backtop


Print 87 comment(s) - last by tastyratz.. on Jul 15 at 12:35 PM

An electric version of the car will follow

A former Formula One engineer has developed an ultra-compact city car, called the T.25, that is even smaller than a Smart car and averages about 74 mpg. The T.25 was designed by Gordon Murray and his team in Shalford, south east England. It took them three years to complete the design, and many features on the tiny vehicle reflect those used on one of the most famous “supercars” ever built: the McLaren F1

Murray's T.25 has a top speed of 80 mph, s only four-feet-wide by eight-feet-long, and has a turning radius of six feet. The vehicle features a central driving position and central instrumentation/controls, much like the McLaren F1, and offers a customizable interior that can set up six different ways to either seat two people in the rear or use it for cargo space.

Weighing in at only 550 kilograms (1,200 pounds), the T.25 is an easily maneuverable car that was developed with Formula One technology, materials, and philosophy, which makes the vehicle parts easy to replace in case of an accident. Also, the side mirrors are placed within the overall width of the car making it more difficult to lose them, and the fuel caps are on both sides of the vehicle for convenience. The sale price for a T.25 is set at $9,000.

In addition to the T.25, Murray has also developed two other new concepts: the T.27 and iStream. The T.27 is the T.25's electric relative with a range of 80-100 miles and has a price tag of $18,000. Currently, this is the only information available on this model.

According to Murray, iStream completely changes the way the manufacturing process is designed by simplifying the auto assembly line. The iStream will "allow all major components to be fitted directly on to the chassis prior to the body panels," which are pre-painted as well, and this streamlining could ultimately lead to smaller and more efficient auto plants that will reduce carbon emissions with the vehicles they're producing. 

The iStream was analyzed by Holger Erker, managing director of the German engineering consultancy IPE Engineering, and showed plenty of interest in the new idea.

"It is the most radical change in, let's say, the last 100 years of car body making," Erker said. "With iStream, one of the most cost intensive production steps -- body panel press shop -- is completely eliminated." 

Murray worked as a Formula One designer from 1969-2006. In 2007, he opened the Gordon Murray Design consultancy. He won the "Idea of the Year" award in November 2008 at Autocar Magazine's annual awards ceremony for his proposed manufacturing process (iStream) for the T.25.



Comments     Threshold


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

Conversion?
By Spivonious on 7/12/2010 8:14:15 AM , Rating: 3
Since this was designed in the UK, I'm assuming the mileage is in miles/imperial gallon. Converting to US gallons makes it 61.6mpg, which considering the size of the car and engine, is really poor.

Also, we all know that UK MPG testing results in higher numbers than US MPG testing, so the car probably is more like 50-55mpg.




RE: Conversion?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/12/2010 8:18:37 AM , Rating: 5
To expand on your post, I looked up the U.S. mpg figures for the Smart; the damn thing is only rated at 33/41 (city/highway)

I don't know about you guys, but that seems awfully pathetic for a car of that size.


RE: Conversion?
By Runiteshark on 7/12/2010 8:28:24 AM , Rating: 3
I also believe this car is coated with carbon fiber bits, which clearly would not be on a production cheapy car.

Smart cars are retarded. Anyone who gets one over a Yaris, Fit, or Versa is a goddamn moron.


RE: Conversion?
By quiksilvr on 7/12/2010 9:04:48 AM , Rating: 3
Especially when you look at the price tag. The Yaris Sedan is CHEAPER. o_O


RE: Conversion?
By nOpeMan on 7/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Conversion?
By quiksilvr on 7/12/2010 1:03:07 PM , Rating: 4
They have been both out for over 10 years. They Yaris was originally sold as the Platz (Echo in the US) back in 2000. In 2006, it was renamed to Yaris.

Do you research before you troll.


RE: Conversion?
By MrWho on 7/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Conversion?
By BladeVenom on 7/12/2010 11:13:12 AM , Rating: 5
That accounts for it being overpriced.


RE: Conversion?
By BryX on 7/12/2010 12:59:35 PM , Rating: 3
So brand loyalty means something more then empirical testing or design analysis? As if...0_o

And if it were made by Apple and sported an iPod wheel instead of a conventional steering wheel would you buy it because by defacto Apple marketing it would be 'the best car yet'?

Your sir, are ridiculous.


RE: Conversion?
By BryX on 7/12/2010 1:04:00 PM , Rating: 4
And when the touch wheel fails, I don't think 'holding it different' is going to help.


RE: Conversion?
By MrWho on 7/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Conversion?
By sebmel on 7/12/2010 2:45:39 PM , Rating: 1
It is reasonable of you to suggest that the Merc brand ought to be say something... unfortunately that reputation was established some time ago and they haven't maintained it. The Japanese have set higher standards of reliability for quite some time.

Some Merc cars have poor reputations... I liked the packaging of the A-class... without all but the driver's seat you had a van that could park in a tiny space... it was shorter than the Ford Ka. Servicing costs and reliability aren't good.

The Yaris, on the other hand is a great little car and will give you 55mpg easily, if you aren't heavy footed. The down side, however is their crash worthiness. Take a look at what happens to a Yaris in a higher speed crash:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcTf78b8WfY


RE: Conversion?
By tastyratz on 7/12/2010 4:13:18 PM , Rating: 3
Smart car applies in specialty application and should be treated as such. Anyone who gets one is not getting it purely for gas mileage which is good but not great even if its a marketing point.

