Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jaguar's Hybrid Jet-Powered Concept Car

kdawson posted about 4 years ago | from the do-want dept.

Power 334

An anonymous reader writes "Jaguar has developed a hybrid car that runs on gas turbines. The range extended vehicle usually uses four electric motors (one on each wheel) plus a lithium-ion battery pack for propulsion, but can achieve a performance boost from a pair of gas turbines mounted in the rear. Cnet UK reports the car can do 0-60 mph in 3.4 sec. (and 50-90 mph in 2.3 sec.) and reach 205 mph while emitting less CO2 than a Toyota Prius."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why not a jet pack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33756844)

It uses "two 70kW (94bhp) micro gas turbines". Aren't these small enough and powerful enough to be used for a jet pack?

iPhone 4! iPhone 4! I want an iPhone 4! Wait I mean Jet Pack! Jet Pack! I want a Jet Pack!

Re:Why not a jet pack? (1)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#33756882)

You can already get turbo-prop jet packs, or at least you soon can, I'm not that bothered since if I had that kind of cash lying around I'd be putting it towards a house.

Re:Why not a jet pack? (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about 4 years ago | (#33757118)

Erm. I'm not too sure what your fantasy budget limit is; but mine kind of covers a house and a jet pack.

Re:Why not a jet pack? (2)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#33757186)

I'm not talking about fantasy limit, was just talking real money. I don't think having a jetpack is a fantasy. If I properly wanted one I would get one, but if I'm going to be either spending a windfall or getting into debt, then it goes house, car, jetpack.

The Exhaust (0, Troll)

zoomshorts (137587) | about 4 years ago | (#33757194)

In the racing world, these care were removed due to their exhaust
overheating the cars behind them. What has changed??? NIGGERS!!
Keeping Karma Bad since the new version hit the net!!!

Very Cool (1)

Codename Dutchess (1782238) | about 4 years ago | (#33756850)

Its awesome that it can run on diesel, biofuel, natural gas, or LP. I wonder if it can run on a combination, or if you can only have one type of fuel at a time.

Also, I wonder what happens if one or more of the electric motors goes bad or stop working for any reason.

Re:Very Cool (1)

Psaakyrn (838406) | about 4 years ago | (#33756880)

Hm... will it also run on Nitromethane as well?

Re:Very Cool (4, Funny)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#33756886)

Also, I wonder what happens if one or more of the electric motors goes bad or stop working for any reason.

I'm taking a wild guess here, but I'm thinking you probably will need to get it fixed.

Re:Very Cool (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33756978)

Unlike an American V8, which continues to put out awesome amounts of power even after it breaks.

Re:Very Cool (5, Funny)

Suki I (1546431) | about 4 years ago | (#33757080)

Unlike an American V8, which continues to put out awesome amounts of power even after it breaks.

Or a European V12 that generates massive repair bills, running or not.

Re:Very Cool (1)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#33757046)

On a more serious note, I'm hoping/assuming they'd have safety mechanisms that allow a wheel to just free-wheel if its motor gives out.

The problem with safety systems like that (5, Interesting)

CFD339 (795926) | about 4 years ago | (#33757088)

...tends to be that by definition, they only kick in when something is broken.

I used to climb a little bit. We'd be up on a thousand feet of exposure with just a thin nylon harness and some carefully tied rope. Now I'm a firefighter and have done some rope rescue classes. We don't even go on a steep hill without a far more complex (and heavy) harness system. It seemed ridiculous to me, but it was explained that if the usual way of doing things had worked then we wouldn't have been called in. Something has gone wrong, and we can't always know what it was.

The same problem exists, to us, for cars like the Prius. Lots of very high voltage cables running through parts of the car we would usually cut through to get someone out. In theory, there are safety systems that will cut power to those cables after an accident. In practice, what if the accident affected those cut-off systems? There's a manual cut-off -- I'd have to check the reference material we have, but I think it's under the back seat. If I could get to something under the back seat, I wouldn't need to cut the car apart.

When things are broken, they're ...well....broken. The safety systems may or may not be affected. I think the issue in this case is that broken at 65 miles per hour is one thing, and broken at 205 miles per hour is something else entirely.

