I AM NOT going to adopt the new FE improvements

[armoredsaint]

i'll be the first guinea pig to get the update  :happy feet:

[HannahWCU]

My daily 27 mile drive to work includes over 20 miles of 65mph interstate. I WILL be getting the update. The topography of the Piedmont area of NC has almost no level roads. I drive at less than 62mph to shut down the ICE on the downhill sides of hills. I may lose some mpg or I may not. But being able to drive at least the speed limit and shut down the ICE on the downhills will be worth it. Just my $0.02

[spyburn]

I'll be in line to get the update.  Then I'll (hopefully) join the 600 mile club, be the top performer on the 500 mile challenge and say, "Nope.  I didn't get the upgrade....I'm just that good!"

 

Seriously though, I do want to get the update.  I think it would suit my routes to and from work a little better.  Like HannahWCU, I'm in an area where flat, level roads are practically non-existent.  I have zero interest in traveling 80 mph, but I do like the idea the EV engine would stay on while coasting downhill at 70 or 75.  Just yesterday I had to run up the road about 6 miles to pick something up at the vet.  It was straight uphill all the way there and I managed to rock 13.5 mpg.  However on the way back, I was at almost 80 mpg.....and a lot of that was down hill at 70 mph....so with the update, the downhill portion would have (theoretically) been much better.

[mtb9153]

I for one look forward to the enhancements, I've got nothing to loose.  Since 3.5.1 my AvMPG has not changed and I didn't expect it to since it wasn't focusing on fuel mileage enhancement for either short drives or long drives.  I can reset my fuel history and see wonderful numbers in short order.  But as things settle down the 60's, 50's and high 40's fall away to low 40's and even mid to upper 30's.  I want 40's and 50's all the time and I'd be pleasantly surprised if I could achieve 70's

[salsaguy]

glad we have some brave souls to bring up the front attack and storm the beaches of better FE.

i would expect those with mpgs <40 would have the most to gain and the least to lose.and any change would be more noticeable than those getting 45-55 mpg now as surely they can't make those improve more than 1-3 mpg

 

 

i'll be the first guinea pig to get the update  :happy feet:

Edited July 21, 2013 by salsaguy

[GaryM]

My car was built in Feb. Sat at the dealer a while and got 120 miles of test drives on it before I bought it 3 weeks ago. Is there any way to tell what version it is running now? Do I have the 1.0 or can I tell if it has the 3.5.1 update?

[asb]

I will do the update.  Most of my driving is on the highway, and my mileage is still not where I want it to be.  I barely squeeked by on my last tank at 44.1.  But Fuelly claimed it was 41.  Whatever.  :)  

[catsailor]

Drove to St Michaels MD to have dinner with friends and returned home the same day about 175 miles round trip in what was probably the hottest day of summer so far +95 degree heat there and back. Averaged for both legs of the trip +44.5 mpg with A/C on full bore cause wife was with me. Actually my late night return trip home was into head winds due to storms in the background and I was driving above the 62 mph threshold since I wanted to get home sooner. I actually observed ICE charging batteries when above 62 mph and that allowed me to use the EV when I got into slower traffic.

 

My question is THIS feature goes AWAY at 85 mph speeds. Can somebody explain to me how I am going to use ICE to charge my batteries??????????? when on the hwy. I would rather see top end EV mode at 70 or even 67.5 mph. Please debate this issue for me since I already figured out cold heat up and A/C modes for saving batteries. With these enhancements just undo what I am already mentally programed to do. Somebody please advise me cause NO WAY am I going to rush out and get this done until I hear from Matt and Jus and others whom are beating the game.

[Riddley]

Two scenarios for driving a distance on a flat road:

 

1) Currently, you drive above the current EV threshold to charge your batteries - essentially overriding programmed behavior. A few miles down the road, (call this "point B") you have a relatively charged battery.

 

2) In the post August Update scenario, you can't assume ICE at 65MPH. You imagine that you will actually see EV at 65, until the battery level drops below it's charging threshold (a few miles down the road at point B).

