Jaguar Electric hybrid car 200mph 560 mile range 1,800ft/lb torque

Physorg article

0-62 (100kph) 3.4 seconds, emissions 28g carbon/km

... and it's pretty. can I have one please

Cnet page

edit for second link

For comparison:



I suspect that figure must be with the battery still being drained. Driving a car that size more than 3 times more efficiently than the lowest emission cars now available sounds incorrect (the Toyota Prius has a rating of 89g/km too).
[br />

Vehicles like the one in the article, which use a combustion engine to drive an electric motor, instead of using it to provide direct physical power, are vastly more efficient than any other type of ICE-driven vehicle, even a Prius.

For instance, the Chevrolet Volt, a series hybrid, will get about 50mpg when running off the gasoline engine, about the same as the Prius.

That article mentions the EPA used to use a methodology for hybrids that really wasn't much use. I wonder if this Jaguar figure (which sounds European, being g/km) is similarly misleading.

I'd question whether a series hybrid is 'vastly more efficient' than any other type of use of an ICE engine. Why should generating electricity, and using it at once, be much more efficient than using the mechanical power directly? There is the advantage of running at the most efficient speed for the required load, but that's just what you get from a well-chosen gear ratio, or a continuously variable transmission. To be 3 times as efficient doesn't sound feasible.

"Why should generating electricity, and using it at once, be much more efficient than using the mechanical power directly?"

Because it is. Simple as that. An electric motor does more work for less input energy than it would take to do the same work mechanically, because it's much more efficient. And because it can use stored electricity, generated at stations which produce much less CO2 per unit of energy than

Look at it this way: a gallon of gas contains 33 kilowatt-hours of energy per gallon. Let's assume you have a typical compact car that gets 33 miles to the gallon. That means that it takes 1000 watt-hours of gas to drive that car one mile.

In comparison, the Tesla Roadster--an ultra-high-performance electric sportscar--requires only about 250 watt-hours of electricity to drive the same distance.

So using stored electricity doesn't count. This is a question of how efficient the car is when not relying on the electricity grid. And I thought you meant that too, because you were talking about what a series hybrid can do, which is about running an internal combustion engine in the car to produce electricity which is then used.

The figure for the Tesla of 250 Wh to drive a mile is 250 Wh of electricity. To get an equivalent with hydrocarbon fuel, you have to work out how much carbon dioxide was produced to get that; it might be (practically) none, if carbon-free generation is dedicated to recharging the batteries, or it will be burning considerably more than 250 Wh worth of fuel, because that step has significant losses if fossil fue] generation is used. You need to give a figure for the electricity generation before comparing a conventional gasoline vehicle and a battery one.

I think that as the article associated with the one I linked to earlier suggests, a plug-in hybrid should quote 2 figures: one for electric-only driving, and one for when the engine is providing all the net power. The electric-only figure is then comparable with a battery-only vehicle.

The Jaguar C-X75 (named for Jaguar’s 75th anniversary) has another option that other electric cars do not offer, which is a boost by two 70 kW micro gas turbines running on a choice of natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, diesel or biofuels, mixed with air. The micro gas turbines spin at 80,000 rpm and can power the electric motors directly (increasing the power) or can be used to recharge the battery (increasing the range).


Even a regular reciprocating engine has the advantage in this application of running at a constant speed, avoiding the constant variance that goes along with using the mechanical output to push the wheels. That should at least double and maybe even triple the efficiency right there. Of course, against that there is the weight of the hybrid system.

The use of the micro gas turbine is designed to maximize that advantage of operating at a constant speed.

That sounds like a figure pulled out of thin air. I would refer you to the Chevrolet Volt which, as we have already established, gets 50 mpg when running on its gasoline engine. That is not a 2 or 3 times improvement.

And yes, I read the article. I think I've analysed it more than the person who wrote it.

You also have to take into account the debit against that improvement which I mentioned - added weight.
However, I fess up to a mistake in memory. I recalled the microturbine as having an efficiency greater than 50%. Which it does, but only when CHP is part of the equation for stationary use. I went back and checked and the test I'd read reported about a 22% efficiency in the production of electricity from a generator and about 55% with CHP.

