My experience at 40,000 miles.........

[Recumpence]

Hello All,

 

First off, I know Ptjones has a couple thousand miles more than me at this point. However, I wanted to share with all of you my personal experience as I rolled over the 40,000 mile threshold yesterday.

 

As you can see by the picture, my lifetime MPG (indicated) is 49.4mpg. That is figuring in an average of 42mpg over last winter. This summer was 56 to 57mpg, bringing it up to the current 49.4mpg mark. I expect that to stay through the winter because my aero mods have brought my winter mpg up from 42 or 43mpg to 50mpg.  :)

 

Next you will see that my EV miles are over 23,500. That means that over 40,000 miles, my engine has only run 16,500 miles. So, the engine should last the life of the car.

 

Now, for those who say "Yes, but your battery costs the same as an engine and will need to br replaced somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 miles." True, but I did the math, with our current gas prices, by that time my C-Max will have saved me $24,000 in gas versus my old minivan and the battery is $3,400. So, I am still over $20,000 ahead when I get to the point of needing a battery.

 

At any rate, I have to say, I am 100% thrilled with my car. I could not be happier. Even with the darn Sync issues and the MPG controversy, I still love this thing.

 

I have to say, also, that my MPG crept up continually as I added miles even before the aero mods began. So, for those who stuggle with their MPG, stick with it, it will improve both from extended break-in, and from increased driving skill.

 

So, that is my story (a shortened version of it, anyway).  

 

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.......    :)

 

Matt

Edited November 13, 2013 by Recumpence

[Jus-A-CMax]

Car, what car? Still in the shop.... :arrive_alive:

 

Congratz Matt - fine job with the aero mods on the car and THAT IS HELL OF A LOT OF MILES - you and Paul...its not even in the KBB book to price the CMax at those miles. I tried with my mortal 21K and it would not take. Ain't possible says kbb...unless I had a bad site.

 

Be interesting to see how your MPG maintains in the cold weather in the long run. Especially when it gets really, really cold.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Jus-A-CMax

[Recumpence]

I agree. There may be a threshold below which my mileage drops like a rock. That is a definate possibility. Still, I used to have a saying "50 dgrees sees 50mpg". I could not hit 50mpg until the temp went above 50 degrees. In the 20s, my mpg was 42 to 43mpg. The last couple days have been in the mid 20s and my mpg is above 50 for those two days. So, I am a very happy camper. That being said, it may be that when the temp hits the teens, my mpg may go back to 42. We shall see......

 

I still think it will be far higher than my annoying 42mpg it used to be in the winter. Heck, I had a number of tanks in the 38mpg range in the worst part of last winter.

 

Matt

[fotomoto]

Matt, what kind of winter are they predicting up there?  Down here they're saying colder and wetter.  It was 43f this morning which is unusual for this early on.  Still I managed 48mpg on my morning commute.  I didn't need HVAC although my son used his seat warmer on 3.

[Recumpence]

It was mid twenties the last two days (I averaged 50.7mpg) and it is supposed to be mid to high 30s today. I am not doing much driving, though. It is my office day.

 

It is supposed to be around 40 for the next couple days.

 

Matt

[wab]

How are your tires holding up?

 

Have you thought about more Michelins (UTQG 480) are maybe a little less efficient tire for a lot less $?

After a quick look at TireRack it looks like the Yokohama AVID Ascend (UTQG 740) will last longer, cost less up front and get almost the same mpg???

[Recumpence]

The tires are still in great condition. It looks like I am about 1/2 way through their life.

 

Once I get close to requiring replacement, I will look into it. Too much can change in teh next year or so.

 

I can tell you, however, that I definately LOVE these tires. I have found that cheap tires are generally crap. I would hate to put cheap tires on a $30,000 car.

 

Matt

[wab]

+1 on cheap (China)

I haven't seen any "cheap" LRR tires.

 

2 yrs from now???

Edited November 13, 2013 by wab

[fbov]

Yoko Avid Ascend tires are a good product (killed several sets), but I have no expectation they're in the same league as the OEM Energy Savers for rolling resistance.

 

There's very little on the spec sheet that actually affects rolling resistance; a "green," "blu" or other LRR designation tells you what marketing message the vendor wants you to hear. Tread depth is the exception; reduced rolling resistance tires will have less tread depth than a normal tire. 

Micheln Energy Saver: 9.5/32"

Yoko dB Super E-Spec: 10/32"

Yoko AVID Ascend: 12/32"

 

I expect the 12/32" tire will have higher rolling resistance than the others when new. It will also either last longer or have more traction, or both, but at the cost of rolling resistance...

 

HAve fun,

Frank

[ptjones]

Has anyone checked out the Prius site to see what they found out, they have years of experience. I have 6/32 at 42K and these are very expensive tires $900 set.

 

Paul

[fbov]

??? I'm seeing $716 at tire rack for OEM Michelins (there are two 225/50-17 Energy Saver tires; the OEM's the one with the 51psi pressure rating).

 

Keep in mind you only started with 9.5/32, so even with a 3/32 "worn out" criteria, you've used about half the tread, and seen less than half the life as tire wear rates drop as the tread gets shallower.

