Dodge Turbine Car Commercial Promo Film

[lcar4000]

I think the Exner designs got too bizarre for public tastes by 1960-1961. Chrysler really had a talent for engineering, trying out new technology. I wish they could get that back.

[steffidude]

I love the 62 Dodge and Plymouth I alway wondered why Chrysler fired designer Virgil Exner.

[Tamerplane]

Sounds like a jet in a car.

[MADDD0GGG]

This car, the design and the engineering was a big threat to the economy. If this car took off and other companies followed, more than half of the auto and oil industries would have lost much. The infrastructure to support this type of car would have put a lot of Americans out of work, and your local mechanic would have been most likely an aircraft engineer!

[Bella66lora]

Chrysler actually had a 54 Plyouth turbine car, worked on this stuff a long time

[fidosharker]

This exact technology is proven.  Why are we being fed those shite clown cars you plug in next to your grandma's toaster?

[clap5]

Why did they stop the project?

[OsbornTramain]

@clap5 They did. All thru the 60's and 70's, Chrysler worked on this. There's much documentation. For 1981, Lee A, Iaccoca wanted to launch a Chrysler New Yorker that offered this Engine Design as an option. But, this was 1980 and the Government Bailed Out Chrysler but Gaurantteeing loans with Banks. Many of those Banks didn't feel comfortable with this new unproven technology. As part of the deal, all of the work was turned over to the Government (I think to NASA) and locked away.

[OsbornTramain]

@clap5 During the 1980 Chrysler Government Bail Out (Government gauranteed Loans for Chrysler with Banks) the technology was turned over to the Goverment. Chrysler agreed not to move forward with it. The Banks who loaned the money were nervous about the new technology. They did burn a lot of gas too. The plan was to use this engine in 1981 in chrysler new yorkers which were big luxury cars. It never happened.

[jayocular]

@clap5 lots of reasons...1, it was very sluggish take off,2, the heat generated by a turbine is immense and the cost of creating an engine bay that could withstand all the heat was very expensive and it wasnt practical.also the fuel milage on these thing is rediculously bad.the last thing i can think of is they put out a whole lot of heat out of the rear.youd have to stand at least 20 feet away to not get burnt up.i was a tanker on the m1a2 tank and they have turbine so i am familiar with it

[PAMAROSHOUSE]

@jayocular those m1s are running the chrysler turbine engine.it was given to them after chrysler stopped.

[jayocular]

@PAMAROSHOUSE i know they were used in the huey helicopters but never heard of chrysler using it...seems too big a motor for that car

[OsbornTramain]

@jayocular Chrysler Designed and built those tanks but only when they ran into finaicial difficulties in the late 70's were they forced to sell the Military division to General Dynamics. Those Tanks are all Chrysler.

[shadowing48]

man this thing is cool!!!

[badreality2]

1:12 Smoking at a gas station. tsk, tsk

[kriegdouch]

dam i wish the video was a little bit clearer, 30 miles away from indiana is pretty close to where i live by 80/90 in ohio

[stewhansens]

The history of Chrysler has a lot of glorious landmarks, and this was certainly one of the significant ones...

[Lousybarber]

Is this the only Chrysler to make it across the country and not break down?

[AlexzandrSpringvale]

A Stagnation Point Reverse Flow Combustor designed by Benn Zinn could be the answer to the tubine engine high fuel consumption and high NOx emissions that made the Chrysler Turbine impractical. If you don't know what I'm talking about, google the info and see for yourself.

[GmTruckCarLove]

Why did yhis not cach on that is so cool

[mrgixxer100]

is there any around?

[PaleAlejandro]

not very informative is it?

[sortashaman]

I recall reading a "Motor Trend" article (retrospective) from about 1993 on this car...economy wasn't too bad; I think they ran about 16 MPG; acceleration was modest, kinda "oozed off the line" at first, and then was about what you'd expect from a similar car w/ a six-cylinder...the turbine was rated around 130 SHP, as I recall...

[markfran11]

It got about 12 miles per gallon, which is why, when the 1973 energy crisis came along, Chrysler began to wind down the program.

[TheElPajero]

@markfran11 As it was said in the video "The turbine will burn practically anything that can flow through a pipe", so the car could run 12 miles per gallon of just about any liquid. That's what was one of the main ideas, not needing to use gasoline. Steve Lehto has written a great book on the car called "Chrysler's Turbine Car", check it out folks.

[Atomicskull]

All of the problems with this could be solved by hooking the turbine to a generator and electric motors at the wheels rather than a transmission and power train and running it at a constant speed.

