600+Mile CMax Club

[Ryan McEachern]

The reason they are saying the 7 mpg shortfall at 47 isn't that bad, and comparing it to a 2 mpg shortfall at 24 is because using mpg isn't a linear comparison.

 

On a 1000 mile trip with a car that you expected to get 47, but actually got 42 - you would have expected to buy 21.3 gallons of fuel, but actually had to buy 23.8 gallons. That is 2.5 gallons extra for the 1000 miles.

 

On the same trip with a car that you expected to get 24, but actually only got 22 mpg - you would have expected to buy 41.7 gallons of fuel, but actually had to buy 45.5 gallons of fuel. That is an extra 3.8 gallons of fuel for the 1000 miles.

 

So, in actual fact, have a car fall short by 7 mpg at the 47 mark, is going to cost you a lot less "extra money" than having a car fall short only 2 mpg at the 24 mpg mark. This is one area where the metric measurement of liters per 100 km really works better, much easier to compare what you are actually spending between cars.

 

EDIT - I typed a 7, where there should be a 5, first sentence of the last paragrah. I won't change it because I don't want to screw up the message immediately below this one in the thead, but I meant to say 5 mpg short at the 47 mark. :)

Edited June 9, 2013 by Ryan McEachern

[plus 3 golfer]

The reason they are saying the 7 mpg shortfall at 47 isn't that bad, and comparing it to a 2 mpg shortfall at 24 is because using mpg isn't a linear comparison.

 

On a 1000 mile trip with a car that you expected to get 47, but actually got 42 - you would have expected to buy 21.3 gallons of fuel, but actually had to buy 23.8 gallons. That is 2.5 gallons extra for the 1000 miles.

 

On the same trip with a car that you expected to get 24, but actually only got 22 mpg - you would have expected to buy 41.7 gallons of fuel, but actually had to buy 45.5 gallons of fuel. That is an extra 3.8 gallons of fuel for the 1000 miles.

 

So, in actual fact, have a car fall short by 7 mpg at the 47 mark, is going to cost you a lot less "extra money" than having a car fall short only 2 mpg at the 24 mpg mark. This is one area where the metric measurement of liters per 100 km really works better, much easier to compare what you are actually spending between cars.

I think the 7 in red should be something less than 7 like 5.

 

The 7 mpg drop from 47 is the break-even number.  If you actually got 40 mpg instead of 47 you'd buy 3.72 gallons of extra fuel for the loss of  7 mpg going 1000 miles which is virtually the same as you'd buy had you got 2 mpg less on a 24 mpg car which is an extra 3.79 gallons of fuel.

 

Remember it's the EPA giving the example and IMHO is annoyed at the attention (attacks, publicity) they are getting because of their testing procedures for a 7 mpg difference.  It's a big departure from the EPA 47 mpg but is no different in extra fuel required than in a car where the EPA rating was 24 but the owner got 22.  Yet, there is not a big stink about the 2 mpg difference in a 24 mpg EPA number.

[StoBro2]

The reason non-hybrids do not get hammered for MPG problems is that they are bought normally for other reasons than absolute MPG. Hybrids are purchased mainly for their high MPG. So, when they do not live up to the claims, it is irritating because the very reason they were purchased is something the car is not living up to.

 

Matt

I actually bought my C-Max despite the fact that it's a hybrid. If it had the running gear of the Focus ST and got close to 30MPG it would be my idea of a perfect car! :shift: The nearly 40 MPG lifetime average I'm getting is nice, but it's not the reason I bought it.

[Recumpence]

I actually bought my C-Max despite the fact that it's a hybrid. If it had the running gear of the Focus ST and got close to 30MPG it would be my idea of a perfect car! :shift: The nearly 40 MPG lifetime average I'm getting is nice, but it's not the reason I bought it.

Totally awesome!  I love it!

 

Matt

[salsaguy]

stobro, in sure you're not the only one here who feels the same way.if it was up to just mpg numbers, everyone here would be on the PriusOwnersForum site instead. it's what the cmax offers OVER the Prius that makes believers out of their owners, and even wins over some former Prius drivers to switch teams.

[Recumpence]

I like the comment that the Prius is "Appliance like" while the C-Max is a real car. This I like. I had one Prius owner who commented that the doors on my Max are "So solid and heavy. It feels like it is alot more sturdy than my Prius." That sums it up.