Their size lends them incredible maneuverability in a metropolitan setting. If I lived in Boston a smart car might make a lot of sense - even if it didn't get record breaking gas mileage.

And now this car? Makes more sense.

To expand on this article: The car performs this feat with an inline 3 cylinder engine that has 51hp. Before crying about the engine output remember its weight. Power to weight ratios are inline with many economy sedans with more than double the hp and double the weight...


RE: Conversion?
By Spuke on 7/12/2010 4:45:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Their size lends them incredible maneuverability in a metropolitan setting.
The ability to cut people off in traffic has never been a priority with me. LOL! Other than that, a Ford Fusion Hybrid (41 city/36 hwy) is a far more practical car that actually fits humans in it.


RE: Conversion?
By tastyratz on 7/13/2010 11:20:06 AM , Rating: 2
Narrow spaces, tight parking lots, cramped traffic - a lot more than "cutting off"

I would imagine Roseanne would have a harder time navigating a crowded hallway over Anna Farris. Same principle.

quote:
a far more practical car that actually fits overweight Americans in it.


Fixed.

The smart car again is dimensionally suited to special audiences. If you don't fit in a smart car maybe you should fit in a diet program.
If it doesn't fit your needs or lifestyle then maybe you should buy a car that does.


RE: Conversion?
By Spuke on 7/13/2010 2:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Narrow spaces, tight parking lots, cramped traffic - a lot more than "cutting off"
Still doesn't explain the need for a narrow car. If you're not driving on the sidewalk, any car made has plenty of room to maneuver. Driving faster than the prevailing traffic is not only stupid, it's dangerous. Maybe you should get a used car and spend the difference on stress management classes.

quote:
a far more practical car that actually fits overweight Americans in it.
Ah. Ye ole fat American insult. It seems you Europeans aren't too far behind. I direct your attention to the following links:

http://www.obesityday.eu/

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and...

Maybe you should take a humility class while you're at it too.


RE: Conversion?
By tastyratz on 7/15/2010 12:35:59 PM , Rating: 3
Heh,
I'm an American actually. Call it inside intel but I see a lot of fat people around. Hope I didn't let out our dirty little secret.


RE: Conversion?
By Fourth Liver on 7/13/2010 12:59:11 AM , Rating: 2
Smarts weren't specifically designed to compete with the yaris, fit, etc.

It's a tiny sports car that happens to get reasonable gas mileage. I've driven one, it's fun as hell. My friend Chris could have bought (almost) any car in the world. It was between a Smart and an Exige, but he bought a smart. He also has a Quattroporte and a Countach.

It comes standard with a sequential manumatic tranny, stiff suspension, and racing seats. They designed it to have room for a turbo.

Smarts are not the poor man's subcompact; they are sportscars.


RE: Conversion?
By theapparition on 7/12/2010 9:53:25 AM , Rating: 3
Once this thing gets fitted with all the required safety hardware, and additional ammenites that American consumers demand, I think you'll find that it gets awefully close to the Smarts efficiency.

But yes, it makes no sense that a Jetta can get better fuel economy than a Smart.


RE: Conversion?
By AssBall on 7/12/2010 10:10:49 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I wondered about that, too.

quote:
which makes the vehicle parts easy to replace in case of an accident


Oh yeah, except for the driver...


RE: Conversion?
By Spuke on 7/12/2010 2:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To expand on your post, I looked up the U.S. mpg figures for the Smart; the damn thing is only rated at 33/41 (city/highway)
That's just retarded. Doesn't the Fusion Hybrid get the same mileage?


RE: Conversion?
By muhahaaha on 7/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Conversion?
By SLeeeper on 7/13/2010 2:17:04 AM , Rating: 2
It has been years since any car company has been serious about MPG. After the 1973 OPEC embargo, the US government got involved. Here is a list of cars we used to have available:
http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/08/super-cheap-hi...


RE: Conversion?
By B3an on 7/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Conversion?
By rikulus on 7/12/2010 8:41:25 AM , Rating: 3
yes


RE: Conversion?
By Fracture on 7/12/2010 8:41:44 AM , Rating: 2
Yes. That means the car is consuming MORE US gallons per mile, making it a less efficient MPG.


RE: Conversion?
By chrisld on 7/12/2010 9:11:22 AM , Rating: 2
The VW Bluemotions get the same or better mpg but are real sized cars.

What is all this hype over hybrids that get worse mpg than the VW diesel and now this matchbox on wheels?

Something is only good if it's better than what's already out there.

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

(no connection to VW)


RE: Conversion?
By Jeffk464 on 7/12/2010 12:22:59 PM , Rating: 1
VW is coming out with a cool looking coupe with the 2.0 turbo diesel. Sporty, good looks, and was supposed to be about 65mpg.


RE: Conversion?
By Jeffk464 on 7/12/2010 12:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
Ah common, why cant they ever get their streamlining from being low and sleek like a sports car? Why do they have to be skinny and dorky looking?


RE: Conversion?
By Spuke on 7/12/2010 2:53:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ah common, why cant they ever get their streamlining from being low and sleek like a sports car? Why do they have to be skinny and dorky looking?
Because low and sleek is the old, busted jawn. Skinny and dorky is the new hotness.


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

Related Articles













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