EV Muscle Cars?

DETROIT (AP) — New versions of the Mustang muscle car will begin shipping next week and more than two thirds of the orders include the big, 5-liter V-8 engine, Ford said Friday.

Demand for roaring engines remains strong in an era when Detroit automakers are starting to phase out the rumbling gas burners and transition to electric vehicles in order to meet strict government emissions and fuel economy requirements.

There are about 13,000 U.S. orders for the 2024 Mustangs, Ford says, which also can be equipped with a four-cylinder turbocharged engine. Of those orders, 67% have the V-8, and more than a quarter of the people seeking that Mustang want the six-speed manual transmission, spokesman Mike Levine says.

But muscle cars, at least new ones, are on their way out.

General Motors announced in March that it will stop making the Chevrolet Camaro early next year as a 2024 model. The company wouldn't rule out a replacement for the Camaro at a future date.

Stellantis, formerly Fiat Chrysler, will stop making gas versions of the Dodge Challenger and Charger muscle cars by the end of this year. But the company has plans to roll out a battery-powered Charger performance car sometime in 2024.

Levine wouldn't say whether this version of the Mustang would be the company's last gas-powered muscle car. "That remains to be seen," he said.

There also could be an electric Mustang sports car in the future. Electric cars, with instant torque and a low center of gravity, often are faster and handle better than internal combustion vehicles.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Link

DETROIT (AP) — New versions of the Mustang muscle car will begin shipping next week and more than two thirds of the orders include the big, 5-liter V-8 engine, Ford said Friday.

Demand for roaring engines remains strong in an era when Detroit automakers are starting to phase out the rumbling gas burners and transition to electric vehicles in order to meet strict government emissions and fuel economy requirements.

There are about 13,000 U.S. orders for the 2024 Mustangs, Ford says, which also can be equipped with a four-cylinder turbocharged engine. Of those orders, 67% have the V-8, and more than a quarter of the people seeking that Mustang want the six-speed manual transmission, spokesman Mike Levine says.

But muscle cars, at least new ones, are on their way out.

General Motors announced in March that it will stop making the Chevrolet Camaro early next year as a 2024 model. The company wouldn't rule out a replacement for the Camaro at a future date.

Stellantis, formerly Fiat Chrysler, will stop making gas versions of the Dodge Challenger and Charger muscle cars by the end of this year. But the company has plans to roll out a battery-powered Charger performance car sometime in 2024.

Levine wouldn't say whether this version of the Mustang would be the company's last gas-powered muscle car. "That remains to be seen," he said.

There also could be an electric Mustang sports car in the future. Electric cars, with instant torque and a low center of gravity, often are faster and handle better than internal combustion vehicles.

What a load of bullshit! If electric is so superior to gas, why aren't they on racetracks? More speed, more thrill, spectacular crashes... You'd think muscle EV would have been a think in the racing world by now. Fast, sporty cars sell. Even those who can't afford them, or they aren't practical, still dream of owning one, someday. Most people looking to buy a new car, will go to the dealer with the latest sports model, just to dream for a few minutes, before shopping for some crappy economy model. Three of the major manufacturers dropping sports models sucks. Must be something more to it. I'm sure Bidenomics plays a part, but those sports models are what sets them apart from the other companies. Hope I die, before being mandated behind an EV wheel...

HarveyH55 wrote:
So, you're a Drag queen... They get custom built, for one type of use. They aren't production cars, like in the article. More than one kind of car race... Electric can go the quarter mile, but how long can they last beyond?

Mostly, the article is about the last year of major manufacturer's top muscle car models, not custom build race cars. Probably didn't even read the article...

Swan wrote:LOL, while I hate EV the fact is that a Tesla can out accelerate a vette easily

Swan wrote: You aren't smart at all

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL, while I hate EV the fact is that a Tesla can out accelerate a vette easily

I'm with Swan on this one. Combustion engine cars are the most fuel efficient and can carry 400 miles of fuel, but electric bypasses the physics limitation of expanding gases and allows acceleration far more linearly per an increase in voltage. Electric cars are the acceleration champs.

