www.ditl.org

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Batmobile-T ... 12337.html

It's a wee bit pricey, but it's hard to beat that car.

What are the EPA estimates?

In all seriousness, it boggles my mind a little bit that a naval-aviation gas turbine engine could be downrated enough to only make 385 bhp. My buddy's old 1967 Goat 4-4-2 used to make more than that on the dyno.

Can you just imagine riding down the street in that thing? You've heard of chic magnets? This would be like a chic repulsor.

I don't know, I know a girl who would like rape me in order to sit in this car.

It's not rape if you enjoy it. Or yell surprise at the end.

I am sure there would be a ton of people who would want a ride in it.

Probably has a 0.1 MPG rating. Turbines are very thirsty.

Nickswitz wrote:I don't know, I know a girl who would like rape me in order to sit in this car.

Nickster, likely given the chance, she'd rape you anyway brother

Wellll.... That's a completely different story. She's with someone else currently.

Ain't a crime if you don't get caught. Just sayin.'

*ahem* Anyway, yes - gas turbines are stupid thirsty, which is why more tanks haven't followed suit with the Abrams and why the gas-turbine high-speed train (Swiss, I think it was) was deep-sixed so quickly.

I can't help but feel that if you're getting that... thing, gas mileage isn't really a concern and you want a turbine that isn't governed at 385 bhp. Hell, most 18-year-olds around here would chip it and put a K&N on it within 6 hours.

Yeah but if you have $620,000 you are probably not worried about the gas milage. Not something you will be driving to work each day or cursing along on the highway. I just wonder how big the tank is.

Turbines have always been thirsty since they were first invented over a hundred years ago.

That's why they have atomic batteries to power, to offset the gas price when they set the turbines at speed