50+mpg trips

[JAZ]

At a steady 70 ECO Cruise on flat ground with about 700 lbs. in the car managed about 38 mpg:  dropping to an ECO 65 saw the mileage level out at 41, both quite respectable for the weight and drag, IMO.  Wondering if you've checked wheel alignment as it could knock a few mpgs off the total.

[jmckinley]

Central Ohio, almost perfectly flat with little change in elevation.  But, I got the same results in Tennessee,  Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia on our recent trip.  

 

No matter what I do, where I drive it or what the ambient temperature is,  every fill up is in the 35 mpg range except for the occasional overfill or under fill.  My lifetime average (19 fillups, 6,500 miles) based on actual consumption and corrected mileage is 35.7 mpg.  My average after the first five fillups was 34.9 and the last five average was 35.5 so not much has changed with the break in and warmer weather.

[Jus-A-CMax]

Central Ohio, almost perfectly flat with little change in elevation.  But, I got the same results in Tennessee,  Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia on our recent trip.  

 

No matter what I do, where I drive it or what the ambient temperature is,  every fill up is in the 35 mpg range except for the occasional overfill or under fill.  My lifetime average (19 fillups, 6,500 miles) based on actual consumption and corrected mileage is 35.7 mpg.  My average after the first five fillups was 34.9 and the last five average was 35.5 so not much has changed with the break in and warmer weather.

Being OH and based on whats reported here, I suspect the temps played a big part of the lower MPG on fuelly last few months. However, it should have warmed up a wee bit and this should make some difference - based on the reports from others in the north east posting here their numbers. I didn't see any comments on the weather factor on that last drive so I presume weather was not a factor, iyo. At this point, I would say keep a good eye on what happens with your battery, making sure it goes high when u eco-cruise (take a look at the last "explain the ICE High" thread if you need to get am idea of "how high"). Might even be a good idea to take the CMax for a spin on a freeway and do some ice high mpg runs (its dead simple). Side question, what kind of MPGs is being reported back when you driive surface or highway, those "little" 7 to 10 milers?

 

JohnnOhio is from your state - might even be a good idea to PM him and see if u and him can compare notes since you're both from the same state, access similar freeway speeds and hes getting good mileage. 

[C-MAXER]

 

 

 I am not impressed by all the posted short trips with huge MPG's.  

 

EPA says the average trip length in the US is between 10-13 miles so that's real world data.  http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2010_fotw615.html

 

So's this:

 

[fotomoto]

Can someone tell me how you all are taking such clear pictures of mileage?  I have tried several times and have dark pictures. We are getting some stellar mileage with the temperatures warming up, but I can't prove it to all of you with my illegible pictures.  I have used my husband's iphone and my photos are awful!

 

Hmm.  Although I'm a photographer,  I'm doing nothing special when shooting these dash screen pics with my iPhone4s.  I shoot the majority of them in the garage when I get home but there are exceptions.  I do rest/brace my phone on the steering wheel column pad which helps with sharpness/camera shake.  Get very close to the dash, the camera will focus very close to the subject and make sure the focus indicator (blue square) locks onto the numbers as the camera calculates most of its exposure based mainly on the focus point.  

 

I use photobucket and its phone app to effortlessly upload, store, and link pics to the forum.

 

HTH

[mtb9153]

Yesterday I drove 200 miles at 70 mph and got 34 mpg.  My Chrysler minivan on the same road at the same speed gets 27 mpg. And it's a lot roomier!

 

It was 70 degrees, the car was not loaded, it has over 6,000 miles and I was not running the 

A/C.

 

I am not impressed.  Don't tell me to drive slower-- It's dangerous on I-75.  If I wanted to impede traffic, there are any number of cars that when driven slowly get good mileage and cost a heck of a lot less than the C-Max.

 

And, by the way, the GPS decided there was no SD card exactly when I really needed it.  Had to pull the card and reinsert and wait for reboot.  Yes, I've had the 13-3-11 TSB done.  I won't even get into the GPS' annoying habit of calling freeway exits "Slight Right Turn" and announcing them at the last possible moment or sometimes after you've passed the exit.

 

Speaking of not impressed, I am not impressed by all the posted short trips with huge MPG's.  There's a big hill outside of town and I can coast down it and get 90 mpg or I can drive on a flat road at 30 mph and get big numbers, but so what! I'd be interested in seeing some trip times to go with those big numbers so we can see what these guys are really up to.

Sound like there isn't much to life your happy about? Life's too short, not worth the fussing.

[wab]

Yesterday I drove 200 miles at 70 mph and got 34 mpg.  My Chrysler minivan on the same road at the same speed gets 27 mpg. And it's a lot roomier!

