• Welcome to Mustang7G!

    If you're joining us from Mustang6G, then you may already have an account here!

    As long as you were registered on Mustang6G as of March 10, 2021 or earlier, then you can simply login here with the same username and password!

What will it take to save the V8 Mustang?

shogun32

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Threads
32
Messages
4,316
Reaction score
886
Location
Northern VA
Vehicle(s)
2019 GT+PP, SS+1LE, 2020 F150
Within the next 10 years, we will have the ability to make a 1000 mile range vehicle that can recharge 60 percent of that within 20 minutes. 600 miles in 20 minutes or 300 miles in 10 minutes? Yes thank you!
and 10 years from now it'll still be 10 years in the future. Advancements in batt tech are glacial and the easy gains have already been found. Yes there are quite a few neato ideas being pumped out there promising the moon in search of investment dollars, but success in a lab or miniature demonstration does not mean it can scale or do so economically. We use ICE because for all it's warts nothing else comes remotely close.

EV =~ communism. it sounds good in academia, it claims to "solve" all the vexing problems of society, and yet it fails spectacularly every time it's tried. and it's been tried and tried again by ever more zealous acolytes and believers.

I'm NOT saying EV won't continue to expand for a time. But it won't succeed because it simply can't.
Sponsored

 

Stonehauler

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Threads
3
Messages
255
Reaction score
88
Location
Delaware
Vehicle(s)
F350, 550i
Now you are sounding like a Star Citizen backer (release is always 2 years away).

Seriously, battery tech is advancing quite rapidly. To be frank, battery tech has been in an infancy stage for the better part of a century (or more) until recently. Lead Acid batteries were all that we needed, and you could either get a store brand AAA, or a premium AA that lasted a bit longer before you threw them away. Then came rechargeable, but even those were not much better. Even for massive scale UPS systems, you just took a bunch of deep cycles and hooked them together. No-one was really concerned with energy density because there was no need for it.

the past decade or two has been the start of the market for energy dense batteries. For the first time in history, we are starting to research into materials that allow for massive amounts of storage, and not just vehicles, it's also for the Electric Grid. This means that there is now funding available for research into batteries that not only have high energy densities, but also new ways to make them so that they are cheaper, lighter, safer and able to be mass produced.

For example, if the information I am seeing is accurate, the Solid State Battery that Toyota developed has 2.5 more energy density than the standard Lithium Ion battery of today. This means for the same battery mass, a car that could go 300 miles on a single charge can now go 750 miles. It's also safer in that it it won't catch fire (or at least, won't catch fire nearly as easily as today's batteries do)

There are also other battery technologies out there that are experimenting with not only solid state, but with different materials that are much less expensive and damaging to the environment. Not all of those will pan out, but now that there is money going into this, it's almost akin to the horsepower wars of the late 90s to today, with money going into development that made gas engine cars much more fuel efficient and powerful.

The biggest challenges we will face is putting in the power needed to support this. This will mean more power plants and more transmission lines. You might even need higher voltages supplied to your house so that you can install a 500V charging line (440 V probably). You will also need to change over all those gas stations to the new charging machines. You will have to figure out a way to tax that power to pay for the roads. But again, market forces will take care of that too. More and more stations are starting to install charging stations, and you can bet that more charging spots will show up at parking lots/malls/other destinations too. Of course, as the ability to recharge gets faster, even those will probably go away. Your choices will be a charging station and your home. Heck, if the right tech comes along, it might not be long before you just do a battery swap. Pull in, pull up to the machine, and it automatically swaps battery packs and moves your old one to a charging station where it will charged, tested, and then it's ready to be put in another car. Again though, market forces will take care of this because as more EVs get out there, it makes sense for more people to put in charging points for those EVs to attract customers.
 

