Discuss Detroit » Archives - July 2008 » '87 Mustang gets 100 MPH on E85 « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Digitalvision
Member
Username: Digitalvision

Post Number: 943
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 12:18 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

http://www.clickondetroit.com/ automotive/16768626/detail.htm l

Proof the know-how is there. Time for the big three to embrace it. If an engineer on his lonesome can make this work, with all the money any of the Big 3 has they could seize on this change the game completely.
Top of pageBottom of page

Zrx_doug
Member
Username: Zrx_doug

Post Number: 286
Registered: 03-2008
Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 12:24 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'll believe it when I see it. Claiming this level of success is pretty simple..proving it is another story.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rjlj
Member
Username: Rjlj

Post Number: 595
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 12:33 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

'87 Mustang gets 100 Miles Per Hour on E85? The Auto industry has not partnered with the oil industry like the Bush administration has.
Top of pageBottom of page

Digitalvision
Member
Username: Digitalvision

Post Number: 946
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 12:38 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sorry, I meant MPG. Please oh kind admin, edit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Zrx_doug
Member
Username: Zrx_doug

Post Number: 287
Registered: 03-2008
Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 12:41 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

They left out the part about how the car has been sawzalled down to a total weight of 65 lbs, has no interior, runs the tires at roughly 300 times the manufacturer's recommended PSI, etc, etc, etc..
:-)
Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Digitalvision
Member
Username: Digitalvision

Post Number: 947
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 12:50 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't believe so, Zrx. Mods seem to be in the engine.

http://www.toledoblade.com/app s/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200807 01/BUSINESS02/807010341

I personally would invest in Tesla Motors - know a guy who ordered one and says it's the real thing. 200 miles on a charge, top speed 120 MPH, charges in 3.5 hours.

Check out this vid of the Tesla.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =RGpqxZmRA9w&feature=related/w atch?v=RGpqxZmRA9w&feature=rel ated

Bad azz car. THIS what electrics need to be, not those 25-mph toys. Developed in part right here in SE Michigan.

(Message edited by digitalvision on July 03, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Zrx_doug
Member
Username: Zrx_doug

Post Number: 288
Registered: 03-2008
Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 1:01 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Your article re: the 100 mpg Mustang is a rehash of the first one posted..and the owner's claims are still unsubstantiated..although he DOES seem to be pitching "block modifications" and a bottom-end girdle which has got dick to do with MPG. If that car pulls 100 mpg on E-85 while being driven in "real world" conditions, and it weighs anything remotely close to what a stock 'stang does, I'll eat it.

As for Tesla?
I'll believe in Tesla when I see one with 50,000 miles on the clock that hasn't spent two thirds of it's life in the shop over battery related issues. The Tesla is powered by a buttload of laptop batteries with a very complex monitoring system which is designed to shut the car down in case of imbalance in the cells..which sounds to me like a LOT of time on a tow truck to and fro to your friendly Tesla dealer.
Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE for the Tesla to be a real-world success..but I don't see it as anything but a toy until battery tech makes its next quantum leap.

(Message edited by ZRX Doug on July 03, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

393bird
Member
Username: 393bird

Post Number: 28
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 9:54 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The engines coming from Detroit now to use E85 or Gas, (Flexfuel) are a huge compromise. They must have low compression ratios to be used with gas (8.5 - 10.0 to 1), while E85 is much more efficient with 12.0 - 16.0 compression ratios. With his engine having a girdle as mentioned, I am sure he is running very high compression, more along the lines of what a diesel would have. The girdle is used to add strength to the block to handle the much higher forces in the cylinders.

I am sure there is some facts to his claim, but it is some where between what he says, and what is thought to be possible.
Top of pageBottom of page

Civilprotectionunit4346
Member
Username: Civilprotectionunit4346

Post Number: 726
Registered: 06-2007
Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 10:24 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Speaking of Ethenol I know they are using corn mostly to make Ethenol. But there is other plants/vegetables that you can get a greater yield of ethenol from, such as sugar cane, soy etc.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bdglsmn
Member
Username: Bdglsmn

Post Number: 77
Registered: 01-2008
Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 11:02 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Zrx-doug

Battery technology has been intentionally stifled by the oil companies. The guy that perfected the batteries that were used in the EV-1 is from Sterling Heights or Warren I believe. When he sought capital to go to the next step one of the big oil companies (I think Exxon) stepped in and purchased control of his company. All of his research into the next generation of batteries was halted at that time. I wish I could remember his name. He was shown prominently in the documentary "Who killed the electric car" He says that the technology for better batteries is here already but no one is willing to invest the money to bring it to fruition. I highly recommend that documentary to everyone.
Top of pageBottom of page

Digitalvision
Member
Username: Digitalvision

Post Number: 948
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 11:10 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

His last name is Ovshinsky, and his company is in Troy.

