View Single Post
Old 04-23-2009, 05:04 PM   #18 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cookeville, TN
Posts: 850
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by dremd View Post
These guys MTT - Leading Turbine Innovation are located about 20 miles away from me; nifty stuff. They run on used Helicopter motors (in great supply here) so that's green, and they run great on bio-Diesel. I do not belive that typical typical turbines run well on RUG, but I do not know.

In a weird twist I had to wait to align the Supra a few moths back because their Mini was in the shop; lol.

I've seen their Mini (both here, and at SEMA), their S10, and a Y2k in action; awesome stuff, but not so much for me . . . ..

GTR is a very nice car. If you get an opportunity to ride/ drive one DEFIANTLY TAKE IT!
Launch control is killer; I've been lapped by one at MSR Houston, also fun to watch GTR vs Modded GTR racing for some reason the stock one is faster.
Turbines are not really configured to run anything other than standard gasoline(in any octane) but they can do it for extended periods without any real issues other than maybe getting some residues stuck on the injectors, walls, flame can, and turbine blades. That said when anyone talks about running them on those things they are talking about power generation so its running 3600 rpms 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Take it with a grain of salt, because your car engine wouldn't last very long under those circumstances(maybe 2 weeks).

Ok I hear you both. Its a supercar, its not a toy. Its not a special purpose car its a production car.

And the Ariel Atom is a production car and I am pretty sure had it been run it would have beaten the GTR.

The GTR has an extremely expensive service regime. Its going to cost you more than 15K more than you paid in just the first 10K miles.

Chrysler built a turbine engined car in 63. The powerplant was very primitive compared to anything manufactured from 89 on as far as turbines go.

Ask Dremd how fast the Y2K was. Then I am going to tell you thats not even that big of a turbine and its configured in several ways that destroy HP. The biggest problem is the exhaust has to be turned and routed forward making a 180 degree turn and then doing it again. On a turbine its a big deal because back pressure is the enemy.

A car is plenty long enough to mount on longitudinally have it run the front wheels have the exhaust pipe out the back at reasonable temperatures and to avoid starving the engine. The y2k doesn't have an ideal intake.

Effectively if you took a very light chassis like a Lotus and dropped in a turbine of the same weight as their 1.8 engines(200-300 lbs) you come out with a 1 ton vehicle with no trans and output up to 300-450 hp. If you add a trans you can add say 2 more gears and the vehicle will crucify the GTR, around bends(lighter) straights(drag) and to the grocery store because the engine is more fuel efficient.

Chrysler's tank(the 1963 turbine car or the A-831) weighed twice as much as the lotus does and turbine designs have radically improved since then(some in power but mostly in FE). It still got 23 mpg.

A turbine powered lotus could do everything the GTR can do, more, be cheaper to maintain(by a long shot) and get better gas mileage. Your super-lotus would get peak FE on the highway at great speed(the ram scoop would be vacuuming the engine forward defeating alot of drag and achieving its peak performance) whereas the GTR has a reciprocating engine and thus would be starving for FE and power at over 120 mph because you can only turn the cylinder around and dump air so fast.

Its the end of WWII and I am arguing we should build the Jet fighter despite the fact no one else has done it yet, and you are arguing for supersharged radials because we have done that and they are cheaper to produce because we have lots of those around. Give it a few years and true-blue supercars will be turboshaft.
  Reply With Quote