Turbine cars have long been a pipe dream since the dawn of the jet age that first spurred imaginations all over the world some sixty years ago. But practically speaking, turbine cars have never really taken off. They were either incredibly dangerous or prohibitively expensive (or both, like the Chrysler Patriot). They have also been beset by noise issues in the past.
But British luxury car maker Jaguar is giving it another go—and the British government is bankrolling the project. Rather than using a turbine to turn a driveshaft (which required a huge flywheel), Jag plans to use the turbine engine to power electric motors. Brilliant!
Jaguar has teamed up with Bladon Jets to produce a small, super-efficient turbine engine that will fit into a car body while maintaining the car’s profile. The British government has awarded the project $24 million after the Technology Strategy Board was convinced by a presentation that the project was feasible. SR Drives will also be working on the project to produce what it calls an Ultra Lightweight Range Extender.
There is a long history of British turbine cars, starting with Rover back in the 1950′s. In 1951 the Rover Jet-1 roadster went 152 mph during one test, and they even entered a turbine car into the 1963 24 Hours of LeMans. Alas, jet cars never made it to production (though one fellow installed a jet engine into his Beetle). Will a gas-turbine-electric-hybrid work? We’ll have to wait and see, though the concept shows some promise.
Still waiting for my flying car though.
Source: Wired | Image: Rover Jet-1
PDF 
About Christopher DeMorro
Capstone Microturbine has done this with a couple of hybrids, including a Ford. And, they claim to get 80 MPG from diesel fuel in “range extension” mode.
A microturbine makes a lot more sense than using an ICE as a range extender. They are lighter, more efficient and much less complex. Now, if someone could only make them affordable, they may become the range extender of choice.
Capstone Microturbine has done this with a couple of hybrids, including a Ford. And, they claim to get 80 MPG from diesel fuel in “range extension” mode.
A microturbine makes a lot more sense than using an ICE as a range extender. They are lighter, more efficient and much less complex. Now, if someone could only make them affordable, they may become the range extender of choice.
Capstone Microturbine has done this with a couple of hybrids, including a Ford. And, they claim to get 80 MPG from diesel fuel in “range extension” mode.
A microturbine makes a lot more sense than using an ICE as a range extender. They are lighter, more efficient and much less complex. Now, if someone could only make them affordable, they may become the range extender of choice.
Capstone Microturbine has done this with a couple of hybrids, including a Ford. And, they claim to get 80 MPG from diesel fuel in “range extension” mode.
A microturbine makes a lot more sense than using an ICE as a range extender. They are lighter, more efficient and much less complex. Now, if someone could only make them affordable, they may become the range extender of choice.
How does the real world thermal efficiency of a turbine compare with a diesel engine when both are being used to generate electricity?
How does the real world thermal efficiency of a turbine compare with a diesel engine when both are being used to generate electricity?
How does the real world thermal efficiency of a turbine compare with a diesel engine when both are being used to generate electricity?
Does anyone know who actually put together the Capstone Microturbine cars? …somehow I doubt it was actually them.
Derek et al.,
Refer to this previous article for more info on the Capstone Turbine car:
http://gas2.org/2009/11/30/diesel-electric-supercar-has-80-mile-battery-range-gets-44-mpg-after-that/
I have a 20 minute interview with all the people involved that I conducted at the 2009 LA Auto Show that SOMEDAY I will post on gas 2.0… promise.
Derek et al.,
Refer to this previous article for more info on the Capstone Turbine car:
http://gas2.org/2009/11/30/diesel-electric-supercar-has-80-mile-battery-range-gets-44-mpg-after-that/
I have a 20 minute interview with all the people involved that I conducted at the 2009 LA Auto Show that SOMEDAY I will post on gas 2.0… promise.
Derek et al.,
Refer to this previous article for more info on the Capstone Turbine car:
http://gas2.org/2009/11/30/diesel-electric-supercar-has-80-mile-battery-range-gets-44-mpg-after-that/
I have a 20 minute interview with all the people involved that I conducted at the 2009 LA Auto Show that SOMEDAY I will post on gas 2.0… promise.
Does anyone know who actually put together the Capstone Microturbine cars? …somehow I doubt it was actually them.
Derek et al.,
Refer to this previous article for more info on the Capstone Turbine car:
http://gas2.org/2009/11/30/diesel-electric-supercar-has-80-mile-battery-range-gets-44-mpg-after-that/
I have a 20 minute interview with all the people involved that I conducted at the 2009 LA Auto Show that SOMEDAY I will post on gas 2.0… promise.
John,
I have seen efficiency numbers of 32% for a turbine vs. 25% for an ICE. But, I have no idea if that is accurate. I do know turbines are more efficient, which is one reason they use them in commercial airlines.
