Who says it can't be done-Post Highs here-over 25 miles traveled

[DaveofDurham]

Two points, first we all know that slowing down helps FE and any one can achieve 50+ mpg with their C-Max under the right conditions.  But on Phoenix freeways (and most interstates) you can become a hazard at 55 mph. I (and apparently most based on traffic flow) don't drive to be a hazard.

 

Second, slowing down on short trips adds a few minutes of time and saves $$ but on long trips it can costs $$. When I go back East, if I slowed to 55 mph, the extra night lodging / food expense cannot be recovered in reduced fuel expense.

 

So, ones value of time varies and FE numbers alone are not the bottom line. 

 

I totally agree - in most cases driving 10-15mph below the speed limit could be extremely unwise, hazardous and dangerous.  I wasn't counting, but I think only about 10 vehicles passed me during the 27miles/30 minutes of my driving 55mph on a 70mph stretch of highway.

[SBGrad]

Commute home tonight, ~24 miles of freeway, the rest is city. Traffic was pretty steady 65+MPH, with maybe 2 miles 30-40 MPH. Gotta figure out how to supress the flash on the tablet camera.

Edited February 1, 2013 by SBGrad

[TxWally]

wow you guys make me feel like I'm not doing my part!

(posted from another thread)

 

[Adair]

wow you guys make me feel like I'm not doing my part!

(posted from another thread)

Oh, baloney!! :rockon:

[pmarlow]

IMG_0006.JPGI do this almost everyday.  Sorry..its a bad picture, but it reads 33.6 miles-46.8 mpg

I don't consider driving on a flat island at less than 62 mph or a flat valley floor or flat city traffic at less than 62 mph or slip streaming a semi-truck as a real testament of the 47, 47, 47 represented by Ford.  With approx. 2500 miles on my C-Max, on a Saturday morning [little traffic] I traveled from San Diego to Mammoth Lakes, CA and back and averaged only 35mpg.  Most of the driving was at 70mph, cruise control and open roads.  My best mileage experience was a local 10 mile trip from one community to my residence- 46mpg.  But, that was mostly downhill at less than 62mph.  The real world?  Going the other way I got only 32mpg.  The reality is that everyone I talk to who owns a Cmax, drives real world varied conditions, up and down roads, that sort of thing, gets what Consumer Report reported- 35-37mpg.  Ford misrepresented the car.  Had I known of the real mpg for the car I would have looked at a lot of less expensive gas driven cars before making my purchase.  By the way, I'm not biased against the C-max.  I think Ford put together a great driving car, comfortable and well designed.  It's just that the turning radius is like a truck and the 47mpg gas mileage was a misrepresentation to the public.

[Jus-A-CMax]

I don't consider driving on a flat island at less than 62 mph or a flat valley floor or flat city traffic at less than 62 mph or slip streaming a semi-truck as a real testament of the 47, 47, 47 represented by Ford.  With approx. 2500 miles on my C-Max, on a Saturday morning [little traffic] I traveled from San Diego to Mammoth Lakes, CA and back and averaged only 35mpg.  Most of the driving was at 70mph, cruise control and open roads.  My best mileage experience was a local 10 mile trip from one community to my residence- 46mpg.  But, that was mostly downhill at less than 62mph.  The real world?  Going the other way I got only 32mpg.  The reality is that everyone I talk to who owns a Cmax, drives real world varied conditions, up and down roads, that sort of thing, gets what Consumer Report reported- 35-37mpg.  Ford misrepresented the car.  Had I known of the real mpg for the car I would have looked at a lot of less expensive gas driven cars before making my purchase.  By the way, I'm not biased against the C-max.  I think Ford put together a great driving car, comfortable and well designed.  It's just that the turning radius is like a truck and the 47mpg gas mileage was a misrepresentation to the public.

 

Thats interesting. As you and both drive to Mammoth, we should be able to compare apples to apples here but for that you travel further to SD and you probably drive 15 to 395, right? As versus me, who drive 14 to 395 thru Mojave. Both routes have their share of uphill so it should be awash, imo.

 

Now, I concur driving from our homes to Mammoth will be in the 30s MPG, given that most of the time, theres a north head wind (especially blowy thru Mojave) and the cold of the evening drive - not conducive for hybrid driving. You stated you had 35MPG to Mammoth in the Sat morning and at 2,500 on the odo, that sounds about right. I did one trip similar to Mammoth at around your odo and I got 33.4MPG and that was a brutal -4F when I arrived at Mammoth snowing in just before midnight. However, my last trip was 37.4MPG, not as cold as -4F but still in the 20s when I got there, again at night.

 

Now coming back, you should have got high 30s or low 40s MPG. My last trip - last weekend actually - I had 46.7MPG Mammoth to home and I averaged 41.4 MPG overall for that weekend. Now before you rip into me for your standard on what you consider fair speed, I drive mostly 60-65mph to Mammoth, its my choice as I've been pulled over for doing 68mph by CHP just past Independence and you know that 395 is just laid out with CHP galore and I have no intention to pay the Counties any more money.

 

I think you'll find that as your engine breaks the 3000 and then 4000 and 5000, you'll find improvements in the mileage - to a point that you drive to the best of the hybrid's abilities. As many threads here have shown the EPA 47MPG is at 60mph, and going at 70mph and expecting 47MPG is, frankly, nutz (and don't forget its loaded and heavy so thats another factor).

 

Mind you, I have charged my batts to the max and keep 'em 90% high and throw the eco-cruise at 67mph above the EV threshold and it will sustain 40-45MPG or more on flats or even more on slight downgrades - the battery level is critical if you are going to run just on ICE but Max will not reach this high battery level purely on eco-cruise, you have to coax it up there with P&G, thats what I find.

 

 Oh yeah, my Max was fully loaded with gear, wife et al so its heavy, I don't think the EPA factored the additional weights when the 47MPG was derived and to get 41.4MPG average over 580 miles to Mammoth and back in the conditions nature throws at us is a winner, winner, winner. YMMV  ;)

 

Interesting indeed  :) 

Edited February 7, 2013 by Jus-A-CMax

[Generalbeluga]

Wife and I went from Simi Valley, Ca to Chula Vista and back this past weekend.  Car was loaded with camping gear (folding chairs, ice chest, sleeping bags, food, etc.) and we got 44 MPG with 2, 800 miles on ode traveling with ECO cruise set just below 65 MPH..  

[Laurel]

Generalbeluga that was an excellent trip!

[Adair]

 

Wife and I went from Simi Valley, Ca to Chula Vista and back this past weekend.  Car was loaded with camping gear (folding chairs, ice chest, sleeping bags, food, etc.) and we got 44 MPG with 2, 800 miles on ode traveling with ECO cruise set just below 65 MPH..  

 Just curious, General.....what were the temps?

 

And that is awesome!!

[roninsd]

Where did you stay in CV?

[Maximus]

I don't consider driving on a flat island at less than 62 mph or a flat valley floor or flat city traffic at less than 62 mph or slip streaming a semi-truck as a real testament of the 47, 47, 47 represented by Ford.

 

It doesn't matter what you or I think is considered "Highway" driving.  

 

The EPA is the one who sets that definition, not you, not me, not Ford.

 

Ford can't represent anything other than what results from the EPA tests. 

 

Those EPA tests are conducted at a certain temperature, with certain fuel, at very specific speeds, shown below.

 

This is what the EPA says is "Highway" driving.  

 

 

 

You said "I don't consider driving on a flat island at less than 62 mph or a flat valley floor or flat city traffic at less than 62 mph or slip streaming a semi-truck as a real testament of the 47, 47, 47 represented by Ford."   

 

Again, it doesn't matter that you don't think driving at 62mph or less is considered Highway driving, but take another look at the speeds in the EPA Highway test.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Maximus

[SBGrad]

50MPG on the commute home this afternoon

Edited February 27, 2013 by SBGrad

[Jus-A-CMax]

Nice! 

 

Are you finding your MPG is improving or has it levelled out? I am still improving with mine, just over 7500 odo. 

[RachelnLa]

Love it!

[SBGrad]

Nice! 

 

Are you finding your MPG is improving or has it levelled out? I am still improving with mine, just over 7500 odo. 

 

The engineers were asking the same thing in Irvine. My experience has been the MPGs are related more the to type and style of driving than the age of the engine. If I take another drive to SF, I'll get another 1000 miles of sub-40 MPG 'cuz I'll be driving 70+ most of the time.

 

A month after owning the car, the lifetime MPG was 42-43. Taking the 2 trips to SF for Thanksgiving and Xmas took it below 40. Right now it is 40.4, slowly increasing, but again, I think it is because commute miles are driven slower than I-5 speed runs. I had eco cruise on for much of the 50MPG commute trip, compare that with 47MPG doing the same run in Jan with no eco cruise (but a LOTof stop and go traffic). The other weird thing on the 50MPG commute, twice I acclerated hard enough to put the kw gauge in the yellow zone, so I wasn't really expecting to see greaat numbers.

 

I just try to enjoy driving the car, I don't worry too much about what sort of MPG I am getting (ie, more leadfoot/keep up with traffic than hypermiling behavior).

[joe]

We took a trip last week which took 2 days on 70 mph interstates.  We averaged around 37 mpg.  When we arrived at our location (southern Georgia), we spent several days driving the local roads with speed limits of 50 to 65 mph.  We got averages of 45 to 46.5 mpg. 

We now have 3,500 miles and the local mileage at home has creeped up.  Today, I got 47 and 51 for local driving (each around 10 mile trips). 

[SBGrad]

Ooops, I did it again. I confess I turned the HVAC off for this one.