[creamyfilling102]

yeah i think some company built a car like that already.  it was quite a while ago, but i thought it got like 110 mpg or something. those turbine engines are efficient,

[JBofBrisbane]

Australian motoring writer Bill Tuckey tried a Chrysler Turbine when one came to Oz in '60s - remembered as most frightening car he ever drove! Engine reved to 42,000 RPM and took 3 to 4 seconds to spool down, during which the brakes were useless. Forget emergency stopping. Took the car back, handed in keys and said "Never again!"

[TheElPajero]

@JBofBrisbane One of the major reasons why the car might have misbehaved is that Chrysler flew around the same car all over the world within a few weeks as hundreds of magazine editors and reporters kept test driving it. Australia was the last or among the last places to get a look at it so it might have been pretty worn out by then. I'm rather sure it was in better condition when it left Detroit.

[markfran11]

I rode in the Chrysler turbine car as a 5 year old, since my Dad was an engineer for the turbine program and he would bring it home. He is also in this video, riding in the car that drove coast to coast. The engine sounded like a jet!

[christof139]

I live in Detroit and I remember a Chrysler engineer driving the Chrysler Turbine around Detroit, Ferndale, Highland Park, Pleasant Ridge, Michigan.

[K3N51NGTON]

OMG Awesome

[spencnaz]

Now a turbine/electric hybrid would be perfect. Just have that turbine humming along at a constant speed and get all the torque you want with the electric drive!

Multifuel capability and lower emissions? Sign me up! I'll run that thing on my homebrew biodiesel!

[pheenix42]

spencnaz...turbine/electric? YES!!  It'd be the PERFECT setup!

[spencnaz]

oh hell yeah!

[SquidgyMcGee]

you think smart thoughts

[polarablues64]

@spencnaz Jaguar built a concept car exactly like this.

[10yroldcarlover]

@spencnaz hello, im from wilsons body shop. your repair total is $37,758 with tax

[spencnaz]

@10yroldcarlover what does the powertrain have to do with the body work? how does the cosmetic aspects of the vehicle have any relevance to what the engine does?

[sebring98]

That was a good attempt by Chrysler. I'm guessing the turbine engine didn't take off (pardon the pun) because of noise? Also because turbine engines would need centrifugal load capacitors (fly-weights) to operate efficiently at fluctuating power demands.

[datacomputation]

so, here is our hands on research covered in the video above. subjectivity is not science. this can be perfected just like anything else. common sense is almost zero nowadays, and because of the willing serf flakes, i dont get to own one one of these.

[JoesephBlack]

A turbine is efficient if run at constant speed. But at variable speeds, as needed for a car engine, it has horrible economy. Also at partial loads, economy suffers. Running flat out at constant speed, they're great - as used in airplanes. Using them for variable-duty uses, the economy suffers. No conspiracy here, unless you consider the laws of Physics a conspiracy.

[irishimp2]

The issue of economy was worked out by the engineers at the time by use of the transmission. If I remember correctly, the engine maintained constant speed at all times and the transmission was responsible for forward or reverse motion of the automobile according to "Automobiles of The Future." copyright 1967. Look the book up, it has information on all types of propulsion units of the time, i.e. gas electric etc.

[robsnolongernmuskoka]

and below from wikipedia :

[robsnolongernmuskoka]

A smaller, lighter seventh generation engine was produced in the early 1970s, when company received a grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for further development, and a special bodied turbine Chrysler LeBaron was built in 1977 as a prelude to a production run. By then the company was in dire financial straits and needed U.S. government loan guarantees to avoid bankruptcy.

[robsnolongernmuskoka]

A condition of that deal was that gas-turbine mass production be abandoned because it was "too risky" thus giving roots to many conspiracy theories.

[robsnolongernmuskoka]

from wikipedia

Nevertheless, the turbine generated nitrogen oxides (NO) and the challenge of limiting them helped to kill the program.

[robsnolongernmuskoka]

lookup

Chrysler Turbine Car

on wikipedia

[superallye]

That was awesome. Why can't they use that technology in today's cars as an alternative to electric cars?

[manoman0]

1) how did they reverse?

2) what if you stood behind the car as it accelerated?

[RenzeZielman]

these engines had a freepower turbine, just like helicopters. They did drive the rear wheels, not by air thrust. The air is cooled in the two long and flat exhaust pipes under the car, so you could freely walk behind it.

The biggest problem i think, is the inefficiency (fuel consumption) of turbine engines. Today, the consumption is even a bigger drawback than in the 60's...