Just cutting the weight of the range extender in half would make the vehicle more efficient. Then, you would get rid of the wasteful cooling and the recipricating motion. Plus, all of the wasteful systems like water pumps, oil pumps, valve trains and timing belts.
The reason I want a microturbine is for simplicity and low-maintenance. They only have one moving part and this rotor/stator rides on an air bearing. Cars are way too high-maintenance and getting worse every year. I think they are designed to enrich the car companies at our expense.
John,
I have seen efficiency numbers of 32% for a turbine vs. 25% for an ICE. But, I have no idea if that is accurate. I do know turbines are more efficient, which is one reason they use them in commercial airlines.
Just cutting the weight of the range extender in half would make the vehicle more efficient. Then, you would get rid of the wasteful cooling and the recipricating motion. Plus, all of the wasteful systems like water pumps, oil pumps, valve trains and timing belts.
The reason I want a microturbine is for simplicity and low-maintenance. They only have one moving part and this rotor/stator rides on an air bearing. Cars are way too high-maintenance and getting worse every year. I think they are designed to enrich the car companies at our expense.
John,
I have seen efficiency numbers of 32% for a turbine vs. 25% for an ICE. But, I have no idea if that is accurate. I do know turbines are more efficient, which is one reason they use them in commercial airlines.
Just cutting the weight of the range extender in half would make the vehicle more efficient. Then, you would get rid of the wasteful cooling and the recipricating motion. Plus, all of the wasteful systems like water pumps, oil pumps, valve trains and timing belts.
The reason I want a microturbine is for simplicity and low-maintenance. They only have one moving part and this rotor/stator rides on an air bearing. Cars are way too high-maintenance and getting worse every year. I think they are designed to enrich the car companies at our expense.
John,
I have seen efficiency numbers of 32% for a turbine vs. 25% for an ICE. But, I have no idea if that is accurate. I do know turbines are more efficient, which is one reason they use them in commercial airlines.
Just cutting the weight of the range extender in half would make the vehicle more efficient. Then, you would get rid of the wasteful cooling and the recipricating motion. Plus, all of the wasteful systems like water pumps, oil pumps, valve trains and timing belts.
The reason I want a microturbine is for simplicity and low-maintenance. They only have one moving part and this rotor/stator rides on an air bearing. Cars are way too high-maintenance and getting worse every year. I think they are designed to enrich the car companies at our expense.
Every major auto maker had a turbine car prototype in the 1960s…Ford, GM, Chrysler, Volvo, VW, etc. They ALL mysteriously disappeared around 1969. Test drivers commented on the LACK of noise. Opponents pushed the fear of centrifugal decomposition, but this is not an issue for jet planes. Most prototypes used a small Boeing twin-shaft turbine. My hunch is that because turbines are inherently MULTI-FUEL they were a threat to gasoline addiction and were axed. Turbo genset + electric drive is the next logical step for hybrids. Thanks for the article!
Every major auto maker had a turbine car prototype in the 1960s…Ford, GM, Chrysler, Volvo, VW, etc. They ALL mysteriously disappeared around 1969. Test drivers commented on the LACK of noise. Opponents pushed the fear of centrifugal decomposition, but this is not an issue for jet planes. Most prototypes used a small Boeing twin-shaft turbine. My hunch is that because turbines are inherently MULTI-FUEL they were a threat to gasoline addiction and were axed. Turbo genset + electric drive is the next logical step for hybrids. Thanks for the article!
Every major auto maker had a turbine car prototype in the 1960s…Ford, GM, Chrysler, Volvo, VW, etc. They ALL mysteriously disappeared around 1969. Test drivers commented on the LACK of noise. Opponents pushed the fear of centrifugal decomposition, but this is not an issue for jet planes. Most prototypes used a small Boeing twin-shaft turbine. My hunch is that because turbines are inherently MULTI-FUEL they were a threat to gasoline addiction and were axed. Turbo genset + electric drive is the next logical step for hybrids. Thanks for the article!
Plugin Hybrid CNG Micro-turbine, that’s the way to do it.
Plugin Hybrid CNG Micro-turbine, that’s the way to do it.
the star rotor engine use the same cycle use the same cycle as t jet engine but it use what looks like gerotors instead turbines. The advantage that gerotors do not allow back follow like turbines and have great operational rpm.
the star rotor engine use the same cycle use the same cycle as t jet engine but it use what looks like gerotors instead turbines. The advantage that gerotors do not allow back follow like turbines and have great operational rpm.
the star rotor engine use the same cycle use the same cycle as t jet engine but it use what looks like gerotors instead turbines. The advantage that gerotors do not allow back follow like turbines and have great operational rpm.
the star rotor engine use the same cycle use the same cycle as t jet engine but it use what looks like gerotors instead turbines. The advantage that gerotors do not allow back follow like turbines and have great operational rpm.