EPA may test the C-Max Hybrid

[RaPieR]

Definitely love the C-Max.

 

The difference from the EPA ratings really disappointed me though since that's what drew me to the C-Max.  With every other car I've driven I've beat the EPA ratings just by doing basic things like using cruise control and coasting/timing lights.  So I was really let down when I didn't come close at all on pure highway setting during the past week on a road trip to Texas driving the speed limit.  In more mixed driving with increase city the car really shines with anything I've driven before.

 

The mileage was a disappointment but the overall package of the car keeps it a great buy for me.

[roundtrip]

One thing I have noticed on my car is that my "Trip 2", which I have never reset, shows what appears to be my fuel use since I have purchased the car.  You can see in the attached pic that my "Trip 2" and my life time odometer match    Right now I have 4003.4 miles total on the car and have used 94.49 gals with 42.3 mpg.

 

Also I want to thank "darrrelld" for help in understanding the hybrid concept and thinking of the battery like second fuel tank.  At work everyone has been asking me if I am hitting the 47 mpg mark, I then have to explain what mpg I am getting and also the whole hybrid concept of which I am not well versed in.

 

I do really like my car.  I am beginning to think the EPA city mpg number might actually be low and the EPA hwy mpg a little high, but its early to tell and at my location the ambient temperatures are right now lower than the EPA test of 75F.  I did look at the Chevy Cruze, and regular Focus but would need to get the manual transmission to get this kind of mpg and I really wanted an automatic since my last two cars were stick shifts. I looked at the other hybrids but they felt underpowered.  Diesels take a long time to warmup and the fuel costs match that of preimum gas so its hard to tell if they make sense.

 

I know that from my pic above that it looks like I have spent about 102 hours behine the wheel to go about 4003 miles for about an average speed of say 40mph and maybe this helps explain the fuel economy you can get with this type of car.  It might help to see other peoples trip2 to get a rough idea of what their avg speeds.

[Maximus]

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has officially certified the new Ford C-MAX Hybrid at 47 mpg city, 47 mpg highway and 47 mpg combined fuel economy, which equates to a range of 570 miles on a single tank of gasoline."

 

Per the EPA, highway mileage does not mean constant cruising at 65 mph or 70 mph, it means an average speed of 48 mph and a top speed of 60 mph.

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2012 by Maximus

[ptjones]

 

I'm not here to sell anyone a Prius. You can buy any car you like. I could care less. I'm here to see if the C-Max will replace one of our older cars. It all depends how the user mpg's improve over time. Right now it's not looking good. If the car is advertised at 47 mph and most users struggle to get 40, then the C-Max is probably not for me. But, I'm not giving up yet.

Last night I made a 139.8 mi round trip on the freeways around Atlanta with speeds between 50-80 mph averaging 65 mph. As you can see I averaged 48.8 mpg with drafting about 75% of the time. That is better than EPA claims. My average fuel mileage since new (October 18, 2013) is almost 45 mpg and climbing.

 

I notice on fuelly that you are in the top 5% on best fuel mileage for Prius V so obviously you are a very good hyper-miler. I would guess that you would do a better job than I would with a C-Max. I would STRONGLY suggest you test drive a C-Max. Numerous previous Prius owners are commenting how much better they like the C-Max. As I mentioned before, I have driven my daughter's 2011 Prius on long trips and the C-Max is definitely an improvement in performance, handling and has a much roomier and comfortable interior.

 

IMHO you would provide credibility to this forum's members if you would simply bite the bullet and test drive a C-Max. We're waiting to hear your observations after driving a C-Max!

 

 

[Aptos Driver]

For me, the most important aspect of improved MPG is "compared to what?" For example, when I decided we should replace my wife's '00 Volvo S70 with a hybrid of some stripe, it was because I didn't see any advantage in replacing it with a newer gas-model car with the same average mileage. (Even at 12 years young, the Volvo was averaging better than 24 mpg around town and could still hit 27-30 mpg on the highway.) I figured if we're gonna replace it, let's get a car that averages at least 40 mpg. I was never interested in the Prius because I wanted a car with more horse power, for quick merging on freeways and for passing. There were two choices: the Ford Fusion hybrid or the Toyota Camry hybrid. I started ruminating about this decision in 2010. I rented an '11 Camry hybrid for a weekend -- from our local Toyota dealer -- and test-drove a Lincoln MKZ hybrid (same drivetrain as the FFH) -- the same weekend. At that time, the Ford/Lincoln had more horsepower than the Camry, but the Camry seemed to drive more smoothly. I finally decided for sure on the TCH when Toyota came out with the beefed-up 2012 iteration -- 2.5 L Atkinson gas engine and 200 combined hp. I rented one  for a weekend and found it to be a substantial improvement over the 2011 model. We bought one at the end of June.