The pub was
Summary of Results from Testing a 30-kW-Microturbine and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) System
Frank E. Pierce, Jr.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Integrated Energy System (IES) Test Laboratory

Federal Technology Alert
A New Technology Demonstration Publication
DOE/EE-0316
www.eere.energy.gov/femp

It's interesting.

Your post is woefully misinformed about how energy
flows in vehicle propulsion.

In particular, the very first thing you need to realize is
is that the biggest "losses" in highway vehicle propulsion
are air resistance and Carnot efficiency limits. To a first
order approximation, we could ignore absolutely everything
else and focus on just those two items.

And if we ask ourselves "Could we get your promised
two-to-three times improvement in those items while still
using a conventional recprocating engine?", the answer
is clearly "No" for Carnot efficiency and "Only with radical
design changes" for aerodynamics.

And you're harping on transmission efficiency, but a mechanical
transmission is already a nearly 100% efficient device. Could it
operate the engine in more efficient regimes? Sure, and the CVT
addresses that, as does *EITHER* a parallel or series
hybrid system.

You made it clear you don't understand the basic physical
limits on all of this so I suggested you needed more basic
knowledge.

Tesha

Most of the energy produced by gasoline turns into heat, not physical energy. Some of the physical energy it produces gets converted by friction into heat energy. Some of it gets converted into electricity to run the coolant pump to get rid of the heat energy. All of which is energy which is NOT being used to drive the vehicle. And none of which is addressed by your dissertation on theoretical engineering transmission efficiency. Which also doesn't address that if an automobile engine is already efficient, why my Pontiac Bonneville got better gas mileage than the car I replaced it with, which was nearly 1000 pounds lighter, unless not all drive systems are created equal. But hey, don't let me stop you from ego-tripping.

Just what will this vehicle be used for? Changing the direction of the Earth's rotation?

Its just an added bonus.

The big advantage of electric motors is their ability to deliver that torque down very low, like diesels. This is not only providing the low torque advantage of typical electric motors, but ridiculous amounts of it as well.

when the micro gas turbines (jet engines) are engaged. Those things spin at 80,000rpm.

280 peak Kw = 375 hp. The Porsche 917/30 and Jaguar XJR-12 had two to three times as much hp, but less peak torque.

Awesome. Looks great.

So this new Jag trumps it in both hp and tq figures. When you consider how much of that torque is available just off idle (well, not really idle because it's electric), the thing must accelerate like a funny car.

Now, that's torque - 880 ft/lbs. Note the acceleration is faster from 100-200 mph. The first 0-100 mph is very much limited by available traction, even with 20 inch wide tires.

Here's some comparative stats between the 917/30 and the more modern Audi R8 LeMans


from http://www.cknet.org.uk/html/specification.htm

1973 Porsche 917/30 Cam Am

Engine : Flat 12 turbocharged (max boost 1.5 bar)
Capacity : 5,374cc
Bore / Stroke : 90mm / 70.4mm
Compression ratio : 6.5:1
Maximum power : 1,100bhp @ 8,000rpm
Maximum torque : 1,098 Nm @ 6,400rpm
Brakes : Cross drilled and venilated discs with drilled aluminium hubs.Porsche aluminium four-piston calipers
Wheels : Front - 12" x 15" Rear - 19" x 15" cast magnesium alloy wheels with centre nut and air-extractor cones
Tyres : Goodyear
Dimensions : Length - 4,562mm Width - 2,085mm Height - 730mm
Wheelbase : 2,500mm
Track : 1,670mm (front) 1,564mm (rear)
Turning circle : 13m
Unladen weight : 845kg (33/67 front/rear split)
Fuel tank capacity : 400 Litres
Fuel Consumption : 85 Litres/100Km (or 3.4 miles per gallon)
Maximum speed : kph / 238mph
Acceleration : 0-60 mph : 2.1seconds 0-100mph : 3.9 secs 0-200mph