 

Now, that being said, I like the Prius. From a pure efficiency standpoint, Toyota got it right. The true Kamback design with sharp rear edges is more aero than the Max. It is also lighter. That being said, we come back to why people are buying the C-Max over the Prius. It is a fun car that is powerful (downright quick), handles wonderfully, is very solid, quiet and still gets very good mileage. I would say it this way;

 

"The C-Max is bigger than the Prius liftback, far more powerful, handles light years better, has far better ergonomics, better interior, and is more solid while keeping mileage quite high. The price is also reasonable and ----- Wait for it ----- it is an American car!"   :)

 

Now, lets just hope our beloved Max proves itself reliable.........

 

Matt

Edited June 9, 2013 by Recumpence

[KAL Cmax]

Finally made it to 600 miles by 0.2

12.82 gallons at the pump for an average of 46.8 mpg

Edited June 9, 2013 by KAL Cmax

[Jus-A-CMax]

Finally made it to 600 miles by 0.2

12.82 gallons at the pump for an average of 46.8 mpg

Post #1 updated.

 

Congratulations KAL CMax, our 18th member.

 

Congratulations to orphoto, 2nd driver to hit 700+ miles.

 

 

:)

[SnitGTS]

I like the comment that the Prius is "Appliance like" while the C-Max is a real car. This I like. I had one Prius owner who commented that the doors on my Max are "So solid and heavy. It feels like it is alot more sturdy than my Prius." That sums it up.

 

Now, that being said, I like the Prius. From a pure efficiency standpoint, Toyota got it right. The true Kamback design with sharp rear edges is more aero than the Max. It is also lighter. That being said, we come back to why people are buying the C-Max over the Prius. It is a fun car that is powerful (downright quick), handles wonderfully, is very solid, quiet and still gets very good mileage. I would say it this way;

 

"The C-Max is bigger than the Prius liftback, far more powerful, handles light years better, has far better ergonomics, better interior, and is more solid while keeping mileage quite high. The price is also reasonable and ----- Wait for it ----- it is an American car!"   :)

 

Now, lets just hope our beloved Max proves itself reliable.........

 

Matt

 

I couldn't say it better myself!  I appreciate the Prius, even test drove one years ago before I settled on the Corolla, it was just too much of a compromise.  (I got the Corolla because of where I was going was not the nicest place and I didn't want to care if something happened to it, I previously had a Celica that was all tricked out and I would have been furious if anything happened to it)

 

I'm a car enthusiast, I wanted something that didn't cost a fortune, had a lot of tech, that was fun to drive, good power, and good mileage.  Until the C-Max that didn't exist in a hybrid.

Edited June 9, 2013 by SnitGTS

[Jus-A-CMax]

I like the comment that the Prius is "Appliance like" while the C-Max is a real car. This I like. I had one Prius owner who commented that the doors on my Max are "So solid and heavy. It feels like it is alot more sturdy than my Prius." That sums it up.

 

Now, that being said, I like the Prius. From a pure efficiency standpoint, Toyota got it right. The true Kamback design with sharp rear edges is more aero than the Max. It is also lighter. That being said, we come back to why people are buying the C-Max over the Prius. It is a fun car that is powerful (downright quick), handles wonderfully, is very solid, quiet and still gets very good mileage. I would say it this way;

 

"The C-Max is bigger than the Prius liftback, far more powerful, handles light years better, has far better ergonomics, better interior, and is more solid while keeping mileage quite high. The price is also reasonable and ----- Wait for it ----- it is an American car!"   :)

 

Now, lets just hope our beloved Max proves itself reliable.........

 

Matt

 

Hee....reliability....you'll find out before orphoto and then he'll find out and then its me...thats how it will pan out ;)

 

The other thing I would add to that is "better range". From what I observed, those V are struggling to make 500 :baby:  and thankgoodness we got 13.5 gallon tanks (I told Ford at Irvine, they should increase that to 15 gallons).

[salsaguy]

the extra weight of a bigger tank and more fuel would then decrease the trunk cargo space and lower the mpgs.Also while it's nice to know the Max can beat the Prius on range, it's not a fair fight since the Prius has the smaller tank size.make them have equal tanks and the Prius would kill Max in a range fight for to its higher mpg rating. I agree it's a selling point for some who want range and could give up mpgs, although i don't know many folks who drove 500-600 miles to work and don't have the time to fill up for gas on the way :p

Edited June 9, 2013 by salsaguy

[SnowStorm]

I like the range because we can make a frequent 500+ mile round trip without having to buy ethanol (we can get E0 locally).

