Thursday, November 05, 2009

HP2G REVEALS MORE ABOUT THE 110 M.P.G. MUSTANG AT SEMA 2009

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

LAS VEGAS -- At the 2009 Specialty Equipment Market Association Show, HP2g.com released more details about its revolutionary 110 m.p.g. electric hybrid V8 Ford Mustang. Doug Pelmear’s innovative 4.8 liter V8 engine uses electronically-managed variable displacement and an integrated pulsed electric motor to vary output for conditions and power demand. The naturally-aspirated HP2g engine can produce as much as 400 horsepower and 500 lbs/ft of torque during acceleration and as little as 15 horsepower during part throttle cruise conditions. The engine is computer managed.

The revolution in HP2g’s powerplant is three-fold. First, according to HP2g’s press release, “[T]he HP2g E-85 fueled engine can transition from running on all eight cylinders down to firing on just one.” Unlike conventional variable displacement systems now in production, the HP2g’s engine rotates the single active cylinder among the eight using a proprietary process.

Second, HP2g reportedly has integrated a unique electric motor which operates “on a pulse basis, instead of what is called full saturation.” HP2g uses rapid electric cycling to conserve electric energy. The integrated motor also reportedly employs regenerative braking. The battery pack for the pulsed electric motor is reportedly two racing spiral core gel batteries.

Third, HP2g has discovered “added efficiencies because of tight tolerances and sturdy design.”

A cutaway of the HP2g engine is scheduled for public display at the 2010 Detroit International Auto Show.

During 18 months of testing, HP2g has logged 22,000 miles and reports average fuel economy of 109.7 m.p.g. In fact Doug Pelmear told Truth With Speedzter that he drove HP2g’s 1987 Mustang prototype on display from Ohio to Las Vegas, with the run from Oklahoma City to Sin City taking a only a splash more than one tank-ful of E-85 fuel.

HP2g also reports that the Pelmear engine underwent “standard EPA testing” in May 2009 and passed without a catalytic converter.

At SEMA 2009, the HP2g Mustang was parked among a diverse collection of “green” cars. Ironically, the "Green Zone" was anchored by huge display of unusual and even freakish Progressive Automotive X-Prize competitors. As reported previously, HP2g is not among the X-Prize finalists. Some internet wags have suggested that HP2g’s omission from the X-Prize “proves” Pelmear’s stock-appearing Mustang is less than what is claimed. Such judgments are irresponsible and premature.

Pelmear also told Truth With Speedzzter that the big OEMs seem to be taking a skeptical view of HP2g’s technology. Perhaps it is because of Detroit’s “not invented here” mindset. Or perhaps the skepticism is fueled by the mystery surrounding HP2g’s three prototype Mustangs. Or perhaps it is because it seems impossible that Ohio hot rodders working on a relatively shoestring budget (compared to the billions OEMs invest for modest gains) could have achieved a technological breakthrough of epic proportions.

In person, Pelmear seems like a modest and forthright entrepreneur. He appears to be a “cut-and-try,” grease-under-the-fingernails hot rodder, and not a highfalutin engineer. In our brief conversation, he gave the impression of one who is always thinking about solving the next problem or technological challenge. Clearly, his enthusiasm for his engine is boundless. And like Smokey Yunick, the legendary inventor of the hot vapor cycle engine, Pelmear is proud that his engine is “all-American.”

Mr. Pelmear is quick to give credit to God for giving him the talents and abilities necessary to develop the HP2g engine. And he seems sincere in his convictions.

Truth With Speedzzter could not help but wonder whether those journalists who interviewed early automotive legends such as Henry Ford back in the day would not have noticed some similarities in Mr. Pelmear. Like those automotive pioneers, Pelmear does not seem put off by the arduous road ahead or the hordes of naysayers. Instead, he’s got vision – which is something sorely lacking in many of the automotive elites and know-it-alls.

In this day and age when the engineering world expects “Goliath” efforts are necessary to make even incremental gains, is it still possible for an obscure, hometown “David” to come along with a fundamental "game-changer" like the HP2g engine?

After five minutes with Doug Pelmear, somehow you want to believe. You want to root for little guys like Team HP2g.

And you desperately want a peak below that mysterious Mustang’s hood . . . .

[INTERNET NEUTRALITY DISCLOSURE: The foregoing report is based on information released by HP2g.com at SEMA 2009 and an interview with Doug Pelmear. It has not been independently verified and should not be relied upon for investment or any other purpose.

HP2g or Doug Pelmear did not provide any compensation, gratuity, or other inducement to Truth With Speedzzter for this report.]

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, June 18, 2009

ELECTRO-FUSION IS THE "MOST PATENTED CAR" (BUT VW'S TWINCHARGER IS 2009's INTERNATIONAL ENGINE OF THE YEAR)

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

A couple of interesting items from Autoblog Green . . . .

VW 1.4-liter Twincharger wins 2009 International Engine of the Year

And

Ford Fusion hybrid, the most patented car in history

So what if these two got together (like chocolate and peanut butter in a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup)?


Given FoMoCo's funding of Eaton's development of the modernized Roots blower in the 1980s, Ford's once and recent history with turbocharging, and the allure of hybrid-electric powertrains, its too bad that a twincharged (hopefully a displacement-on-demand DOHC V8) electric-hybrid isn't in Ford's lineup (Think hybrid electric Mustang)

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

“LIL’ BILLY LONGS FOR A HUGE AMERICAN GAS TAX”

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

We’ve come to expect an outbreak of crackpottery on “Earth Day.”

And FoMoCo scion William Clay Ford, Jr. (Lil’ Billy) almost never fails to disappoint.

So when Autoblog Green reports that Lil’ Billy is apparently campaigning for a return of $4.00+/gallon gasoline in the U.S.A., courtesy of a massive spike in the federal gas tax, our expectations for Earth Day insanity are exceeded.

Lil’ Billy is apparently intent on squandering what little good will Ford has left with American consumers.

While Chrysler and General Motors are saddled with the “Scarlet B” (as in "bailout"), which seems to have generated a backlash among some consumers, Ford has emerged as the exclusive choice for those who still want to “Buy American.” Ford is also somewhat alone among the Detroit 3 in the capacity of its captive financing arm enabling more buyers to obtain vehicle loans.

And as fuel prices moderate from the hysteria and speculator-driven, pre-recession peaks, a slim hope for economic recovery and increased Ford sales is emerging.

Still, FoMoCo’s cash burn, the looming prospects for collapse of Chrysler and GM, and huge uncertainties about Obamanomics mean that Ford’s survival is not assured.

A prudent Ford leader would concentrate on continuing to stabilize Ford’s business model and improving the competitiveness, quality, and value of Ford’s products.

Yet FoMoCo’s bumbling Executive Chairman has decided to alienate a good percentage of Ford’s potential customer base by campaigning for a regressive tax increase that even Barack Obama has the good sense not to openly advocate.

(Most certainly, last weeks’ erroneous U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finding of “endangerment” under the Clean Air Act for carbon dioxide, and the “fast track”** push by the Democrats for the huge stealth tax increase euphemistically known as “cap and trade” will amount to even more of a constraint on energy use than a mere tax at the pump – but the Obamaians are counting on the American voters not to notice, until it’s too late)

Instead of focusing on improving the fuel efficiency of vehicles customers might actually want to buy (i.e. an EcoBoost electric hybrid V8 (not V6) Mustang, E85 capability across Ford’s non-diesel lines, lighter weight diesel pickups and SUVs, credible V8-optional sports sedans, an EcoBoost/mild hybrid Focus) and then letting the not-so-free market decide, Lil’ Billy wants a return to the very conditions that killed the market for new vehicles!

Perhaps a “gas tax” isn’t much of a big deal when you’re a filthy rich trust fund baby and environmental dilettante who mostly failed at running the family business. But for millions of Americans, jacking up fuel taxes would mean the death of the American dream.

It would compromise safety.

It would deny full participation to scores of auto enthusiasts who have struggled to obtain one last sliver of supercar excitement before they die (or the liberal greens and their Democratic sycophants completely outlaw most of our vehicular liberties in worship of the false “climate god”).

It would further force migration from smaller communities in the heartland to increasingly crowded urban centers.

It would help impoverish small-town America and drive up prices on virtually every consumer and business good or service sold.

It would gut what’s left of grassroots motorsports for at least a generation.

It would destroy America’s farms and ranches.

It would squeeze small businesses and entrepreneurs.

It would lead to the extinction of our beloved Ford Mustang in any recognizable form.

It would subsidize even greater expansions of the federal government.

Yes, Lil' Billy, it would be as brilliant and effective as some of the moves made by the Detroit Lions football club.

(Perhaps the NFL ought to tax losing, so that the Ford Family can get a better taste of punishment through taxation.

. . . Or better yet, why not just tax the hot and “dangerous” gasses escaping from Lil’ Billy’s apparently empty head . . . . )


**
House lawmakers drew their battle lines in the debate Tuesday [April 21, 2009] over a massive climate bill, opening hearings on a sweeping proposal to curb carbon emissions and restructure the nation's energy industries.

House Democrats lauded the draft plan, saying the time had come to address climate change and praising a fast-track schedule set by the plan's authors, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, and Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat
.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, March 20, 2009

MAGNA’S “ONE-PERCENT” SOLUTION

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

Alan Mulally apparently doesn’t want his electric car predictions to be compared to "Whiz Kid" Arjay Miller’s boast.

But then, why go to the trouble of engineering an Electr-o-Matic Ford as a low-performance, low margin halo/trophy car that will appeal to about one-percent of Ford’s small car customers?

And why lose the valuable P.R. and government bargaining rights that attempting a Willie Wiredhand whip will yield to the Glass House Gang?