from: http://www.mulsannescorner.com/audir8-01.html

2001 Audi R8 Specifications

Engine: V8, turbo-charged, 90 degree cylinder angle, 4 valves per cylinder, 2 Garrett turbo-chargers; to comply with the rules 2 x 32.4 mm air restrictors, and boost pressure restriction to 1.67 bars (absolute)
Engine management: Bosch MS 2.8
Engine lubrication: Dry sump, Shell Racing Oil SR
Displacement: 3600 cc
Horsepower: 610+ hp
Torque: 516 lb-ft.
Power transmission: Rear-wheel drive
Clutch: CFC clutch
Gearbox: Sequential 6-speed sports gearbox, partner Ricardo
Differential: Multiple-disc limited slip differential
Driveshafts: Constant-velocity plunging tripod joint
Steering: Power-assisted rack-and-pinion steering
Suspension: Independent suspension at front and rear. Double-wishbone suspension. Pushrod system with horizontal spring/damper unit, adjustable gas-filled shock absorbers
Brakes: Hydraulic dual-circuit brake system, monobloc light-alloy brake calipers, ventilated carbon fiber brake discs at front and rear, brake force distribution, driver adjustable
Wheels: O.Z. forged magnesium rims, Front: 13.5 x 18 inches, Rear: 14.5 x 18 inches
Tires: Michelin Radial, Front: 33/65-18, Rear: 36/71-18
Length: 4650 mm
Width: 2000 mm
Height: 1080 mm
Wheelbase: 2730 mm
Front Overhang: 900 mm
Rear Overhang: 1020 mm
Weight: 900 kgs
Tank capacity: 90 liters

It weighs 2976 pounds and is slightly slower 0-60 than the Corvette ZO6, which weighs about 300 pound more and has "only" 505 horsepower.

Most of the automotive journals peg it at 3.6 or higher. However, I would think that both of these vehicles are a bit traction limited. The ZR-1, on the other hand, would give this Jag something to worry about both on and off the track.

Still, the ZO6 is 300 pounds heavier, it doesn't benefit from an all-wheel drive launch and still almost matches it 0-60.

"real" cars that are in that neighborhood of torque. At least off the top of my head...

The car is monstrous in several ways. It weighs more than two tonnes - like an old LSR car - too much engine to be a real circuit racer.

Check out these You-Tubes:

Videos for Veyron:
Bugatti Veyron vs McLaren F1
7 min - Aug 26, 2009
Uploaded by Autofanatic28
youtube.com

Bugatti Veyron vs. Mercedes Benz McLaren SLR ...
3 min - Oct 13, 2009
Uploaded by schirello
youtube.com

but with more boost. Lots of boost to get 1200 hp out of a 6 liter small block. Too bad they couldn't do that back in "the day" with the Reynolds 8.1 liter Chevys in the McLaren M-20s and UOP Shadows - would've given Mark "UNfair advantage" Donohue a real run in '72-73. Actually, the next generation Shadows beat the 917/30 in some of the match races the following year, before Can Am was castrated.

Still, awfully impressive stats for a street car, any car. http://www.shelbysupercars.com/ultimate-aero.php

0-60 mph: 2.78 seconds
1/4 mile: 9.90 seconds at 144 mph
Top Speed (Tested): 257.41 mph
Top Speed (Projected): 273 mph
Skidpad: 1.05g
0-100mph-0: 11.66 seconds
60mph-0 (braking): 103 feet

will eat that newest Bugatti's top speed for lunch. Nothing will be able to catch it.

rear wing. Nothing you can do about frontal area.

25 years ago there was an R&T shootout between the Lowenbrau Porsche 962 and a Hendricks Winston Cup Car. The IMSA spec 962 did "only" 224 mph and "slippery brick" 1984 NASCAR Chevy did 240 mph. Too much ground effects downforce and wing on the Porsche.

Fastest ever down the Mulsanne Straight before they put in the damn chicanes was 400 kms plus (255 mph) in the 1988 LM-Peugeot. That was another 1000 hp car, but it didn't last 24 hours.

like a piston steam engine. Thats why we have diesel/electric locomotives today and that is why we should have had gasoline engine/electric automobiles for years rather than the transmissions and related gear powertrains we have today.

Most electric engines produce nowhere near that amount of torque (or 1/4th that amount seeing as this Jag has 4 of them). Perhaps that insane amount of torque would work in a supercar that has to rev up to perhaps 7,000+ RPM to achieve that much torque. But having that much torque available off idle seems absolutely ridiculous.

