Don't Hate

i-bought-a-v6 · January 30th, 2011, 06:28 PM

i recently read about the VW XL1 that gets 263 MPG on a 0.8L compound charged hybrid power train.

Here is my ideas which I realize would be hell for tuners and anti ricers alike:

Why not stick turbocharged I4's in the front and rear of a car?
With the ability to use either turbocharger, AWD, FWD, RWD depending on conditions like fuel economy performance and snow....
and usually they use 2.0 liters so

That way you can have AWD I4 2.0T, AWD I4 2.0T X2, FWD I4...

I realize that it will be little less efficient than just a plain I4 but why not have the ability to have the same car get 35MPG and 500HP withought the cost of that $150,000 hydrogen car

This car would cost under 40K and have the best of "ALL WORLDS"

Dont hate just state a better setup

1999cobra92 · January 30th, 2011, 06:31 PM

i dont hate it's just that i dont see my self driving one of those cars ahahahah

Drick · January 30th, 2011, 06:37 PM

Hydrogen is a completley ridiculous energy concept. It takes a shit ton more energy and causes so much polution to even be a good source. The enviro Nazis hate it

i-bought-a-v6 · January 30th, 2011, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by 1999cobra92

i dont hate it's just that i dont see my self driving one of those cars ahahahah

I would also rather have a mustang GT but why aren"t other cars made like that just to conserve gas and be better for snow?

Originally Posted by Drick

Hydrogen is a completley ridiculous energy concept. It takes a shit ton more energy and causes so much polution to even be a good source. The enviro Nazis hate it

I dont know about that but heres the link 40-MPG, 450-Horsepower Hydrogen Scorpion Unveiled | Autopia | Wired.com

88TempoGLS · January 30th, 2011, 07:37 PM

I dont think your idea would work so good. Say you have a 4 banger that gets 35MPG's in a regular car. Then take 2 of those engines, cram them into one car, you'd be lucky to break 27MPG's with the extra weight. Also, sure it may make 400 hp with both engines and AWD, but its not going to be as fast as a 400 HP Mustang or Focus.

i-bought-a-v6 · January 30th, 2011, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by 88TempoGLS

I dont think your idea would work so good. Say you have a 4 banger that gets 35MPG's in a regular car. Then take 2 of those engines, cram them into one car, you'd be lucky to break 27MPG's with the extra weight. Also, sure it may make 400 hp with both engines and AWD, but its not going to be as fast as a 400 HP Mustang or Focus.

I don"t think it would be that much extra weight to lose 8 mpg but its not limited to 400hp a single i4 turbo can get that
it would probably be able to get to the 700's and still be capable of 30MPG when in "economy mode"

88TempoGLS · January 30th, 2011, 08:05 PM

I still dont see it. To make that kind of power, and get that kind of mileage with that much weight. With the trans, suspension, engine, computers to cordinate everything, etc, etc, its going to weigh a ton.

i-bought-a-v6 · January 30th, 2011, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by 88TempoGLS

I still dont see it. To make that kind of power, and get that kind of mileage with that much weight. With the trans, suspension, engine, computers to cordinate everything, etc, etc, its going to weigh a ton.

ton and a half would be fine

88TempoGLS · January 30th, 2011, 08:17 PM

when i say ton, i just mean alot, You'd be looking at over 2 tonns without any storage space.

F8L GT · January 30th, 2011, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by i-bought-a-v6

I would also rather have a mustang GT but why aren"t other cars made like that just to conserve gas and be better for snow?

I dont know about that but heres the link 40-MPG, 450-Horsepower Hydrogen Scorpion Unveiled | Autopia | Wired.com

nothing like driving around in a potential hydrogen bomb

mcqueen · January 30th, 2011, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by F8L GT

nothing like driving around in a potential hydrogen bomb

You're not a fan on possibly killing yourself and everyone around you every time you go for a drive?

WLJohnson05 · January 30th, 2011, 09:36 PM

If we could make cars run on salt water we will have it good.

03SonicBoom · January 30th, 2011, 09:51 PM

There are several different reasons.

First, you're going to have the increased price and weight of two completely separate engines. Not only that, you're going to have the increased price and weight of two separate transmissions. If you want to use one transmission, then you might as well use a single engine that has two separate and selectable tunes (one for economy and one for performance). Then you'll have to add in the additional weight for the structural support for two engines on opposite sides of the car. Then factor in the complexity of creating a system that will control both systems.

It would be MUCH easier to design a vehicle that has selectable tunes and selectable 2wd/4wd.