So Mulally & Co. have turned to an old FoMoCo play: outsource it.

Magna International, a supplier which has been chomping at the bit to engineer and build whole cars for someone, has been tapped to create a total electric Focus for sale in 2011. Ford's deal for the ElectraMagna technology is reportely non-exclusive.

According to CNN Money, Magna pitched an electric car to FoMoCo’s bosses and engineers back in August.

"We took a look at that execution and said, 'Hey, together we can really make this a proposition,’" said Nancy Gioia, Ford's Director of Sustainable Mobility


The Focus will not burn gasoline and will go about 100 miles on a charge. Before hitting the road again, drivers will have to wait to recharge.


In other words, it’s not really a practical car for anyone but urbanized, tree-hugging “true believers” and those desiring to make a political/religious statement about climate change.

However, it’s the perfect thing to say to the know-nothings in Washington D.C. that Ford is doing “something.”

And if it’s a flop, the damage will be controlled.

Ford has wisely outsourced in the past. Historically, Budd Company built millions of bodies for Ford. The Dodge Brothers got their start and their stake in the car business through machnining Model T engines. Eaton's Roots-style supercharger was primarily a Ford-funded development that has been shared across the industry. Carroll Shelby might have been just another dusty trivia answer in the Jeopardy(R) category of "racing drivers of the 1950s" had Ford not outsourced a huge portion of its "Total Performance" activities to him in the 1960s. The legendary Jack Roush has often benefitted from FoMoCo outsourcing. And International has been Ford’s light truck diesel supplier since 1983.

So, if Ford and Reddy Kilowatt have to enter a joint venture sans any of that “evil” internal combustion, Magna may prove to be the perfect “one-percent” solution.

(Now if Magna wanted to do something really useful, they'd tool up an rugged pancake electric motor that would fit in between a V8/V6 Mustang's clutch or torque converter and its transmission)

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

ANOTHER REASON "TEAM MUSTANG" OUGHT TO FEAR THE 2010 CAMARO
(assuming GM hangs around long enough to build them, that is)

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

According to the Los Angeles Times "Up To Speed" automotive blog:

Chevy originally suggested the EPA-rated highway gas mileage for the base-model Camaro with the V-6 engine and manual transmission would be 27 miles per gallon, but final EPA testing placed the highway number at 29 mpg -- not bad for a 304-horsepower, 3.6-liter engine. City mileage is EPA rated at 17 mpg.


Ford's relatively low-tech Mustang six lags far behind at the pump. (16 m.p.g. city/24 m.p.g highway)

Of course there's simply no techological reason why Ford couldn't match or beat the V6 Camaro's fuel efficiency with a properly outfitted V8 engine in a RWD Mustang. A smaller, high-tech EcoBoost V8 (or better yet, a "twincharged" DOHC V8 outfitted with Ethanol Boosting Systems' direct ethanol injection) would provide a traditional symphony of V8 sounds on demand (Fabulous sounds no "buzzin' half-dozen" or rough, raucous "weed whacker" four could ever hope to duplicate) yet deliver spectacular part-throttle fuel economy.

A high-tech EcoBoost V8 in the 2.0-3.5 liter range could be a legendary high-performance engine which would preserve Ford's V8 tradition during the coming "Automotive dark ages" and would have measurably more panache than a relatively boring EcoBoost 4 or 6.

(Competition-savvy readers will note that the legendary Ford Cosworth DFV V8 was a 3.0liter engine and the later turbocharged Ford Cosworth XB/XD/XF V8s were 2.65 liter engines.)

Additionally, such an engine would be a lock for nearly permanent status on Ward's Ten Best Engines.

Given the current sales tanking of low-performance electric hybrid cars, perhaps it's time to shift the hybrid niche more into the "high-performance hybrids."

A 30+ m.p.g. variable-displacement V8 Mustang with 500+ "on boost" horsepower could generate more excitement (and sell for a higher premium) than a boat-load of "low-po" 41 m.p.g. Fusions (which are slated to be no more than a paltry 1% of sales).

Moreover, such a car would send an even stronger message to Ford's loyal owners regarding Ford's committment to balance its recent "Green faith" with its storied racing and performance heritage.

If Ford adapted the clutched integrated-assist motor system of Porsche and backed up the powerplants (IC and electric) with a manual transmission, a hybrid-electric V8 Mustang could be a huge kick to drive. And during that 95% of driving when high performance is not used, the hybrid electric V8 Mustang could make room under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy cap for some cheaper models (i.e. Coyote V8-powered Mustangs).

Ford should note that the electric hybrid Mustang driving experience would not have to be as automatic or antiseptic as a "mainstream" hybrid, because drivers of sporting cars enjoy more driver interactivity and are more engaged in the experience. Thus, some of the transitional seamlessness current hybrids provide is unnecessary in a high-performance hybrid.

(Note: For simular reasons, "Truth With Speedzzter" believes that if variable displacement technology would have been introduced in sports and musclecars, instead of in the ill-fated 1981 Cadillac V4/6/8, it would have been successful years ago in the marketplace.

Moreover, "Truth With Speedzzter" is disappointed that Chrysler and GM have failed to pair up such technology with manual transmissions or in their highest-performance models.

Finally, "Truth With Speedzzter" expects retrofits of variable displacement technology to become an aftermarket modification (JSC Engineering already claims to have built a 21 M.P.G. SRT-10 "Viper" Truck with a "mild" injector-shutdown cylinder deactivation "Fuel Saver" system.

The JSC "Fuel Saver" is a "mild" deactivation strategy because it does not reduce pumping losses in the deactivated cylinders. Aggessive OEM-style cylinder deactivation disables the intake and exhaust valves in addition to cutting the fuel on the deactivated cylinders))

Besides, to have any hope of volume production of any traditional muscle under the Obama CAFE caps (and to any market after Obama's "cap and trade" scheme drives up the cost of fuel), Ford will need to adapt such technologies to their V8s.

So why not get started now?

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, March 12, 2009

LEAVE IT TO PORSCHE TO REINVENT THE GAS/ELECTRIC HYBRID

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Perhaps not a full-blown "reinvention," but Porsche's still-in-development clutched two-mode hybrid system points the way for future high-performance gas/electric hybrid vehicles.

Of course, Truth With Speedzzter won't truly be interested until a Porsche-style hybrid system is offered with a DOHC displacement-on-demand, variable valve-timed "twincharged" EcoBoost (r)V8 in a RWD Mustang (hopefully with a proper manual transmission** and driver-controlled overrides) . . . .

**There's no technical reason why a second clutch cannot be added downstream of the electric assist motor (On further review, perhaps just an electric field cut is all that's necessary). And there's no reason why drivers cannot shift for themselves in the EV mode (as some drivers of EV conversions already do).

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

COOL IDEA FOR AN UNLIMITED BUDGET MUSTANG SUPERCAR

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Car Craft magazine Editor Douglas Glad asked readers a while back what they'd build if they had an unlimited budget. Among the responses was this jewel from 460-BBF-In-CC.

The budget for this fantasy build seems higher than anything John Coletti had for a show/go car back in SVT's glory days (remember the audcious "Boss 429"-powered SN95 and the dual-fuel supercharged SN95).

Still, it would be a supercar like none other.

If I had a REALLY unlimited budget, I'd start by engineering a set of bolt-on DOHC 4-Valve aluminum heads for the 460 Ford, with capability for direct injection and Ethanol Boosting System's direct auxillary ethanol injection system . . . .

However, using parts that generally exist, I'd build (probably with the help of Chip Foose, or Troy Trepanier, or Pure Vision or some other pro builder that has industry connections) a "triple-charged" hybrid electric, modular displacement, all-wheel-drive big block Ford-powered 1969 Mustang as follows:

1. HYBRID ELECTRIC MANUAL TRANSMISSION: I'd raid the GM parts bin/insurance wrecking yard for the transmission, high-voltage batteries and electric control gear from a Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid. I'd then machine the twin electric motor section of the transmission to interface with a beefed T-56 manual (or possibly a strengthened TKO-600 with a Gear Vendors overdrive added on). The Tahoe hybrid controller would be hacked to allow for manual operation of the electric motors. Ahead of the elecric motor pack I'd use a multiplate clutch and a "decoupler" box (allows electric-only operation if desired).

2. VARIABLE DISPLACEMENT: I'd grab a set of either Chrysler or GM "displacement-on-demand" hydraulic roller lifters and send them off to Rhodes Lifters for machining with their patented variable duration grooves and to fit in an Eliminator Products aftermarket 460 Ford block. The DOD oil feed solenoids would be triggered by a manual controller.

3. VARIABLE GEOMETRY INTAKE MANIFOLD: I'd engineer and have built by one of the sheet metal manifold companies a "variable geometry" EFI intake manifold that would allow a low r.p.m. intake runner length (to the valve) of 26" with butterfly valves in the runners to shorten the effective ram pipe lengths to 19" and 13" as the r.p.m. increased.

3. DUAL FUEL INJECTION: I'd buy a top-of-the-line Motec EFI/Ignition system and a datalogging system and at least 16 injectors (so that the vehicle could run off-boost on pump gas and immediately switch on-boost to alcohol(E100) or E85). I'd run two fuel cells (one 16 gallon and one 8 gallon) with two sets of lines, filters and pumps.

4. LONG BLOCK: Bored and stroked 460 Ford with aforementioned aftermarket block, fitted with oil squirters for the pistons, billet main caps, billet crank, billet rods, forged reverse deflector pistons featuring anti-scuff and thermal barrier coatings, Total Seal gapless top and second rings, hydraulic roller cam in the 230-degree (at .050 lift) range, ported Jon Kaase P-51 aluminum heads [The NEW KAASE BOSS NINE HEADS WOULD SEEM A BETTER CHOICE FOR AN ULTIMATE MUSTANG], roller rockers (no shaft rockers for me, even with an "unlimited" budget) ARP main and head studs, fabricated reverse-flow cooling system, true-roller timing chain or gear drive (no belt cam drive, even with "unlimited" budget); cam phaser added to the timing set; chain-driven dry sump oiling system (no belts to break).

