backtop


Print 52 comment(s) - last by blueboy09.. on Oct 1 at 7:39 PM


Jaguar C-X75 Concept

Twin turbines
Jaguar's supercar concept uses four electric motors and two gas turbine generators

The last time Jaguar made a supercar available for sale was back in the early 90s with the XJ220. That vehicle was powered by a twin-turbocharged V6 engine developing well over 500 hp, accelerated to 60 mph in less than 4 seconds, and had a top speed of 200+ mph.

Now, Jaguar has unveiled its C-X75 Concept which picks up where the XJ220 left off. The vehicle uses an advanced powertrain that mixes lithium-ion batteries and electric motors with two gasoline turbine generators (80,000 rpm) which recharge the battery pack.

The C-X75 uses four 195 hp electric motors (one for each wheel) -- together, the system produces 778 hp and a whopping 1,180 lb-ft of torque. The twin gas turbine generators combine to produce 188 hp and can recharge the battery pack or provide supplementary power to the four electric motors in "Track Mode".

Jaguar says that the C-X75 can travel a total of 68 miles on battery power alone, or up to 560 miles when the electric portion of the powertrain works in conjunction with the twin gas turbines.

When it comes to performance, Jaguar claims that the C-X75 can scoot to 60 mph in just 3.4 seconds and reach a top speed of 205 mph. However, don't expect the all-electric or "range extended" figures to hold up when trying to achieves those performance figures.

"This evocative showcase of 75 years of performance heritage, the C-X75 also demonstrates Jaguar's commitment to developing cutting-edge engineering solutions to the challenges facing future automotive development," said Ian Hoban, Jaguar Vehicle Line Director. "The supercar shows that Jaguar will continue to build beautiful, fast cars that will generate their performance in a sustainable manner."

As much as we would like to see a production version of the C-X75 reach showroom complete with its exotic gas turbine generators, it's more of a design study than a forerunner for a production version. Styling cues from the C-X75 are likely to show up in "lesser" Jaguar models including the next generation XK.

So while we may not see a Jaguar supercar with this exact configuration, there's nothing stopping Jaguar from producing a plug-in hybrid supercar along the lines of Porsche's 918 Spyder which has been given the green light.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Is that right?
By foolsgambit11 on 9/29/2010 3:50:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The C-X75 uses four 195 hp electric motors (one in each wheel)
That seems like a lot of unsprung weight. Comments?




RE: Is that right?
By foolsgambit11 on 9/29/2010 3:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
I have a Popular Mechanics from the mid 60's that talks about the US Military setting up a 5-ton with an electric motor in each wheel. Obviously, handling isn't as much of a concern with a vehicle like that, and it might make sense. It certainly made sense for controlling the torque on each wheel independently before modern AWD systems existed. But it doesn't seem to make any sense for a modern performance vehicle.


RE: Is that right?
By Einy0 on 9/29/2010 4:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
Sure it does AWD is the holy grail of performance. It allows for much better handling.


RE: Is that right?
By Iaiken on 9/29/2010 4:29:53 PM , Rating: 5
And a system like his with unreal amounts of torque at all RPM ranges would allow for digitally driven control aids unlike anything we have now.

Imagine if at yaw, the computer stepped in to slow down the inside front tire, speed up the outside front tire and constantly tweak power to the rear drive tires to keep the car going in the direction the driver is indicating with the steering wheel under as much power as grip will allow?

I, for one, welcome our new and sexy robot car masters...


RE: Is that right?
By superPC on 9/29/2010 9:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
not to mention jet engine have specific and narrow optimal performance range. using it only to charge the battery would allow it to always run at that range. putting it right behind the passenger is questionable. jet engine are very loud. even very small one used in RC plane. two 188 hp jet engine right behind the passenger would sound incredibly loud. and what about people outside? in the city the jet might even woke your neighbor in the middle of the night.


RE: Is that right?
By safcman84 on 9/30/2010 7:20:44 AM , Rating: 2
at 80,000rpm, maybe they could make sound it generates run into ultra-sound frequencies. It would be completely silent to humans.

Plus, you could round up all the stray dogs in town at the same time - give me a car like that and I will happily be a dog-catcher!


RE: Is that right?
By FaaR on 10/1/2010 4:23:23 AM , Rating: 3
Doesn't quite work that way I'm afraid. Air turbulence throughout the engine and its intake/exhaust would produce noise at a very broad frequency range, which humans would most definitely be able to hear.

This car, if actually incorporating gas turbines, would be simply staggeringly noisy, and not in a way any sane person would consider pleasant. I can't imagine it being legal driving something like that on regular city streets.

