|
atomicthumbs posted:You can't make an omelette without decapitating the driver, mutilating several spectators, causing an enormous fire, sending shrapnel eight hundred feet in all directions, To be fair, back in those days that was basically any average raceday crash 
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
Kenshin posted:Read the articles, the propellent is a monopropellant carried in sealed bottles. It is its own oxidizer. From a guy whose job involved among other things setting off explosions next to rocket fuel to see what'd happen: Ignition! posted:Another low-energy monopropellant was propyl nitrate, first investigated around 1949 or 1950. It was plugged enthusiastically, in England by Imperial Chemical Industries, who insisted that it was absolutely harmless and non-explosive. Ha! ERDE (Waltham Abbey) investigated it and its homologues rather extensively, and in this country the Ethyl Corporation and Wyandotte Chemical Co. did the same. The work in England was done on isopropyl nitrate, but in this country, due to a magnificently complicated patent situation, normal propyl nitrate was the isomer used. By 1956, not only Ethyl and Wyandotte, but United Aircraft, JPL, NOTS, Aerojet and the Naval Underwater Ordnance Station (the old Torpedo Station at Newport) were working with it, either as an auxiliary power source or as a torpedo propellant, and either straight or mixed with ethyl nitrate. It was easy to start--either a hot glow bar or a slug of oxygen and a spark plug were enough--burned clean and smoothly, and seemed to be the answer to a lot of problems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Ignition! is such a great book. I might have to waste the afternoon re-reading it. If you like that one you'd probably also really like "Excuse Me Sir, Would You Like to Buy a Kilo of Isopropyl Bromide?" by Max Gergel: http://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/gergel_isopropyl_bromide.pdf
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
holy shitballs.quote:Up to 700 pounds lighter than current models, the new F-150 4x2 with Ford's 2.7-liter EcoBoost engine has EPA-estimated ratings of 19 mpg City, 26 mpg Highway and 22 mpg Combined. That is 5 percent to 29 percent better than current F-150 models, depending on engine and driveline configuration on the combined cycle. So 0-60 in 6.5 seconds in a 5000lb truck, and the engine is still capable of 19/26. That's better than the V6 colorado. The exact same rating as the manual i4 2wd colorado. The same city, and 2mpg better highway than the i4/auto tacoma.The same city and 3mpg better highway than any nissan frontier. The only more economical half ton is the ram ecodiesel which gets 20/28mpg but takes 10.4 seconds to hit 60mph, and costs $4000 instead of $400 as an engine option. So 26mpg highway and a sub-6 second 0-60 in the $22k(canadian) reg cab/short box/2.7eb. They need to put that engine in a fusion SHO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
That's also
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:That's also This makes me laugh: The 4x4 2.7 liter turbo f-150 with 325hp and 375ft/lbs of torque gets 18 mpg city, 23mpg highway The AWD 2.5 liter turbo WRX STI with 305hp and 290ft/lbs of torque gets 17mpg city, 23mpg highway A regular cab/short box/4x4 2.7 f-150 might be faster, cheaper, and more fuel efficient than an STI. Imagine a fusion with this engine, AWD, and a 6 speed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
I imagine sti gear ratios are like.. 30% of that mpg
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Well anyway back to cars that people actually want to buy, here's the Mazda2 sedan.  It might give some hints as to a future Scion subcompact/Toyota Yaris that will be built at the same plant. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Well anyway back to cars that people actually want to buy, here's the Mazda2 sedan. Easily the best looking subcompact sedan on the market. Mazda is killing it with their new design language.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Isn't the single cab f150 with the 2.7L in 2wd like 4300lbs now? It might be a lot like most truck ratings though where epa cycle says a lot more than reality where cars often do better? I know a lot of the trucks that say 22mpg highway you are lucky to ever get more than 17-18mpg combined in reality. Where a car rated at 28mpg highway will a lot of times get that combined. Who knows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Powershift posted:We can still dream about an aluminum ranger the size of the old one with the 2.7 ecoboost in it. 5 second 0-60 and 30mpg with a motorcycle in the box. Sounds like a base short bed F150 with an ecoboost would be a great starting point for a sport truck build. Lower it properly with some good dampers wheels/tires and kick rear end at the autocross. But yeah still want the loving Ranger dammit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
coolskillrex remix posted:I imagine sti gear ratios are like.. 30% of that mpg Not to mention AWD.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Mange Mite posted:Not to mention AWD. I used the 4x4 f150 number. The 2wd f150 2.7 is rated higher than the cvt wrx. leica posted:Sounds like a base short bed F150 with an ecoboost would be a great starting point for a sport truck build. Exactly. You would be tossing most of the poo poo you don't need to pay extra for anyways. Steel wheels, vinyl seats, black plastic facia. Black steel bumpers. Fiberglass roll pan and front bumper could easily drop another 100lbs alone because they are both still steel. Might be a pipe dream but under 30 Grand, 350whp, 4000 lbs, 365 section rubber on all 4 corners Powershift fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Exactly. You would be tossing most of the poo poo you don't need to pay extra for anyways. Steel wheels, vinyl seats, black plastic facia. Black steel bumpers. Fiberglass roll pan and front bumper could easily drop another 100lbs alone because they are both still steel. Do it man. Base models are manuals right? Can't imagine an F150 gearbox would feel all that great tho. Of course a shift kit on a slushbox would be fun at the dragstrip too 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Did anyone say rotary ? http://goo.gl/5viuhZ
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
leica posted:Do it man. lol manuals on trucks as an option
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Christobevii3 posted:lol manuals on trucks as an option  dude, seriously
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
This is with the 3.31 LSD. 3.73 would be $150 more. Also threw carpet in at $145. This thing would be a loving riot. Super stripper sleeper "work truck" edition: vinyl floors, manual windows, 3.73 LSD rear. 
