How to Drive a CMAX Hybrid/FFH to get Great Gas Mileage

[plus 3 golfer]

I wish i had a place that sold E15-E85 fuel as i want to see how high of a mixture of Ethanol i can use before the car throws code. And compare the fuel economy to cost savings.

I've heard that newer cars can typical account for 30-50% without issue, even if they don't "support it".

I remember one time my Brother-In-Law had a rental car that didn't support it, put a full tank of E85 and it was missing a bit and had a code, but after using about a 1/4 and adding E10, it was running fine.

It appears that the long term fuel trim could handle up to about E50 maybe E60 fuel before the stoichiometric ratio is not maintained. The algorithm has a limit on long term fuel trim adjustment. It might be because of the effect on components and the additional fuel mass that would be required to meet higher torque demand with E50 and higher ethanol blends. When charging, torque demand on ICE increases significantly. Perhaps, Ford simply did not feel any need to certify ICE for alternate fuels.

 

About 1.6 gallons of ethanol has the same BTUs as one gallon of gas. One gallon of ethanol weighs over 10% more than one gallon of gas. So, E50 would require 20% more fuel for the same BTUs as E10 or 25% more fuel than pure gas. E85 would require about 50% for fuel than pure gas for the same BTUs.

 

So, adding ethanol to pure gas (or E10) reduces MPG, reduces range, and adds weight to the vehicle. I don't see how the cost of E85 fuel no matter how it's mixed with E10 can be economical and convenient to actually use. Right now E85 costs more than regular gas around here. So unless gas prices increase substantially compared to E85, E50 (assuming that is as high as a C-Max can use) is a loser economically. It may help save the planet though. :)

Edited March 23, 2019 by Plus 3 Golfer

[joshg678]

It appears that the long term fuel trim could handle up to about E50 maybe E60 fuel before the stoichiometric ratio is not maintained. The algorithm has a limit on long term fuel trim adjustment.  It might be because of the effect on components and the additional fuel mass that would be required to meet higher torque demand with E50 and higher ethanol blends. When charging, torque demand on ICE increases significantly.  Perhaps, Ford simply did not feel any need to certify ICE for alternate fuels.

 

About 1.6 gallons of ethanol has the same BTUs as one gallon of gas. One gallon of ethanol weighs over 10% more than one gallon of gas.  So, E50 would require would 20% more fuel for the same BTUs as E10 or 25% more fuel than pure gas.  E85 would require about 50% for fuel than pure gas for the same BTUs. 

 

So, adding ethanol to pure gas (or E10) reduces MPG, reduces range, and adds weight to the vehicle.  I don't see how the cost of E85 fuel no matter how it's mixed with E10 can be economical and convenient to actually use.   Right now E85 costs more than regular gas around here.  So unless gas prices increase substantially compared to E85, E50 (assuming that is as high as a C-Max can use) is a loser economically.  It may help save the planet though. :)

I wouldn't do it for Fuel Economy, it would be for Curiosity and Clean reasons.

Vehicles that are designed for E85, (typically the only difference in the fuel system is an Alcohol sensor, but also notice that each manufacture only has 1 or 2 Engines that support it, and thats why it 'has a different fuel system') will receive 10-20% less fuel efficiency, but depending on your area, could be a wash depending on the cost. 

There was one gas station that sold E85 for about a year and it was 20% less then Regular, If i had a car that was capable, i would have been there evey week ,but since i don't and it was out of the way i didn't go there.

 

There is a community out there that takes 'kits' that you install on the cars that makes them E85 capable.  All it does is connect between the Injectors so i can keep them on x% longer to account for the additional fuel.  From what i remember, there were several people using it for 100k+ miles without issue.

 

I do believe there is a Lot of Mis-Information and Misunderstanding out there about Ethanol, and that there is a consistency to keep Oil on the road.

[ptjones]

I think the main problem with Ethanol is that it is made from Corn, a food source and it takes almost as much energy to make it as it makes. :sad: Very inefficient and the only reason their doing it is because they are subsidized by the Government. :headscratch:  Going the other direction it would be interesting to see how much improvement I would get using Pure 100 Octane Racing Gas, it's not readily  available without going to the Race Track and $8/gallon is a deterrent too. It would run $100 to fill up vs $35 for Premium.