5. FORCED INDUCTION: A "twincharging system" similar to what I described in the "We're not rich but we're not Stupid" thread (Turbos into air-air intercooler into Roots or bypass into air-water aftercooler), with these modifications: Heavy-duty 4-into-2 (bifurcated) exhaust headers with four Turbonetics racegate wastegates (one for each exhaust channel), dual sequential ball-bearing, divided entry-turbine turbochargers (four turbos -- two per cylinder bank), Lancia Delta-style stainless steel flap valve at the exducer of both secondary turbines to prevent exhaust flow at low RPM and an electric secondary throttle to prevent flow out of both secondary compressors at low RPM.

6. JOHN COLETTI "SUPERCOOLER" SYSTEM: The second stage aftercooler/intercooler would be augmented with an the AC-cooled "supercooler" designed and patented by John Coletti when he was chief at Ford SVT.

7. REAR AXLE: Dana 60 with an Auburn ECTED (limited slip with an electric locker), NASCAR-style full-floating axles (would consider a quick change rear if strong enough and the ECTED could be made to fit).

8. FRONT AXLE: adapt in an AWD Chrysler 300 differential and beefed half-shafts (obviously, the torque split would have to be limited).

9. CENTER DIFFERENTIAL/TRANSFER CASE: Single speed, non-locking viscous differential modified to transfer no more than 150-200 lbs/ft of torque to the front axle (Source and modifications to be determined).

10. CHASSIS: Art Morrison pro-touring with Air Ride Systems air springs and weight jackers, Koni adjustable shocks (I would add a solenoid controlled external bypass to the front shocks so that they could be switched on-the-fly to loose-rebound "drag" shocks), huge swaybars with a remote off-road-style disconnect of the front bar (for drag racing).

11. TIRES AND WHEELS: NO DUBS! NO PRO STREET! 17" diameter "Mini-lite"-style or billet Magnum 500s (8" wide front, 10" wide rear) with Goodyear F1s on front and drag radials on the rear (Of course it still wouldn't hook up, even with AWD!).

12. BRAKES: Baer/Brembo four-wheel discs with modified ABS adapted from factory Ford Mustang parts, line-loc, dual Tilton master cylinders with balance bar.

13. BODY: Boss 302 rear scoop delete, Black Boss 302 stripes with "Boss 555" call-outs, Thunderbolt hood bubble (the greatest FoMoCo hoodscoop of all time) on a blacked-out hood, revised Boss 302 front spoiler with a small splitter, "Off-road-only" High/Low-beam H4s bulb assemblies in the high-beam headlamp sockets, HID conversion in the low-beam head-lamp sockets, discrete but period-correct fog lamps below the bumper, fiber optic lamp monitors from a 1980s Cadillac, rear spoiler, hood tach nacelle fitted with fuel pressure gauges (one for each fuel system), legal window tint on rear and side windows, NASCAR-style rear window straps and windshield retaining tabs, hood pins with lanyards on hood and trunk (trunk pins are weather-sealed), Shelby Cobra-style mirrors modified to add heat, electric adjusters and auto-dimming glass, two recessed flip-top Cobra-style fuel caps (one for each fuel system), 1970 Mustang tail lamp panel and taillights, blacked out and with tasteful, period-style "honeycomb" accent, tail lamp segments converted to Cougar-style sequential operation with high-intensity LED bulbs.

14. SAFETY: Full cage with triangulated swing-out side bars that can be pinned either to the doors (street) or the cage (track) and removable main hoop cross-bar on the passenger-side for rear seat access (driver's side cross-bar is fixed and tied into the main hoop diagonal bar), all safety equipment required for bracket racing, HRM Drag Week (tm), CC's new Street Car contest, open road events, HRM Top Speed Challenge at Maxton Mile, ECTA events, integrated fire suppression system, Five-panel WINK rear view mirror refitted with electric auto-dimming glass.

15. INTERIOR: Leather and wool in the style of the original interior, but with fully power-adjustable RECARO front seats (driver's seat can be removed for certified racing seat), Taurus-style lighted sun visors modified to work with the cage and the Wink mirror, Engine-turned auxiliary gauge/control panel with carbon-fiber accents (panel can be turned to face "riding mechanic/tuner" in the front passenger seat, dome light with map lights, courtesy lighting, center console with drink holders, rear seat with fold-down center arm rest, stereo, tilt and telescoping steering column with modern "stalk" controls for accessories and a vintage-style Shelby Mustang steering wheel.

16. MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT: A/C (pirated off the hybrid Tahoe?), electric power steering, power windows, power door locks, custom security system (schematics known only to me), electric vacuum pump (if Tilton master cylinders can be interfaced with a brake booster), cruise control, Valentine One, interval wipers, automatic headlamp system, automatic emergency brake release with an override system to facilitate "bootleg" e-brake turns.

17. EXHAUST: Expansion megaphones after each turbo lead to manual dump caps and split into four three-inch pipes; four catalytic converters; two after-cat pipes run to the sides, through minimal "race" mufflers to NASCAR-style side outlets, but flow through the side pipes is regulated by "cut-out" valves; the other two pipes run through turbo mufflers and exit through polished MEGS at the rear.

It'd probably be cheaper to just buy a Bugatti Veyron . . . .



Something like that will be fun to contemplate as we putt around in our 2020 Obama Car Czar Central Committee-approved, 60 m.p.g. toll-booth microcars . . . .

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

RONAELE MUSTANG & THE "GT LEGEND" ELECTRIC DRIVESHAFT

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

The technology behind the Hybrid Monoceros (nee Ronale Mustang) is now reportedly to be marketed by a new venture: GT Legend Automotive Holdings Inc.



Fullerton, Ca. GT Legend Automotive Holdings Inc. "Electrifies the automobile industry with Green Energy"


Edward Monfort, who is the Founder and developer of the Ronaele Mustang, Inventor of the patented COLDfire process and machine and Inventor of the all new patent pending Electric Drive Shaft is now part www.gtlegendautomotive.com

* * * *

This Electric Drive shaft:

Replaces your existing drive shaft and is easy to install.
Can increase your power on your car by up to 200 ft lbs of torque.
Can turn your car into a hybrid car giving you up to 150 MPG.
Decrease your emmision by up to 90%
Can cut your gasoline bill by up to 90%

How does it work?

After you have taken your old drive shaft out and replace it with an Electric Drive Shaft ,which looks exactly the same but has one set of wires coming out of the top,

[TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER SUSPECTS THIS CLAIM IS A BIT INACCURATE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT AN "ELECTRIC DRIVESHAFT" WOULD NEED ALL OF THE COMPONENTS OF A FAIRLY LARGE ELECTRIC MOTOR TO PRODUCE ENOUGH TORQUE TO POWER AN AUTOMOBILE. Still, a long-skinny electric motor might just fit in the driveshaft tunnel. GM's Hybrid Tahoe motors fit nicely inside of an automatic transmission. ]

you will need to purchase only two other items. Batteries and a controller.
GT legends Automotive is in final stages of developing the controller for the Electric Drive shaft which will work in conjunction with your current drive train. But, read this first.

Fact:
Did you know if you leave your car on idle for 7 hours it will only use about 1 gallon of gasoline.

So lets say you have an Electric Drive Shaft, A 60 mile Battery pack and a controller. You install these three items into your existing 2005 and up V6 200 Horse Power Ford Mustang.

You will then need to only turn your car on and the engine will run only on idle (In electric Mode option). The car will be powered forward by your electric drive shaft only, using only very small amounts of gas to keep your engine running on idle the whole time you are running around town or on a short road trip. Your batteries will power you around town and last over 60 miles. But read this.

FACT:
It cost under 2 cents per mile to power an electric car.

Here is the nice thing about this all new Electric Drive Shaft:
You use about 1/4 of a gallon of gasoline every two hours.
This means you are getting well over 100 miles per gallon traveling around town.
Your engine is on idle, so you can still use your A/C, heat, Stereo, and all other power accesories. You will only use about one gallon of gas every four days traveling about 60 miles a day.

You are spending less on gas and will help stop our addiction to foreign oil.
You can use gas or electric when ever you want.

* * *
Pays itself off with in three years [Truth with Speedzzter wonders at what price point]Less total cost per month to operate on a lease option or finance option. [Truth With Speedzzter wonders at what price point]

The Electric Drive Shaft is the answer to the oil crises because it allows you to drive YOUR cool, reliable car, that still has the original OEM factory warranty and most of all, it is twice as reliable because you can use gas or electric when ever you desire.

Most Questions asked:

Who will work on my car?
Any auto dealer because it is a drive shaft and any auto dealer can install a drive shaft.The Electric Drive Shaft connects the same way as any drive shaft. [Speedzzter: Except for the wires, the controller and a high-voltage battery pack . . . Still, except for the controls, it shouldn't be too much of a challenge. However, count on dealers balking until they get a "piece of the action"]

How do I charge the battery pack that powers the Electric Drive Shaft?

You plug it in at night when you get home the same way you plug in an extension cord. The extension cord uses the same power source and plug as your 240VAC single phase dryer at home. Every single home has 240VAC which powers your oven or your dryer and/or some microwaves. [SPEEDZZTER: Sounds like an on-board charging system. Some houses will require rewiring to support this]

How much will my power bill go up?

If you drive 60 miles a day you should see an increase in your electric bill of about $1.20 a day. So it will cost you about $1.20 to go 60 miles.