This is why the future of military weapons is not with the standard munitions of today. Electric accelerators (formerly known as "railguns"), once developed, will change warfare completely, and even make nuclear weapons obsolete.

Swan wrote: You aren't smart at all

Harvey is smart. He has a passion for defending his things. Combustion engine vehicles are worth defending.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: Electric accelerators (formerly known as "railguns"), once developed, will change warfare completely, and even make nuclear weapons obsolete.

Actually the railgun is a useless toy

Swan wrote: The military will not admit however that since railgun projectiles are fire and forget, like a rifle bullet that any error in targeting even a mm over hundreds of miles creates a miss. This on a ship that is going up and down by feet not mm a hit becomes statistically impossible.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL, while I hate EV the fact is that a Tesla can out accelerate a vette easily

I'm with Swan on this one. Combustion engine cars are the most fuel efficient and can carry 400 miles of fuel, but electric bypasses the physics limitation of expanding gases and allows acceleration far more linearly per an increase in voltage. Electric cars are the acceleration champs.

This is why the future of military weapons is not with the standard munitions of today. Electric accelerators (formerly known as "railguns"), once developed, will change warfare completely, and even make nuclear weapons obsolete.

Swan wrote: You aren't smart at all

Harvey is smart. He has a passion for defending his things. Combustion engine vehicles are worth defending.

Actually the railgun is a useless toy and as such has been completely cancelled.

The Navy has announced that it is pulling funds from the much-hyped electromagnetic railgun in order to shift those monetary resources to hypersonic missiles and other high-tech weapons.

The program, which began in 2005, was supposed to use magnetic fields instead of gunpowder to fire rounds at speeds of up to Mach 7 and ranges of up to 100 nautical miles.

However, despite the more than 15 years that program has spent in development, it never was fielded. Navy officials continued to insist that it saw a future for the $500 million experiment as late as 2018.

"Given fiscal constraints, combat system integration challenges and the prospective technology maturation of other weapon concepts, the Navy decided to pause research and development of the Electromagnetic Railgun [EMRG] at the end of 2021," the statement from the Navy said.

The railgun will now join the ranks of other costly, yet never implemented weapons programs like the Future Combat Systems, Comanche helicopter, and Next Generation Cruiser projects.

The end of the railgun program was foreshadowed last month when a White House fiscal budget for 2022 revealed the Navy pulled funding for the Gun-Launched Guided Projectile -- a meter-long projectile first developed exclusively as a round for the experimental railgun.

"The decision to pause the EMRG program is consistent with department-wide reform initiatives to free up resources in support of other Navy priorities [and] to include improving offensive and defensive capabilities such as directed energy, hypersonic missiles and electronic warfare systems," the Navy's statement said.

However, funding was not the only issue plaguing the futuristic weapon.

In 2018, then-chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson told Congress that the weapon had yet to reach its promised range.

"That involves a number of technologies," he said. "The barrel itself is probably the limiting case, the engineering on that, the materials required to sustain that power pulse, and the heat and pressure that's involved in launching those projectiles."

Another unresolved issue was a power source for the gun. Only the Navy's three-ship Zumwalt class destroyers reportedly were capable of supplying the electricity needed to operate the gun.

The military will not admit however that since railgun projectiles are fire and forget, like a rifle bullet that any error in targeting even a mm over hundreds of miles creates a miss. This on a ship that is going up and down by feet not mm a hit becomes statistically impossible.

Swan wrote:Any more high-tech questions about the rail gun that couldn't even hit a computer simulated target due to ship movement, just fire away.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Any more high-tech questions about the rail gun that couldn't even hit a computer simulated target due to ship movement, just fire away.

Your assertion has been debunked. You simply ignored the debunking.

Anything else you'd like debunked?

