Validated yet UPSET at Ford

[Laurel]

I think we would be inclined to keep our C-Max for longer but  it doesn't have many things that my husband loves such as heated steering wheel, memory for seat positions, adaptive cruise control are the big ones for him.  And I want that feature where the car recognizes a potential collision with tightening of the seat belts and brakes being applied by a computer as that saved our lives in our Lexus on the LA Freeway a few years ago. For me I was put off with dealing with Ford.  Before buying we did ask a couple of people at the dealership if they were happy with the service and we got glowing reports.  We found them to be the most indifferent dealership we have ever dealt with.  When telling them about My Ford Touch issues they look at us like we are nuts and when we talk to them about mileage they are clueless.  They still think that our C-Max can get 4.7 L per 100 kilometers under all conditions, and tune us right out when we talk about factors that influence mileage such as air conditioning.  No wonder they can't sell any C-Maxes there.  One other huge issue for me is that the frame of the car sits way too low to the ground for going onto any back roads for summer holidays.  The car is like a little SUV in many ways --other than that too low to the ground issue which is a big flaw in my books.  However it is the most comfortable car that we have had in recent times in the sense of seat comfort, head room, and the whole MFT has been fun but crazy making too.  Too bad they can't get the bugs out of it.  We still are debating in a small way whether to keep the C-Max as a second car due to the hit we will take on it.  But we really rarely need two cars these days so that is not too likely of a scenario.

[joe]

Will you be satisfied if your car was totaled tomorrow and you get $5000 less than than you might otherwise get had the 47/47/47 been the correct numbers?

Good point.  Would I be happy if the insurance rated the vehicle much less than what it should have been?  No, I would not be happy with my insurance agent.  Here again, it is a risk taken by any owner of a new line of vehicle, that the resale value of a new line of vehicle may decline sharper because of unknown mechanical, style, or other issues that arise a year or so after its purchase.

[John Sparks]

Alright. I'm gonna step in here and get my head taken off but, seriously people, the Cmax gets the original 47/47/47. You drive the car the way the EPA tests it, it will get that and better all day long! I have a lot of mixed driving on mine. City, highway, & interstate. My lifetime average is 46.4 mpg for almost 17,000 miles. Speaking of interstate, that is the REAL problem. The EPA does not calculate for interstate.

 

Their highway test is at 48.3 mph, for 11 miles on flat ground, at a controlled temperature. So tell me, do you really expect your car to get the same mileage as in the conditions I just mentioned when you're cruising at 75 down the interstate, going over hills, having to speed up and slow down because of traffic, in a barrage of different types of weather? If you do, then you are not living in the real world! That being said I usually get 40-43 mpg avg at 75 mph down the interstate. If it gets over 90° It tends to be lower as the air has more work to do, but I'm sure it will help when I get the windows tinted.

 

As far as the the resale value,YES it's terrible, but it wouldn't be that way if all of these people that bought it didn't complain to everyone and their mother because they expect to drive which ever way they want and expect it do just as good as the meroney sticker says.

 

I love my Cmax, the same factors that affect every car affect it as well. After breaking in the vehicle I have noticed much better overall performance.

 

So I guess what I'm saying guys is lay off of Ford, it's the EPA. Plus think about it, do you know anything the government mandates, regulates or oversees that is worth anything? I sure don't!

 

I'll get off my soap box now.

[joe]

OK, I went to the Edmunds web site to make a comparison.  I have 18,000 miles for a C-Max bought in Dec. 2012.  Edmunds says the trade-in value is $19,600 and the private sale value is $21,000.  I decided to look at a brand new Ford Fusion Titanium which had the closest sticker price ($30K) to the C-Max I bought ($30K).  Listing the same mileage and condition (Excellent), its trade-in value was $21,000, and private sale as $22,545.  So, at this time, it appears that the C-Max has not lost that much.  I realize resale value can vary with regions.

 

Concerning mileage, my wife drives the C-Max as a car, not a hybrid.  Whereas, I speed up to the speed limit, back off as I reach the crest of a hill, and gently ride the brake going down hill to charge the battery - under the assumption that it charges more when using the brake than just coasting.  She averages 40 mpg, and I average 44 mpg.