IceGamer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2021
Threads
15
Messages
433
Reaction score
419
Location
Germany
Vehicle(s)
BMW G20 330d xdrive
and 10 years from now it'll still be 10 years in the future. Advancements in batt tech are glacial and the easy gains have already been found. Yes there are quite a few neato ideas being pumped out there promising the moon in search of investment dollars, but success in a lab or miniature demonstration does not mean it can scale or do so economically. We use ICE because for all it's warts nothing else comes remotely close.

EV =~ communism. it sounds good in academia, it claims to "solve" all the vexing problems of society, and yet it fails spectacularly every time it's tried. and it's been tried and tried again by ever more zealous acolytes and believers.

I'm NOT saying EV won't continue to expand for a time. But it won't succeed because it simply can't.
I don’t know why there are so many people out there like you, denying reality. EVs have already made more progress than ICEs in the same amount of time and we are just at the beginning. No, not all problems will be solved within 5-10 years and EVs aren’t more environmental friendly than ICE per se.

However, calling EV communism is like saying Trump won the election
 No, he didn’t and EV’s are not communism. Are they supported by the government? Yes, absolutely. Do they get subsidies ICE cars don’t get? Yes. But let’s not talk into political decision here – let’s talk about some facts:
The amount of energy that it takes in order to get an ICE car moving is far greater than the amount of energy an EV needs. That’s why hydrogen is a dead end. It simply doesn’t add up. It’s cheaper and more economical to use an EV. Now, does that account for all occasions? Of course not. EVs are superior at short distances, city driving and acceleration. Everyone whose driving profile has roughly these requirements is a fit for an EV. If said person would also have the ability to charge the car at home it really is a no brainer.
That’s already a good start for a new technology
 What’s left? Long distances and the time it takes to recharge a car if you cannot charge it at home. In Germany top speed is also an issue but let’s focus on the rest of the world. All these things will improve in the next decade and counting. Just look at a Tesla from 2012. How fast could that car be charged and how fast can EVs charge right now? An EV6 GT with roughly 600hp can recharge from 10-80% in 18 minutes and has a range of ~530km
 That’s not perfect but a major improvement within 10 years.
EVs will succeed simply because they are the better choice for the majority of people. Just don’t assume that EVs are for everyone or that they will replace and “repair” everything. They won’t and no one is assuming that. They will not replace enthusiast cars within the next 10-15 years and they might not be able to do 1000 miles without a recharge but where are the enthusiast ICE cars that have 600+hp, offer a great driving experience and do the 1000 miles without refilling? Our Mustangs certainly don’t do 400 miles without refilling


Getting back to the topic:
EVs are here to stay and so will the V8. However, most ICEs will be replaced by EVs. V8s are already a niche product and will be even more so in the future. I do suspect however, that the V8 will stay up until 2040 or even longer. There will be enough people willing to spend a fortune on an engine that once was nothing special. Since ICEs, especially V8s, offer a very unique driving experience they will find customers as long as they are allowed to be sold.
 

shogun32

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Threads
32
Messages
4,316
Reaction score
886
Location
Northern VA
Vehicle(s)
2019 GT+PP, SS+1LE, 2020 F150
Toyota developed has 2.5 more energy density than the standard Lithium Ion battery of today
and good for them.
Although the solid-state lithium-metal design has long been considered the grand prize for batteries, owing to its high capacity and energy density, the technology also has poor stability — an issue that's plagued the battery's path to commercialization for decades,
note carefully the emphasis. The material science has been LONG known, but there are intractable problems that have no known solution. There is absolutely no guarentee that throwing billions at a scientific pursuit will necessarily result in success. Ask Moderna. They've been at this MRNA thing for 20 years and STILL CONTINUE to fail spectacularly at it.

Golf carts are EV because the use-case fits. Your hunting/trail buggy is ICE because EV makes absolutely no sense at all. Sure the inner-city rent-a-car-by-the-hour market can and will likely embrace EV. Metro-area taxi service and last-mile package delivery (Fedex/Ups/Amazon) could move to EV and possibly make a business case for it. We'll see esp. with Fedex how badly the EV experiment bites them in the ass.