 

Now I want a hybrid to replace my '07 RAV4, with similar utility. The RAV can get 27-28 mpg on the road, but the best I can get out of it locally, where I mostly drive it, is 21-22 mpg. That looks pretty paltry compared to the TCH's 40-41 average mpg. At the moment, the obvious choices are the Prius v or the C-Max. There's also the Lexus CT 200h. I have yet drive any of them. I will rent a "v" for a weekend and will test drive the C-Max. I'm eager to test drive the C-Max soon, to see whether I would really like it. The most important criteria for me are reliability, ride smoothness, power and at least a soupcon of luxury. Our '12 TCH LXE provides all three. I'd consider the Lexus for the luxury aspect, except it runs on the Prius drivetrain and Consumer Reports wasn't impressed with it as an entry-level luxury car. In any case, I won't be making a move until 2014 at the earliest. I expect there'll be some interesting developments by then. For example, I just read on another forum that Toyota may bring a hybrid RAV4 to market for the 2015 model year. Ford could make some changes in the C-Max. Toyota might come out with a beefed-up "v" for people like me who're willing to give up some MPG for more power. Or Lexus might drop a 200 hp drivetrain into their hybrid hatchback and improve the interior fit and finish. Or, who knows?

 

Also, by then I'll have a better idea of the C-Max's reliability, always a big concern for me. In the meantime, I wish all you early adopters the best of luck!

[different drummer]

 

Now I want a hybrid to replace my '07 RAV4, with similar utility. The RAV can get 27-28 mpg on the road, but the best I can get out of it locally, where I mostly drive it, is 21-22 mpg. That looks pretty paltry compared to the TCH's 40-41 average mpg. At the moment, the obvious choices are the Prius v or the C-Max. There's also the Lexus CT 200h. I have yet drive any of them. I will rent a "v" for a weekend and will test drive the C-Max. I'm eager to test drive the C-Max soon, to see whether I would really like it. The most important criteria for me are reliability, ride smoothness, power and at least a soupcon of luxury. Our '12 TCH LXE provides all three. I'd consider the Lexus for the luxury aspect, except it runs on the Prius drivetrain and Consumer Reports wasn't impressed with it as an entry-level luxury car. In any case, I won't be making a move until 2014 at the earliest. I expect there'll be some interesting developments by then. For example, I just read on another forum that Toyota may bring a hybrid RAV4 to market for the 2015 model year. Ford could make some changes in the C-Max. Toyota might come out with a beefed-up "v" for people like me who're willing to give up some MPG for more power. Or Lexus might drop a 200 hp drivetrain into their hybrid hatchback and improve the interior fit and finish. Or, who knows?

 

I liked the Lexus CT200h when I test drove it, but if you're looking for "a hybrid to replace my '07 RAV4, with similar utility", I don't think the CT200h is it.  After checking out the front seats, which I found comfortable, but my husband found cramped, I opened up the hatchback.  Turned to my husband and said "We're gonna need a smaller dog."  Not very spacious, is what I'm saying.

[darrelld]

I liked the Lexus CT200h when I test drove it, but if you're looking for "a hybrid to replace my '07 RAV4, with similar utility", I don't think the CT200h is it.  After checking out the front seats, which I found comfortable, but my husband found cramped, I opened up the hatchback.  Turned to my husband and said "We're gonna need a smaller dog."  Not very spacious, is what I'm saying.

I tested a CT200h too but at 6'3" there was no room in the front, back, or hatch that I could find. The wide center console overlaps the accelerator pedal to force you right leg into an odd position.

 

[Aptos Driver]

I liked the Lexus CT200h when I test drove it, but if you're looking for "a hybrid to replace my '07 RAV4, with similar utility", I don't think the CT200h is it.  After checking out the front seats, which I found comfortable, but my husband found cramped, I opened up the hatchback.  Turned to my husband and said "We're gonna need a smaller dog."  Not very spacious, is what I'm saying.

"Smaller dog" -- cute. Maybe I'd need a smaller macaw? Thanks for your evaluation.

[Mike]

I'm in the same boat as many C-Max drivers, in that my highway MPG are nowhere near the rated 47MPG.  One thing that I don't understand is that, according to the EPA web site, the highway tests are now supposed to incorporate higher speeds (up to 80MPH).   The site at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml says: "(Beginning with 2008 models, three additional tests will be used to adjust the city and highway estimates to account for higher speeds, air conditioning use, and colder temperatures."

 

Getting in excess of 47 MPG on trips where I never exceed 60 MPH is a breeze.  I make a 60 mile drive three days a week in a mix of 2-lane highway speed of 60MPH and small towns with speeds of around 35MPH.  I routinely see between 47 and 52 MPG's on these drives.