[BIG ROCCO]

I do sincerely appreciate Ford's mileage reimbursement checks, although they don't match California gas prices. But I'm very concerned about resale value too. I fear that between the two MPG re-rates, dead-last reliability rating, and sluggish sales, our beloved car could end up in one of those Internet "10 worst automotive fails" lists.

 

Lost in all this is how fundamentally good the car is. You want 0-60 in under 8 seconds, a quiet cabin, and a German-tuned suspension? Buick will give you all of that in their Regal Turbo sedan (actually a rebadged Opel from der Vaterland) for 30 grand and up, and you'll get 21 city MPG. That's 50% of the MPG, people. With no dog compartment in the back, either. Want something more directly comparable? OK, walk one row over to the Buick Encore, a short-and-tall MPV like the C-Max, with a tiny 1.4 liter turbo engine. Compared to the C-Max, you get weaker acceleration, less room, an equally high price, and still just 25/33 MPG. I pick Buick because they work to put a higher level of refinement in their cars than non-premium makes, and the C-Max is a very refined car, but you can do the same sort of comparison with any make.

 

There truly is nothing like the C-Max. I think they messed up selling it purely on MPG -- and by giving the 2014s taller gearing for an MPG bump, since taller gearing generally means acceleration takes a hit -- because the COMBINATION of a rewarding driving experience, great practicality AND great MPG is what makes the car compelling.

 

The C-Max is my wife's car - my car is a 2012 Buick LaCrosse.  I don't know about the Encore, but I can tell you that compared to the LaCrosse, the C-Max is a couple levels lower on the refinement and quality of materials (inside and out) scale.  The C-Max is fine for what it is, but it is definitely a "Ford"...a Lincoln version might be nice.  That said, I just filled up the C-Max today, and spent $34.  Considering that we are getting exactly double the MPG of the car the C-Max replaced (Lincoln LS), that means we saved $34...actually more than that, because the LS ran on Premium.

 

PS our lifetime MPG after >12K miles is 45 MPG, and that's with lots of (actually, probably mostly) highway use, and we are totally satisfied with that

Edited June 18, 2014 by BIG ROCCO

[plus 3 golfer]

Alright. I'm gonna step in here and get my head taken off but, seriously people, the Cmax gets the original 47/47/47. You drive the car the way the EPA tests it, it will get that and better all day long! I have a lot of mixed driving on mine. City, highway, & interstate. My lifetime average is 46.4 mpg for almost 17,000 miles. Speaking of interstate, that is the REAL problem. The EPA does not calculate for interstate.

 

Their highway test is at 48.3 mph, for 11 miles on flat ground, at a controlled temperature. So tell me, do you really expect your car to get the same mileage as in the conditions I just mentioned when you're cruising at 75 down the interstate, going over hills, having to speed up and slow down because of traffic, in a barrage of different types of weather? If you do, then you are not living in the real world! That being said I usually get 40-43 mpg avg at 75 mph down the interstate. If it gets over 90° It tends to be lower as the air has more work to do, but I'm sure it will help when I get the windows tinted.

...

John, you need to understand why the C-Max rating of 47 mpg is not correct and why the Aug. 2013 EPA rating of 43 combined is wrong. You also need to find out how the EPA numbers are actually calculated. ;)   It has nothing to do with people not driving like the drive cycles.  It not about what FE you get.  It's about how Ford misled the public twice about what real world FE might be - which is the fundamental principle of the EPA FE rules and regulations.  Some drivers will get more than the EPA numbers some will get less.  fueleconomy.gov shows the 2013 C-Max Hybrid average at 39.3 mpg - which is good. :)  Interestingly, it looks like fuelly has now combined all C-Maxs (gas, diesel, Hybrid, NRG into one.  

[Recumpence]

I am at 49.1mpg lifetime at 56,700 miles on my car. It is full of equipment for work and is driven in town and on the expressway.

 

My car is worthless because of the enormous miles I put on it. So, resale does not bother me. I do understand other people's concern, though.

