Search the Community

Our C-Max was to be ordered today after we "signed up" at the dealer last night. Their allocation slot was ready for ordering so maybe it will be sooner than 6-8 weeks. Can't wait! It will be our first hybrid. My wife and I make 500-650 mile trips and are ready for better mileage than the RX300 and more comfort than the Fit. We are a four driver household at present and when the oldest car came up "not worth fixing" I started a rather extensive look at non-sedan options with great fuel economy and good space and comfort. Needless to say, the C-Max won out - and in the end, rather easily. I would really like to have an Energi - maybe later when they figure out how to get back the lost space. For now will be quite busy with all the info screens and trying to get the best fuel economy. Its in my blood since my dad was always trying to get the best mileage he could. Back in the '60s he was glad to get in the low 20s for mpg! Now its double that. Wow! We ordered the SE with winter package and panoramic roof (actually like the fact that it doesn't open). Debated some on color, considered Ice Storm quite a bit and also Sterling Gray. Medium Light Stone interior. So, please build it soon and build it well!

Post Your Life Time MPG's, Total Miles, EV miles, Regen miles and Brake Score. Should be able to graph info and come up with some useful information. Here are my two Data points: Brake = Brake Score EV = EV miles Regen = Regen miles Total = Total miles PT Jones LT MPG 50.6, Brake: 97%, EV: 125,817 Regen: 10750 Total: 236,458 EV%: 53.0% , City%: 22 Used CMAX LT MPG 37.3, Brake: 92%, EV: 2504.7 Regen: 335. Total: 6,782.2, EV%: 37.0%, City%: ?? DaveofDurham LT MPG 43.2, Brake: 92%, EV: 12,950, Regen: 2,356 Total: 30,952 EV% 41.8% Plus 3 Golfer LT MPG 41.2, 92%, 9,389.6 828.5 19,264 48.7% Marc Smith LT MPG 44.8, Brake: 95% EV: 11,652 Regen: 1534 Total: 24,000 EV% 48.5% City 46% homestead LT MPG 45. EV 5,664 582 54,250 EV% 53.5% kostby LT MPG 40.8 98% 752.2 87.1 1816.9 41.4% City 43% C-MaxSea LT MPG 48.2 Brake: 98% EV: 4516 Regen: 491 13,000 EV% 55.7% City 30% TheXym LT MPG 40.8 93% 11,255.1 Regen: 1,518.1 Total: 22,165 50.8% marshtex2 LT MPG 45.2 94% EV: 6574 595 12,452 EV% 52.8% HannahWCU LT MPG 47 97% 19,506.7 1,831.3 43,339.1 EV% 45% City 29% MichaelM LT MPG 41.4 95% 15,483.5 1,018.9 47,512.9 32.6% cgul LT MPG 48.9 95% 1,5014.4 1,130.2 24,828.2 EV% 60.4% mtcmax LT MPG 37.6 95% 2,620.5 Regen: 191.6 7,351 EV% 35% Jus-A-Cmax LT MPG 51.7 96% 25,540.9 2847 49,700 56% City 64% wnuk LT MPG 49.5 97% EV: 5850 855.5 9819.7 EV% 59.6% SnowStrom LT MPG 48.5 95% 50398.5 1243 120269.5 41.9% HPRifleman LT MPG 46.4 BKS 99% EV: 13,591 Regen: 580 Total: 33,440 EV% 40.6% fbov LT mpg 40.7 96% 16,065.2 512.2 38398.8 41.8% Tom LT mpg 40.8 BKS 96% EV 8,852 Regen: 4736 16,997 52% Recumpence LT MPG 50.2 96% EV 58592 6700.6 96499.8 61% City 80% Scotwood LT MPG 48.3 30,121.6 mi. 78Pinto LT MPG 42.4 Total: 49,000mi. City 20% Tom LT MPG 40.7 BKS 97% EV 16507 Regen: 1923 29089 mi. EV%56 I will add new Post # when Posted on thread :) Paul

