C-MAX Fuel Mileage. What are you getting?

[GaryK]

Another early update.  With only156 miles on our new C-max, the lifetime mileage is 47.8mpg.  We live in Pinehurst, NC, where we rarely go over 50mpg, and have owned and driven three Priuses (Pria?) for 8 years prior to owning this new car.  It took no time at all for me to get to the EPA rating, and I am sure we will be over 50mpg before long in our hybrid-friendly environment.

 

My wife drove the car for the first time tonight and actually beat my mileage on her first try, with an average braking score of 99!

 

Spinaker87, you need to improve your driving skills, because I was routinely getting 55 mpg in my 2010 Prius locally.

[valkraider]

ConsumerReports.org is one of several agencies to test the CMAX and confirm this. fuelly.com and fueleconomy.gov have enough consumer data to show that Honda, Toyota and VW - on average - get slightly higher than advertised mileage. The CMAX gets - on average - 8 less than advertised, again, right in line with what these reports have been saying.

 

For expletive's sake.

 

1. ConsumerReports.org is not an "agency". They are a for-profit magazine which sells advertising.

 

2. Fuelly and the user submitted part of fueleconomy.gov are all based on unverified numbers submitted by users. People can submit whatever they want.

 

3. Plenty of other magazines and reviews have got over EPA numbers. They are in the news and articles section of these forums.

 

4. People take Fuelly numbers as 100% gospel when they are low but completely ignore the owners on this site who are high. Why?

 

 

What's In any case, I hope Ford does right and compensates its customers like Hundai and Kia did. Otherwise I won't be buying a Ford again.

Sell your c-max. Do us all a favor. Stop whining and buy a Prius or Insight...

 

I am confident Ford did not fudge numbers. EPA tests test a very specific way. If you want that to better reflect real world, call your congressman.

 

Crap. Did I just feed a troll?

[ptjones]

Nope. I'm getting 35.6 mpg with over 5k miles, and before everyone starts talking about how I don't know how to drive, the underperformance (with regard to mpg) of the CMAX is pretty well document at this point. ConsumerReports.org is one of several agencies to test the CMAX and confirm this. fuelly.com and fueleconomy.gov have enough consumer data to show that Honda, Toyota and VW - on average - get slightly higher than advertised mileage. The CMAX gets - on average - 8 less than advertised, again, right in line with what these reports have been saying.

 

Let's stop pretending that this is about tire pressure, being too heavy footed, having the AC on, etc. Ford has misled people like me by falsely advertising their MPG. The 2012 Civic hybrid gets 48.5 on average (consumer data), while it advertises 44mpg.

 

What's unfortunate is that everything else about the car is great. Extremely well designed, the Sync is awesome, the car drives smooth and handles well (although it doesn't corner that well), the sound system is great, the navigation and other features are easy to use and work very well. But I definitely would have went with a different car if this is the mileage I was going to be getting. Perhaps a Focus or Civic.  In any case, I hope Ford does right and compensates its customers like Hundai and Kia did. Otherwise I won't be buying a Ford again.

You haven't stated what kind of driving you do to get that kind of mileage. City/Hwy/short/long trips and I'm assuming you haven't owned a Hybrid before. You should be posting your fillup numbers on FUELLY.com. There is a wealth of information in the fuel economy thread in this Forum if your interested in improving your fuel economy. There are several people in CA maybe someone close by that could give you some pointers. Here are the facts:

 

1.  75% of CMAX owners are getting better MPG than you are and and about 50% are getting 40+MPG, This should tell you something.

2.  Honda Civic Hybrid  on Fuelly average 47.1mpg, with a low of 41.7mpg.

3.  My last fuel up I got 47.3mpg on 608.6mi and 12.8gal.

4.  There is nothing wrong with your CMAX, but you need to be motivated and patient to get the most out of any Hybrid car. They aren't for everybody.

I hope this will help challenge you to see how much you can increase your MPG's.

Good Luck and let us know how you do.  

[Laurel]

Nope. I'm getting 35.6 mpg with over 5k miles, and before everyone starts talking about how I don't know how to drive, the underperformance (with regard to mpg) of the CMAX is pretty well document at this point. ConsumerReports.org is one of several agencies to test the CMAX and confirm this. fuelly.com and fueleconomy.gov have enough consumer data to show that Honda, Toyota and VW - on average - get slightly higher than advertised mileage. The CMAX gets - on average - 8 less than advertised, again, right in line with what these reports have been saying.

 

Let's stop pretending that this is about tire pressure, being too heavy footed, having the AC on, etc. Ford has misled people like me by falsely advertising their MPG. The 2012 Civic hybrid gets 48.5 on average (consumer data), while it advertises 44mpg.