 

Paul

[DarenHayes]

i believe ive posted this before, but i always get my gas iin Canada at Petro Canada( gas was $1.19 CAD a litre last nite lol). there gas is ethanol free and its the same price as gas anywhere else (other than Costco but they use ethanol).  Gas is always more expensive here, i think it works out to be about $3.40 USD per gallon....I personally like the ethanol free, i really like Petro gas.  It is still around 0 C degrees here and im at 44.2mpg (and climbing) , pretty good for 32 f weather. 
I dont have any actual proof, but in my opinion the ethanol free works much better in my car and i think i also get much better mpg than 10% ethanol. 

Also i still have my Pirelli Zero Ice tires on as well. 

Edited March 23, 2019 by DarenHayes

[plus 3 golfer]

josh678,  where did you get "will receive 10-20% less fuel efficiency".  I understand you want to run high mixture ethanol tests for "clean air" reasons but please document your sources for your data.

 

 

EPA says the lower bound fuel efficiency is 15% for E51 vs E10 and 27% based on FE tests for E85 vs pure gas (see footnotes below).  Around here, IIRC, the lowest price I recall seeing for E85 (E51-E83) was about 10%-15% cheaper than E10 when gas spikes up to around $2.80+ a gallon. Here's Edmunds test of E85.  It supports the EPA 27%.  ConsumerReports did 150 mile test in 2011 and got similar results as Edmunds (see attachment below). 

 

The EPA FE Ratings for ethanol - gas vehicles under alternative fuels in Fueleconomy.gov is reduced significantly when using E85 vs Pure Gas.  EPA FE is based on using pure gas for tests. IIRC, EPA is considering changing to E10 in the FE testing and ratings.  

 

From the EPA:

"Flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) are designed to run on gasoline or gasoline-ethanol blends of up to 85% ethanol (E85).₁  Except for a few engine and fuel system modifications, they are identical to gasoline-only models. FFVs experience no loss in performance when operating on E85, and some generate more torque and horsepower than when operating on gasoline. However, since ethanol contains less energy per volume than gasoline, FFVs typically get about 15%–27% fewer miles per gallon when fuelled with E85.₂

 

1. Blends of 51%–83% ethanol can be labelled as E85 according to ASTM Standard D5798-11, "Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/D5798-11, www.astm.org.
2. The fuel economy difference between using E85 and gasoline is presented as a range since it depends on the ethanol blend and the vehicle:
   • The lower bound (15% mpg decrease) is based on the difference in the energy content of a 51% ethanol blend and that of gasoline, which is typically 10% ethanol.
   • The upper bound (27% mpg decrease) is based on the difference in official EPA fuel economy tests of recent-model FFVs operating on ethanol-free gasoline and operating on E85."

Attached also are the latest (Jan. 2019) prices and equivalent energy content prices for alternative fuels report.  Also, note table 8 prices for New England region in the report.  Table 9 shows historical E85 and  gas prices back to 2011.  Since BTU content of fuel is the overwhelming driver of fuel economy, it's clear from the attachments and link that E85 is far from cost effective with respect to cost per mile.  

 

 

 

 

[JAZ]

Recent flooding in Midwest may impact ethanol price.

[joshg678]

I think the main problem with Ethanol is that it is made from Corn, a food source and it takes almost as much energy to make it as it makes. 

 

Paul

Not necessarily, The farms around me use the 'mash' from the baking process to feed their animals. (don't know the specifics) 

 

josh678,  where did you get "will receive 10-20% less fuel efficiency".  I understand you want to run high mixture ethanol tests for "clean air" reasons but please document your sources for your data.

The Articale you mentioned was using a Chevy Avalanche, which being a 5.3L V8 will see a greater drop in fuel efficiency.  The 10% i mentioned was from personal experience.  We have rented a Dodge Minivan (for work) that was labeled as 'flex fuel' that utilized their 3.3L V6.  Typically they observe 25~MPG on this trip.  When i took the trip my self, i experienced the same in the past.  The last time i went, i made a point to stop and get E85 at at sheetz gas station on the way out, and on the way back in.  Regular E10 was 2.49, E15 was 2.44, E50 was 2.32, and E85 was 2.24.   We only had about 80 Miles to E, and filled an entire tank with E85.  On this trip i observed 22.6 MPG.  (No i didn't calcuate what the pump said, just followed what the computer said, and i always reset the trip at fillup.)

I don't remember the specifics of Climate differences, but either were anything to write home about.

Edited March 24, 2019 by joshg678

[plus 3 golfer]

It was a Chevy Tahoe.  Actual EPA numbers for 2007 Chevy Tahoe (5.3L):   EPA HWY rating is 5 mpg reduction from 20 with regular gas to 15 mpg with E85 = 5/20 = 25%  Edmunds got 18.3 MPG with regular and 13.5 MPG with E85 or a reduction of 4.8/18.3 = 26%.

 

2013 Ford Focus: 10/32 = 31%

2013 Dodge Dart  8/27 = 29.6%

2015 Chrysler 200  7/27 = 26%

 

2019 Dodge Grand Caravan (3.3L V6):  HWY reduction = 7/25 = 28%  CITY reduction = 5/17 = 29%

 

Of course how one drives makes a difference in FE but the the reduction ratio for switching from regular gas to E85 should be very similar.

 

If ethanol was economical, all manufacturers would be promoting the savings and people would be buying flex vehicles.  Gas stations would all have E85 pumps. The public hasn't accepted flex vehicles.  

[ptjones]

I agree it isn't financially practicable and I'm not sure that it is much of an improvement environmentally, you have to use Diesel/gas to make the crop and turn it into ethanol. IMO

 

Paul

[Al Jones]

Just bought a 2013 C-Max. Great videos, now waiting for a video to show how make the shape and how to cut the covers for the two grills

[ptjones]

Just bought a 2013 C-Max. Great videos, now waiting for a video to show how make the shape and how to cut the covers for the two grills

Here are my pics of all the info. Here is the thread on Grill Covers: http://fordcmaxhybridforum.com/topic/970-cmax-grill-cover-testing-2-5-mpg-gain/

 

Paul

[ptjones]

 Someone wanted to know what GAS PODS look like.

With 223k miles on my CMAX my Fuelly.com average went up to 49.3 mpg. :)

 

Paul

[ptjones]

15k miles later after replacing the fronts with sidewall hole, moving the rears to the front, new one's the rear and 95k miles on my front Michelin's using 50 psi, they still have 4/32" tread on outside, 3/32" tread on center and inside. Anyone else getting that kind of tread wear? Just another example of the advantages of using 50 psi in Michelin ES tires. BTW I had a panic stop yesterday when someone tried turning in front of me. I slammed on the brakes and turned right to avoid hitting them.  Anything that was loose came flying to the front of the car. Tires and brakes worked great! :) 

 

Paul 

[joshg678]

I've had a couple Panic Stops my self and the car does fantastic.

 

I've got 36,900 Miles on mine now, and the dealer just marked mine into the Yellow category this time (free oil changes and rotations, only reason i go) but they look like more then 50% tread left.

 

I also took a Trip up to PA again, Going through the mountains on the highway and i was able to get my best yet of 44.9 MPG.

After i got back my AVGMPG went down to 47.7, but after 3 days of going to work getting 56+MPG, it went back up to 47.8.

 

Hope to get to 48MPG soon.

Edited May 2, 2019 by joshg678

[ptjones]

I think tire wear slows down the less tread you have.

 

Paul

[fbov]

Seems that way... but it's not. Straight line has a 0.994 R^2 for my Michelins (blue curve). 

Tire life 2019.pdf

 

 

[ptjones]

Tires definitely wear differently front to back, I have 17k miles on backs and 1/64" wear or 9/32nds thread vs new on the fronts at 9 1/2/32nd. 

 

Paul

[ptjones]

Now that it has been 6.5 years it is time update what it means to use these MPG Tips in my videos.

