Reducing friction, weight and drag are the keys to Shell's new 107mpg concept car. We take it for a spin
Steve Cropley Autocar
10 October 2016

If all petrol-powered cars were like the diminutive Shell Concept Car, we’d all be getting an effortless 100mpg-plus on the way to work, while our cars’ tailpipes emitted a third less CO2 than even the cleanest city car.

These are the conclusions of a two-year project that has produced a three-seat prototype combining the talents of Gordon Murray’s prolific Guildford-based automotive design group, Japanese engine consultant Geo Technology and Shell’s own advanced lubricant engineers, based in Belgium.

The car, powered by a 660cc in-line three-cylinder engine that started life as a regular Mitsubishi offering but has since been heavily revised, sits under the tiny car’s boot floor, driving the rear wheels. It is so frugal that it could be built and driven for more than 60,000 miles while using less energy than it takes to make and ship a typical SUV to the showroom.

Shell’s concept began life as Murray’s well-publicised T25, one of several prototypes built to prove Murray’s rule-breaking iStream manufacturing process. The yellow-white-red paint job is jauntier and there are spats over the rear wheel housings, but the relationship is obvious.

Why use it again? Because when Shell approached Gordon Murray Design with a plan to build a super-frugal car using technology that existed now, the partners realised a lot of the work had been done already. “We’d virtually finished with T25 as a means of proving the iStream process,” says Murray, “but when Shell came to us with a plan to make the world’s most efficient petrol-powered city car, we realised we already had a car that would provide an excellent basis.”

Despite the T25’s achievements in frugality, the partners soon discerned that much could be achieved by rethinking the detail of the little car. Shell insists the project isn’t meant to make the case for petrol – which it happens to make in large quantities – but to show what is possible using technology that is already well proven, rather than still in development.

Talking about the Shell Concept Car’s body and chassis, Murray says he “pushed” his people to achieve the remarkable drag factor – for such an unpromising shape – of 0.297, with the comparatively tiny frontal area of 1.45 square metres. The kerb weight was slashed from 627kg to just 550kg largely by using lighter composites. The engine, converted to the Miller cycle, gets ultra-short-skirt pistons with low-friction coatings, a raised compression ratio (12.5:1) and very light titanium valves that require remarkably soft valve springs for control.

“Geo has obsessed like mad over friction,” says Murray. “They’ve redesigned everything that could make a difference – working with Shell’s people, who are big players in the friction reduction business.” The Shell concept uses specially designed lubricants – not just in the engine, but also in the gearbox and even the wheel bearings – all designed to reduce drag.

 

Shell’s technology and innovation manager, Bob Mainwaring, says around 20% of an average engine’s fuelling is used simply to overcome friction, but this can be reduced to around 15 % with specially engineered lubricants that use some of the huge safety margin traditionally built into oil products, without taking any risks with exaggerated engine wear. The result is a reduction of around 5% in internal friction, a huge advance in an era when engine developers struggle to aggregate gains in fractions of a percentage point.

Mainwaring believes this, in particular, makes the case for real-time co-operation between engine and lubricant engineers as new engines are designed. Similar gains are realisable in production, he believes. In fact, each of the partners is enthusiastic about the advantages of partnerships with other high achieving specialist companies. “The project has been a bit of an eyeopener,” says Mainwaring. “We’re proud of the results, which challenge present conclusions about what car we should own, and for what purpose.”

Murray is surprised to have found such dramatic cuts in weight and aerodynamic drag during the second part of the T25 process. “We thought we’d achieved a lot,” he says, “and what we did was pretty good. But we’re now at a place we’d never have reached in one step.” On the move, the Shell Concept Car is understandably similar in behaviour to the T25 we drove around five years ago.

The small size makes it beguilingly agile and manoeuvrable, and visibility is amazing. But the steering is rather undergeared and the step-off from rest is abrupt, because the engine controls still need a few per cent more refinement. (Murray estimates 2-3% better economy would result.)

The two most obvious and positive dynamic characteristics are an engine that idles unusually freely – you can almost hear the absence of friction – and strong acceleration from rest that advertises the whole car’s extreme lightness. “So many good things flow from lightness,” says Murray, “but major manufacturers find it very hard to deliver. It’s the last frontier.”

Read more - Murray T25 review

Our Verdict

Murray T25

Revolutionary three-seater T25 from acclaimed F1 designer Gordon Murray is both futuristic and simple

Join the debate

Comments
26

10 October 2016
So many good things flow from lightness,” says Murray, “but major manufacturers find it very hard to deliver. It’s the last frontier.”

JLR could do with pinning that to the product planning wall..

10 October 2016
That's why it wouldn't sell.
Simple

Aussie Rob - a view from down under

10 October 2016
Aussierob wrote:

That's why it wouldn't sell.
Simple

Do you understand what a concept car is?

11 October 2016
B*llo*cks, I d happily be seen in one, its cool. I would want a normal paint job on mine thoguh.

10 October 2016
I'd give this far more credence if another journalist had written it. Every piece Autocar does on Gordon Murray is written by Steve Cropley and invariably thinks what ever his latest project is is brilliant.

10 October 2016
Yup, vintage Cropley. You've surpassed yourself here Steve. The great shame of it is, there's a fascinating story here, if only you'd look up from the breathless PR you are churning out. I drove through East London today in heavy traffic and was struck by how many cars had just the driver on board. Teslas don't address the congestion issue and batteries have big environmental issues still to fix. Murray is into something here but the industry and a timid public are conspiring against him. This is a Twizy that actually works.

11 October 2016
scrap wrote:

Yup, vintage Cropley. You've surpassed yourself here Steve. The great shame of it is, there's a fascinating story here, if only you'd look up from the breathless PR you are churning out. I drove through East London today in heavy traffic and was struck by how many cars had just the driver on board. Teslas don't address the congestion issue and batteries have big environmental issues still to fix. Murray is into something here but the industry and a timid public are conspiring against him. This is a Twizy that actually works.

But the beauty of cars in general is that they multi-task - those same single-occupant cars will probably be full taking the kids to/from school earlier/later in the day, and/or a trip at the weekend, etc.

11 October 2016
@sierra, in some cases, yes. But not all. This is not an argument to mandate everybody to swap their existing car for one of these. It is simply to say that, for many people, one of these would make sense - and would help reduce congestion for all. The problem is that buying a car is a selfish decision (in the non judgmental sense of the word) but traffic is a collective problem.

11 October 2016
Steve Cropley wrote:

It is so frugal that it could be built and driven for more than 60,000 miles while using less energy than it takes to make and ship a typical SUV to the showroom.

My typical 2 ton 7 seat SUV can be driven nearly 30,000 miles while using less fuel than it takes to make and ship it to the showroom.

 

11 October 2016
This is an excellent demonstration of the efficiency which can be achieved through small size, light weight and clever engineering. The problem is that it is out of step with what people actually want to buy. Conditioned by years of cheap well equipped, quiet cars, cheap fuel and safe heavy construction, we don't want the opposite, which is what this car is. It will remain a demonstration of what is possible where there is a will.

Pages

Add your comment

Log in or register to post comments

Find an Autocar car review

Driven this week

  • Volvo V90
    First Drive
    19 October 2017
    The Volvo V90 is a big estate ploughing its own furrow. We’re about to see if it is refreshing or misguided
  • Kia Stonic
    First Drive
    18 October 2017
    Handsome entrant into the bulging small crossover market has a strong engine and agile handling, but isn’t as comfortable or complete as rivals
  • Hyundai Kona
    First Drive
    18 October 2017
    Hyundai's funky-looking Kona crossover with a peppy three-cylinder engine makes all the right noises for the car to be a success in a crowded segment
  • Citroën C3 Aircross
    First Drive
    17 October 2017
    The Citroen C3 Aircross has got funky looks and a charming interior, but it's another small SUV, and another dynamic miss. Numb steering is just one thing keeping it from class best
  • Skoda-Karoq 2.0 TDI 4x4
    First Drive
    16 October 2017
    Diesel version of Skoda’s junior SUV is unobtrusive and undemanding, but we’d still go for the silkier petrol version of the Karoq