Agreed, Bdglsmn. Big oil has been working very hard to keep competitive technologies out, so have the big 3. And for more reasons that you think - as my oil change guy says, "electric cars come and I'm out of business. So their batteries will always suck and be ten years out!"

It all goes back to my thesis on how people make decisions; they will almost never come to conclusions or take action on things that hurt their pocketbook, or publicly admit them. That's human nature.

It's the same on the green side; most of the business proponents of it are companies that have adapted and it makes them more money to have the switch happen and positions them ahead of their competition.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bdglsmn
Member
Username: Bdglsmn

Post Number: 78
Registered: 01-2008
Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 11:32 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ovshinsky thats it. Thanks Digitalvision.
Top of pageBottom of page

Civilprotectionunit4346
Member
Username: Civilprotectionunit4346

Post Number: 729
Registered: 06-2007
Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 11:49 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bdglsmn thanks for bringing that movie up"Who killed the electric car" ive been looking to see that for some time now. Guess I will have to go rent it and watch it.

I can defin' feel a vibe from the Oil industry that they want to get there market's share on the new and up and coming fuels that are coming out such as ethenol. It's sad to see that especially with the way our economy has been doing. I think it would open up alot of jobs here in the US.

Now getting back to about electric vehicles, has anyone here seen the Tesla sports car?
Top of pageBottom of page

Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit

Post Number: 281
Registered: 04-2008
Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 1:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I wonder if all the modifications to the Mustang's engine will decrease its life. A car that gets 110 MPG but needs a new engine every 30,000 miles is not that appealing.
Top of pageBottom of page

Zrx_doug
Member
Username: Zrx_doug

Post Number: 293
Registered: 03-2008
Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 2:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"The engines coming from Detroit now to use E85 or Gas, (Flexfuel) are a huge compromise. They must have low compression ratios to be used with gas (8.5 - 10.0 to 1), while E85 is much more efficient with 12.0 - 16.0 compression ratios. With his engine having a girdle as mentioned, I am sure he is running very high compression, more along the lines of what a diesel would have. The girdle is used to add strength to the block to handle the much higher forces in the cylinders.

I am sure there is some facts to his claim, but it is some where between what he says, and what is thought to be possible."


I had a lot more faith in the guy before I heard he was in the engine girdle biz. FWIW, I'm already fairly hip to the need for higher compression ratios when running alcohol (I crewed on several alcohol powered drag cars back in the good ol' days)..but the thought that there's a need to strengthen the bottom end due to this ratio increase is a false one. While static compression pressure DOES obviously increase as CR rises, the actual loads seen at the crankshaft are somewhat lesser than a gasoline powered engine making comparable horsepower..alky "hits" softer and burns far cooler than gasoline.
Obviously, if high performance is the objective, ratios are much higher, valve & ignition timing is much more aggressive, and cylinder pressures are out the window..but to make 300 hp with a 5.0 Ford engine on E-85 doesn't require any brutal compression tactics..
For the most part, I agree with you..I figure the guy is pulling somewhere between what his claims are and what a "normal" 'stang's MPG is, and making good use of the publicity to push a line of Hi-Perf engine goodies.
I'd still like to see more particulars..and I still bet this car weighs a LOT less than a stocker if he's really pulling the numbers he claims.
Top of pageBottom of page

Otter
Member
Username: Otter

Post Number: 239
Registered: 12-2007
Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 6:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

400hp and 110mpg out of a stock-ish-block 2.3L or 5.0L or whatever in your garage is fairy dust. And 400hp is not going to get a Mustang to 60 in 3 seconds no way, no how. I have about as much faith in his mileage claims as I do in his performance claims, which are silly on their face.