 

It was 70 degrees, the car was not loaded, it has over 6,000 miles and I was not running the 

A/C.

 

I am not impressed.  Don't tell me to drive slower-- It's dangerous on I-75.  If I wanted to impede traffic, there are any number of cars that when driven slowly get good mileage and cost a heck of a lot less than the C-Max.

 

And, by the way, the GPS decided there was no SD card exactly when I really needed it.  Had to pull the card and reinsert and wait for reboot.  Yes, I've had the 13-3-11 TSB done.  I won't even get into the GPS' annoying habit of calling freeway exits "Slight Right Turn" and announcing them at the last possible moment or sometimes after you've passed the exit.

 

Speaking of not impressed, I am not impressed by all the posted short trips with huge MPG's.  There's a big hill outside of town and I can coast down it and get 90 mpg or I can drive on a flat road at 30 mph and get big numbers, but so what! I'd be interested in seeing some trip times to go with those big numbers so we can see what these guys are really up to.

 

 

 

"Speaking of not impressed, I am not impressed by all the posted short trips with huge MPG's."

 

I agree.

 

A couple of yrs ago we were driving our F250 diesel down Raton pass toward New Mexico. At the top I reset the MPG meter, when we arrived at Raton, New Mexico (10 miles) the MPG meter had 99.9 on it :happy feet: .

[JohnnOhio]

Hey there jmckinley

 

   I have only had my car 1 month now (1700 miles on her). In the cold days and 1st couple of weeks of break in I averaged 38 mpg (33.6 miles on I-71south to downtown Columbus). As soon as temps rose to the 50's I managed 47.2 for the trip and it has stayed in the general area ever since. 45.6 this morning in the pouring rain and high winds with lights, wippers, and radio going. Haven't used cruise control yet just drive it. Short trips 10 miles I have gotten as high as 58mpg.

[plus 3 golfer]

EPA says the average trip length in the US is between 10-13 miles so that's real world data.  http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2010_fotw615.html

 

So's this:

 

So what's your overall FE at 1323.2 miles?  That's the important number. And of course without knowing how one achieves the FE numbers, the numbers are always suspect. ;)  

 

For example, I can get over 50+ mpg every time I leave my home and head towards Phoenix for at least 25 miles provided I keep the freeway speed between 61 - 65 mph and don't use A/C.  But then when I turn around and head home, I have to climb back up to 1835 feet elevation (terrain can look flat but the average drop is about 30 feet / mile but affects FE significantly). So, my overall drops to mid 40's. :)  This also adds some time to the trips, requires more attentiveness on the freeway (traveling slower than most traffic), and is not comfortable when the ambient gets above 80+F with full sun.

 

I can also make over 50+ if I take the ancillary streets instead of the freeway for many of the above trips provided I drive conservatively (P&G), coast to the many stops, and don't exceed 45 mph. But this adds too much time to the trips and employing certain driving techniques all the time, can irritate other drivers.

 

Your premise for starting the thread was I believe to show that the C-Max is capable of 50+ because there are naysayers out there. But the naysayers will still look at real "real world" overall FE like fuelly statistics, fueleconomy.gov and so forth (IIRC, 2013s currently averaging under 38 mpg).  Until the overall FE of the C-Max fleet approaches 47 in the "real world", I doubt showing trips above 50 will convince them.  Hopefully, the fuelly stats will climb as the 2013 fleet breaks-in and has at least a full year of operations.

 

Bottom line: there's nothing magical about making 50 mpg on various trips but the inconveniences and so forth to do so for me (and especially my wife) are not worth it.  If I would choose to post pics of 50+ mpg, it would be misleading without full disclosure.  I would suggest that with each pic posted, a table be filled in with such data as: elevation change, ambient temperature, average speed, terrain, techniques employed and so forth.  Then, we have more meaningful     data.

[fotomoto]

So what's your overall FE at 1323.2 miles?  That's the important number. And of course without knowing how one achieves the FE numbers, the numbers are always suspect. ;)  

 

 

Your premise for starting the thread was I believe to show that the C-Max is capable of 50+ because there are naysayers out there. But the naysayers will still look at real "real world" overall FE like fuelly statistics, fueleconomy.gov and so forth (IIRC, 2013s currently averaging under 38 mpg).  Until the overall FE of the C-Max fleet approaches 47 in the "real world", I doubt showing trips above 50 will convince them.  Hopefully, the fuelly stats will climb as the 2013 fleet breaks-in and has at least a full year of operations.