 

What's unfortunate is that everything else about the car is great. Extremely well designed, the Sync is awesome, the car drives smooth and handles well (although it doesn't corner that well), the sound system is great, the navigation and other features are easy to use and work very well. But I definitely would have went with a different car if this is the mileage I was going to be getting. Perhaps a Focus or Civic.  In any case, I hope Ford does right and compensates its customers like Hundai and Kia did. Otherwise I won't be buying a Ford again.

The compensation is really a very small amount i.e. the cost of the extra gas that you bought based on the mileage you have put on your vehicle, and the amount will be paid for the life of the car.  I read that for most it was about $133 extra that they had pay for gas.  So it is not like getting 35 mpg versus 47 mgp is going to net you a fortune if down the road the mileage doesn't pan out.  It does cost Kia lots due to the large numbers sold i.e. multiple a hundred x50-100,000 cars sold, but for individuals it is a drop in the bucket. I remain optimistic as we have had our car for a week and are still on the learning curve and are doing better than you with our mileage per hour.

 

Every time we take our car out for about a 30 mile jaunt our mileage improves by about 2 miles per gallon.  But I will say that driving it is a very different experience to get those gains i.e. I have to be very attentive to the glide aspect and the braking to get 100% return. I have to be very careful to not get to engrossed in the gauges to the detriment of not watching the road.  But slowly I am getting the hang of driving a hybrid. I think ptjones is correct in saying that there is an art to driving a hybrid and that art takes lots of time to get down pat.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Laurel

[darrelld]

 

Without trying on 10% ethanol and regular.

Edited December 8, 2012 by darrelld

[spinnaker87]

Another early update.  With only156 miles on our new C-max, the lifetime mileage is 47.8mpg.  We live in Pinehurst, NC, where we rarely go over 50mpg, and have owned and driven three Priuses (Pria?) for 8 years prior to owning this new car.  It took no time at all for me to get to the EPA rating, and I am sure we will be over 50mpg before long in our hybrid-friendly environment.

 

My wife drove the car for the first time tonight and actually beat my mileage on her first try, with an average braking score of 99!

 

Spinaker87, you need to improve your driving skills, because I was routinely getting 55 mpg in my 2010 Prius locally.

yup like i said.. I drive normally... no hyper miling etc. and i get 49 mpg in a Prius.   Cmax is a 39 mpg car.. nothing wrong with that.. but it's clear to me from this forum, fuelly and CR that the numbers are way overstated..and 47 is a pipe dream..  just like the KIA optima.. which I had researched before all it came out that the numbers were inflated.   maybe if you hypermile and play all those games you can get 44 mpg.. but I don't drive like that.. so I probably would get about 37mpg in the CMAX.    I'll do my own little test with the CMAX and do an apples to apples comparison of mpg.

 

and a spray can won't do you any good in west texas.  much rather have a real spare..so that's a real ding against the CMAX in my book.   also it looks like the EPA is going to do it's own tests on the CMAX and fusion hybrids, so I will wait to hear what they say.

[spinnaker87]

yup like i said.. I drive normally... no hyper miling etc. and i get 49 mpg in a Prius.   Cmax is a 39 mpg car.. nothing wrong with that.. but it's clear to me from this forum, fuelly and CR that the numbers are way overstated..and 47 is a pipe dream..  just like the KIA optima.. which I had researched before all it came out that the numbers were inflated.   maybe if you hypermile and play all those games you can get 44 mpg.. but I don't drive like that.. so I probably would get about 37mpg in the CMAX.    I'll do my own little test with the CMAX and do an apples to apples comparison of mpg.

 

and a spray can won't do you any good in west texas.  much rather have a real spare..so that's a real ding against the CMAX in my book.   also it looks like the EPA is going to do it's own tests on the CMAX and fusion hybrids, so I will wait to hear what they say.

for anyone who knows West Texas.. there ain't no road side assistance for anything so forget about that option.  no way,no how would I feel good about driving through there with a spray can.

[RaPieR]

Nope. I'm getting 35.6 mpg with over 5k miles, and before everyone starts talking about how I don't know how to drive, the underperformance (with regard to mpg) of the CMAX is pretty well document at this point. ConsumerReports.org is one of several agencies to test the CMAX and confirm this. fuelly.com and fueleconomy.gov have enough consumer data to show that Honda, Toyota and VW - on average - get slightly higher than advertised mileage. The CMAX gets - on average - 8 less than advertised, again, right in line with what these reports have been saying.

 

Let's stop pretending that this is about tire pressure, being too heavy footed, having the AC on, etc. Ford has misled people like me by falsely advertising their MPG. The 2012 Civic hybrid gets 48.5 on average (consumer data), while it advertises 44mpg.