I also agree Mustang V8 will basically disappear. The only reason it exists is because of the F150 work truck fleet.

LG and UCSD have some stuff cooking with silicon-based solid, but they optimistically guess commercial viability around 2025 and maybe some penetration by 2030 but for grid applications, not automotive.

a laboratory prototype delivered 500 charge and discharge cycles with 80% capacity retention at room temperature. In contrast, previous studies with silicon anodes usually only achieved roughly 100 stable cycles.
they need to get to 1000 cycles for realistic EV use or the packs need to be dirt-cheap to justify being replaced at short intervals (ie. 3-5 years)
 
Last edited:

analogman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Threads
0
Messages
106
Reaction score
75
Location
Massachusetts
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang GT PP
The scientific data on climate change are overwhelming. We need to save our planet and do whatever we can to combat climate change. After all, this is the only planet we have, so not killing it - and ourselves in the process - seems like a really good idea. The horrific forest fires on the west coast of the past few years are yet another example of what we will have more of in the future if we don’t do something.

But no matter how much some people wish it were true and how often they might say it, and no matter how trendy electric cars are right now, a Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) is not on its face necessarily ‘environmentally friendly’. The hard facts are that it primarily depends on how the electricity is generated to charge the EV.

Electricity is not ‘free’. It doesn’t just come out of a wall socket on its own. Some other primary energy source must be used to generate the electricity. Electricity is a way to transmit and transfer energy. It’s not an ‘energy source’ on its own. Most excitement about BEVs ignores this.

The fundamental problem is that right now, fossil fuels still provide about 63% of the electricity generated in the US, with nuclear an additional 19%. There are significant regional differences, but overall only about 11% of US electric power is generated from renewable sources:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

A BEV makes more sense in a place like Oregon that gets 70% of its electricity from ‘clean’ sources (hydro and wind). California, wiser minds than mine would have to do the math. The state gets about 33% of its electricity from renewables.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-repo...ty-data/2020-total-system-electric-generation

So it makes perfect sense if you’re one of those people who’s electricity from the wall socket comes from renewables, or your own independent photovoltaic solar panels. But not so much in Minnesota that is heavily dependent on coal and natural gas, or the country at large.

California gets about 1/3 its electricity from renewable sources, but also about 2/3 from fossil fuels, mostly natural gas. It might make sense for California to push for BEVs, since hopefully more than 1/3 of their electricity will come from renewables by the 2035 timeline. But that’s not necessarily the case for the rest of the country.

Globally, China currently gets 60% of its electricity from fossil fuel, mostly coal, which changes the BEV calculation there. Shockingly, Japan is building 22 new coal powered electric generating plants, which together will release about as much CO2 as all the cars sold in the US:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/climate/japan-coal-fukushima.html

As a result, in aggregate BEVs essentially have a ‘long tailpipe’ to whatever form of primary energy was used to generate the electricity. A report in Scientific American estimated that a Nissan Leaf and Toyota Prius both produce on average about 200 grams of CO2 per mile (though it would be about 100 grams/mile CO2 in California, and 300 grams/mile CO2 in Minnesota):

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/

There is also a fundamental problem with how BEVs are promoted and the resulting perception of their ‘environmental friendliness’. The way MPGe numbers used for BEVs are calculated assume 100% efficiency in converting fossil fuel to electricity. This violates the laws of thermodynamics. In actuality, only 30-40% of the energy contained in fossil fuels can be converted into electricity in any thermal process (though newer combined cycle natural gas power plants can reach 50%). That means about 2/3 of the energy is wasted (plus about 10% lost in transmission). This has been widely discussed and reported:

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/mpg-for-electric-cars/

https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~radovic/Chapter4.pdf

https://www.forbes.com/sites/warren...-electric-vehicle-mileage-fraud/#54dc4b4929de

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/67645.pdf

With only about 30-35% of the energy contained in fossil fuel actually converted into usable electricity, this means that to put 85 kWh of electric charge into a BEV requires 269 kWh of fossil fuel or nuclear energy. Thus, a Nissan Leaf that is advertised with ’99 MPGe’ in an apples-to-apples comparison is actually getting the equivalent of 28-36 real world MPG. Not bad, but certainly significantly different than what the flawed MPGe number suggests, and objectively not much better than a modern ICE car.