 

I have had one injector go bad under warranty and my front strut plates are making tiny clunking when I spin the wheel (creaking upper plates). So, it has not been perfect. But I love this car at this point.

 

Matt

[John Sparks]

John, you need to understand why the C-Max rating of 47 mpg is not correct and why the Aug. 2013 EPA rating of 43 combined is wrong. You also need to find out how the EPA numbers are actually calculated. ;)   It has nothing to do with people not driving like the drive cycles.  It not about what FE you get.  It's about how Ford misled the public twice about what real world FE might be - which is the fundamental principle of the EPA FE rules and regulations.  Some drivers will get more than the EPA numbers some will get less.  fueleconomy.gov shows the 2013 C-Max Hybrid average at 39.3 mpg - which is good. :)  Interestingly, it looks like fuelly has now combined all C-Maxs (gas, diesel, Hybrid, NRG into one.

 

I understand how the EPA tests the vehicles, conservatively and in a controlled environment. Nothing close to the average driver. Look I can make my car get the mileage that has been revised by zipping around people, accelerating very quickly, braking hard and using regular E10-E15 fuel, I prefer 100% gas which is what the EPA uses in their tests, and i do these things from time to time but, I am still averaging well. The majority of vehicles do not get the stated EPA numbers by most drivers. I've said it before, there needs to be an interstate rating. The fact of the matter is Ford followed the EPA guidelines and achieved those numbers and PLENTY of people are hitting them. I guess it's true the squeakiest wheel gets the most oil.

 

BTW......The city rating on the Cmax is way off. In city driving, stop, go, stop, go, I get 55--58 easily.

[plus 3 golfer]

 

I understand how the EPA tests the vehicles, conservatively and in a controlled environment. Nothing close to the average driver. Look I can make my car get the mileage that has been revised by zipping around people, accelerating very quickly, braking hard and using regular E10-E15 fuel, I prefer 100% gas which is what the EPA uses in their tests, and i do these things from time to time but, I am still averaging well. The majority of vehicles do not get the stated EPA numbers by most drivers. I've said it before, there needs to be an interstate rating. The fact of the matter is Ford followed the EPA guidelines and achieved those numbers and PLENTY of people are hitting them. I guess it's true the squeakiest wheel gets the most oil.

BTW......The city rating on the Cmax is way off. In city driving, stop, go, stop, go, I get 55--58 easily.

So, can I Jonn. :)  Like I said many times I can get 60+ mpg anytime I want to by staying off the freeways, turning off AC, and using hypermiling techniques and I use up to E10 every fillup.  Just because I can "beat the EPA" numbers doesn't mean the EPA numbers are wrong.  The EPA numbers were wrong at 47/47/47 and at 45/40/43 because the numbers were based off bad input data to the dynamometers.

In brief, Ford used the UDDS (City Driving Cycle) and the HWFET (HighWay Driving Cycle) in determining EPA FE.  The two test schedules are followed by a driver on a dynamometer.  The dynamometer is set to simulate road load by entering road load coefficients derived from coast down measurements of the vehicle.  A driver then follows the schedule to the best of his ability.   

 

For the original C-Max HEV FE of 47/47/47, the adjusted raw results of the City and Highway driving cycle were 65.3mpg and 65.6 mpg respectively based on the Fusion HEV (loophole in the procedures allowed Ford to use the Fusion data).   Upon retest with the C-Max road load coefficients, the City and Highway adjusted raw data dropped to 61.8 mpg and 57.5 mpg respectively which yielded the Aug. 2013 FE of 45/40/43 mpg.  Now Ford says the coefficients for the previous test are in error (we don't know the new values yet) and when Ford retested with the proper coefficients got even lower raw data values which resulted in new EPA ratings of 43/37/40 mpg.  So, if one drives the test cycles one should get very high FE numbers (I do if I choose to drive that way).  But that's not the whole story with the EPA numbers.

