Jupiter Tech licenses FT catalyst technologies from Louisiana Tech
Hyundai/Kia to correct overstated fuel economy claims of MY 2012 and 2013 models as result of EPA investigation

Ford C-MAX Hybrid posts 3,182 units in first full month of sales, outpacing Prius v

Ford’s new C-MAX Hybrid (earlier post) sold 3,182 units in October in its first full month of sales, outselling the Prius v’s 2,769 units. (Sales of the entire Prius family were 16,774 units, with the sedan accounting for 8,788 of those.) The C-MAX Hybrid also led Ford in achieving its best October hybrid sales month ever with a total of 4,612 sales, up 142% over October 2011.

The C-MAX Hybrid is EPA-rated at 47 mpg US city, highway and combined. C-MAX Hybrid sales also helped Ford deliver its best October for small car sales in 11 years. Ford sales of Focus, C-MAX and Fiesta were up 54% to 25,493 units year over year.

One in four C-MAX Hybrids sold in October were sold in California, according to Ford, with Los Angeles as the best-selling region and San Francisco following in second.

Initial conquest data show that more than 70% of C-MAX Hybrid buyers traded in a competitive model or added it without trading in another vehicle. One third of C-MAX Hybrid customers in October said they cross-shopped the Toyota Prius and Prius v.

More than 60% of sales of C-MAX Hybrid were the SEL model, which offers Intelligent Access with push-button start, rain-sensing wipers, heated seats, SYNC with MyFord Touch, ambient lighting and the Reverse Sensing System standard. Early sales of the SEL model are running about 20% higher than expected, Ford said.

The plug-in version of the C-MAX, the C-MAX Energi is now coming available at Ford EV-certified dealers in half the states across the country.



It's a cracking car. Apparently most people get a bit worse than the rated mileage, around 40/gallon, but IMO that is not bad for a comfy reasonably sized car, which is fun to drive.
I can't wait to see how people get on with the Energi.
The only reservation is that it looses quite a bit of boot space, but it should be a great buy for those who can manage with that.


Ford has a excellect product line and didn't steal $billions of bailouts.

Many Ford salespersons say that they can't keep a C-Max on the lot for a demo before it's sold.


Ford may have taken good market decisions and is having great success with its small and hybrid units. Will others follow?


Well, that's great that they are outselling one of the prius'. And, oh my, that kool aide is good.


Ford this time seems to have done everything right.

Nick Lyons

47 MPG does not seem to be happening for most drivers, or for most journalist testers. 39-42 MPG seems to be the real-world numbers. Decent, but disappointing. For roughly the same cost, you can buy the great new Honda Accord and get almost as good highway mileage (most of our miles are highway) without the compromises.

We did the C-Max test drive, and liked the car. I'm a little turned off by the reduced cargo space, a result of modifying a production vehicle. A clean sheet design would have avoided this problem; one can hope the next version will address this issue.

We're still considering the C-Max for our next car. No car buying for us until after the election, which, praise Allah, is almost over.


after people get their situation stabilized, I can see a lot of interest for this, here in New Jersey

Art Lewellan

Standard drivetrains like the Honda Accord cannot be upgraded to Plug-in as can a hybrid. High MPG is a secondary consideration when a Plug-in Hybrid can act as an emergency power supply and moreover effectively achieve 500 MPG when daily driving distance is kept low. Rooftop photovoltiac solar panel systems are better matched to PHEVs than BEVs because their smaller battery pack keeps cost low and serves a larger market. The Honda hybrid does not offer this Ford/Toyota hybrid advantage.


This is not a plug-in, its a hybrid

Bob Wallace

kelly - no car manufactures "stole" billions of dollar from taxpayers. We put about $1.3 billion into Chrysler that we won't directly recover. We don't know if we will loose anything on GM as we are holding their stock until prices rise. (We had to sell our shares in Chrysler in order for Fiat to obtain a controlling share. We needed to move ownership to someone who cared.)

Now, let's say that we don't recover a few billions from bailing out GM. What was the alternative? We let the US car manufacturing industry collapse, including Ford? We put another 1.3 million people out of work, support them with unemployment checks, and end up with far fewer manufacturing jobs in the US?

If we end up loosing $25 billion on the bailout (worst case estimates) but save the jobs of 1.3 million Americans that's $19,230 per job saved. Add up the unemployment payments, the welfare checks after unemployment ran out, and the lost tax revenues. Compare that to a ~$20k per person cost and you'll see how wisely we spent our money.

That $25 billion potential loss was based on the US owning ~500 million shares of GM at $20.25 per share. GM closed at $25.79 on Friday lowers the potential cost by a couple of billion. As the economy continues to recover GM's stock value will continue to rise and we'll further benefit from our wise intervention.

Nick Lyons

What Bob Wallace said. Auto bailout was not popular at the time; it took political courage to do it. It has been a huge success for the USA.


Could Ford and Chrysler have bought huge chunks of bankrupted GM (at very low price) and do even better without bail outs and specially without GM around, a bit like Boing Aircraft has done?

GM China could have been separated and could be doing well?

Bob Wallace

Ford wasn't that far away from needing help. Money was set aside for them in case they needed it.

If GM and Chrysler had gone down they would have taken bunches of parts suppliers with them. By the time Ford could have firmed itself up the bits and pieces of GM and Chrysler would have been as worthless as Ford would have been without its supply stream.


Chrysler also got a bailout. I've never understood why the right-wingers got their panties in such a wad over GM and not Chrysler.

I guess that's what Rush told them to do....


CORRECT; No car manufactures stole billions of dollars from taxpayers.

They were GIVEN it.

Without the bailout, GM and Chrysler would have been forced to legally file for a normal bankruptcy; a proven remedy for any company in such circumstances. General Motors would almost certainly have been re-organized.
Arguably, this re-organization would have produced a company MORE competitive, with less unfair gov support than the one that emerged from the bailout process. Chrysler would likely have also avoided liquidation given the value of its assets and brand recognition.

The new GM was also given the past accumulation of net operating losses from the old GM - about $30 billion in profit-shielding – another gift.

Why would a government that considers corporations evil (which includes their stockholders of course) do this for a corporation?
- Easy.
Because the government and the UAW are now the owners while the creditors and investors (called profiteers by the administration) were disenfranchised and denied both due process and deficiency claims (which keep the bankrupt company liable for a portion of the unpaid debt).

Now it is within the control of the government and politically expedient to ensure that the New GM makes money for the UAW and appears to pay the taxpayers back with legitimate profits.

It is just too bad that the government put Ford at a major competitive disadvantage; Ford rudely spurned the government’s bailout and re-alignment.

That, and GM’s history of gas guzzlers, is why people from both the left and right resent GM.

Oh, and please send me a $10,000 and I will give you a $9,000 worth of GM stock that you can make money on “when it goes up” to $11,000.

And Chrysler/Fiat is small potatoes, compared to GM.

The comments to this entry are closed.