600+Mile CMax Club

[SnitGTS]

Admittedly I have a long way to go, but a little over 70 miles into my 2nd tank of gas and I'm at 53.1 mpg for the tank.  This includes driving in 90+ degree heat over the weekend and rain today.  Also, my lifetime average is now up to 45 mpg (from 19.8 when I got it).

[KAL Cmax]

I had my 4 yr old daughter with me and was sweating it on my way to the gas station. 21 more miles is all I needed. Hearing my daughter tell everyone that my car broke down (no gas) in my head made me stop trying to hit 600 miles. I am attempting this tank hopefully!

Edited June 4, 2013 by KAL Cmax

[Jus-A-CMax]

I had my 4 yr old daughter with me and was sweating it on my way to the gas station. 21 more miles is all I needed. Hearing my daughter tell everyone that my car broke down (no gas) in my head made me stop trying to hit 600 miles. I am attempting this tank hopefully!

Go KAL Cmax! Go! :rockon:

[orphoto]

Moving up.

 

Ok, i did it, barely.  2nd member of the 700 club.  And it will get better since about 200 miles of this tank were driven in colder mornings (mid 40s).

 

For those who track such things, here are the stats.  CMax SE with a bit over 20k miles on it, this tank like most was 90% rural interstate, tires at 45 psi, premium fuel, no mods to car, nealy all on eco cruise, mostly flat.

Charles in Oregon

[salsaguy]

truly awesome orphoto.

let's just hope the members of the 600 & 700 club dont have issues down the road for fuel pump or injector problems due to sucking their tanks nearly dry so often.might be good to not go for 600/700 on every tank but every other or more tank.

Edited June 5, 2013 by salsaguy

[Recumpence]

Totally awesome!

 

Welcome.   ;)

 

Matt

[Adair]

WOW Orphoto!! That's just incredible!!! You guys ROCK!!! :yahoo:

[Recumpence]

I think there is something to driving for 10,000 or 20,000 miles. The car gets more fully broken in and we as drivers get better at driving by learning the car more. I know there are guys getting very high mpg on their first and second tanks. Heck, I was getting 50 to 51mpg in my car the first couple tanks, then the weather got extremely cold and I had to wait until spring to see high mile tanks again. At this point, 54 to 55mpg tanks are the norm for me. My latest tank (so far) is 58.2mpg.

 

There are so many things that come into play in getting high MPG out of these hybrids. But, I think driving alot trains the driver and further breaks in the car.

 

Matt

[Noah Harbinger]

truly awesome orphoto.

let's just hope the members of the 600 & 700 club dont have issues down the road for fuel pump or injector problems due to sucking their tanks nearly dry so often.might be good to not go for 600/700 on every tank but every other or more tank.

 

Maybe the challenge should be "Over 55MPG after 12 or more gallons of gas"?

[Riddley]

Maybe the challenge should be "Over 55MPG after 12 or more gallons of gas"?

 

600 or 700 sounds so much better than "Over 55MPG after 12 or more gallons of gas."  But your point is valid (Noah and salsaguy). Once I did 600, I stopped running the tank below E.  I agree that it doesn't make much sense to go to that extreme if you are already in the club.

 

Now - once my car starts to show 53 or 54 MPGs over a tank, I'll sit up and pay closer attention, and probably run it to the end to try to get 700.  

 

Since my daily commute is all freeway, I am unlikely to see those kind of FE numbers any time soon. As it is, I am usually going 60+ for most of the drive.

[salsaguy]

great article on how the epa tests cars and how they come up with their numbers:

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/1303_fuel_economy_numbers_gone_wild/

 

from the March 2013 issue of Automobilemag.com

Edited June 7, 2013 by salsaguy

[SnitGTS]

Very interesting!  

 

I found this line particularly interesting:  "falling 2-mpg short in a car that's rated at 24 mpg is roughly the same, in terms of extra fuel consumed, as falling 7-mpg short in a car rated at 47 mpg."

[plus 3 golfer]

Very interesting!  

 

I found this line particularly interesting:  "falling 2-mpg short in a car that's rated at 24 mpg is roughly the same, in terms of extra fuel consumed, as falling 7-mpg short in a car rated at 47 mpg."

NAH, hypotheticals aren't interesting..  

 

What's interesting is comparing actual data.   Here's my FE and the Fuelly FE of my last 6 vehicles compared to their current EPA ratings. For ease of viewing green shading indicates beating the EPA combined and red indicates under the EPA combined rating. ;)  No falling "2-mpg short" in 5 out of 6 of the vehicles I've owned by me or fuelly owners.  Enough said.

 

[SnitGTS]

NAH, hypotheticals aren't interesting..  