 

Bottom line: there's nothing magical about making 50 mpg on various trips but the inconveniences and so forth to do so for me (and especially my wife) are not worth it.  If I would choose to post pics of 50+ mpg, it would be misleading without full disclosure.  I would suggest that with each pic posted, a table be filled in with such data as: elevation change, ambient temperature, average speed, terrain, techniques employed and so forth.  Then, we have more meaningful     data.

 

I'm at 1/4 tank so the avg isn't deviating much now and has settled in at 45.5mpg.   I was rocking 46.x but lost .5mpg while my car was at the tint shop all day.  How could that happen?  Well my FM was tuned to a station I never listen too and the SAT tuner was on another pre-set........   :rant2:

 

50+mpg trips are important.  Short trips are one of the top reasons for overall poor economy in any vehicle.   Except for out of town trips, all of my daily trips are under 17 miles.  As they say, YMMV.  The overall fleet mpg will never meet EPA top numbers (usually hwy).  I know of no car that does; not even the Prius.  

 

This thread isn't meant to be scientific data collection but just a place to show folks what the car can really do in normal, daily situations.  If I go to extremes like coasting down a mountain (yeah, here in south Texas LOL!) for a crazy high number, then I'll say it but be rest assured I'm not gaming the numbers.  

Edited April 19, 2013 by fotomoto

[LizM]

I live in the northern suburbs of Cincinnati and rarely drive on the highway.  Although, two weekends ago drove to Northern KY down I-75 - 50 mile trip - avg mpg going down was 44.6 - did not drive over 65 mph - and did not use Cruise at all.  On the way back, chose I-71 and actually got 48.6 - less traffic and maintained between 62 and 65 more regularly. Although some people passed me, I was still passing people so don't think I was going to slow.   Temp outside was about 74 degrees and even had the A/C on set at 74 degrees.  

 

My trips to work are about 16 miles with stop signs, school zones, and traffic lights takes me about a 30-35 minutes.  Temp this morning was 47 degrees, it was not raining, but roads were wet from last night's rain.  I had the defrost on, set at 73 and wipers were on auto.  I got 47.7 mpg.

[mtb9153]

Question: what are expecting to get on the interstate going 70mph?

 

47? Not likely, tho I am sure someone out there has done it. I took a trip doing 70mph and got 39 mpg. That's still 12 better than your van. How much more were you expecting? Again, 47 is unlikely.

 

Now, driving on the highway you could expect that same 47! Highway speeds are a bit slower than interstate and frequent speed changes.

 

My point? Time is money. Or in this case it's mpg. If you have the time enjoy the scenery and take the highway. I can hear you now asking who has that kind of time??? Then you'll pay for it with mpg.

 

At least the cmax is sportier than the van, fun to drive to boot.

Well put Rachel.

[plus 3 golfer]

Here's two pics of a trip today from my home to the mall.  The first is the outbound trip and the second is the round trip.  There was one significant difference that accounts for the large difference in FE and that is the mall is about 450 feet lower than my home.  Had I posted the return leg it would have been about 43.5 mpg.  So, which one accurately depicts the capability of the C-Max?  And most would not think that the elevation change was 450 feet since it averages only 25 feet / mile and the terrain is flat.  One need to look at a topo map to see the change. 

 

Secondly, in order to achieve these FE numbers I had to take the ancillary streets instead of the freeway for about 24 miles with about 40 traffic lights and try to time lights. There were two occasions where I got caught and scored in the 50% range on the brake score. There was also 2 miles of residential, 2 miles around the mall, and about 8 miles of 55 mph divided highway with 3 lights.  My average speed for the RT was likely about 30 / 32 mph not counting when the car wasn't in motion.  So, I added about 25 minutes of time to a round trip that 1) normally takes 55 minutes, 2) is about 3 miles shorter, but 3) only yields about 45 mpg overall (about low 50s out and high 30s back).

 

Again, my point is a screenshot is not always worth a 1000 words. ;)

 

 

Edited May 23, 2013 by Plus 3 Golfer

[Jus-A-CMax]

IMO, it's completely up to the driver and where's the driver has to go. I can choose the Freeway or I can choose Highway and I can choose surface street - all 3 gives me different MPGs but is there a right or wrong? Absolutely not. I have always espoused with hybrid driving you are trading time for mileage so for me, I would opt for FE probably 80% of the time, while 20% I reserve for speed when I have to rush from one job to another job. 

 

For me, I use the CMax for my job and everyone knows (those older posters here), I run the gamut of freeway/highway/surface because of work, across 2 counties with hills/grades - which is precisely why I bought the car so I save gas, have a reliable car. I will short cut for FE sometimes when I know I maximize my MPG rather than just silly burn trying to climb a grade at 65+ speeds - but thats my choice and it also says, "hey, I know these roads/terrain and this is where I can maximize" and every penny I can save, the better it is for my family - money is tight and each job counts.

