Make:

Comments

Oldest comments listed first.

• I would have loved to hear the phone call to the insurance company for this car ;-)

  Posted by: nicksoper on March 5, 2006 at 12:14 PM

• LOL! I have to admit that this is way on there on my "prank-o-meter," and I would sure like to get some independent confirmation...

  Posted by: robertadams1 on March 5, 2006 at 12:40 PM

• And already the photobuck bandwith has been exceeded

  Posted by: Deek on March 5, 2006 at 1:11 PM

• So a extention of that size and length from the vehicle that has the ability to spout hot flame exaust onto other motorist etc.

  Posted by: Bohemian on March 5, 2006 at 2:27 PM

• So a extention of that size and length from the vehicle that has the ability to spout hot flame exaust onto other motorist etc. is legal?

  Posted by: Bohemian on March 5, 2006 at 2:28 PM

• how about doing this with a pickup so that you can hide the ugly exhaust? Seems well thought out except for the fact that it is a beetle...

  Posted by: fstedie on March 5, 2006 at 3:00 PM

• it's funny that the brakes are on in the jet-burning photo. what, too fast for ya?

  Posted by: afaust on March 5, 2006 at 10:50 PM

• Jeez. This is awesome. Some one said it was well thought out but for the beetle part. I think that is the coup de grace. So incongrous, I love it. The intimidation factor alone of having that ginormous exhaust sticking out, well, just wow. I must say I'm impressed.

  Posted by: dissident75 on March 6, 2006 at 3:36 AM

• How could this be possible? The engine would have to draw all of the air it's using for propulsion from the INSIDE of the cabin. No special intake ducts are apparent. Unless they're under the body or something, this has to be fake.

  Posted by: kukai on March 6, 2006 at 10:00 AM

• Nevermind, the link answers this question. Apparently it can draw enough through the windows and sunroof ... although he says it's "a little windy inside." I wonder what would happen if you lit that sucker up with the windows shut?

  Posted by: kukai on March 6, 2006 at 10:04 AM

• I can verify that this is indeed real. My friend works for Ron, the guy who made this, and I've seen additional pictures of test firing and the red hot engine afterwards. Ron has also take the car to some car shows in the Bay Area as well.

  Posted by: blanksl8 on March 6, 2006 at 10:19 AM

• It's too bad that they didn't put the rocket on a good car.

  Posted by: astro8503 on March 6, 2006 at 12:06 PM

• Funny how the shadow from the jet fails to cast on the ground. Must be one of those government issue stealth engines.

  Posted by: johnyo on March 6, 2006 at 12:06 PM

• Funny how the shadow from the jet fails to cast on the ground. Must be one of those government issue stealth engines.

  Posted by: johnyo on March 6, 2006 at 12:09 PM

• Now THIS is a good use of a Stanford Mechanical Engineering degree!

  "So a extention of that size and length from the vehicle that has the ability to spout hot flame exaust onto other motorists, etc, is legal?"

  The creator's site seems to imply that operating the jet engine on a public road is not legal. But driving around with a car modded like this - with the jet engine off - is legal, even though a lot of the engine sticks out the back.

  "it's funny that the brakes are on in the jet-burning photo. what, too fast for ya?"

  I would guess that this picture was taken with the car NOT moving. He's braking to keep the car in place. If the car had been moving, you would probably see some motion blur.

  It really is a shame his PhotoBucket bandwidth has been exceeded. I'd LOVE to see the pictures of the details inside, of the guy's garage, and of the policeman who pulled him over but was unable to find any law being broken.

  Posted by: malfita on March 6, 2006 at 12:32 PM

• johnyo, you can see that the engine casts a shadow on the car's back, and (by looking at the car's shadow) that the sun is behind and to the right, such that the engine would cast a shadow ON the car and maybe UNDER the car but not behind the car.

  Posted by: malfita on March 6, 2006 at 12:36 PM

• In my state something that extends that far from the tail lights, like lumber or a ladder being carried, must have some sort of red light or flags. Now that is tempory for something permanate I am sure that they would want safty marking lights etc. attached. I would think most states would have a similar out look on that.