 

My overall MPG is 45 MPG due to some highway driving.

[Maximus]

I'm in the same boat as many C-Max drivers, in that my highway MPG are nowhere near the rated 47MPG.  One thing that I don't understand is that, according to the EPA web site, the highway tests are now supposed to incorporate higher speeds (up to 80MPH).   The site at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml says: "(Beginning with 2008 models, three additional tests will be used to adjust the city and highway estimates to account for higher speeds, air conditioning use, and colder temperatures."

 

Getting in excess of 47 MPG on trips where I never exceed 60 MPH is a breeze.  I make a 60 mile drive three days a week in a mix of 2-lane highway speed of 60MPH and small towns with speeds of around 35MPH.  I routinely see between 47 and 52 MPG's on these drives.

 

My overall MPG is 45 MPG due to some highway driving.

 

Yes,  I posted that on the other thread.  Mileage is adjusted with a cold weather test, a test using air conditioning, and what they call a "high speed" test, which isn't that high because the average speed is still 48.3 mph but it includes 80 mph for only about 20 seconds.

 

Given these tests, I don't think its too hard to match the EPA certified 47mpg.

 

What would be more meaningful to me is how many mpgs a car gets at 65mph, 70mph and 75mph.  The faster you go, mileage decreases at a non-linear rate due to wind resistance being non-linear.

 

EPA Highway Test:

 

 

 

EPA "High Speed" test

 

Edited December 3, 2012 by Maximus

[Maximus]

I'm in the same boat as many C-Max drivers, in that my highway MPG are nowhere near the rated 47MPG.  

 

Getting in excess of 47 MPG on trips where I never exceed 60 MPH is a breeze.  I make a 60 mile drive three days a week in a mix of 2-lane highway speed of 60MPH and small towns with speeds of around 35MPH.  I routinely see between 47 and 52 MPG's on these drives.

 

My overall MPG is 45 MPG due to some highway driving.

 

It sounds like you do get the rated 47mpg when your driving is similar to the EPA test scenario.

[CNCGeek]

Given these tests, I don't think its too hard to match the EPA certified 47mpg.

I disagree, the EPA's 47mpg hwy seems pretty hard to achieve. I may have misunderstood "given these tests" - but I don't think anyone is questioning the ability of the C-max to get the EPA rated mpg in the EPA test scenario.

Edited December 3, 2012 by CNCGeek

[Maximus]

I disagree, the EPA's 47mpg hwy seems pretty hard to achieve. I may have misunderstood "given these tests" - but I don't think anyone is questioning the ability of the C-max to get the EPA rated mpg in the EPA test scenario.

 

What I'm saying is when you look at the EPA's highway test, with a top speed of 60 and an average speed of 48, it seems very achievable.

 

I think some people are defining highway mileage as what they personally drive on the highway, like driving a steady 70mph.  That's not what the EPA tests however.  I wish the EPA would test that because that would be more real life.

 

Edited December 3, 2012 by Maximus

[StoBro2]

I guess I'm not too concerned about whether my C-Max will ever match the EPA test results. I just try to compare the C-Max to some of the other vehicles I've owned. I've logged my MPG for many years:

 

2002 PT Cruiser= 24MPG, 0-60 around 8.5 seconds.

2009 BMW 328i x-drive wagon= 23MPG, 0-60 around 7 seconds

2010 VW Jetta TDI Sportwagen= 38MPG, 0-60 around 9 seconds

2013 Ford C-Max SE Hybrid= 38MPG (so far), 0-60 around 8.5 seconds

 

All of the cars are about the same size in terms of passenger and cargo volume (The C-Max beats them all in passenger volume, loses to the Jetta TDI in cargo.)

I think after I have a full year of fuel-ups logged, the C-Max should beat the Jetta TDI by a few MPG and all of the gassers by a wide margin.

[Maximus]

Yea, I don't stress too much about mpgs, although it can be fun at times to try and maximize mpgs, as long as I'm not impacting other people in traffic.  I get irritated by the hyper-milers trying to get an extra couple mpgs by crawling along or accelerating slowly away from lights. 

[Bob999]

All the discussion about real world mileage compared to EPA numbers made me realize I didn't have a full understanding of EPA numbers and how they are generated.

 

I have been doing some research and have learned a little--perhaps just enough to be dangerous.

 

My understanding is that EPA testing is first and formost about emissions.  There is also testing done for the NHTSA which administers the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program.  Both testing programs are established in law, have been in existence for a long time, and have procedures and standards that appear quaint by current standards.

 

EPA numbers are also included on the sticker on new cars and because the numbers generated by the legally required tests don't reflect real world driving results there are adjustments made to get the numbers put on stickers.  The adjustment factors have changed over time but--but the numbers are still based on unrealistic testing criteria with adjustments.

