a ~6,000 foot elevation change took their toll - 43.3 MPG displayed on the dash display when we got home (a little less than we get around town, but fully acceptable to me). Someone else would probably get over 50 MPG, and I'm sure some of us would get in the 30s. That puzzles me...

LOL - posts like this always make me smile. I spent my first 45 years in the Boston area, with snow, salt, sand, and resulting corrosion/body rot. Here in Phoenix, we have no snow - heck, it doesn't hardly ever even rain! Windshield wipers don't wear out, they fail due to dry rot. The undercarriage stays virtually pristine - even after many years, it accumulates merely a thin coating of dirt and dust that you can wipe off with a damp rag. We do have some occasional snow in the upper elevations like Flagstaff and Kingman, and Payson and Show Low, but I don't think they use salt on the roads - at least not that I have ever seen.

Yes - that is fine - the subject line is First Long Trip. The messages I wanted to convey were: 1. The car is very capable and comfortable for a 5 hour trip 2. The MPG for the trip and under what conditions 3. The calculated MPG was less than the dash display. Also, wondered if that is typical and if so, which is correct. I think the answer to #3 is that it is not uncommon and I think the implication is that the calculated # is closer to the truth than the dash display. I'm going to calculate the next few tankfuls and will report back on the outcome vs. dash display.

I agree with the above - maybe a less restrictive filter will yield a little more power...maybe...but along with that power will come more fuel burned.

It's kind of strange - i want to put more miles on the C-Max, but that means more highway miles, and that means my lifetime average will go down

Thanks for the replies. It actually never occurred to me that the dash readout would lie. I always thought that would be more accurate than calculating, due to differences in how "full" the tank is when filled. I will check the next few CM tanks and report what I find for trip computer/dash readout vs. calculated. I'm going to do the same for my Lacrosse. Let's see if this is a Ford thing, or a GM thing also.

Went from Phoenix to Las Vegas and back this past weekend - about 600 miles round trip. Dash readout was 43.6 MPG...calculated (miles driven/gallons used) was 41.5 MPG. AC was off for 80% of the miles. 65-70 MPH mostly. Car total mileage started out at ~2,700 miles - ended up at ~3,300 miles. No hypermiling - no pulse, no glide, just drove it. Lots of fairly flat terrain, but also some long (2 to 5 miles), steep, up and down grades. Used cruise control on the flats - set to ~69 MPH. Used the gas pedal on the steep hills, so picked up some speed on the downslopes and gave up some speed on the upslopes. So, why the difference between dash readout and calculated MPG? I never calculated it on the C-Max before, but friend with a C-Max told me the dash readout is always better than what he calculates. Is the dash readout a lie? Are the gas pumps wrong? When I last did this trip in my 2012 LaCrosse with e-Assist, the dash readout and calculated MPG were about the same (34 MPG). BTW, I felt very comfortable during the 5 hour trip in each direction, and would not hesitate to take the CM on even a longer trip. My wife, on the other hand, wants to take the Buick next time - she said it's more luxurious and comfortable...so I guess you know which car we're taking next time. That's OK - I mostly wanted to drive the CM just to put the miles on it, since it's really the wife's car and she obviously doesn't really drive much. I figure the savings in gas C-Max vs. LaCrosse was about 4 gallons = ~$12.00

I don't know if this helps, but in 1986, I bought a new 1986 Merkur xr4ti. After 2 years of leaking (5 speed manual) transmission problems, even after they airfreighted in a new trans from Germany, (which leaked from a different place!) I went and spoke to the owner. I told him I loved the car otherwise, so he suggested FoMoCo buy it back, which they did, I paid for the miles used, and I get a new 1988 model. I don't remember the exact miles on the car or cents per mile, but I seem to remember I paid $5,200 and got a better equipped model, with leather, power windows, and better stereo...something like that. The 1988 probably listed for ~$20K in those days. That car was flawless until I traded it in in 1990 on a Sable, since my NE US sales territory was expanded to include Upstate NY and I needed something that would actually be drivable in the snow. Even with 4 snow tires, the xr4ti was useless in more than 3-4 inches of snow. My dealer was very receptive to pleasing me and went to bat with FoMoCo on my behalf, and Ford never fought it - they wanted me to be happy, too. The car always ran well - never broke down or anything...it just dripped tranny fluid which left spots on the driveway and/or blew back on the exhaust and made a smell. I never made any threats; there was never any hint of an adversarial relationship from anyone; I think Ford stood behind their car and it paid off for them: In addition to the 1986, I have owned the '88 Merkur, '00 Sable, '92 Topaz, '05 Lincoln LS, and now the '13 C-Max...(plus several GM cars) all good, trouble free cars...so far. (The LS was the best - a few repairs done under warranty, but not even one repair I ever paid for in 8 years. Had the original brakes at 78K miles when traded in on the C-Max, and I didn't exactly drive it conservatively!) Anyway, that's what happened to me in the 80s - maybe things are different now.