I don't think you understand everything you know about this, but thats just a hunch. ;-) :hi:

Electric motors tend to have a flat torque curve. Meaning that the engine won't have to rev to achieve maximum torque. Given that, an electric engine capable of producing such obscene amounts of torque will be unruly off the line. Even 1100 lb/ft of torque is more than necessary to turn that rubber into clouds of smoke, even when accounting for AWD. Seems to me they should be focusing more on electric motor efficiency at high RPMs rather than ridiculous amounts of low end torque.

seems to me they know what they're doing as the stats on the auto shows, wouldn't you think?

My experience with electric motors is they have the most torque right off stand still and loose torque as they spin faster. anyways

So I don't take any concept as necessarily proof of a good idea. And I'm quite sure if this thing ever reaches production, the torque figure is going to drop precipitously. And me using the term "engine" rather than motor doesn't effect my knowledge any more than you using the word "loose" inappropriately does, it's pretty much a non-issue.

Benz modifier Brabus has made a version of the SL65 that originally had a torque peak of around 1000lb/ft. That proved to be too unruly for even the best drivers out there, so the torque peak was electronically limited to around 750lb/ft. Even with the electronic limiting, nearly everyone who has had any experience with the car basically said that it's only good for going in a straight line. Any sort of high speed turning required mashing on the brakes early and hard, often causing brake failure during even quick track sessions. I can't see how this Jag would be any different. I'm sure it looks good on paper, but I can't imagine it would be a car most would want to drive. Cars need to be balanced in order to be enjoyable and have good performance. With more than 1000lb/ft of torque, I can't imagine that this car is anything approaching balanced.

The micro gas turbines are extremely small and relatively cheap to manufacture. They can run at a fixed, most efficient RPM to recharge the batteries, and provide high performance and efficiency but with low emissions and low maintenance costs. Despite being a type of jet engine, the micro gas turbines are said to be low noise and produce no vibration.

It's a Jaaaaagg.

Clarkson likes Jags, but he hates heavy sports cars because they tend to corner like bricks on rollerskates. They also tend to be so spread out that vehicle balance becomes problematic. The solution here, which puts a motor on each wheel and further spreads the weight out, flies in the face of standard European performance car design (which demands that weight be kept down, and be centered in the vehicle as much as possible). Unless Jag has come up with something new, this thing promises to go very fast in a straight line, but flail around like an obese cow in the corners. It'll handle like an American sports car.

Clarkson hates cars that can't corner. He blasted the Tesla for the exact same thing.

Worse still, Ford greatly improved the beloved Brit company's quality!

Take that Jeremy! America fuck yeah!

Ford sold Jaguar to Tata Motors 2 years ago.

saved the brand.

Going from a godawful British Leyland tinderbox to cars that easily rival the Germans is quite the feat.

They did save Jaguar. If Ford hadn't, there probably would have been no Jaguar to sell to Tata.

:sarcasm:

Major car companies taking electric technology seriously, and helping to dispel the common belief that electrics are hippy cars that do 0-60 in 6 months.

When we start seeing electrics ripping Lambo's and Ferarri's to shreds on the track, the general public will start developing more interest in having one. The 15 year old kid with a poster of a 200+MPH electric Jag on his wall is far more likely to grow into the 25 year old man who decides to go electric for his first new-car purchase.

Ferrari has (I believe) the 599 Hy-Kers and Porsche has the 918 Spyder.

A hybrid 599! Can't think of a more beautiful car to put that tech into.

Besides, fast cars are fun. Staid and practical has its place, but if that's all it took to dominate a market, we'd all be driving Volvo's and mini-vans. If you want electric vehicle technology to take over the automotive world, you have to adapt it to ALL aspects of the market. There is a place for electric commuter cars AND electric supercars. You need electric minivans AND electric Maserati's.

We do understand your priorities.

This is a big step in the right direction.

Look, this isn't the thread for it, but I'm not going to apologize for believing that the protection and promotion of environmental issues is more important than any other liberal subject. The ultimate survival of the ENTIRE human race, rich and poor, is dependent on the survival of our planets functional ecosystem. 90% of the environmental problems on our planet are directly traceable to this BS mindset that the good of the human race must come before all else. If you give me the choice between saving 1000 acres of forest, or clearing the forest so that 1000 family farms can be built to save 3000 poor people from starvation...the trees win. The Earth must be protected, and we can no longer continue to sacrifice our environment and our worlds future for the good of the "economy", or "growth", or "development", or even to more laudable goals like fighting poverty.

