From the golden age of automotive engineering! Ten years hence this would all be gone, replaced by government oversight and the bean counters! This was really the only time such a thing could have happened!
Turbines are thirsty, as a rule, compared to piston engines, and expensive to build. They also have a lag in power delivery, a bit like turbo lag, that is a problem in a car. They do have good size and weight efficiency, which makes them attractive for aircraft. The response lag is not much of an issue for aircraft.
This car used a set of ceramic heat recovery units that transferred heat from the exhaust to the incoming air. This hurt the size and weight, but added thermal efficiency.
@CudaHemiTom hey......my father was vice president of chrysler canada at one point in his life he brought home this car.for a weekend..everybody crowded around it started like something out of the JETSONS...we were in Detroit at the time and went thru the tunnel to Amherstburg ontario...we fueled with diesel.....but you could feed it anything like banana peels......anyways I was around 15 at the time and really liked the attention the car received...it never went anywhere
Damned Politics That's all it was, Not really they were ahead of their time...Plus the car was a bit dangerous lots of power and the electronics wasn't caught up to keeping time with the turbo's timing hell they still had vacuum tubing differently needed a computer to run that car hahaha
I remember this car well. The exhaust was so cool you could put your hand in it. Chrysler was really pushing this technology until the first OPEC oil embargo hit in '74 when the price of gas went up and gas mileage became all important. They simply couldn't get the mileage up to compete with piston engined cars. Also, the turbines were really expensive. They also had a turbine powered bus. It was so smooth and quiet, not like a piston engined bus. It's a shame they had to give up on it.
That car is awesome if they were smart there would be tons of them on the road today but im sure the big money oil companys would not like that i'm sure thats the reason they had to stop making them
@ADSLISKEWL Yes they did but you have to remember back then they did not have Radial tires (SAVES FUEL) the cars back then were made of steel no plastic or composite materials like we have today. They did drive one from NY to LA I believe average like 50 MPH (Consider the roads back then) and it averaged I think it was about 17MPG. With today's better alloys and CNC machines we do do far better.
I spent some time in one at the "64" Worlds Fair and don't recall the exhaust temperature being excessive at all... I do remember the exhaust as having very little odor... burned clean.
Very cool. Turbines of that era were both crude and thirsty. A modern one would probably work but they still gobble fuel like crazy. A turbine electric makes a lot of sense. Can run on pretty much any liquid that will burn if you make changes to accommodate the fuel.
@stELjedi It wasn't oil monopolies. In fact in those days there wasn't an oil monopoly - mono meaning 1. The car wasn't all that practical. Probably very difficult to find a dealer who wanted to support it or had technicians who could work on it. I have been around turbine engines for over 20 years and think this was more of a novelty then practical regardless of what fuel you burned in it. Diesel would have been cheapest but average station on the corner didn't carry diesel generally.
@kblackav8or when i say monopoly I know exactly what i mean cause i'm greek and know semantics, earth has over 100 years of hydrocarbon monopoly, you see there is no alternative fuel other than diesel-benzene-gas (all byproducts of crude oil) , i hope that fossil fuel dictatorship to crash and burn.. soon, as far as the turbine chrysler back then there were an anecdote that it could go on after shave or cheap whiskey lol, you see now how oil dictatorship erased that option?
The oil companies didn't shut the production of this car down.
My uncle was a regional manager for Chrysler and had one for about 3 months.
The problem was the exhaust temperatures. If anyone parked behind you, you'd melt or burn off their front end. I can remember the exact temperature, but it was about 1,000 degrees.
On the news today was electric cars. This is ground breaking technology. An electric car that will go from flat to a full charge in literally a few seconds. And the car is equipped with a battery that can handle it.
Thats two new technologies.
The greed of a few inspires frugality in the masses.
@3nasacova Really? Funny I have heard about that new battery technology for what, 20 years? What news article is that? I just scanned the news services and I see nothing. Prove what you are saying.
Energy is energy. Please tell me the engineering behind taking 120/220v household current and, a few seconds of that current could possibly have enough energy to drive a car for miles. Does the battery MAKE energy? I think not, it STORES it.
@3nasacova Again, there is no new news here. That is why you just saw it on one news source and its not on the wires. This is the same rehashing of a bulk of current to charge a battery within a few seconds. Just by viewing your link, there is no mention of doing this at home. You are once again talking about a huge infrastructure build out, or with smaller batteries, dependency on road-embedded charging plates. Pipe dreams. Tomorrow we'll here about chargeable capacitors for the 1000 time
@ToyKingWonder I am "once again talking about a huge infrastructure build..." I'm not talking about anything. I'm reporting something I saw on the news. You said to prove that it was on the news, and I did.
On tonights news was a report saying the world is ending this Sunday. I can prove that was on the news too if you would like.
That doesn't mean I agree with it, or think its true.
@3nasacova That doesn't mean I agree with it, or think its true.
You must think its true, you won't stop talking about it. And something being used as filler on one news program does not make it "two new technologies". No other news agencies carried it, and it's not new technology.
@3nasacova I'll reply to anything I fucking feel like you a-hole. First you a freaking BSer, and when your "news" is debunked you turn into a flaming asshole. Go fuck yourself you loser.
@blazer53 How did the "oil companies" shut this down? Turbines were an ongoing experiment by Chrysler since the early 50s. I have a book from Chrysler that shows the engine in a 50s Fury. Again, dollars drive everything. The turbine, with its associated lag off the line, was too costly and inappropriate at that time for passenger car use. The cars were destroyed so Chrysler did not have to pay import duties on them from Ghia.
There is a much more efficient car engine called Gun-engine invented by a Polish Canadian Kazimierz Stan Holubowicz ! just google gun-engine and/or Kazimierz Stan Holubowicz.
Superb automobile,...i built a model of one in the 60's. Could someone please tell me the name of the movie this car was in? p.s. detroit had a really stiff dick when it came to these designs of 60's muscle touring cars. Incredible!
apparently these things did 18-19 mpg on the highway-really not too shabby for a 60's car. I can't help wondering if with today's technology they could do a hell of a lot better with this concept
@DanFrederiksen I'd much rather listen to a bit of whirring air than the fart cans every douchebag around my town has installed onto their cars. Besides, the sound and city driving efficiency issues could be solved in large part with hybrid technologies--a less powerful engine could be used, since battery power would be used to get it up to speed.
@nominalvelocity when oil runs out in a couple of years you'll be able to know that you should have been less obtuse than that. you don't get to lean back and make idiotic demands. you get to support electric cars fully or be wrong.
@DanFrederiksen Oh, Right. You're European, which means you have little sense of proportion to anything in else in the world. You live in a country that occupies less than 1/6th the land area of my *state*, which is only the 10th largest amongst all of our states.
Hell, to get to the next major population center, I would have to drive a distance equivalent to the entire width of your largest land mass, and in truth, that's not even seen as a particularly long drive amongst our people.
@DanFrederiksen Well, we all have to live with all of our own little ignorances, don't we? In your case, it's ignorant to think electric cars in their current form are capable of replacing fossil fuel cars in any significant capacity.
If you commute less than 100 miles a day, there's a couple pure electric options like the Nissan. And that's great. But, if you like to go on trips, you're *screwed*. I look forward to better battery technology, so it covers more people for more uses.
@nominalvelocity I'm not advocating the current few existing electric car products. I know what can be done with current tech however and it can nicely replace ICE cars. the trick is to make them light and aerodynamic and either have a small range extender in the car or blitz charge capability. say 200km range and the ability to recharge most of it in 15 minutes or less. and that's both technically possible and commercially viable. can be done and should be done.
I actually rode in one at the New York Workds Fair when I was 6 on a track they had, it was a life experience and the most awesome car I have ever seen.
Interesting car. However, the car had its disadvantages.
The engine was quite feeble with only 130 hp at 44,000 rpm. 425 lb-ft at 0 rpm. Im not sure if that's gross or net rated. The market was used to big cubes and high horsepower by the mid 60s. The car was a bit heavy, 3900 lb, and had poor gas mileage, around 12 mpg. What do you expect with those RPMs. Zero to sixty in 10 sec, and around 115 mph max with a 3-speed auto.
