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

[H4MM3R]

Originally Posted by 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.

It helps with lubrication too.

[Gone4]

Originally Posted by LostCause

I think it's an interesting mental exercise. Maybe not for a grocery-getting 19mpg Excursion, but for their close cousin: the Humvee...the evil that started it all...

How could Humvees be modified to return better mileage. I bet 90% of the time they are just tooling around the desert, with the rest spent smashing down gates and outrunning terrorist potshots. I believe the military would be heavily interested in fuel efficiency...it lessens the logistics of supply convoys.

I'm thinking high psi tires, overdrive transmission, regeared axles, TDI (if it isn't already implemented), curved body panels (which would probably help deflect bullets/shrapnel), and a severe weight cutting regimen (kevlar instead of steel?)...

- LostCause

These things need to be cheap, and that's what steel is. All the great new military tech takes sometimes decades to be available to more than a few units. My university is primarily a military university, and I know many people who served entire tours in Iraq and especially Afghanistan and never had kevlar body armor so we can't expect them to afford it for vehicles.

Besides the steel armor needs to take projectiles much larger than the handgun variety Some JHP bullets out of a high caliber rifle will obliterate kevlar. The bigger threats tend to be rpg's and ied's.

Re-gearing the military vehicles isn't an option usually. They need to haul artillery and things all the time and they usually have a top speed geared to 50 mph, give or take 5 mph.

As a side note my senior project is developing a system to remotely control these things in a convoy in radio denied areas, just so the front one can be destroyed without people in it, by ambushes and ied's. My part is merely the cable tension device for the fiber line so it doesn't hit the ground or become so tight it breaks while the electric motor takes its time to respond.

[Who]

Meanwhile, up in the great white north, Canada has replaced its VW TDI powered Bombardier built Iltis with the big Mercedes G-Wagons...

[DifferentPointofView]

Warthog anyone?





I don't think we can get rid of Big vehicles, because there will always be big people, and big jobs to be had. But we can improve the mileage of the large ones, and not just introduce new small vehicles. Doing both will benefit everyone.

[LostCause]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

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.

In the late 50's, early 60's they were fitted with low-bypass turbofans.

Low-bypass Turbofan


Most modern-day commerical airliners and military transports use high-bypass turbofans for increased fuel-efficiency.

High-bypass turbofan


I suppose they were never upgraded for cost and size issues. The B52 essentially operates like a normal airliner (high-altitude, subsonic, long-range).
Sometimes I wonder why they keep them on. I don't know the last time carpet bombing was used, but there must be a reason. $$$?

Originally Posted by genkreton

As a side note my senior project is developing a system to remotely control these things in a convoy in radio denied areas, just so the front one can be destroyed without people in it, by ambushes and ied's. My part is merely the cable tension device for the fiber line so it doesn't hit the ground or become so tight it breaks while the electric motor takes its time to respond.

Good points about the HMMWV issue. That's cool you get to work on military technology, but why the fiber optic cable? Won't the terrorist know which vehicle is remote control... I was thinking infrared, but I guess that won't work in a sandstorm. Lastly, won't terrorists get wise to the fact that the front vehicle is a decoy? I wouldn't want to be in humvee #2...

- LostCause

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by LostCause

Sometimes I wonder why they keep them on. I don't know the last time carpet bombing was used, but there must be a reason. $$$?
LostCause

They were used in Afghanistan against the Taliban. There highly efficient to bomb the piss out of someone that cant fight back against airpower.

[ankit]

Originally Posted by DifferentPointofView

Warthog anyone?
I don't think we can get rid of Big vehicles, because there will always be big people, and big jobs to be had. But we can improve the mileage of the large ones, and not just introduce new small vehicles. Doing both will benefit everyone.

There will always be big people but, I hate it when I see a normal sized soccer mom driving a tank (what I call H2's, Expeditions, Escalade's, Tahoe's, etc) but they aren't even hauling around anyone. The most some ever have is their two kids, so all three including the mother would fit in a family sedan or so. Heck, even the father with the children and mother would fit in a family sedan. Why buy a tank if you aren't super tall (tall just doesn't cut it because I think most tall men could comfortably fit in a sedan) and are just going to be driving around town until it's time to pick up the kids?

/rant sorry. Wowza this thread went off topic.

[DifferentPointofView]

yea. I know. But it also makes me think of myself and then I feel bad but at least I don't just randomly drive around. and I get a lot better mpg's than most who drive the same thing around.

[johnpr]

Originally Posted by ankit

There will always be big people but, I hate it when I see a normal sized soccer mom driving a tank (what I call H2's, Expeditions, Escalade's, Tahoe's, etc) but they aren't even hauling around anyone. The most some ever have is their two kids, so all three including the mother would fit in a family sedan or so. Heck, even the father with the children and mother would fit in a family sedan. Why buy a tank if you aren't super tall (tall just doesn't cut it because I think most tall men could comfortably fit in a sedan) and are just going to be driving around town until it's time to pick up the kids?

/rant sorry. Wowza this thread went off topic.

i dont want to dispute what you are saying, you are definately right that most people cant claim size as a reason for driving a big vehicle. in fact my wife has a friend who is 5'2" she drove around in a huge pickup truck and it was amusing to see. but as for the tall men in sedans, I am 6'3" which i know is not giant by any means but i have a hard time fitting in compact cars, I have quite a few examples to back this up,
1) when i was still in the service i was looking for a car which was sporty and decent on fuel (20ish is decent to me, low for most on this site but eh whatever) i looked at a prelude and was set on buying it, it was standard transmission and very good condition. i went to test drive and didn't fit comfortably, with the seat all the way back my knees hit the dash and i was unable to shift and my head was against the roof. i was very disappointed and ended up buying the trans am instead which has vastly superior seating adjustment.

2) my mother in laws olds alero with 6 way adjustable seats (i drive this a couple times a month rather uncomfortably) with the seat as low as possible i still hit my head on the roof, and i am either too far from the steering wheel or my knees are to close to the dash, no happy medium.

3) my brothers toyota's and geos he has had many and i never fit in them and long story short i never fit in them just right.

anyhow this is pretty long all for this one point, sometimes fit can kill a car, i dont know why i have issues with fitting in many cars, i would love a good economy car, honestly i would, its just a matter of finding one that i fit into properly i think the only reason i actually fit in the trans am is because of the t-tops, i know that if it had a solid roof i wouldnt fit in there either (the top of my head sits where the headliner would be) and with the jeeps they are convertibles (yeah i hit my head in minivans and other suvs too.

/rant

[trebuchet03]

^^john - I guess I'm lucky My height (about 6') comes from an abnormally long "neckular" region My lower half fits in a miata (older generation - not sure about the new mx5), but my upper half pysically doesn't fit. With a soft top, my head pokes into the canvas

Interestingly, I do fit in a Porsche 944 - in the front seats... Yes, they have two back seats. When I sit upright in one of the back seats, my head sticks half way out of the sunroof (very amusing)

But that said, I've fit in about every other car (including an old old Lotus Europa) And even with that said - 50%tile (American weight and dimensions) crash test dummies fit the cars for IIHS an NHTSA testing So the majority of Americans can't claim they don't fit