When financial subsidies are taken into consideration, the picture gets murkier (though of course multi-millionaire Tesla buyers enjoy getting unneeded discounts on their purchases):

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/05/15/are-electric-cars-worse-for-the-environment-000660

The calculation becomes even less favorable when taking into account the environmental impacts of lithium and rare Earth metal mining, battery disposal at end of life, etc.

Nuclear fission energy is also not the answer. Nuclear energy (being a thermal process) is also about 30% efficient in converting the heat released by the fission of uranium into electricity. Nuclear power generates 19% of the electricity in the US and does not directly generate carbon emissions. However, mining and processing of uranium requires massive amounts of energy, impacts water supplies, as well as the thorny problem of disposing of nuclear waste (spent fuel), so nuclear fission might not be the best option for increased electric power in the future (fusion is a completely different and more promising story, but unfortunately we’re just not there yet).

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es702249v

Of course the situation would be completely different IF electricity were predominantly generated from renewable sources (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, etc.). But at present, only 11% of electricity in the US comes from renewable sources. Hydro generates an additional 7% but has its own issues, including the environmental impacts of flooding regions when dams are built, questions about the future reliability of hydro power because of climate change, and the fact that it’s already fully developed in the US with little expansion ability.

Like most things in life, the solution is going to be complicated, and not simply buying more electric cars. At its core, a fundamental need is to change the US, and world, electric generating grid to renewable sources. That will take a lot of money. Just for the US it would cost over $5 trillion (let’s assume a nice even $10 trillion with the inefficiencies, corruption, bureaucracy, inflation, and pork in our system):

https://www.renewableenergyworld.co...lace-where-should-infrastructure-spending-go/

Especially in the new coronavirus reality, with the world likely heading into several years of economic difficulties, and the US having to deal with trillions of dollars already spent on ‘economic recovery’, it’s hard to see where and when the money could come from to convert to renewable sources.

So unfortunately, the bottom line is that with the current US electric energy grid, one might be better off simply burning fossil fuel directly rather than converting it into electricity to then power a BEV. As much as it might sting to some people the think about it, in many areas of the country, and world, a BEV essentially just has a ‘long tailpipe’ back to whatever power plant is generating the electricity – which more often than not is still fossil-fuel powered. It still comes back to having to change the US electric grid and how electricity is generated. Unfortunately, we are not going to save our planet one Nissan Leaf at a time. Until then, we’re just kidding ourselves with artificial and inaccurate ‘MPGe’ numbers that might make some people feel good, but don’t reflect reality.

If we really want to save the planet - and ourselves - we need political leaders with the courage, wisdom, and willingness to make the massive financial investments needed to create an electric power grid fueled by renewables such as solar, wind, and tidal sources. With the past administration’s actions of cutting corporate taxes and reducing government revenues, the deep hole we’re in because of the pandemic and the trillions already spent and yet to be spent to dig us out, and the increasingly short-term thinking by private companies focused on instant profits, it’s hard to see where all the money will come from without some dramatic changes.

Ultimately, we will have to pay for it. There is no such thing as ‘government’ money. It’s our money, paid in the form of taxes, and entrusted to the government to hopefully do things with it for the good of all (yeah, right
). One way or another, whether through higher taxes or higher energy costs (if it’s left to the utility companies to do it), we will have to pay for converting the power grid to renewables. We regularly see how much a lot of people in this country love the idea of paying higher taxes, so that will sail right through without a hitch.