 

What's unfortunate is that everything else about the car is great. Extremely well designed, the Sync is awesome, the car drives smooth and handles well (although it doesn't corner that well), the sound system is great, the navigation and other features are easy to use and work very well. But I definitely would have went with a different car if this is the mileage I was going to be getting. Perhaps a Focus or Civic.  In any case, I hope Ford does right and compensates its customers like Hundai and Kia did. Otherwise I won't be buying a Ford again.

It's not a problem of Ford misleading people and "falsely" advertising their MPG.  The problem is the highway routine used for the EPA test doesn't reflect how people drive on the highway in the real world.  If you looked up some of the threads that were started showing the EPA test routine, it's easy for me to see that I don't drive anything like that at all on the highway.  For example, I recently drove to Texas from Michigan for the Thanksgiving holiday.  I drove pretty much 100% highway at a sustained speed probably close to 65 or 70 often driving the entire tank without stopping.  My worst fill up was 32MPG (75MPH - 80MPH Texas highways) and 39MPG (65MPH and hilly highways outside of Texas).

 

But if you look at my daily commute, due to traffic as well as the drive to enter the highway my top speed is probably 70MPH but not sustained with a lot of slow downs and an average speed probably closer to 50MPH my mileage is a lot better as shown below.  My daily commute is probably more in-line with the EPA highway test.

 

I hope the EPA investigates the C-Max.  Because it'll probably show that it's rated right in line with the EPA test and hopefully it'll help push to update their tests for highway testing so it can more realistically reflect what extended highway driving mileage you should expect.

[valkraider]

for anyone who knows West Texas.. there ain't no road side assistance for anything so forget about that option. no way,no how would I feel good about driving through there with a spray can.

I've used roadside assistance in west Texas.

 

Why would there not be? If you can get there with a car, so can roadside assistance.

 

It may take a little while, but most places there are within an hour of at least gas station or service station.

 

Maybe in the summer time make sure you have water in the car, but you should be doing that anyway probably.

 

 

[MSmith1915]

The EPA can save themselves some time and money by just reviewing my stats.

 

Short trip home from the gym.

 

 

 

Drove to the Farmers Market along the river road with the A/C Off:

 

 

 

My drive back home from the Farmers Market with the A/C On:

 

 

 

And for all those that chalk this up to luck, chance, or maybe it was downhill both directions, here's the stats for this current tank of gas:

 

 

Edited December 8, 2012 by MSmith1915

[zhackwyatt]

For expletive's sake.

 

1. ConsumerReports.org is not an "agency". They are a for-profit magazine which sells advertising.

 

 

I don't think that's true.  They are non-profit and do not sell advertising.  However that does not mean they are impartial.  If you search for Consumer Reports bias you can find a lot of arguments on the matter.  Ever since they showed full support for Obamacare (a controversial and giant piece of legislation) I don't trust them as being unbiased anymore.

[EVger]

1. ConsumerReports.org is not an "agency". They are a for-profit magazine which sells advertising.

 

Valkraider,

Thanks for all of your very informative posts.  However, your description of Consumer Reports is inaccurate.  True, as you say, they are not an "agency."   Below their magazine's table of contents, they describe themselves as an independent and not for profit consumer-product-testing organization.  They say they do not "accept paid advertising."  I have not seen any advertising in Consumer Reports, except for their own reports and services.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2012 by EVger

[AgentCMAX]

I hope the EPA investigates the C-Max.  Because it'll probably show that it's rated right in line with the EPA test and hopefully it'll help push to update their tests for highway testing so it can more realistically reflect what extended highway driving mileage you should expect.

 

I couldn't agree more.  My personal experience with my C-Max is I'm easily getting the advertised EPA mpg.  I don't hyper-mile or do anything out of the ordinary to achieve that either.  I simply accelerate smoothly and fast enough so that I don't impede traffic and I pay attention to what's ahead of me so I can break early.  And I've been driving like this for years.  The C-Max helps me improve my driving efficiency even more with all the information it displays about my driving habit.

 

On my way to work this morning, I took this snapshot of my C-Max's info screen on what I felt was a fairly leveled section of the freeway:

 

 

That's showing 50mpg going at 65mph.  Now since I don't know the actual grade of that section of the freeway, it's most likely downsloping based on this snapshot. But that tells me Ford most likely didn't fudge anything on their EPA testing.

 

And on this same route today, I took this snapshot that showed the C-Max engaging in hybrid-mode at cruise control of 65mph!!! This is probably one reason why the C-Max is rated at 47mpg for freeway.

 

Edited December 8, 2012 by AgentCMAX

[skwcrj]

 As I have said before:

 

1) Screen shots of short trips are meaningless unless you can get whole tanks averaging 47 mpg.

2) You shouldn’t have to tailgate trucks to get the EPA 47 mpg.  In fact, hypermiling should help you yield mpg’s above (5-10+) the EPA estimated numbers not just meet them.

3) If the EPA test cycle is so flawed, how come most other vehicles meet or exceed the numbers when the car is driven sensibly?

