Speaking of nutty stuff, the driver called and he'll be here in a couple hours with my car... Ugh, I was going to get a couple more hours sleep, but now I'm too excited to go back to bed.

billybob_jcv said:

obob: consider the weight of the shuttle and launch platform that the NASA vehicle has to move. It is moving that weight, from a standstill, in the worst possible conditions - all the weight is right over the tracks. A tractor pull sled moves the weight forward to put more and more weight on the tractor's wheels. It actually has an easier time because it has some momentum going before the weight reaches it's maximum. According to Wikipedia, the latest upgrade increases the lifting capacity (meaning it can lift it then move forward) to 18,000,000 pounds! Now - does being able to lift and move forward with 18M pounds on your back correspond to being able to drag 18M pounds? If the surface was frictionless, I think it would, but it isn't. If I was still half an engineer, this would be an easy problem - but it's been too long and too many years in management has killed far too many brain cells...

Click to expand...

18,000,000 is hypothetical, and those articles are all over the place (all of that was based on Ares V, which seems to go greenlight/redlight every few months) - iirc the entire launch system is only around 5-6 million lbs (Saturn V, which is what the crawler was originally built to move iirc, was around 6.2 million lbs fully loaded). I don't know what the absolute limit of the platform is. But I'm not sure if that equates to pull strength - like sure, the bigger Super Duty trucks can carry upwards of a ton in their bed, but dragging that as dead-weight (especially on a high-friction surface, like dirt) is a lot tougher on them. I'm just thinking about, for example, the equipment that tows groundskeeping equipment (like those big rakes they use on baseball diamonds), or snowplows. The actual weight involved is relatively minor compared to something like GAWR or what the engine can put out, but it's still fairly hard on the rig.

The crawler also drives on a very precise, even (yes I know it goes up a hill, but it isn't climbing bumpy terrain), clean, etc track, and has additional motors that keep the load consistently leveled and straight, and all that jazz. It isn't driving in (essentially) mud.

Yeah, I think the crawler would probably drag the sled right off the track, but it would still do it at whatever 1.3 mph that it runs at. Just like I think a pull tractor could probably drag the shuttle platform (probably not standing up for launch, but lowered down like how the Russians dragged theirs on a train) around. I think it would just be massively inefficient for a tractor pull, because there's so much extra mass and bulk involved in the crawler (so that it can actually carry the launch system). Whereas an unlimited pull tractor is basically equivalent (if not bigger) in terms of overall power output, but will weigh (at most) 4 tons, not close to 3000. Then there's also the chance that it'd just bog down because it couldn't generate enough momentum to get moving - but I don't understand enough about drag to figure that out or not.

magick man said:

Never was into tractor pulls or Gravedigger type stuff, I've always been a speed freak. I can appreciate the engineering that goes into Monster trucks, bu the sport itself doesn't do much for me.

Click to expand...

I would've never guessed.

It seems that the Mustang the shop bought was a 70, not a 68. Way to read the title, guys. :rolleyes: The good news is, it was originally a Boss, though it's kinda hard to tell.



Okay, yeah, I can see how it could be hard to identify this...

Click to expand...

You could...push it across the finish line. Or tow it.

magick man said:

After not getting a definitive answer from McLaren on running E85 in the MP4, "it has not been fully tested with that fuel and we cannot guarantee its performance", yadda, yadda. I went ahead and filled it up to see what would happen. Well, nothing happened. That is to say I couldn't tell any difference between running it and 93 premium, in fact it ran like the 100oct fuel. According to the on-board system it looks like I'm getting a couple MPG less, but given the price and availability (I keep E85 in the tank here at home), it seems well worth it to me. I wouldn't say it will run like that with all E85 brands, some are pretty dodgy, but the Sunoco stuff is very good.

Also, even though it doesn't get noticed as much as the 458, which can be a good thing (cops), it does get quite a few compliments. A guy did ask "aren't you afraid it will get stolen?" and I said, "It's the only red McLaren within 500 miles, where will they hide?" Also, there's GPS tracking, dual alarm systems, and a pick-proof electromagnetic lock. (Yes, I ordered 2 extra fobs, just in case.)

Click to expand...

Sounds like any typical FFV - you lose some mpg, but its cheaper than premium or ultra (usually dramatically so), so unless you need maximum range it shouldn't be a problem. Hopefully it doesn't have issues down the line because of the E85. lol @ "will it get stolen" - sure, high profile custom cars may be targets, but like you said, where are they gonna hide a one-off like that? Just call into the local news station and give them a picture of the car and say it was stolen; good luck hiding it now!

magick man said:

Speaking of nutty stuff, the driver called and he'll be here in a couple hours with my car... Ugh, I was going to get a couple more hours sleep, but now I'm too excited to go back to bed.

Click to expand...

Pics. Lots of them.

