# 80mpg 400hp mustang...



## sneasle

This just smells like vapor ware to me, but on the off chance this isn't BS, I can't wait until it gets released.

http://www.mustangevolution.com/20080702712/


----------



## TheOldSalt

I believe it's real enough as an actual x-prize entry, but I don't see the tech ever reaching the market. Call me crazy, but I think that too many rich, powerful, and influential people will have seriously major objections to cars getting that kind of mileage.


----------



## mrmoby

I'd really be interested in knowing how they do it, if it is in fact legit. 400/500 is a great amount of power, assuuming it is a 5.0. The ramifications for use in trucks, for the people that actually need to have them is huge.

The way the fuel prices are the SUV market is dead. It would'nt surprise me to see unused tech coming out of detroit, because if they can up the mileage, people will buy again, and probably pay more than they already did. I don't really subscribe to powerful people keeping it under raps. If you were to see vehicles get this kind of mileage, you would see supply suddenly dry up. Don't worry, the oil cartels will get their dollar one way or another.


----------



## COM

I think it could be legit.

I was looking at a standard Audi yesterday that gets 215 horses from a 2.0 turbo four cylinder and gets over 30 mpg. The Stang numbers are not quite that far off and with an engine so much bigger, you can get some economies of scale.

It is absurd that we don't have 100 MPG cars for sale at this point. This is a clear example of business and government teaming up to screw us all.


----------



## guppyart

okay but honestly how many of us need more then a 100HP 1.6L engine?.

top speed means more tickets and risks,, a little 2000 suzuki esteem has tons of city zip and gets great mileage on the highway without a problem.
the little swifts were the same way and were a HUGE hit..

that mustang might beat the smaller import in a quarter mile but straight zip and handling in a city not a chance.

if it can't hit 45+ mpg on highway it shouldn't be called an economy car honestly :S


----------



## mrmoby

Yeah, but try plowing snow or towing with 100 h.p.


----------



## guppyart

it plows snow just fine,
in fact it plows snow better then my 2.0L 85 saab 900 does and thats a tank of a car.,that and I get more snow then you and its still running.

(notes that its also at 340k and still making that mileage. only maintenance has been the boots, and rotors). 
not to many domestics can claim close to that as a reputation.

and depends on what needs to be towed, that little car can get alot more moving then people think it could.

and a overpowered mustang is also a deathtrap in snow/slush.


----------



## mrmoby

How are you plowing snow with a Suzuki Esteem?

I'm talking about work trucks. You aren't going to plow snow with a 100h.p.car, nor haul animals, boats, tractors, or other vehicles.

My point isn't about having a 400 hp Mustang (though from a hobbiest point of view it would be great), but the fact that the same motor used in the Mustang is the same one used in Ford trucks, means that the same type of mileage could be obained in a work vehicle, which would be a great benefit to those who need to use them.


----------



## sneasle

gees.. arguing about towing. Spend a week in Germany, you would not believe what people tow with their cars over there. When i was over there for Christmas, I only counted 1 pickup the entire time.


that being said, this would be wonderful if applied to trucks. I do think there needs to be a more fundamental shift in American thinking first. Too many people over here drive trucks and SUV's because they can. You shouldn't have a full size truck if you never have the bed full and only tow a boat to the lake 2x a year. In the same light, you shouldn't have an SUV just because you are a family of four. If you are personally too big to fit in a smaller car, then you have something to work toward.

I'm all for having something that makes lots of noise and goes fast, but do it on the weekend, don't use it as a daily driver.


----------



## guppyart

a 100hp car with fwd will plow snow better then a 500hp truck/mustang, purely cause of FWD> RWD.
in my parents years of driving that car daily all year since 2000 it has never been stuck and its been through 3-4 inches of slush several times,, or just plowing foot or so of snow cause the blades hadn't been out yet.
a large number of the cars/trucks you see in ditches out here in winter end up being RWD or AWD suvs thinking there gods cause they have awd and can do anything.
I punch the gas to go through a patch of slush/snow,, mustang punches the gas and meets the ditch.


but really 500hp from a engine while making 80mpg sounds like pure BS.
thats easily tripleing what that engine can get if driven nicely at canadian speeds on a highway..

if it work why not just apply that to a 100hp. 1.6L car and break 100mpg without blinking?.

unless he figured out how to run on fumes.


----------



## fish_doc

Part of this could be he might have taken all the emission controls off the engine. That restricts alot of the power. So without it you can tune the engine back to save gas and still have more power.


----------



## guppyart

but if it can't pass emissions tests won't it not be approved in a large portion of the states?