Here is an excellent writeup by Hybridbear, member here and he's a Moderator at the Fordfusionhybridforum.com, a "sister" site to here. What's it all about? Our C-Maxs and the Ford Fusion hybrid share the same hybrid platform. There is no difference. As such, both platforms have to "warm up" the internal combustion engines (ICE) as we start driving the FFH or our CMaxs in the cold morning. It is here that A LOT of gas may be burnt to warm the ICE. Hybridbear's thread basically list out the stages of the warmup process and walks you through it, including notes on the temperatures which allow the next stage to be initiated. Initially he had posted the link on another thread here as part of a different discussion. However, I felt it belonged better here with the Tips & Tricks section, especially now with the colder weather and our MPGs are taking a pounding due to the warmup cycle. Click on the link to view the post. If you want to respond to the post, you'll have to sign up to be a member there. Fordfusionhybridforum.com FFH Warm-up Stages Thanks to Hybridbear for a STELLAR writeup and update. PS We won't hold it against you for not driving a CMax although you do have an Energi so you're fam then... ;)

Hi all, I've had my C-Max for about a month now and was loving the MPG - I was typically getting around 42 on most trips. Shorter trips I could commonly pull off 50+. I tried plugging in an Alexa auto to the central console 12v port and found that I was getting significantly less efficient MPG. I unplugged Alexa after a day because I did not think it was worth the sacrifice, but I am still getting lower MPG. I haven't been able to top 40. Since that day, it just seems as though the car is more hesitant to kick into EV as I drive. Am I crazy? Has anyone else experienced issues from having an accessory that is plugged in all the time? Did I do something weird and how can I fix it? Thanks!

Here are the the facts from all the testing been doing. 1. FORD said in Hotline Assistance Request that The Approx. engine Operating Temp should be 202-212deg.F 2. The best MPG temp range is 202-230deg.F 3. Starting with cold ICE and outside temp from 37-70deg.F driving hwy loop of 14.1mi you gain average of 4.MPG with Grill Covers on vs off. 4. 3-4MPG gain city driving. The Grill Covers heat up ICE quicker and keep it warmer than without Grill Covers. There is about a 30-40deg.F WT difference with Grill Covers on and off. Even at 70deg.F outside temp I could only get to 200deg.F occasionally and most of the time 180-190deg.F. range. 5. The Grill Covers really helps short trips 3-10mi because of short heat up time for ICE. Adding oil pan heater improves MPG's another 2mpg. 6. Because shutters open when the CMAX is stopped Grill Covers keep ICE warmer longer than without. As more people get experience with Grill Covers we will add more Post.

"The Enterprise" needs wheel alignment (inside edge wear). Does anyone have the alignment specifications - preferred values and allowed ranges for each parameter both front and rear? What values would give the lowest rolling resistance? Have read that the allowed ranges are not just a "tolerance" but there to allow adjustment for preferred handling characteristics. Would like to have the details before going to the shop. (One F150 owner noted 2 mpg increase after alignment and an Escape owner claimed 4 mpg! Extrapolating to the C-Max should give, maybe, 6 mpg! )

Just came across a June 1961 Science and Mechanics magazine (35 cents!) with an article "How Economical IS the Rambler American?" It had the 196 cu. in. flat head 6 with 3 speed manual (didn't have the overdrive option). The fine print test data filled an entire page! Some highlights: General road and weather: "Portland concrete, generally smooth and level", dry, 25 to 45FRegular gas, SAE 20 oil, 2560 curb weight, 24 psi in tires, spark at 4* BTC @ 500 rpm!"True MPG" at 40F, 75% humidity, 29.4 in Hg, 500 pounds "carried weight": 30.7 (20mph), 32.1 (30mph), 28.8 (40mph), 25.4 (50mph), 21.8 (60mph), 17.8 (70mph) They also give "True Ton MPG" figures which are 1.53 times the above ones! Rather bizarre! The ratio obviously comes from the cars total weight (2560+500) divided by 1 ton. Seems quite worthless to me, especially for steady state driving!"Traffic Fuel Consumption" of 17.8 MPG @ average speed of 21.8 MPH"City-County Fuel Consumption" of 24.4 MPG @ average speed of 32.7 MPHOverall mileage was 18.3 MPG and oil consumption was 4000 MPQ! (That compare to our C-Max at 47+ MPG and maybe 100,000 MPQ!)Acceleration was 17.3 sec 0-60 and 20.8 sec 20-60 in 3rd gear! (I think I'll take the C-Max!)Quarter Mile: 65.0 mph, 20.9 sec.Best acceleration 0-60 with driver alone, premium fuel and best spark setting was 15.1 sec! (Sorry Paul, but they were doing this kind of thing 57 years ago!)At 65 mph speedometer read 70 mph! (Holds down on speeding tickets!)Then a bunch of stuff about Lateral Sway, Cornering, Brake Fade, Longitudinal Dip and Parking Brake tests."Chassis Dynamometer Horsepower": 49 HP @ 65.6 mph, 2900 rpmA bunch of other wild stuff like "Average piston speed" and "Power performance factor".Other specifications: 90 HP @ 3800 rpm, 160 ft-lbs @ 1600 rpmCompression 8.0 to 1Minimum road clearance: 7.5" at differential (Isn't that SUV class?)Highest curb doors will clear: 12.9"Highest curb bumper will clear: 9.8" (What's the C-Max? 4 inches?)20 gal gas tank (You'll have to hold it to about 35 mph to get that 600 mile tank!)17.5 cu ft luggage spaceOther standard dimensions and things I've never seen before like windshield and rear window area and "Driver's eye-to-road distance"!Comments from the review: At $1845 (2 door) it was the "lowest of any U.S.-made sedan." (With inflation, this would (supposedly) be $15,550 today.)"King-size wing vent windows"Almost an entire paragraph praising the ashtray! "The ashtray in the American is a masterpiece,""Almost complete absence of gear noise"Limited back seat hiproom; "Makes two in back company, but three a crowd."The engine "has an 8.0:1 compression ratio that should tolerate Regular gasoline most anywhere in this country"Now SnowStorm's first car was a 1964 Rambler American with that same lousy "flat-head" 6 (but I had Overdrive!). Before overhaul, there was so much blow-by that under heavy load the smoke from the oil filler tube would drift up the steering column and come out around the steering wheel! Now you know why I say the C-Max is the best car I've ever had! :lol: So, the "good ol' days" weren't all that good after all.