Of the 55 built, 46 of them were destroyed by Chrysler.
@DistortedMannequin Don't forget the exhaust heat. Supposedly, the heat back there was so intense, it could easily burn a person's legs if he happened to be behind there as it drove by.
@itsmegp46 Sorry, not true; the Turbine's exhaust is barely warm at the outlets. I saw one of these running at a classic car show, and put my hand back there to check the temp.; it's virtually the same as a conventional car. That one seemed quieter than this one, btw.
@odantoro I suppose we're at an impass. I saw a Chrylser Turbine cat at the 1964 New York City World's Fair when I was a teen. The car was running and we were kept well away from the car because of the heat. However, before killing the project, Chrysler made a few improvements to the exhaust system to dissippate excessive heat (Wikipedia for quick reference).
@DistortedMannequin When you take a look at the common factory small block V8 engines (say, about 300 inch^3) of the late 50's and early 60's and compare the numbers to the Chrysler turbine, they just about come out even. Power, 0-60 time, 1/4 mile times, gas mileage...everything comes out too close to call.
Chrysler made it heavy to give it a very luxurious feel, all of the luxury cars were built stupid heavy. Chrysler 300s were about 3900lbs, too. The one big disadvantage was expense.
back in the 60's these engines ran at indy.were blowing past everything on the track,so they limited the intake size.killing the whole concept.so much for new technology.piston pumpers are still here 45 years later.(tech. from 1900)
@gwendolyn899 what they should have done is limited engine size by half they still would have gotten the same power with turbos and such that have also been outlawed in indy racing
Ive thought those would be great for a hybrid. Runs on battery power around town, turbine powers a generator that kicks on at higher speeds and when the battery gets low.
That engine is loud as hell, no wonder the project was abandonned. I live next to an airport, the planes overhead are enough, I wouldn't want more jet engines in the street!
@Kingmerik999 you are insane. That engine is a turbine that can run on any fuel, including any oil, alcohol, kerosene, bio-fuels, anything with any energetic content in them. It provides 60,000 RPMs. 60 THOUSAND.
It requires NO OIL CHANGE. The engine is much lighter than a piston engine. The engine is near 2 times the durability of a piston engine, will last near 2 times longer.
In the 60s it was an amazing achievement. It is an amazing achievement now. It should be redeveloped again.
@romanmir01 While I do agree with your points, gas turbines do have alot of advantages, however, rhe main problem with them is horrendous fuel economy. I believe they could barely get over 12mpg.
@romanmir01 It would have cost a billion dollars to construct the facilities to build the turbine car. Chrysler didn't have the money to do it, even if they wanted to according to the book, Chrysler's Turbine Car. One of the big stumbling blocks was the need for the investment casting process to make the engine parts. I don't know if that could be done today or whether something has come along since then to replace it and make the engine viable for mass production.
Very rare car indeed. Can you even imagine putting a jet engine in a car the size of that? It had a special option that when pressed extruded wings from the door so the car could take to the air! What were those Chysler boys smoking that day? If anyone has any send it my way, I want to fly too!
The Government also must have realized that Chrysler was getting too close to a finished product, which would have put the other carmakers at jeopardy, due to the fact that they would be competing with an entirely new technology. The "playing field" for the auto business would no longer be level. Don't think this hasn't happened before; remember the Dodge Daytona with the snub nose was dis allowed, because it's aerodynamics gave it an "unfair advantage" during races. -Will-
Chrysler had worked on a turbine car since the 1950's; Two problems presented themselves. Chrysler solved the first problem by adding a "regenerator" to the design to "scavange" heat, and lower the amount of heat coming out of the exhaust.
Contrary to opinion, the only problem left, was the lack of "parasitic drag" during cornering, which occurs when you let off the gas on a conventional car. The Gov't ended funding for the program, and the cars had to be destroyed. -Will-
This car was produced during a time when America was unstoppable; anything used to be possible for us. How sad that the government forced these great cars to be destroyed. The technology was just being perfected; they could pretty much run on anything.