Swan wrote:LOL, please tell us more about the rail gun that [couldn't be made to be effectively integrated onto] a ship.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL, please tell us more about the rail gun that [couldn't be made to be effectively integrated onto] a ship.

Didn't you see the video? A US Navy ship is designed to meet a mind-boggingly inordinate number of requirements within a debilitating number of rigid constraints. The US Navy spent $half-a-billion and couldn't make an effective railgun that could be integrated onto the existing platform designs.

Does this turn of events convince you that electromagnetic accelerators don't work, or that land-based accelerators aren't possible?

You get everything else wrong so this can make up for you getting EVs' superior acceleration right.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Swan wrote:An effective railgun was designed and tested on land, but since the high velocity fire and forget projectile cannot make course corrections and the Navy has zero non-moving ships, it is a complete miss from the start.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:An effective railgun was designed and tested on land, but since the high velocity fire and forget projectile cannot make course corrections and the Navy has zero non-moving ships, it is a complete miss from the start.

Are you stating for the record that since the Navy couldn't integrate a railgun onto a ship given $500 Million research funding, that electromagnetic accelerators cannot and will not work?

This seems to be your point and it's a stupid one. I'll give you an opportunity to clarify.

Swan wrote: First of all I already claimed that the railgun worked as designed on land,

Swan wrote: however as I also stated that since every ship moves with the ocean

Swan wrote: ... that targeting anything effectively with a railgun on a ship is impossible

Swan wrote: The fact is that making nuclear powered destroyers would be simplistic to provide the electricity needed,

Swan wrote: So yes I am stating for the record that the Navy couldn't integrate a railgun onto a moving ship, that could hit a target 100 to 200 miles away given $100,000,000,000.00 in funding.

Swan wrote: So they cancelled the dumb project and total waste of funds.

Swan wrote: You are actually so retarded and desperate to have me make a mistake that you are attempting to rewrite the past.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: First of all I already claimed that the railgun worked as designed on land,

So, are you now retracting your assertion that electromagnetic accelerators are useless?

Swan wrote: however as I also stated that since every ship moves with the ocean

It was you, not I, that introduced the Navy and ships.

So you think electromagnetic accelerators will be land-based only?

Could you elaborate your idea that a hypersonic shell cannot be guided via GPS in the same way that a hypersonic jet can?

Swan wrote: ... that targeting anything effectively with a railgun on a ship is impossible

... because you don't believe GPS works. I got it. Why don't you think GPS works?

Swan wrote: The fact is that making nuclear powered destroyers would be simplistic to provide the electricity needed,

The fact is that you are not an engineer, and that you wouldn't know how to begin integrating that type of weapon onto a destroyer, nor do you know all of the limitations and constraints. All you or I know is that the Navy developed a working accelerator but integration issues, including maintenance and logistics considerations, prevented continuation of that one particular accelerator program.

What do you think of other electromagnetic accelerators outside of the Navy?

Swan wrote: So yes I am stating for the record that the Navy couldn't integrate a railgun onto a moving ship, that could hit a target 100 to 200 miles away given $100,000,000,000.00 in funding.

... and this is based on your understanding that GPS doesn't work.

Swan wrote: So they cancelled the dumb project and total waste of funds.

You don't think the Navy learned any information considered so valuable and worthy of protecting that it has been classified, right?

Swan wrote: You are actually so retarded and desperate to have me make a mistake that you are attempting to rewrite the past.

You are the one who has consistently attempted to revise history.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Electric accelerators (formerly known as "railguns"), once developed, will change warfare completely, and even make nuclear weapons obsolete.

Actually the railgun is a useless toy and as such has been completely cancelled.

Swan wrote: Never said that electromagnetic accelerators were useless[/b]

Swan wrote: I said that railguns powered by electromagnetic acceleration are useless

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Electric accelerators (formerly known as "railguns"), once developed, will change warfare completely, and even make nuclear weapons obsolete.

Actually the railgun is a useless toy and as such has been completely cancelled.