Bottom line, right now BEVs and this initiative might make sense for California, with 1/3 of their electricity coming from renewable sources and hopefully more by the 2035 mandate. But in general, wishful thinking about BEVs doesn’t change the facts that they don’t really make sense yet for the country or world as a whole as long as the electric grid is primarily generated by fossil and nuclear fuels.
 


DeluxeStang

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2021
Threads
14
Messages
999
Reaction score
1,233
Location
Utah
Vehicle(s)
Explorer
fixed it for you. If you don't know about the unmitigated fraud and cherry-picking to serve the pre-conceived narrative, you haven't been paying attention.
What is your opinion on climate change and the current trend of global temperature averages increasing every year?
 

Hack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Threads
13
Messages
9,052
Reaction score
374
Location
Minneapolis
Vehicle(s)
Mustang, Camaro
I can't speak for all Mustang enthusiasts, but for me the V8 engine is pretty much the core of this car. The way the V8 engine sounds, the way it feels when you rev through the RPM band, the way it looks when you pop the hood, its perfect marriage with a manual transmission, the ability to dream about mixing/matching different custom engine parts: for me, all these elements are at the heart of the Mustang experience.
- 407cid
What will it take to save the V8? There's not much that can be done other than engine swaps from approved vehicles such as F250s. Possibly we will have to move to China in order to get some freedom. :wink: I'm sure they will be burning loads of gas for many, many years.

My plan is to vote with $$. I realize it won't stop things, but I'm just not going to buy a vehicle I don't like.

fixed it for you. If you don't know about the unmitigated fraud and cherry-picking to serve the pre-conceived narrative, you haven't been paying attention.
I agree with this. Most of the lies are about magnitude, though. Something is happening, but it will never amount to much - isn't a statement that will excite people and get them to back your cause.
 

shogun32

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Threads
32
Messages
4,316
Reaction score
886
Location
Northern VA
Vehicle(s)
2019 GT+PP, SS+1LE, 2020 F150
What is your opinion on climate change and the current trend of global temperature averages increasing every year?
when your observation stations have major confounding/distortions the data is polluted to the point of uselessness. Every single pronouncement of the watermelons (green on outside, communist on inside) for 50+ years has been laughably wrong. Remember how there was supposed to be no/massive ice disappearance and the eco-weenie group had to be air-lifted off their ship because it was stuck in "this can not be" ice sheets?

I'm not at all opposed to "common sense" ecologic stewardship and adopting economically/technologically viable pollution management. But NOBODY has proven that human activity is a significant contributor to the so-called 'warming' err 'change'. Nor has anybody actually PROVEN CO2 is harmful at todays let alone vastly higher historical values, or that CFC et. al. were actually in any way really a problem - nee the ozone hole "scare".

On the other hand I do not think we should be condoning Nuclear cooling-tower runoff to heat-pollute the waterways such that the ambient temp is 3 std deviations higher than naturally occurring. I don't agree with just flaring NatGas instead of collecting it for productive use - except the economic value of the gas is far less than the cost to collect it. Should we require that action anyway? Maybe so or at least burn it better so it generates far less particulates perhaps.

When your so-called weather models can't even fit historical facts the model is beyond worthless. When your scientific method is a total farce just from reading the paper, you can't possibly expect us to take you seriously. If you fail again and again to make a cogent argument and actually prove your point, you are no worth listening to.

1 little volcano obliterates the "effect" humans have. China+India alone dwarf the ecological "damage" of the rest of the world combined. Climate warming/cooling/change is nothing but a politically driven scam intended to disrupt and curtail economic activity, and force prosperous/advanced countries to subsidize failed/inefficient countries. The USA has taken some heinous acts in the past (eg. superfund sites). But chasing boogie-men is not a productive use of time/money/intellect.