4) I don’t think that Fort cheated. Ford designed this car to do well on the EPA test. This will yield Ford lots of $$$$. In the real world, it falls short.

5) Most people outside of internet car forums don’t really care if the car gets the EPA estimates or not. They will be happy with the car.

6) This is really a 40 mpg car. Only a handful of you meet the EPA 47 mpg. Most everyone else only gets 38-40 mpg.

7) “Once it’s broken in…” – Once it’s broken in you will see 1-2% increase in mpg at best. Not +7 mpg.

8) Most people are new hybrid drivers. Yes.True. But…Previous/current owners of other hybrids (HCH, Insight, Prius, etc..) have bought a C-Max and can’t seem to get the EPA estimate of 47 mpg.

9) This car is different than other hybrids so you have to learn how to drive it. Sure. But it’s not that different. The learning curve is not that steep. You should be able to “ just drive” it and still get close to the EPA estimates.

10) “The C-Max is more fun to drive” – Not doubt. But, the extra hp is the reason it doesn’t get 47 mpg in the real world. Yet, the 2012 Toyota Camry Hybrid is rated at 43 mpg City /39 mpg Hwy with 200 hp and most owners seem to meet those mpg's easily.

 

I get it. The C-Max is: Quiet, Smooth, Solid, has a nice interior, Sync is great, is fun to drive. You definitely get a lot for your $26K. But you have to realize that this is a 40 mpg car. Not 47.

 

Just some wisdom for some of you who are in denial.

 

PS. I know that I'm stepping on some peoples toes with my comments. I don't mean to dis the C-Max. It is a great car but it's not a 47 mpg machine.

Edited December 8, 2012 by skwcrj

[darrelld]

 As I have said before:

 

1) Screen shots of short trips are meaningless unless you can get whole tanks averaging 47 mpg.

2) You shouldn’t have to tailgate trucks to get the EPA 47 mpg.  In fact, hypermiling should help you yield mpg’s above (5-10+) the EPA estimated numbers not just meet them.

3) If the EPA test cycle is so flawed, how come most other vehicles meet or exceed the numbers when the car is driven sensibly?

4) I don’t think that Fort cheated. Ford designed this car to do well on the EPA test. This will yield Ford lots of $$$$. In the real world, it falls short.

5) Most people outside of internet car forums don’t really care if the car gets the EPA estimates or not. They will be happy with the car.

6) This is really a 40 mpg car. Only a handful of you meet the EPA 47 mpg. Most everyone else only gets 38-40 mpg.

7) “Once it’s broken in…” – Once it’s broken in you will see 1-2% increase in mpg at best. Not +7 mpg.

8) Most people are new hybrid drivers. Yes.True. But…Previous/current owners of other hybrids (HCH, Insight, Prius, etc..) have bought a C-Max and can’t seem to get the EPA estimate of 47 mpg.

9) This car is different than other hybrids so you have to learn how to drive it. Sure. But it’s not that different. The learning curve is not that steep. You should be able to “ just drive” it and still get close to the EPA estimates.

10) “The C-Max is more fun to drive” – Not doubt. But, the extra hp is the reason it doesn’t get 47 mpg in the real world.

 

I get it. The C-Max is: Quiet, Smooth, Solid, has a nice interior, Sync is great, is fun to drive. You definitely get a lot for your $26K. But you have to realize that this is a 40 mpg car. Not 47.

 

Just some wisdom for some of you who are in denial.

 

PS. I know that I'm stepping on some peoples toes with my comments. I don't mean to dis the C-Max. It is a great car but it's not a 47 mpg machine.

Looking for some Troll treats again I see...

 

Troll definition

 

It has been asserted that the verb to troll originates from Old French troller, a hunting term. A verb "trôler" is found in modern French-English dictionaries, where the main meaning given is "to lead, or drag, somebody about". In modern English usage, the verb to troll describes a fishing technique of slowly dragging a lure or baited hook from a moving boat.[6] A similar but distinct verb, "to trawl," describes the act of dragging a fishing net (not a line). Whereas trolling with a fishing line is recreational, trawling with a net is generally a commercial activity.