 

It's one of those wonderful tradeoff triads: longevity, traction, rolling resistance - pick 2. Michelin has traded off traction (see Car and Driver review, Tire Rack test report wet braking) for rolling resistance and life by using a harder rubber compound in a shallower tread, resulting in a light weight tire that wears well, but doesn't stick.

 

Have fun,

Frank, who's fine not having it all.

[ptjones]

I think three months ago was looking at replacing my tires because camber was off in the back and made my tires wear so they made alot of noise. Ford wasn't going for replacing them with over 24K miles on car. so I reversed the rotation direction and they are better now with 42K mi. It sounds like they have lowered their price since then.

 

Paul

[Jmonty]

Do you do 0W-20 oil too?

Edited November 14, 2013 by Jmonty

[zhackwyatt]

??? I'm seeing $716 at tire rack for OEM Michelins (there are two 225/50-17 Energy Saver tires; the OEM's the one with the 51psi pressure rating).

 

Keep in mind you only started with 9.5/32, so even with a 3/32 "worn out" criteria, you've used about half the tread, and seen less than half the life as tire wear rates drop as the tread gets shallower.

 

It's one of those wonderful tradeoff triads: longevity, traction, rolling resistance - pick 2. Michelin has traded off traction (see Car and Driver review, Tire Rack test report wet braking) for rolling resistance and life by using a harder rubber compound in a shallower tread, resulting in a light weight tire that wears well, but doesn't stick.

 

Have fun,

Frank, who's fine not having it all.

Which is personally why i will never have more than the factory recommended tire pressure.

[fbov]

I assume you added emphasis to make a point. You see a link between tread compound and tire carcass and bead construction? Please explain...

Frank

[ptjones]

Has anyone been using 50psi from the beginning? I still have 6/32 and little more towards the inside. No problem here.

 

Paul

[zhackwyatt]

I assume you added emphasis to make a point. You see a link between tread compound and tire carcass and bead construction? Please explain...

Frank

You said Michelin traded off tire traction already.  My understanding is over-inflating tires also lowers your traction. So I'm saying I'm not going to make it worse by over-inflating.

[bemyax]

@Recumpence Over here in northeastern Iowa a couple hundred miles closer to the North Pole than you. For anyone unfamiliar with Midwestern geography: in the Winter, the North Pole is in the Dakotas somewhere. There is a barbed wire fence across northern Nebraska that holds back the frigid weather.  I've had some concern about overall operational reliability when it gets really cold. Minus 20F is not out of the question in the Hawkeye state, so I'm wondering if you have been through any of those cold mornings when the tires were hard. Also, there are a couple of batteries in this wagon. Did either of them show distress during a cold snap?

I have other questions along this line not necessarily longevity related. And might be more suited to the http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/forum/38-northern-plains/ section.

 

David

 

[Recumpence]

I have run 51 to 55 psi in my tires from the beginning with no problems. I still have PLENTY of tread left. I have always run high pressure in the tires of all of my cars and I always get far more miles out of them than the factory says.

 

I have seen -15f without a problem here in Northern Illinois.

 

Oh, today was 44 degrees and I averaged 55.9mpg.

 

I could not be happier!

 

Matt

[fbov]

You said Michelin traded off tire traction already.  My understanding is over-inflating tires also lowers your traction. So I'm saying I'm not going to make it worse by over-inflating.

Your understanding is correct if you look at a wide enough range of tire pressures, extremely wide, like 10-100psi. In the pressure range we're discussing, 30-50 psi, greater pressure results in better handling and more stick.

 

Keep in mind that we're talking about tendencies and gradients - which way things go if you change something. We're not talking about large changes in performance, certainly not one that any sane driver would notice. These changes are only obvious at the cornering limit, when the car is trying to rip the tire off the wheel. I raced for years, and the easiest, fastest way to optimize handling is by adjusting tire pressures based on tire performance, regardless what the sidewall says... 

 

But we're not racing, we're using hybrids for mileage, and for fuel consumptioni, there's no downside to higher pressures. Conversely, a little common sense is always appropriate; I strive for the informed decision - set them where you are happy!!

 

HAve fun,

Frank

[zhackwyatt]

Your understanding is correct if you look at a wide enough range of tire pressures, extremely wide, like 10-100psi. In the pressure range we're discussing, 30-50 psi, greater pressure results in better handling and more stick.

 

Keep in mind that we're talking about tendencies and gradients - which way things go if you change something. We're not talking about large changes in performance, certainly not one that any sane driver would notice. These changes are only obvious at the cornering limit, when the car is trying to rip the tire off the wheel. I raced for years, and the easiest, fastest way to optimize handling is by adjusting tire pressures based on tire performance, regardless what the sidewall says... 

 

But we're not racing, we're using hybrids for mileage, and for fuel consumptioni, there's no downside to higher pressures. Conversely, a little common sense is always appropriate; I strive for the informed decision - set them where you are happy!!

 

HAve fun,

Frank

So why doesn't the door jam say 50?  Just because of ride comfort?

 

I would just say, after you've rear-ended someone, forever more you want every inch of stopping power you can get, because it can make the difference between an accident and a close-call.

[Jus-A-CMax]

...darn zhackwyatt, I should have pressure checked that guy's tire who hit ;)

[Jmonty]

But we're not racing...

 

 

Speak for yourself!

 

lol