Yeah - for 19 years my GM cars have always shown oil life remaining as a percentage, and someone wrote in earlier that the percentage remaining is available with a FoMoCo scanner, but it just isn't visible to owners without the high end dealer scanner. With all the other info available to us on various dash readouts and screens, it just doesn't make sense to me to hide this info...I can't figure it out.

I have tried to "improve" on certain things in my cars over the years and sometimes ended up worse than where I started and wished I had just left it alone. I give you a lot of credit for perserverance, and I'm very happy for you that it paid off with the desired result. Congratulations!

Yeah - it's funny how some cars eat tires. I had a 2005 Lincoln LS V-6 that I drove pretty conservatively and lots on the highway, and tried 4 different tires, the OE Contis and 3 different Michelins, and none lasted more than ~25K miles. My daily driver is a 2012 LaCrosse with ~ 28K miles, and I don't think they're 1/2 worn yet...same driving conditions as the Lincoln. Another thing I found interesting is that when I had Eldorados in the 90s, the first 2 I had came with S rated tires - they only lasted about 25K miles. My '97 Eldo came with H rated tires - those and the replacements always lasted about 40K. I think it goes to what you wrote - basically that the tires need to be a good match to the car and the way it's used.

Seems reasonable enough

I was using DHA, but noticed that it often triggers the ICE on, so wouldn't that reduce regeneration and FE?

I used to drive really fast in my younger days, but now I try to keep my speed, on any car I drive, between 65 and 70 MPH on the highway, in zones from 60 MPH speed limit to 75 MPH speed limit. easier on the car, easier for me, less tickets.

Very cool -thanks for sharing. I wonder why, with all the other technical sophistication of this car, Ford chose not to have that countdown (% remaining) display, like all GM cars have since the mid 90s

thanks for the update

Like some others have said: 1. I have always been skeptical of EPA MPG ratings and never really expected to achieve 47 MPG in this car. Anything 40 MPG or more would have been totally acceptable for a car that I think is comfortable and drives well. 2. I have been pleasantly surprised that we have been getting 45+ MPG, in a mixture of highway and city miles, with total mileage under 2K miles so far. 3. The $550 check is a bonus, and a nice gesture from Ford

I agree that "Living in Canada isn't code for living at the North Pole!", but it's funny that you chose "Ice Storm" for a color ! :lol:

I don't know if this applies to the C-Max, but... That cloud of smoke was not unusual to see on WOT maneuvers on a couple of Northstar powered Cadillacs I have owned. I learned it was not carbon deposits or oil from bad rings or valve seals. The smoke was from blow-by vapors that, over a period of weeks or months of conservative driving, had condensed and puddled in the bottom of the intake manifold plenum. Opening the throttle would send a blast of air into the intake manifold and blow all that stuff into the intake runners/cylinder head runners/cylinders where they were burned...hence, the smoke. Usually, one WOT application for 4-5 seconds would clear the intake manifold - sometimes a second one was necessary - but after that, no smoke would be visible for the near future; in fact, if you drove the car "hard" all the time, you would never see any smoke.

Same here - the improvement is amazing! Previously, it used unlatch most of the time, but not open, or begin to open and then close...and forget about trying to close the harch with a kick - I used to just hit the button on the hatch door. Now it's perfect, in every way. What I don't understand is how/why they released the original version, when, at least in my experience, it clearly did not ever work as intended. I can understand the FE recall/update, where Ford learned some things and did some fine tuning to the programming, but to release the cars with a clearly defective (essentially inoperative?) feature seems like a bad move to me.

White Platinum SEL in Phoenix, AZ