 

The noun troll comes from the Old Norse word for a mythological monster.[7] The word evokes the trolls of Scandinavian folklore and children's tales, where they are often creatures bent on mischief and wickedness. The contemporary use of the term is alleged to have appeared on the Internet in the late 1980s,[8] but the earliest known example is from 1992.[9] Early non-Internet related use of trolling for actions deliberately performed to provoke a reaction can be found in the military; by 1972 the term trolling for MiGs was documented in use by US Navy pilots in Vietnam.[10]

 

Early history

 

The most likely derivation of the word troll can be found in the phrase "trolling for newbies", popularized in the early 1990s in the Usenet group, alt.folklore.urban (AFU).[11][12] Commonly, what is meant is a relatively gentle inside joke by veteran users, presenting questions or topics that had been so overdone that only a new user would respond to them earnestly. For example, a veteran of the group might make a post on the common misconception that glass flows over time. Long-time readers would both recognize the poster's name and know that the topic had been discussed a lot, but new subscribers to the group would not realize, and would thus respond. These types of trolls served as a practice to identify group insiders. This definition of trolling, considerably narrower than the modern understanding of the term, was considered a positive contribution.[11][13] One of the most notorious AFU trollers, David Mikkelson,[11] went on to create the urban folklore website Snopes.com.

 

By the late 1990s, alt.folklore.urban had such heavy traffic and participation that trolling of this sort was frowned upon. Others expanded the term to include the practice of playing a seriously misinformed or deluded user, even in newsgroups where one was not a regular; these were often attempts at humor rather than provocation. In such contexts, the noun troll usually referred to an act of trolling, rather than to the author.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Edited December 8, 2012 by darrelld

[valkraider]

Valkraider,

Thanks for all of your very informative posts.  However, your description of Consumer Reports is inaccurate.  True, as you say, they are not an "agency."   Below their magazine's table of contents, they describe themselves as an independent and not for profit consumer-product-testing organization.  They say they do not "accept paid advertising."  I have not seen any advertising in Consumer Reports, except for their own reports and services.

 

I was incorrect, they are non-profit.  I was wrong there.

 

However,

 

They do accept advertising dollars, just not for their print magazine.  Go to their website.  See Ads.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

"Their website, however, does display retailers' advertisements; Consumer Reports say that the ads are placed by PriceGrabber, who collects referral fees from the retailers and pays a percentage to Consumer Reports,^[6] and that Consumer Reports has no direct relationship with the merchants.^[7] Consumer Reports does publish reviews of PriceGrabber, and at least in one case recommends them as the best choice.^[8] Previously, CR had a similar relationship with BizRate.^[9] CR also has had relationships with other companies including Amazon.com,^[10]Yahoo!,^[11]The Wall Street Journal; The Washington Post;^[12] BillShrink;^[13] and Decide.com.^[14] CR also accepts funding in the form of grants from other organizations,^[15] and at least one high-ranking Consumer Reports employee has gone on to work for a company he evaluated."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Reports

Edited December 8, 2012 by valkraider

[ptjones]

 As I have said before:

 

1) Screen shots of short trips are meaningless unless you can get whole tanks averaging 47 mpg.

2) You shouldn’t have to tailgate trucks to get the EPA 47 mpg.  In fact, hypermiling should help you yield mpg’s above (5-10+) the EPA estimated numbers not just meet them.

3) If the EPA test cycle is so flawed, how come most other vehicles meet or exceed the numbers when the car is driven sensibly?

4) I don’t think that Fort cheated. Ford designed this car to do well on the EPA test. This will yield Ford lots of $$$$. In the real world, it falls short.

5) Most people outside of internet car forums don’t really care if the car gets the EPA estimates or not. They will be happy with the car.

6) This is really a 40 mpg car. Only a handful of you meet the EPA 47 mpg. Most everyone else only gets 38-40 mpg.

7) “Once it’s broken in…” – Once it’s broken in you will see 1-2% increase in mpg at best. Not +7 mpg.

8) Most people are new hybrid drivers. Yes.True. But…Previous/current owners of other hybrids (HCH, Insight, Prius, etc..) have bought a C-Max and can’t seem to get the EPA estimate of 47 mpg.

9) This car is different than other hybrids so you have to learn how to drive it. Sure. But it’s not that different. The learning curve is not that steep. You should be able to “ just drive” it and still get close to the EPA estimates.

10) “The C-Max is more fun to drive” – Not doubt. But, the extra hp is the reason it doesn’t get 47 mpg in the real world. Yet, the 2012 Toyota Camry Hybrid is rated at 43 mpg City /39 mpg Hwy with 200 hp and most owners seem to meet those mpg's easily.

 

I get it. The C-Max is: Quiet, Smooth, Solid, has a nice interior, Sync is great, is fun to drive. You definitely get a lot for your $26K. But you have to realize that this is a 40 mpg car. Not 47.

 

Just some wisdom for some of you who are in denial.

 

PS. I know that I'm stepping on some peoples toes with my comments. I don't mean to dis the C-Max. It is a great car but it's not a 47 mpg machine.

skwcrj  nobody is interested your opinions anymore, you totally ignore my post to you, and my post for my last tank at 608mi, 12.8gal and 47.3MPG  mostly hwy which is about 100mi farther than you have gone in your PriusV. Also you stated on the Prius forum that you do hypermilling which is obvious with you are getting 6mpg better than the average for PriusV's. Oh by the way I gained 15% MPG with my 2010 Escape Hybrid by 15kmi.  About 50% of the CMAX's on Fuelly are getting 40mpg or better, 40% are learning to drive a Hybrid and 10% don't care or aren't CMAX's at all. I expect in a years time the overall average will be 43-44mpg which is better than PriusV and close enough to 47mpg to not matter. You still haven't driven a CMAX.