I think if a car that was moving that fast being propelled by four independent motors suddenly found itself being propelled by thrust that was no longer balanced and centered -- I wouldn't want to be down range for quite some distance.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about 4 years ago | (#33757136)

I didn't think about the new dangers when cutting people out of a wreck. This gets a +1 interesting from me.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that (3, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | about 4 years ago | (#33757210)

Because right now cars don't have anything dangerous in them, running for the length of the car... :) I'd hazard a guess that wearing thick rubber gloves and an insulating suit (which fire fighters already do, as they deal with lots of dangerous stuff all the time) would offer pretty decent protection, unless the fire fighter in question is chewing on an exposed cable while simultaneously rubbing his dick on the road...

Re:The problem with safety systems like that (2, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 4 years ago | (#33757346)

There is a very VERY big difference between cloths protective equipment rated for heat and wear and protective equipment rated for power. The materials are very different, have a different rated maximum safe voltage and are inspected differently. If you wore on a construction site while doing live low voltage power work you'll likely find yourself escorted off site.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that (3, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | about 4 years ago | (#33757394)

unless the fire fighter in question is chewing on an exposed cable while simultaneously rubbing his dick on the road...

- for some reason I actually pictured it in my head and now I am having a day-time nightmare! WTF did you do that for?

Re:The problem with safety systems like that (1)

leuk_he (194174) | about 4 years ago | (#33757312)

You did see with the Tesla car, when it ran hot, it goes into low power (emergency) mode, you can only drive at very slow speed so you can move you car out of the dangerous area, and wait to cool your your car down or until replace the defective sensor.

If something goes wrong at 205 mph? well, in that case you don't have to worry how to cut open the car, because the driver is probably very dead. solves that problem.

Re:Very Cool (1)

SpiceInvaders (1179555) | about 4 years ago | (#33757110)

Hope the electrical parts aren't made by Lucas...

Re:Very Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33757128)

the electrical system on my tractor is all original Lucas parts, and it still works fine 54 years later...

Re:Very Cool (4, Informative)

Bert64 (520050) | about 4 years ago | (#33757010)

You will most likely have reduced performance, especially if the rest of the car has to spin the defective motor, but it should still run...

When Jaguar were still producing V12 engines, it was quite common for people to not change the rear pair spark plugs (they are quite hard to reach because of the size of the v12 and the dimensions of the engine bay) so after a while they would be running on only 10 cylinders.

Re:Very Cool (1)

Suki I (1546431) | about 4 years ago | (#33757096)

You will most likely have reduced performance, especially if the rest of the car has to spin the defective motor, but it should still run...

When Jaguar were still producing V12 engines, it was quite common for people to not change the rear pair spark plugs (they are quite hard to reach because of the size of the v12 and the dimensions of the engine bay) so after a while they would be running on only 10 cylinders.

What if the failure is the braking voltage going to the motor instead of the "going" voltage? Something like a mechanical brake locking up or worse?

Re:Very Cool (4, Informative)

c6gunner (950153) | about 4 years ago | (#33757076)

Its awesome that it can run on diesel, biofuel, natural gas, or LP. I wonder if it can run on a combination, or if you can only have one type of fuel at a time.

It's a jet turbine - you could mix all 4 and throw in some Tang for good measure, and it'll still run. Of course, you'll get decreased performance and some funky looking exhaust, but it'll run.

Re:Very Cool (3, Funny)

Vectormatic (1759674) | about 4 years ago | (#33757234)

now where is the +1 awesome mod when i need it?

i can just imagine, blitzing across the german autobahn at 120mph in your Britisch Racing Green JJAAAGGGGG with psychedelic orange/green/yellow/pink smoke billowing out the back :P

Should be reliable (5, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | about 4 years ago | (#33756852)

This thing has a dozen or so moving parts. Granted, the turbines move pretty damn fast but electric motors and generators are extremely reliable. Four indepenent motors and two turbines menas we have redundancy on top of that.

I'm a little suspicious of the emission claims though. How much of that is from plugin? I can't imagine turbine->electric->battery->motors is an efficient drive train.

Steve Jackson's Car Wars comes to mind (1)

Shivetya (243324) | about 4 years ago | (#33756894)

now all we need are options for machine guns and spike throwers. Having each wheel with its own motor makes for some good safety enhancements but how are they handling the weight of motors at wheels?

Hopefully within three to five years more and more range extenders will become available, I just want it in a form other than sedan or sports car; read: cuv/suv

Re:Should be reliable (1)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#33756900)

I can't imagine turbine->electric->battery->motors is an efficient drive train.

Sounds way more efficient to me than a normal combustion engined and gearbox drive-train.

Then again, I'm not an engineer, but from the little I know it sounds very likely. I think normal petrol engines are less than 50% efficient, while turbines are very high.