Boaz MacPhereson fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
The build and price isn't up in canada yet, but the base config that's $26,215 in the states is $21,490 in canada. $21,490 + 800 for the 3.73 locker and 500 for the ecoboost would be fuckin rad. The 2014 starts at $17,999 after discounts right now. It will be interesting to see what kind of magic can be pulled out of that motor. The press trucks are loaded lariats at 5000lbs and they hit 60 in 6.5 seconds, the base config is 600lbs lighter.Christobevii3 posted:Isn't the single cab f150 with the 2.7L in 2wd like 4300lbs now? It might be a lot like most truck ratings though where epa cycle says a lot more than reality where cars often do better? I know a lot of the trucks that say 22mpg highway you are lucky to ever get more than 17-18mpg combined in reality. Where a car rated at 28mpg highway will a lot of times get that combined. Who knows. Manufactuers game the system, and trucks are endlessly configurable. The 2.7 ecoboost gets 1 rating to cover the 4200lb stripper and 5500lb brotruck. I rented a crew cab 5.0 4x4, and it was happy getting 20mpg on the highway, which would be about where it's rated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
I drive a 2014 crew cab 4x4 with the big ecoboost and am lucky to get 14.5 combined. It's not the new aluminum truck, but still, nowhere near what I'm supposed to be seeing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
DOes the 2.7l require premium?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:DOes the 2.7l require premium? Speaking of Ford. Is the Focus ever going to switch to the 2015 model on their website? We don't even have build and price yet. The lack of info is disturbing for one their highest volume models. Not that I'm interested anymore. Looking at a 2 year lease on either a blinged EB or a stripper GT Mustang while saving for a GT350.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Looking at a 2 year lease on either a blinged EB or a stripper GT Mustang while saving for a GT350. Using their website, I came up with 10.9K for a 2 year EB premium (is that bling?) lease, and obviously more for the GT. Why not buy a used new edge GT for 5k and sell it when you saved enough for the 350? Cage fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Nov 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Cage posted:I know there are pros and cons for leasing, but surely you can get a GT350 much earlier if you don't bother with a temporary mustang in the meantime? And yeah, EB Premium / PP / security pkg vs GT standard / 3.55s / security pkg would probably be the two option sets. They would have the same brakes and gear ratios between them, the EB would be leather heated/cooled seats and MyFordTouch, the GT would have more power and that wonderful sound. ilkhan fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Nov 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
Keep in mind the GT350 is going to be an $80k car because dealerships.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Keep in mind the GT350 is going to be an $80k car because dealerships.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 09:43
|
|
|
I'm not so sure the GT350 is a GT500 replacement. So expect it to stay pricey.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I'm not so sure the GT350 is a GT500 replacement. So expect it to stay pricey. I think it's a boss 302 replacement. There are corners cut for cost.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
I kinda wish they'd make a stripper f150 single cab with upgraded brakes, suspension, and 5.0 tuned from the mustang. Would make a sick aftermarket to go with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Christobevii3 posted:I kinda wish they'd make a stripper f150 single cab with upgraded brakes, suspension, and 5.0 tuned from the mustang. Would make a sick aftermarket to go with. The 3.5 ecoboost in Premium fuel factory tune produces more hp and torque than the old lightnings supercharged v8 and a 2wd eb long box f150 is 400 lbs lighter than the old lightning. So many awesome things could be done. Also. Thinking about the gt350. With 400 ft lbs of torque in 3800lbs it won't be faster than a BMW m4. If it's not faster than an m4 it won't cost more than one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Also. Thinking about the gt350. With 400 ft lbs of torque in 3800lbs it won't be faster than a BMW m4. If it's not faster than an m4 it won't cost more than one. It probably will because of that Shelby name is worth an extra ten grand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
The only bad mark against the ecoboost V6 is it sounds like poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Party Alarm posted:The only bad mark against the ecoboost V6 is it sounds like poo poo Just set the engine audio settings to v8
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:
Between the two it would be a GT for me, no contest. Cloth seats are great and never get rear end scorchingly hot or ball sack shrinking cold, so you don't need the heat or cooling. And I could care less about having a touch screen in my car. The base radio has a full color LCD to display the rear backup camera. And you won't care about having only the base audio because the engine provides the best music. Powershift posted:Just set the engine audio settings to v8 http://youtu.be/_Kpq9rxDyPA 
Mental Hospitality fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Speaking of Ford. Is the Focus ever going to switch to the 2015 model on their website? We don't even have build and price yet. The lack of info is disturbing for one their highest volume models. I know, right? We're looking at replacing my wife's leased Fiesta in the summer with a '15 Focus, and I'm waiting to make sure the configuration we want is still available.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
Some ecoboost talk: I had to do a 120 mile drive to the office today (started a new job, haven't relocated yet, so Mondays and Fridays suck) in the Ecoboost F150. I decided to try for "realistic efficiency," keeping it to 70-75 on the highway and making a concerted effort to drive efficiently. About 100 miles of the 120 was on highway, the other 20 was surface streets. Very little elevation variation. 2014 F150 Crew Cab 4x4 w/ 3.5 Ecoboost : Rated at 15/21 MPG and I averaged 15.7 with an 85/15 split Hwy/City.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
eyebeem posted:Some ecoboost talk: I had to do a 120 mile drive to the office today (started a new job, haven't relocated yet, so Mondays and Fridays suck) in the Ecoboost F150. I decided to try for "realistic efficiency," keeping it to 70-75 on the highway and making a concerted effort to drive efficiently. About 100 miles of the 120 was on highway, the other 20 was surface streets. Very little elevation variation. That's in line with what I've experienced on the rentals I've had, driving at the same speeds. When I dialed back to 65, I got 21 MPG.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Higher speeds significantly kill mileage. At 80 in my Golf TDI I'll get mid to low 30's on the highway depending on factors like temperature and wind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
eyebeem posted:Some ecoboost talk: I had to do a 120 mile drive to the office today (started a new job, haven't relocated yet, so Mondays and Fridays suck) in the Ecoboost F150. I decided to try for "realistic efficiency," keeping it to 70-75 on the highway and making a concerted effort to drive efficiently. About 100 miles of the 120 was on highway, the other 20 was surface streets. Very little elevation variation. Is that from the trip computer, or did you fill up when you got there and did the math? The Ford trip computer, in my experience with 5 different Ford vehicles in the last 6 years, is a bit optimistic. I routinely get about 1MPG less than the trip computer says. It's been that way in all the cars. To add to Ecoboost MPG chat (all MPG with 93 octane): 2014 Ford Explorer Sport (3.5LTT) - we see about 14.8 city, 20 hwy. Best MPG hwy I ever got was 21MPG on a tank between San Antonio and Houston in heavy traffic keeping us around 70MPH. I usually set the cruise to 77MPH. Yes this isn't the best gas mileage, but the 2012 Explorer we had with the NA 3.5L V-6 got the same MPG, so I'll take the extra torque and HP for the same MPG. Granted this is usually with 4-5 people in the car and a trunk full of luggage. This is my wife's car, so I only track it on road trips. Fuelly has a lifetime avg of 19.6 MPG. (pure hwy) 2013 Taurus SHO (3.5LTT) - Strictly highway between San Antonio and Austin, I routinely average 24 to 25MPG on just the highway portion. Cruise set at 77MPH. City MPG is around 18 or 19 depending on how much fun I have. According to Fuelly my lifetime avg MPG is 22.2. Best tanks ever were on a road trip between Texas and Kansas with the AC off. Going through OK, I had tanks of 27.54 MPG and 29.54MPG. The biggest problem with the MPG situation is the bullshit test the EPA uses. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml Look at the Highway test. Avg. speed, 48.3 MPH. Top speed, 60MPH, distance 10 miles. Give me a loving break. If they would change the test, manufacturers would modify gear ratios for more realistic speeds of 70 to 75MPH on the highway. further edit: A realistic highway mpg test to me would look like 1- on ramp acceleration - get your rear end up to speed in a reasonable amount of time. 2- 20 minutes 70MPH cruise with a few dips to 62ish, and a few increases to 75ish to account for traffic patterns and passing 3- offramp deceleration and 2 minutes of city driving to get to your destination. skipdogg fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
skipdogg posted:Is that from the trip computer, or did you fill up when you got there and did the math? Trip computer. You're right that it's not the most accurate of means.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:48
|
|