[Jus-A-CMax]

Taa Daa..... :drool: 

 

 

58% of the trip was pure EV  :wub2: 

 

Those in SoCal, San Fernando to Madera, Simi and back and then drop down the 405 to get to Galpin. Showed this to my sales guy and his manager, blew them both away  :rockon: 

 

Look at the temps...79F...thats beach weather and I had to throw on the AC on some legs.

[JAZ]

Note to Staff:  Can we ban members who experience 79F temperatures in February?

[C-MaxJaxon]

Mileage over 50 is nice if you don't mind averaging 31 MPH for 2.25 hours of driving. I'd be happy accepting low 40s to spend less time sitting behind the wheel.

[ptjones]

It looks like MPG's keep getting better as temps go up. So I'm thinking using my graph at 100deg.F with only center cutout Grill Cover on at 70mph I will be getting 47mpg with no Hypermiling,COOL. :) I see 700mi tank in my future! :)

Edited March 1, 2013 by ptjones

[Jus-A-CMax]

Mileage over 50 is nice if you don't mind averaging 31 MPH for 2.25 hours of driving. I'd be happy accepting low 40s to spend less time sitting behind the wheel.

We've gone thru this before CMaxJaxon, the engine timer is on immediately as soon as you turn on the engine, regardless of whether your vehicle moves forward or not. At the Irvine meeting, I brought this up to the engineers and they acknowledge this as well - so this means that when I sit in my car with the AC on and I did waiting for my client to get home, the timer keeps ticking. So when I wait for the owner or gardeners to leave the house I can photograph it, the timer keeps ticking. Or If I happen to have the engine on while taking a call and the vehicle is not on, the timer is on. That method of calculating is illogical and you are more than happy to research the speed limits for 118/405 and the terrain especially climbing up to Rocky Peak smack bang in the middle of the 118 fwy.

 

You may have a disdain for times sitting behind this fine car, but I have to - its part of my job, its part of the reason why I got my 1st hybrid and it is what it is - and you know what, I  :wub2:  it and I'll share the coolness of this MPG achievement. For you, I apologize for putting up such posts, I am done.

 

  

 

It looks like MPG's keep getting better as temps go up. So I'm thinking using my graph at 100deg.F with only center cutout Grill Cover on at 70mph I will be getting 47mpg with no Hypermiling,COOL.  :) I see 700mi tank in my future!  :)

 

That my friend, is a hard nut to crack, lets get to 650 first, which means that you have to get to 50+ MPG with that, assuming the safe limit is 13 gallons.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Jus-A-CMax

[plus 3 golfer]

I think the true testament to FE is ones overall mpg (Fuelly badges for example).  Getting 50+ mpg on a trip certainly helps ones overall FE.  But if ones overall FE is 40 mpg, there are trips where ones FE was less than 40 mpg.

 

My wife goes to a fitness center 5 days a week about 21 miles RT with over half the miles at 65+ mph.  Since the fitness center is in a huge shopping complex, we drive there quite often.  I currently get about 42 ish mpg RT if I take the freeway but can get 50+ mpg if I choose to take the parallel roadways (average about 35 mph) instead of the freeway and go about 50 ish instead of 60 ish for 9 miles with 4 traffic lights before hitting the freeway.  At least for now,  we feel that the extra time spent by taking the slowest route isn't worth the fuel cost savings over taking a faster route.   

 

So, as I've said before a C-Max can certainly get over 50 mpg.  But few have a fuelly badge showing 50+ mpg (see below). Now, that this is saved, we will be able to compare this fuelly data with later data.

 

And staff please don't ban me:  we are to hit 79, 82, and 86 F today, Sat. and Sun.  :)

 

 

Edited March 1, 2013 by Plus 3 Golfer

[C-MaxJaxon]

Those of us in the great frozen north and/or who have a short drive to work are at a significant disadvantage in the high MPG competition. So, it's a but demoralizing to see people here bragging. I could get a higher average if I took a longer route to work, but my fuel use would increase.

 

But if anyone wants to have a competition on using the least number of gallons of gas per month, I might have a chance at winning that. I've been biking back and forth to work for over four years now. I've been slacking for the last few months and driving my nice new vehicle, but will be back on the bike if it ever warms up and stops snowing.

[plus 3 golfer]

Those of us in the great frozen north and/or who have a short drive to work are at a significant disadvantage in the high MPG competition. So, it's a but demoralizing to see people here bragging. I could get a higher average if I took a longer route to work, but my fuel use would increase.

 

But if anyone wants to have a competition on using the least number of gallons of gas per month, I might have a chance at winning that. I've been biking back and forth to work for over four years now. I've been slacking for the last few months and driving my nice new vehicle, but will be back on the bike if it ever warms up and stops snowing.

Agree, it's really about the overall cost of the variable components of operations which fuel is virtually certainly the highest component, not mpg and ones value of time as I indicated above - "we feel that the extra time spent by taking the slowest route isn't worth the fuel cost savings over taking a faster route."