F8L GT · January 30th, 2011, 09:53 PM

not to mention it will burn twice as much fuel and no longer get 30mpgs

i-bought-a-v6 · January 30th, 2011, 09:58 PM

Everybody else has valid points except:

Originally Posted by mcqueen

You're not a fan on possibly killing yourself and everyone around you every time you go for a drive?

actually I have mentioned killing myself in other threads and no I dont want a hydrogen powered acura rebuild

Originally Posted by F8L GT

not to mention it will burn twice as much fuel and no longer get 30mpgs

yeah thats why you can turn off one engine and lower the boost to save gas

F8L GT · January 30th, 2011, 10:00 PM

pulling around the extra 500 lbs, you still wont get the 30mpgs

mustanginky · January 30th, 2011, 10:10 PM

and, no manufacturer is going to make motors to hold up to 700 hp from the factory minus a supercar. no chance.

6ER THEN I 8ER! · January 30th, 2011, 11:46 PM

great way to come back on the site after running off

as for your idea....Top Gear beat you to it...btw it sucked

88TempoGLS · January 30th, 2011, 11:50 PM

I know a guy that's putting 2 Taurus SHO engines in a 1992 Mercury Topaz, so a number of people have beat him

southfour! · January 30th, 2011, 11:50 PM

damn, i thought you had left.

January 30th, 2011, 06:28 PM	#1
i-bought-a-v6 Banned 2002 Auto V6 Several Seconds Join Date: May 2010 Location: NY Posts: 1,096 iTrader: 0 reviews	Don't Hate i recently read about the VW XL1 that gets 263 MPG on a 0.8L compound charged hybrid power train. Here is my ideas which I realize would be hell for tuners and anti ricers alike: Why not stick turbocharged I4's in the front and rear of a car? With the ability to use either turbocharger, AWD, FWD, RWD depending on conditions like fuel economy performance and snow.... and usually they use 2.0 liters so That way you can have AWD I4 2.0T, AWD I4 2.0T X2, FWD I4... I realize that it will be little less efficient than just a plain I4 but why not have the ability to have the same car get 35MPG and 500HP withought the cost of that $150,000 hydrogen car This car would cost under 40K and have the best of "ALL WORLDS" Dont hate just state a better setup __________________ [U]Specs[/U] 351W EFI with 2 cylinder delete [U]Mods[/U] Catted dual exhaust with Flowmaster 40's H-piped $60 XM with no subscription Savings Account Mod $00000.00 [U]Future Mods[/U] None [COLOR="Red"]Put This Immature Crap Back In Your Sig, And You'll Be Taking A Vacation. Love, TheUNZippee!T[/COLOR]

January 30th, 2011, 06:31 PM	#2
1999cobra92 Enthusiast 1999 mustang cobra Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Los Angeles, Ca Posts: 882 iTrader: 1 reviews	i dont hate it's just that i dont see my self driving one of those cars ahahahah __________________ Black and White Crew Crew Member # 5 Check garage for mods and pics if you Los Angeles and want to ride send me a text (323) 270-6827 0% Wheel hop, 0% broken parts, 100% wheel spin

January 30th, 2011, 06:37 PM	#3
Drick Big timin' in a small town 2004 FX4 F150, 86 GT Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Gods country. Nordern Michigan eh Posts: 14,336 iTrader: 1 reviews	Hydrogen is a completley ridiculous energy concept. It takes a shit ton more energy and causes so much polution to even be a good source. The enviro Nazis hate it __________________ FX4 Crew Crew member #1 Don't take anything I say to heart, I don't try to come off as an asshole. It just happens

January 30th, 2011, 07:37 PM	#5
88TempoGLS Hardcore Enthusiast 2000 Ford Contour SVT 15.2 @ 90mph Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Middletown, Pa Posts: 2,452 iTrader: 0 reviews	I dont think your idea would work so good. Say you have a 4 banger that gets 35MPG's in a regular car. Then take 2 of those engines, cram them into one car, you'd be lucky to break 27MPG's with the extra weight. Also, sure it may make 400 hp with both engines and AWD, but its not going to be as fast as a 400 HP Mustang or Focus. __________________ 2000 CSVT 03 Escape 3L block, 02 Mercury Cougar 2.5 heads, SVT cams untuned. Stock manifolds, short ram intake, MSDS Y pipe, stock exhaust. 195whp/182wtq 1985 Honda 450 Nighthawk 70+MPG average 8200 miles and counting

January 30th, 2011, 08:05 PM	#7
88TempoGLS Hardcore Enthusiast 2000 Ford Contour SVT 15.2 @ 90mph Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Middletown, Pa Posts: 2,452 iTrader: 0 reviews	I still dont see it. To make that kind of power, and get that kind of mileage with that much weight. With the trans, suspension, engine, computers to cordinate everything, etc, etc, its going to weigh a ton. __________________ 2000 CSVT 03 Escape 3L block, 02 Mercury Cougar 2.5 heads, SVT cams untuned. Stock manifolds, short ram intake, MSDS Y pipe, stock exhaust. 195whp/182wtq 1985 Honda 450 Nighthawk 70+MPG average 8200 miles and counting

