Gordon Murray's T.27 EV
 

They keep a a fairly tight lid on this car (and the petrol powered T25):

Murray T27 nears production - Autocar.co.uk

http://cdn.images.autocar.co.uk/612x...01600x1060.jpg

http://cdn.images.autocar.co.uk/612x...111612x408.jpg

The second picture just sank in -- the entire upper front of the car opens up...

Neil,
An interesting concept.
I wonder how closely the production vehicle will follow the one pictured?
A lift up front might have problems with legislation and may even face some "consumer resistance" as they say in the marketing blurb.
In the middle of a downpour who is going to want to open the entire vehicle to a torrent of water?
Still with Gordon Murray doing the design work the pedigree of the credibility is unquestioned for sure.

Peter.

I clicked on this thread hoping to find an electric T77:
http://www.volny.cz/tatra.oldtimer/t77d.jpg

Hmm, the front door on the T27 reminds me of an Isetta. And what's with those un-aero three lug wheels?

Here's another picture:

T.27 | Image | Auto Express

And more details are now available:
Gordon Murray's forthcoming electric T.27 city car in detail — Autoblog Green

An update on the T.27 -- it does very well in crash testing:

http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblo...27-crash-1.jpg
(click on image for link)

http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblo...27-crash-2.jpg

Having the driver in the center helps -- in an offset crash, the driver is better protected. In a full on crash, it is the same as in a conventionally located driving position. That is one of the reasons I put the driver in the center of my open source design, called CarBEN EV:

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/20...ct-part-3.html

Also, in a 1 car crash, having lower weight is better; all else being equal. So, the crumple zone is proportional to the weight.

I really appreciate Murray's engineering insights, our Colin Chapman. He brings 'lightness' back to our contemporary awareness. The T.27 is a masterful project in packaging, fitting engine, drivetrain & passengers in the the smallest envelope.
My first impression though with the egress/ingress choice automatically brings up the BMW Isetta. It also has a front-hinged cabin 'door. I'm sure the T.27 crash photos proves the safety cage/structure could withstand expected collisions. But like the Iso, a front hinge cabin 'door' in any collision will deform and will make it difficult to open and rescue occupants. Knowing his prowess, maybe he has engineered that eventuality too.

Interesting car. Kind of a width-wise "fat boy" version of the Tango

Anybody seen any pictures of the interior, especially behind the driver's seat?
I'd be interested in seeing how passenger ingress/egress is handled.

Does the rear half of the car open clamshell fashion too?
If the two squarish openings in the doors in the first crash photo are for
two sets of door handles/mechanism, it would suggest so.

All I can find is these terse words, from a T25 review:

... The interior of the car also has the feasibility of providing better rear
passenger leg room in case we opt for the single seater option with retrofit
bolt-in rear seats.

The car has a unique door opening mechanism and traverse path. This
permits for passengers of the car to alight even with the car parked at close
proximity to other objects. Access to the car therefore is very easy for
passengers and driver even if the car is car is parked two at a time in the
garage... From: Gordon Murray

My guess is that only the front part opens?

http://photos.autoexpress.co.uk/imag..._374092_25.jpg

Can you believe that that monstrosity comes from the same man who brought you the McLaren F1????

I admit, it's got some clunky details, but any design this tight and compact has to be appreciated. The headlights in particular are quite awkward, but the overall design is quite elegant, I think.

( Same here. :) )

I agree, Murray is a top automotive engineer. Now if car design studios, Pininfarina, Italdesign or Bertone put their 'stile', it would probably have more passion & soul.
Touches of designers, Gandini, Donckerwolke, and even Bangle could be more compelling.

Well, the T27 has leapt to the top of the efficiency list!

Gordon Murray's T27 Is the Most Efficient Car in the World | PluginCars.com

Murray T27 Review | Autocar

Murray T25 Review | Autocar

http://images.cdn.autocar.co.uk/site...-t25-t27-2.jpg

I so dearly want to drive this car...

I would drive a T27 in a second, and a T25 would be pretty great, too. The T27 is close to 100Wh/mile which is in excess of 300MPGe, and the T25 is rated at 96MPG. They each seat 3 adults, so they would be perfect for my driving most of the time.

Great, but for me, I'd accept the trade of less enclosed volume for lower aero drag that a small sports car like package would give. Aesthetics would be more to my liking, too. Probably a minority view.

Actually you would gain room, the car should be lower and stretched out, then again his car is what the C-car should have been. The c-car had too wide of a front and the squared back made it worse.

I have often considered a kammback on the c-car, since the top speed is roughly 50mph any aero gain should be visible on the speedo.

It's tall, but the narrow body should give it very good aerodynamics.

Low isn't the only way to keep frontal area down...

Another point is that the same frontal area can be configured in many ways (tall & narrow ranging to low & wide) but the interior *volume* is not the same for these. A square (or round) frontal area of a given size will, by definition provide more interior volume than a narrow rectangle.

If you consider the passenger space above the floor on the Murray cars, they are nearly square, which means they have more interior space than a low and wide design with the same frontal area.

Low and narrow beats both. I like a 2 seater with the passenger seat beside, but slightly rear of the front, for shoulder room, like many '20s race cars. Guess I'll have to build it.

Low and narrow has less frontal area, sure, but the volume also varies with the proportions of the width and height; and the length too, of course.

The newest VW XL-1 has a staggered tandem seating arrangement; as did the tandem version of the Edison2 VLC. The passenger seat can be moved closer to the driver's seat, because the legs are narrower than the hips...

Tall and narrow is how they fit three people within a smaller footprint than a SMART ForTwo. Granted, they could get more aerodynamic with a longer design with a proper tail, but the whole point is to give it the smallest footprint both in terms of wind resistance and road usage, while giving it usable interior space.

Granted, it's possible to design something more fuel efficient and more aerodynamic, but difficult while meeting the same safety and space targets.

Apart from the not-so-practical canopy, its concept seems to be overall better than the Smart, not just due to its design being more efficient but also more sporty-looking which seems to attract people who see the current eco-cars as not manly enought.

The Smart fortwo has the same horrible drag coeficient as the VW Beetle, 0.38. Which is why the 1 litre Smarts have lower highway mpg then a 4 person sedan. The T-25 has a smaller frontal area, but i doubt it's CD isn't far off. All that engineering, and little thought to aerodynamics. Thats the only bad thing i have to say about it.

I'm sure it's a fantastic city car.

Aerodynamics in a shorter vehicle are a higher challenge than it might appear initially, but the T25/T27 seems to be actually better than the Smart regarding this matter.


Eventually it might still be also not bad in short-to-medium road trips.

The Twizy's cd is worse than a Jeep's.

This one might be at around 0.40 or 0.45... they're remarkably coy about it...

Wasn't its hamster exercise ball shape supposed to improve the aerodynamics? :D


At least in the pictures its cd seems to be lower than the Smart.

The Twizy is supposed to be around 0.68 or thereabouts. It's not a smooth shape... too much stuff sticking out here and there.

The T-car is not as bad, but it's not smooth, either. I'd still like to see what it will do.

I'm betting the production version will look more than a little different. We'll have to say goodbye to the clamshell, for one, and the front bodywork will probably change to make the shape more streamlined.

It would make sense to get a different arrangement for the access instead of that canopy, but I actually wouldn't bet the final version to look dramatically different from this one.