 

What's interesting is comparing actual data.   Here's my FE and the Fuelly FE of my last 6 vehicles compared to their current EPA ratings. For ease of viewing green shading indicates beating the EPA combined and red indicates under the EPA combined rating. ;)  No falling "2-mpg short" in 5 out of 6 of the vehicles I've owned by me or fuelly owners.  Enough said.

 

+3, just throwing this out there, does your normal commute have a lot of highway driving?  

 

Based on your data, you are about 2 mpg short of the highway rating of all of your previous cars (based on the fuelly averages).  According to the hypothetical in the article this is the equivalent of the 7 mpg lower you are seeing in the hybrid.

Edited June 7, 2013 by SnitGTS

[plus 3 golfer]

Our normal trips in the C-Max is 10% city, 35% suburban and 50% freeway.  I can easily get over 50 mpg (displayed) in the C-Max if I stay off the freeways, reduce my speed slightly in suburban driving, and employ some hypermiling techniques. But time matters more to me than saving a $125 a year in fuel by increasing my FE from 40.7 to say 45 mpg actual (not displayed).  ;) 

 

Also, in the first, third, and fourth vehicles listed were 12 round trips between PA and AZ.  I easily beat the EPA highway numbers running about 4-6 mph above the interstate speed limits when I could by 1-2 mpg. My average speed (distance traveled / moving time) for the trips was around 68 +- 0.5 mph. Time will tell whether the C-Max can do the same.

 

My point on the quote is that my FE and many others' FE for the C-Max (rated 47 across the board) is well below it's EPA rating while other cars are not.  In fact, all others are above the combined rating.  To try to justify a lower than actual EPA rating by implying that one can "afford" a significantly higher % hit in actual FE with the C-Max than the EPA rating when compared to an inefficient car is a nonsensical argument for the C-Max's 16% hit in FE (Fuelly).  

 

I've said this before what matters is the fleets FE not one owner's specific FE. Time will tell.  We have 6 months to get to 47 mpg or hopefully at least surpass the Prius V in FE. :)  

[salsaguy]

plus 3, how many miles do you drive each day / way?

if you do mostly highways driving a Diesel is the best choice for best mpgs

gas car for middle range driving for both city and hwy

a hybrid for more city but some hwy

and a plug in electric for mainly (>85%) city driving

[RaPieR]

Was well on my way to my 2nd 600 tank but I didn't think I could make it to Toronto from Detroit so I filled up at the border.

 

 

Turns out, conditions were good enough to get 51mpg when I filled up again in Toronto. The C-Max used less gas than indicated on the dashboard.

[plus 3 golfer]

plus 3, how many miles do you drive each day / way?

if you do mostly highways driving a Diesel is the best choice for best mpgs

gas car for middle range driving for both city and hwy

a hybrid for more city but some hwy

and a plug in electric for mainly (>85%) city driving

Have you ever owned a diesel?

 

I bought my first diesel in Dec. 1976 and have put about 700k miles on MB and VW diesels.

 

We are perfectly happy with 40.7 mpg and the C-Max.

[SnitGTS]

plus 3, what speeds are you driving on the freeway?  I think Arizona has an 85 mph speed limit on some freeways, I'm sure most are 65-75 mph though.  The EPA test for highway only goes up to 60 mph, which I agree is not accurate for how people drive on 'freeways' today but it is similar to my drive to work which I almost never go above 55 mph, and my current tank I'm at 52.3 mpg.  Outside of driving modestly I do nothing that you can call 'hyper-miling'.  Higher speeds make a hybrid like the C-Max effectively a regular car since it can't utilize EV mode much above 62 mph and regular cars get high 30's to 40 mpg on the freeway, the Prius models suffer a similar drop off at speed.

 

The chart below has been making the rounds, but it shows that at speeds up to 60 mph in real world driving the C-Max was able to achieve mpg better than the 47 city & highway rating that Ford gives the car.  For the record, I think the current city & highway ratings should be replaced by a chart similar to this but with a thick line to show the upper and lower thresholds for mpg for each speed from 5 to 85 mph, that way an owner will know what they can expect in real world driving.

 

[plus 3 golfer]

I am well aware of how to get higher FE and the operation of hybrids, diesels and so forth. I choose to drive the speed limits if not slightly above conditions permitting. AZ interstates are 75 except in Tucson and Phoenix and other select areas where the SL is 65 mph.

 

But how does any of this justify the implication that one can "afford" to take a 7 mile hit in FE with the C-Max and be no worse off than someone that takes a hit of 2 mpg from 24 mpg. Are they then suppose to accept that as the norm instead of 47. This is not about me but the C-Max fleet FE, the EPA possible "loopholes" in their procedures, and Ford's ethical behavior (not illegal actions) promoting the EPA FE numbers likely knowing the EPA numbers are not realistic for the average consumer.