[manoman0]

Oh, I see. Thank you for explaining. A very interesting technology but I do think it's not a very efficient technology for cars. But great sound, like EVs.

[paulk1011]

I have built my own check it out .lookup (the paseojet)I have 4 videos posted there and the car runs great on diesel.Leave a comment please and tell me what you all think.

[kazimann]

I believe there is only four of them in working order in the world.

[niswel]

...and then they decided that the million year old v8 was the way of the future....

[AirmanCylon401]

Wow, I had no idea- I was basing my theory on my old snapshots that look kinda bluish. I know, whole different thing. Gotta say, I love all the old car stuff you have! My dad had several of those cars and is a fan of many others- his Rivieras were cool. Nice first car you had! A real land yacht. I miss those days. So..... does your shadow miss Rip Taylor? LOL!!! :)

[OsbornTramain]

thanks and ugh on my shadow joke....I have to tell you, I can't believe how un funny those johnny carson jokes all were! lol The cars have aged better than the humor

[cjmyers505]

My gosh! I can not believe this. We should have a renewed interest in this. Is this some kind of joke? Clean burning, Multi use of fuel.

[locobeaver]

Look up Toyota GTV concept

[sngldad]

do you know what kind of mpg these cars got? i seen one at a car show but the guy never started it.

[CJurasin]

So WHAT HAPPENED to this idea??? Did the oil companies stop it like they have so MANY OTHER fuel efficient ideas in the past??? Hmmmmm....... I wonder why???? I hope the US oil companies get tried for TREASON against the American People for their GREED!!! SOMEDAY they will pay the price for their greed........

[teratogen42]

No one said it was fuel efficient.

[zsvdkhnorc]

It wasn't fuel efficient.

[ChomuSclavus]

Of course, jet engines are far more efficient today than they were in '62. I wonder how efficient a turbine car would be if made today.

[zsvdkhnorc]

So are piston engines. Frankly, I find the possibility of using any fuel enticing.

[bd189]

with this model it had more to do with 'less maintenence needs' than fuel economy. just like an engine in a boeing 747, these turbines would last years longer than any V, flat or inline piston engine.

[CJurasin]

I've seen MANY MANY '62 Dodges before, but I've NEVER seen those lower taillights on one before......anyone know why???

[ocool6]

the i think is from Chrysler but you cant relly tell because of the shape of the film

[moparjim63]

they look like 1963 polara 500 taillights. makes it unique, like all turbine prototypes.

[kfs025]

WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AYE? why was this project abandoned?

[odelgado78]

Its 2008 and we still cant completely get away from gas powered engines.. This was very interesting video. Thanks!

[AirmanCylon401]

Everything was so YELLOW back then!

[CJurasin]

Airman: This video was copied numerous times methinks and from a 16mm film to boot.

[AirmanCylon401]

I thought it was probably from age deterioration, but couldn't help myself :)

[CJurasin]

Airman, LOTS of old movies (some even made in the late 1930s) are still in decent shape. The Wizard of Oz was made in the late 30s or early 40s and the color is still good.

[vcval]

diesel one of the many fuels ????

[ObiTrev]

This technology could see a comeback. This technology, if made modern could be the most eco-freindly and fuel efficent vehicle on earth!

[thrummer1953]

How about a turbine -electric hybrid?

[DandBProductionsInc]

I remember the red turbine car, but I never knew this existed!

Very nice post!

[terrijane61]

And that is one sweet lookin' car!

[66Beanshit]

Apropos of nothing else whatsoever" Gas "tur-BENN" engine? God, can Americans not speak ENGLISH???!!!

[OsbornTramain]

Nope, we can't, but we can invent things like Youtube so you can insult us.

[66Beanshit]

Yeah, but we had the 15-years-ahead-of-its' time Avro Arrow, which shows Canadian engineering innovation--and the out-of-the-box thinking behind it--can stand with ANYONE, and stand above most.

Thanks, mate, I'll happily continue to do so!

[moefuzzz]

Beanshit, you make me embarrassed to say that I'm Canadian. Well, you can certainly tell by your 'better than though" attitude that you are from down east. Only Easterners are so blatantly ignorant and self centered. Now be a good boy and go play on the railroad tracks

[rich107s]

@moefuzzz silence Hockey lover

[10yroldcarlover]

@66Beanshit we invented it, we can say it the way we fuckin want

[66Beanshit]

@10yroldcarlover Actually, no, that was the British. Frank Whittle, Google/Wiki, go.

