2015 Ford C-Max, initial mpg's not good

[vonoretn]

I just got a new 2015 C-Max, and the mileage is terrible.  See data here.

 

 http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac317/vonoretn/C-Max/mpg-miles_zps6qrmfnzz.jpg

 

 

I can get 42 if I stay under 60 mph, but at 70 mph plus, on the highway it drops into the low to mid 30's.  Something must be wrong with this C-Max.  I also have a 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid with 124K miles and 6 years on it, and it consistently gets between 38 and 42 mpg. 

[markd]

The first 5,000 miles don't really mean much and if it's wintery where you are it's even worse. I bought mine on Halloween 2014 and by April I was down to 32.2 mpg, right now I'm at 42.6 mpg, be patient.

[wab]

Welcome to my club.

Hopefully a few more thousand miles will get you to  <60 mph mid 40's and 70+ high 30's

.

We finally made it to the low 's 40's below 60 after 13b07 (4 mpg gain), a new body control module AND ALL software reinstalled (another 4 mpg gain).

But we still after 50k miles get low 30s at 70+ mph. We've had a couple of 70+ mph 37mpg tanks under ideal conditions (no ac, no head wind, downhill from CO to TX).

Edited January 10, 2016 by wab

[ptjones]

Make yourself some Grill Covers to make back 2-4mpg caused from outside temps dropping.  CMAX is affected by lower temps more than 2010 Fusion.  If you are ever down in the Atlanta area drop by and I can show you how to improve your mpg's. :)  Also check out the Driving Tips in the forum.

 

Paul

Edited January 11, 2016 by ptjones

[hybridbear]

I just got a new 2015 C-Max, and the mileage is terrible. See data here.

 

I can get 42 if I stay under 60 mph, but at 70 mph plus, on the highway it drops into the low to mid 30's. Something must be wrong with this C-Max. I also have a 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid with 124K miles and 6 years on it, and it consistently gets between 38 and 42 mpg.

That sounds about right for MPG at those speeds. The C-Max is much less aerodynamic than your 2010 FFH. You're right in line with the EPA highway estimate for your C-Max.

[stevedebi]

I just got a new 2015 C-Max, and the mileage is terrible.  See data here.

 

 http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac317/vonoretn/C-Max/mpg-miles_zps6qrmfnzz.jpg

 

 

I can get 42 if I stay under 60 mph, but at 70 mph plus, on the highway it drops into the low to mid 30's.  Something must be wrong with this C-Max.  I also have a 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid with 124K miles and 6 years on it, and it consistently gets between 38 and 42 mpg. 

I get around 40 at 68 - 70 MPH on fairly flat terrain. At 75 - 80, I get 36. I think your C-Max is about right. High speed will kill the mileage due to the high profile. Hybrids perform best in town, even the Prius is like that.

 

Note that I have an Energi, with a slightly worse final drive ratio.

Edited January 11, 2016 by stevedebi

[vonoretn]

Welcome to my club.

Hopefully a few more thousand miles will get you to  <60 mph mid 40's and 70+ high 30's

.

We finally made it to the low 's 40's below 60 after 13b07 (4 mpg gain), a new body control module AND ALL software reinstalled (another 4 mpg gain).

But we still after 50k miles get low 30s at 70+ mph. We've had a couple of 70+ mph 37mpg tanks under ideal conditions (no ac, no head wind, downhill from CO to TX).

I assume 13b07 was an engine computer campaign fix?  What did the body control module do?  Being retired, I often have the opportunity to drive at 65 mph on the highway, and doing so usually yields 41-42 mpg on the 2010 Fusion Hybrid.  I can usually get 40 mpg at 69, but it drops below 40 mpg at 70 mph and higher (flat, no prevailing wind).  A recent 5200 mile trip to Montana from Knoxville, Tn. resulted in an average mpg of 40.7 based on complete fill-up data.  That's what I'm used to, and I was hoping to not have to compromise on mpg.  One major factor is that my wife strongly prefers the comfort of the C-Max seats to the lower, less padded, Fusion seats.  Plus she loves the auto, rear tailgate door, and the key-less entry/start.  

 

I'm still toying with the idea of keeping the 2010 FFH as a second car since it's in great condition and only worth about $8K.   It has been incredibly reliable, less than $100 on non-maintenance repairs at 124K miles.  I'm glad I didn't pay $1800 for the extended warranty.  The original brake pads are still like new.

[vonoretn]

Make yourself some Grill Covers to make back 2-4mpg caused from outside temps dropping.  CMAX is affected by lower temps more than 2010 Fusion.  If you are ever down in the Atlanta area drop by and I can show you how to improve your mpg's. :)  Also check out the Driving Tips in the forum.