Will the Electric Drive Shaft harm my engine?

It is impossible for the Electric Drives Shaft to harm your engine because it is increasing the power after the engine and after the transmission so that makes it impossible to void your warranty and or harm your engine and/or your transmission.

What if my battery for my Electric Drive shaft goes dead?

You simply hit the "OFF" button for the Electric Drive Shaft and you can drive on 100% gasoline.

What if something goes wrong with the controller, battery or Electric Drive Shaft?
If any of these items fail you can simply switch to gasoline and keep driving the vehicle with no worrys. Just call us when you get home and we can diagnose the system right over the internet. If there is a broken part you can wait until the dealer gets the part and you can go in and get it fixed on your own time.

Will my stereo and A/C drain my battery and give me less distance?

Absolutly not. The engine is always running on idle during Electric mode giving you constant power for all of your creature comforts. The alternator is also always charging your batteries on top of this creating more distance and better fuel economy.

For more information about this new company please visit:

www.gtLegendAutomotive.com


Stay tuned.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

THE 2008 SHELBY ANNUAL: UNDAMPENED BY DETROIT’S CHAOS

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” Here]

Automotive model year 2009 started a couple of months ago. There are only fifty days left until New Year’s Day. Only forty-five shopping days until Christmas . . . .

So Source Interlink Media and Shelby FINALLY get around to releasing their 2008 Shelby Annual.

Like most things Shelby, it’s not cheap. ($6.99 in the U.S.A., $7.99 in Canada).

But is it a good value?

Speedzzter things so. In fact, the bang-for-the-buck is about one thousand times better than a Shelby GT Mustang (see "Best of Speedzzter" sidebar).

Edited by long-time Mustang magazine scribe Donald Farr and produced by Source Interlink’s “Performance Group” (which includes such storied titles as “Hot Rod,” “Car Craft,” “Muscle Mustang and Fast Fords,” and “5.0 Mustang and Super Fords”), the 2008 Shelby Annual provides an entertaining blend of sales pitch, insider vignettes, "Shelbyized" history, and a few optimistic “Carrollisms.”

The gist of the book is to tie in the current Shelby line-up with their historic namesakes. Certainly, Shelby’s current Las Vegas lines take center stage. GT500KR, V6 Terlingua Mustang, and Shelby’s continuation Cobra roadsters are prominently featured. A fun dose of Shelby’s racing history – both before and during Ford’s legendary “Total Performance” campaign of the 1960s is included.

To those familiar with Shelby history, the dusty vignettes on Shelby’s driving career, the original Terlinqua Racing Team, and Shelby’s rescue of the Ford’s Le Mans effort are nothing new. But these stories are collected in a handy form and beautifully illustrated with large, well-reproduced period photography.

Such nostalgia may seem a “Galaxie” away from the current Detroit meltdown and General Motors Death Watch, but they’re just the thing to relive or imagine a happier, more muscular time. A time when Ford believed it could conquer any hill anywhere in the World that wasn’t already marked “Property of GM” (the 1958 Edsel debacle had shattered FoMoCo notions that it could fully match and overtake GM). A time when a hard-driving chicken farmer from east Texas believed that American V8-powered sports cars could defeat the traditional European powers on the World stage.

The 2008 Shelby Annual recaps some of the “Shelby” event milestones of 2008. Shelby’s 85th birthday bash, the first Team Shelby Nationals, and the Terlinqua Reunion all receive some coverage.

The 2008 Shelby Annual also details the transformation of an “ordinary” GT500 into a GT500KR. One quick glance at the inefficiency of the process and it’s easy to see why the GT500KR commands such a massive premium for what amounts to some dress-up parts, a suspension recalibration and a paltry boost of forty horsepower. However, Shelby snobs will surely be quick to point out that all of the Las Vegas machinations transform the KR into a “real Shelby.”

Even the stepchild FWD Shelby Dodges get four pages in the 2008 Annual. Mostly based on archival photos, the story on the Shelby GLHS includes a tiny present-day snapshot of Carroll “hisself” leaning against Dodge Omni Shelby GLHS No. 1 (which he reportedly still owns).

Carroll recalls his time in the FWD wilderness in his introductory editorial, entitled “Drive and Have Fun” Although Carroll opens with a history-tinged defense of the V8, he segues into recalling how “we” overcame the automotive dark ages of the 1970s with the “great fun” Dodge GLH.

Carroll then says:

“I’d love to do that again. Can you imagine turning the Ford Focus into a real pocket rocket by pumping up the horsepower and sharpening the handling? That would make a great compliment to a Shelby
Mustang.”


Savvy readers know that this has already happened elsewhere (i.e. Focus RS, Focus ST170/SVT Focus).

Undoubtedly Carroll Shelby knows this too.

Only Ford’s short-sighted marketing plans, overprotectiveness of the Mustang franchise, and faithlessness in its ability to compete in the sport compact niche have kept these World-class “pocket rockets” out of the American marketplace.

The message between the lines is that the Shelby name will probably be used to “build value” for the breathtaking price that domesticating the next generation WRC-bred Ford Focus RS will command. And considering that Shelby has already inked a deal with Ford that extends through his 91st year, it is possible that Shelby Automobiles will further “Shelbyize” Shelby Foci at the Las Vegas plant.

Carroll’s allusions to future “pocket rockets” come close to portending a “soft landing” strategy for the end of the Second Supercar Era. Certainly, the 2008 Shelby Annual provides no hint of how Shelby Automobiles or Ford will continue to produce 600-700+ horsepower V8 supercars as Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards tighten and the power-thirsty, greeniac OBAMAcrats tighten the noose around all carbon-emitting mechanical things.

Shelby says they’re looking at alternative fuels and “experimenting with electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles.” No specifics given, though. He concludes:

“So whether we use turbos or superchargers, smarter computers, or lighter materials, we’ll still build cars for real enthusiasts. And we’re going to make them affordable [Stop snickering].”


Carroll claims the mantle of maverick, suggesting that he’s been doing the “unexpected my whole life” and that’s enough of a reason to have faith in the Brave New World of the future car. Of course this defiant, revisionist view ignores Shelby’s “unexpected” abandonment of the high performance automobile marketplace from the late 1960s until Lee Iacocca brought him back to play with soporiferous FWD Dodges in the early Reagan years.

Maybe this time will be different.

Clearly the pairing of Ford and Shelby is about as close to a license to print money as exists in Motown these dismal days. But Shelby’s companies are small and mostly geared toward licensing. The infamous Series 1 debacle provides ample evidence of what happens when Shelby Automobiles reaches out of its bolt-on tuner/kit-car-Cobra depth. It simply cannot do the heavy lifting necessary to cook up turbocharged electric hybrid Mustangs or hydrogen-powered electric “skateboards” or whatever it is that “performance cars” will become in the Carbon-taxed future. Ford must shoulder that load for anything wild and wonderful to happen. Whether FoMoCo will is murky at best.

Still, the 2008 Shelby Annual is a good book to forget all of that. It is a good book to celebrate the less-than-affordable Shelby cars of the present. And to reminisce (or learn for the first time) about the fading triumphs of a past generation of World-class high performance motoring.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, October 31, 2008

SVT LIVES . . . SORT OF

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Ford Racing's weekly e-mail blast contains a link to a video of a camouflaged "SVT F-150" cavorting at speed off-road in the desert.

Sure, a high-performance OEM pre-runner truck is an idea that's probably long past due. Most certainly, this was an idea birthed in an earlier time, when trucks were an easier sale to a less fuel-economy-conscious market.

Many commentators are undoubtedly disappointed that Ford isn't totally focused on a sport compact or something that's more fuel efficient, such as a high performance hybrid-electric V8 Mustang. Others are likely unhappy that Ford's "SVT /F-150" isn't a rebirth of the storied Lightning street truck. And some "appliance motorists" will see a large niche truck as an unnecessary diversion from the expected rebirth of Ford as a producer of gas-sipping FWD mini-compacts.

While such carping is valid, it misses a larger point.

From the video, it's hard to tell whether or not the "SVT F-150" is going to be a true high performance vehicle in any venue but off-road. However, its positive that the SVT brand may be attached to some future product that's apparently not just a '70s-style sticker & stripe poser.

Long live SVT!

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

DOES FORD MOTOR COMPANY NEED GM & CHRYSLER TO MERGE?

[GET THE LATEST TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER HERE]

Joann Muller, writing for Forbes.com thinks so.

In an article entitled Why Ford Needs The GM-Chrysler Deal Done, Muller posits that FoMoCo needs the GM-Chrysler deal so that both General Motors and Ford can avoid a date with the bankruptcy court.

Muller also points out a few things that the hapless William Clay “Bill” Ford, Jr. and Alan Mulally did right.

In short, they mortgaged the company before the credit crisis, dumped some luxury brands, and did not follow GM by selling of their financing arm or plunging it into the home mortgage market.

Muller’s story prompted one reader (Iconoclast 421) to opine:
“Until Ford finds a way to turn a profit on a $13,000 40 mpg US-built car, it isnt [sic] worth even $2 a share.”


The idea that "F" (Ford) isn't worth a measly 200 cents a share unless it profitably builds a 40 m.p.g. car in the U.S. is simply insane.

While sales are down and Ford is losing billions as it “right-sizes” its business, FoMoCo still has strong nameplates in Mustang, F-Series, Fusion and Focus. It also continues to dominate the police, taxi and "black car" fleet markets with its anvil-tough "Panther" series vehicles (Police Interceptor/Crown Victoria, Town Car)

While FoMoCo missed some of the mistakes of GM during the housing bubble, they made plenty of other ones. Here’s a few of the big goof-ups:

--Ford had no contingency plan for high fuel prices (other than contracting in size and riding out the storm).

