Ford S-Max based micro-turbine plug-in series hybrid [w/VIDEO]
If a car is going to use a series hybrid or extended range EV powertrain a a conventional piston engine is hardly the optimal package for a range extender. Something smaller and more power dense would be preferred. A small turbine engine is one possibility and that's exactly the approach taken by Langford Performance engineering. They've used a micro-turbine from California-based Capstone Turbine. A turbine works well in this type of application because it can run at constant speed.
The package has been integrated into a Ford S-Max MPV along with an electric drivetrain using lithium ion batteries. The Whisper Eco-Logic has a range of 40 miles on its batteries before the range extender starts up. Langford is claiming the vehicle gets 67 mpg (U.S.) with the diesel-fueled turbine. Langford is demonstrating the vehicle in hopes of lining up a partnership with an automaker to commercialize the powertrain. A video of the ER-EV S-Max is after the jump.
[Source: Capstone Turbine]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
paulwesterberg 11:31AM (6/12/2009)
Turbines can also be tuned to burn different fuel mixes. The volt should use this.
Reply
Diffrunt 11:48AM (6/12/2009)
capstone turbogen, capacitor batts, inwheel motors = perfect example of the Kiss principle.
Reply
Shock Me 11:56AM (6/12/2009)
Cool! I wonder how they solved the durability and fuel efficiency issues. Those issues aside a constant speed turbine engine is a wonderful fit to adapt to the weight and volume requirements of the battery,
Reply
Sean 12:06PM (6/12/2009)
Volvo had a similar concept almost 20 years ago.
Capstone durability is legendary. They use a compressor/turbine on a common shaft with an alternator (one moving part). The bearings are foil bearings meaning there is no oil lubrication system (and also no cooling system - at least in the standalone generators). They are also regenerative. There is no reason why such a powerplant couldn't last half a million miles when coupled to a hybrid drive system such as this.
Go to the Capstone website and see for yourself.
Shock Me 12:13PM (6/12/2009)
Cool! I wonder how they solved the durability and fuel efficiency issues. Those issues aside a constant speed turbine engine is a wonderful fit to adapt to the weight and volume requirements of the battery,
Reply
RAN 12:20PM (6/12/2009)
Ever since I read about Velozzi's intent to use a turbine for a range extender, I've been interested in seeing such a hybrid in action. It's a perfect application for a turbine, and they can run on just about any kind of fuel. If I were to get a RE-EV, this is what I would want. I wish Langford all the best in finding a partner for this endeavor.
Reply
Herm 12:21PM (6/12/2009)
yeah, but check out the cost of the thing... a range extender should be cheap, it will seldom be used in everyday driving.
Reply
Mike Z 12:45PM (6/12/2009)
I think that good ole' ICE engine is good enough. After all, small turbine engines are not that much more efficient than a diesel ICE engine. I mean a diesel engine in there would likely manage at least 55-60 mpg.
Also, it's already getting the first 40 miles on batteries. I think most people would have a hard time justifying paying extra to get slightly better mileage the 20% of the time they are not on the battery.
Turbines I think are overrates, unless they can cost less than an ICE I don't see them going any place.
Reply
brettlmt 9:44PM (6/14/2009)
turbines are much more efficient at converting fossil fuels to electricity than are ICE's. Turbines also have fewer parts to wear out and maintain(ie longer life and less maintenance costs), they are lighter and don't require the extra weight of a liquid cooling system. All of these reasons make them a much better choice as a range extender in an electric vehicle.
If you don't think a mileage difference of 7-12 mpg is significant, I want to know what planet you are living on. Over the life of a car, that's an incredible savings.
NeilBlanchard 12:46PM (6/12/2009)
Hiya,
Wow -- 67mpg (or up to 80mpg as the Capstone video mentions) in a 7-seat MPV is great! BTW, the video is very slow to load (maybe because of this post?). Serial hybrids are the way to go, I think; especially designs that are tuned to a fixed RPM generator.
Bring 'em on!
Sincerely, Neil
Reply
gorr 2:22PM (6/12/2009)
I knew that the volt concept is the stupidest thing never happened is usa along the ev1, this is just work by criminals related to wall street petrol and corn and woodchips reselling with starvation prices. I have said many times to add a gasoline or diesel small electric generator to these stupid battery cars, at least you can drive without 6 hours recharge time. It cost billions of dollars and millions of deaths to argue with my buying bids. Just sell for now this micro-turbine car to a paying customer.
Reply
Chris M 4:57PM (6/12/2009)
Gorr, first you said "I knew that the volt concept is the stupidest thing", then "I have said many times to add a gasoline or diesel small electric generator to these stupid battery cars". Well, that's exactly what GM did with the Volt, added a small gasoline powered electric generator to a battery car.
Looks like you've just called yourself "stupid". It fits.
gorr 5:23PM (6/12/2009)
The thing is like your employer said to you, read each and every of my posts.
jzj 3:02PM (6/12/2009)
Please know that Capstone microturbines (and Pentadyne flywheel electricity storage) evolved out of the efforts of the Rosen Brothers to devise a series hybrid electric vehicle, and that this effort was undertaken in the mid--'90's. I'm glad to see the idea revived, but it is certainly not new. Also, know that microturbines have, by Capstone's admission, maximum efficiency of 28%. Still, good luck to them.
