Hybrid Racing stories

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 12 2006, 01:22 PM) [snapback]270066[/snapback]</div>

The Corvette C6 already accomplishes this, except it gets mid-high 20 MPG and sub-5 second 0-60 MPH times.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TorqueDog @ Jun 12 2006, 04:07 PM) [snapback]270092[/snapback]</div>

How about a tZero? http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_html_home.htm
Pure EV, 0-60mph in 4.1 sec.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ScottY @ Jun 12 2006, 04:24 PM) [snapback]270109[/snapback]</div>

Uh... from their faq.

The driving range will vary by about a factor of two, depending on how you drive. With very careful driving, up to 100 miles is possible. Making frequent use of the performance capability of the car can drop the range to 50 miles. The range at a steady 60 mph is 100 miles.

Given that a corvette can go hundreds of miles, without being 'careful', it's not really a good comparison. Mind you the T-Zero also has no A/C and the battery pack is good for an astounding 15-20K miles. Any sane person would take the 'Vette.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Jun 12 2006, 04:32 PM) [snapback]270115[/snapback]</div>

I thought our only conern here is performance, no?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ScottY @ Jun 12 2006, 04:38 PM) [snapback]270120[/snapback]</div>

In that case, want to strap on a pair of roller skates and strap a rocket to your back? I betcha you'll go real fast.

I think the concern is performance of cars. The T-Zero is more of a disposable car than a real car. If you want to throw a limited production car up against another, compare the T-Zero to a Caterham CSR260 and watch the T-Zero get spanked in just about every aspect.

 

"improved aerodynamics" with a hybrid drive system? what? How does the Tzero handle and can it get to 60 in 4.1 seconds every time till the battery runs out? The t-zero looks like that old cartoon dune buggy from the knockoff of scooby-doo.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Jun 12 2006, 04:40 PM) [snapback]270122[/snapback]</div>

Then there will be another thread defining "a real car". :huh: :blink:

Well, my point is that we got our car, and we are happy about it (MPG, performance, technology, gadgets, environmental reasons, _____ fill in the blank). And they are happy about their race cars. But you can always find another car that can beat our cars in some areas, performance wise, MPG wise, <fill in the blank> wise. All the name calling and use of profanity in this thread is pointless, because that will not change our mines that the other car is better than ours.

 

Just checked my stats, the 2005 Corvette Coupe does a quarter mile of 12.5 seconds and a 0-60 MPH time of 4.2 seconds. The new Z06 pulls 11.5 seconds and 3.5 seconds for quarter mile and 0-60 MPH.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ScottY @ Jun 12 2006, 02:24 PM) [snapback]270109[/snapback]</div>

Where do I start?

It's ugly, the interior is spartan and bland, it has no air conditioning or any other creature comforts that the Corvette comes with, it is even more impractical than a Countach, it's too much light for any sort of highway travel (ever had a semi blow by you and feel like the car is about to fly away?), and judging by their expected price target of "Between Porsche and Ferrari" as per their FAQ, it's ridiculously overpriced.

And worst of all, the range at highway speed is absolutely atrocious. I don't know about you, but I like to travel more than 100 miles without having to stop for petrol or I guess in this case, having to 'plug in' the car. Then again, once again referring to the lack of any sort of trunk space, I suppose travelling wouldn't be a task to put this car up to.

It's one thing to make a fast car, but even a Lamborghini has a spot for a briefcase and some biscuits, and can go for more than 100 miles without a refuel.


Did I mention it is a god-awfully ugly car as well?

 

I just can't believe that there are this many people who are as ill informed as I am seeing on this site. I also can not believe that someone actually thought that they won a race against anything more than a Ford Pinto. 17.8 in the quarter is pathetic, my 1996 Z71 pickup does better than that and only getting 15 mpg at 10X MPH is definately not fuel efficient.

For a group of people who feel that this car is eco friendly and doing the environment a favor they sure do have low expectations. Hell the VW Turbo Diesel Jetta gets 860 miles out of a tank and averages around 55 MPG or better and it actually has some style and power.

Man alive, ignorance in the car world is getting worse by the minute.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(timeformegaman @ Jun 11 2006, 03:51 PM) [snapback]269673[/snapback]</div>

Williams already did build a CVT for in testing for the F1 on a V10 engine back in 1993, and shaved 2 seconds off a driver's best time.

It was banned immediately -- why do you think? Even Ferrari was going to use them until they shifted their attention to turbos.

Current production CVTs: Audi's CVT (multi-chain multitronic) and Toyota's CVT (differential gearbox power-split device), and not Honda's, are all high torque handling types, it's not the CVT that's the limiter here.

If not interested in the above Google search link, here's some direct links:
8W - How? - Turbines and CVTs
CVT's, re: Constant Variable Transmissions
DAF passenger cars
Continuously variable transmission at shared power CVPST (Variable Continuously Power Split Transmission)
F1 2006 season - Page 6 - Alfa Romeo Forum Re: F1 2006 season

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Muscle Car @ Jun 12 2006, 02:40 PM) [snapback]270150[/snapback]</div>

Considering that diesel has 12% more power per liter, getting 55MPG diesel is pretty bad. You have to get 56MPG and much better to be equal to gas. This has already been beaten to death.

Wth are you doing here if all you can do is trash talk with no numbers to back you up?

Man alive, ignorance in the car world is getting worse by the minute.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 12 2006, 02:22 PM) [snapback]270066[/snapback]</div>

That isn't really the wave of the future, its just complicating something that GM has been doing since the early 90's. Lets look at the 93-02 Camaro's and Firebirds (V8 Models ofcourse) and then the 92-current Corvette's and the new GTO. My 97 Pontiac Trans Am with the "inferior" LT1 motor puts out right at 300-305 Crank HP and easily gets 20mpg in the city and can achieve 30mpg highway, ofcourse this is assuming you are driving with a light foot because god knows if i get into it, and i love to get into it, those numbers drop and when i say drive lightly i dont mean shifting at 1500 rpm i mean staying less than 3K which is plent of acceleration. The LS1 introduced in the 97 vette is even better and look at the new LS7 in the new Corvette, 505 underrated HP and it doesnt have the gas guzzler tax, it runs quicker than Ferrari's and Lanbo's for a fraction of the cost and still gets mid 20's for gas mileage. Now how is a sub 6 second 0-60 car (which is a pretty stupid measurement anyways 1/4 mile is a much better meaasurement of a cars performance) getting over 20 mpg new? And how is it an advancement when its already been done with a lot less effort then all this electronic crap, yes technology is great but sometimes it's just over done.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Jun 12 2006, 05:45 PM) [snapback]270241[/snapback]</div>

Then show it like we've seen with Brian's dyno graphs. I love to learn more.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NuShrike @ Jun 12 2006, 08:01 PM) [snapback]270252[/snapback]</div>

Unfortunately torque curves dont really matter with 100 hp, no matter how flat it might be, the acceleration still sucks

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NuShrike @ Jun 12 2006, 09:01 PM) [snapback]270252[/snapback]</div>

http://aztdiclub.com/gallery/d/47-1/james.jpg

Ouch. Looks like the TDI produces nearly 3/4 more torque than the Prius. And it spends most of it's life over 100lb/ft, and for nearly 2000 RPM it's over 150lb/ft.