[dremd]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

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.

I can 100% assure you that the motors they (MTT) are using have spent 99%+ of their (previous) life running JetA. They are NOT configured to run Gasoline; the MAY run on it, I don't know, but they are CONFIGURED to run on distillates. Jet A is just the fuel that is on all of the offshore platforms here. Also Every platform I've ever been involved with has had a 0 Gasoline engine policy (They run small Diesels).

Originally Posted by theunchosen

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).

That sort of turbine is ENTIRELY different than a turbine that would go in to a n aircraft/ vehicle. They are VERY heavy, but very efficient/ durable. I have a buddy who works on BP Thunder Horse and he is amazed by their large Turbines I'd throw some #'s out there, but i can't remember any. If anyone is interested, let me know and I'll start a new thread with accurate data.
I Do not know the RPM range, but 3600 RPM seems very low for a gas turbine.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

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

It's special purpose is to do everything well.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

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

I've never done anything but sit in an Atom, I could only speculate about this one.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

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.

True; but find me a car in this performance catogory which isn't and I may just buy it.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

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.

for those interested
Chrysler Turbine Car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Ask Dremd how fast the Y2K was.

about like a Stock TT supra to 60
About like a Hyabusa at the end of the Quarter
I haven't seen what it would do after that, but I assure you it is spectacular.

That said a Turbo Hyabusa is faster in the real world.

I "Raced" their S-10 in the TDI last fall, it was hilarious! It looked Like I was going to waste him all the way through the intersection, Then it spooled, and he instantly let off, but in the 1~2 seconds the truck was spooled he got WAY ahead.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

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.

I don't know, but I BELIEVE that's done for noise; it's stupid loud as is.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

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.

Again Noise is a huge issue.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

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.

With a Atrocious lag time; I've spent a good bit of time in a Supra with a T-77 and that is bad for road course, I can't imagine what this would be like on a road course.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

If you add a trans you can add say 2 more gears and the vehicle will crucify the GTR, around bends(lighter)

1) Lighter Does not mean fater in the bends, it means more nimble, easier to control.
2) Crazy long lag time will kill it's ability to react to power needs.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

straights(drag)

Only with a MONSTER torque converter to spool up the turbine; in the mile no doubt, but in the 1/4 no.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

and to the grocery store because the engine is more fuel efficient.

Biggest issue here is turbines idle at very high speeds / fuel consumption (I've heard 30% of max power fuel consumption just to idle but I have no Data) and are difficult to stop/ start. For Fuel economy the GTR is the clear winner, but the Turbine could run on many different fuel types . . .

I sound like I'm beating on you I swear I don't mean it that way.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

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.

Wikipedia Says 17 MPG; I remember the Chrysler Turbine at Henry ford Museum in deerfield, Mi has a sign that claims that ford wasn't able to get double digit fuel economy out of it and therefore chose not to further chase the technology.

Originally Posted by theunchosen

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.

See Above

Originally Posted by theunchosen

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.

I'd LOVE to see it; but in traffic the Turbine isn't efficient, drivable, or quiet enough.

There's a reason that the railroads don't use them any more. Gas turbine-electric locomotive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a reason that Destroyers using Turbine technology have conventional Diesels built in for standard cruising. Combined diesel and gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ( I can't find/ remember that class destroy USA has that uses this Technology, but it is a huge improvement over Turbine only)