Concept: Jaguar cx-75 (or c-x75)

Turbine =/= Jet Engine, fyi.

Fully aware, thanks. Considering, though, that both work in exactly the same way and merely differ in how much work the turbine takes from the combustion flow and how that work is used, I feel that, in the name of humor, it's alright to use the terms interchangeably. Not to mention that your typical jet engine is a gas turbine.
 
Turbine =/= Jet Engine, fyi.

All jet engines are gas turbines, though.

These engines are effectively miniaturised turboshaft engines, which brings me to my question about this concept. As someone who lives, eats and breathes gas turbine engines all day long, I am genuinely interested to see what solutions, if any, that Jaguar and their subcontractor have worked out regarding the inherent problems of scaling down a gas turbine engine.

To grossly simplify things, compressor stages/turbine wheels become less efficient as you scale them down (as the airfoils in the engine shrink, their ability to do work on the air decreases, as the air is effectively "thicker" at smaller scale). In addition, cooling the engine becomes more of an issue, as smaller blades have far less thermal mass and don't generally allow for internal cooling passages found in larger engines. The decreased efficiency of the airfoils in the engine, along with the greatly increased cooling requirement means the engine has to work proportionately harder per unit of power, further driving up engine speeds and temperatures, forcing manufacturers to use expensive exotic materials, amongst other things. All of this conspires to not only diminish the specific fuel consumption (mass of fuel burned per horsepower per hour) of a small gas turbine, but most dramatically, increase the cost per horsepower of a small turbine engine when compared with larger engines.

Having said all that, gas turbine engines have some distinct advantages over their reciprocating counterparts. First of all is their mechanical simplicity - there are only a couple of moving parts in a turbine engine, and they all rotate, which is rather easier to design for than reciprocating parts (in terms of bearings and lubrication, for starters). Secondly, gas turbine engines are much more tolerant of different fuels than a reciprocating engine; it honestly wouldn't surprise me if this car would be able to run on any liquid fuel available today without restrictions - gasoline, diesel or biofuels alike. Finally, because of their mechanical simplicity, gas turbine engines require comparatively little maintenance, and what little maintenance is performed is usually on the ancillary systems attached to the gas turbine itself. Of course, the maintenance is expensive when the time comes, but over the life of the engine, the cost is almost identical to a like-sized reciprocating engine, if not slightly better.
 
Last edited:
Seriously? You are seriously attempting to correct me? I quite clearly gave the source as EVO, take it up with them.

Let me guess, you work for Fox Noise? Mindless repetition of questionable sources with zero thinking.

It was a joke.

On the internet you should either make funny jokes or properly annotate them with smilies, else we won't know that one of the lines of "facts" with a source below them is meant to be funny.
 
Let me guess, you work for Fox Noise? Mindless repetition of questionable sources with zero thinking.

EVO is a questionable source?

On the internet you should either make funny jokes or properly annotate them with smilies, else we won't know that one of the lines of "facts" with a source below them is meant to be funny.

Oh I see, it went over your head. Well theres no shame in admitting that you didn't understand.

If I had said it had a hyperdrive, what then? Would you also have taken it seriously?

Incidently, itwas very clearly seperated from the "facts" by atleast three lines of empty space.
Interesting that you noticed the source but didn't actually read the article.
 
Last edited:
EVO is a questionable source?

Every source that obviously messes up maths/physics is questionable.

Incidently, itwas very clearly seperated from the "facts" by atleast three lines of empty space.

Incidently, itwasn't.

https://pic.armedcats.net/n/na/narf/2010/10/08/thrust_vectoring.png

Interesting that you noticed the source but didn't actually read the article.

If I didn't read the article I wouldn't know that there is no mention of any thrust vectoring. Hence my question where you got that idea from.

In fact, if you had read the entire page behind your source link you would have known that the 968hp figure is the product of failed understanding of the world.

https://pic.armedcats.net/n/na/narf/2010/10/09/twat.png
 
Last edited:
Dude, he's a German. They wank to physics papers. Just let it go.

(Note, I am the product of Germans. Also from a family of engineers. I know this!)
 