 

So under scenario 1, you are a few miles down the road at point B with a relatively well-charged battery.  Under scenario 2 you are reach point B, with a relatively weak battery. 

 

The thing to consider is that you have traveled to get to point B.  Under scenario 1, you got to point B under ICE. You have more charge in your battery, but less fuel in your tank. Under scenario 2, you got to point B under EV. You have less charge in your battery. but more fuel in your tank.

 

Let's next move beyond point B to travel a few miles further (call this "point C"), taking into consideration the relative state of batteries. Under scenario 1, you will travel from point B to point C under EV, and arrive at point C with a relatively depleted battery. Under scenario 2, you will travel from point B to point C under ICE, and arrive with a relatively charged battery. 

 

If all things were equal, (a closed system), then on a flat road, I might suggest that you will not realize gain or loss in FE performance due to a change in the EV threshold. Results might be different where the terrain changes (hills, etc.) .

 

I might be missing a lot of things, and just putting this out there as a point of discussion.        

[Riddley]

Lets add a new consideration:

 

Under scenario 1 (no August system update), the distance traveled to point B was necessarily at a speed of 65+ MPH (to force ICE, and battery charging). Traveling at 65+ MPH, you encounter increased resistance, so the system works harder to overcome this resistance. Reducing FE.

 

Under scenario 2 (August system update installed), you travel at all times between 60 and 65 MPH, because the incentive to force ICE is removed. You travel at reduced resistance (reduced wind resistance, etc.). Simply because you are traveling slower, you should realize some gain in FE.  

 

Add to the equation, with the August system update we get improvements in grille venting (presumably these will close with more awareness to vehicle speed), your resistance will be reduced further.  If these things are true, unless there are other factors to consider, you will arrive at point C with more fuel in your tank. 

 

Fire away at these assumptions and conclusions. 

[catsailor]

Riddley

There is no free ride some where you will need to pay the price of a depleted battery so the next morning you suck up juice to re-charge cause that is what EV + is all about. I assume by depleting the batteries for a current run you THINK your getting great gas FE for that run but suffer the next day upon start up for a short trip?? I am still confused as I have tried to play out these scenarios in my head a zillion times. I wish I could install these upgrades BUT remove them if I chose to down the road.

[salsaguy]

what do you mean **Fuelly* reported 41.fuelly only reports what you enter into it.

 

the actual mpg value is calculated by miles driven for the tank (down on your trip 1 or2 display) divided by gallons filed into tank at the pump.are you comparing what your dash said you got?? as that is not accurate and known to over state your mpgs  by about 1-3 mpg (as reported by many users posts here in the forums).

 

 

I will do the update.  Most of my driving is on the highway, and my mileage is still not where I want it to be.  I barely squeeked by on my last tank at 44.1.  But Fuelly claimed it was 41.  Whatever.   :)

Edited July 21, 2013 by salsaguy

[asb]

what do you mean **Fuelly* reported 41.fuelly only reports what you enter into it.

 

the actual mpg value is calculated by miles driven for the tank (down on your trip 1 or2 display) divided by gallons filed into tank at the pump.are you comparing what your dash said you got?? as that is not accurate and known to over state your mpgs  by about 1-3 mpg (as reported by many users posts here in the forums).

 

I'm entering the information as Fuelly tells me to.  The dash reported 44.1 for the tank.  Fuelly said 41 for the tank.

[grggwlkr]

For discussions sake. What if this August update is a diversion for those in litigation over the mileage issue. Ford offers a solution that litigates will be compelled to have installed.  The law suites then get pushed down the road until the update is shown to be successful or not. Ford then has some justification to dismiss some of the claims on technical grounds if the owner does not have the update installed. I'm not a lawyer and do not know the terminology. I have watched some Matlock in the past though.

[frbill]

I will almost certainly get this update. I can already get good mileage it would like to see continued improvements.

[Jus-A-CMax]

I will almost certainly get this update. I can already get good mileage it would like to see continued improvements.

I am surprised...thought you might have waited to see....

[SnowStorm]

I certainly expect to go for the update but would love to see a detailed technical explanation of all the changes first.  However, there may not be as much detail as us engineers would like.  Automotive software will increasingly become the "crown jewels" and Ford isn't going to give out any more secrets than they can help.  In the long run I think the best plan will be to "stay up to date".

[salsaguy]

you need to setup fuelly to ask you for how many gallons you used and how many miles you drove and the price of gas you bought. just ignore your dash mpg. fuelly does not ask you to enter what mpg your dash said you got.

 

be sure you don't top off the gas pump when you fill up either. just stop at the first click off, other wise you will be off as well since your putting in more gas, meaning less mpg.

 

I'm entering the information as Fuelly tells me to.  The dash reported 44.1 for the tank.  Fuelly said 41 for the tank.

[bigalpha]

be sure you don't top off the gas pump when you fill up either. just stop at the first click off, other wise you will be off as well since your putting in more gas, meaning less mpg.

 

Even this is sketchy because, as we know, some dispenser nozzles don't play that well with the capless gas tank and you have to find the spot where the nozzle doesn't shut off.

[salsaguy]

grgg, I'm sure Ford was forced into this somehow by their engr and legal team to CTA (cover their a@@) even if there was no wrong doing in the EPA testing, which i don't believe there was. better to have a plan B than no plan at all.if those who sued didn't want to settle out of court, they may of had to do something to make up for their problems  (regarding low mpgs ) and on more than just a single customer by customer basis.

we will most likely never know the truth since most of these things are hidden from the public.

and since most companies DO want to improve their products, its only logical they would have made updates after almost a year with of first year data from their test team and the warranty repairs, just like they have done for the mft/synch issues.

since its not a hardware replacement part but instead a computer software update to do the FE update, they can claim this was always the plan.and with many getting over 47 mpg they can show it wasn't a blatant trick by Ford to cheat. if all users got 35-40 mpg then that would be another story.

just because someone sued them and they have a patch to improve the FE  doesn't mean the sue happy owners were not driving harshly/badly to begin with.

[salsaguy]

if that is true that is a huge potential source of FE variation.i meant in general it's best to use one method of filling the tank and its also best to not top off to avoid under reporting your mpg numbers. and to also overflowing the tank.

 

quoted:

"even this is sketchy because, as we know, some dispenser nozzles don't play that well with the capless gas tank and you have to find the spot where the nozzle doesn't shut off."

Edited July 22, 2013 by salsaguy

[bigalpha]

Have you never inserted the nozzle and have it kick off unless you back it out of the filler neck of the car?  I thought it was a common problem.  Happens to me almost everywhere.

[Jus-A-CMax]

if that is true that is a huge potential source of FE variation.i meant in general it's best to use one method of filling the tank and its also best to not top off to avoid under reporting your mpg numbers. and to also overflowing the tank.

 

quoted:

"even this is sketchy because, as we know, some dispenser nozzles don't play that well with the capless gas tank and you have to find the spot where the nozzle doesn't shut off."

 

Have you never inserted the nozzle and have it kick off unless you back it out of the filler neck of the car?  I thought it was a common problem.  Happens to me almost everywhere.

 

 

Going :flyaway:

 

People, topping off the gas is not the key topic here guys. If you want to discuss this issue, please do a search first to see if there is an existing thread or start a separate one. Otherwise this conversation becomes diluted..plus its been rehaaasssshed many times already. Thanks.... :)

[salsaguy]

maybe once in a blue moon and only at initial start when it won't affect my mpg numbers. once it's going it's good for me. reminder...i don't own a C-Max yet....

 

maybe time to find a new gas station for your fillups???

[salsaguy]

spy burn, didn't you get the memo??? after the FE update is released in Aug , the 600 mile club will become the 700 mile club so......bar will be higher.

;) j/k

 

I'll be in line to get the update.  Then I'll (hopefully) join the 600 mile club....

Edited July 22, 2013 by salsaguy