Just last week(?) a paper came out that suggested clean air was causing more hurricane formation. Hurricanes cause how much loss of life and property every year? I guess the solution is we should go back to polluting some more to keep hurricane formation in check? :)

I will burn as much high test fuel as I can in my 2.3, 3.5tt, and 5.0 so as to emit abundant C02 for my favorite buds- the trees and plants to feast upon and grow green and strong. The modern marvels of FI, catalytic converters and so forth allow me to do so without emitting 60's/70's style fumes that would kill anyone unlucky enough to be standing around the exhaust.
 
Last edited:

BoostRabbitGT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Threads
6
Messages
298
Reaction score
139
Location
Utah
Vehicle(s)
'19 Mustang EcoBoost
I'm still confused whether they're banning the SALE of ICE vehicles after 2035 or outlawing all ICE vehicles from being driven ENTIRELY after 2035. Is it one or the other, or both?

The only way I can think of saving the V8 post-ban would be (as much as I'd think this would be hated) to pipe in artificial sound. Keep the spaceship-sounding stuff for the Mach-E but create sound toggles like the Voodoo/4.6/Coyote and such for the traditional coupes and other potential car variants. Even then though it just isn't the same. And I really doubt anyone would want to make artificial gear change effects to coincide with the artificial sounds.

Good question by the OP though. I wish I had a better answer.
 

shogun32

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Threads
32
Messages
4,316
Reaction score
886
Location
Northern VA
Vehicle(s)
2019 GT+PP, SS+1LE, 2020 F150
sale. the operation of ICE has a 20 year tail on it. Like all idiotic gov't pronouncements the 2035 'ban' will fade into the mist.
 

Chadillac

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Threads
1
Messages
93
Reaction score
34
Location
Between the Hedges, Georgia
Vehicle(s)
'96 Mustang GT, '73 El Camino, '12 Mazdaspeed3
I don’t really think anything will save the V8 or ICE of any displacement for that matter.
*Not implying EVs are the end all, be all*
If further alternative fuel progress had been made to this point I think ICE would stick around. But we’re now looking beyond alternative fuel to alternative engines. IMO a v8 is not a prerequisite for a Mustang anyway. Ford could make the halo trim a TT v6 and it would still sell.
 

Ruin

Scouts Out!
Joined
Mar 2, 2014
Threads
1
Messages
287
Reaction score
34
Location
WNC
Website
www.froglevelbrewing.com
Vehicle(s)
15: GT/PP - TY
As long as there are people willing to buy ICE vehicles at a premium they will be built.

Most passenger vehicles will go EV (long overdue), but the performance/hobby/enthusiast sector will always have ICE options. And thanks to the petrodollar you can rest easy knowing the fossil fuels will remain available for the foreseeable future.

But, you’re going to have to pay for it. The days of ~$35k 450hp+ muscle cars are likely ending, but the whole industry will not die off - especially as long as wealthy people have billions of dollars worth of ICE collector cars out there they want to enjoy and profit from. ICE performance vehicles will simply become toys of the wealthy.
 

Ruin

Scouts Out!
Joined
Mar 2, 2014
Threads
1
Messages
287
Reaction score
34
Location
WNC
Website
www.froglevelbrewing.com
Vehicle(s)
15: GT/PP - TY

going "EV" isn't "green" and it's far from being any improvement over the last 100+ years of the ICE automobile. People who think "EV's are it" have their heads stuck up their asses.
I’m afraid you’ve been given bad info there.

EVs are by far and away more green than FF powered vehicles at every level of production. This article sources several studies, including a very recent one from Yale, that talks about this.

EVs are coming, they’re the future, and they are absolutely more environmentally friendly than ICE vehicles.

Yale School of Environment did a pretty sweeping study about this. It’s easy to find for anyone who wants facts over scare-tactics.
 
Last edited:

analogman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Threads
0
Messages
106
Reaction score
75
Location
Massachusetts
Vehicle(s)
2015 Mustang GT PP
 




Top