 

Here is one fairly easy to read discussion that I found helpful:

 

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1064925_outdated-tests-skew-cafe-gas-mileage-ratings-48-mph-freeways

 

Here is a more technical discussion (see in particular the section on Methodology):

 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/cert/mpg/fetrends//2012/420r12001a-appx-a.pdf

[stranger267]

Problem is that 70 mph is REAL LIFE - yes, we drive 65 - 75 mph and we NEED this speed as driving 60 mph on our freeways slow down the traffic and creatses driving obstacles for others. So it is important to have cars OPTIMIZED for these speeds and not for strange 48mph.

 

And yes, 47 mph is real number - but for unreal scenario unfortunately (even if we drive on highways average speed is about 55 - 60 mph).

 

This is why people complains - that they need numbers that match real life and not 'the horse in the vacuum'. I, too, reached 47 mpg and see 43 on real trips (not 47 because of mountains, dark time and so on) but if I got VW TDI, it posts 42 mpg, and I can get 44 - 45 on 70 mph freeways - so people expect that EPA post REAL numbers for hybrids (drive 65 - 75 mph, 10 - 20 miles, and not mystical 48 mph - it is not freeway speed!). If they do it, maybe Ford should optimize their gears too, as CMAX is not optimized for the 65 mph (to compare, all my subaru-s are optimized for 65 - 70 mph).

 

Btw, I know why they have 65 EV limitation - I think it is because of rotation speed limits for EV motor 1 in the gear (when ICE is stopped, EV1 motor rotates on it's maximum speed proportional to driving speed).

Edited December 3, 2012 by stranger267

[zhackwyatt]

It seems to me, that the the real problem is with the EPA and not Ford.  Or the fact that we have relied on EPA numbers too much.  There are just too many variables.  Seems relying on Fuelly and user submitted content on Fueleconomy.gov is a better way to go instead of EPA numbers.

[CNCGeek]

It seems to me, that the the real problem is with the EPA and not Ford.  Or the fact that we have relied on EPA numbers too much.  There are just too many variables.  Seems relying on Fuelly and user submitted content on Fueleconomy.gov is a better way to go instead of EPA numbers.

 

When it comes to hybrids, there is a bit of an unwritten rule thanks to the Prius, that the EPA rating should be achievable in real life. Nobody really complains about EPA ratings on non-hybrids. But I think people have a valid point when complaining about the C-max, or at least the marketing of it against the Prius V on the grounds that it gets better mpg.  I almost feel there should be an asterisk next to the EPA rating.

 

It seems like Toyota has no problems designing for the real world, and that is probably why there won't be a Prius "killer" anytime soon.

 

[zhackwyatt]

AFAIK Ford has to advertise the EPA numbers, at least they can't advertise more than the EPA numbers, they may be able to do less.  My point is, that test seems flawed, whether the Prius can achieve it or not.

[Bob999]

The EPA actually publishes the unadjusted city and highway test results along with the adjusted numbers.  What I find interesting is that the Prius unadjusted numbers are only slightly higher than the CMAX unadjusted numbers--it appears that the adjustment factor is very similar for both cars if not identical.  It is not clear to me whether the adjustment factor is a global one or whether it is computed for each car.  I suspect it is global and that may be a significant part of the explanation for the very different real world results.

 

The other observation I have is that the throttle seems VERY sensitive on the CMAX and very small changes will result in very large changes in the instantaneous MPG shown.

 

See here for the detailed EPA data:

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/epadata/13data.zip

[RedLdr1]

By Federal law the MPG numbers the EPA Test generates are required to be on the Monroney or "window' sticker. 

[valkraider]

I almost feel there should be an asterisk next to the EPA rating.

 

 

Well, under the EPA numbers on the window sticker it does read this:

 

"Actual results will vary for many reasons, including driving conditions and how you drive and maintain your vehicle."

[Aptos Driver]

If you're not in a hurry, you can always drive 55-60 mph on a two- or multilane freeway, as long as you don't block the "fast" lane(s). When I drive locally, I never go more than 4-5 miles on the freeway, and being retired I'm in no hurry. So I stick to the right lane as much as I can and try to hold my speed to 60 mph max -- whether I'm driving our TCH or our RAV4 (and especially with the RAV4). I'm a much more relaxed driver at this speed and I find that the people in the slow lane are nicer. And naturally my mileage is better this way. Of course, I occasionally have to move to the left to avoid vehicles entering the freeway from onramps (nobody knows how to merge anymore; the idea of yielding to oncoming traffic seems totally foreign now). And when I do, I drive the limit. When in Rome ...

[darrelld]

If fuel economy is the top priority why not get the Energi?