Gas turbines also tend to produce a lot of various NOx compounds due to high combustion temperatures, which would make the engine rather environmentally unfriendly unless rigged with some kind of catalythic converter - which is undeveloped tech for this type of engine right now.

Add to the above issues, the problem of the turbines ingesting foreign objects and so on and you'll end up with some ridiculously expensive repair bills.

Quite obviously this car is nothing but a publicity stunt, as the whole concept is so utterly impractical and outlandish... They wish to make waves in the press (and these days, online), that is all. From that perspective, the concept is a complete success! :P


RE: Is that right?
By superPC on 9/29/2010 9:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
see in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6GK3qdqv20 they always muted the engine sound and play music in the background. although with those jet turbine i guess it would sound a lot like KITT from knight rider (the old tv series, not the new one)


RE: Is that right?
By bissimo on 9/30/2010 10:25:18 AM , Rating: 2
Best DT post ever.


RE: Is that right?
By foolsgambit11 on 9/29/2010 4:40:02 PM , Rating: 4
But increasing the unsprung mass by 450 lbs would counteract the advantages, and then some, I'm guessing. As another poster pointed out, though, it seems the motors are only near the wheels. If they are sprung, then yes, let the good AWD times roll.


RE: Is that right?
By DominionSeraph on 9/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Is that right?
By Stuka on 9/30/2010 2:29:37 PM , Rating: 2
Higher unsprung weight reduces bump compliance which inturn increases the liklihood of traction loss on uneven surfaces (ie. 99.99% of all roads). It can be compensated for to some extant, but it is no myth.


RE: Is that right?
By JediJeb on 9/30/2010 3:43:36 PM , Rating: 1
Seems I remember a design where the stator is in the center of the wheel and is sprung and the rotor is the rim of the wheel and is unsprung, which would actually reduce the unsprung and increase the sprung weight. If using a magnetic bearing to provide both the spring of the suspension and nearly frictionless drive system(think MagLev). Though with this the suspension travel would be rather limited.


RE: Is that right?
By jive on 10/1/2010 7:55:37 AM , Rating: 2
enter active suspension and you are covered against unsprung mass. You might think of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Wheel ?

question is how much suspension travel one actually needs on a sports car? most super cars have ground clearance around 20mm. And even with a decent rebound travel the total probably will never exceed 50mm, about two inches.


RE: Is that right?
By dubldwn on 9/29/2010 4:09:41 PM , Rating: 4
I found this article:

http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/paris/2010...

It says the motors are mounted *near* the wheels. Plus, they only weigh 110lbs a piece.


RE: Is that right?
By foolsgambit11 on 9/29/2010 4:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, well, near would be much more sensible.


RE: Is that right?
By Amiga500 on 9/29/2010 4:34:54 PM , Rating: 5
Almost certainly mounted on the sprung chassis and then use a half-shaft to connect to the unsprung wheel.

It would be amateurish in the extreme to directly mount the motor on the wishbone.

If there are one thing the Jaguar engineers are not, its a bunch of amateurs.


RE: Is that right?
By foolsgambit11 on 9/29/2010 4:44:51 PM , Rating: 1
I had a hunch it was most likely a factual error in the article, but given that this is a concept car, I couldn't rule out that it was totally impractical and actually had the motors in the wheels.


RE: Is that right?
By Iaiken on 9/30/2010 11:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If there are one thing the Jaguar engineers are not, its a bunch of amateurs.


:D I dunno about that, my grandmothers old 52 Jag XK had dual fuel pumps and carbs. If any one failed, the car was laid up.

Unfortunately, my grandfather was the one who maintained it and after his death we had to let the car go to an enthusiast because having a third party maintain it was prohibitively expensive for her. We found someone who was willing to put up with it's quirks, bought her a Ford Fusion with a complimentary service plan (free brake jobs and fluid changes for life) and invested the rest to extend her retirement fund.


RE: Is that right?
By AssBall on 9/29/2010 5:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
The electric motors right on the axle don't lose as much power in transfer as a regular drive train, so the extra weight is not too serious of an issue. Modern Electric motors are pretty small and lightweight. I dunno about the turbines though...

It looks like a cross between a Maserati and a XJ220. Kinda cool.


RE: Is that right?
By Spuke on 9/29/2010 6:59:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
so the extra weight is not too serious of an issue.
Unsprung mass is an issue. Especially 110 lbs EACH of unsprung mass. But the motors are supposedly "near" the wheels so more than likely sprung mass, as was stated.


RE: Is that right?
By AssBall on 9/29/2010 10:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
Still wondering what those turbines weigh too. but when you look at cars like the Veyron or Contenental that have massive performance and still weigh an assload... I think that Jaguar can actually come out ahead on the weight problems.