I think it's interesting that you seem more excited by the car that was essentially an afterthought from the Saleen deal falling through. You seem more excited about the SuperBee than you were about the McLaren!

obobskivich said:

You could...push it across the finish line. Or tow it.

Click to expand...

Hey, we only paid a running Honda Nighthawk 750 for it (very pretty bike). It was a good deal.

Sounds like any typical FFV - you lose some mpg, but its cheaper than premium or ultra (usually dramatically so), so unless you need maximum range it shouldn't be a problem. Hopefully it doesn't have issues down the line because of the E85. lol @ "will it get stolen" - sure, high profile custom cars may be targets, but like you said, where are they gonna hide a one-off like that? Just call into the local news station and give them a picture of the car and say it was stolen; good luck hiding it now!
Pics. Lots of them.

Click to expand...

There shouldn't be any problems, the EFI system is designed for flex fuels. They didn't certify it because while running E85 it goes below their target efficiency to avoid the gas-guzzler tax (16 vs 18mpg average) and to stay within EU specs (they'd have to fork over large penalties due to not being compliant). I don't believe them for a moment when they say they haven't fully tested it, it simply doesn't meet the specification so they don't mention it. The same holds true for the new Merc S class (which uses the same system). I have confidence it'll be fine, and it doesn't void the warranty, so it's all good. What's astounding is that it drives better (more smoothly and comfortably) than any other car I own, any other I've ever driven. The 458, its main competition, is a good ride, very nice compared to other sports cars, but in comparison it feels like a hay wagon. I have a feeling that car is going to have a whole lot of miles on it, before all is said and done.

billybob_jcv said:

I think it's interesting that you seem more excited by the car that was essentially an afterthought from the Saleen deal falling through. You seem more excited about the SuperBee than you were about the McLaren!

Click to expand...

I dunno about that, I was going nuts for the Mac, there just wasn't a hell of a lot I could do about it. You order and you wait, and wait, and wait... The GT is intriguing because of the raw power, and the mythology around it, I'd never before been in a car that boasts such numbers. The Saleen was just an investment. Though I like the styling, it's never been a real object of desire for me. Despite its numbers, which are great, it isn't any faster than the Mac, and it's a lot more fragile and fussy, by all accounts.

Which gets to the meat of this. There's no other way to say it, so I'll spit it out, it broke the dyno. We were in the 3rd set of runs (run a few tests and then 3 runs and figure an average) when there was a really loud bang. I thought an axle had broken, but it was the dyno torque shaft. The machine is supposed to be able to handle 1000ft/lbs (the car was making 855lbs when this happened), but it's almost 8 years old. It can be fixed, at least, the tech is coming by to assess and repair it. Although it wasn't my fault, I feel responsible. It has broken before however, while testing an 850hp Chevelle SS (blown 454), but not as spectacularly (there was shrapnel scattered under the grate). At least my car wasn't damaged.

The car itself is wild, (Red=100oct, Green=93, and Blue is valet), WHP:



The valet mode actually works, and it not only works, it's efficient too. The on-board system is saying it's getting just shy of 24MPG, and since the car is so light and aerodynamic, 380hp is pretty strong (the 5k RPM limiter isn't an issue when poking around town, either). I didn't get to drive it much, out and about, but what little I did was nice. Comfy, very responsive, and when dialed in it's scary. The fit/finish and ride are outstanding (however entry and egress aren't as easy as with other butterfly setups), every bit as good as the 458. Also, with just casual testing on a clear stretch, 0-60 time is 2.5sec without really trying. More thoughts when I get more time with it.

Quote:

magick man said:

The car itself is wild, (Red=100oct, Green=93, and Blue is valet), WHP:



The valet mode actually works, and it not only works, it's efficient too. The on-board system is saying it's getting just shy of 24MPG, and since the car is so light and aerodynamic, 380hp is pretty strong (the 5k RPM limiter isn't an issue when poking around town, either). I didn't get to drive it much, out and about, but what little I did was nice. Comfy, very responsive, and when dialed in it's scary. The fit/finish and ride are outstanding (however entry and egress aren't as easy as with other butterfly setups), every bit as good as the 458. Also, with just casual testing on a clear stretch, 0-60 time is 2.5sec without really trying. More thoughts when I get more time with it.

Click to expand...

 
I'm assuming the red/green represent fuel octane rating? I didn't know fuel could cause that much of a swing in power.
 
And the valet mode in this car is essentially useless! 

I think it's valuable. I'm trying to be more Green (to an extent), and almost doubling fuel economy is a big deal, IMO.

Fuel makes a difference because higher octane allows for more boost, which means more compression. It's the difference between running 20psi and 30psi.

Quote:

magick man said:

I think it's valuable. I'm trying to be more Green (to an extent), and almost doubling fuel economy is a big deal, IMO.

Click to expand...

