Technically this range is possible, but not at the upper range of performance, obviously. A group from Canada and Denmark were developing a recuperated micro-turbine with high-speed AC generator on the intake side of the turbine. Said to have an operating noise level of only 64dB at 6 feet from the car (an Exige) the thing output sufficient power to charge the batteries four times from one mfg-standard tank of fuel (one of five possible fuels - Jet, diesel, gas, ethanol or, with nozzle change and composite tank, compressed hydrogen). There were some other tweaks such as harvesting power from turbine heat and shock absorbers as well as deceleration. I'll be interested to see what this Chinese group has come up with and whether their turbine is both quiet and reliable. The rest is pretty standard stuff at this point - unless they have made the leap to shaped lithium polymer and massive capacitance storage.

vaporware at this point, but I'd love to see it and actually see someone go for a 1000 mile test-drive.

I am at a loss to understand why microturbine use as a range extender/generator for hybrid vehicles has not absolutely become the gold standard. All their advantages in terms of simplicity, reliability, durability and performance would seem to make them shine! In addition to allowing owners to boast turbine-engine bragging rights in da 'hood!
Someone enlighten me?

There is a finite amount of energy in fuel. Even if you had 100% efficiency, I do not see how this vehicles could travel so far on a tank full (unless the tank is enormous!)
Presumably the turbine is charging the battery, so there is efficiency loss there. There is another efficiency loss in the waste heat of the exhaust gases. How does this extra mileage get produced?
Imagine if the car only ran on a turbine, without the efficiency loss of converting energy from the turbine to the battery, and then to the wheels.Would it get very far? I don't think so. Rover Cars produced a gas turbine engine in the 1950s. It was not successful.

I'm a retired engineer and I always got quite tired of other engineers saying something was tried before and didn't work so don't even try. I became quite successful proving the naysayers wrong. Something that didn't work in the 1950's doesn't prove anything other than they maybe gave up too early or other supporting technologies were not yet up to snuff. Also could be that the engineers that failed just were not good enough or committed to the project. By the way, just look at the Prius. The 4th generation of this car is way better than the 1st generation Prius. Only goes to show that improvement takes time so long as improvement is the goal.

Id drive this, awesome, produce for sales & rentals see driveclutch.com

@windykites: In 1917, Eric Tigerstedt filed a patent for what he described as a "pocket-size folding telephone with a very thin carbon microphone". He could not make it happen at the time though and people called him a crazy dreamer. Could you just imagine anyone owning a pocket telephone?

Why not just a 200 horsepower vehicle with a 3-4,000 kilometer range.
Are the bragging rights to the next stop light so important?

This baby has the best claims of the last two decades! We should wait, of course, for "proof of life" on this one....but, generally, turbine engines do not scale down that well. Perhaps a breakthrough??

Jetliners do quite well with turbines, which are excellent at constant load situations, like...say...running an alternator/generator. The stated range is interesting, and certainly longer that one person can drive in a day without taking little white pills, so maybe range anxiety is no longer an issue. Scale this back to a more plebeian ride and it could be a game-changer.