----------



## TheOldSalt

That hardly matters. It won't get approved anyway, no matter how clean the emissions.
Gasoline taxes are collected by the sales of gallons of gas. Reducing the number of gallons needed to be bought will directly impact the amount of fuel tax collected. It won't be allowed to happen.
One guy who owned a trucking company figured out a way to modify his fleet so that he got nearly double the mileage by adding alcohol to his fuel. He got slapped with an alcohol tax ten times higher than he would have paid in diesel fuel tax for his trouble.


----------



## mrmoby

guppyart said:


> a 100hp car with fwd will plow snow better then a 500hp truck/mustang, purely cause of FWD> RWD.
> in my parents years of driving that car daily all year since 2000 it has never been stuck and its been through 3-4 inches of slush several times,, or just plowing foot or so of snow cause the blades hadn't been out yet.
> a large number of the cars/trucks you see in ditches out here in winter end up being RWD or AWD suvs thinking there gods cause they have awd and can do anything.
> I punch the gas to go through a patch of slush/snow,, mustang punches the gas and meets the ditch.
> 
> 
> but really 500hp from a engine while making 80mpg sounds like pure BS.
> thats easily tripleing what that engine can get if driven nicely at canadian speeds on a highway..
> 
> if it work why not just apply that to a 100hp. 1.6L car and break 100mpg without blinking?.
> 
> unless he figured out how to run on fumes.



I don't think you are getting my point.....maybe it is a difference in terminology. Are you going to outfit a Suziki Esteem with a Fisher Snow Plow, and push a foot or more snow out of a driveway or parking lot? That is what I am talking about.

As far as how it is done, supposedly through electronics. You could strip off the emmisions equipment and pick up the power for sure, but you wouldn't get those kind of mileage results. It's got to be all in fuel measure and delivery, and possibly selective disabling of certain cylinders under certain conditions.

Volkswagen has a prototype that will deliver 280mpg, and they say it is very likely it will go into production, although as a diiesel electric hybrid.


----------



## wifishman

i have to find the links but theres a guy getting 250mpg in a hummer. every vechile could have better gas millage but like tos said the govt wont allow it... to much lost money


----------



## mrmoby

I'm not so sure I buy into the theory that the gov't stops this sort of thing. Really, if they lost the money on number of gallons sold, they would just up the amount of the tax. Let's say there is a gov't squash on this, there has to be a breaking point. You can only fork over so much to the gov't and oil companies before you have no more to give. At some point it will cause a major collapse of the economy, leaving a whole lot more rich folks out of money. This economy is so far dependant now on oil, that something will change. And rest assured, there will be someone, along with Uncle Sam, there to make money off it.

Think of it this way, if gas usage was to drop off, to the point where the gov't loses a significant revenue source, you can bet they will start taxing on a miles driven basis, or something similair.

As far as big oil, they have a limited resource. It will always be valuable. They won't lose too many pennys either.


----------



## akangelfood

mrmoby said:


> .....maybe it is a difference in terminology. Are you going to outfit a Suziki Esteem with a Fisher Snow Plow, and push a foot or more snow out of a driveway or parking lot? That is what I am talking about.


Living in Alaska, I had to giggle at the idea of hauling our 4-place snowmachine trailer, fully loaded up, through the mountains in a snowstorm with a little Suzuki Esteem.

I also cannot resist the urge to grin when I try to imagine a small vehicle with a snow plow twice its size attached to the front trying to budge a snow burm...in my minds eye, I see a tow truck en route.


----------



## wifishman

mrmoby said:


> I'm not so sure I buy into the theory that the gov't stops this sort of thing. Really, if they lost the money on number of gallons sold, they would just up the amount of the tax. Let's say there is a gov't squash on this, there has to be a breaking point. You can only fork over so much to the gov't and oil companies before you have no more to give. At some point it will cause a major collapse of the economy, leaving a whole lot more rich folks out of money. This economy is so far dependant now on oil, that something will change. And rest assured, there will be someone, along with Uncle Sam, there to make money off it.
> 
> Think of it this way, if gas usage was to drop off, to the point where the gov't loses a significant revenue source, you can bet they will start taxing on a miles driven basis, or something similair.
> 
> As far as big oil, they have a limited resource. It will always be valuable. They won't lose too many pennys either.


or they just continue to do what they are doing... is it really so hard to fathom that govt is about 1 thing... the good ol dollar.. and lots of them. do they want to see expeditions go from 16 mpg to 100. hell no. that person is paying 500 a month in gas right now compared to 100 if he gets 100 mpg. 

we complain, bit#$, piss and moan all day everyday but when it comes down to it we still need to drive ourselves around. this does bring up a interesting question tho... do you still drive the same ammount as u did 2 years ago? for as much complaining that goes on i would still bet that honestly we drive the same. i bet the ammount of gallons pumped each day is the same today as it was 2 years ago. so why would the govt do anything to change this... especially when we are paying 2$ more a gallon


----------



## mrmoby

Yes, but the gov't is going to make the same of revenue if gas is $100 a gallon, or $1 a gallon. The Fed gas tax is something like 50 cents a gallon. If consumption goes down, they would simply up the amount of the tax to compensate.