-- Ford missed the market on large sedans with its slow-selling D3 (Five Hundred/Taurus/Montego/Sable).

–Ford destroyed the Taurus franchise by failing to keep up with Camry/Accord and by consigning a poorly styled, poor performing, and generally uncompetitive model to daily rental car sales, which cheapened an already damaged nameplate.

--Ford failed to move soon enough on B-cars (Fiesta), turbocharging (EcoBoost), light-duty turbodiesels, an expanded lineup of hybrids (i.e. a Panther-series hybrid, an F-Series hybrid, a high-performance V8 Mustang hybrid, and a C-class sedan hybrid).

–Ford fiddled around too long on the wide-bore center Hurricane/Boss V8 and may have lost the opportunity to develop it properly into the LSX/Hemi/Tundra beater it could have been.

--Ford killed the iconic SVT brand (instead of expanding it) and missed out on the sport compact niche.

--Ford failed to redesign the Ranger and was not poised to take full advantage of the effect that higher fuel prices had on the light truck market.

--Ford failed to make the Thunderbird into a credible and profitable sports car and did not develop an affordable version of the mid-engine GT that could remain in production.

–Ford failed to properly leverage its Australian and European assets to expand product competitiveness in the U.S. (In other words, some of Ford’s most desirable vehicles aren’t sold “at home” in the U.S.A.)

–Ford failed to move fast enough on variable valve lift and timing, multivalve engines, variable geometry intake manifolds, twincharging, direct ethanol injection, six and seven-speed transmissions, Colletti “SuperCooler” charge-air cooling and other advanced technologies.

–Ford failed to develop and market a credible Scion/Honda fighter.

–Ford totally wasted any opportunity to reposition Mercury as a “value-added,” risk-taking, high-tech boutique division.

–Ford failed to develop sufficient platform flexibility to match the versatility of Toyota.

–Ford failed to develop fun, desirable and affordable models that would capture a larger share of Generations X and Y.

Now Ford may have to hope for the “Hail Mary” of a GM-Chrysler merger so it can survive long enough to do some of the things it should have done years ago.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, October 23, 2008

IS THE MONOCEROS HYBRID MUSTANG THE CAR FORD SHOULD HAVE BUILT?

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

Truth With Speedzzter has long advocated the concept of a high performance electric hybrid Ford Mustang.

However, instead of developing an such a game-changing halo car, Ford Motor Company has wasted Mustang’s period of exclusivity, mostly killed the SVT brand, and focused on expensive ripoffs in concert with Shelby, such as the wimpy Shelby GT and the Shelby GT500KR.

Now an aftermarket tuner may have taken up the challenge of building the high performance Mustang of the future.

Roush?** Nope.

Saleen? Nada.

SMS Supercars (Steve Saleen's new outfit)? Sorry.

Shelby? Surely you must be joking.

How about Palm Harbor, Florida's Edward Monfort.

Who?

Edward Monfort is known in the insular, high tech world of electric cars. He made a little ripple in the EV world in 2007 at EVS23 with the announcement of an all-electric Mustang Ronaele 300e. The 300e was an electrified version of the gasoline-powered Ronaele tuner Mustang – a late model interpretation of the Foose-ified “Eleanor” from the remake of “Gone in 60 Seconds” (tm)

(Which apparently bred a little litigation between Denise Halicki and Monfort. By the way, “Eleanor”, "Ronaele" (which reads "Eleanor" in a mirror) “Gone in 60 Seconds” and the other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective holders (who are not affiliated in any with “Truth With Speedzzter”) and are used here under the fair use provision of U.S. Copyright law. In other words, Carroll, Bill, Denise, Edward – DON’T SUE US!).

The vaporware specs of the Ronaele 300e were impressive: 150 m.p.h. top speed (limited by gearing, with a claimed 200 possible); 100-200 mile range, depending on battery configuration. And the future promise of an ever hotter 600e with 2,000 lbs/ft of torque.

The catch was, of course, price. Monfort’s “Reddy Kilowatt” (tm) racer costs a staggering $80,000+ over the price of a normal pony car.

No word on how many “Electro-stang” buyers have signed up.

Now, it seems that Monfort is up to something that is a bit more affordable.

A back-of-the-book advertisement in the somewhat obscure >“Mustang Enthusiast” magazine proclaims “The Future Really Is Here.” Picturing a bee-colored Ronaele Mustang (purportedly starring in 2009's “The Fast and the Furious 4") and festooned with the obligatory tuner “babe” (albeit not in the de rigeur swimsuit pose that some sexist tuner companies seem to believe helps sell product), the ad claims that “THIS MONOCEROS HYBRID MUSTANG CAR OF THE FUTURE will get unheard of gas mileage, have more horsepower than a GT 500 – and will be as green and cool as they come.”

It further claims that a “single part” will turn “an existing 2005 and up Mustang . . . into a gas saving supercharged Hybrid.”

Of course the ad doesn’t identify what that “single part” is.

But it claims that for a mere $39,000 (including the car), you’ll get over “500 total horsepower” a full factory warranty (on some models), 45 m.p.g. on a 250 mile trip and 100 m.p.g. as a commuter car. An optional “race mode” will yield 0-60 times in less four seconds (no price given for that option).

Other than that, the ad and website are sparse with the specs.

--Is it a V8 or a V6?

--How is that “single part” (presumably a computer-controlled electric motor-generator), fitted into the drivetrain?

--Is there any high-voltage electric energy storage?

--Is there any regenerative braking?

--What are the control integration strategies?

--How much does the modified vehicle weigh?

--What does it run in the standing-start quarter mile?

--How many gs will it pull on the skidpad?

The website mysteriously claims that the secret part is “an add on unlike anything we have ever seen in the auto industry.” In other words, stay tuned.

Not much for all of those “Willie Wiredhands” (tm) in EV land to mull over yet.

Yet if Monfort and Monoceros pull this off, perhaps they have built the hybrid Mustang that Ford should have built.

WILL FORD MOTOR COMPANY BE THE LAST OF THE DETROIT THREE STANDING

Autoextremist blogger Peter M. DeLorenzo pans in RANT # 468 the apparently fading prospect of a GM-Chrysler merger and raises the possibility that Cerberus will shuck Chrysler to Carlos Ghosn at Nissan/Renault.

He concludes that this means the end Chrysler as anything other than a shell of its former self.

“Chrysler will be the first to go, and GM – as unthinkable as that might be - is teetering on the brink of oblivion.”

“And Ford? Well Ford just may be the last American car company standing when this is all done playing out”


A GM-Chrysler merger always raised eyebrows among the automotive and business press for obvious reasons. Too many dealers, too many brands, too many workers, too much product overlap, and not enough money or time to work it all out.

As some writers have pointed out, the history of mechanized automobility is littered with failed mergers: e.g. Auburn-Cord-Dusenburg, Packard-Studebaker, Hudson-Nash (a/k/a American Motors . . . although it did take about three decades for that one to totally flop) and, of course, DaimlerChrysler.

It should be recalled that GM is a conglomerate built on mergers.

That was part of GM's strength. Back in the days of divisional autonomy, GM’s market hegemony was unassailable. But GM jettisoned brand uniqueness, turned to corner-cutting “badge engineering” and vapid marketing schemes, and, thus, lost the essence of what made its individual brands strong. Of course Washington D.C.’s three decade regulatory jihad and blind-eyed fumbling on the Japanese invasion of the U.S. auto market didn’t help.

DeLorenzo’s comments are hardly just more “smog on the information superhighway” (as former SVT in-house propagandist John M. Clor asserts that all automobile blogs are). Instead, DeLorenzo may be right.

But the real question is, will the Ford that survives (if it does) still build anything that anyone but appliance motorists care about?

Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.

** Thankfully, Roush Racing has signed a contract extension with Ford Motor Company, so perhaps the last of the Detroit 3 will also be the last of the Detroit 3 still racing.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, August 21, 2008

FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S “REVIVAL MEETING”

[GET THE LATEST "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER" HERE]

The latest “bold move” marketing slogan for Ford Motor Company is “Drive One.”

It's a truncated remake of another marketing slogan from another time when FoMoCo was on the ropes ("Have you Driven a Ford Lately")

Yet not enough customers are taking Ford up on the offer.

“Ford sales are off nearly 14 percent through the first seven months of the year, with U.S. car sales off almost 5 percent and trucks down just over 18 percent. Overall, the U.S. market is down 10 percent with growth in small cars and drops in truck and sport utility vehicle sales, Ford's traditional profit centers.”

“The sales slump has contributed to Ford losing $8.7 billion in the second quarter as it races to adjust from trucks to a stronger car lineup. The company has said it will bring over several small car models from Europe including the Fiesta subcompact and the European Focus compact, but those won't arrive until 2010.”


With a share of FoMoCo (F) now trading for less than a good hamburger at Red Robin, a mostly lame-duck vehicle line-up, and an operation hemorrhaging billions each month, the Glass House Gang decided it was high time for the dwindling number Ford staffers “Drive One.”

“Last week, Ford started pulling around 4,000 workers from their desks at sites near the Dearborn headquarters and onto a test track for a few hours of driving and learning about how Ford hopes to set its vehicles apart from other automakers.”


One could think of it as FoMoCo’s version of a “dream cruise” (not to be confused with the Woodward Dream Cruise) with a healthy dose of chautauqua mixed in.
Hey it’s better than workin’ . . . or worrying about the next round of layoffs.

However, how does a company-paid revival meeting for “true believers” that are hopefully already committed to FoMoCo address what “Autoextremist” Peter DeLorenzo call the “perception problem?”

The perception problem in a nutshell is that the general public’s perceptions about quality improvements, style and competitiveness lags behind the actual product developments. In other words, most people are lemmings who make decisions based on hunches, obsolete data and imitating what their neighbors do.