 

Also, today's fill-up was another 600+ tank at 620 miles with still some 30+ MTE.  A lot of this tank was open country 55 mph highways where the car seems to get at least 50 mpg on eco-cruise.  Indicated tank average was 50.3 mpg.  I just love it.  My indicated LTA is at 46.8 mpg - just gotta get it to 47!  Pump based LTA is at 45.7 odometer adjusted but, of course, I have no idea how accurate the pump is.

[Jus-A-CMax]

Excellent snowstorm!!!! :wub2:  to hear these 600+ mile tank stories :drool:

[Jus-A-CMax]

I did it!!!! After lunch. ... 708 miles using 12.12 gallons & 58.4MPGs.  BUT I am NOT done  :drool:

Edited June 11, 2013 by Jus-A-CMax

[Adair]

I did it!!!! After lunch. ... 708 miles using 12.12 gallons & 58.4MPGs.  BUT I am NOT done  :drool:

WAHOO (fish tacos :>)!!!

 

Way to go JUS!!!!!! As Asia would say, you are a Rock Star!!!

[Recumpence]

This is my best tank yet. Jus is going to CRUSH me, though!

 

Anyway, for a short time, I will be in the lead with this tank........

 

Congrats, Jus. Remember, I am gunnin for ya!    ;)

 

Matt

Edited June 11, 2013 by Recumpence

[Jus-A-CMax]

Holy moly 736 :worship: ...it ain't easy, I fully acknowledge that and congratulations :)  And the fact that you pulverized all the records since spring and made bench marks after benchmark, top stuff indeed.  I ain't done nuthin yet except a PB, we'll see. :baby:

[Recumpence]

Ahh, modesty, such a novel thing.........

 

Man, you are going to totally crush me. I predict 760 miles on your tank.

 

I will have a VERY hard time catching that. I will definately give it my all, though.

 

Matt

[SnowStorm]

The best thing about this contest is that everybody wins! 

[Jus-A-CMax]

Ahh, modesty, such a novel thing.........

 

Man, you are going to totally crush me. I predict 760 miles on your tank.

 

I will have a VERY hard time catching that. I will definately give it my all, though.

 

Matt

As soon as a benchmark is set, it gets blown. Don't forget orphoto and snowstorm <-- who has a very young engine! Remember the 800? I am thinking it may be possible now once the 750 is broken...now that would be the Aurora for us :rockon: ..any higher and we'll both need gravity belts from floating off in the MPG space.

 

 

The best thing about this contest is that everybody wins! 

truedat, learning to break 500, 600 and 700 improves your FE driving skills. Save whatever cash you can, its tough out there :sad:

Edited June 12, 2013 by Jus-A-CMax

[salsaguy]

you guys are insane. Ford need to hire you for a commercial or teaching others how our the official review sites on how to drive this car properly.

keeo it up. just don't mess up your engines.

[Jus-A-CMax]

you guys are insane. Ford need to hire you for a commercial or teaching others how our the official review sites on how to drive this car properly.

keeo it up. just don't mess up your engines.

Mate wait till you get yours, its PERFECT for the valley driving. I mean it man.

 

I'll burn out my EV motor before the ICE...wait til you see the final result tomorrow (I have to tank up as I got enuf to get to work and then head out to lunch & fuel up at Costco)..lets just say, we might have to rename my CMax hybrid to something else ;)

[salsaguy]

yeah as i hit POST i was thinking, woops I meant to say burn out the electric motor. actually just don't want you guys to cause issues running on fumes. these are just a few of the MANY articles on this:

 

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/auto/bad-driving-habits-can-wreck-your-wallet-1.aspx

 

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/salem/articles/2011/03/31/letting_tank_get_low_risks_more_than_just_running_out_of_gas/

 

http://www.drivingtoday.com/features/archive/running_on_empty/index.html#axzz2VyOrnRcG

[Jus-A-CMax]

The 750 barrier has been broken :drop: . I am still going :drool:

[Adair]

This is just crazy!!! I sure hope someone from FORD is paying attention!!! They need to interview you for their next commercial.......YMMV.......pffftt!