 

I get as much as I can out of the tank  :rockon:

 

So, for everyone, keep posting the 50+ MPGs, its good for the soul and its even better if you can explain how you got it to give some sense of the drive so no one can say "oh you're just rolling it down the hill and anyone can do that" posts (funny enuf, they always seem to miss the point that you come down, you must have burnt something to go up  ;) )

 

:)

Edited April 19, 2013 by Jus-A-CMax

[plus 3 golfer]

IMO, it's completely up to the driver and where's the driver has to go. I can choose the Freeway or I can choose Highway and I can choose surface street - all 3 gives me different MPGs but is there a right or wrong? Absolutely not. I have always espoused with hybrid driving you are trading time for mileage so for me, I would opt for FE probably 80% of the time, while 20% I reserve for speed when I have to rush from one job to another job. 

 

For me, I use the CMax for my job and everyone knows (those older posters here), I run the gamut of freeway/highway/surface because of work, across 2 counties with hills/grades - which is precisely why I bought the car so I save gas, have a reliable car. I will short cut for FE sometimes when I know I maximize my MPG rather than just silly burn trying to climb a grade at 65+ speeds - but thats my choice and it also says, "hey, I know these roads/terrain and this is where I can maximize" and every penny I can save, the better it is for my family - money is tight and each job counts.

 

I get as much as I can out of the tank  :rockon:

 

So, for everyone, keep posting the 50+ MPGs, its good for the soul and its even better if you can explain how you got it to give some sense of the drive so no one can say "oh you're just rolling it down the hill and anyone can do that" posts (funny enuf, they always seem to miss the point that you come down, you must have burnt something to go up  ;) )

 

:)

Like I've said several times before, one can get 50+ mpg if they choose to - that's nothing new but how one gets 50 mpg is what is important to someone that is skeptical ("have heard" the C-Max isn't capable of good mpg's). Let the skeptic then determine how plausible it will be for them to achieve such FE if they purchase a C-Max vs another brand.  Again I always look at the premise behind threads and screen shots alone without comment are of little value except I guess if the premise is let's post screen shots because "it's good for the soul". ;)  :) 

 

I truly hope people will only post round trips (to negate elevation change and possibly wind) and comment as to what the conditions were to get 50+ mpg.  FE on one way trips can be significantly affected by elevation change and also by wind. As I said, I got 53.8 mpg round trip and chose to increase my driving time by about 25 minutes on a normal 55 minute, 36 mile round trip by driving about 24 miles at likely less than 30 mph (on average) on ancillary streets vs on the freeway at 65 mph to achieve the 53.8 mpg (a gain of likely 9 mpg from similar freeway trips).  Simply posting the screen shot of 53.8 mpg is IMHO misleading without explanation. 

.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Plus 3 Golfer

[mtb9153]

I never expected to see 47 mpg at 70 mph, but 40 would be a reasonable expectation without resorting to Dorkmiling, drafting or other extreme measures. Difference in operating cost between 34 and 40 is not that significant, it's probably a matter of principle now.

 

Certainly Ford is not lying about the EPA test results.  But, and this is a big But, they had to of known that the C Max would not deliver anything close to 47 combined and would inevitably disappoint their customers.  Simply pasting on the EPA rating and trying to blame the discrepancy on the EPA's out of date procedure was a bad idea and will in the long run cost them sales.

 

If you want to see a good analysis of the EPA procedure vs real world, see this month's Car and Driver magazine.  It's the best overview I've seen.

 

The Synch and GPS stuff, however, is inexcusable.  These systems are clearly not fully developed as delivered.  

 

My Synch pulled a "Routine Maintenance" reboot this morning, again right when I needed the GPS to do something.  And the voice recognition?  Forget about it - it will never work well.

Sell it your best bet. your obviously not happy with it.

[Recumpence]

I think I am the high miler on this forum (about to turn 18,000 on the odo). My lifetime average is 44.1. That has been through the winter with a full load of equipment on board. With weather over 55 degrees, I see 52+mpg every day without fail. So, my average MPG should be up over 48 by summer's end.

 

That being said, as I have mentioned, my driving is 75% in town and town to town below 50mph. It is hilly here, but small hills. We have bad roads and a lot of idiot drivers to contend with.

 

Highway only driving is killer. The hybrid system does assist on the highway. But, for highway only driving, the frontal area is too big on this car to expect huge mileage. Honestly, this car is phenominal from a mileage perspective considering its size, wide tires, weight and performance.