 

The raw City and Highway data is then put into formula to adjust the raw numbers downward to account for real world conditions including cold starts, ac, colder and hotter ambient temperatures, road variation (IIRC), higher speeds (IIRC) and likely other factors.  The results rounded to the nearest integer are the reported City and Highway FE numbers.  This is representative of what an average driver might see.  fuellyeconomy.gov and fuelly (prior to their rework) support the new C-Max numbers.  If one doesn't use ac, drives in temperate climates, doesn't have a lot of stop and go and so forth, such driver will likely beat the EPA numbers.  On the contrary, there are drivers who drive a lot in the winter, accelerate briskly, speed, and so forth.  Those drivers will likely get worse FE than the EPA numbers. 

 

EPA in several years ago in addition to the City (UDDS@72F) and the Highway (HWFET@72F) adopted 3 additional FE tests to be used better gauge higher speed, more aggressive driving (US06@72F), hot temperature, AC use (SC03@95F), and Cold Temperatures City (UDDS@20F).  Because manufacturers complained about the costs of these additional tests, the EPA extended the time frame to implement all 5 cycle testing (have to look up for how long).   So, Ford chose to run the the two older cycles and used the "standard" adjustments to downward adjust the raw data to account for real word driving. 

 

Edited June 18, 2014 by Plus 3 Golfer

[salsaguy]

I totally agree. they should have sold the COMPLETE package, not just mpg and they would have won more (not as many) customers over the long term and not dealt with this mess

they focused on beating the Prius and now look...

The cartoon commercials were not a good idea. should have just started with the CMax family commercials that were the true package infomercial.

when you go after the master of mpg and want to slay them you better have the bigger rock and data to do it for real.

sad sad sad

I agree the CMax wins in all other categories and most would still be getting 25-50% more mpg than their current car with the CMax so...why not just leave well alone and show them the full value of how much you get for your money compared to the other cars that cant compete.

mpg is not the only thing, especially since it depends on everyone's right foot just as much as the specs on the car

 

I do sincerely appreciate Ford's mileage reimbursement checks, although they don't match California gas prices. But I'm very concerned about resale value too. I fear that between the two MPG re-rates, dead-last reliability rating, and sluggish sales, our beloved car could end up in one of those Internet "10 worst automotive fails" lists.

 

Lost in all this is how fundamentally good the car is. You want 0-60 in under 8 seconds, a quiet cabin, and a German-tuned suspension? Buick will give you all of that in their Regal Turbo sedan (actually a rebadged Opel from der Vaterland) for 30 grand and up, and you'll get 21 city MPG. That's 50% of the MPG, people. With no dog compartment in the back, either. Want something more directly comparable? OK, walk one row over to the Buick Encore, a short-and-tall MPV like the C-Max, with a tiny 1.4 liter turbo engine. Compared to the C-Max, you get weaker acceleration, less room, an equally high price, and still just 25/33 MPG. I pick Buick because they work to put a higher level of refinement in their cars than non-premium makes, and the C-Max is a very refined car, but you can do the same sort of comparison with any make.

 

There truly is nothing like the C-Max. I think they messed up selling it purely on MPG -- and by giving the 2014s taller gearing for an MPG bump, since taller gearing generally means acceleration takes a hit -- because the COMBINATION of a rewarding driving experience, great practicality AND great MPG is what makes the car compelling.

[salsaguy]

Tretpower great message and video

glad after your re-eval you still came back to the CMax

I agree

not sure what else you can get out there with the styling, mpg, interior room (if you get the hybrid not the Energi), and the features and Euro quality and creature comfort.

 

Prii owners can go to xxxx you know where with their plastic toy

 

 

Edited June 18, 2014 by salsaguy

[salsaguy]

Not sure why Fuelly did this as you used to be able to filter and sort them out separately

they told me they would be doing improvements to make it even better to run graphs and numbers

a rep from Fuelly was on here at one time (dont remember their username)

not good

with the combining of the models, you cant get an accurate picture since the diesels and NRGs need to be counted totally as separate/different vehicles

need to send an email to them ASAP to fix this

 

 

John, you need to understand why the C-Max rating of 47 mpg is not correct and why the Aug. 2013 EPA rating of 43 combined is wrong. You also need to find out how the EPA numbers are actually calculated. ;)   It has nothing to do with people not driving like the drive cycles.  It not about what FE you get.  It's about how Ford misled the public twice about what real world FE might be - which is the fundamental principle of the EPA FE rules and regulations.  Some drivers will get more than the EPA numbers some will get less.  fueleconomy.gov shows the 2013 C-Max Hybrid average at 39.3 mpg - which is good. :)  Interestingly, it looks like fuelly has now combined all C-Maxs (gas, diesel, Hybrid, NRG into one.  