@gusneaker Final assembly on the Turbine Cars was done in Italy. Because they were experimental vehicles, Chrysler was allowed to import them duty-free for testing purposes. When the test program ended, Chrysler would have had to pay import duty on all 50 cars to keep them on the road. They coughed up enough to pay the duty on 10 cars. The remaining 40 were sent to the crusher.
@BlueHeavenBound The government didn't force the cars to be destroyed. Chrysler received a grant from the EPA (the government) for further development, and a 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. 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.
@markhinr The main problem for all turbine cars (there were quite a few competing models for production) was emission-- they could not meet the new 1970s standards. This, more than anything, was what killed the gas turbine.
@markhinr Yeh, the only downfall to the turbine was low-speed efficiency and emissions. While cruising fuel economy was very good for the time, city/mixed driving was abysmal. If I recall right, it was NOX emissions that were the problem, just a nature of the turbine, but other emissions were quite a bit lower than a regular gas motor.
It was pretty successful in racing, until it was effectively outlawed.
@philyt Kind of like the Wankel rotary engine, except I think Mazda is still using a variation of that motor? I had an RX-7. For such a light little car, the gas mileage was absolutely pitiful (19 mpg hwy). That was the last time I bought a car only because I liked the styling.
@markhinr Mazda still runs the rotary in the RX8, and has a next generation rotary in the works too. However, the rotary is inefficient everywhere (as far as fuel economy and emissions are concerned), where as the turbine's weak spot was low RPM.
Though, a small gas turbine powering a generator that drives electric motors would allow the turbine to remain at an ideal speed.
The Gas Turbine Engine: Design, Development, Applications by Jan P. Norbye is a good read.
@DrMotorDude: Your comment appears completely irrelevant to my post. My point was that a turbine electric generator that could flexibly accommodate fuel inputs like french fry grease, turpentine, methanol, ethanol, etc., would be a vast improvement over current combustion engine/electric motor hybrid technology like Prius or Honda Hybrid. You don't need to drive the car with it; just pass a coil past a magnet. Maybe you hadn't noticed, but the internal combustion engine is in its last years.
A turbine IS a type of internal-combustion engine, unless it's a steam turbine.
Anyway, the internal-combustion piston engine is a tried and proven technology that's been improved and refined over the past century-and-a-half, and it will be around for a long time to come. Fifty years from now, most cars will be powered by engines that are essentially the same as today's piston engines, though they may burn something other than gasoline.
I am wondering why you couldn't build an electric generator based on turbine, that would accept any fuel, and then power the car via DC motor. This would permit a smaller turbine (undoubtedly), fuel flexibility, and perhaps additional fuel economy. The oil companies would hate it. But, it would not pollute and would be 'greener' than current day hybrids. Just a thought...
@bertgold4 There are thousands of them around the world generating electricity right now. BUT, turbines actually use LARGE amounts of fuel. They are not nearly as economical as piston engines. The pay off is they produce lots of power for little weight.
Turbo charging or supercharging a car it the practice of inducing higher air pressure ( and therefore more oxygen) into the combustion chamber of a normal piston internal combustion engine.
A TURBINE powered car uses a TURBINE engine. Hence the use of the word: TURBINE!
A big problem with this was the throttle delay - backing off from 42,000RPM took about 2 to 3 seconds, and during that time drive was still being delivered through the transmission, rendering the brakes next to useless. Not the sort of thing to have to deal with if you need to stop in a hurry.
@eskimo810 Actually the Turbine Car's styling was very conventional. It resembled a contemporary Thunderbird -- no coincidence, since it was designed by former Ford chief stylist Elwood Engel, who designed the 1961 T-Bird. Only the deep-V, Batmobile-like rear end looked a bit futuristic for the time.
Thank you for the wonderful opportunity to see an operable marvel of technology. This is the finest automobile that never was, and you have to love how it sounds just like a Boeing 737. Good times on Southwest airlines. You really made my day!