Personally, yes, I have changed my driving habits. I also bought a car that has double the mileage of my truck, which doesn't get used now except for foul weather and occasionally moving things. I think twice about going out, and never let it idle for heat or to run the a/c.

That can be said for a lot of people. Gas consumption here in the states is down. Dealers can't keep econo cars on their lots. Dealers can't get rid of their SUV's and trucks. Chrysler has already shut one minivan plant, and is dropping a shift at another truck plant. So I would say this is situation is causing people to react.


----------



## sneasle

I agree with that. Look at the market share of the big 3. they have lost so much market over the last decade that it is the equivalent of Ford shutting down.

They are starting to drop their 'unpopular' brands. Ford just dumped jag/landrover, and I bet you will see hummer, mercury, saab, saturn, buick, and many of those other specially brands dissapear.

If I came up with a 400/500 engine that got 80mpg in my garage, I would turn it into a kit and underrate it. Sell it advertising 30mpg, and let someone 'figure out' how to do that final tweak to the ECU to get the bump to 80.


----------



## guppyart

not my saab .
oh and sad thing is most saab cars make as good or = to the rest of GMs lines . while being european and looking cooler.
the rest can die hehe


----------



## mrmoby

I am curious......do you have a snowplow for the Scaab too?


----------



## mrmoby

Have a gander at this


http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/07/laugh-at-high-g.html


----------



## Guest

God, that looks clausterphobic.

I like the Hy-Wire. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hy-wire1.htm


----------



## mrmoby

Scuba Kid said:


> God, that looks clausterphobic.
> 
> I like the Hy-Wire. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hy-wire1.htm


Yeah...not the kind of car youwant to take to a baked bean supper.

The GM one is interesting, especially space wise. Call me old fashioned, but I still want some sort of mechanical and hydralic system for my steering and braking.


----------



## sneasle

Why are you insistent on mechanical and direct connect hydraulics? If fly by wire is good enough for fighters and commercial and private jets, why isn't it good enough for you?

I'd have no problem driving either of those cars. I would love it if they sent me one to test!


----------



## guppyart

actually no one out here puts blades on the front of there vehicles short of farmers that have long driveways to clear and generally they just use tractors/bobcats.
and for highways we have a pretty good fleet of true snow plows that keep up pretty good.


----------



## mrmoby

sneasle said:


> Why are you insistent on mechanical and direct connect hydraulics? If fly by wire is good enough for fighters and commercial and private jets, why isn't it good enough for you?
> 
> I'd have no problem driving either of those cars. I would love it if they sent me one to test!



Basically, because you need some sort of fail safe in the event you have primary system failure. You either have to have redundant electrical backups or have a mechanical backup. Really, a hydraulic braking and mechanical steering really don't require much space, and shouldn't impact the overall design. Besides, the mechanical parts would be much less expensive to repair/and or replace as needed.


----------



## mrmoby

guppyart said:


> actually no one out here puts blades on the front of there vehicles short of farmers that have long driveways to clear and generally they just use tractors/bobcats.
> and for highways we have a pretty good fleet of true snow plows that keep up pretty good.



OK, well let me reword my original premise, 

If someone has indeed developed the means of streching 80 mpg from a 5.0 liter engine which is producing 400 hp/500 ftlbs of torque, this is a fantastic premise for those who do need to use a truck to work. People who do attach a snowplow, haul livestock, tow vehicles, and other forms of work. There are a lot of people who actually need more then a Suzuki to do their work, and the gas prices are cutting into their living.


----------



## mrmoby

http://www.hp2g.com/

This is the guy's website. Now I am really curious about this guy's claims. Thing is, from what I am reading, this competition is open to entry through 2008, so it will be a while.

Guy could be legit, but could also be trying to set himself up to sell some sort of "mileage enhancer" gimmick.


----------



## sneasle

mrmoby said:


> Basically, because you need some sort of fail safe in the event you have primary system failure. You either have to have redundant electrical backups or have a mechanical backup. Really, a hydraulic braking and mechanical steering really don't require much space, and shouldn't impact the overall design. Besides, the mechanical parts would be much less expensive to repair/and or replace as needed.