 

Paul

Thanks for the offer Paul, I'll do that if I am on my way south.  Or send me a message if you are headed north.  We aren't too far off of I-75.  I'm going to check out the driving tips now.

[vonoretn]

That sounds about right for MPG at those speeds. The C-Max is much less aerodynamic than your 2010 FFH. You're right in line with the EPA highway estimate for your C-Max.

How is that Focus electric working out?  Is it a good local commuter?  Did you see Chevy now has a "Bolt", that claims a 200 mile range?  

[Jus-A-CMax]

Increasing the tire pressure also helps with the MPG but bottom line, the faster u go, the lesser the MPG. Also, I presume you are using eco-cruise - that does a pretty good job for a relaxing ride. However, if you like to squeeze the extra MPG, you need to change your driving technique to Pulse & Glide, also be smart about the turning the cruise on & off, since if you see an decline, come off the ICE and use the EV.

 

Even with eco-cruise, those numbers are about what I get in my 13 SEL. It use to be better till the 13b07 update, we traded the 66 MPH EV cap to 85 MPH now but back then, we use to run the "ICE high MPG" where you could go sick 45-55MPG on ICE with the high battery by throttling back the pedal..ah those were the days :)

 

:welcome:  to the forum vonoretn, by the way :)

 

ps i think the consensus for high speed fwy, the cmax sucks, be better off with a diesel but for city-its a KILLER. But u trade mpg for comfort & tech, better than my :pimp: Prii....don't let nick see this..

Edited January 12, 2016 by Jus-A-CMax

[wab]

Welcome to my club.

Hopefully a few more thousand miles will get you to  <60 mph mid 40's and 70+ high 30's

.

We finally made it to the low 's 40's below 60 after 13b07 (4 mpg gain), a new body control module AND ALL software reinstalled (another 4 mpg gain).

But we still after 50k miles get low 30s at 70+ mph. We've had a couple of 70+ mph 37mpg tanks under ideal conditions (no ac, no head wind, downhill from CO to TX).

 

 

I assume 13b07 was an engine computer campaign fix?  What did the body control module do?  Being retired, I often have the opportunity to drive at 65 mph on the highway, and doing so usually yields 41-42 mpg on the 2010 Fusion Hybrid.  I can usually get 40 mpg at 69, but it drops below 40 mpg at 70 mph and higher (flat, no prevailing wind).  A recent 5200 mile trip to Montana from Knoxville, Tn. resulted in an average mpg of 40.7 based on complete fill-up data.  That's what I'm used to, and I was hoping to not have to compromise on mpg.  One major factor is that my wife strongly prefers the comfort of the C-Max seats to the lower, less padded, Fusion seats.  Plus she loves the auto, rear tailgate door, and the key-less entry/start.  

 

I'm still toying with the idea of keeping the 2010 FFH as a second car since it's in great condition and only worth about $8K.   It has been incredibly reliable, less than $100 on non-maintenance repairs at 124K miles.  I'm glad I didn't pay $1800 for the extended warranty.  The original brake pads are still like new.

 

13b07 was just software BUT it took the dealer multiple attempts and 2 days to get it installed.

 

Evidently the body control module has a LOT to do with most if not all software on the cmax???

Every single update, including the one we downloaded (took the dealer 4 tries) took multiple attempts.

The BCM was defective from the factory after it was replaced the tech installed ALL new software in one attempt, he said he wishes he had changed it 2 yrs ago.

 

We're much happier with Liar now that it almost gets the EPA estimates, but are not planning to change it's name.

 

[raadsel]

One think that is worth noting is the fuel economy of the Escape, which is also built on the Focus chassis. I believe the Escape is slightly larger but still weighs about the same as the C-Max; slightly longer and higher but the same width. But the interesting thing is that it only gets 32 mpg, at best. While the C-Max would be expected to get slightly better mileage, because of the lower height (length shouldn't make much difference), the fact that it gets 40, to me, shows that the Hybrid system -- at least at lower speeds -- is helping it run more efficiently on the highway. In fact, the highway fuel economy of the C-Max is close to the rating for the base Focus, around 40 mpg, yet the Focus is much shorter and lighter. Of course, the Focus does better as speeds increase -- both because the hybrid/CVT is less effective at higher speeds, as well as the height is more heavily "penalized" as speeds increase.

 

The same is going to hold true for the Fusion -- the lower height is going to translate to less penalty as the speed increases. That is primarily a difference between a sedan vs. a CUV.