[66Beanshit]

@10yroldcarlover And whilst you're at it, look up the Rover gas-turbine experimental car--from 1950. Hate to break it to you, mate, but 'Murrikka didn't invent everything--nor actually, all that much of anything.

[mrjustin5]

Runs on any fuel, from gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, to peanut oil. And with todays technology? What could be accomplished? After highschool, I expected cars to advance radically. WHERE IS MY BACK TO THE FUTURE MR. FUSION CAR? Running on empty beer cans and banana peals? Todays autos are ancient hogs, with fancy wheels and some chrome. After 100 years, no radical advancements. What a shame! Its more than a shame, its a huge, international catastrophe!

[mrjustin5]

I read in a car and driver BOOK (1990 I believe) about this Turbine powered car. For some stupid reason dodge abandoned this car design. It took something like 22 seconds to get up to 60MPH. The RPMs went up to 60,000+. Amazing that it ran on so many types of fuel. IMAGINE A turbine top car of TODAY?! You could run it on anything with todays high fuel prices. TIME TO REINVENT THE AUTOMOBILE!

[OsbornTramain]

Thanks for the comment.  There were a number of reasons why Chrysler/Dodge abandonded the Turbine engine. But remember, the Turbine isn't gone completely. They are used to power or M1 Tanks. This was a direct result of the research Chrysler did over 30 years. The big drawback is that they eat gas fuel. The M1 Tanks have to have a tanker follow them where they go to keep refueling them.

[mrjustin5]

army-technology dot com reports that the M1 tank uses depleted uranium (almost twice as heavy as lead) as Armor for the tank. Tanks are not known for their fuel efficiency. Lets try coupling that ol' Dodge turbine with a new Infinitely Variable Transmission (IVT) and a super light frame (Which could easily be mass-manufactured) and lets see what kind of fuel efficiency we get.

[moparmonster1965]

Shouldn't the Sopranos theme be playing when they're on the NJ turnpike?

[mgjohnson1]

In 1963, a Chrysler engineer drove one of the turbine cars over to Shrine Of The Little Flower Grade School on Woodward Avenue in Royal Oak, Michigan. He was there in the turbine to pick up his kid from school. All of us kids went absolutely insane and we mobbed the car in the grade school parking lot. Each one of us took turns holding our hands underneath the back end of the car so the we could feel the blast of warm exhaust air blowing out from the back end. I'll never forget it. Carl Johnson

[Zarasuthra]

The Jersey Turnpike. LOL!

[Jim4575]

It was ahead of its time but plaged with fuel consumption and noise. I like the guy having a smoke while fueling , ha ha.

[HighOctanePhotos]

one of the reasons given for not going into production with this car was its high fuel consumption...

the ability to burn pretty much anything, however, is something that was probably not a major consideration back then....

[OsbornTramain]

Before the Goverment Bail out in 1980. Chrysler (Iaccoca) had pushed forward to put into production, a Chrysler New Yorker. It was to be available for the public. During the bail out, the many banks involved felt that the program was too risky and part of the deal was to kill the program.

They at the time got as much fuel economy as a Standard New Yorker. This New Yorker Prototype is still owned by Chrysler.

[mastermoarman]

interesting. how many did they wind up making? and with the coming of a cvt (constant variable transmission) it would be cool if the made something like this again.

[Otacrunk]

Well of course he was having a smoke while fueling it up, it was the 60s, and no one knew that gas was flammable back then! lol.

[Jthumper]

the car that was almsot 100 years ahead of its time...

[albear972]

Awesome! "*****"! and a favorite too!

I bet the oil companies were against this car back then. No oil chages ever? And no carbon Monoxide coming out of the tail pipe?

It may be worth looking into this technology again. Chrysler was truly head of it's time.

[maxspeedex]

It still needed gas, it consumed gas so the oil company had no reason to be against it. I want to know why the government bailed out of this program back in 1980? Were there any flaws, etc? Maybe because it was wayyyy too noisy?

[Oddman1980]

There were problems with manufacturing cost, first and foremost. It's tricky to make a gas turbine accelerate like a reciprocating engine. Also, you have lots of very hot exhaust. Lastly, people didn't care for the "shop-vac" sound, cars at the time had V-8's.

[JoMo91]

its amazing, we all talk about the technology we have today, but howcome we dont have cars like this today?

[finemusk]

incredible. nice music, too

[gschoneman]

Clean running, smooth and can burn pretty much anything as a fuel. Viable technology 45 years ago, could it be more relevent now?