Re:Should be reliable (1)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#33756930)

Ah. After some research I see that turbines seem to be around 40% efficient while diesel engines can be over 50%. I think the turbine efficiency was for converting heat to kinetic energy though which may not be a fair comparison for converting chemical energy to kinetic..

Re:Should be reliable (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 years ago | (#33757192)

Ah. After some research I see that turbines seem to be around 40% efficient while diesel engines can be over 50%.

Can be over 50%? The most efficient ICE in the world is a container ship diesel engine which IS 50% efficient. It has cylinders so big you can walk around in them. In practice, you're not going to see any diesel ICE over about 30% that can be crammed into a car. Over 60% of cars offered in the US, anyway, are offered without a manual transmission option; indeed, my 1982 MBZ 300SD was only offered with an automatic, and it has a somewhat anemic 120hp/170ft-lb 3 liter turbo-diesel. It makes torque real low, so it still has better pickup than most full-size V6-powered sedans, and even some of the lame smog-challenged V8s of the 1980s.

Re:Should be reliable (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | about 4 years ago | (#33757266)

Automatic transmissions are not the power sappers of the past. Most modern cars get mileage ratings only 1mpg lower with an auto, and that is considering 'perfect' shifting with the manual. In practice, they are likely close to being on par for city driving, as the automatics are all computer controlled for efficiency now. Lots of automatics have locking transmissions for highway driving, which means the mpg should be pretty much the same. The differences are just very minimal nowadays, at least on an engine of any size (V6+)

Re:Should be reliable (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 years ago | (#33757408)

Automatic transmissions are not the power sappers of the past. Most modern cars get mileage ratings only 1mpg lower with an auto, and that is considering 'perfect' shifting with the manual.

That is also considering 'perfect' driving with the auto transmission, which people do not do.

Lots of automatics have locking transmissions for highway driving, which means the mpg should be pretty much the same.

Locking torque converters have been standard since the 80s or 90s, some cars had them sooner. They unlock during acceleration and deceleration (beyond a certain point) and they don't lock at all at low speeds. EPA mileage estimates are just not interesting. I don't really want to know what they do on perfectly formulated fuel, in top condition, in laboratory conditions.

Re:Should be reliable (1)

somersault (912633) | about 4 years ago | (#33757300)

Ah, I was pretty sure that car engines were around 30-40%, should have paid more attention when I was reading that 50% figure as it does mention ships. I read "low speed" and just assumed it was for small cars, bleh.

The torque you get with diesel engines certainly is fun if you're only driving around town, but at the moment I prefer having the rev range for driving on country roads. My next car will either have a turbo or a larger displacement so that I can get both.. an electric vehicle would be even better, but they aren't at reasonable prices yet.

Re:Should be reliable (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 years ago | (#33757344)

The torque you get with diesel engines certainly is fun if you're only driving around town, but at the moment I prefer having the rev range for driving on country roads.

Well, my Mercedes redlines at 4700 and my Ford at 3500... so while they sure don't have the Rs of some dinky gas motor, they get well up there. The Mercedes has an inline five cylinder so it's butter smooth even at the limiter, and the slush box will run right up there with it, too. It turns out that with proper gearing, it's more fun to have a bunch of torque than a bunch of horsepower. My truck jumps up out of the hole as fast as the tires will permit. The Mercedes is slow but you get to whip it around the corners and if you whipped it a little too hard instead of going to hell it drifts gracefully, probably due to the positioning of the wheels, the long wheelbase, and the semi-trailing suspension. You can get W126 300SDs for a song these days, I highly recommend them for anyone who does at least some of their own wrenching. Parts are readily available on ebay, too.

I don't really hit the highway hard in my pickup, because it has all the aerodynamics of a cinder block, but the Mercedes doesn't even really settle down until you hit about 70. At the same time, it's a lot of fun around 35-45, because of the torque. Stomp the pedal and you hit a kickdown switch, and if there's any room in the next gear it takes off like a bat out of hell. If I could make only one change to the car I'd install a six speed. If I could make two changes I'd do that and intercool it.

Re:Should be reliable (1)

jollespm (641870) | about 4 years ago | (#33757436)

Industrial gas turbines hooked up to a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) are barely 60% thermally efficient for the latest technology, most are in the 40-55% range. The turbine alone might be 30-35%. Micro gas turbines are between 25-35% and they are not hooked up to an HRSG.

What they do have going for them is a high power to weight ratio, comparable efficiency, and lower emissions because of the fuels they can run on. According to this [gizmag.com] other article, you're saving 220 lbs when comparing to a similarly powerful ICE.