 

Knowing what is common knowledge now, dealers should sell the car with a statement something like this-----  "This car is rated at 47-47. It is also a quick car that handles very well. It is actually capable of well over 50mpg if driven softly, but the car is so fun to drive, you may see under 40mpg depending on your driving style."  

 

Maybe that is not the best wording, but you get the idea.

 

I did a lot of reading before I bought. I innitially considered a Prius-C. However, the small size and comments like "The car has absolutely NO driving excitement what-so-ever."  pushed me away from it. However, I also heard there are people getting over 70mpg in town with the little "C".  Then when I saw the Max, I also read the comments about mileage numbers being suspect. I figured, "Hey, I do mostly in town driving and I do not mind Hyper-Miling it. So, I bet I can hit 50mpg with the Max, have more fun, more room, and overall enjoy the drive much more.

 

I have not been more happy with an auto purchase!

 

All that to say this;

 

I LOVE my Max. Assuming it remains reliable, I will keep it for the long term. I know what it is capable of and what its limitations are. But, that is not what everyone feels. That is fine. We also love our Highlander. But, I have read reports from people who hate the Highlander. To each his own. Heck, I would have bought a Volt if it sat 5 and did not cost $40k......  Yet others have traded their Volts in on C-Maxes......

 

We on this forum need to be patient with those who are unhappy with their C-Maxes just as much as we accept those who LOVE it.

 

Matt

Edited April 20, 2013 by Recumpence

[JAZ]

Nicely said, Matt.  It's been my experience that even at 70mph there is a small bit of battery assist on upgrades or acceleration which may be why 38 mpg is possible instead of the low 30s that might be expected for a vehicle of this frontal area and weight.

[RaPieR]

Highway 402 by Raepix, on Flickr

 

 

Anybody know how much drag the C-Max is rated at?  The one of the biggest effects on highway driving I've seen is following a vehicle ahead.  Not necessarily drafting but driving within 3 - 4 second gap behind a larger car or a semi.

 

This was on the 402 on the way to Toronto with ambient temperature at  42F.  Drove at ECO cruise set to 64-66MPH following traffic.

[JohnnOhio]

Can't wait until this cold weather goes away. It was 85 degrees Thursday, 72 and rain yesterday morning, wind and 45 degrees in the afternoon. Today partly sunny 28 degrees with wind ,sleet ,freezing rain, and lake effect snow showers. That' one thing about Ohio,If you don't like the weather wait a minute it'll change. Looks like it's going to be one of those winter strait into summer with no moderate spring temps this year.

Am I ever going to get those big mpg's everyone else is getting? Not around here in the great white north

[plus 3 golfer]

 

Highway 402 by Raepix, on Flickr

 

 

Anybody know how much drag the C-Max is rated at?  The one of the biggest effects on highway driving I've seen is following a vehicle ahead.  Not necessarily drafting but driving within 3 - 4 second gap behind a larger car or a semi.

 

This was on the 402 on the way to Toronto with ambient temperature at  42F.  Drove at ECO cruise set to 64-66MPH following traffic.

The C_d = 0.3

 

MythBusters ran tests on FE vs drafting distance and got the results shown below.  I don't believe you will see much affect at 3-4 seconds at 65 mph (around 300+ feet).  Now if you mean 3 - 4 car lengths, the FE affect will be significant.

 

Edited April 20, 2013 by Plus 3 Golfer

[DR61]

The C_d = 0.3

The Cd is about average for newer cars, but the total drag is Cd x (frontal area).  The C-Max is rather tall so it has a higher frontal area compared to the Prius or Volt for example, both of which have Cd's around .25 I believe.  And of course drag increases with the square of speed.

[Jus-A-CMax]

If you're gonna draft - be prepared to pay for chips in the windscreen. Or pick your trucks very carefully and keep a "safe" distance, lol.

[RaPieR]

The C_d = 0.3

 

MythBusters ran tests on FE vs drafting distance and got the results shown below.  I don't believe you will see much affect at 3-4 seconds at 65 mph (around 300+ feet).  Now if you mean 3 - 4 car lengths, the FE affect will be significant.

 

Hmm that's interesting, I forgot about that episode on Mythbusters.  Maybe the effect is different at +65mph, because I'm driving well enough away so I don't think it can be directly considered as drafting.  Minimum distance is probably 50ft but that's if the semi-decelerates more quickly than anticipated.

[JohnnOhio]

Just noticed that gas went up 30 cents over night here in Ohio. It was 3.32 yesterday and is 3.65 now. Someone must have farted in a oil refinery last night so they had to raise the price. Sure glad everyone here has a C Max. It makes this crap a little easier to deal with.