60mpg H3

[sickpuppy318]

Apparently, all you need to offset the horrendous aerodynamics and curb weight is about twice the power!?!?

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/...d-messiah.html

[whokilledthejams]

Turbine engines are often used for industrial-scale generators, as they can be quite efficient as such. Of course, setting one up in an H3 is just obnoxious showboating.

In a hybrid application, it's actually not a horrible idea.

[ebacherville]

so then why arn't we using these engines? if there more efficient, they have less moving parts I'd think also..

60,000 rpm!! wow talk about needing gear reduction..

They are very fuel forgiving meaning veggie oil... SWEET

Think I can find one at around 50H, that will replace my CRX engine?

[reformed]

What doesn't make sense to me is the fact that they claim 600hp with this setup, yet they say the turbine engine only kicks on to charge the batteries for a short period of time and then shuts back off. In my eyes that makes the wheels turned by the electric motors only, so unless he has 600hp worth of electric motors, then the car isn't putting the power of the turbine to the ground, directly, meaning the car doesn't really have 600hp available for you to use.

[Johnny Mullet]

Originally Posted by ebacherville

so then why arn't we using these engines? if there more efficient

Chrysler did this in 1963

Se the Wiki page here.....................
Chrysler Turbine

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by reformed

...the car doesn't really have 600hp available for you to use.

It does - or it would if the electric motors were capable of outputting 600 HP. The point is that the HP figure (for any car) is a maximum. You very seldom use anything like the max for more than a few seconds - maybe pulling a heavy trailer up a steep grade would do it.

So what this guy is doing is not all that different from the Chevy Volt concept, or any plug-in hybrid. The electric motor acts as a transmission, with power either coming from the batteries or the engine. That lets him run an engine that's inherently more efficient than an IC engine, at its most efficient level.

Of course it's possible to get even better than a gas turbine. Use a Stirling engine. Look at some of the work Ford (IIRC) did in the 70s. The problem is that they take a while to warm up & are not good on acceleration. Marry them to a hybrid system where you start & accelerate with the battery, and 100 mpg would be easy. Then you put the system in something like the Aptera, instead of one of those oversized penis substitutes...

[sickpuppy318]

Industrial applications involve running a steam engine off the exauhst, called cogeneration. Pair that "hybrid" engine tech with electric motor driven wheels, and you've got a "trybrid". Big corps like toyota have plenty of tech to make awsomely efficient cars, but no incentive. Efficiency isnt first priority, its efficiencyXmarketability/cost.

[ebacherville]

well with gas at 4+ a gallon right now and planned increases... first automaker that drops 100MPG highway on the market place will make a KILLING, people will pay extra for that even though it wont pay its self back in any way in the lifespan for the car.. a 100mpg car at 12k a year will only spend $7,200 in gas at 5 a gallon.. over 12 years... a car at 30 mpg will consume $24,000 in gas at 5 a gallon. its only a $16,800 savings over the life of the car I used 12k a year for 12 years... 144,000 miles..

Now a 300mpg Aptera hybrid, $2400 over 144,000 miles thats the place we want cars to be .. and the Apteras should cost less to drive as its a motorcycle for insurance and also tires are less as there are less wheels.. even if you needed 2 apteras to get your family around you'd still be saving cash for the most part over a better than average 30 mpg car today.

The realization that a Prius only saves you $15,000 over 12 years really is sad..

However the more expensive gas gets the more this will change.. when gas is $10 a gallon double all the figures of savings and costs .. then these things start to make crap loads of sense..

The smaller and more efficient the car is the cheaper it is to own over the life span , but gas prices will make this a somewhat exponential realization.. a car like the aptera could storm the industry .. hopefully it does..

I can see the ad now..

"You drive a SUV at 15mpg, gas prices seem to go up every day, at todays gas prices of $5 a gallon over 12 years you'll spend $48,000 on gas alone, if prices don't change... you could buy 2 of theses brand new Aptera's, and your fuel cost to drive these for 12 years is $2400 each.. And you can drive in the carpool lane too... What do you want to drive?"

[sickpuppy318]

the problem with the aptera is that there is no room for an independant automaker in the global marketplace. Of the American big three, i think Chrysler will be the first to go. Hell, we were looking for at new cars not to long ago, and i loved the look of thier smallest sedan, avenger i think, untill i seen it had a FOUR SPEED automatic. 29MPG If we were going to drop 14,000 dollors, youda thought they would put that extra gear in there. No manuals on the lot. I went to toyoda, and the salesman told me the DIDNT MAKE a five speed yaris. Asshole... We buy what they want to sell us...Untill one of these corporate tyrants goes down, we will have to make the REALLY efficient vehicles ourselves.

Well, i'm poor, so i'll just have to lube up and take it

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by ebacherville

...people will pay extra for that even though it wont pay its self back in any way in the lifespan for the car...

And why should it? That's the old false comparison trick: make the hybrid look bad by comparing it against the cheapest car you can find. So when you shell out $80K or so for a new 911 Porsche, how long is the payback period? If people are willing to pay extra for whatever the Porsche offers, why shouldn't they likewise be willing to pay more, with no expectation of payback, for a car that uses little fuel?