[hybridbear]

How is that Focus electric working out?  Is it a good local commuter?  Did you see Chevy now has a "Bolt", that claims a 200 mile range?  

It's a fantastic car. I wish Ford made a BEV Fusion. The Focus is just too small a car for our needs, so we'll be looking for something bigger when its lease ends in a few months. Sadly there are few BEV options that are larger.

[stevedebi]

One think that is worth noting is the fuel economy of the Escape, which is also built on the Focus chassis. I believe the Escape is slightly larger but still weighs about the same as the C-Max; slightly longer and higher but the same width. But the interesting thing is that it only gets 32 mpg, at best. While the C-Max would be expected to get slightly better mileage, because of the lower height (length shouldn't make much difference), the fact that it gets 40, to me, shows that the Hybrid system -- at least at lower speeds -- is helping it run more efficiently on the highway. In fact, the highway fuel economy of the C-Max is close to the rating for the base Focus, around 40 mpg, yet the Focus is much shorter and lighter. Of course, the Focus does better as speeds increase -- both because the hybrid/CVT is less effective at higher speeds, as well as the height is more heavily "penalized" as speeds increase.

 

The same is going to hold true for the Fusion -- the lower height is going to translate to less penalty as the speed increases. That is primarily a difference between a sedan vs. a CUV.

The Escape is rated at 32, but that would be at 55 MPH. At 75 MPH, I would expect about 27 even from the small engine. I get 36 at 75 MPH, without any effort.

[fbov]

... C-Max would be expected to get slightly better mileage, because of the lower height (length shouldn't make much difference)....

Actually, length is very important when comparing vehicle aerodynamics. Height comes in directly as area, while length is in the drag coefficient.

(WOW template didn't make it... link is good.)

This is the Aerodynamic Streamlining Template from the Ecomodder forum.

- The outer dotted outline is the minimum drag shape in free space. For length = 2.5x width "d", Cd is 0.04.

- The inner dotted outline is for a half-shape on a flat surface - a car on the road. Minimum Cd is 0.09.

 

That template looks like no production car save the Dymaxion. Our C-Max is a truncated version of this shape. (Template is placed so the wheels are on the ground, and "max roof camber" coincides.)

 

As you can see, the way to reduce C-Max aerodynamic drag is to lengthen the vehicle along the template profile. It's become very popular in trucks. The only reason we play with grill blocks on the front of the car is ease of use; the biggest benefit is always in the wake.

 

Have fun,

Frank

Edited January 13, 2016 by fbov

[raadsel]

The Escape is rated at 32, but that would be at 55 MPH. At 75 MPH, I would expect about 27 even from the small engine. I get 36 at 75 MPH, without any effort.

 

I was tempted to include this website in that last post, which I find interesting for the MPG for Speed calculator. Of course, the "issue" is that it is geared largely for sedans, I believe the speed penalty is greater on an SUV and other less aerodynamic vehicles. The final drive ratio for the transmission will also make a difference.

 

I'll also admit I "cheat" a bit. Rather than providing the EPA number, I instead try to plug in the number that it seems most people get while driving at highway speeds. I figured the C-Max at 46 mpg @ 55 (which can be beaten by a bit of hypermiling, or even using the grill cover). Using 46 mpg still shows a drop to 44.6 @60, 42.3 @ 65, 38.2 @ 70, 35.4 @ 75, and 33.1 @ 80, which I think are relatively close to the results people have seen here. If the OP was averaging 75 or above, mid to low 30s would be the expected mpg at those speeds on most cars; and this is in ideal conditions (70 degrees, no wind, or precipitation). If you put in the actual EPA highway mileage of 37, it shows you should only expect about 30 mpg @ 70 mph; so the OP was doing better than the standard speed calculations.

[SnowStorm]

Hey Frank, me thinks you're havin' too much fun!  Thanks for those links and photos - cool stuff.  Now why can't we have a car like the "streamlining template"?  I'd buy one!  "Too long", someone says?  Yes, its a bit longer than usual at about 19 feet but think of all that luggage space!  Shucks, a lot of full size pickups are that long - and anything with a trailer - and most RVs - give me a break!  Plus, the "tail" might even collapse some way at low speed.

[Note: Length is from C-Max height X 2 X 1.8 = 64X2X1.8=230".  The 1.8 l/d is from the graph where 2.0  was plenty good enough and 1.8 a bit of a compromise.]

As to style, any stylist worth their salt (leaves out most presently employed) could dress-up that template quite a bit.

