Why not the C-Max?

Does the fact that one is made by Ford and one by Toyota carry any weight? Toyota = reliability.
The Prius-v is based on 3 generations of tested hybrid technology. Around here, if it doesn't say Toyota on it then it's not a contender. Seriously. I've bought 6 new Toyotas and worn them all out and never had a single major repair. My last Toyota went 7 years without ANY repairs of ANY kind.

The stuff that will drive you nuts on a Ford is little stuff, nickel and dime, fit and finish, niggling problems that always seem to crop up. Windows, locks, lights, things that should never break but do. Suit yourself, but if you'd owned a few Toyotas you wouldn't even be asking this question.

 

Cargo room.

I liked the C-max styling and drive-ability. But I buy a SUV/CUV as opposed to a sedan because I want room for cargo. There is a significant difference between the cars. Once you get to ~40MPG, the difference in mileage is insignificant to me and even with the original claimed mileage for the two cars wasn't a deciding factor. Plus I don't like to be lied to.

Stick a 6" Xmas tree in the C-max with the trunk lid closed like I can in the v? 5 people plus wheelchair? Huge boxes plus 4 coolers on a every-other month run to Costco? Those are what I've used the Prius for.

I don't think the Prius mid level infotainment system is a great thing. On my v3 it's GPS map system is totally inferior to a 5 year old TomTom stand alone with 3 year old map data. Not just the interface but the presentation both audio and visual are years behind any of the stand alone GPSs. And the map updates are ridiculously expensive. They ought to give em to you over your phone the as-delivered map data is so bad. Instead it is a trip to the dealer.

10k and only oil changes. 500 miles in the last 3 days. Perfectly functional. Kind of fun for being different. Perfect? Never saw one in 55 years of driving that was.

In the v section here I posted a long list of best and worst features that is as honest as I could make it. See if there is something similar (not posted by a fanboy) on the C-max forums. Then look at what you want the car to do for you and decide. Good luck.

 

+1 on the cargo space.
6 ft from back of the front seats to the endgate, and 4 ft wide at the window sills. Very near to the size of a standard Toyota pickup bed.

 

I've had zero issues with the MFT but my car was built in the spring with an update. If you understand and know how to drive a hybrid, it delivers great results. This is from this morning's commute:



I expect to avg 42-43mpg over the year. In comparison, I avg. 46-48mpg in my former Prius.

I really like the cargo room of the v (I crossed shopped too) but found a suitable workaround for when I need more cargo capacity:





I prefer the driving position and ingress/egress that the CUV design offers. And it should go without saying but I will......

YMMV

 

For us, it was Toyota Brand Loyalty and a long proven reliability in the Prius hybrid arena. The other auto companies (including non US) are still trying to catch up.

I researched the Ford C-Max for months but ultimately did not decide to test drive one. I did not like all the negative publicity of Ford over stating their EPA mileage to persuade customers to buy their new year hybrid SUV model. Their settlement was typical of large corporations, stating that they had used an "optimal" estimate based on a loophole in the EPA calculations for hybrids and that previous customers could get a rebate check for $250. No admittance of deceptive practices and I hear that the C-Max owners are crying fowl, a little too little and a little too late...

If you have read many of the C-Max blogs, the early adopters of the C-Max were irate to be deceived by their lower mileage, especially those who drove the car many miles and were not seeing what they thought was a competitor to the Prius line.

Good luck, I'm sure that Ford makes a good car, but great is what I wanted for the money and years of maintenance free driving.

 

When FORD started TV ads comparing CMAX to Prius v, it seemed liked that was a contrived comparsion for the purpose of saying CMAX had better EPA MPG rating than Prius v (which of course CMAX doesn't have better MPG in reality). But the real comparison on a cargo space basis is CMAX vs. Prius Hatchback. We have some happy campers on PriusChat with the Fusion energi but CMAX does not seem as strong offering. But still many like the FORD for interior and finish a little better.

 

i thought the c max hatch looked even smaller than the prius liftback. am i wrong?

 

According to the EPA, the CMax is 2 cu. ft bigger.

 

wow, that's deceiving, thanks!

 

Just like the Prius, the CMax loves nice weather. Beautiful, cool evening errand run netted this:

 

Here is nice comparison from Toyota website.../PLiftback/CMAX/Prius_v/21.6/24.5/34.3 cu ft
Toyota Prius - 2013 - Compare Models

 

I couldn't stand the huge turning radius of the cmax..... It wasn't really a contender since I was shopping used to stay in my budget. That one factor really stuck out to me when I had to park it though.

 

thanks, is that cargo volume with the rear seats up or down?

 

Definitely up. Down, you're talking 40-60 cu. ft ballpark for these hatchbacks. IIRC, the CMax is over 50 (wiki says 52.6).

 

This is space behind the rear seats. I think this is not counting the approx 1-ft3 cubby hole beneath the floor.
If I add the cubby hole, I get the 2-ft3 difference that fotomoto quoted. Note that PiP is also 21.6 ft3, but the comparable CMAX energi is less 19.2 cu ft. So if you compare Plug-Ins, then PiP has the edge.

If you go to FORD Canada, they also give CMAX cargo with rear seats folded down. However, Toyota Canada does not quote this for Prius so no way to compare.

Note that the EPA Cargo Space for Gen3 21.6 cu ft is huge compared to Gen2 sometimes quoted as low as 14.4 cu ft. But Gen2 was before "EPA" cargo space was in use; I assume for Gen2 the 14.4-ft3 is the space under the cover, whereas for Gen3 we apparently count the whole space floor to ceiling.

 

thanks guys, is the a comparison of square feet or inches behind the rear seats? or depth x width?

 

It is quoted in cubic feet, but I sure don't know how new "EPA" cargo space method works. Presumably it is true volume based on CAD drawings, but I still cannot rationalize the difference between Gen2=14.4 cu ft by the old methods, and Gen3=21.6 cu ft by new EPA cargo space method. I know Toyota says (YouTube video) the Gen3 has about 1-cu ft more cargo volume than Gen2 when compared on same basis.