  Posted by: Bohemian on March 6, 2006 at 12:40 PM

• Malfita, I think you are wrong. Draw a line from the mirror on the right side of the car to the ground, that is the angle of the sun. Now, draw the same line from the back of the engine to the ground... oops no shadow! The sun would need to be a a very low angle for the entire shadow of the engine to disappear under the car, and the mirror proves this isn't the case.

  Posted by: johnyo on March 6, 2006 at 1:39 PM

• ... correct to last post, the mirror on the left side of the car.

  Posted by: johnyo on March 6, 2006 at 1:43 PM

• Um...aren't Bugs rear-engine...?

  Posted by: newuser007 on March 6, 2006 at 1:50 PM

• newuser007, they obviously moved the engine to the front of the car and rebuilt the entire drive train to accomodate the jet.... duh!

  Posted by: johnyo on March 6, 2006 at 1:58 PM

• Hmmm, johnyo, you COULD be right. But remember that if this image was taken at a fairly wide angle, parallel lines will appear to converge; That is, the line from mirror-tip to mirror-tip-shadow could appear steeper on the picture than the (parralel) line from nozzle-tip to nozzle-tip-shadow. In this case, these two lines would converge at the point in the picture opposite to the sun (where the camera's shadow is). In this picture, the camera's shadow is off to the right, so the shadow of the nozzle tip (the part of the shadow of the engine that is not cast on the car itself) might be hidden under the left side of the bumper. Given that he seems to know what he's talking about, I kinda want to give him the benefit of the doubt. I guess it's because internet fakes are usually much less elaborate than this. But it's good to stay at least a little skeptical.

  In any case, if you guys want to see the pictures on the Jet Beetle website (which currently say "PhotoBucket BandWidth Exceeded"), check out the thumbnails:

  http://photobucket.com/albums/e113/jet_beetle/

  Posted by: malfita on March 6, 2006 at 4:55 PM

• And by "the camera's shadow is off to the right" I mean "...off to the left".

  Posted by: malfita on March 6, 2006 at 4:58 PM

• A quick sketch on Paint to show what I'm saying:

  http://www.airshowfan.com/jet-beetle.JPG

  Not to brag, but: I am a semi-professional photogtapher and a professional engineer - I have written from scratch a program that generates and displays 3D graphics. So I'd like to think I know a little bit about how light and shadow work, and about how 3D lines (and other 3D things) get projected onto 2D images...

  But I could be wrong. This whole Jet-Beetle thing could be fake. I'm not saying that this is not a possibility. I'm just saying the lack of a visible shadow of the nozzle-tip on the above picture is not necessarily proof of forgery.

  Sorry if I'm making too big a deal about this. The Jet Beetle is so cool (and its creator so... creative) I guess I really want it to be true.

  Posted by: malfita on March 6, 2006 at 5:20 PM

• Ok, I give in. I've seen and now I'm a believer, when can I get one. Too freaking cool.

  http://photobucket.com/albums/e113/jet_beetle/?action=view¤t=VW_BUS1PScopy.jpg

  Posted by: johnyo on March 6, 2006 at 6:48 PM

• FYI.........the new bettle engines are in the front, and they are front-wheel-drive.

  Posted by: dg98gt on March 7, 2006 at 8:11 AM

• dg98gt beat me to it - the new beatles have the engine in the front :-)

  Posted by: philsown on March 7, 2006 at 8:14 AM

• For all the unbelievers, check this out:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSn2igZtuPA

  Posted by: Cuda on October 20, 2006 at 8:53 AM

• thiz iz great

  Posted by: chaz on January 14, 2008 at 7:39 AM

Subscribe to MAKE Magazine!

Subscribe today, save 42% and get web access to MAKE free. MAKE Digital Edition is available only to subscribers.

$34.95 / 1 year
(4 Quarterly Issues)

Subscribe now