 

 

Darrelld loved your Post.

[rkk]

I see things are getting testy. Personally I don't think name calling and discounting anyone's opinion is helpful. Anyway I now have just over 5,000 miles on my C-MAX. My best tank so far has been 44 mpg but overall I am just under 42 and I am working hard to get that. I live in Wisconsin so it is colder but not as bad as usual. In the summer I am sure I will do better and who knows I might even get close to 47. Having said that for the most part I agree with skwcrj, but it depends on where and how you drive. Before you start calling me names let me tell you why.

 

First, my own personal experience. I come from a 2006 Civic hybrid. It is rated at 45 mpg highway and 42 combined. Most of my driving is freeway. Driving 70+ mph in that car upper 40's mpgs without trying was normal, 50+ if I tried. The last two days I had the C-MAX at the dealer so I went back to the civic. As a test I used cruise control as much as I could and got 51 mpg on the civic. The day before in the CMAX doing the same thing I got 43. The freeway portion was worse, I was just under 40 mpg with the CMAX but the city portion brought it back up. I have also run tests with the cruise control on so taking the driver completely out of it and at 65 or above I wasn't near 47 mpg. Yes, on perfectly flat roads in warmer temps you might do better but the CMAX is too tall and too heavy to get great mileage at high speeds. Hills don't help either. It is heavy going up and there is a lot of regen going down.

 

Also when I was test driving other cars with every one except the CMAX I did better than EPA. In the CMAX I drove 4 different ones and the best I did was 40 mpg. I bought it anyway because I liked it best and I was hoping I would do better with time and I have but 47 mpg so far on a tank hasn't happened. Yes I have had 50+ mpg 20+ mile drives( no freeway) and 70+ mpg short drives but it is the whole tank that matters. By the way. My indicated Mpg has almost always been higher than actual(most of the people on Fuelly say the same thing) so if you are going by what the car is indicating you are probably 1-2 mpgs less than that. I did a lot of research before and after buying the CMAX and I only found one that achieved above 47 and on the screen shot showing that if you look at the time traveled it was clear there was little if any freeway driving. Just like many of the pictures posted here. Every other one fell well short. That wouldn't be a problem except those same drivers usually did nearly as well in the much lower rated Camry Hybrid and many of them did better in the Prius V that Ford keeps saying they are better than. Say what you will about Fuelly.com but out of 36 CMAXs only 2 are doing 47 mpg or better and the average is less than 40 mpg. All the Prius hybrids and Civic Hybrid average at or above EPA.

 

Again, I like my CMAX but I think they stretched too far in calling this a 47 mpg city AND 47 highway mpg car. Will some people hit it, sure. When the average person can, then it is a 47 mpg car. Having said ALL that I think Ford with some software tweaks can make it better. Make the regen less agressive when the gas engine is running so it can be more efficient and perhaps use the battery more at 65+ mpg to assist the gas engine and take some of the load off it.

Edited December 9, 2012 by rkk

[skwcrj]

PT,

 

Darrelld has an obsession with Trolls. He might even be out hunting for Trolls as we speak.

 

When you say " nobody is interested your opinions anymore", I don't think you speak for everyone. There are a lot of lurkers (just Iike I was) who are interested in the C-Max's actual mpg. We don't want to buy one and find out for ourselves that it's not even close to the advertised 47 mpg. This information is very important to some who are looking for a high mpg car. I'm ok with you not being interested in my opinions anymore. That's fine by me.

 

This multi-page thread has been very enlightening for many and I personally appreciate all who have posted about their results and frustrations. I applaud those of you who still love the car because of its quality. Once you get tired of playing (and modifying your car for max mpg) mpg games, you will start just driving your car. You then have to come to peace with your car besides its mpg because you won't care to play that game anymore.

 

On hypermiling... My secret is that I just drive at 60 mph with cruise control and no faster. The V does the rest. I just drive it. That's all. I don't even know how to Pulse and Glide and I don't draft/tail gate. In my opinion, "drafting" is both dangerous and detrimental (chipped windshield or pitted front end at the very least) to your brand new car. The potential damage is not worth a few extra mpg's.

 

Test Drive. No you are right I haven't taken a test drive because you can't possible get the kind of information I have gotten from this forum in a test drive. Besides, all the salesman is going to convey is "this is a 47 mpg car and you just have to wait for it to get broken in to get it". Hmmm... Before reading this thread (plus blogs, mags, and Fuelly.com) I would have believed him. Now, not so much. I'm not that interested if the car is not capable of the advertised 47 mpg.