I have been Posting on CleanMPG.com Link: http://www.cleanmpg.com/community/index.php?threads/46762/ Complaining about a road test comparison done 4 yrs ago (old News I know), but I figured how they could have made the CMAX MPG's look bad by running the ICE all the time. The results were CMAX 35.5 mpg, Prius V 40.7 mpg and Prius 43.3 mpg on HWY trip from Carlsbad, CA to Pheonix, AZ. The thing that got my attn. was the CMAX display showed 359.7 mi. and only 24.1 mi. EV. That is 14% of the time and practically impossible to do. You would have to have a very strong head wind to have the ICE running all the time, and going down hill too. Also they didn't mention the gas mileage coming back. :headscratch: Wayne the Owner of CleanMPG.com suggested I do my own test so I was wondering if anyone would be interested in getting involved in this test.? I will add more to this as I have more time. :) BTW MPGomatic got these results with 14 day road test also 4 years ago.http://www.mpgomatic.com/2012/12/13/2013-ford-c-max-hybrid-gas-mileage-testing-notes/ Paul

I'm wondering why Fuelly.com shows the C-Max averaging about 41 MPG while Fusion Hybrids get 40 MPG average. (That is over many, many owners and thousands of miles of statistical validity. Measurement errors and driving styles/cycles average out over that many.) The EPA combined MPG estimates for the C-max is 40 MPG, and the Fusion gets 42 MPG, about the opposite of what is happening out there. I just include 2015,16, & 17 model years of each since they likely have the same powertrain control optimization algorithms. The Fusion should be doing better since it has an aerodynamic advantage which should translate into about a 5% MPG advantage, or about 2 MPG. The Fusion Hybrid is slipperier with a CD=.27 vs. our C-Max's 0.30, which is due to C-Max's boxier shape. For total drag, which is CDxFrontalAreaxDynamicPressure, the Area is important, and the C-Max has 8% more frontal area. Why isn't the Fusion getting better Fuelly.com averages? EPA says it should. Aerodynamics say it should. Anybody know what's going on here? As many here know, our C-Max has the same powertrain as the Fusion Hybrid. Also, the weight of the two are about the same (within 25 lbs of each other!). Wheels and tires are the same size, unless a Fusion owner has the optional slightly wider tires, still not much difference there though. I assume most Fusion Hybrid owners have the same size tires as C-Max drivers have, 225/50-17. 5 years ago, the C-Max had some controversy and had to downgrade its EPA MPG estimates because Ford had used Fusion's CD to compute road loads on the MPG test procedure, which is obviously wrong since the CD's are different by 10% and frontal area by another 8%. Even more strange is that I consistently get 44 MPG, checked by fuel tank fillups and also the dashboard display (both agree). I guess I do more stop and go driving than average C-Max drivers, which would raise mine over the Fuelly.com average of 41 MPG, yet I think my driving profile actually has a lot of highway-style stuff in there, and I am not easy on the gas pedal either.