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 11:25PM (6/12/2009)
http://www.capstoneturbine.com/news/video/whisper.asp
What's the cost?
Didn't GM say the problem with MicroTurbine's was the exhaust gas temperature?
This is the Powertrain that should go into production.
Reply
Jon M 12:32PM (6/13/2009)
A couple of you have questioned the efficiency of turbines. This is quite unfounded. In general, turbines tend to be about 3x as efficient as piston engines because there is no reciprocating piston and its related frictional losses. A turbine is a completely 'linear' reaction, able to harness much more of the energy contained within a variety of fuels (one turbine can run everything from corn oil to gas, to bio-diesel to ethanol)... much of this potential is lost in a traditional piston engine and sent out the exhaust. The problem with jet/turbine engines is that they have very narrow 'peak efficiencies'... as in, they do best at certain speeds. This is fine for jets, since they remain at a constant cruising speed and spend very little of their time in acceleration (landing/takeoff). For the most part, this has been the downfall of turbines with autos. But using a turbine as a generator with a hybrid is a wonderful idea. With tuning, using a turbine (or rather, turboshaft) to charge a battery/cap could easily produce 100mpg without socket charging. Its something I have been posting here & there on boards for some while. Turbines tend to be lighter, more efficient, and more reliable than piston engines... with more flexibility as well. They often only have the one main moving shaft, or a few moving parts in all. Their only downside is cost, but if volume increases, that might change as well. As of right now, those little jet engines that the 'rocket man' used to fly across the North Sea are actually RC airplane jet engines that cost about $5000 a pop, and are only about 100hp each maybe. Still... Im sure there is potential here. Look at auto turbos after all... they are made out of very similar materials (many can actually be converted to be centrifugal turbine engines themselves) and are very reliable these days. Ill be watching this for sure. Its the 'platform' I wish more companies would consider.
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 1:36PM (6/13/2009)
If Apple Made Cars...
This is the type of thing Apple would take on, in an upcoming release, decimating the competition and forcing them to upgrade to this "feature". We've already seen GM had the concept for a hybrid for 40 years now. It's time they or another automaker started to get into the Innovation Game.
GM's production policy seems to have been to build "toys for guys". No real innovation, except for the massive cost of re-engineering the same V8 every few years adding a little fuel economy and another 20-50 hp.
Actually, Apple scans for suppliers with innovations and incorporates them into a product.
Anyway, it's time someone Mass-Produced this concept.
Snowdog 12:37PM (6/14/2009)
Big co-generator turbines get high efficiency. From what I read the Capstone C30 gets 28% under perfect conditions. Which is marginally better than your typical gas engine. Certainly not triple. Probably less than a TDI or Prius Atkinson cylce gas ICE.
Jon M 9:03PM (6/14/2009)
Typical piston engines get about 12-15% efficiency at best, and thats with some ideal driving behaviors/conditions. 28% is looking good (and is at least 2x, and I see 35% as a more common number tossed around for modern jets), and that is just the Capstone C30, which is good, but you can get better... much better. You have to look at 'peak efficiencies' here though... because we are looking at them as generators, and that is where the turbine (should) pull away from the piston engine by an even wider margin. Current turbojets are engines designed to operate at a variety of speeds though (as direct propulsion), while piston engines used JUST as generators are rather common and this allows their peak efficiency to be somewhat greater than normal (but what.... 2-5% maybe?). IF designed from scratch to be a generator ONLY turbine, you can surpass 50% thermal efficiency with a jet turbine because they can be tuned to greater efficiencies with even narrower peak operating bands. Going from a 'drive' turbine to a 'generator' turbine is much more dramatic than with a piston engine.
They are much lighter as well... but any critic will point out their higher cost (although mass adoption and the fact these would just be smaller generator engines would lower costs). Turbines DO however use more space... lighter, but bulkier. I dont think many would mind though... lighter but larger is a good way to make a car that Americans want.
Check this out though... http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/gtsj/2004/contents/gtsj_bulletin2003_03abs11.pdf
Look at those efficiencies!
Snowdog 7:37AM (6/15/2009)
That is interesting. Let us know when it makes it past the research phase. Currently available micro-turbines just aren't that efficient. This is even in your PDF.
I found data on the old Prius engine. It peaks around 36% efficiency. But it also close to 35% over a wide range of power outputs. So, as I suspected, the Prius Atkinson engine is more efficient.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.transportation.anl.gov%2Fpdfs%2FHV%2F2.pdf&ei=NDI2SqzUFo2OMu-Q9YgK&usg=AFQjCNECj4tWKJBjdt9Rj8a0d9od7E_jHA&sig2=nmhF6TRzzmLgx0n8OatLYw
I can't get the direct link for the pdf from google, but to find it Google (Argonne Labs measure the efficiency of the Japanese Prius engine) It was the top link for me.
I think turbines are neat. But they have some ways to get to get more efficient in the real world.