RE: Is that right?
By shiftypy on 9/30/2010 2:56:05 AM , Rating: 3
Gas turbines have better power-to-weight ratio than conventional engines, and its only 188hp too. Probably tiny thing like a coffee machine.
Couple issues have blocked their usage in automobiles

Small optimal efficiency window - countered by using them only as generators
Lag on acceleration - same, batteries will feed th emotors while turbines are spinning up
Unearthly rpm, espessially on small ones.
Precision required in building
Noise

Perfect fit for a supercar :)


RE: Is that right?
By Spuke on 9/30/2010 4:06:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but when you look at cars like the Veyron or Contenental that have massive performance and still weigh an assload
That's mostly sprung weight though. Still a detriment to performance but, in the Veyron's case, not that detrimental. I guess when you have 1000hp, physics don't apply. :)


RE: Is that right?
By phxfreddy on 9/29/2010 11:01:17 PM , Rating: 2
Wonder what the resident DailyTech global warming scold Tiffany Kaiser thinks of this???!!!

OUCH! She's probably demanding carbon penance of Jaguar.


RE: Is that right?
By eldakka on 9/30/2010 12:52:27 AM , Rating: 4
If you had a motor driving each wheel independently, then there's a lot of other heavy items that can be removed. I'd imagine that you wouldn't need drive-shafts, diffs, axles.


RE: Is that right?
By Spuke on 9/30/2010 4:09:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'd imagine that you wouldn't need drive-shafts, diffs, axles.
In most sports cars, especially expensive one's, driveshafts and axles don't weigh much. At least not to make up for four 110 lb electric motors. Still it's unsprung weight which acts like much more weight has been added to the vehicle.


RE: Is that right?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 9/30/2010 7:33:36 AM , Rating: 2
In this configuration, there will be no brake rotor or caliper assembly. The electric motor will also be used as the brake. So that reduces some of the weight. Then if the magnets are rare earth instead of massive iron, there is a further weight reduction.


RE: Is that right?
By Spuke on 9/30/2010 4:11:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Then if the magnets are rare earth instead of massive iron, there is a further weight reduction.
Not used in expensive sports cars. It's either aluminum or extremely light carbon ceramic.


RE: Is that right?
By jive on 10/1/2010 5:05:14 AM , Rating: 2
have you ever weighted a high end caliber? I have a set of AP racing jWRC calibers and those are about 1,5kg each. Carbon or carbon ceramic rotors are utterly useless in traffic. You found none equipped in the cars used mainly on road, supercars or not. 330mm steel rotor weight near 10kg each. I've never heard anybody to use aluminium rotors. Bells are machined from aluminium but not the rotors.


Turbines
By Ammohunt on 9/29/2010 4:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
I was wondering when they would get around to using turbines on consumer vehicles. Looks cool but expensive




RE: Turbines
By icrf on 9/29/2010 4:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
I thought I had heard somewhere that turbines are weight efficient, but not fuel efficient, which is why they end up in air vehicles more than land vehicles.


RE: Turbines
By MozeeToby on 9/29/2010 5:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
They're only efficient at maximum power, which makes them horrible for stop and go driving or even highway driving below top speed. But, if you're only using them to recharge the batteries they can always be run wide open, then just shut down when not in use. I wonder how much they lose going from shut down to 80,000 rpms though.


RE: Turbines
By ekv on 9/30/2010 2:53:29 AM , Rating: 3
From the Wiki article (because I don't have time to dig out my old physics hw)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine

"Microturbine systems have many advantages over reciprocating engine generators, such as higher power-to-weight ratio, extremely low emissions and few, or just one, moving part."

"Typical microturbine efficiencies are 25 to 35%. When in a combined heat and power cogeneration system, efficiencies of greater than 80% are commonly achieved."

IIRC, the Prius uses a reciprocating engine in the same manner as this Jag CX-75 uses its microturbines. Figure out the turbines optimum thermodynamic cycle and keep it there (as much as possible).

There is also a company, Capstone Turbine Corp., that specializes in microturbines.
http://www.microturbine.com/
[with links to Case Studies and "Sustainability" (argh!) calculators...]


RE: Turbines
By JediJeb on 9/30/2010 3:59:12 PM , Rating: 3
The original founder of Compaq computers made a company after he left Compaq that designed and build a gasoline turbine engine where the spinning part had magnets and the outer part coils and it ran as a generator to drive an electric car. Supposedly it worked very well, but next thing you know it just disappeared. I remember a whole story on it back 10 or so years ago, he even had regenerative braking on the car. All things you are starting to see today, but I never knew why the original didn't see any further production.