That’s tough sledding for appeals to “Drive One” if almost no one down the street is.

The America-killing Japanese brands have a lot more “paid in” capital in the mass perception “bank.” Until the natural cycles of decay, obsolescence and brand hubris take their toll and the entry-level markets are bloated with worn-out Japanese “hoopties,” (and Ford has a bolder line-up of market appropriate products, supported by quality “entry level” used vehicles) Ford will have a tough time undoing a generation of mixed perceptions borne out of FoMoCo’s missteps in the late 1980s and 1990s.

Obviously FoMoCo has to do what it can to hang on until:

(a) Alan Mulally’s European rescue plan has a chance;
(b) fuel prices stabilize and (hopefully) abate, improving the weak economy that is challenging most automakers;
(c) somebody at Ford can figure out how to counteract the growing Japanese menace; and
(d) some future Ford hits the illusive combination of style, value, exclusivity, design, economy and performance that makes it a red-hot “must have” sales hit and automotive icon (such as the original Mustang or even the original Taurus, notwithstanding the bull-mobile's handicap of low-performance front wheel drive and its obvious lack of staying power as a “classic”).

Prominent in FoMoCo’s in-house “Drive One” revival was the vaporware of “Eco-Boost.” Some startled desk jockeys planted the obligatory quotes of amazement in the press coverage of the event.

But sadly missing in action is any suggestion of a V-8 Eco-Boost engine. Such a high efficiency and high performance engine is necessary if Ford hopes to weather the coming 1970s-style Corporate Average Fuel Economy storm with any hope of marketing anything remotely satisfying to FoMoCo’s loyal Mustang and SVT customer bases.

If Ford doesn’t do it. Somebody else will.

Similarly, if Ford doesn't build a technology-leading high performance Eco-Boost V8 electric hybrid muscle car (with necessary features such as Ethanol Boosting System's direct "on-demand" ethanol injection , variable geometry intake manifolds, DOHC, variable cam timing and phasing, and perhaps even VW-style "twincharging"), somebody else will.

And if FoMoCo doesn't address the Modular V8 bore center problem in it production and Ford Racing Peformance Parts aftermarket engine programs to counter the Hemi and GM's LS-series V8s (i.e. a big cube DOHC version of the too-oft delayed Boss engine) then FoMoCo's share of the huge, influential automotive aftermarket will continue to decline as "hot rodders" and tuners avoid "Powered by Ford" like the plague.
Ford’s blind-eyed neglect of its loyal enthusiast base apparently continues.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

DOUG PELMEAR’S 110 M.P.G.e V8 MUSTANG

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

[NOTE: We've updated this still-developing story many times in subsequent posts. For the latest "Team HP2g" info available to "Truth With Speedzzter," Please click here or on the tags at the bottom of this post.

Since the publication of this post in 2009, Team HP2g stopped participating in the Progressive Automotive X Prize contest and announced construction of an engine factory in Ohio]



Has an inventor leading a small team from Napoleon, Ohio, U.S.A. created the “next big thing” in internal combustion?

(Truth with Speedzzter certainly hopes so.)

Garnering the attention of CNN and other national media, are engineer Doug Pelmear of “Team HP2g” and a demure, mid-1980s Ford Mustang notchback.

Outwardly, Team HP2g’s “miracle” Mustang looks like any of 10,000 other mild street/strip pony cars. Yet beneath the closed fox-body hood lurks a mystery motor of potentially legendary proportions. . . a claimed 110 m.pg.e E85-fueled, 400 horsepower V8 engine!
V8 engine?
400 horsepower?
110 m.p.g.e?

Can this be true?
To some gearheads and conventional-thinking engineers, this simply cannot compute.

To others, it promises that someone has finally discovered a way to unleash the huge amount of potential energy wasted in ordinary Otto-Cycle combustion.

Thus far, all of this is speculation, muzzled by the lengthy, hyper-expensive and time-consuming patent process. Only those insiders with Team Hp2g actually know the real potential of their “mystery motor.”

Will Doug Pelmear soon assume a place along side Henry Ford, Karl Benz, Rudolph Diesel, Alfred Buchi and other legends of the Automotive Pantheon?

Or will Team Hp2g become a soon-forgotten historical curiosity along the lines of those who designed and built the 1948 Tucker Torpedo, or Henry “Smokey” Yunick (who patented but failed to sell his “Hot Vapor Cycle Engine” (HVCE)), or innumerable others who mistakenly thought they had invented “the next big thing” in automobility?

In 2009, the Progressive Automotive X-Prize may yield part of the answer.

In the words of Team HP2g’s press release:

TEAM HP2g is seeking your help in the most challenging test this Country will experience in the future for you and me, our children, our grandchildren and their children to come… the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE.

The X PRIZE is a contest sponsored by Progressive Auto Insurance and the X Foundation. The contestants of the X PRIZE must design, build and bring to market a vehicle achieving the equivalent of 100mpge (miles per gallon equivalent) with carbon emissions of less than 200g/mi. The goal of the Auto X PRIZE is to inspire engineers, auto makers and other entrepreneurs to build such a vehicle and eventually be mass produced for sale to the public. Competing against national and international teams, Horse Power Sales.Net has such a car available meeting these standards.


The car we will be entering into this contest is named HP2g. The HP2g is assembled by Americans, made with American auto parts by American workers. HP2g will carry four adults. It is one of the heaviest of all entries at 2,850 lbs, compared to the next vehicle weighing 1600 lbs. HP2g offers heat, air conditioning, cruise control, windshield wipers, seat belts, radio (basic creature comforts of existing production vehicles). To the best of my knowledge, HP2g is the only V8 engine participant entered and able to reach high acceleration speeds. All of these features will be beneficial for our participation and win in this cross country race in the 3rd quarter of 2009.

Team HP2g is seeking sponsorship in our endeavor. All races, events and demonstrations of HP2g (during the Progressive Auto X PRIZE) will be written and televised worldwide. Your Company will be given the rights to use our entry vehicle in any and all print ads, web pages, and material hand outs to help better promote your products.

For more than a decade, we at Horse Power Sales.Net, Inc. have developed, patented, marketed and sold automotive engine technologies designed to increase horsepower while drastically increasing fuel economy and decreasing harmful engine emissions. We feel confident in our technology and the performance of our vehicle will forever change American law makers and automotive manufacturers. HP2g will provide consumers with clean super efficient vehicle without sacrificing size, capability, image, safety, acceleration and performance.

Help us Change the WORLD!

Website: www.HP2g.com
Email : team@hp2g.com


Already Team HP2g has signed on nearly a dozen sponsors, including a State of Ohio venture capital/technology incubator entity known as Rocket Ventures. The size of these sponsorships is unknown.


Many of us hot rodders, racers and auto enthusiasts are overjoyed that Team HP2g will apparently enter an 8-cylinder high performance car in the X PRIZE competition. Maybe the future won't be one of soulless, low-powered telephone-booths-on-wheels, after all.

While we all anxiously await the full public debut of the Pelmear engine (and hope that it's not another protracted wait in disappointment, as was the wait for Smokey Yunick's Hot Vapor Cycle (HVCE) engine of the 1980s), we have some questions:

1. Will the Pelmear/HP2g engine technology be marketed in the aftermarket or just to OEMs? (Yunick's failure to produce an aftermarket version of the HVCE stymied development and market pressure on the OEMs to investigate and/or adopt the technology)

2. Will the Pelmear/HP2g engine technology be licensed to multiple manufacturers?

3. Will the Pelmear/HP2g engine technology be "scalable" to BIG BLOCK V8s? (some of us would give up 50 or so m.p.g. for a lot more street/strip power)

4. Will the Pelmear/HP2g engine technology be adaptable to current engine platforms by enthusiasts and sportsmen racers?

5. Will the Pelmear/HP2g engine be a "closed system" that cannot be "hot rodded" or will it lend itself to additional modifications?

6. Are there any plans for a technical book on the Pelmear/HP2g engine (either before or after the X PRIZE competition?

7. Does HP2g have any support from Ford Motor Company(R)?

Others are taking a more skeptical approach: For example, at the At the X PRIZE forum, a sarcastic skeptic writing under the alias “Dr. Emmett L. Brown” wrote:

Sounds like an amazing product.


I am very interested in how a 2850 lb Fox body Mustang is capable of 0-60 in 3 seconds or less.

I am also curious as to how you got to exactly 400 Bhp/500lb ft as well, sounds like a rounded number.

I also want to know why you choose E85 Ethanol instead of gasoline or gasohol as E85's efficiency for miles per gallon is the worst fuel to hit American blacktop since the double pumper four barrel Holley.

And finally I am very interested in how a pushrod V8 based engine that is not direct injected is capable of 110 MPG on 17" Cobra wheels that are heavier than U238.

I highly suspect that this is nothing more than a ploy to swindle some investors out of their hard earned money from a company that brought the world the "valley girdle", the most useless product to touch the Small Block Ford Community since Corky Bell. [sic]


Another sarcastic skeptic, writing under the apparent psuedonym “Bill Nye,” picked up on the “Back to the Future” theme suggested by “Doc Brown” :
I am mostly interested as to why you abandoned the DeLorean platform and picked up the fox body to house the flux capacitor. Why change what already works so well?

I understand why you chose Ethanol, it actually works out advantageously in the MPG equivalent ratings and will allow fantastic compression ratios. My question here is: why would you not run the car on 1.21 gigawatts as was intended?

You have to understand the doubts. You cannot take an old fox body, slap some stickers on it and claim 110MPGe without explaining SOMETHING about what is inside. Patents or not there is plenty you can explain without revealing your "secrets." We already know about the turbonator intake, the Amsoil and the water-to-hydrogen booster you are utilizing, but we want to know more before we believe anything.


Doc Brown:
I highly suspect that Horsepowersales.net uses the same marketing techinques that is know to take place in those Nigerian Money Exchange Emails.


"I invented a 20 year old car that gets 110 mpg on corn whiskey, but my uncle was killed by the CIA to keep it out of the limelight, so I am simply asking for your bank account and routing numbers so I can hide my moneys in your account before they seize it, Ill give you 20% return back on your money or my name is not Doc!"


The sarcastic positions taken by Doc Brown and "Bill Nye" are pseudo-rational. It's easy to be skeptical. It takes no effort. No creativity. No work.
However, such skepticism BEFORE an actual competition is simply useless trash talk.

Team HP2g has every right to maintain secrecy about their proprietary technology during the patent process and the build-up to the X PRIZE competition.

From what I can tell Team HP2g isn't trying to sell anything to anyone at the moment. Therefore, Team HP2g is under no obligation to disclose anything that might be of help to their technologically-savvy competitors.

(The patented Valley Girdle Pro is a product sold by Team HP2g's chief engineer and has been tested with promising results by a number of sportsman racers. While it is certainly not the same thing as an expensive "DART block," it does appear to add a degree of stability to the weak valley area of production blocks for a modest cost).

In other forms of motorsports, teams seeking sponsorships don't bare all of their technical secrets to the general public or potential sponsors.

While all of us anxiously await the day when Team HP2g "lifts the hood," proves their claims (either in whole or in part) in documented, objective, independently-verified scientific testing, and explains their accomplishments to the world, sensible, RATIONAL people will wait until the X PRIZE competition for that moment.

Thus, the cynical, armchair musings of Doc Brown and "Bill Nye" are nothing more than the rantings of ignorant, impatient skeptics. If and when Team HP2g fails to deliver IN THE ACTUAL COMPETITION (and not before) , then perhaps such ridicule will be appropriate. Until such day, however, it's just an annoying waste of bandwidth.

BUT WHY USE A NEARLY ANTIQUE MUSTANG AS A STARTING POINT?

Apparently, because they can.

The X PRIZE competition SHOULDN'T just be about who can build the the lightest and highest M.P.G.e recumbent telephone-booth-on-wheels. That's been done scores of times before. The general public has little interest in such impractical, low-performance "futurist cars."

The X PRIZE, however, is a competition about building a "real" vehicle with real-world functionality AND breakthrough "part-throttle" (or off-peak) efficiency during that 95%-97% of the time a street vehicle doesn't need peak power.

Because high performance and sports machines (such as Ford Mustangs) are going to be part of the fleet mix for the foreseeable future, why shouldn't an innovative, grassroots team that manages to meet the threshold benchmarks for eligibility be permitted to compete with one? Why should they be badgered and second-guessed by self-appointed "know-it-alls" before the competition has even started? Why should they be hectored into revealing their proprietary secrets to satisfy the curiosity of armchair critics?

Isn't the actual competition the appropriate time for "putting up or shutting up?"
Given the inefficiency of traditional, mass-produced Otto-cycle engines (especially at part throttle), the minimal levels of horsepower necessary for 70%-85% of street driving (even for relatively large light vehicles), and the vast amount of potential energy in a gallon of E85, its not unbelievable that a breakthrough technology of some sort (or even an innovative combination of existing technologies) could produce dramatic increases in off-peak fuel efficiency.

If Team HP2g can show the X PRIZE officials that they meet the eligibility threshold, then they ought to have the chance to compete.

As for Truth With Speedzzter, We’d be dancing in the streets and cashing in our 401ks to invest if they produced a cost-effective, emissions-legal 45 M.P.G.e "failure," because it would probably mean that V8-powered sports cars, light trucks and SUVs could offered for years to come.

The alleged "thinking objections" of those who question the choice of a V8-powered Mustang as an X PRIZE competition vehicle aren't so much that Team HP2g’s claims are "so unbelievable that suspicion of foul play is warranted" and but instead are subconsciously motivated by the lack of correspondence between their claims and preconceived greeniac notions about what future motoring should become. Alas, not everyone shares such a bland and depressing "dream."

[This should come as no surprise to those familiar with the documented horsepower-phobia of "Click and Clack: The Tappet Brothers" and their legions of disciples]

BUT, there is no harm in withholding judgment until verified test results are available. That's what "thinking people" really do.

THERE ARE NO “ONE SIZE FITS ALL ANSWERS”

The initial entry list for the Automotive X PRIZE contains a wide variety of vehicles. The early speculation, however, centers on a few, highly aerodynamic electric hybrid concept cars proffered by well-funded teams. Team HP2g’s Fox-Body Mustang simply doesn’t fit this profile.

However, even true greeniacs don't reasonably expect people to strap a couple of 4'x8' sheets of drywall on top of a cramped $100,000+ Tesla roadster for the trek from Home Depot to the Job site. Nor could they really contemplate anyone towing a pair of 1000-pound show-horses behind a Fisker Karma. Or taking a 3,000 mile family vacation through the American West in some fruit-cup-sized plug-in electric commuter car.

Simply put, the future will need a diverse set of transportation solutions. And there's also freedom-of-choice to consider.


Moreover, whatever electrification or materials technology is developed in producing a production-viable and mass-marketable M.P.G.e "wundercar" can probably be adapted to improve the off-peak energy use of V8 Mustangs, to produce an even higher cost/benefit ratio of efficiency improvements.

The original rules announcement for the X PRIZE in a way contemplates this logic:

Quote:
It is true that an increase in fuel economy (more miles per gallon) saves fuel (gallons per mile). But the inverse relationship means that greater fuel economy yields diminishing returns.

Here is an example: At 20 MPG, it takes 5 gallons to go 100 miles. At 100 MPG it takes 1 gallon so you save 4 gallons. Double it to 200 MPG and it takes ½ gallon, so you save only ½ gallon more. In fact, an 80 MPGe vehicle achieves 94% of the energy savings as a 100 MPGe vehicle.

Another way to look at this is in terms of the amount of gas used in typical 12,000 miles of annual driving:

Thus, for example, achieving 150 MPGe, offers only a relatively modest increase in fuel saved, but likely at the at the expense of the features, performance, and safety that are needed to make these cars attractive to consumers.

Consumers increasingly want cars that are extremely fuel-efficient and environmentally-friendly, but they don’t want to sacrifice performance. By having a 100 MPGe threshold with a speed race as the basic challenge, we are assuring that the winning vehicle will have close to 4x today’s CAFE fuel economy standard, but are also encouraging designers to focus on comfort, performance, and safety.

If we set the bar much higher (say 150 MPGe), there wouldn’t be a drastic increase in fuel saved, but (given our understanding of today’s technology) there would be significant increased development costs and time-to-market, as well as likely reduction in comfort and other customer-focused features. We would prefer to see many teams bring desirable vehicles to market soon that are 4x more efficient than today’s vehicles than very few entrants bring undesirable vehicles to the market far in the future even if they are 6x more efficient.


Team HP2g, if successful, may be able to speed up this "technology transfer" process. Undoubtedly that's heresy to those "superior" ones believe that any V8 is "soul crushing" and stupid.

Nothing in Team HP2g's entry suggests that their proprietary technology couldn't be scaled to fit a tea-cup-sized electric hybrid.

And obviously Paccar (Peterbuilt), Wal-Mart, John Deere, GM and others are working on hybrid electrification of heavy commercial vehicles, so R&D in this area is hardly being neglected.

The open question for practical light vehicles, however, concerns the optimal mix of electrification and IC propulsion. Current high voltage batteries are heavy, expensive and subject to cold weather declines in performance. Current high-torque AC motors are also heavy and expensive. And even a small generator (or gas turbo-generator) of sufficient amp/hr output to propel a work vehicle has a not inconsequential weight. Thus, a useful electric hybrid vehicle cannot be lightened beyond a certain threshold without dramatic increases in cost and losses of functionality.

Downsizing "the electrics" to either a start-stop (microhybrid) system or a lower-power Honda IMA-style low-speed hybrid could prove to be a more economically reasonable balance.

The point of Team HP2g's entry is to showcase high performance powertrain technology that's attractive to the current mass market and adaptable to both heavy work vehicles and sporty machines. It is not to suggest that there are not feasible alternatives to moving the same mass with a greater quantum of Ready Kilowatts.

By the way, the fact that an engine has eight cylinders has little to do with its off-peak fuel efficiency.

For example, a giant, quaking four can be horribly inefficient and a pocket-sized V8 can be made very frugal. Improvements in thermal efficiency, lean burn systems, ethanol boosting, stratified pre-combustion chambers, cylinder deactivation, variable valve timing, turbocharging, turbocompounding and other emerging efficiency technologies could make V8s produce startling fuel efficiency numbers without any technological breakthroughs . . . and without losing the characteristics that have made V8s traditional favorites in the 3%-5% of the time when extra torque, horsepower and the glorious symphony sounds thereof are desired.

V8s are hardly evil incarnate, except in the perceptions of those (such as Click and Clack, the Tappett Brothers) who would dictate how we exercise our future automotive freedoms.

THE PROOF WILL BE IN THE COMPETITION

Some are wringing their collective hands at the secrecy of Team HP2g in the build-up to the X PRIZE competition:

"[T]hey don't answer even abstract questions about how they claim to achieve it."

Of course that will all be public record when the patent is approved and after the X PRIZE qualifing "race." What's the hurry? Answers to even abstract questions can sometimes reveal too much to industry insiders. I suspect their lawyers told them to say as little as posible.

"[T]they don't use an aerodynamic vehicle"

But they're prototyping an SUV engine! The Cd of an '80s Mustang isn't terrible (mid 30s) and it's a lot better than most SUVs or light trucks.

The frontal area of a fox-body Mustang is also reasonably attractive for a mainstream design. Besides, a quick scan of the X PRIZE entries shows more than a few vehicles as large and "unaerodynamic" as Team HP2g's Mustang, so not all of the engineers in the Mainstream Class are convinced that wild aero packages are necessary to run the number.

"[T]hey don't use a light vehicle"

Weight certainly is an issue and a major contributor to low-speed fuel use. But Team HP2g's car is about 1000 pounds lighter than a new Mustang and a couple of thousand lighter than Neil Young's Lincoln. By the way, a 2008 Prius weighs in at about a ton and a half. Team HP2g's advertised weight is 25 LESS than the curb weight of a 2008 Civic Hybrid. Even given the "heavy weight" and "horrible aero" of an '80s Mustang, it will take significantly less than 20 h.p. to maintain highway speeds.

A breakthrough in engine efficiency could theoretically extract enough energy from E85 to make high mileage possible. Something as simple as just temporarily deactivating half of the cylinders on a stock 5.7 liter Corvette (and using no new thermal recovery strategies or electrical assists) will raise the M.P.G. to 35 on the US EPA highway cycle, according to GM researchers. Team HP2g likely has "pushed the envelope" much, much farther than that

"[T]hey don't use a novel engine type (stock V8.)"

They claim a V8 configuration, but nothing in their materials says or even implies that it's "stock" or even close to stock. Instead they claim to have spent thousands of dollars on special castings, "electronics," and other custom parts.
"[A] prius with special engine and hybrid drive manages 50MPG."

A non-turbocharged Atkinson-cycle four on gasoline is hardly "special."

"[A] honda insight hybrid manages around 65MPG"

With a small, ordinary four cylinder augmented by some well-known valve timing gimmicks and a relatively small electric assist motor. Yawn. Zzzzz

"[A]nd they claim 110MPGe"

They'll have to prove at least 75 m.p.g. at the qualifer, won't they.

"[T]hey talk about racing and not fuel efficiency."

Have you read the X PRIZE rules? Did you miss the part about closed course testing on race tracks? Have you missed all of the references by the organizers calling the X PRIZE competition a "race?" And if they claim 110 M.P.G.e, aren't they talking about fuel economy?

"I see nothing in their favor..
even down to using a primary red font on a black background on their webpage.
"

Now that's a substantive reason to believe they're just a bunch of con artists . . . .


"[A]nd the date they claimed they would publish and demonstrate only amounted to a drag race. no showing of any relevant aspects. no video of the car where you could listen if it was just a completely stock [M]ustang"

They didn't claim they would "publish" anything. All they said was they were testing in public. One would expect that if the Car was a "completely stock Mustang" that somebody in the press or at Milan or atRocket Ventures would have figured that out by now.

Truth with Speedzzter has no idea whether Team HP2g will be able to make good on their claims or not. However, it does absolutely no good to ridicule the team before the competition has even started.

If one believes the future of private transportation is only soulless, cramped telephone-booths-on-wheels, powered by permanently-sealed "black box" propulsion units, then perhaps "a drag race" is irrelevant.

But, the fundamental idea of the X PRIZE isn't just to build the most compromised and highest m.p.g. vehicle possible. It's about building cars with "real world" attributes AND advanced operational efficiency.

In the real world, there are people who want increased "part throttle" fuel efficiency, yet still need (or want) serious power during 3%-5% of the driving cycle. There are people who will continue to need light vehicles that retain the occasional capacity to haul heavy loads of goods and equipment at highway speeds. There are people who will never surrender motoring enjoyment and performance capability at the "altar" of m.p.g. There are still people who desire dual purpose cars that can be driven daily and raced on the weekends.

Drag racing is a well-documented way to demonstrate the peak output and durability of an engine. It can demonstrate an important part of an engine's capability to the technologically-aware segment of the motoring public. It can also generate interest in a new concept or idea.

A 100 year tradition of automobile racing and "hot rodding" isn't just going to evaporate because a minority of power-hungry environmentalist-socialists are spreading their new global religion of "climate change." Thus, whatever happens, some of us will still be racing whatever there is left to race.

The X PRIZE would be a total failure if it degenerates into a ephemeral competition between flimsy, freakish and impractical experimental "cars" that do nothing well but sip fuel. At least Team HP2g has entered a vehicle with "real world" attributes of interest to the millions who don't plan on giving up the essence of high performance motoring merely to appease the greeniacs.

Truth with Speedzzter sincerely hopes Team HP2g can meet and even exceed their audacious claims . . . and do it with a V8! But it does no good to "trash talk" against them until they've had their day in the actual competition.

The bottom line is that Team HP2g has no obligation to say anymore to the public than has been necessary to secure the sponsorships required to compete in the X PRIZE. If I were them, I'd be enjoying all of the questioning and baseless speculation by the "intelligencia."

We will all know in due time during the X PRIZE competition.
http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=227 http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=224

________________________

Truth with Speedzzter hereby grants express permission to Team HP2g and the officials of the Automotive X PRIZE competition and Ford Motor Company (R) to use the foregoing blog entry with attribution.

All other rights reserved. Copyright 2008, 2009. The trademarks used herein and any copyrighted material quoted are the property of their various holders and are used herein under the terms of the Fair Use Doctrine of U.S. Copyright law.

Truth with Speedzzter is not affiliated with Team HP2g, Ford Motor Company (R) or the X Prize Foundation and does not intend to imply any relationship between Ford Motor Company (R)and any person or group.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

COULD “CLICK AND CLACK” (tm) BE PARTLY RIGHT ABOUT THE SHELBY GT500KR?

[GET THE LATEST "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER" HERE]

Tom and Ray Magliozzi – NPR’s “Click and Clack (tm), the Tappet Brothers (tm) -- absolutely HATE the new 550 horsepower Shelby GT500KR.

They say that anyone who’d buy one is a “whacko.” They claim that Ford and Shelby’s most recent collaboration is “Absolutely ridiculous and stupid.”

As "Truth With Speedzzter" has previously pointed out, Click and Clack (tm) are paternalistic, pencil-necked poltroons who seemingly can't stand automotive liberty or apparently ANYTHING that smacks of "E-V-I-L" high performance!

BUT, could they be partly right?

A post on Autoblog entitled “Ford Mustang GT500KR priced at $79,995" douses a gas-guzzler-sized load of fuel on that debate.

Ford will be producing 1,000 GT500KR Mustangs this year, with another 700 in 2009, so FoMoCo is pricing the ultimate 'Stang accordingly. For $79,995 (including destination and gas-guzzler tax), you get everything included in the "standard" GT500, plus Ford Racing's Power Upgrade Package. . . .


Roughly $40,000 more for 40 horsepower and a few styling parts?

KR must now stand for "King of the Ripoffs!"

Apparently Ford (R) and Shelby (R)couldn't stand by and let the Ford Dealers alone rip off the customers.

Too bad FoMoCo can't build a cheap V8 performance car anymore.

For $80,000.00, customers should at least get:

1. An EcoBoost (tm) (or EcoBoost "twincharged" DOHC V8 [NOT A V6 or an I4! A glorious DOHC VEE-EIGHT!];

2. An EBS-style direct ethanol injection system;

3. A John Coletti "SuperCooler" intercooler(More on the "SuperCooler");

4. Variable cam lift and phasing on the intake and exhaust cams;

5. A variable geometry intake manifold (not that lousy, “no-runner length” power-loser that's stock on the GT500 and which costs 70+ horsepower at certain engine speeds due to an obvious lack of inertia “ram” tuning);

6. Cylinder deactivation (a/k/a "Displacement on Demand" (tm) or "Active Fuel Management (tm);" and

7. Probably even a 50+kw parallel hybrid electric "booster" motor!

Now that would truly be an “ultimate ‘Stang!”

Moreover, it would help establish the sort of technological leadership that Speedzzter’s been advocating for FoMoCo to show in the EcoBoost era.

Too bad FoMoCo's just "phoning it in" these days.

And too bad the Shelby brand is once more associated with an overpriced gouge-mobile.

And at that price, "Click and Clack" (tm) apparently don't have to fear too many "whacko" Shelby GT500KRs will be sharing the highways with the their rabid "CAR TALK" & Consumer Reports (tm) fans driving psychedelic VW microbuses, three-popper GEO Metros, "greener-than-thou" Toyota Prius[es], "phonebooths-on-wheels" Smart ForTwos or other staid, imported, low-performance motoring appliances preferred by the "sensible" paternalistic set.

[Note: the trademarks herein are the property of their various owners and are used here solely for commentary purposes under the "Fair Use Doctrine" of U.S. Copyright law.]

Copyright 2008 Truth With Speedzzter. All Rights Reserved.

Labels: , , , ,

WHAT IS THE BIG CUBIC-INCH TURBO BLOG? It is a real-time on-line book about the theory and practice of turbocharging B-I-G CUBE V8 Engines.

what is this?

Tell me when this blog is updated. . .

  • Copyright 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2017. All Rights Reserved. The BIG-CUBIC INCH TURBO BLOG may be quoted with attribution and/or linking to the original post at "THE BIG CUBIC-INCH TURBO BLOG", subject to the Fair Use provisions and limitations of U.S. Copyright law. The trademarks and service marks appearing herein are the property of their respective owners and "Truth With Hydra and Cammie: The Lifter Sisterz" and its predecessor are not affiliated in any way with the holders of these trademarks and service marks. Such trademarks and servicemarks appear herein under the Fair Use provisions of U.S. copyright law. Truth With Hydra and Cammie claims no copyright interest in photos, videos, and articles linked here from internet sources. All materials linked here are for a non-commecial purpose and appear herein under the Fair Use provisions of U.S. copyright law.