 
Your valet can still drag race with 380hp 
 
Quote:

magick man said:

Fuel makes a difference because higher octane allows for more boost, which means more compression. It's the difference between running 20psi and 30psi.

Click to expand...

 
Ok, now I understand. But then shouldn't higher octane rating should improve fuel efficiency?

Higher boost means more air and and more air means you can dump in more fuel to get the same fuel/air ratio. And that means more *bang* when it is ignited. Higher boost *can* be more efficient, but not if you keep your foot in the throttle!

The efficiency comes from comparing two engines of equal horsepower that have different levels of boost. The lower boost car has to make up for the lack of additional air somehow - usually by being a bigger displacement, which means it will probably need to burn more fuel to move the bigger pistons or longer stroke.

Our 530i gets better gas mileage when burning premium (and that's what BMW says is required). I assume that's because the ECU needs to make adjustments that are less than optimal to keep the car from pinging.

I think "broke the dyno" is as good a measurement as any of the thing's raw power. Should get a t-shirt made, something like "I broke the dyno, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt!"

And yeah, I'm guessing you're probably spot-on with the FFV thing regarding why they won't "certify" it - I was just commenting on the reduced fuel economy more than anything else. But again, cheaper gas (which is arguably more sustainable) and slightly reduced economy; yeah that's a fair trade-off (but of course the regulators won't see E85 vs petrol, they just see "low mpg - no good" and go back to squawking). So question on the Mac - will it stand up to "conventional" 20k/yr driving? Or will you run into more nightmares than you'd like to think about doing that to it?

Oh, I don't drive that much, maybe 12k, tops. The McLaren test mules have topped a million miles each, in conditions varying from arctic to tropical. They claim, that if properly maintained, any MP4 should be able to do the same.


At the Mecum auction:

- 1987 Grand National
- 10/10 condition
- Original shipping wrapper still on interior
- Original window sticker still on window
- 262 original miles
- Original paperwork

Mother of God... :eek:


BTW, massive ice storm here today, nasty stuff.

magick man said:

Oh, I don't drive that much, maybe 12k, tops. The McLaren test mules have topped a million miles each, in conditions varying from arctic to tropical. They claim, that if properly maintained, any MP4 should be able to do the same.


At the Mecum auction:

- 1987 Grand National
- 10/10 condition
- Original shipping wrapper still on interior
- Original window sticker still on window
- 262 original miles
- Original paperwork

Mother of God... :eek:

Click to expand...

So how much do they want for this car?

obobskivich said:

So how much do they want for this car?

Click to expand...

No idea, I'm almost afraid to call and find out. Want me to?

---------------------

Bringing sexy back...





[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gOHvDP_vCs[/VIDEO]



(My only gripe is the crappy Heffner decals that had small bubbles under them, I peeled `em off. I'll get the "H"s properly painted on later, and maybe "Bumble Bee" under the black side stripes, near the back wheels.)

magick man said:

No idea, I'm almost afraid to call and find out. Want me to?

Click to expand...

It's probably hilarious - so why not.

I've seen GT350s and Corvettes as similar "finds" go in the past for absolutely hilarious sums, and people always seem to ignore that letting a car just sit in a warehouse/storage unit/etc for >20 years without ever turning it over (or even worse, letting it idle so the engine has tons of run hours but doesn't show it in mileage), is usually a recipe for problems down the line.

Like the pics - you need a family shot though, or at least the GT, Mac, NSX, and 458 all in one.


And what stickers? (or are they already peeled off in those shots?).

They were those clear stickers that you need to smooth out a certain way or you'll see bubbles under them. These weren't, and they looked a little tacky, so I removed them. $160,000 worth of upgrades and they give you cheap, plastic decals? Seriously? I sent Jason an email with some good-natured ribbing, we'll see how he takes it.


Decal:

billybob_jcv said:

Higher boost means more air and and more air means you can dump in more fuel to get the same fuel/air ratio. And that means more *bang* when it is ignited. Higher boost *can* be more efficient, but not if you keep your foot in the throttle!

The efficiency comes from comparing two engines of equal horsepower that have different levels of boost. The lower boost car has to make up for the lack of additional air somehow - usually by being a bigger displacement, which means it will probably need to burn more fuel to move the bigger pistons or longer stroke.

Our 530i gets better gas mileage when burning premium (and that's what BMW says is required). I assume that's because the ECU needs to make adjustments that are less than optimal to keep the car from pinging.

Click to expand...

That's correct. The computer will adjust the timing to avoid knock, but in doing so it retards power, lowering efficiency in the process. The more compression, the higher chance for knock with low octane fuel. High octane fuels aren't "more powerful", they're just more resistant to pre-ignition, keeping the knock sensors from interfering with power delivery. Now, a lot of additives are added to race fuels, making them better cleaners, but they aren't any more combustible.

Yeah I'd remove those decals too. That's as annoying as the cling decals on new tvs or receivers.