Swan wrote: Never said that electromagnetic accelerators were useless[/b]

Now you are making no sense. You are babbling incoherently.

Swan wrote: I said that railguns powered by electromagnetic acceleration are useless

... because GPS doesn't work. We've been over this. Are you going to explain why you believe GPS doesn't work?

I made the point that electromagnetic accelerators will change warfare and you mockingly disagreed, citing the Navy's inability to integrate a railgun onto a ship, which you then claimed was a GPS failure to guide hypersonic shells.

I don't know why you injected the US Navy, but I'm guessing that you are going to make the case that electromagnetic accelerators are amphibians. They're not, at least not yet.
.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The railgun shells aren't tiny, and could deliver an assortment of payloads. Adding guidance, and other electronics is quite possible. The railgun it's self only needs to achieve the range and velocity to get the shell moving in the general direction, and fast enough to not easily be detected and defended. Shells would be another project, and not general test shells, just to get the railgun up to goals. A shell that explodes on impact, wouldn't need to be precise on land-based targets, like a port. It'll still do damage...

Railguns are meant to replace the propulsion system for most ammunition. Expanding gas propulsion for traditional shells, missiles take up a lot of space/weight. But, there really isn't much need these days, missiles are pretty much the weapon of choice. Only takes one strike to disable/sink a ship. Cost, no longer a factor. Will use million dollar each missiles to shoot down China weather balloons...

HarveyH55 wrote:
Do you think the US Navy is the only railgun project in the world? You don't need government funding to join the fun... Coilguns/railguns have been DIY projects for decades. An electronics forum I use frequently banned the topic, as with anything 'fun', that might be semi-hazardous. That wasn't really the reason I left, pretty much any high-voltage/current project was frowned on, or banned. Little over the top on safety concerns.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Do you think the US Navy is the only railgun project in the world? You don't need government funding to join the fun... Coilguns/railguns have been DIY projects for decades. An electronics forum I use frequently banned the topic, as with anything 'fun', that might be semi-hazardous. That wasn't really the reason I left, pretty much any high-voltage/current project was frowned on, or banned. Little over the top on safety concerns.

LOL, as if everyone has an extra 15/30 MW of power generated by their solar panels and 10 full size wind turbines, and spare EM parts in their basement, that they use to fire mach 7 or so projectiles into the cobwebs in your brain.

The fact is that you have the mentality of a ten-year-old max.

So again, what railgun?

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL, while I hate EV the fact is that a Tesla can out accelerate a vette easily

I'm with Swan on this one. Combustion engine cars are the most fuel efficient and can carry 400 miles of fuel, but electric bypasses the physics limitation of expanding gases and allows acceleration far more linearly per an increase in voltage. Electric cars are the acceleration champs.

This is why the future of military weapons is not with the standard munitions of today. Electric accelerators (formerly known as "railguns"), once developed, will change warfare completely, and even make nuclear weapons obsolete.

Swan wrote: You aren't smart at all

Harvey is smart. He has a passion for defending his things. Combustion engine vehicles are worth defending.

Swan wrote: I said that railguns are fire and forget,

Swan wrote: which means that they are not GPS guided,

Swan wrote: ... which combined with the moving ship

Swan wrote: Why are you claiming that EM propulsion and railguns are the same thing?

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: I said that railguns are fire and forget,

Which is not how they will be. You are confusing the past tense with the future tense. I am talking about the future of military weapons.

By the way, GPS guidance has been successfully employed on ballistic systems and hypersonic vehicles. GPS has been sufficiently tested that we can safely say that it works.

Swan wrote: which means that they are not GPS guided,

... so, in your mind, they cannot be, and will not be, GPS guided in the future.

Tell me, Swan, why do you not hold this same position with quantum computing? Is it precisely because quantum computing is actually impossible that, along with your conflation of the past and future tenses, you insist that quantum computing "has been demonstrated"?

Swan wrote: ... which combined with the moving ship

... because GPS doesn't work, I got it. You introduced the idea of ships and the US Navy. You haven't explained how any of what I did write is somehow inaccurate. You haven't touched it. You simply switched topics to your assertion that GPS doesn't work.