January 30th, 2011, 08:17 PM	#9
88TempoGLS Hardcore Enthusiast 2000 Ford Contour SVT 15.2 @ 90mph Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Middletown, Pa Posts: 2,452 iTrader: 0 reviews	when i say ton, i just mean alot, You'd be looking at over 2 tonns without any storage space. __________________ 2000 CSVT 03 Escape 3L block, 02 Mercury Cougar 2.5 heads, SVT cams untuned. Stock manifolds, short ram intake, MSDS Y pipe, stock exhaust. 195whp/182wtq 1985 Honda 450 Nighthawk 70+MPG average 8200 miles and counting

January 30th, 2011, 09:36 PM	#12
WLJohnson05 MM's Database Error 2004 Mustang V6 322.8 rwhp Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: VA Posts: 13,285 iTrader: 9 reviews	If we could make cars run on salt water we will have it good. __________________ I'm trying to get rid of this stuff, feel free to make me an offer!: SCT Mass Air Flow Sensor $200 Tial Wastegate Springs $40 (10psi and 3.6psi)

January 30th, 2011, 09:51 PM	#13
03SonicBoom Moderator 2003 Grand Cherokee Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Indiana Posts: 6,621 iTrader: 0 reviews	There are several different reasons. First, you're going to have the increased price and weight of two completely separate engines. Not only that, you're going to have the increased price and weight of two separate transmissions. If you want to use one transmission, then you might as well use a single engine that has two separate and selectable tunes (one for economy and one for performance). Then you'll have to add in the additional weight for the structural support for two engines on opposite sides of the car. Then factor in the complexity of creating a system that will control both systems. It would be MUCH easier to design a vehicle that has selectable tunes and selectable 2wd/4wd. __________________

January 30th, 2011, 09:53 PM	#14
F8L GT !FACEPLATED! 2002 Mustang GT 7.84 @ 86.01 Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Upper Michigan Posts: 12,917 iTrader: 13 reviews	not to mention it will burn twice as much fuel and no longer get 30mpgs __________________ MM Bracket Racing Crew Co-Founder ~Its a Drag Car, Not a Show Car~ LINK-->Custom Race Transmission Build<--LINK

January 30th, 2011, 10:00 PM	#16
F8L GT !FACEPLATED! 2002 Mustang GT 7.84 @ 86.01 Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Upper Michigan Posts: 12,917 iTrader: 13 reviews	pulling around the extra 500 lbs, you still wont get the 30mpgs __________________ MM Bracket Racing Crew Co-Founder ~Its a Drag Car, Not a Show Car~ LINK-->Custom Race Transmission Build<--LINK

January 30th, 2011, 10:10 PM	#17
mustanginky MM Fanatic 2000 gt Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: La grange, KY Posts: 4,259 iTrader: 2 reviews	and, no manufacturer is going to make motors to hold up to 700 hp from the factory minus a supercar. no chance. __________________ Procharged 2000 5 Speed BAB GT, built motor, blower cams, speedy dyno tune 412 hp, 450 rw tq HARDCORE CREW BRIGHT ATLANTIC BLUE CREW #1 MEMBER

January 30th, 2011, 11:46 PM	#18
6ER THEN I 8ER! Banned Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Portland, TN Posts: 17,515 iTrader: 3 reviews	great way to come back on the site after running off as for your idea....Top Gear beat you to it...btw it sucked

January 30th, 2011, 11:50 PM	#19
88TempoGLS Hardcore Enthusiast 2000 Ford Contour SVT 15.2 @ 90mph Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Middletown, Pa Posts: 2,452 iTrader: 0 reviews	I know a guy that's putting 2 Taurus SHO engines in a 1992 Mercury Topaz, so a number of people have beat him __________________ 2000 CSVT 03 Escape 3L block, 02 Mercury Cougar 2.5 heads, SVT cams untuned. Stock manifolds, short ram intake, MSDS Y pipe, stock exhaust. 195whp/182wtq 1985 Honda 450 Nighthawk 70+MPG average 8200 miles and counting

January 30th, 2011, 11:50 PM	#20
southfour! Not Banned 2000 Mustang V6 2000 Silverado 1500 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Calgary, Canada Posts: 4,550 iTrader: 3 reviews	damn, i thought you had left. __________________ H/C/I V6 BMC Member: 12521 Cam Video My Build Thread

Remove Advertisements Sponsored Links
Ford Mustang Forum Advertisement

Threads Similar to: Don't Hate
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
I hate, hate, hate these type of people.	shroom	The Clubhouse	71	May 24th, 2011 05:02 PM
I really hate.	97GT4.6	The Clubhouse	44	June 21st, 2010 04:33 PM
I Hate 3rd...	MyGT	Drag	6	December 23rd, 2007 12:19 PM
Don't You Hate It...	707Stang	The Clubhouse	51	December 18th, 2007 12:16 PM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:16 AM.
Contact Us - Modded Mustangs : Ford Mustang Forums - Privacy Statement - Top
Modded Mustangs is ©2005-2008, All Rights Reserved, And is Not Affiliated with Ford Motor Company. Forum is powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Ent. Ltd. & SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.