Mission Impossible: Taming the Giants (Excursion/Hummer modding)

[cfg83]

Silveredwings -

Originally Posted by Silveredwings

johnpr is right about the HMMMMV. Even the fuel tank is plastic. As far as reducing their FE, the Army was toying with a hybrid system that could be used in EV mode for stealth.

I heard that they were very interested in fuel cells because the water byproduct could be used by the GIs.

CarloSW2

[diesel_john]

watching TV tonight i can't believe Cadillac is still bragging how big their SUV is. They just don't get it. They are going to come up with the short end of the stick this time.

[johnpr]

if i remember correct, the most promising replacement was designed by international but i could be mistaken, i stopped following it a little while ago so i would be verry interested to hear what you find

[Red]

HMMWV are built light to be air lifted. I believe the non armored versions has a fiberglass body, soft doors and top.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Getting a H2 to 19 MPG would be nothing to sneeze at.

True, but would this really capture the attention of the type of person who already drives or would like to drive an H2 or Excursion? And would they then care enough to do anything similar?

[Big Dave]

I spend my time with a foot in either camp – eco-modders and pickup/SUV types.

For the pickup types I get a lot of the guff that the Toyota types put on Bondo’s excellent bed cap. I get told my truck looks “gay” and that it cannot tow (I scotched that with a youtube of me pulling a Bobcat trailer up Sandstone Mountain in WV). Even personal attacks. I don’t care. I also stick my nose into political sites so I have a hide as thick as the belt armor on an Iowa-class battleship.

Posts #2,3,4, and 6 exhibit the very same attitude from the other direction.

Excursions and H2 sell for a reason. Somebody has a mission for them. You gotta face facts – not everyone wants any part of a 60 MPG car. Until they build one a 6’10” man can get into without a lot of gymnastics, I don’t want one either.

You make fleet progress by making all the cars more efficient, not just a handful of imports. The US fleet average is 22 MPG. If you could improve it 50% you now have a very efficient 33 MPG and a 33% reduction in fuel usage nationwide.

[Big Dave]

The HMMV is not a good candidate because of its exotic drive train. It has three Torsen differentials and simply has to have a loose torque converter to dampen all the torsional vibration driving a triple-Torsen vehicle over rough terrain would generate.

The B52 pictures are of B-52s in a edge-of-envelope test. You always do such tests with the engines running very rich so if somethiong goes wrong you can get a quick engine restart. Actually the synthetic jet fuel runs very cleanly compared to dino-JP-5. The picture is a politically motivated cheap shot.

[tasdrouille]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

[...]You make fleet progress by making all the cars more efficient, not just a handful of imports.[...]

I totally agree. The best way to make the fleet more efficient is to stop making the least efficient vehicles.

I'm not against gas guzzlers. If you need your big truck to haul stuff around all the time then fine. But people sitting in rush hour traffic going to the office in their Excursion are plain stupid.

[LostCause]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

The B52 pictures are of B-52s in a edge-of-envelope test. You always do such tests with the engines running very rich so if somethiong goes wrong you can get a quick engine restart. Actually the synthetic jet fuel runs very cleanly compared to dino-JP-5. The picture is a politically motivated cheap shot.

You are right, but the exhaust trails in normal operation are still pretty significant during takeoff and landing...especially compared to modern-day high-bypass turbofan aircraft. 50's technology still going strong...

Originally Posted by johnpr

if i remember correct, the most promising replacement was designed by international but i could be mistaken, i stopped following it a little while ago so i would be verry interested to hear what you find

Short-term replacement (i.e. current HMMWV's replacements):

Force Protection Cougar


International MaxxPro


Long-term replacement:

About a million candidates still in the running. It looks like the HMMWV isn't getting one replacement, but a whole family of replacements...ranging from golf-cart sized vehicles to 9 passenger trucks.

Apparently two programs exist: the FTTS (future truck transport system) and JLTV (joint light tactical vehicle). The FTTS seems to be all encompassing and focused on overseeing the development of a utility vehicle and a multi-purpose vehicle. The JLTV is a venture between the army and marines to develop a family (5+ vehicles) to replace the HMMWV. It seems to be using input from the FTTS, but is otherwise independent. The JLTV may have stalled (?) and might be going through DoD review at the moment. Anyways, some candidates, out of the million out there. All taken from somewhere on the internet...

Armored Gold-cart


Raytheon's Rock-crawler


Lockheed Martin's Hummer-look-a-like


CTV


Textron's Hybrid Hummer


Millenworks LUV


Closest thing to a jeep I've yet seen


I vote for the golf-cart. They all look like they'd be elephants on the battlefield...a hummer must be a pain to drive in the streets of LA, imagine driving one of those things in the streets of Iraq. (Armored) Fish in a barrel.

- LostCause

[Big Dave]

That dude doesn't look any too comfortable in that car. People will do anything for a freebie.

What makes you think the B-52 wasn't fitted with high-bypass turbofans long ago. They no longer have to be fast high-altitude bombers. 400 MPH suffices nicely for the B-52.

I wonder if any of these HMMV replacements can keep up with moble battle formations the way the HMMV did?