Swan wrote: Why are you claiming that EM propulsion and railguns are the same thing?

I'm not. Why are you not reading my posts for comprehension?

If you'd like a do-over, I started by saying that electromagnetic accelerators are the future (not the past tense) of military weapons. I also insist that GPS works ... but you want to debate otherwise. OK. Bring it on.

.

Swan wrote: Obviously GPS works,

Swan wrote: Face it kid, the railgun makes just as much sense as a 16-inch gun on a battleship,

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: Obviously GPS works,

You alternate between insisting the GPS doesn't work and admitting that it dows. Perhaps what you are trying to express, in your own confused manner of conflating tenses, is that GPS cannot work in the future. Is that when GPS will become an amphibian?

Swan wrote: Face it kid, the railgun makes just as much sense as a 16-inch gun on a battleship,

Which is your rationale for why electromagnetic accelerators cannot work in the future, yes? ... because GPS doesn't work today on Navy ships?

You are confused. Are you under the impression that hypersonic shells are moraines that reach their destination by being pushed by a glacier? Are you saying that GPS hasn't worked since the last ice age 22,000 years ago, because all glaciers are land-based and can't work on Navy ships which is why the Navy cancelled the program?

Now I understand why you are so familiar with psychiatric drug prescriptions.

Take me up on the do-over offer. Stay in the future tense, presume GPS is in an always-working state, and discuss only electromagnetic accelerators, not ships or the US Navy.

No, hypersonic shells are not moraines.
.

Swan wrote: ... after missing everything

Swan wrote: and at a maximum range of 110 miles

Swan wrote: LOL I never said that GPS does not work.

Swan wrote: What I said was that the railgun projectiles were fire and forget kinetic projectiles ...

Swan wrote: That said the railgun is history as it could only fire between 2 and 12 times before needing the barrel replaced anyway,

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: ... after missing everything

GPS guidance won't fix that once it's applied, right?

Swan wrote: and at a maximum range of 110 miles

200 nautical miles plus.

Swan wrote: LOL I never said that GPS does not work.

You implied it with your tense-conflation, like this ...

Swan wrote: What I said was that the railgun projectiles were fire and forget kinetic projectiles ...

Exactly. Past tense. What will they be (i.e. future tense)?

Swan wrote: That said the railgun is history as it could only fire between 2 and 12 times before needing the barrel replaced anyway,

Exactly. Past tense. What will they be (i.e. future tense)?

Swan wrote: No GPS will not fix a railgun that does not exist

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: No GPS will not fix a railgun that does not exist

Can GPS guidance help a railgun that does exist?

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: ... after missing everything

GPS guidance won't fix that once it's applied, right?

Swan wrote: and at a maximum range of 110 miles

200 nautical miles plus.

Swan wrote: LOL I never said that GPS does not work.

You implied it with your tense-conflation, like this ...

Swan wrote: What I said was that the railgun projectiles were fire and forget kinetic projectiles ...

Exactly. Past tense. What will they be (i.e. future tense)?

Swan wrote: That said the railgun is history as it could only fire between 2 and 12 times before needing the barrel replaced anyway,

Exactly. Past tense. What will they be (i.e. future tense)?

No GPS will not fix a railgun that does not exist because it is 100 percent impractical and can't hit shit anyway, which is why the project was terminated.

So fun being stupid.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: ... after missing everything

GPS guidance won't fix that once it's applied, right?

Swan wrote: and at a maximum range of 110 miles

200 nautical miles plus.

Swan wrote: LOL I never said that GPS does not work.

You implied it with your tense-conflation, like this ...

Swan wrote: What I said was that the railgun projectiles were fire and forget kinetic projectiles ...

Exactly. Past tense. What will they be (i.e. future tense)?

Swan wrote: That said the railgun is history as it could only fire between 2 and 12 times before needing the barrel replaced anyway,

Exactly. Past tense. What will they be (i.e. future tense)?

No GPS will not fix a railgun that does not exist because it is 100 percent impractical and can't hit shit anyway, which is why the project was terminated.

So fun being stupid.

Now you are just babbling. The Navy railgun doesn't exist? The worked on the project how many years? Time for an Apple quote, and deflection?

Swan wrote: Design a GPS guided shell for a railgun

Swan wrote: and submit your design to the DOD,

Swan wrote: Then design a railgun barrel that can fire more than ten times before needing to be replaced

Swan wrote: Then design a railgun that has more then the 110 miles of range like the one that the navy cancelled

Swan wrote: Then shrink the size of the nuclear reactor or ship size diesel generators needed to provide the required 15/30MW's of power

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: Design a GPS guided shell for a railgun

It's already designed. That's the easy part. The lack of such a design is not the reason the program was terminated.

What gets me is your inability to distinguish financial limitations from integration issues from requirements failures. You cite the Navy's budget decisions as railgun failures, and then you use that to project future uselessness of electromagnetic accelerators. You are one confused dude.

Swan wrote: and submit your design to the DOD,

If, hypothetically, there were no such existing design and I were to whip one up, I would not need to "submit" it to anyone. I would simply announce that I have it and many organizations would pepper me with lucrative offers.

Unfortunately for me, such a design already exists.

Swan wrote: Then design a railgun barrel that can fire more than ten times before needing to be replaced

The solution is to replace the railgun with a rail-less electromagnetic accelerator that has a barrel that either does not degrade with the high temperature or one that uses disposable, protective "sleeves" or one whereby the shells themselves use a protective casing that gets destroyed instead.

Swan wrote: Then design a railgun that has more then the 110 miles of range like the one that the navy cancelled

Done. The Navy cancelled a railgun that had a 200 nm range.

Swan wrote: Then shrink the size of the nuclear reactor or ship size diesel generators needed to provide the required 15/30MW's of power

This the Navy could not do. This does not mean that the Navy will not be able to do this in the future. This does not mean that this is somehow a problem for terrestrial accelerators.

See, I told you to not change the subject to the Navy.

Swan wrote: LOL the Navy having no railgun is what I'm going to continue to talk about

Swan wrote: ... it was a dumb idea, almost as dumb as you trying to get me to discuss the topic in question

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: LOL the Navy having no railgun is what I'm going to continue to talk about

I see that.

Swan wrote: ... it was a dumb idea, almost as dumb as you trying to get me to discuss the topic in question

I see that.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: LOL the Navy having no railgun is what I'm going to continue to talk about

I see that.

Swan wrote: ... it was a dumb idea, almost as dumb as you trying to get me to discuss the topic in question

I see that.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/navys-railgun-finally-dead-130000535.html

The U.S. Navy's push to create a $500 million electromagnetic railgun weapon—capable of slinging projectiles at hypersonic speeds—appears to have come to an end. The service is ending funding for the railgun without having sent a single weapon to sea, while pushing technology derived from the program into existing weapons.

Did anyone ever tell you that you are as cute as a button when you pout?

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: LOL the Navy having no railgun is what I'm going to continue to talk about

I see that.

Swan wrote: ... it was a dumb idea, almost as dumb as you trying to get me to discuss the topic in question

I see that.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/navys-railgun-finally-dead-130000535.html

The U.S. Navy's push to create a $500 million electromagnetic railgun weapon—capable of slinging projectiles at hypersonic speeds—appears to have come to an end. The service is ending funding for the railgun without having sent a single weapon to sea, while pushing technology derived from the program into existing weapons.

Did anyone ever tell you that you are as cute as a button when you pout?

The Navy didn't achieve their dream-weapon, but they did have functioning prototypes. Railguns that would easily kill you.

Your main problem is you miss certain key details in everything you read and type. Then you are stuck, trying to hide your failing, and still try to maintain an illusion. You always fall short, or just on your face.