60 MPG Hybrid Hummer

Huh.

so, yet another GM product one-off/limited sale vehicle I can't buy.

As if 600 HP is what we all need...

I'm thinking not. But hey, it's the overkill that sells this stuff.

Nevermind the practical market that would REALLY make sales history!

Is this (a 600 HP turbine-driven Hummer) really a platform to make alot of money? Or maybe a hybrid van...slightly larger than a Prius?

Hmmm, makes me think of a Toyota Estima hybrid van...why isn't it over here Toyota? Why do we put up with a hybrid Hummer?

Humans have no end to the non sense in an ever-depleting resource world.

 

And they complain that the added cost to a hybrid is too much...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MikeSF @ Oct 23 2007, 01:45 PM) [snapback]529384[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, and this conversion costs only $28k

Not counting of course that the surplus turbine probably picked up for a few $k would be $120k new with warranty :lol:

If they could throw in a few more buzzwords on this thing (series hybrid, super capacitors, hydrogen, biodiesel, turbine engine, etc, etc) it would probably sprout wings and fly

I can somewhat appreciate the guys enthusiasm for bringing the green(ish) message to the gear heads, but....

Rob

 

How do they get 60mpg out of a turbine? Turbines are LESS efficient then ICE engines. A hybrid hummer with the best technology out there would not get 60mpg unless they made the whole thing out of carbon fiber.

 

For what it's worth, the first gen Bradley CFVs that I used to drive had about 600 HP (or was it 650?) in a 12 cylinder diesel. Of course, they weighed 25 tonnes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wiyosaya @ Oct 24 2007, 08:53 AM) [snapback]529712[/snapback]</div>

If these special super caps existed as advertised (or hoped) why do you need a jet turbine? Why couldn't you simply plug it in?

 

Here's another article, on http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/mo...ad-messiah.html.

This guy is multiple levels of COOL

And also :

Still in operation today, are locomotives with a Diesel-Engine running at an efficient RPM turning a generator, to power multiple electric motors, are very efficient.

Large SUV's have the room to house such a system. Just watch out for birds on takeoff ! :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hampdenwireless @ Oct 23 2007, 09:05 PM) [snapback]529489[/snapback]</div>

That statement is simply false. Gas Turbines are MORE efficent that Internal Combustion Engines. A typical low compression gasoline engine is about 25% efficent. A very efficent turbo diesel is 30 to 31% efficent.

The GE simple cycle gas turbines that I made components for are 35% efficent. These are turbines very similar to those used in airplanes. The combined cycle turbines have efficiencies in the 50 to 60% range. (A combined cycle turbine is a turbine that used the waste heat from the turbine to heat water to drive a steam turbine.)

Take a look at GE's website: http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/...cc/en/index.htm

Gas turbines are very inefficient when used at partial loads. This is why they are not used in automotive applications. However, with a series hybrid, the turbine is only used at near full load to charge batteries and then is turned off.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hampdenwireless @ Oct 23 2007, 10:05 PM) [snapback]529489[/snapback]</div>

Hi Hamdenwireless,

I have no idea about the turbine this guy is using, but have seen Internet information on power generation turbines that run at 55 % thermal efficiency. Which is about 10 % better than a turbo-diesel. These have small RPM range, and multiple combustor stages (using reinjection of fuel into the lean exhaust of first combustor) and also have thermal regeneration besides turbo-compounding.

The bigger problem is keeping the magnets and coil cool on the alternator/generator. Permanent magnets do not like high temperature (currie point temps) and metals increase in resistance with temperature. Putting the generator in front of the intake end does that, but the length of the shaft becomes a real resonance issue, I imagine, besides the extra air drag and gear boxes to get the shaft speed down are lossy.

The other problem is that small turbines are not all that efficient. Similar problem to shop dust control. Reynolds numbers really go up under 12 inch diameter in a tube. Powerplant turbines have 6 foot or so diameter turbines. At high altitudes this is less of a problem, and turbines get quite efficient. He may be misconstruing the 30 + mpg/person efficiency of a fully loaded ducted fan 747 at 30,000 feet with what he will get out of the pure jet at sea level.

I doubt he will get 60 mpg , unless he is not counting the waste vegetable oil as fuel, only some starter gasoline to get it warm. Which he may very well, thinking that is equivalent to what PHEV people are doing with electricity . But, even counting the electricity, the guy who got 172 mpg in his PHEV Prius, got 110 mpgge (MPG Gasoline Equivalent).

 

Everyone ought to keep in mind that this is not a review of a vehicle. This is an article reporting what some guy says he is going to build. He also says that he is going to build a $5,000 bolt-on kit that will improve the FE of an SUV by 50%. You're free to believe his claims. I don't. Just like the Chevy Volt, I want to see an actual car, and read an independent review of its performance, before I believe.

How many such claims have we read over the years, and how many have materialized? CalCars actually built a plug-in Prius, which is able to use 50% grid energy and 50% gas during the first 60 miles of driving after a full charge; and APC actually built the eBox conversion. I can't think of another extraordinary claim that's actually turned out to be real. And neither of those was all that extraordinary: both are based on sound principles.

I think we need a new Forum on PriusChat for fantasy news articles, where make-believe projects and crackpot theories are presented as though they had some relationship with the real world.