 

RKK is very wise. Pay attention to his experience.

 

So, PT... You probably won't want to read the following couple of links either...

 

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121208/AUTO0102/212080368/1361/EPA-will-review-Ford-C-Max--Fusion-47-mpg-claims

 

Or

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-epa-probes-ford-mpg-20121207,0,3832182.story

 

We'll see what comes out of the probe.

[CMAX_owner]

For expletive's sake.

 

1. ConsumerReports.org is not an "agency". They are a for-profit magazine which sells advertising.

 

2. Fuelly and the user submitted part of fueleconomy.gov are all based on unverified numbers submitted by users. People can submit whatever they want.

 

3. Plenty of other magazines and reviews have got over EPA numbers. They are in the news and articles section of these forums.

 

4. People take Fuelly numbers as 100% gospel when they are low but completely ignore the owners on this site who are high. Why?

 

 

 

Sell your c-max. Do us all a favor. Stop whining and buy a Prius or Insight...

 

I am confident Ford did not fudge numbers. EPA tests test a very specific way. If you want that to better reflect real world, call your congressman.

 

Crap. Did I just feed a troll?

valkraider, why is it that when people have different perspectives than you, you call them trolls? And btw, if you're spending that much of your time running down every comment you don't agree with so that you can insult the poster, who's really the troll? I'm going off of my numbers, and all the consumer data out there that's available. You have independent agencies that have data show the CMAX does get the advertised mileage? I'd love to see it.

 

Pointing to people's stories on this forum as evidence that this car can get 47 mpg is ridiculous. What matters is what ALL drivers get on AVERAGE, and right now, that number is around 37 mpg.  I can get 52 mpg if I'm driving 15 mph, but on the freeway this car gets low 30's. If 1,000 people get 50 mpg in their car, and 10,000 people get 30 mpg, what does that mean the mpg really is? Do I need to dumb this down for you anymore, or did you make it to the 6th grade?

 

If you want to believe there is a conspiracy out there by all the other car manufacturers and their drivers to destroy Ford's reputation,  have at it. Or you can get off Fords *explicitive* and accept that the CMAX is a really cool car that gets ON AVERAGE, 37 mpg. And btw, I just spent 35K on my car and maintenance package, so don't be a fool and act like I wouldn't want my car to perform well.

 

Are you aware that when you drive a car off the lot, it loses 20% of it's value? This is common knowlegde, but apparetly you're unaware of this. Because if I could return the car and get my money back I would. Do you want to buy my car for full price? Heck, I'll give you $1,000 off the sticker. If not, then do us a favor and keep quite.

 

The rumblings of the CMAX not getting it's mileage have been around, ConsumerReports is only more confirmation:  http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1080580_ford-hybrids-fuel-economy-failing-to-live-up-to-epa-ratings/page-2

Edited December 9, 2012 by CMAX_owner

[MSmith1915]

Now, now.  Let's keep it civil.  We're still early adopters on the new C-Max.  There are what 15,000 C-Max hybrids on the road?  The Prius has over ten years of data and knowledge to draw on.  I'll bet the Prius dealer can even give the new buyer some tips on how to get the rated mileage.  My sales rep for the C-Max took a crash course in the manual the morning of the day I bought my car.  As we get more used to driving our hybrids, we'll learn and pass on those techniques the Prius has had over 10 years to develop.  Keep the faith.  We'll get there.  I love my C-Max.  My first 1300 or so miles averaged about 39 mpg.  The current tank at over 300 miles is right at 48 mpg.  I'm learning and getting better with just some basic techniques, no super hypermiling, just good hybrid driving, driving the speed limit and anticipating my stops (I always check my rear view mirror to see how much I can use the regen for my stops).

[CMAX_owner]

Now, now.  Let's keep it civil.  We're still early adopters on the new C-Max.  There are what 15,000 C-Max hybrids on the road?  The Prius has over ten years of data and knowledge to draw on.  I'll bet the Prius dealer can even give the new buyer some tips on how to get the rated mileage.  My sales rep for the C-Max took a crash course in the manual the morning of the day I bought my car.  As we get more used to driving our hybrids, we'll learn and pass on those techniques the Prius has had over 10 years to develop.  Keep the faith.  We'll get there.  I love my C-Max.  My first 1300 or so miles averaged about 39 mpg.  The current tank at over 300 miles is right at 48 mpg.  I'm learning and getting better with just some basic techniques, no super hypermiling, just good hybrid driving, driving the speed limit and anticipating my stops (I always check my rear view mirror to see how much I can use the regen for my stops).