The manufacturer of the turbines in this car is Bladon Jets [bladonjets.com] .

Re:Should be reliable (2, Informative)

random string of num (1676550) | about 4 years ago | (#33756922)

gas turbines are more efficient than petrol or diesel or engines, as the joule cycle is more thermodynamically ideal. The only problem is they prefer to operate at a continuous power output. Rover tried doing this in the 30's with Whittle's jet, but that was a disaster, the advances in electrical drive trains may have fixed this. still its pretty cool.

Re:Should be reliable (5, Interesting)

sadtrev (61519) | about 4 years ago | (#33756980)

The Rover gas-turbine [blueyonder.co.uk] car was almost ready for launch (in the mid-'60s). It was cleaner, quieter and potentially cheaper than cars with conventional reciprocating engine designs.
It did have two major disadvantages - unreliability due to brittleness of the heat exchanger, and
- the tendency to singe the paint off cars that approached too close to the exhaust.

Re:Should be reliable (5, Funny)

CyberDragon777 (1573387) | about 4 years ago | (#33757008)

the tendency to singe the paint off cars that approached too close to the exhaust.

A car that automatically enforces the proper following distance? I want one!

Re:Should be reliable (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 4 years ago | (#33757072)

Some older motorbikes could be made to fire flames out of their exhaust. Apparently a useful feature for exactly this reason.

Re:Should be reliable (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about 4 years ago | (#33757292)

So you want to cut me off, *and* melt my bumper? Isn't it enough that I try not to hit you when you slice between cars on the dashed line and push into the 3' gap(*) between my bumper and the car in front of me?

(*) Not my choice. I drive in Massachusetts, if you leave anything bigger than a half car-length, someone will squeeze in. Mass drivers are terrible, and it gets worse: I'm turning into one just to keep up.

I'm not looking forward to the texting ban, either. If there's one place where "paying more attention to the road" is not necessarily a good thing, it's Mass - they're just going to use the extra awareness to execute some retardedly dangerous maneuvers.

Re:Should be reliable (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33757426)

You could just drive faster (at least the speed limit) Grandpa.

Re:Should be reliable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33756932)

Have you ever looked at a locomotive? They are diesel electric, and very efficient. Mechanical drivetrains have very high losses compared to batteries.

Re:Should be reliable (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#33756982)

Have you ever looked at a locomotive? They are diesel electric, and very efficient. Mechanical drivetrains have very high losses compared to batteries.

Locomotives don't have batteries, but the gas turbines could be made very efficient in this case if they are either stopped or run flat chat. The peaks would be smoothed out by the batteries.

Re:Should be reliable (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about 4 years ago | (#33757174)

Have you ever looked at a locomotive? They are diesel electric, and very efficient. Mechanical drivetrains have very high losses compared to batteries.

They're also designed to go for very long distances at a more-or-less constant speed, with the engine running at either full speed or idle. Not only that, but they require a very large, low-revving diesel engine (efficient) turning a very large generator (also efficient), in a vehicle that weighs around 80 tonnes. The principle doesn't really scale to cars, or even trucks.

Re:Should be reliable (4, Informative)

Adrian Harvey (6578) | about 4 years ago | (#33756960)

I'm a little suspicious of the emission claims though. How much of that is from plugin? I can't imagine turbine->electric->battery->motors is an efficient drive train.

Turbo-electric (ie: turbine->electric->motors) are quite efficent, and commonly used in large equipment, like boats and trains (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-electric [wikipedia.org] )

The difficulties here will be
1. how efficent the battery is, and how much the battery is used verses running in direct turbo-electric mode.
2. How well the turbine has been scaled down. Turbines get harder to make efficent the smaller they are - efficency is quite dependent on things like the ratio of the gap at the edge of the blades to the blade area. Small turbines need a lot more precision manufacturing to make properly efficent. A good single-cycle gas turbine such as this one: http://www.geoilandgas.com/businesses/ge_oilandgas/en/literature/en/downloads/LM6000.pdf [geoilandgas.com] can get 42% efficency, but small models often languish at 25% or so. [NB: combined cycle can get you as high as 60% but I will be *very* surprised if they've crammed that into a car... though they did say 2 turbines....]

All the same, I still want one!

Re:Should be reliable (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 4 years ago | (#33757428)

Average efficiency of the internal combustion engine averages 18% [wikipedia.org]

Your lowest efficiency single cycle gas turbine is already a 72% improvement. That's pretty awesome.