[salsaguy]

plus 3, no i have never driven a Diesel. old ones were noisy. i know the new clean diesels are much better. i didn't get the TDI diesel when i got my Passat because diesel does cost more here in the USA and California, and i don't drive enough hwy miles (more than 50 miles in one trip) to justify the extra $3-4k cost difference in the car to make up that in mpg fuel savings to make it worth it for me.i do wish they offered a hybrid Passat, not just the Jetta but most likely the size/weight of the car makes it hard to get good mpgs in the Passat.

i have nothing against the cmax and we plan to get one for my wife, hence why I'm on these forums to learn. just was wondering your normal driving habit to see why your mpgs are down. it's obvious over 65 mph and the mpgs really suffer since cmax was designed for city streets and back roads 35-45 mph.

Edited June 8, 2013 by salsaguy

[SnitGTS]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'afford', but what you are saying is exactly why I found the comment in the article so interesting. "falling 2-mpg short in a car that's rated at 24 mpg is roughly the same, in terms of extra fuel consumed, as falling 7-mpg short in a car rated at 47 mpg."  

 

So yes, according to the article this is the norm for a hybrid. 

 

Edit: For context I'm adding the whole paragraph that I took the above sentence from.

 

"There's also the age-old but often overlooked disclaimer: your mileage does vary. "If you drive 75 mph instead of 65, you would lose about 7 mpg in our new Fusion Hybrid," says Raj Nair, Ford's global product chief, adding that cool weather and break-in miles similarly affect observed economy. Wehrly quips that he's fielded calls from angry drivers wondering why they didn't achieve the ratings while towing trailers. This variance is more obvious in high-mpg cars due to the fact that mileage is inversely related to fuel consumed. That means falling 2-mpg short in a car that's rated at 24 mpg is roughly the same, in terms of extra fuel consumed, as falling 7-mpg short in a car rated at 47 mpg. Of course, neither math nor context play as well on billboard advertisements as a big number."
 

Edited June 8, 2013 by SnitGTS

[plus 3 golfer]

I believe Wherly is an EPA engineer. The C-Max falls 7/47 = 14% short and the 2/24 car falls 8 % short yet he equates the two in terms of both being the same $ short implying that people notice the 7 mpg and complain yet they are no worse off than the 2 mpg short car whose owners likely don't complain. The implication is that C-Max owners can "afford" the FE hit as owner's of inefficient cars evidently do as they evidently don't complain as much. Why else would he say that. Maybe I'm reading to much into this.

 

I said this before that Nair is backpedaling (primarily in response to CR'S FE results) and not addressing the "real" issues in their EPA tests in essence he's hiding behind the small print of "your mileage may vary". This is the ethical part - hiding behind the EPA numbers and pointing out that slowing down Increases FE and so forth rather than point out the flaws in the EPA testing procedure which Ford likely is well aware; and then, aggressively marketing the 47, 47, 47 EPA number. I've worked with enough Wall Street bankers in the '90s and early 2000's to know what greed is and what lengths they go through to seal the deal. This looks similar. The C-max is a great car but think what will happen if we can beat the Prius V in mpg.

[SnitGTS]

Ah see, we're reading the same thing just looking at it differently.  What you're saying is that losing the 7 mpg on a 47 mpg hybrid comes at a greater monetary cost to the owner than a 2 mpg drop in a  24 mpg non-hybrid.  I get that, it makes sense, but it wasn't how I was looking at it.

 

What I'm reading, is if you had a car that gets 24 mpg when you drive 'normal' and then there is a variable applied, (cold weather, aggressive driving, freeway speeds, etc...) the car loses some mpg's to that variable which in the example above is a 2 mpg drop to 22 mpg.  Take the exact same situation with a hybrid car that gets 47 mpg when you drive 'normal', the same variable will have a greater affect on the hybrid and reduce your mpg by 7 to 40 mpg.  So all things equal the hybrid takes the bigger hit because what makes a hybrid so efficient (EV driving & regenerative braking) is negated by the variable.  The variables turn a hybrid into more of a regular car.

 

If a regular car was driven by a hyper-miler and then by a nascar driver (for example) you might see a 10 mpg difference.  If you did the same thing with a hybrid I bet you could see a 25-35 mpg difference!  I'm totally guessing at what the differences in mpg are, I'm just using them to say a hybrid is much more sensitive to variables then a regular car, which is what I believe Wherly & Nair are saying.

[Recumpence]

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