I beg to differ. Electronics only get cheaper, mechanical systems get more expensive as the amount of materials needed increases.

Any decent system is designed with redundancies, but they can be built in in many different ways.

As I said, if I can't put my life in the hands of fly-by-wire in an aircraft, I can do it in a car.


----------



## mrmoby

Well, I'll put it to you this way. Go price a set of brake pads, a master cylinder, or a steering rack vs just about any automotive electronic sensor. Then you will see how cheap electronics are!

Another factor you have to keep in mind is corrosion. Most road vehicles used in the States are regularly subject to road salt, which is not a concern with aircraft.

Lastly, is the ease in diagnosis of a mechanical system. Braking systems are easy to diagnose and steering, even easier. They are very simple systems. Electronics on the other hand, can be a nightmare to diagnose.

If you are to employ a wired system, you need a minimum of two circuits, preferably three, in order to have your master system, and backups. That is up to three sets sensors, and three processors, plus related wiring and hardware for both steering and braking.

Interesting concept, but overboard and overly costly for an automobile.


----------



## s13

I watched a video on that mustang, 0-60 in 3 seconds. Also he was getting 110 mpg and believed that if they tweaked it a little more he could get 500mpg. It was on cbs news


----------



## s13

Also, now that this guy is getting all sorts of publicity, I forsee a "tragic accident" in his future. Oil companies are going to see a MAJOR fall in sales if this gets out on the market. I mean, if all cars were getting 4-6 times more gas mileage per tank, I would be filling up once every 2 months instead of 3 times a month.


----------



## TheOldSalt

Yeah, things tend to go quite badly for people who try to make waves in the energy field.
That poor guy who invented a generator that makes a lot more juice than it takes to spin it... demonstrating his invention on the Tonight Show was probably the high point of his life. After that... hooboy, did things go a bit downhill. I watched that demonstration and thought, "hey, cool, that thing would easily fit under the hood of a car or on a person's back porch. Looks like we're finally gonna get a break on energy costs." Heh. It didn't quite work out that way, did it?

I hope this guy gets himself some protection and stays very public. We desperately NEED a guy to stick his big grubby finger in big oil's eye.


----------



## mrmoby

The differences in the mileage ratings are based on the fuel he is running. He was touting 100 mpg, but now is calling it 80 mpg. The vehicle is being run on E85 ethanol, which is less polluting, but also less efficient than straight gasoline. The 100 mpg is a theoretical number based on "energy eqivalent" of gasoline.

Either way, 80 mpg, or 100, if for real would be fantastic.


----------



## s13

TheOldSalt said:


> Yeah, things tend to go quite badly for people who try to make waves in the energy field.
> That poor guy who invented a generator that makes a lot more juice than it takes to spin it... demonstrating his invention on the Tonight Show was probably the high point of his life. After that... hooboy, did things go a bit downhill. I watched that demonstration and thought, "hey, cool, that thing would easily fit under the hood of a car or on a person's back porch. Looks like we're finally gonna get a break on energy costs." Heh. It didn't quite work out that way, did it?
> 
> I hope this guy gets himself some protection and stays very public. We desperately NEED a guy to stick his big grubby finger in big oil's eye.


It's not all big oil's fault, our government makes a pretty penny off oil as well. I foresee some outrageous tries to raise taxes on gasoline if this insane MPG gets out to public


----------



## sneasle

Electronics are cheap, its just a lot easier to jack up the prices on them because very few people understand them.

Yes, you would need more 'systems', but those systems would end up being smaller.

Cars are already headed in that direction as direct mechanical connections are being replaced by isolated mechanical connections which get replaced by electronically actuated systems.



I still love to see some details about his technology.


----------



## mrmoby

Wether or not electronics are cheap to make, doesn't make them cheap on the retail level.

Even if they were cheap, that doesn't make their implemantation or servicing economical. Manufacturers aren't going to want to incur the added cost of installing, and subsequently paying to repair under warranty, a complicated system, when they have proven systems in place.

There are wired compnenets in vehicles now, like throttles, but I think it will be a long time before you see it as commonplace, especailly for critical functions like braking and steering.


----------



## sneasle

The reason car electronics are so expensive is most of the systems are proprietary and still under patent protections or some other IP protection. Once that passes and the electronics can go open source it will become cheaper. 

But this is an irrelevant argument. Automakers will do what is profitable for them, and once electronic systems become cheap enough, they will be used more frequently.


----------



## blcknwitecuban

Scuba Kid said:


> God, that looks clausterphobic.
> 
> I like the Hy-Wire. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hy-wire1.htm


that car is cool. it looks like it has moving walkways or something in it though. i'd love that car.


----------