[Marc Smith]

Nice attitude towards the prius...being it pretty much started the hybrid revolution and led to other car makers  making PEVs, Hybrids and basically taking the fear and uncertainty out of buying an electric vehicle... 

 

Those folks are just as proud of their ride as we are of ours and they work just as hard to exceed the manufacturer EPA numbers.  Heck  they are now talking about getting close to 1000 miles in a regular prius hatchback (not plug in) on one tank of fuel....

[SnowStorm]

I agree, Marc.  No need to bash them - even if I've never been in one, let alone driven or considered buying one.  I'm OK with Toyota (have had a number of older ones) but I don't like the center dashboards they're stuck on or certain aspects of styling or the image that has (unfortunately) grown up around them.  But they get my applause for saving gas and creating the market (along with the first Honda Insight!).

[Marc Smith]

I was fortunate and owned one...albeit breifly, before nature came crashing down on it.

 

is the current model(gen 3) a tired design...yes... is it better than the gen 2.  yes.  is the flying bridge "unique"  yup...  Could theyhave done a better job on the interior of the wagon and the hatch yes.  But I would have bought another one had I not stumbled across the deal I found on the Cmax.. Gotta admit that once you start drinking the hybrid coffee,  its hard to go back to decaf.  and the prius has an almost cult-like following..

 

It willbe intersting to see what the new redesign looks like...

[C-MaxSea]

Gotta admit that once you start drinking the hybrid coffee,  its hard to go back to decaf.  

 

Been drinking the hybrid coffee for 20+ years - the real stuff that is, it's called half caf. ;)  And could never swallow the 'drive by committee' dash of the Priiius.  So right Marc, I could never buy a pure ICE car again - so antiquated, gives me the heeebie jeebies just thinking about it.  (Hope there's a full EV or equiv in my future. - let's see, would that be full caf or no caf?   ;))

 

(PS  We gotta have some fun with those Priiiiiuses - all in good fun.)

(PSS Could not swallow the battery hump of the Energi either, even though it is the best car on the planet)

 

Soooooo NOT upset with Ford for bringing out the two best hybrids on the market.

 

Oh, and getting 46-48 mpgs like any good tree hugging granola type like me should/could/can if they choose/really care - at least in fair weather Seattle where it is cloudy and cool (40-60 degrees) 360 days of the year! ;) ;) ;) miserable, wet, mossy, snails, slugs,eeeeeeeeky weather!

 

PSSS John, you have hinted at the crux of the 'numbers problem' - the EPA 'tests' do not test appropriately for the hybrid design of the C-Max. The C-Max is designed for caring/careful driving, not accelerator/brake driving like our culture has ingrained in us. ("accelerator brake, accelerator brake" line from Bob Newhart) The C-Max is ahead of the curve, and the EPA (as always) trailing the curve. IMHO  As an example, the C-Max is way more temperature sensitive than speed sensitive, and should probably be rated for climate conditions rather than 'speed' conditions (think California vs Upper Michigan e.g.) Maybe after they kill a few good cars they will figure it out.

 

Drive like you care, but only if you wish and never too slow,  fair weather / save the planet it's the only one we've got,  nick

(and no we don't hypermile, we ECO cruise and drive to minimize ICE exhaust)

Edited June 19, 2014 by C-MaxSea

[Adair]

Been drinking the hybrid coffee for 20+ years - the real stuff that is, it's called half caf. ;)  And could never swallow the 'drive by committee' dash of the Priiius.  So right Marc, I could never buy a pure ICE car again - so antiquated, gives me the heeebie jeebies just thinking about it.  (Hope there's a full EV or equiv in my future. - let's see, would that be full caf or no caf?   ;))

 

(PS  We gotta have some fun with those Priiiiiuses - all in good fun.)