They had one of these Chrysler Turbine cars in a movie called "The Lively set". It came out in 1964. Starring James Darrin, as he drove the car in a race. I believe its available on DVD.
If this is the Turbine from the St.. Louis museum, my wife and I got to ride in it while at a PT Cruiser show in Indiana a few years ago. Those of us that had the honor of getting a ride signed a book that is part of the car history! Too cool. I didn;t get any video's , but I took plenty of photos of the ride.
The man that is responsible for the maintenance of this car (the "cartaker") is Mike. He is a great guy to talk to, and has extensive knowledge of these turbine cars...
I only found out about this car recently, and i am very interested in the car, could anybody tell me about the performance, things such as horsepower and torque? Has anybody driven one? Is there a delay in throttle responce? any help?
This car was an experiment and a costly one. The gas turbine is only efficient in aircraft because of the high speeds involved. There were high nitros oxides in the exhaust of these engines as well, which made them worse than piston engines for the environment. They tried but they failed and the whole thing cost a lot of money which is why they damned near went broke.....
wrong...one of the most documented failures by Chrysler. (Since they were in the public eye asking for Federal Loans at he same time) They NEVER made anything approaching that number.
From the golden age of automotive engineering! Ten years hence this would all be gone, replaced by government oversight and the bean counters! This was really the only time such a thing could have happened!
VictrolaJazz 5 days ago
Turbines are thirsty, as a rule, compared to piston engines, and expensive to build. They also have a lag in power delivery, a bit like turbo lag, that is a problem in a car. They do have good size and weight efficiency, which makes them attractive for aircraft. The response lag is not much of an issue for aircraft.
This car used a set of ceramic heat recovery units that transferred heat from the exhaust to the incoming air. This hurt the size and weight, but added thermal efficiency.
jedgarsquink 1 week ago
What an amazing car.
kappucinokid 2 weeks ago
That is sooooo cool!
mthansen176 2 weeks ago
Does anyone know what kind of power these cars put out ? Or what the fuel economy was ? Just curious.
centralnyguy37 4 weeks ago
Oh yeah, f*ck the fuel economy
XDragonTwisted 1 month ago
Muito bom! Não sabia existia e agora quero um para mim!
xenon29991 1 month ago
i hate to sound like a dumby iv been around old cars all my life and know alot about them but did dodge actully make a car with a turbine engine?
TRX400atc1994 2 months ago
@TRX400atc 1994 Yes they did! You can read all about it at: allpar.com/mopar/turbine.html
CudaHemiTom 2 months ago
@CudaHemiTom ok thanks il have to check that out
TRX400atc1994 2 months ago
@CudaHemiTom hey......my father was vice president of chrysler canada at one point in his life he brought home this car.for a weekend..everybody crowded around it started like something out of the JETSONS...we were in Detroit at the time and went thru the tunnel to Amherstburg ontario...we fueled with diesel.....but you could feed it anything like banana peels......anyways I was around 15 at the time and really liked the attention the car received...it never went anywhere
TheRubpub 1 month ago
Sounds just like knightrider was the transam also a turbine well the tv show one cool
Aaroneus76 2 months ago
the 63 turbine car is actually quite beautiful in person. front end looks like the back end of a 61-63 thunderbird.
midatlanticcycle 3 months ago
I love turbines, but that sounds like a vacuum cleaner!!!
regnidak 3 months ago
@regnidak not when you are inside the car and cruisin'
TheRubpub 1 month ago
Turbines were pricier, but ran FOREVER compared to piston engines.
soylentteal 3 months ago
Damned Politics That's all it was, Not really they were ahead of their time...Plus the car was a bit dangerous lots of power and the electronics wasn't caught up to keeping time with the turbo's timing hell they still had vacuum tubing differently needed a computer to run that car hahaha
4gripp 3 months ago
I remember this car well. The exhaust was so cool you could put your hand in it. Chrysler was really pushing this technology until the first OPEC oil embargo hit in '74 when the price of gas went up and gas mileage became all important. They simply couldn't get the mileage up to compete with piston engined cars. Also, the turbines were really expensive. They also had a turbine powered bus. It was so smooth and quiet, not like a piston engined bus. It's a shame they had to give up on it.