If I didn't read the article I wouldn't know that there is no mention of any thrust vectoring. Hence my question where you got that idea from.

I don't know, but I also don't understand why you thought I was being serious about thrust vectoring on a car. No wonder you drive a Skoda.


Every source that obviously messes up maths/physics is questionable.

Then take it up with them.

Incidently, itwasn't.

What an incredibly witty observation, I didn't press the spacebar hard enough when typing 'it was'. I didn't press the space bar hard enough when touch typing. How embarrassing for me.


In fact, if you had read the entire page behind your source link you would have known that the 968hp figure is the product of failed understanding of the world.


Maybe, but it is still totally irrelevant, your issue is with EVO, not with me. Or maybe even with Jaguar for being misleading.............

At the center of the car sit state-of-the-art, mid-mounted micro gas-turbines. These can either generate 140kW (188bhp) to charge the batteries and extend the range of the car to a remarkable 900km (560 miles) ? enough to drive from London to Berlin on a single tank ? or when in Track mode provide supplementary power directly to the electric motors.

Postscript

I love the fact that this is annoying you so much that you will go to the trouble of uploading these pics.
 
^ Umm, so they can actually charge the batteries, or even charge the batteries....? As "supplying power directly to the electric motors" is also charging the batteries. In other words, the turbines are not in any way, shape, or form used for thrust...
 
In other words, the turbines are not in any way, shape, or form used for thrust...

Bold statement to make, on helicopters the turbine exhaust can contribute to total thrust when cruising, 14% of total thrust for the Lynx at max cruise is lodged in the back of my mind. That's in spite of again being a turboshaft engine optimised for shp output rather than exhaust thrust.
 
I don't know, but I also don't understand why you thought I was being serious about thrust vectoring on a car. No wonder you drive a Skoda.

You're the one bringing up thrust vectoring, I simply question it.

How is my (brilliant) Skoda related to this?

Maybe, but it is still totally irrelevant, your issue is with EVO, not with me. Or maybe even with Jaguar for being misleading.............

Jaguar never said 968hp, they give the maximum power as 580kW/780hp: http://www.jaguar.com/gb/en/#/about_jaguar/anniversary/c-x75/specifications
You are the one posting that figure.

At the center of the car sit state-of-the-art, mid-mounted micro gas-turbines. These can either generate 140kW (188bhp) to charge the batteries and extend the range of the car to a remarkable 900km (560 miles) ? enough to drive from London to Berlin on a single tank ? or when in Track mode provide supplementary power directly to the electric motors.

London to Berlin is 900km? Interesting.
The power output of the electric motors is unaffected by where that power is coming from.

Postscript

I love the fact that this is annoying you so much that you will go to the trouble of giving more and more quotes with obviously false information.




Bold statement to make, on helicopters the turbine exhaust can contribute to total thrust when cruising, 14% of total thrust for the Lynx at max cruise is lodged in the back of my mind. That's in spite of again being a turboshaft engine optimised for shp output rather than exhaust thrust.

Nobody mentioned any helicopters. In this virtual car all the exhaust does is create downforce, probably with some sort of blown diffuser.
 
Last edited:
^ Umm, so they can actually charge the batteries, or even charge the batteries....? As "supplying power directly to the electric motors" is also charging the batteries. In other words, the turbines are not in any way, shape, or form used for thrust...

I don't recall saying otherwise. I merely quoted the only article then available. My point is 'Narf' should not be questioning me. If he has a problem, talk to the good men and women at EVO. It has nothing to do with me.

I am not part of the equation.



You're the one bringing up thrust vectoring, I simply question it.

Yes, we already established that was a joke.

Jaguar never said 968hp, they give the maximum power as 580kW/780hp: http://www.jaguar.com/gb/en/#/about_jaguar/anniversary/c-x75/specifications

I didn't say that they did. I said EVO did. I provided
the source to prove it. So you're argument is with EVO, not me.


You are the one posting that figure.

I think this is the underlying problem. You seem to be under the impression that I am arguing something that am not. I posted a quote from EVO, nothing more, nothing less. I then pointed out that if the information was not correct then you should confront EVO, not me. I am not arguing with you that the real figure is 968 horsepower. I only quoted that when it was the only source available.