Re:Should be reliable (2, Informative)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 4 years ago | (#33757432)

Apologies, 28%. It's obvious what I got wrong.

Re:Should be reliable (1)

ptbarnett (159784) | about 4 years ago | (#33757452)

How well the turbine has been scaled down. Turbines get harder to make efficent the smaller they are - efficency is quite dependent on things like the ratio of the gap at the edge of the blades to the blade area. Small turbines need a lot more precision manufacturing to make properly efficent.

Looks like the gas turbines used by Jaguar were supplied by Bladon Jets:

http://www.bladonjets.com/news/jaguar-c-x75_-_electric-super-car-powered-by-jet-engines/ [bladonjets.com]

More information is available at the website. I haven't had a chance to read through all of it.

Re:Should be reliable (1)

AikonMGB (1013995) | about 4 years ago | (#33757070)

It's a hell of a lot more efficient than piston->electric->battery->motors. Also, if designed well, then if the turbines were running, they would power the electric motor demand directly, and using any excess power generation to top up the batteries.

Aikon-

Re:Should be reliable (1)

SharpFang (651121) | about 4 years ago | (#33757360)

My best bet is it can't reach 205 mph while emitting less CO2 than a Toyota Prius. It's either-or, nice clean drive switchable to "dirty" monster boost on demand.

Re:Should be reliable (1)

rschwa (89030) | about 4 years ago | (#33757438)

Well, considering the Prius would probably need a couple of JATO bottles to reach 205 mph, I bet this thing still wins.

Re:Should be reliable (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 4 years ago | (#33757370)

I can't imagine turbine->electric->battery->motors is an efficient drive train.

Internal combustion engines have their own efficiency deficit turning reciprocating motion into rotating motion; an enormous amount of energy is wasted in at the crankshaft. Wankel-type engines attempted to solve this problem but were never able to overcome the difficulties in machining the odd shapes to a high enough precision at a low enough cost.

A step in a right direction (3, Insightful)

elh_inny (557966) | about 4 years ago | (#33756860)

THe 'early adopters' in car's world, the afficcinados, like Jeremy Clarkson will not go for a boring hybrid unless it gives them better thrill than a conventional gas guzzling supercar.
If this car is really fun to drive, it will be in demand, the markup on luxury is usually quite high, which means there's budget to develop something more mainstream with similar tech...

Re:A step in a right direction (4, Interesting)

RogueyWon (735973) | about 4 years ago | (#33756924)

It's funny how developments that reduce the environmental impact of cars often originate from the high-performance end of the spectrum. While I'm no expert, my understanding is that sports such as Formula 1 and Indycar have done massive amounts to improve the fuel efficiency of the cars you see on the roads every day. After all, there's a clear and direct incentive when you have a high performance car out on the track to design something that can carry a smaller (and lighter) fuel tank or get away with fewer refuelling stops. And once you've developed that technology, you might as well make good use of it on a commercial basis.

Re:A step in a right direction (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 4 years ago | (#33757068)

Efficiency is the key. Further for less is what it's all about.

I especially like this "Can run on any hydrocarbon" design. Everything from LPG to Rapeseed are viable to power this thing.

Re:A step in a right direction (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#33757168)

Years ago my dad did something like that with a commer camper van in Yugoslavia. The commer has a hatch between the two front seats which you can lift up to work on the engine. The carby had a press on cap which you can lift off so you can pour fuel into the engine from the driving seat if you like.

Out of fuel and with no local currency left dad says Michael, get the tank from the stove, hose and all. Michael gets the tank and dad pokes the hose down down the carburettor. I open the tap on the tank and dive for a window because the smell is horrible. I can see the headlines already Australian tourists incinerated in freak explosion and you know what, the car started and ran pretty well. I doubt we had much oxygen to breathe towards the end though and we rolled the last 500 metres towards the frontier, cashed travellers cheques and bought proper fuel.

Re:A step in a right direction (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | about 4 years ago | (#33757226)

NASCAR (in the USA) has been doing this for decades. The factory engineers usually take an interest and sponsor the big-name teams. They then gain direct access to all of the little discoveries for improved longevity and easy manufacturing. The NASCAR teams get sponsorship in engineering advice. If you've driven any car with a GM engine in the last 10 years, you have already used some of this.

Re:A step in a right direction (0, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 years ago | (#33757242)

While I'm no expert, my understanding is that sports such as Formula 1 and Indycar have done massive amounts to improve the fuel efficiency of the cars you see on the roads every day.

Almost no race technology makes it into contemporary cars. Pretty much everything in racing is designed to last a race or two and then be replaced, so it's designed for minimum weight and maximum power output, and only enough longevity to make it through the necessary races. Everything important is upgraded and in many racing series they're not even building their own engines, they're forced to use something on spec. Most of the race car parts won't work well on the street for the average driver; carbon fiber rotors are great on the track but they don't stop you as short on the street, they just stop you more times in a short period. Indeed, even full-metallic pads have this problem and they also transmit more heat into the brake fluid, meaning you now have to run better fluid or cook it, but they don't fade AT ALL. Even those grooved rotors have less stopping power because of the reduced friction area. Race cars may have bushings which control vibration replaced with harder parts, for example made of nylon or kevlar, to improve road feel, but this would give you a coarse ride on almost all real-world surfaces.

Short form is that eventually castrated versions of some race techs like variable valve timing or coil on plug makes it to the street, but almost nobody ever brings you a full-race anything. Even in relatively stock classes the car is stripped of interior parts and stuffed with a full roll cage, not to mention generally tuned up to the point of engine self-destruction, again lasting long enough to finish races. Fuel injectors in exhaust manifolds to keep turbos spooled while shifting... Sequential transmissions with straight-cut gears that you have to rev match. (You can find that in some Ferraris with auto rev matching... guess what it costs! just guess.)

Re:A step in a right direction (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 4 years ago | (#33757262)

Yep. That was the point of F1's new "no refuelling" rule this year - fuel efficiency suddenly went right up the list of priorities.

What budget? (1)

tygerstripes (832644) | about 4 years ago | (#33757094)

"Basically, all the normal concept car goodies are here, which is a good thing because Jaguar has no plans to build this car."

Re:What budget? (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 4 years ago | (#33757252)

The car != the powertrain. I'm sure we've not heard the last of this sort of thing in a car.

Re:What budget? (1)

tygerstripes (832644) | about 4 years ago | (#33757332)

I really hope you're right - I love the concept and would love to see widespread, affordable implementation.

If it does make it out of the performance/concept arena, the first place we're likely to see this technology is in Land Rovers (same company) especially given the simplicity & robustness of the design, and that it can essentially use any fuel - perfect for wilderness vehicles.

Re:A step in a right direction (1)

julesh (229690) | about 4 years ago | (#33757164)

THe 'early adopters' in car's world, the afficcinados, like Jeremy Clarkson will not go for a boring hybrid unless it gives them better thrill than a conventional gas guzzling supercar.

It's well known that Clarkson will recommend any car Jaguar produces. He's like their biggest fan or something.

Not real specs in the summary (1)

scdeimos (632778) | about 4 years ago | (#33756872)

The summary left out the following important words before quoting performance figures: "Jaguar believes..."

Really... (4, Funny)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about 4 years ago | (#33756874)

"Jaguar has developed a hybrid car that runs on gas turbines."

How many miles-per-gas-turbine does it get and how many gas turbines are needed to fill the tank?

Re:Really... (1)

Pranadevil2k (687232) | about 4 years ago | (#33756950)

Good laugh. For anyone actually looking for some answers though, the article doesn't say anything about its actual fuel efficiency. It has a ~16 gallon tank that runs on diesel, natural gas, biofuels, and liquid petroleum (o.o;;). I am not sold on it being particularly eco-friendly, despite the nice fuel compatibility.

Re:Really... (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about 4 years ago | (#33757032)

Agreed! I remember when Chrysler tested a turbine car in the early 60s. It was VERY cool. I saw one drive into a parking garage in Detroit when I was little and thought that it was the future. Of course it was noisy as all get out, stunk, and according to the driver, not very efficient!

Re:Really... (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | about 4 years ago | (#33757298)

considering this is a JAAGGGGG, if it is a saloon, it will be very civilized and quiet and small only of freshly cleaned leather. If it goes into an XK however, no amount of ear-protection will be enough :P

Re:Really... (2, Informative)

c6gunner (950153) | about 4 years ago | (#33757090)

For anyone actually looking for some answers though, the article doesn't say anything about its actual fuel efficiency.

Um, yes it does. It says it'll get something like 66 miles on electric, and has a combined range of about 560 miles. Leaving aside the electric bit, that means you're getting roughly 500 miles for 16 gallons, or 31.25 miles per gallon. Assuming their figures are correct.

Re:Really... (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 4 years ago | (#33757448)

My little 1.4 Hyundai does 41 mpg! That's rubbish!

Then again, my 1.4 Hyundai doesn't do 0-60 in 3.4 seconds, 205mph, or have twin gas turbine engines. That's pure awesome.

The downside... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33756876)

The electrics are by Lucas.

Re:The downside... (4, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#33756990)

Also after years of research Jaguar found a way to make a gas turbine leak oil.

This is completely wrong (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 4 years ago | (#33756926)

Cnet UK reports the car can do 0-60 mph in 3.4 sec. (and 50-90 mph in 2.3 sec.) and reach 205 mph while emitting less CO2 than a Toyota Prius."

After reading the article I think what it actually means is that it can be driven in electric only mode at slower speeds and emssions lower than the Prius or let the gas turbines kick in for a lot of power, but you won't be getting 28g/km when you do this. What we don't have is a figure for emissions in sustained normal driving, which are probably going to be similar or worse than the Prius

Agreed (2, Interesting)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 4 years ago | (#33756938)

Gas turbines are powerful for their weight, but not exactly economical in fuel use. The power-to-weight ratio makes them suitable for aircraft, but for cars they are just a thirsty show-off.

"I shit the bed" (2, Interesting)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 4 years ago | (#33757022)

Gas turbines are powerful for their weight, but not exactly economical in fuel use.

A friend of mine was a tank commander in the US army. He complained about the reliability of the gas turbine engines in the M1 Abrams tanks. When they break down, oil gets into the turbine, and spews itself around.

Over the radio, when your tank breaks down, you say, "I shit the bed."

On the other hand, he was really impressed with the German Leopard tank. It just uses a turbo diesel engine, so it is not so sexy, but seems to get the job done.

Re:Agreed (1)

Alioth (221270) | about 4 years ago | (#33757098)

Turbines have been improving steadily over the years in BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption, in other words, how much fuel needs to flow to provide each bhp). The other thing about turbines is they like to be just run at constant speed, and with electric transmission you can do that (which you can't with a normal automatic or manual gearbox, and most CVTs can't take the power).

TFA states:
When you're being sensible with the accelerator pedal, it'll return a maximum range of 560 miles, while spewing a mere 28g/km of CO2, which is pretty spectacular.

Re:Agreed (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 years ago | (#33757284)

Power is not the obstacle for the CVT or any other transmission, because you can just build it bigger. It's speed. Chrysler built turbine-powered cars in the 1960s but they did it with a mechanical powertrain rather than an electrical one and the gearboxes wouldn't take the strain. Had they gone with a series hybrid design in the first place, with the generator integrated into their lovely little regenerating turbine, they might have solved this problem entirely.

Re:This is completely wrong (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33756946)

No. I quote:

"When you're being sensible with the accelerator pedal, it'll return a maximum range of 560 miles, while spewing a mere 28g/km of CO2"

That does not appear to be electric mode only, since 560 miles would not be possible on electric only.

Re:This is completely wrong (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33756952)

The mpg from the turbines seem to be:

560 range - 68 (electric) = ~ 500 mile range with a 60 litre tank = 8.3 miles per litre or around 40 mpg.

Re:This is completely wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33757200)

Almost half the mileage of a turbo-diesel in medium sized car and not better than a turbo-diesel in a luxury car. Why are we talking about this?

Re:This is completely wrong (1)

nOw2 (1531357) | about 4 years ago | (#33757316)

The bonus is that gas turbines might be quieter than a diesel.

Re:This is completely wrong (1)

thijsh (910751) | about 4 years ago | (#33757052)

I've read that the C-X75 will drive 900 km on a 60 liter tank, that is 15 km/l (or 35 mpg) which is comparable to a normal European car.
The figures for the lower emissions are probably only applicable for some specific cherry-picked short drive done mostly on the battery. But what surprises me is that they have managed to create a turbine hybrid that gives a lot of performance without becoming a gas-guzzler as you would expect. So for long-distance drives the car consumes fuel like any normal car (already exceptional for a super car), but on short drives you can get closer to emission free (sacrificing the extra power).

This seems like a significant step forward in future car technology, muscle-power and low-power combined. Geek translation: It can be compared to a system like Nvidia Optimus for your car...

What about noise pollution? (1)

Lord Duran (834815) | about 4 years ago | (#33756928)

Is the jet engine going to sound like a jet engine? This may turn out to be a problem.

Re:What about noise pollution? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33756942)

You and I sir must have a different opinion of how freaking awesome a jet engine sounds.

Re:What about noise pollution? (1)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | about 4 years ago | (#33757026)

Jet engines are typically quieter per unit of power than internal combustion engines. eg. They call the turbine powered M1A1 whispering death because it is so silent compared to other tanks.

Re:What about noise pollution? (1)

CyberDragon777 (1573387) | about 4 years ago | (#33757030)

WHAT DID YOU SAY???
I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!
IT'S THE BLIND PEDESTRIAN WARNING SYSTEM OF MY HYBRID!!!

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
I want to yell, you stupid comment filter...

Gas-turbines ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33756958)

Lets hope it works better then the old Chrysler Turbine car, and the exhaust gasses don't get too hot.

Simpsons (1)

Xarius (691264) | about 4 years ago | (#33756966)

But is it monkey navigated?!

FAIL (1)

bazorg (911295) | about 4 years ago | (#33756988)

Chrome finish for the wheels = FAIL.

reply (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33757000)

Excellent site, keep up the good work. I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part, people lack substance but, I just wanted to make a quick comment to say I’m glad I found your blog. Thanks ============= PLR Ebook [plrprivate...rights.com]

and these will be purchased by whom? (-1, Troll)

bl8n8r (649187) | about 4 years ago | (#33757002)

rich people with money to burn. Just like every other cool piece of tech that promises insane fuel economy, or can go 100 miles on just lemon juice and tinfoil. Wake me up when the auto manufacturers come up with something under 20k.

Maybe they should have put in another engine then (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 4 years ago | (#33757050)

rich people with money to burn.

One that runs on bank notes comes to mind.

makes me wonder... (1)

misfit815 (875442) | about 4 years ago | (#33757056)

...if anything would've changed had Parnelli Jones not lost a ball bearing in 1967.

Joseph Lucas Prince of Darkness... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33757066)

The parts falling off this car,
are of the finest British workmanship!

Looks like... (1)

zmaragdus (1686342) | about 4 years ago | (#33757146)

Looks like a Lambo and a Lotus had a baby, then added turbines.

I will admit, having an electric motor dedicated to each wheel allows for some great control. With the physics of how electric motors typically work, you can also get crazy-huge horsepower & torque across nearly the whole range of the motor (assuming it's an induction motor). I can't imagine what the maintenance requirements/costs would be.

However, if this car actually makes it into production, I'd bet it will go the way of the Tesla Roadster: few made, high price (but that's a given), and hard to own/operate. It might also get butchered (visually speaking) between concept and production (remember the Chevy Volt concept car?).

Re:Looks like... (1)

julesh (229690) | about 4 years ago | (#33757178)

However, if this car actually makes it into production [...] it might also get butchered (visually speaking) between concept and production (remember the Chevy Volt concept car?).

I dunno, Jaguar produce some very nice looking cars. I don't see them going for a design that isn't truly beautiful if they do release a hybrid sports car.

Other turbine-powered cars (2, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 years ago | (#33757160)

In the 1960s Chrysler developed a turbine engine and drove a car across the country on it. They also had a test program with a limited group. Driving it was similar to a diesel, in that it had a startup procedure one had to follow, but it otherwise operated normally. It got significantly better mileage than cars of the day with excellent performance, but it killed gearboxes rapidly.

More recently and more similarly to this project, Langford Performance Engineering of Wellingborough England modified the Ford S-Max seven seat crossover vehicle into a series hybrid plug in vehicle with a [capstone] C30 turbine [capstoneturbine.com] , achieving over 80 mpg equivalent in early test driving. This made it a series hybrid like the upcoming Chevy Volt, but more efficient.

Re:Other turbine-powered cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33757272)

Would be nice for a Fotobuch [fotobuecher.com]

TURBINE does not equal JET (2, Informative)

BubbaDave (1352535) | about 4 years ago | (#33757220)

Dammit!

That is all.

Dave

and around we come, back to ... (1)

bball99 (232214) | about 4 years ago | (#33757310)

a Chrysler!

Hyperbole. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33757330)

Hyperbole. This car cannot do 0-62 in 3.whatever whilst emitting less than a Prius.

If you drive it like a Prius, you can get it to emit less CO2 than a Prius.

PS look at all the innovation going on with these new cars having to reduce CO2 emissions. Don't hear any of the AGW denialist doomsayers mentioning the innovation spur, do you.

How's it compare to the jet VW Beetle though? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 4 years ago | (#33757380)

Really Jaguar is just copying this guy here with his jet turbine powered VW Beetle [ronpatrickstuff.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?