But the real payback is in efficiency.  At a Cd of 0.1 your "high speed" mileage might go from 40 to 100 MPG!  1300 mile tanks anyone?  Even better, consider what that does to a BEV!  Your 250 mile range goes to over 600 miles!!!  8 hour bathroom breaks anyone?  And we were all worked up over "range anxiety".  That will soon sound as antiquated as a "broken record"!

 

We just need a new car named C_d-MIN!

[ptjones]

We could have a little trailer on the back that continues the profile and think of all the extra baggage space. LOL  Wait a minute, it could be a travel trailer and travel all around the country sleeping in it for next to nothing at all! And it just keeps on getting better and better. LOL :yahoo:

 

Paul

[fbov]

... Now why can't we have a car like the "streamlining template"?  ...

Because it's highly unstable in cross-winds. The front of that shape wants to grab the wind, and there's too little drag in the back to counteract it. The nose turns away from the road and won't come back!

 

That's why the Dymaxion has a rear fin, so cross-wind's effect is balanced, front-rear, and the car continues to go where it's pointed.

 

Our cars don't have fins, but take a close look at the windshield integration into the bodywork. The depth of the glass along the A-pillars is for stability, so the air becomes turbulent when it passes over the glass at an angle. Spoil the airflow across the car in a crosswind and you regain inherent stability, without a fin. It's a very common design feature, once you know what to look for.

 

Have fun,

Frank

Edited January 14, 2016 by fbov

[SnowStorm]

We could have a little trailer on the back that continues the profile and think of all the extra baggage space. LOL  Wait a minute, it could be a travel trailer and travel all around the country sleeping in it for next to nothing at all! And it just keeps on getting better and better. LOL :yahoo:

Awesome!  How much could we sell one for?

 

Because it's highly unstable in cross-winds..... just the headwind componentt

Oh that's right - you explained it before...

 

That's why the Dymaxion has a rear fin,....

A fin would make the "template" look even better!

 

...... Spoil the airflow across the car in a crosswind and you regain inherent stability, without a fin.....

Lousy crosswinds - add something else to the list of MPG killers.  So its not just the headwind component that hurts?

 

Have fun,

Frank

Back to those fins - and the late 1950s!  I remember auto ads on cereal boxes of that era that claimed "fins save gas"!  We laughed then, but maybe its true!  No need to mess up the airflow with sunken windshields.

Just think of all the styling possibilities - and two would be nice - swept out like the F18!  It would sure turn some heads while keeping the car straight!

If I may mix quotes: having fun keeps on getting better and better!

[fbov]

Fins were on cars because fins were on rockets, and since rockets were fast, fins clearly needed to be on anything that moved fast, which meant cars. Pull back from that close-up and you'll see the rocket motor just below the fin on the Caddy. Our '58 Ford Country Sedan had much bigger rockets, but smaller fins.

 

I came across this link, which nicely tells the story of aerodynamic improvements through 1957, at least at Chrysler, culminating in a nice description of the crosswind issue. 

http://www.allpar.com/history/memories/fins/

 

And one that's more far reaching in scope.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/02/an-illustrated-history-of-automotive-aerodynamics-in-three-parts/

 

Have fun,

Frank

[Nutter]

We just got a new 2015 C-MAX Hybrid SEL, we now have about 600 miles on it and we are struggling to get over 35mpg. Mind you we live 40 miles NW of Chicago, IL and we are going through a bit of a cold spell. Last 2 days my morning commute started at -8F.

 

I'm confident once the weather warms up we will see much better mpg's.

[RockwallRick]

That's way too cold for me!!! We are still averaging 44 mpg on our 2014 but we live in Florida. :rockon:

[fbov]

As you're learning, when someone asks what kind of mileage I get, my standard answer is " somewhere between 30 and 60 MPG."

 

Your may be even more extreme...

 

Frank

[ptjones]

We just got a new 2015 C-MAX Hybrid SEL, we now have about 600 miles on it and we are struggling to get over 35mpg. Mind you we live 40 miles NW of Chicago, IL and we are going through a bit of a cold spell. Last 2 days my morning commute started at -8F.

 

I'm confident once the weather warms up we will see much better mpg's.

Here is some information on what can be done to improve MPG's with cold weather: http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/5511-how-to-improve-winter-mpgs/

If you can't make Grill Covers yourself, I can supply you with a set: http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/5616-grill-cover-sets-available-to-improve-winter-mpgs/ 

 

This graph explains what happens to your gas mileage with temp change without  Grill Covers and with. :)

 

Paul

Edited January 19, 2016 by ptjones