RE: Turbines
By FITCamaro on 9/29/2010 6:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
Look up the jet powered Thunderbird from the late 50s or early 60s. It's been done.


RE: Turbines
By rudolphna on 9/29/2010 10:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
Chrysler did it too
Just wikipedia search
"Chrysler Turbine Car"
I'd link it but dailytech thinks it's a spam comment for some reason. *Eyeroll*

Pretty cool. I wouldn't mind having one of those myself. Not for a daily driver, but it would just be cool.

"Whoa dude, what kind of engine is that?"
" A Jet engine."
"HUH!!?!?!?!"


RE: Turbines
By lyeoh on 9/29/2010 11:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
FWIW, search for: Jay Leno jet bike


So...
By Etern205 on 9/29/2010 6:05:27 PM , Rating: 1
On a airplane a turbine engine is mounted on the wings and that's outside of the fuselage. This helps the turbine engine taking in massive amounts of air which in then after some other mixes produces thrust

In this concept vehicle, we see Jaguar place the turbine engines some what looks like a enclosed environment. Now I'm not sure if the turbine used for this concept vehicle is the same as the one used for a airplane, but should they place that at a area where there is a opening in order to suck in air?




RE: So...
By Etern205 on 9/29/2010 6:09:12 PM , Rating: 1
Yes the turbines are more of a showpiece (for studying) rather than actually going in to production.


RE: So...
By ekv on 9/30/2010 3:00:16 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, it is called a concept car for a reason 8)

The turbine power has a consumer drawback called "noise pollution". Solve that and you're in business. However, situations like race cars and trains and large ships can benefit immediately from the better power-to-weight ratio.


RE: So...
By roadhog1974 on 9/29/2010 8:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
Gas turbines also run in the hulls of ships.

compare them more to turbo props, where the turbine runs
a shaft which is connected to the thrust mechanism(ie propellor) via gears.

I would expect these turbines would run an alternator
to generate current which either goes directly to
the electric motors or more probably to capacitors/batteries.


RE: So...
By ymboc on 9/29/2010 8:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
Actually twin-turbine/turbo-fan propelled airplanes typically have a third turbine ('APU') tucked in the very tail of the plane just to generate power.

These APU turbines have ducted intakes and exhaust at the very end of the fuselage.


RE: So...
By Amiga500 on 9/30/2010 4:07:43 AM , Rating: 2
+1

Aircraft main engines are the way they are for the bypass ducting and for the thrust they need to produce.

The APU is a much much better comparison.


RE: So...
By JediJeb on 9/30/2010 4:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
There would be an air intake for those just like there is for any mid-engine supercar. Plus these don't produce power from their exhaust but from the spinning shaft in the center of the turbine blades, or if the blades are enclosed in a ring of magnets, they can generate the electricity just by spinning the magnets past coils mounted in the outer housing, no loss to friction in a drive train in that configuration.


Cocaine for the eyes...
By Iaiken on 9/29/2010 3:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
I loved the previous J road cars and this new one is just exceedingly sexy!




sweet!
By chromal on 9/29/2010 4:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, just yes. Even though I could never afford to purchase, operate, or maintain one, it makes me happy to see vehicle designs like this. I hope this or something just like it makes production.

Although this is not at all the point of a car like this, I morbidly wonder what the combined MPG is...




desktop
By 4wardtristan on 9/29/2010 6:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
got a link for the middle pic at higher res?

1440x900?
1920x1080?

Thanks.




By rvd2008 on 9/29/2010 9:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
stupid waste!




Too cool
By sleepeeg3 on 9/29/2010 11:48:25 PM , Rating: 2
Guaranteed we will never see it.

Bringing back the turbine engine and exotic engine configuration... Too many things to go wrong and to change the factory for.

Wish Jeep had built their "Hurricane" concept car. That was rad.




Cool . . .
By blueboy09 on 10/1/2010 7:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
Sharp, very sharp. I lovee the XJ220 just in pics alone, and this car not doubt shows the same wowness. Brilliant execution, Jaguar. Hell, my aunt still wants to buy a car from them, cause she likes the way they are built. Just one question, if it runs in electric/hybrid mode, will it still suffer from the extreme temperatures of frigid cold or extreme heat? Maybe just maybe Jaguar can find a way to "shield" a rechargable battery from this. Who knows? - BLUEBOY




Way to go TATA
By jithvk on 9/29/2010 8:08:36 PM , Rating: 1
Nice developments coming from Jaguar after Tata took over it. Hope this will continue in the future.




"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki