Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Sad? How so?

1180 ft-lbs of torque. Lord, what fun that must be, to stomp on the accelerator and feel all that thrust kicking in! Remember, HP is a function of Torque--it's that 1180 ft-lbs that'll yank you back in the seat and probably make your face feel like it's peeling backwards...

agreed, and since it's electric the torque curve should remain almost linear until a certain RPM (where it will drop off considerably), i'd like to see it in action, i imagine weight is what keeps its 0-60 time higher than it should be.

Posted

Yeah, but it can't be any heavier than the Bugatti Veyron, right? Also, The XJ220 is of older technology with a V6 that generates roughly half of what this concept does, yet it can go up to 217 mph. Something's just not right about the concept's numbers.

Posted

you're also looking at two completely different technologies between this concept and a bugatti, the bugatti is using technology that's been tested and perfected over several decades at this scale, turbines are typically only used in larger or more specific applications and in this case has been scaled way down. the Jaguar is using turbine engines in conjunction with electric motors, electric motors are known well for having fantastic torque but they're not really HP crunchers and while turbine motors sounds cutting edge, in this application its probably not as performance minded as it sounds, mostly due to the nature of a turbine motor. Turbine motors are typically meant to run at a constant speed, they don't wind up and wind down very well like a typical otto cycle motor, which is why you see them on jet liners and generators, things that will have the motor running at a constant rpm for long periods of time. I'm not sure how they've balanced the efficiency of the electric motor with the turbines, but i'm sure it's far from perfect at a conceptual stage, so there's a lot of room for improvement in this type of design. In regards to weight, i'd be surprised if they kept it below 4000lbs, you have to consider the fact that there are six motors in this car not counting the batteries to power four of them, this thing has to weigh a lot regardless of space age materials.

Posted

I suspect some people (especially the media) are confusing jet engines and turbines. When they say "turbine", in this context---think "hydroelectric dam"---they are generating electricity, little more. And like most electric motors---incredible torque at low speeds. Their true limit is often RPM/gearing.

All in all, this seems most similar to a turbine-electric locomotive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine-electric_locomotive (car will likely have same issues, too---both steam and electric turbine locos have the same issues as all other turbines---best at long, high-speed runs)

I figure it'll be almost submarine-like in actual operation---the electric motors will run off the batteries, the batteries will be charged by the turbines.

Posted

They give the impression that the turbines are pushing the car forward by stating that the force from the air is pushed out against the rear venier to create downforce. That makes it seem to me like a lot of air must be getting pushed out.

Posted

Of course---marketing. If the jet impulse is 0.4 ounces, they can say it adds force... And the drawings reinforce the masses' mental concept of a "jet car".

Posted (edited)

Lotus unveils its future lineup.

2013-Lotus-Elan-Renderings-Front-Angle-1920x1440.jpg

2013 Lotus Elan

Approx. US$118,650

4-liter V6, 444 bhp, 343 lb-ft torque

2,855 lbs.

0-60 in 3.5 sec; top speed 193 mph

2013-Lotus-Esprit-Renderings-Front-And-Side-1920x1440.jpg

2013 Lotus Esprit

Approx. US$174,000

5-liter V8, 612 bhp, 531 lb-ft torque

3,197 lbs.

0-60 in 3.4 sec

2014-Lotus-Elite-Renderings-Front-1920x1440.jpg

2014 Lotus Elite

Approx. US$181,900

5-liter V8, 612 bhp, 531 lb-ft torque

3,638 lbs.

0-60 in 3.7 sec

2015-Lotus-Elise-Renderings-Front-Angle-1920x1440.jpg

2015 Lotus Elise

Approx. US$55,370

2-liter inline-4 hybrid, 316 bhp, 243 lb-ft torque

2,414 lbs.

0-60 in 4.3 sec; top speed 168 mph

2015-Lotus-Eterne-Renderings-Front-Angle-1920x1440.jpg

2015 Lotus Eterne

Approx. US$189,840

5-liter V8, 612 bhp, 531 lb-ft torque

3,968 lbs.

0-60 in 4.0 sec; top speed 196 mph

Edited by areaseven
Posted

Those specifications on the various Lotus can't be right...

I'm not impressed. Me-too wannabe Gallardo styling. Porky curb weights. Lotus has never been about muscle car appeal; it's completely anathema. Colin Chapman must be doing 7500 RPM in his grave.

Posted

They are definitely Gallardo-like but you have to remember that ever increasing safety standards are leading to heavier cars. By comparison, some of those are fairly light. Lamborghini's newest test project weighted in at 2500LBs and they did everything they could to make that light.

Posted

The front ends really remind me more of Audi's designs. Regardless, I really like the new Elise though I'm surprised at how different it looks from it's previous versions (though I like those a lot too).

Posted

Not so crazy about the Elise, mine is WAY cooler and unique looking. Thinking about putting down a deposit for the Elan though.

Posted

Not so crazy about the Elise, mine is WAY cooler and unique looking. Thinking about putting down a deposit for the Elan though.

Have to admit, I was curious as to what your thoughts would be about these. I'm still pretty sure that the specs A7 posted can't be right though... let us know what you come up with.

Posted

I'm still pretty sure that the specs A7 posted can't be right though... let us know what you come up with.

D'oh! I mixed up the engine specs of the Elise with the Eterne. Fixed.

Posted (edited)

Lotus unveils its future lineup.

2013 Lotus Elan

Approx. US$118,650

4-liter V6, 444 bhp, 343 lb-ft torque

2,855 lbs.

0-60 in 3.5 sec; top speed 193 mph

2013 Lotus Esprit

Approx. US$174,000

5-liter V8, 612 bhp, 531 lb-ft torque

3,197 lbs.

0-60 in 3.4 sec

2014 Lotus Elite

Approx. US$181,900

5-liter V8, 612 bhp, 531 lb-ft torque

3,638 lbs.

0-60 in 3.7 sec

2015 Lotus Elise

Approx. US$55,370

2-liter inline-4 hybrid, 316 bhp, 243 lb-ft torque

2,414 lbs.

0-60 in 4.3 sec; top speed 168 mph

2015 Lotus Eterne

Approx. US$189,840

5-liter V8, 612 bhp, 531 lb-ft torque

3,968 lbs.

0-60 in 4.0 sec; top speed 196 mph

I wish there were more distinct visual differences between the new Lotuses though. As they are right now, these cars look like they were just one car that was pushed and pulled in various dimensions.

Edited by ValkyrieFactory
Posted

This will certainly be looked back upon as a Golden Age for enthusiasts of the internal combustion engine, in terms of efficiency and power output [in general] for performance-oriented cars.

But Christ--what absolutely DEPRESSING and BLAND times, aesthetically speaking. Everything seems to be getting more and more, homogeneous, for lack of a better word.

"what color would you like your jellybean-on-wheels?" <_<

God, what I wouldn't give for a garage full of these, but with more modern drivetrains/suspension bits/brakes/rubber bolted up underneath...

250 California Spyder

GT-40 Wyer/wide body

Lambo Miura

Pantera Group 4

Lola T-70

'70 Challenger

'70 or '71 Road Runner

'67 Chevelle (I've seen one of these, properly set up, run circles around turbo Porsches at a PCA event at Lime Rock before...)

Torana A9X

'78 XC Cobra

Posted (edited)

I've always been fond of the mid-60s Corvettes (and even the first few StingRays). Sometimes I still day dream about buying a big block 69 Corvette or, when I'm feeling a bit more tasteful, a 64ish. I think what has happened to the Corvette is one of the automobile industry's more sad stories (although they sell like hell so the world disagrees with me). I wish the Corvette was smaller and lighter and made some effort to get back to its original lines... to me that car looks like it's never fully recovered from its 1984 makeover.

Full disclosure - I owned an 80s Vette in the 90s.

Edited by jenius
Posted

Don't get me wrong, there's a fair share of newer cars that I lust after, too. Like the 550 Maranello; or the Aston Martin DBS, mmmmmm--that thing is sex on wheels.

I happen to like that Lotus Elite as well (what can I say? I'm biased towards Coupes and traditional "GT"s), it's a rather nice design. But 3700 lbs? Retracting glass top? A Lotus badge is just out of place on it. I know I've taken to task the "Colin Chapman" theory of car design, but the irony is not lost on me that the majority of these new models seem the very antithesis of the founder's devotion to minimalist design philosophy, "Simplify and add lightness."

I kinda like the C6 Vette. I like the design cues taken from the old Stingrays; thought it was a step in the right direction.

Chevrolet-Corvette-Grand-Sport-Roadster_2.jpg

GM's snake-killer...

Posted

Have to admit, I was curious as to what your thoughts would be about these. I'm still pretty sure that the specs A7 posted can't be right though... let us know what you come up with.

It's the strangest car one can ever own. Like driving a go-kart to work every day. I really like the direction of the company, but most current lotus owners, and lotus forum members hate the direction. They are just pissed off because they can't afford the lotus they really want. I mean the new Elise looks great compared to other cars, but it's nothing next to the others.

Posted

are the side view mirrors on all the Lotii cameras?

Yes

Posted

The new Batmobile?

(Quote-protected because Wanzerfan is still a dumbass.)

2011 Panoz Abruzzi

LOL, that was my first thought at seeing that pic. If they ever do a retro '40s era version of the dark knight, it'll defnitely fit the bill.

Posted (edited)

Do you want to travel at lightspeed?

post-385-128692307214_thumb.jpg

2010 Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport

Meh, still looks like a fuggin' dung beetle.... <_<

dungbeetle_20.jpg

Ah, for the good ol' days--when supercars were sleek and sexy, and really looked the business...

mclarenf1.jpg

Not really a fan of the upcoming Mclaren supercar though--the name escapes me at the moment. Seriously, they should expect a lawsuit from Ascari or something...

Edited by reddsun1
Posted

Meh, still looks like a fuggin' dung beetle.... <_<

Ah, for the good ol' days--when supercars were sleek and sexy, and really looked the business...

Not really a fan of the upcoming Mclaren supercar though--the name escapes me at the moment. Seriously, they should expect a lawsuit from Ascari or something...

I agree with you on the first point, loved the McLaren F1, and also loved the Ferrari F40, supercars really hit a good age there in the late 80's through the late 90's.

Posted (edited)

Meh, still looks like a fuggin' dung beetle.... <_<

Ah, for the good ol' days--when supercars were sleek and sexy, and really looked the business...

I personally like the aesthetics of this beetle-themed supercar than that of the Veyron. ^_^

800px-1968_Alfa_Romeo_Carabo.jpg

Edited by Vifam7
Posted (edited)

I personally like the aesthetics of this beetle-themed supercar than that of the Veyron. ^_^

That looks vaguely familiar; probably had a Hot Wheels just like that once... :p

Ooh, ooh--anybody else remember the Vector? F'ugly as all get-out, true. But for countless kids of the 80's, posters of these things probably competed with Countachs for wall-space. They just looked fast sitting still. Actually, they looked more like they should have been a prop on the set of a Buck Rogers episode...

87365343_a28743f773.jpg

ed: LOL, here goes the practical side of me ruining things again. Can you imagine how stressful something as simple as washing that car would have been, being the poor ba**ard that had to try to clean the inside of that fuggin windshield? It's the little things like that that can make it or break it for a relationship with a car; if you find yourself always driving a vehicle with hazy, streaked windows you can never get clean, or dirt and stuff trapped in corners and crevices you can never seem to reach with the vacuum--I imagine stuff like that could make you eventually get to the point where you just look at your car when you come out in the driveway each day and go: "you know, I hate your mother fu**in a$$ [car]; I can't wait 'til I can get something else."

Edited by reddsun1
Posted

That looks vaguely familiar; probably had a Hot Wheels just like that once... :p

It's an Alfa Romeo Carabo.

ed: LOL, here goes the practical side of me ruining things again. Can you imagine how stressful something as simple as washing that car would have been, being the poor ba**ard that had to try to clean the inside of that fuggin windshield? It's the little things like that that can make it or break it for a relationship with a car; if you find yourself always driving a vehicle with hazy, streaked windows you can never get clean, or dirt and stuff trapped in corners and crevices you can never seem to reach with the vacuum--I imagine stuff like that could make you eventually get to the point where you just look at your car when you come out in the driveway each day and go: "you know, I hate your mother fu**in a$$ [car]; I can't wait 'til I can get something else."

Generally, if you're rich enough to own a supercar, you have someone else do all the annoying things in life for you. ;)

Posted

Vector W-8 (Countach rival) was ok, but I very much liked the Diablo-rival Vector W-12.

The problem is that the M12 (not W-12, BTW) was not really a Vector at all, nor was it a Diablo rival. Rather, it was a Diablo with a lengthened chassis and a fiberglass body. Also, I don't remember which episode of old Top Gear it was, but Jeremy Clarkson said something like the M12 was the worst supercar ever made.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...