Just did a trip to Cape Cod and back (560 miles one way). Filled up in Mystic, CT to the end of Cape Cod (Provincetown) and driving all around the cape for 5 days and headed back. Filled up at the bottom of the cape and was 44.5mpg leaving the cape (Said 607 miles to empty) , didn't quite get that on that tank. it's nice and flat on the Cape and small rolling hills it does well on EV. most of the time it was 40-50MPG for the short trips here and there around the Cape. very happy. However, only got 38.6 mpg just before getting home and filling up, more hills had about 400# extra weight in the car. 0W20 Oil 46 PSI in tires Grille covers bottom and middle on the whole time. (231 Water temp was highest, but i believe louvers open and it drops to 221 approx, highest tranny temp was 173.) outside temps about 50-60F

I'm working on a YouTube video how to drive a CMAX the way Engineers designed it to be driven to get great MPG's. :) It would be interesting to see if I could help a member to improve their MPG's using my tips. PM me if anyone is interested. I hope to have video ready soon. :) I'm currently averaging between 52-55mpg on the FWY. Paul

Now that I got your attention :) it would appear from Fuelly.com CMAX Average MPG results that alot of CMAX drivers aren't driving their CMAX's the way they were designed to be driven by breaking the 2 Bar Acceleration Rule. :drop: To get the best gas mileage you need to Drive using the Empower Display 2 Bar Power Acceleration Rule where the ICE runs the most efficiently and charges the HVB the fastest. When driving you can use a mild Pulse and Glide strategy by accelerating at 2 BARS to around 5 mph over the speed you want to cruise at then let off of the accelerator for a second to allow EV to engage then back on to maintain speed until HVB SOC gets low enough for ICE to start then accelerate at 2 bars to 5mph over and repeat. :) This is worth atleast 2 MPG's and probably more. :yahoo: BTW covering up the grills is worth another 2-4 mpg. http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/970-cmax-grill-cover-testing-2-5-mpg-gain It would be nice if members would comment on their results. Happy CMAX Motoring :) Paul

My Hybrid turned into an Energi for a mile and a half, I haven't noticed this before in 140k miles. On Lighthouse quest last weekend stopping in Pompano Beach, FL, my HVB SOC was 67%, surprisingly high and when I got back to MADMAX the HVB SOC had gone up to 76% from cooling down for an hour. When I started out (WT was above 128*F) for our next Lighthouse in Jupiter the speed limit was 35 mph, then 45 mph, always the ICE starts at 35MPH for the initial start up to lubricate the trans. SOC was 62% at 35mph, I had 2.3 Bars and no ICE, accelerated to 45mph still no ICE after about 1.5 miles (about 50% SOC) I had to accelerate onto the HWY and the ICE finally started. I believe I could have gone 2.5 miles on EV if I stayed on 45 mph city roads. :) Still learning new things. :shift: Paul

It has been pretty quiet on the MPG Forum so I thought I would Post this to get some more interest in improving your MPG's, If you aren't in in a hurry, Sight Seeing works great you can get impressive FE. I use State Routes instead of Interstate Highways with speed limits 55-65 mph. When you do Post it on this Forum so others can see how you are doing. :) Started in Newnan, GA and drove to Savannah, GA then up the Coast to Georgetown, SC and then came back, I made it to Monticello, GA before filling up 915.4 miles/ 13.7 gal and 66.1 mpg. I figure I still had .3-.4 gallons(18-24 miles before I would have run out.). GPS actual mileage 931.8 mi./13.7 gal.= 68 mpg. :) I was hoping to do better, but I can't seem to get 70 mpg going 65 - 50MPH, at 50 -35 mph P&G I saw over 80 mpg a few times on segments of the trip. :shift: My wife isn't interested in doing any more trips like that, she said I can go by myself. LOL :sad: And it's been almost two years since my last Record. Paul

