Two brothers are trying to get their lightweight, 3D-printed car all the way across the country using about the same amount of gas that it takes to get a Hummer across Los Angeles County. With their dog, no less.

Brothers Cody and Tyler Kor first showed off a version of their 3D-printed three-wheeler at the 2010 SEMA show. A lot has happened since then, and now the Kors are planning to be, as ZZ Top put it, "bad and nationwide" by taking their Urbee 2 from New York to San Francisco and back. The Kor brothers, along with their dog Cupid, say they'll be able to make a one-way, 2,900-mile trip using just 10 gallons of gas, Reuters says. The round trip will take 44 hours and is a tribute of sorts to the 1903 cross-country journey undertaken by early motoring enthusiasts Horatio Nelson Jackson and mechanic Sewall K. Crocker. Only the Kors will use about 790 fewer gallons.

The Urbee 2 uses an ethanol-electric hybrid system that provides 16 horsepower for the 1,200-pound vehicle and can push it to a top speed of 70 miles per hour. The super-aerodynamic car has steel chassis tubing and is covered with 3D-printed plastic panels, keeping the car light and (we hope) safe. The whole endeavor is a family affair. Kor EcoLogic, run by the brothers' father Jim Kor, started road-testing a version of the Urbee in Spring 2011 and said at the time that it was hoping to build a limited production version by 2014.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 23 Comments
      Tweaker
      • 1 Year Ago
      "The round trip will take 44 hours" Huh?
        Letstakeawalk
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Tweaker
        If they make the round trip in that time (NY - SF - NY) then they will set a new record. I'm pretty doubtful. The current record holder averaged 98mph during their trip, while the Urbee *maxes out* at 70. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/01/fastest-cross-country-drive_n_4192359.html
      Neil Blanchard
      • 1 Year Ago
      Some much more up to date photos: http://3dprintshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/urbee1.jpg http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/WL/urbee-05-1113-de.jpg http://www.qualitydigest.com/IQedit/Images/Articles_and_Columns/2013/April_2013/Urbee.jpg https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTlPRdWJVMO7avYWCzk_efU0eUYJM9mexMYiJYFr-6vdn5b_eYbBw I hope they make it!
        Neil Blanchard
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Neil Blanchard
        They claim the Cd is 0.15, and I tend to believe them. http://korecologic.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/slide094.jpg?w=1200&h=&crop=1
      Actionable Mango
      • 1 Year Ago
      I'm curious, how do you do this legally? Is there some kind of permit to make non street legal cars temporarily street legal?
        BipDBo
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Actionable Mango
        You can build and legally drive just about anything as a kit car. You just need proper lights. It's even easier if it has 3 wheels. I saw one guy who made a trike by bolting the front of a motorcycle to the front of a 90s FWD sedan.
        2 wheeled menace
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Actionable Mango
        I believe there is something called an experimental vehicle license.. possibly very expensive.. but it can be arranged.
      2 wheeled menace
      • 1 Year Ago
      Extremely cool. Talk about living a dream.
      BipDBo
      • 1 Year Ago
      Very cool vehicle. I hope they make it. If it were my design, I would have driven the rear wheel and steered with the front. rear wheel steering is not stable, worse yet on a 3 wheel car. I see, however the reasons they did what they did. It was optimized for efficiency, not handling.
        west
        • 1 Year Ago
        @BipDBo
        You have it backwards. Front single is more prone to cornering tip over unless all the weight is rearward, which then gives almost no traction to front wheel. Their design is better. See Mr Bean's Nemesis the blue Reliant ;)
          BipDBo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @west
          I'm not talking about tadpole (two in front, single in back) vs. delta (single in front, two in back). I'm talking about steering with rear wheel(s) as opposed to the standard front wheel(s). Steering with the rear wheels is dynamically unstable. Even 4 wheel steering cars steer much more with the front for this reason. With traditional front wheel steering, centrifugal force straightens the wheel back to center. With rear wheel steering, that force pulls the steering wheel into a more extreme turn. If you let go of the steering wheel, instead of correcting to center, it will naturally spin out of control. Very dangerous as found out by many pilots of early planes with tadpole landing gear that steered with that little with rear wheel. BTW tadpole is better when weight is toward the front. Delta is better when weight is toward the back, like the Deltawing, TriVette.
      paulwesterberg
      • 1 Year Ago
      Since autoblog can't be arsed to provide a proper link here is the website: http://korecologic.com/ The skinned vehicle looks great, really aerodynamic! This could be the perfect commuter/danmobile.
        Matt Brown
        • 1 Year Ago
        @paulwesterberg
        Thankfully, they posted four links to other Autoblog sites which exactly no one will use on purpose.
      danfred411
      • 1 Year Ago
      still no
        omni007
        • 1 Year Ago
        @danfred411
        Oh, come on, dude. This one is for extreme range. They have to build in an energy storage system sufficient to cover nearly 3,000 miles (4,800 km). If they're doing it on 10 gallons of E85, then you just figure the range / energy. E85 is just over 24 kWh/gallon, so they have 240 kWh. Divided into 2,900 miles, that gives a figure of 82.8 Wh per mile. (And, why not, I'll also mention 290 miles per gallon on E85. That would be nearly 380 miles per gallon equivalent of 100% gasoline.) I'd like to see anyone do better than that, while keeping the speeds and range these guys are claiming. Yes, it can be improved. But this is extremely good considering the limitations involved. Would you be willing to elaborate on _why_ "still no"?
          jebibudala
          • 1 Year Ago
          @omni007
          Assuming the united states is perfectly flat, with perfect traffic, and perfect weather.
          BraveLil'Toaster
          • 1 Year Ago
          @omni007
          @danfred411: But it's Neil Blanchard's wet dream! It *must* be practical then!
          danfred411
          • 1 Year Ago
          @omni007
          It seems Danny King deserves blame for using pictures from 2010 when they have actually completed the vehicle. But that aside, it has flat metal seats, exposed drivetrain insides, steering is apparently a loose chain drive, you seem to sit so low you can hardly see out the front, the door is like the loremo, massive and cumbersome and awkward to get in and out of and it seems to have exposed drivetrain components in the cabin. And it has a combustion engine. It's too small and frail to have commercial appeal and if you wanted to do an extreme demonstrator then there are better ways.
        mycommentemail
        • 1 Year Ago
        @danfred411
        Yeah. Cause it isn't light enough, aero dynamic enough, or efficient enough. If only they had hired you they could have had a car that was 10 pounds, got one hundred billion miles to the gallon, and cost five U.S. dollars. When will they learn?
      paulwesterberg
      • 1 Year Ago
      Happy Dan Review :-] electric(partly) :-] light weight(yes, but not enough) :-) aero :-] cheap (no price listed, but could be with mass production) :-( performance(top speed limited, 16hp is not much) Overall Score: 3.25 Happy Dans
      Spec
      • 1 Year Ago
      Well . . . someone has to say it . . . . It looks like a coffin.
        2 wheeled menace
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Spec
        All enclosed high speed vehicles are potential coffins if you think about it.. 33,561 people died in those rolling coffins last year.. ;)
      SteveG
      • 1 Year Ago
      ZZtop never said that. "I'm bad, I'm nationwide." Is as close as they get.
    • Load More Comments