So yes, I DO support the development of technologies like this, because they ultimately help to protect and improve the environment for EVERYONE. They save the future for EVERYONE. Even if they do kill a few people, the ultimate goal is to move humanity away from the use of a fuel source that will eventually kill us ALL, so it's a trade I'm willing to make. If you aren't, it's YOUR priorities that need to be re-examined, not mine.

I support any technological advancement that moves us closer to a world where human activities are environmentally benign. Electric supercars, and the marketing buzz they generate, are a part of that. You have to appeal to the masses, and this is a wonderful tool to do it with.

For just plain folks, the means to survive is much more important.

But, then, I wouldn't expect that to matter to those for whom being able to go 200 mph is such a joy.

Many years ago I had a 99 Corvette with HUD, Vortech ram air and a few other extras. She used make comments like, "you're never going to drive it that fast so do you have it?"

That is until I had to let her borrow it for a day and she didn't want to give it back.

You may want to remember... there are also a lot of guys who are "enthusiasts" about jet fighter planes.

Many of us make an issue of those priorities, too, and they make the same objections to it.

So defend all you wish... some of us will continue to question the priorities.

And belong to jet fighter clubs. :silly:

OK, now let's get back to reality. Many people have hobbies and enjoy things that I don't enjoy, but that's just one of those things that makes us unique. Among being an avid chess player and coin collector, I'm also a car enthusiast. Being that your approval adds absolutely nothing to my life, there is nothing for me to defend. Some guy on the internet looks down his nose at other people's passions that don't conform to his. Yep, I can live with that.

You might just want to remember that others YOU denigrate for their values feel just as defensive as YOU do.

Not that I expect you to be willing to understand that. You're right, and that's all there is to it.

Good luck with that.

Bye now... it is useless to try to converse with those whose minds are made up, whether they are RW or think they are more aware than that.

YOU are the one snubbing your nose at other people's hobbies, not me.

I imagine quite a few people can juggle more than one priority at a time-- some for cultural and socual progress, while yet maintaining others than are little more than personal hobbies.

Although I do realize that there are those who dogmatically tell with righteous fervor us what, when and how we may concern ourselves... lest we are perceived as uncaring by those who see everything so much better than us whilst staring myopically at only one concern.

As I said elsewhere, please remember that there are men who also think that jet fighters are really cool, and are all involed with them.

We anti-war people (which you may or may not be one) also express our opinion about their priorities, and they respond in the same tone as yours.

You might want to give that some thought.

When you have the time. Between rpms.

Maybe after the election, some of you will be more willing to reassess your values.

"Maybe after the election, some of you will be more willing to reassess your values."

I'm not a seasonal car enthusiast.

Being obtuse isn't helping your cause.

You've made disparaging remarks about other people's hobby. How is it your place to judge what other people enjoy if they aren't harming anyone?

And don't say, "I've already answered that." That's the classic out for someone who hasn't answered a thing.

think there is any harm in their "enthusiasm".

I don't believe you are trying to understand anything. I think you have decided that you have the inalienable right to cheer for whatever excesses you think is just fine, and anyone who says anything different is "disparaging".

Have a nice life blowing everyone else off the highway in your luxury machine.

Bye.

Perhaps you'd like explain? And hello, you can fully enjoy driving sports cars without speeding and without driving unsafe.

:wow:

I do recognize that tech improvements are important.

and a car that one in a thousand or more people can afford.

still, the technology is a boon in the long run.

It's the rule of nine (actually I just made this rule up)

Nine out of ten people act out selfish desires. Talking about global warming and dependence on foreign oil tends to put people to sleep.

it's good to offer the elite something so they can get onboard too ... so yes this is just what is needed. Thumbs up :thumbsup: to Jaguar!

They can strut their stuff AND be proud of being "green".

GAK.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:D

Cool car.

"If you have to ask the price, you cannot afford it."

Still, I want one!

Dear Santa, ...

They're never going to sell it.

It might go 200 mph, it might have a 560 mile range, it might be capable of producing 1,800 foot pounds of torque, but it sure as hell can not do those things at the same time. Run it at 200 mph and see if it goes 560 miles, use the stored energy to crank out that big torque number, but then see how long it can do it before the whole thing goes up in flames.

This is just gigantic distortion to promote a technology that is no better than what it is intended to replace, no cleaner, no more efficient, no less expensive.