Let's make sure we understand one another. I am not arguing anything. I posted quotes from 2 sources. Jaguar and EVO. If EVO is wrong about the bhp. Then EVO is wrong, I am not saying that its 968, I said that EVO said it as 968. This was before the car was unveiled. If jaguar say Berlin is 900km from london, then Jaguar is wrong. I never said it was, they did. I merely cut and pasted the quote. That does not make me wrong. I can't be wrong because I have not set out a view. I haven't done anything other than post a quote. I am not arguing that it is 968 BHP. I am simply stating that yor poblem is with EVO not me..

If evo got mixed up, that is their fault, not mine. BUT if they did, it was probably down to jaguar's misleading press release, which clearly states that the turbines can either recharge the battery or provide power directly to the electric motors, as in the quote I just gave to you.

I'm not quite sure how you keep getting so lost. I haven't said anything that was my own work or my own opinion, I quoted the only source available at the time. I made no personal comment or observation. If you have a problem with the information, take that problem up with the source.

I believe the idiom is 'Don't shoot the messenger'.



London to Berlin is 900km? Interesting.

Again, not my words. I'm not sure why you are arguing with someone who is not giving his own view. I didn't say that London to Berlin was 900km, I quoted Jaguar. Again, you are arguing with me about what others have said.


Postscript

?????

I love the fact that this is annoying you so much that you will go to the trouble of giving more and more quotes with obviously false information.

More and more? I have quoted 2 articles by my count. The EVO article, which I quoted when it was the only source available, and also the jaguar press release.

Now, just in case we have still got crossed wires:


I am NOT arguing that it has 968bhp. I repeat I am NOT arguing that. I am simply saying that if you have a problem with the information I quoted from EVO from BEFORE the car was unveiled, then that problem is not related to me. You are arguing with something completely unrelated to me.


Edit: When you resort to neg-repping all my posts, you must know that you have comprehensively lost the argument.
 
Last edited:
Will you just shut up?

It's a good looking car, so to try to get this thread back on track I'll just leave this here:

http://img267.imageshack.**/img267/7676/housedowant.jpg

Pity that edkwon pretty much summed it up unnoticed (or ignored) by everybody else:

Nobody has recycled the old Top Gear 'Yet another Jaguar concept that will never be built' joke. Bravo for not giving in *claps*

Old Top Gear joke or not - it probably won't be built. But given the new Tata overlords, I'm still hoping.
 
Nobody mentioned any helicopters. In this virtual car all the exhaust does is create downforce, probably with some sort of blown diffuser.
Oh sorry, didn't realise I was interrupting your flame contest with zthomasz.

Regardless of what's shown in the renders, there's quite an interesting topic in the actual process of including a turboshaft engine in a car drive train. The throttle characteristics of a gas turbine don't lend themselves well to car use, particularly if you're using it for aerodynamic purposes. That said, raw engine thrust would be very useful for attaining a high top speed.
 
Don't worry, the flames will thrive on. Hellbus note: A truck ferry going from Kiel to Klaipeida exploded in the past night and still is burning :lol:

The throttle response issue is solved by using it in a serial hybrid. In regular driving mode you just go poweeeeerrrrrr every now and then to top off the batteries. In performance mode you constantly keep it on full either to power the motors or to keep the batteries brimmed.
 
Don't worry, the flames will thrive on.

The throttle response issue is solved by using it in a serial hybrid. In regular driving mode you just go poweeeeerrrrrr every now and then to top off the batteries. In performance mode you constantly keep it on full either to power the motors or to keep the batteries brimmed.

Well this is what i'm starting to wonder about, because ideally you'd leave it on constantly from a power perspective and maybe switch the efflux between out the back and underneath depending on what you're doing aerodynamically. But the power ratings of the gas turbines is of little real help in the grand scheme of things, so presumably after how ever many minutes of hooning you'd have to take it easy. Plus of course the noise of the turbines running flat out continuously would be strange and best and horrific at worst.
 
Top