Who killed the jet powered electric car? Nobody... see the video!
The press and consumers alike are already questioning so-called green cars like the pricey hybrids from Lexus as to just how "green" they really are. The same goes for the Prius, as the well-known debate over whether the "well to wheel" environmental cost is not only just not worth it, but worse than even the "anti-green"-est vehicle than them all, the Hummer H2. We're not really collectively buying that particular argument, but it would be a hard sell to convince anybody that the vehicle in the above video is green in any way. Sure, the e-Jet might have started as a plug-in electric GM EV1, but as soon as the jet engine was attached to the rear end, it lost any and all of its eco-conscious credibility, while undoubtedly picking up some other types of street-cred.
[Source: Youtube, thanks for the tip, Joseph]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Joseph 2:55AM (6/19/2007)
I just wonder when the guy got the car. The video was added within the last few weeks so I would assume that means that the guy got his hands on an EV1. But I don't know...Does anyone here have a youtube account so that they can send this guy a message?
By the way, the jet-powered car above, from what I can gather from the several videos, is a PHEV. There is a video inside the car that shows the battery guage b/w empty and full, so I'm assuming it's just an EV1 with a mini jet-engine added. I wouldn't mind owning this car!
Reply
mark 8:43PM (6/18/2007)
Turbines (used in jet engines) can be amazingly efficient at extracting the energy from the source fuel. Thats why they are used in power plants. Of course, if the power extracted is used for something rather pointless, then the efficiency matters little.
Reply
kballs 9:40PM (6/18/2007)
If the turbine engine was smaller (microturbine) and used to run an electric generator to charge the batteries instead of producing comparatively inefficient air-to-air thrust, this would actually have been green... instead it's noisy, thirsty, and not actually very fast.
Reply
Mike Z 11:04PM (6/18/2007)
There is one big issue with turbine power in a car, AFAIK there is no muffle them.
Reply
Tim 8:35AM (6/19/2007)
According to this September 1993 issue of the US Gov’t D.O.E.s Office of Transportation Technology’s HEV Technical Advisor paper... “After investigating both the Gas Turbine and the Stirling Engine, the choice of the HPU (Hybrid Power Unit) was narrowed to the Stirling engine.” GM completed this work in 1993 for God’s sake! http://www.p2pays.org/ref/16/15287.pdf
Technology marches on and the new gas turbines produced since 1998 with newer alloys, a recuperator, and foil bearings are at least 3X more efficient than even the best piston engines when both are running at optimal RPM like in a genset. Yes, GM did put this in the EV1: http://www.autoworld.com/news/GMC/Series_Hybrid.htm Turbines only have 1 moving part and that's why the airliners us them for onboard power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine Could this be one of those old test cars?
Reply
Eric Liberatore 11:07AM (6/19/2007)
How does he back up?
Reply
Chris M 11:49PM (6/19/2007)
Considering that GM would never have allowed such extensive alterations to any leased EV1s, I suspect this was the work of some of GMs own engineers.
There is a 2nd video of the "e-jet" linked on Youtube that shows the interior with test instruments, including an older palm pilot from 1999, kinda dates it. My guess is this was a "mule" used for prototype development for a planned 4 passenger EV hybrid with a gas turbine range extender. The plans were shelved and that car was never put into production.
Reply
Bob_Sheaves 5:25PM (8/29/2007)
To #1- WRONG WRONG WRONG! ANY, generally available turbine burns fuel at the rate of .6 lbs of fuel per horsepower generated per hour. The most INEFFECIENT of current passenger car (not racing or special purpose) engine only uses .38 to .45 lbs/hp/hr.
To #2-Still incorrect. You need a regenerator, as Chrysler used, to recover the heat to raise the effeciency of the turbine. By lowering the tempoerature (expansion of the exhaust gas and the resulting cooling from 1800 degrees F to the neighborhood of 200 degrees) causes the sound level to diminish.
To #3- Incorrect also. The turbines built by GM, Ford, and Chrysler all used a form of ceramic heat exchanger (called a "regenerator") that provided a sound pressure level lower than gasoline engined cars of the day. It ain't riocket science.
To #5- Wrong again. There is NO currently available turbine that comes close to a Sterling or even conventional gasoline engine.
To #6- It's called a "transmission", hooked to another new invention-the "electric motor". This "transmission" device is a new fangled thingamabob that came into existance a couple of CENTURIES ago....
Good God people, learn a little bit before coming up with this kind of garbage.
Reply
Bryll_SCHULTZ 10:57PM (8/14/2008)
Thank you, Bob, for your comments. I get tired of people responding when it is clear that they either do not know how to think, or just don't want to