I have about reached the limit for AERO and Temperature Efficiency Improvements like Grill Covers and Wheel Covers for my CMAX. With temps in the 80's*F I can average 50-54mpg at 65-70mph with no A/C on the HWY. Not bad, but I'm still looking to improve more. I remembered someone had said the ICE is very inefficient so I looked it up and to my surprise it is only 25-30% at best. WOW :drop: So looking at GOV site and Wikipedia http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency From Wikipedia: "Modern gasoline engines have a maximum thermal efficiency of about 25% to 30% when used to power a car. In other words, even when the engine is operating at its point of maximum thermal efficiency, of the total heat energy released by the gasoline consumed, about 70-75% is rejected as heat without being turned into useful work, i.e. turning the crankshaft.[1] Approximately half of this rejected heat is carried away by the exhaust gases, and half passes through the cylinder walls or cylinder head into the engine cooling system, and is passed to the atmosphere via the cooling system radiator.[2] Some of the work generated is also lost as friction, noise, air turbulence, and work used to turn engine equipment and appliances such as water and oil pumps and the electrical generator, leaving only about 25-30% of the energy released by the fuel consumed available to move the vehicle. In the past 3–4 years, GDI (Gasoline Direct Injection) increased the efficiency of the engines equipped with this fueling system up to 35%. Currently, the technology is available in a wide variety of vehicles ranging from less expensive cars produced by Mazda, Ford and Chevrolet to more expensive cars produced by BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen Auto Group." As you can see about 30% of the energy is absorbed by the cooling system from piston, cylinder walls and cylinder head and another 30% goes out the tale pipe. ;) :headscratch: This got me to thinking about using a material that has very low Thermal Conductivity and as it turns out I help to develop STAR21G, a black material with Thermal Conductivity of: 1.25 W/(m K) at 25*C, 160 times lower than Aluminum,34 times lower than Steel. Aluminum: 205 W/m K) at 25*C steel: 43 W/m K) at 25*C Here are the advantages that I can think of.: 1. Potential MPG improvement of two times. 2. Almost instantaneous operating temp, no energy being absorbed by combustion parts and lower pollution. 3. Eliminate the need for a cooling system there by saving the cost for having one, may need oil cooling. 4. Cut pollution in half by using half as much gas for each mile. 5. ICE cars will be cheaper to own and operate then All-electric Cars and create similar amount of air pollution assuming they use coal fired power to charge battery. 6. Hybrids could improve MPG's more if we can use exhaust gases to run a steam engine generator to charge HVB from using exhaust gases. 7. Would increase HP and Torque by a factor of two for the same ICE design. 8. There maybe more advantages and I will add when I or someone else comes up with them. I'm thinking 100 mpg/ 1400mi. on a tank with a CMAX Hybrid on the HWY for 2018. :shift: (Maybe 2K miles with Hypermiling) :yahoo: This isn't a cost effective solution for current CMAX/ICE vehicles, but for Future Hybrid/ICE vehicles this could be a huge improvement in MPG/HP/ Torque and cheaper to make. IMO anyway. I might try to add this to my ICE now that I'm out of warranty if I get the opportunity. (133K mi) :) It would be interesting if I could get someone at FORD interested in my idea otherwise I'm going to put this information out to the Public Outlets and see what happens. I have applied for a patent too. Let me know what you think. :) Paul

Well I drove from Newnan,GA to Williams,AZ to drop off my wife at her Mom's. Then drove to SF to go to a Exhibition and then back, 5020 miles, 103.4 gals of Premium, $199.56 Total and 48.6mpg. average for the trip. Not to bad. :yahoo: I could have saved atleast $20 if I used Regular but didn't want to give up the better mpg's. :) Fortunately I almost didn't have any rain( it rained in central CA) and no snow, but the winds where brutal at times with 20-30mph head winds. I had one stretch from ABQ to Tucumcari, NM, about 150 miles I had about 20-30mph tail wind and was averaging almost 60mpg going 65-75mph. After that winds reversed and I was getting in the 30's OUCH! :drop: I still managed somehow to get 51mpg on that tank. If you are interested you can click on my Fuelly icon and see how I did. :) Paul

After using NOS Octane Booster Racing Formula a month ago and five fillups later my HWY FE has increased 2-4 MPG. It doesn't appeared to improve City MPG much. This morning I went to the Atlanta Airport and back on I-85, about 70 miles, Temp 56*F with some light rain. Speeds were between 80mph and 60mph most of the time and averaged close to 56 MPG, then when you add in the loss of 3 mpg from outside temp of 56*F + light rain it just makes it that much more amazing. I'm wondering if the ICE computer learned to run more efficient after using NOS Octane Booster. :headscratch: It would be interesting to see if anyone else can duplicate my HWY MPG improvement by filling up with Premium and adding a bottle of NOS Octane Booster. It is available at Walmart and most Auto Parts Stores for $10-$15. :shift: :) Paul PS My HWY MPG is almost as high as CITY MPG.