(PSS Could not swallow the battery hump of the Energi either, even though it is the best car on the planet)

 

Soooooo NOT upset with Ford for bringing out the two best hybrids on the market.

 

Oh, and getting 46-48 mpgs like any good tree hugging granola type like me should/could/can if they choose/really care - at least in fair weather Seattle where it is cloudy and cool (40-60 degrees) 360 days of the year! ;) ;) ;) miserable, wet, mossy, snails, slugs,eeeeeeeeky weather!

 

PSSS John, you have hinted at the crux of the 'numbers problem' - the EPA 'tests' do not test appropriately for the hybrid design of the C-Max. The C-Max is designed for caring/careful driving, not accelerator/brake driving like our culture has ingrained in us. ("accelerator brake, accelerator brake" line from Bob Newhart) The C-Max is ahead of the curve, and the EPA (as always) trailing the curve. IMHO  As an example, the C-Max is way more temperature sensitive than speed sensitive, and should probably be rated for climate conditions rather than 'speed' conditions (think California vs Northern Canada e.g.) Maybe after they kill a few good cars they will figure it out.

 

Drive like you care, but only if you wish and never too slow,  fair weather / save the planet it's the only one we've got,  nick

Can I like this post more than once??

 

How about LOVE it?!

[plus 3 golfer]

C-MaxSea, all cars benefit in caring/careful driving. One simply notices the variables that affect FE more in the C-Max because the variable that affect FE like speed, temperature, use of AC require similar amounts of additional fuel for similar cars but such required amount of fuel is a greater % of the fuel used in the C-Max than most non-hybrid cars that get significantly lower FE and thus it affects the FE on a % basis more for the C-Max than a non-hybrid car.  But that doesn't mean that the extra fuel is not being accounted for correctly in the EPA tests.  Ford chose to run the two cycle tests.  The complete five cycle test would better account for variations in speed, temperature, and use of AC.  If Ford believed they could squeeze out a better rating using the 5 cycle tests, it would make sense to do it. But they didn't.  

 

I do agree that their should be more EPA ratings for each vehicle because of the discussion above but that might confuse the general public. FE of vehicles is increasing and small changes in fuel used have a big % impact on FE.   Other than cost considerations for the manufacturer, running tests for 20F, 72F and 95F seems reasonable. Then, the 47/47/47 may be a good rating at 72F and the 20F rating might be 35/35/35. Here's a graph of C-Max test data from Argonne dated Oct. 2013.  So maybe a range for the average driver say 35-47 mpg might be a better alternative and then list the factors that contribute to increasing / decreasing FE  (probably just as confusing).  I seriously doubt we will see anything like this soon though. The process to make such changes would likely take years to complete.

 

 

 

 

  

[C-MaxSea]

"All cars benefit from careful driving" (certainly) - oh yeah, not much of difference, as I sit 20 minutes a day in my idling ICE vehicle at stop lights or heavy traffic, or accelerating & idling down a grade that should require little if any gas.  (The C-Max is very different than an ICE car, like 50% different for me, it's called EV)

 

Ranges for EPA estimates - gee what a great thought.  Fixed numbers went out about 40 years ago (in my experience at least).  The EPA has had decades to think clearly - fixed numbers should never have been considered.  There is nothing more problematic, confusing and disrespectful than a fixed number.  What a colossal waste of money.  Just my stupid opinion.

 

n

Edited June 19, 2014 by C-MaxSea

[Adrian_L]

Lost in all this is how fundamentally good the car is. You want 0-60 in under 8 seconds, a quiet cabin, and a German-tuned suspension? Buick will give you all of that in their Regal Turbo sedan (actually a rebadged Opel from der Vaterland) for 30 grand and up, and you'll get 21 city MPG. That's 50% of the MPG, people. With no dog compartment in the back, either. Want something more directly comparable? OK, walk one row over to the Buick Encore, a short-and-tall MPV like the C-Max, with a tiny 1.4 liter turbo engine. Compared to the C-Max, you get weaker acceleration, less room, an equally high price, and still just 25/33 MPG. I pick Buick because they work to put a higher level of refinement in their cars than non-premium makes, and the C-Max is a very refined car, but you can do the same sort of comparison with any make.