 

I think the CMAX is a great car. I love the interior design, the Sony sound system, the navigation the Sync, and especially the ambient lighting inside. But my work is 42 miles away from my house, and 40 of those are on the freeway. I also drive to Santa Barbara about twice a month, wich is a 600 mile round trip, so again, most of my miles are on the freeway. What I'm seeing is that at REAL freeway speeds (65-75 mph), my car gets mid to low 30's for mpg.  I've tried driving all sorts of ways, and on my best day, I can get 38 - 40, which takes me about an extra 10 minutes on my commute. I'd rather drive normal and get a few less mpg.  If I was getting in the low 40's driving normally, I would be perfectly happy.

 

The EPA annouced yesterday they are going to investigate these claims, but after reading about their test standards, the 47 mpg makes a little more sense. Most notably is that the EPA tests don't drive above 60 mph, and as we all know, the CMAX can drive in EV mode up to 62 mph. So perhaps the real bone to pick here is with the EPA, and why they test at 60 mph, knowing darn well that most highways have speed limites at 65 or 70. And the difference between 60 mph and 70 mph in the CMAX is about 20 mpg. Although I'd like to think that ultimately the manufacturer has some responsiblity to be more candid with their customers.

[darrelld]

I think the CMAX is a great car. I love the interior design, the Sony sound system, the navigation the Sync, and especially the ambient lighting inside. But my work is 42 miles away from my house, and 40 of those are on the freeway. I also drive to Santa Barbara about twice a month, wich is a 600 mile round trip, so again, most of my miles are on the freeway. What I'm seeing is that at REAL freeway speeds (65-75 mph), my car gets mid to low 30's for mpg.  I've tried driving all sorts of ways, and on my best day, I can get 38 - 40, which takes me about an extra 10 minutes on my commute. I'd rather drive normal and get a few less mpg.  If I was getting in the low 40's driving normally, I would be perfectly happy.

 

The EPA annouced yesterday they are going to investigate these claims, but after reading about their test standards, the 47 mpg makes a little more sense. Most notably is that the EPA tests don't drive above 60 mph, and as we all know, the CMAX can drive in EV mode up to 62 mph. So perhaps the real bone to pick here is with the EPA, and why they test at 60 mph, knowing darn well that most highways have speed limites at 65 or 70. And the difference between 60 mph and 70 mph in the CMAX is about 20 mpg. Although I'd like to think that ultimately the manufacturer has some responsiblity to be more candid with their customers.

Curious why you didn't opt for a diesel with the type of driving you do? I regularly exceed EPA ratings in my Passat TDI and I can hit the highway rated 40+ mpg @ 70.

[CMAX_owner]

Curious why you didn't opt for a diesel with the type of driving you do? I regularly exceed EPA ratings in my Passat TDI and I can hit the highway rated 40+ mpg @ 70.

I actually test drove the TDI Golf and I did like it, and it was second on my list. The Civic hybrid was 3rd. But the Golf was rated low 40's (42 me thinks) for highway driving and the combined was less, while the CMAX was rated at 47 for hwy. This is my first time buying a hybrid, and I didn't do enough research on how the EPA tests these cars, although it seems logical to me that they would have tested highway mileage at actual highway speeds.

 

I also liked the interior design, features and room that the CMAX has. Like I said, it's a very well designed car. But I got my car halfway through October, and I already have over 5,100 miles on my car, since I drive so much on the freeway. Ford has made great strides the past 5 years and they're producing excellent cars. However, for my situation a diesel would have been the better choice economically. My major gripe at this point is that these numbers don’t seem candid to me. I would have gotten better mpg out of a diesel, but that’s not what was advertised.

[darrelld]

I actually test drove the TDI Golf and I did like it, and it was second on my list. The Civic hybrid was 3rd. But the Golf was rated low 40's (42 me thinks) for highway driving and the combined was less, while the CMAX was rated at 47 for hwy. This is my first time buying a hybrid, and I didn't do enough research on how the EPA tests these cars, although it seems logical to me that they would have tested highway mileage at actual highway speeds.

 

I also liked the interior design, features and room that the CMAX has. Like I said, it's a very well designed car. But I got my car halfway through October, and I already have over 5,100 miles on my car, since I drive so much on the freeway. Ford has made great strides the past 5 years and they're producing excellent cars. However, for my situation a diesel would have been the better choice economically. My major gripe at this point is that these numbers don’t seem candid to me. I would have gotten better mpg out of a diesel, but that’s not what was advertised.

I can understand your frustration, but you are still better off with the C-Max. I traded a Jetta TDI for my C-Max due to high pressure fuel pump failures that are numbering in the 1000's. The Golf TDI you were considering is seeing those same issues, just lookup TDI HPFP. The Passat TDI that I current own has a completely different fuel system and even gets the Consumer Reports highly recommend status. So if you decide to go diesel the Passat TDI is the way to go for now.

Edited December 9, 2012 by darrelld