"Conservatively," Goodwin muses, scratching his chin, "it'll get 60 miles to the gallon. With 2,000 foot-pounds of torque. You'll be able to smoke the tires. And it's going to be superefficient."
The turbine thing has been done.
Now I understand that it wasn't a hybrid, but it failed for any number of reasons. Turbines are expensive when parts fail and require a VERY competent technician to work on them. On top of that they're loud, can be difficult to start, etc. A turbine just doesn't lend itself well to starting and stopping like in a hybrid vehicle.
My other issue is with the 2000 ft lbs claim. Yes, electric motors are capable of tremendous stalled torque, but at the expense of horsepower. If you want that thing to go fast you're going to be giving up torque. If you want it to pull a load you're going to be giving up horsepower and speed.
The other thing...it's an H3. There isn't a component on that vehicle that is matched to even 400 ft lbs of torque, let alone 5 times that. 2000 ft lbs and you're talking Dana 70 snapping power, even under something that light. Just look at what the diesel pickup guys are able to do with 1000 ft lbs. Sure, they have more weight, but they also have 1-ton components...which the scatter about on the ground when they get on it.
I applaud people for trying, but in this case...man...hubris be thy name.