Jaguar's Hybrid Jet-Powered Concept Car 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."
Should be reliable (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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, s
Re: (Score:2)
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 e
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
They revamped the EPA methodology a few years ago, which pushed the ratings down for most cars, so it is a bit more accurate. And locking transmissions only affect highway mileage was my point. Yes, they have been around for two decades, but not on all cars. They are much more common now. The main point is that the difference in actual MPG between an automatic and a manual transmission, assuming the same driver and roads, is much smaller than it used to be two decades ago, and in some cases there is vir
Re: (Score:2)
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 bette
Re: (Score:2)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
My little Fabia vRS has a 6 speed gearbox and an intercooler (though in a crappy position where it tends to heat up - you can get conversion kits to mount it on the front rather than the side), plus I had the ECU remapped for more aggressive use of the turbo.
My MR2 definitely edges it out in straight line speed because of the extra rev range and aerodynamics though, and it would even take it in the corners due to being much lower and having much stiffer suspension. Getting a V6 conversion isn't too expensiv
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Should be reliable (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"Some older motorbikes could be made to fire flames out of their exhaust"
Almost all sports motorbikes will exhaust flames when you aggresively reduce gear so the engine goes above the red line.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) It uses gas. (and everything else uses diesel, so you have to carry another thing around logistically)
Completely wrong. Like most other gas turbine engines, it can run on just about anything. It can run on gasoline, diesel, or any blend of kerosene. The US Army runs theirs on JP-8, jet fuel, as that simplifies their logistics. The Australian Army runs theirs on diesel, as that simplifies their logistics.
4) It is really LOUD. (considering its a tank, that's sayin' something!)
From what I've heard, it's actually surprisingly quiet. The loudest thing you hear is the noise of its tracks, rather than the diesel engines of traditional armored vehicles.
however you're still dependent on oil, so I see this as a complicated confusing step backwards.
No, you are dependent on com
Re:Should be reliable (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Your lowest efficiency single cycle gas turbine is already a 72% improvement. That's pretty awesome.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score: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.
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Well, considering the Prius would probably need a couple of JATO bottles to reach 205 mph, I bet this thing still wins.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on metrics.
Prius was designed to be affordable, and there aren't not many roads where such speed is usable.
Also, -what- is the emission while running on the turbines directly? The electric drive may be more efficient but still carbon emission occurs while on "dirty drive" and I don't know which engine is more "dirty".
No wonder a newer, more expensive car "wins"...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
A step in a right direction (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
I especially like this "Can run on any hydrocarbon" design. Everything from LPG to Rapeseed are viable to power this thing.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. That was the point of F1's new "no refuelling" rule this year - fuel efficiency suddenly went right up the list of priorities.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually there's nothing "funny" or ironic about it at all (I hate it when people say things like that). In most cases technologies that can make a car perform better, often with no efficiency gain or even at the cost of efficiency, can make a car more efficient if applied differently. Even in areas like handling that would seem to have no application on the street. If you could take highway ramps at full highway speed you wouldn't have to waste a load of energy by slowing down - of course it wouldn't be co
Rather than complex rules.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always thought that NASCAR in particular could reduce the thickness of their rulebook considerably by putting the teams on a fuel allowance for the race. If the cars start going too fast to be safe, pull back the fuel they are allowed to get.
Re:A step in a right direction (Score:4, Informative)
Your post is sort of like saying that no NASA technologies make it into everyday life because we don't have space shuttles in our driveways.
BTW some cars within a mere mortal's budget that have robotized manual gearboxes with auto rev matching include the Toyota MR-S and Mitsubishi Evo 10, just off the top of my head. Many Audis have it as well (Audi DSG system). The Nissan 370Z also has auto rev matching with a stick-shift manual.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
so it is very much like computers isn't it? nothing you see in the desktop (the powerhouse equivalent of a racecar) makes it to a laptop (the consumer model)
that processor you see in the desktop? no, that takes too much power the battery in the laptop could never handle it. that awesome video card in the desktop? no, that runs too hot, the laptop would overheat. well how about that harddrive? too big, there isn't space to put it in the laptop.
Just because the parts aren't able to move directly from the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, never. Except for:
Electronic ignition
Electronically-controlled fuel injection
Rack-and-pinion steering
Disk brakes
Electric radiator fans
Variable valve timing
Radial tires
And about everything else that is now considered "normal" on a c
What budget? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
The summary left out the following important words before quoting performance figures: "Jaguar believes..."
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This is completely wrong (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
"I shit the bed" (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Simpsons (Score:2)
But is it monkey navigated?!
FAIL (Score:2)
makes me wonder... (Score:2)
...if anything would've changed had Parnelli Jones not lost a ball bearing in 1967.
Looks like... (Score:2)
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 Roadste
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember hearing about some of the problems with this, and another. A turbine also happens to be wonderful gyroscope, so Chrysler's Turbine Car (I remember seeing the TV commercials as a kid.) had an embedded gyroscope which interfered somewhat with steering. Obviously arranging the axis of the turbine correctly can take care of this, but might make it more difficult to extract power from the engine. When I heard that this new car had 2 turbines, especially after reading about the difficulty of scaling
Re: (Score:2)
You could build a single turbine with counter rotating blades geared together to a single shaft which would counteract the gyro effect. When the turbine drives a generator (which could be build on the same shaft as the turbine so no gear box is needed) things get simple since the turbine can now run at a constant speed (something it can't do when connected to a tranny to drive the wheels directly). Also the high temperatures reached in the combustion in a turbine allow the fuel to always be completly burn
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
DO you mean diesels run in the opposite direction south of the equator?
TURBINE does not equal JET (Score:2, Informative)
Dammit!
That is all.
Dave
How's it compare to the jet VW Beetle though? (Score:2)
Synergy Tata Nano! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Very Cool (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Unlike an American V8, which continues to put out awesome amounts of power even after it breaks.
Re:Very Cool (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
...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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem with safety systems like that (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
It's frightening that someone modded you insightful.
Vehicle extrications are death-traps for firefighters. Just to name a few issues:
Shocks in bumpers, prone to send the bumper flying off the car at knee height
Rollover bars, prone to release at the wrong time and pummel anything in its path (already killed more than one FF)
Chemical airbags, which can cause injury or burns
Stored-gas airbags and their cylinders and tubing - not good to cut into a ~3Kpsi cylinder
High-voltage cables in hybrids
Magnesium and springs in steering columns
Hood and tailgate struts, prone to overheating and exploding
Fuel tank, fuel lines, etc.
And more...
Our bunker gear is insulating... from HEAT, not electricity. I carry a few different types of gloves (structural, extrication, work gloves for hose rolling) - none of them are rubber or insulating from electricity either. There is nothing in a firefighter's typical equipment that will provide any significant protection from electricity. Cutting a high-voltage cable in a hybrid will result in significant injury at best... death at worst.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know what voltage you have in a Prius, but I'm an electrical engineer and I'm pretty certain that any sort of rubber gloves, even those very thin ones worn by surgeons, will keep you safe from the voltages found in an electric car.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
I know it makes me sound like a pussy, but I really don't want anyone doing 205mph at least until they fix the potholes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why do people assume all or even a majority of accidents at tripple digits are fatal? NASCAR has several crashes at near 200mph every year and yet it's been a decade since they've killed a driver or even seriously injured one. Granted they have the advantage of designing the obstacles the car can hit, but as an accident earlier this year show
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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."
How is that different than having one motor and computer-controlled multi-wheel drive and braking systems?
Re:Very Cool (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"Its awesome that it can run on diesel, biofuel, natural gas, or *LP*"
Yes, I indeed find awesome that it can run on old farted vinyls.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Why not a jet pack? (Score:4, Funny)
So "a six-pack and a pack of smokes" is thinking too small?
Re:What about noise pollution? (Score:4, Insightful)
You and I sir must have a different opinion of how freaking awesome a jet engine sounds.
Re:What about noise pollution? (Score:4, Insightful)
And you must never have worked on a flightline or have any idea how loud a B-52 or a C-5A is.
I'm hoping the Jaguar car uses slightly smaller engines than those gargantuan military aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Jet engines always sound awesome.
Re:The downside... (Score:5, Funny)
Also after years of research Jaguar found a way to make a gas turbine leak oil.
Maybe they should have put in another engine then (Score:2)
rich people with money to burn.
One that runs on bank notes comes to mind.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I didn't know a Prius could do 205 mph.
It can do 0-60 in 2.6 seconds if you find a high enough cliff.