PBXgeek

Just got a ScanGauge. First run, before I started changing my driving patterns: City, 19 - 20, consistent with what I reported earlier for a full-tank average. Today, test run, changing my driving patterns according to the MPG feedback: City, 25 - 27. Freeway, at 50 mph: 37 - 38. Translation: smart driving can save about $300 / year in gas costs for an average driver. This with new vehicle, XLT wagon, @ 600 - 700 miles on it so far, still in break-in period, and with @ 200 lbs. of tools & gear in back.

Rear-facing seats: No thanks, every time I ride in a train facing the rear, I get queasy, and I don't think I'm the only one: the kinaesthetic feedback runs opposite of the visual feedback, and the brain interprets that as a symptom of poisoning. The last thing you want in a family vehicle is a back seat full of carsick kids. OTOH, you can get a washable floor mat:-) And let's not forget the risk of rear-facing kids in back making hand gestures at the drivers behind them, which in this day & age can result in getting shot. Better to keep the kids sitting where Mom or Dad can keep an eye on them and scold them if they make gestures at other drivers.

Re. NCRanchero re. UltraGauge: Thanks for bringing it up, but I stuck with ScanGauge because there's a larger body of accumulated information from users so far. Over time that will probably change as more people start using UltraGauge. I managed to get the ODB door off surprisingly easily. Just a steady tug on the little finger-hole and the "plug-ins" at the top came out, and then the hooks at the bottom unhooked. Yes, the cover won't go back on with the ScanGauge plugged in, but I'm not going to worry about that. The cover goes in the glove box in case I have any reason to put it back on. For now the cable is wrapped loosely around the steering column, where it fits nicely and almost invisibly, without interfering with anything. The ScanGauge is resting in the space at the bottom of the instrument panel, in front of the odometer reset buttons, and not tied down with velcro or anything, so I can reset my trip meter when I log my trips. This is probably the best place for it since it's not in the sun as it would be if mounted above the instrument panel. Actual mpg: First run, before I got used to the rapid feedback and adjusted my driving habits: city, 19 - 20. Test run, after adjusting my driving: City, 25 - 27. Freeway at 50 mph: 37 - 38. Having feedback and paying attention, almost immediately produces about a 25% efficiency improvement in city driving. Translation: average savings of about $300 / year in gas costs.

My ScanGauge came in yesterday, so I hooked it up, filled the tank, and did the initial calibration (full tank; haven't done the 1/4 tank calibration yet). Initial results: City driving, watching for accelerations & stops: 25 - 27. Freeway at 50 mph: 37 - 38. That's a "3" in the tens column. Hot damn! This is with < 1,000 miles on, so it's going to go up as the parts wear in. What I'm looking to do is compile a chart showing freeway mpg at each increment from 45 to 75 mph. On the stretch of freeway I used for the test (980 in Oakland) there wasn't enough distance to test at increments of 5mph up to 70, but the next long distance run I have, I'll do that. I "cheated" and used cruise control to keep 50 mph for the couple of miles I was running the freeway test. I can't believe it'll hurt anything to use CC for very brief periods like that before break-in is complete. I tend to think that inefficient freeway driving is largely the result of incremental speed creep with foot on gas pedal, so being able to set a constant speed should eliminate that problem.

I'm in telecoms; no problems so far. This includes San Francisco hills and Bay Area freeways where the traffic zips by and one has to get into the lane quickly. My typical load is a couple hundred pounds of gear: light & bulky. On a major install I might have 500 lbs. of additional equipment back there plus a coworker in front. The last big project we had, I can't recall any problems getting into traffic or crossing nasty intersections with a full load. For jackrabbit acceleration, nothing beats an electric car, but the 4-cylinder engine is a good all'round choice for range and efficiency.

I was told specifically by the dealer, that the fuel efficiency will be below the ratings during the break-in period. So I was not disappointed to get 19.75mpg for mixed city/highway driving, during the first tankful. I'm at about 600 miles on the odometer right now. Question is, how soon before I can start using cruise control? (I was also told to not use it right away, but instead vary my driving speeds often, during break-in.) I'm going to install a ScanGauge, which is typically good for a 20% improvement in efficiency due to driver feedback and changed driving habits. My previous minivan was rated 19/22, but I managed 39.5 on the freeway at 50 mph. I expect to get similar or better with the TC once it's through the break-in period.

Good for Ford! Excellent. I'm going to dig through my mail pile and see if I got one of those surveys. The only point of criticism I have at present is that the radio is needlessly complicated. There is no instruction for clearing unwanted stations from the buttons, and it appears to be necessary to press the AM/FM selector before pressing a button to choose a preset station on the other band (e.g. going from an AM station on button #1 to an FM station on button #2). There is no need for each one-touch button to store three or more stations at the expense of over-complicating the menu system. It would be nice to have more configurable space for storing small odds & ends between the front seats. I smoke a pipe, and there isn't an obvious place to put it along with a tin of tobacco and so on, so I may end up rigging some kind of container for the purpose. Also there isn't an obvious place for a litter container (snack wrappers, beverage cups, etc.), so that's behind the seat for the moment. OTOH the narrower space between front seats is part of how Ford managed to get the overall vehicle width down to "compact" level, which is a major plus for parking in cities. If I had to choose, I'd keep the narrow width rather than increase the width to get a few inches more space between the front seats. Aside from those minor points, no complaints whatsoever. Everything works the way it should, the truck is doing its job admirably, and I think Ford is going to have a major hit with this one. One more suggestion though: Since the odometer cluster can already show "estimated miles before refueling" (highly useful feature), it should be able to show instant MPG and trip MPG. Putting an MPG meter right into the standard instrumentation will immediately cause most drivers to change their driving habits to save fuel. That is the simplest thing any auto maker can do to improve overall fuel efficiency in the US, and it ought to be standard on all new cars. (I'm going to install a ScanGauge to get MPG readout.)

90 - 95% business, 5 - 10% personal driving. On average and based on my mileage logs, my work-related driving is about 500 - 700 miles per month, and my personal driving is about 30 - 50 miles per month. I could cover most of my personal driving with a little electric scooter if I chose to do that. As it is, I tag my grocery runs on at the end of the work day, etc. I have the "wagon" body type because: = The extra glass in the mid-section is helpful for visibility, notably at acute-angle intersections (of which we have a lot in our area), and when parking. = Occasionally I have to carry two crew members, so I need the 2nd row seats. = On rare occasions I have to carry two or three friends on personal trips, ditto re. seats. However, the plain panels in the rear of the sides are more useful than even more glass would be, by way of placement of advertising signs. Also, any more glass in the rear sides would increase cargo visibility for thieves. XLT trim package, because: = Cruise control improves fuel efficiency. = My left arm has aches & pains so electric windows are useful for accessibility reasons. The only other extra-cost option I have is the 270-degree rear door system. At first I was going to be stoic and not spend the extra @ $250, but I'm glad I did: much safer to fold the doors around when loading/unloading on city streets, and enables backing right up to doors of buildings for loading/unloading. I already have a GPS system (Panasonic) so there was no need for a built-in GPS; and I already carry a laptop everywhere, so there was no need for a built-in computer. The casual mount for the GPS fits very nicely into that pocket in the center of the top surface of the dashboard, without need of using the suction cup to hold it in place. And the standard audio system is more than adequate for news & music on the road.

The entire point of the electric is that it's total cost of ownership will be lower than a gasoline vehicle over its lifespan. This point has been proven again and again. So you take a $60k price tag, with a lease or loan, and a lower "fuel" cost, and you end up paying about the same per month as with a gasoline vehicle. But you're immune to gas price shocks and gas shortages, and your fleet maintenance costs are lower. Electric vehicles typically last longer due to their mechanical simplicity. Every 5 or so years you replace the battery pack, but even that, factored into total costs, is not a big deal. The 75-mile range is based on hilly city driving, so on flatter ground it will be higher. This will cover all the needs for many companies with urban delivery & urban tradesman applications. It would practically cover mine except I occasionally have 125 - 150 mile days, some of which occur on an emergency basis so there's no time to rent a gas vehicle for the added range. Think like a fleet owner. The lower TCO is a major selling point, even if the sticker price is higher.

The Fiat is probably OK, but I'm highly skeptical that it'll be a serious competitor to the TC. As far as a 3d row of seats is concerned, I'd rather have the cargo space. And the Ford 2/3 - 1/3 arrangement for the 2nd row seats is brilliant: it enables adjusting passenger capacity by increments of 1, preserving maximum cargo space. (1 passenger, front seat; 2 passengers, front plus 1/3 rear; 3 passengers, front + 2/3 rear; four passengers, front + entire rear). This after all is primarily a work truck, so any attempts to compete with something that compromises on utilitarian virtues, probably won't fly.

Just got my TC in early August, and just found this forum tonight. So: Since the time y'all posted about the ODB / fuse box cover, has anyone found a way to get the cover off more easily and without risking damage to anything? For example is there is secret slot to stick a screwdriver blade into, or anything like that? I'm going to install a ScanGauge in the next week or two, so I'm going to have to get that cover off one way or another, and probably file a round notch in the side of the cover to enable putting it back on with the cable in place.

The sales rep told me I should expect lower than EPA rated fuel efficiency during the break-in period, so I'm not disappointed to see 19.75mpg over the first @ 600 miles. This should improve quickly after 1,000 miles and more so after 3,000. My previous vehicle was a '96 Dodge Caravan. Rated 19/22, but at 50 mph on the freeway, I could get 39.5. The TC is rated 22/25, so I'm going to guess I can get 40 mpg at 50 mph. I'll be installing a ScanGauge in the next week or two, and modifying my driving habits accordingly. I already know about the basic hypermiling techniques (e.g. "driving without brakes" to coast to stop signs etc.) so it's going to be interesting to see how they affect the actual readings. Now here's something odd & funny: During the break-in period, I was advised to vary my driving speeds, so all the mechanical parts would wear properly. I've become used to maintaining steady speeds for efficiency, so this was like "having to learn to be an inefficient driver":-) After a couple thousand miles of this, I'm going to have to retrain myself again, heh. QUESTION: How many miles are y'all being advised to drive for break-in before you should start using the cruise control? (Yes, understood that an engine throttle control would be more efficient than a speed control, but the latter is fine on flat ground such as the territory I typically cover.)

Hi from the East Bay, San Francisco Bay Area, California USA. I'm a PBX engineer (commercial telephone systems), use a minivan for work, and don't do a lot of personal driving. My primary axes of value for a vehicle are fuel efficiency and reliability, subject to the need to carry about a half cubic yard of gear most of the time, and about 3 cubic yards on large system installations. About 6 - 9 months ago, I was driving along in my previous vehicle, a '96 Dodge Caravan, and I saw this ...interesting-looking panel truck... up ahead. I pulled up to get a closer look: Ford something-or-another. Hmm! I rolled down the window and gave the thumbs-up signal, the driver smiled back, and I filed it away for future reference. A couple of months later I saw one in a parking lot and took a closer look. Nice layout inside, lots of space, clearly a smart design. Mid July or so, my Caravan had its first major mechanical issue in its lifetime (125,000 miles): transmission failure, fortunately on local roads with a coworker a short distance away (heading to the same jobsite). That proved to be an "NER" as we say, "not economically repairable," by way of another colleague who went through the same thing twice in six months, total @ $6k in repairs. I went looking around online for a replacement. Found the TC on Ford's website. Did all the usual comparisons with competing vehicles, and decided to go for it: best fuel efficiency, lowest initial cost, and @ 10 years' history in Europe. Picked up the TC in early August. The dealer was able to get the model I specified in a couple of days, so I was surprised to read others on this forum had to wait weeks for theirs. Excellent! This truck is shorter and narrower than the Dodge Caravan, but it has more usable interior space. The folding rear seats initially struck me as "something I'd have to get used to," but turn out to be a smarter design than Dodge's removable rear seats: all the space behind them is usable without interruptions. We just did two major system moves, and loading all the equipment in & out was easier than with the Caravan. I'm making more use of the rear doors than on the Caravan since there isn't a seat in the back to get in the way. The 270-degree folding door system was a very worthwhile extra. It was suggested to me by the sales rep at the dealer, and it really makes sense for loading/unloading in traffic and in tight spaces. Think of backing right up to the door of a building, and being able to lock up the truck and load cargo at a leisurely pace, without worrying about thieves. The added headroom inside enables me to strap my 4' ladder in an upright position in the rear so it's out of the way and safely stowed. I haven't built any racks etc. yet because I'm still thinking about how the new design works best for my materials & tools storage, and in the meantime it all goes in boxes on the floor. Fuel efficiency: the sales rep told me it would be lower than expected for the first few thousand miles, so I'm not disappointed to see 19.75 mpg in mixed driving over the first 600 miles. I'm going to install a ScanGauge this week and see how the feedback improves my driving. The old Dodge Caravan was rated 19/22 but got 39.5 on the freeway at 50 mph with the AC off. The TC is rated 22/25, so I'm expecting to see 40 mpg on the freeway at 50 mph after the break-in period. BTW, if you're going to do 50, stay in the slow lane and don't do it when the road is crowded, since that'll just tick off other drivers and possibly cause traffic jams that waste more fuel overall than a single vehicle will save by slowing down. Other: I've seen comments about the cover for the fuse panel & ODB port being difficult to remove. I need to find out more about that so I can install the ScanGauge without causing damage. The small footprint plus tight turning radius are really helpful with city parking. I have to keep reminding myself it's about a foot shorter than the Dodge, so it can fit into places the Dodge didn't. And yes, I've also been getting "nice truck!" comments once or twice a week on average. Ford has a definite winner with this one. It practically sells itself because the design is so obviously smart for its applications. I've been seeing a lot more of them on the road lately, so I suppose in a couple of years I'm going to need a bumper sticker saying "I got this truck before they became trendy!":-)