Interesting thread, I think I'll write more later when I have time.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bulletmagnet
Member
Username: Bulletmagnet

Post Number: 1339
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 6:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I smell e-eighty BS.
Top of pageBottom of page

393bird
Member
Username: 393bird

Post Number: 29
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 9:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I hope there is at least a little truth to it, and some of the details leak out. I drive a highly modified supercharged E85 powered car, and could use some tips on more power with reduced consumption. :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Benfield
Member
Username: Benfield

Post Number: 31
Registered: 06-2008
Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 - 12:21 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Total BS.

It's charming to think that some guy in his garage can bend physical laws that 500 PhDs at GM Research Labs haven't been able to overcome in the last 40 years of cutting edge research.

And I love the new version of the "secret carburetor" that the big oil companies are hiding, enter the "secret battery".

Barnum was right.
Top of pageBottom of page

Supersport
Member
Username: Supersport

Post Number: 11819
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 - 9:41 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

And 400hp is not going to get a Mustang to 60 in 3 seconds no way, no how.



Not sure that statement is 100% accurate. My Camaro, with 513 hp, made it from 0-60 in the 3 second range. This with street legal/sticky DOT tires and a curb weight of 3400 lbs. Not sure what this guy has for an engine or tires, but Mustangs are notoriously light. Back in the day many of my friends claimed weights under 3,000 lbs with their street legal Mustangs, the 2.3 liters were around 2,700 lbs. Though a rough estimate, it has long been said that every 100 lbs is worth .1 in the 1/4 mile. Obviously, the faster you go, the more weight you need to drop for the .1 second. So that 0-60 is hardly a stretch at all.

Say this guy lightened this already light car to maybe 2,300 lbs or so, then added a 6 speed and highway gear. In stock form this car would get much improved mileage, probably close to 40 mpg. 100+ mpg though? On the less efficient E-85? Can't say I'm totally sold on that one though.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bulletmagnet
Member
Username: Bulletmagnet

Post Number: 1352
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 - 10:14 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Supersport, you’re a rational individual, so slap yourself across the face (like they do in films) and come to your senses! We are expecting a Holy Grail here; something that can benefit us all on the streets of America. The story implies that this is life changing. B F-ing S I say.
BTW, wouldn’t it be a fun plot; an adventure about the guy who invents the ultimate MPG gizmo and is pursued by the evil Oil/Auto companies, Indiana Jones style? Throw in some stereo-type Arabs and you have a block- buster.
Top of pageBottom of page

Otter
Member
Username: Otter

Post Number: 242
Registered: 12-2007
Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 - 12:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Supersport,

Maybe getting into the high 4s, but the guy claimed 3 sec, as in 3.0, which is really fairy-dust-like. About as fanciful as 400bhp and 110mpg to go with it. power-to-weight will get you a good first-order idea of straight-line performance (nothing new to you, I know), with other factors like launch control, AWD or other traction aids, choice of gearing (e.g. can you stay in 2nd gear past 60?), tires, etc. giving you a better 2nd-order estimate. I think that once you get around 4 sec, no matter how much power you have you get really traction-limited unless you pay attention to weight distribution and transfer, tire choice and so on. Really fast with that much power in an old Fox body is not that hard, but the level of his claim, along with his other claims, put together, for me, a picture of something that smells strongly like either BS or wishful thinking.

What kind of Camaro did you have?


Bullet,

Those stereo-type Arabs are twice as dangerous as mono-type Arabs, but not nearly as dangerous as surround-sound Arabs! :-)

(Message edited by otter on July 04, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Chitaku
Member
Username: Chitaku

Post Number: 2078
Registered: 03-2006
Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 - 12:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

remember the car in Cheech and Chong that runs on weed? Henry Ford proposed a hemp car
Top of pageBottom of page

Supersport
Member
Username: Supersport

Post Number: 11820
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 - 12:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

What kind of Camaro did you have?



Still have it, a 69 Camaro. Been slowly collecting the parts to bump it to 650-700 hp on the engine, then add the 250 hp NOS kit for shits and giggles.
Top of pageBottom of page

Supersport
Member
Username: Supersport

Post Number: 11821
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 - 12:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


camaro
Top of pageBottom of page

393bird
Member
Username: 393bird

Post Number: 30
Registered: 09-2007
Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 - 7:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here is one that u will get a kick out of.



Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.