 

There truly is nothing like the C-Max. I think they messed up selling it purely on MPG -- and by giving the 2014s taller gearing for an MPG bump, since taller gearing generally means acceleration takes a hit -- because the COMBINATION of a rewarding driving experience, great practicality AND great MPG is what makes the car compelling.

 

Thank you. 

 

You have to expect teething problems with a new build.  40 mpg city is still fantastic.  And the SEL interior comfort/finish/quietness equals Audi in my opinion.

 

I remember visiting car lots in the 70's with my dad and him saying "Sure the sticker says 18 mpg but you'll never get that".  I thought that was common knowledge--"under ideal circumstances"...

Edited June 18, 2014 by Adrian_L

[mtb9153]

I refuse to buy anything not built in America.  By doing so you only erode the economy that much more by buying a foreign car.  Not to mention hurting American auto workers jobs.  If a better solution doesn't exist from America then keep your CMax.  Bottom line, I'm staying with my CMax despite the recent flurry of Nav and Sync problems I've been having.  The Sync unit is crap that much I know for sure.

[John Sparks]

I refuse to buy anything not built in America.  By doing so you only erode the economy that much more by buying a foreign car.  Not to mention hurting American auto workers jobs.  If a better solution doesn't exist from America then keep your CMax.  Bottom line, I'm staying with my CMax despite the recent flurry of Nav and Sync problems I've been having.  The Sync unit is crap that much I know for sure.

When was the last time you updated your sync system? The last version is pretty good. Does have a few minor hiccups but it's pretty good. All you need to update it is a flash drive. Goto www.syncmyride.com and login. You can download the sync update from there. Copy the update to an empty flash drive, start your cmax and insert the drive. It will auto run, just follow the directions and leave the car running, it takes about 30 minutes.

[ptjones]

I would think the FE would always be better at 72*F than 20*F and 72*F, 95*F similar depending on the use of A/C? :)

 

Paul

[John Sparks]

I would think the FE would always be better at 72*F than 20*F and 72*F, 95*F similar depending on the use of A/C? :)

 

Paul

You hit the nail on the head! At 95° my mileage suffers due to A/C use. Sure it's going to suffer some anytime I'm using it but when it gets that hot, like today, it works overtime, plus the window area is pretty big in the cmax, meaning more sunlight heating up the cabin. I really believe some dark tint will help a bunch, unfortunately, with everything else going on right now, getting it done is way down the list.

 

I remember visiting car lots in the 70's with my dad and him saying "Sure the sticker says 18 mpg but you'll never get that".  I thought that was common knowledge--"under ideal circumstances"...

Totally agree, the majority of people that buy cars look at the sticker and figure 5-8 mpg difference. For some reason this reasoning doesn't apply to the cmax. I have always told my customers, buying the cmax or fusion hybrid, what the car will do and that the worst case scenario is 38 mpg and you know what? People are like, that's a lot better than what I get now.

[Adrian_L]

I refuse to buy anything not built in America.  By doing so you only erode the economy that much more by buying a foreign car.  Not to mention hurting American auto workers jobs.  If a better solution doesn't exist from America then keep your CMax.  Bottom line, I'm staying with my CMax despite the recent flurry of Nav and Sync problems I've been having.  The Sync unit is crap that much I know for sure.

 

This reminds me of when Budweiser got taken over by a Belgian brewing giant.  This American guy says "I'm never drinking Budweiser again.  I'm switching to a real american drink:  Wild Turkey!"   And the punchline?:  Wild Turkey has been owned by Ricard/Pernod for years. 

 

While the C-max is "assembled" in Michigan, its transmission is Japan-built.  Ditto the engine.  The components are probably all made in China.  The idea that the car is "American" is simply not true.  Sorry.