My Videos show what I have done for over 6 yrs/224K miles and how I get 52 actual mpg's average/yr for the last 2 1/2 yrs with 78% Hwy driving all over the country using my driving tips. My BlackStone Labs oil analysis are better now than when new with going up to 14k ICE miles/ 30k odometer miles between oil changes.   Grill Covers improve mpgs and don't hurt the ICE as testing the oil shows and I'm getting as good of MPG's as I have ever have gotten.   I have sold around 40 sets of Grill Covers and many more members have made their own and not one member on the 4 forums has said they don't work or has had any over heating problems. Only JUS and I (OK granted we are pretty motivated and both have gone over 900 miles , the only ones on the 4 FFH/CMAX forums in Hybrid Mode, I have the record of 930 mi. on a single tank) have experience the alarm coming on and it went away as soon I let off the gas a little, no power lost or long term problems. This is very hard to make happen as it took over a year of trying to get it to happen for me. Using my fuelly numbers I have saved about $4,129 in gas using my tips which would easily pay for tires, battery and all other maintenance items  for the last 6+yrs.

Again I'm not telling anyone what to do, just showing the testing I have done and the results. You decide what to do.  

 

Happy Gas/Money Saving  Driving   BTW Gas Prices Are Going Up    You have options.

 

Paul

[ptjones]

 

Now with the consistent 70-80+ degree temps and no significant rain my average on this tank is 57.5 mpg with 306 miles and climbing  with speeds between 35-55 mph around home and no Interstate driving using my MPG Tips.    Combining miles driven and Estimated miles to empty gives 815 miles estimated total for this tank  and 66% EV miles or 209 miles so far. :)

 

Paul

[homestead]

Warmer weather has definitely help our MPG's too.  Current tank is running between 49-50 mpg's. 

This is achieved driving around town on medium sized trips.

Recently got our windows tinted @35% all around.  Hopefully the AC will run less.

 

[joshg678]

I calculated 53.2MPG at the pump last fill up, i don't remember the miles on the tank, but the Miles to E went up to 689, which i think it the higest i've seen it on mine.

Think that is the highest i've seen it at the pump

I'm planning to get mine tinted soon.

Edited May 21, 2019 by joshg678

[ptjones]

This morning I started out with 58.4 mpg on this tank and went to Atlanta on I-85/I-285 and back for about 70 miles on the FWY and 35 mi. off. My current average now is  58 mpg, so driving on the FWY didn't hurt my MPG's much. :)  So with 693 mi. + 70 mi. to E gives 763 mi. total range, we will see how it goes. Will probably get gas in a couple of days.

 

Paul

[ptjones]

 

Filled up and this is what I ended up with 58.4 mpg/13.14 gal/768.8 mi.  Actual Fuelly.com 58 mpg/13.5 gal/ 782.6 mi./ temps 56-95*F/ 50% City so I could have gone at least 25 mi. more. :)

 

Paul

[ptjones]

raja I moved my GasPods to your location in front of rear hatch for a month and I didn't see any noticeable improvement in MPG's. Yesterday I moved them back to on top of the hatch as shown and my mpg's started getting better.    I think it is safe to say my location for GasPods is at least as good as raja's and seems to be better.  When we first started using GasPods we did alot of R&D to determine best location and that is why I installed mine where I did. I think the GasPods are worth less than a mile/gal.

 

Using Cruise/ECO Cruise you can expect to lose 1 to 2 mpg compared to driving yourself.  I would expect ECO Cruise to be better than straight Cruise, because ECO Cruise slows down going uphill and speeds up going down hill which is more efficient. On flat ground at FWY speeds our CMAXHybird's/FFH's act like Prius with ICE running most of the time with the electric motors assisting. This is very inefficient from the ICE stand point, if the ICE is running you want to be running at 2 Bars power and it doesn't do that in Cruise Control. Now on hilly FWY's ECO Cruise starts to imitate Pulse and Glide which you should be doing not using Cruise Control. Going uphill you should be doing 2 Bars ICE Power and downhill Gliding in EV mode.

 

A couple of weeks ago I filled with the temps in the 80's-90's*F I was getting 61.5 mpg for the first 200 miles with speeds around my local area of 35-55 mph. But then I had to make a number of trips on the FWY's so that I ended up with 57 mpg for that tank, but does show the potential of getting low 60's around town driving.

 

I hope this is some useful info for those working on their MPG's.

 

Paul

Edited June 25, 2019 by ptjones

[ptjones]

I just filled up and got a Fuelly.com 56.7 mpg and so with my total miles of 227.2k miles my average since new has gone up to 49.4 mpg. :)

 

Paul