safetychoice 4 months ago
That car is awesome if they were smart there would be tons of them on the road today but im sure the big money oil companys would not like that i'm sure thats the reason they had to stop making them
79tazman 5 months ago
@79tazman except they use MORE fuel than a standard car
ADSLISKEWL 2 weeks ago
@ADSLISKEWL Yes they did but you have to remember back then they did not have Radial tires (SAVES FUEL) the cars back then were made of steel no plastic or composite materials like we have today. They did drive one from NY to LA I believe average like 50 MPH (Consider the roads back then) and it averaged I think it was about 17MPG. With today's better alloys and CNC machines we do do far better.
uticaplay 2 weeks ago
drop ur keys in it and see the next concord
thepresident1981 5 months ago
That is my Uncle Mike that is driving. He is the caretaker of the car. I rode in it too. Neat car.
docketfish 5 months ago
cool, but too loud
somejackball 6 months ago
I spent some time in one at the "64" Worlds Fair and don't recall the exhaust temperature being excessive at all... I do remember the exhaust as having very little odor... burned clean.
jcbrewer3 6 months ago
@jcbrewer3 I felt the exhaust temperature on the car when it was running and it was like a normal car.
CudaHemiTom 6 months ago
@CudaHemiTom they specially designed the exhaust system to cool the exhaust so it wouldnt burn the car behind the jet car...
QCprepper 6 months ago
One of the most unique cars of all time, from any country. Yankee know-how at one of its best examples.
kolbpilot 6 months ago 3
Very cool. Turbines of that era were both crude and thirsty. A modern one would probably work but they still gobble fuel like crazy. A turbine electric makes a lot of sense. Can run on pretty much any liquid that will burn if you make changes to accommodate the fuel.
kblackav8or 7 months ago
@kblackav8or back then they could burn anything from diesel to alcohol that was the reason that oil monopolies chose to cancel-ban turbine car
stELjedi 5 months ago
@stELjedi It wasn't oil monopolies. In fact in those days there wasn't an oil monopoly - mono meaning 1. The car wasn't all that practical. Probably very difficult to find a dealer who wanted to support it or had technicians who could work on it. I have been around turbine engines for over 20 years and think this was more of a novelty then practical regardless of what fuel you burned in it. Diesel would have been cheapest but average station on the corner didn't carry diesel generally.
kblackav8or 5 months ago
@kblackav8or when i say monopoly I know exactly what i mean cause i'm greek and know semantics, earth has over 100 years of hydrocarbon monopoly, you see there is no alternative fuel other than diesel-benzene-gas (all byproducts of crude oil) , i hope that fossil fuel dictatorship to crash and burn.. soon, as far as the turbine chrysler back then there were an anecdote that it could go on after shave or cheap whiskey lol, you see now how oil dictatorship erased that option?
stELjedi 5 months ago
The oil companies didn't shut the production of this car down.
My uncle was a regional manager for Chrysler and had one for about 3 months.
The problem was the exhaust temperatures. If anyone parked behind you, you'd melt or burn off their front end. I can remember the exact temperature, but it was about 1,000 degrees.
tdxjudge 8 months ago
What I'd like to know is what happens in an accident when 60000 RPM suddenly becomes zero.
rickoshaycomics 8 months ago
On the news today was electric cars. This is ground breaking technology. An electric car that will go from flat to a full charge in literally a few seconds. And the car is equipped with a battery that can handle it.
Thats two new technologies.
The greed of a few inspires frugality in the masses.
3nasacova 8 months ago
@3nasacova Really? Funny I have heard about that new battery technology for what, 20 years? What news article is that? I just scanned the news services and I see nothing. Prove what you are saying.
Energy is energy. Please tell me the engineering behind taking 120/220v household current and, a few seconds of that current could possibly have enough energy to drive a car for miles. Does the battery MAKE energy? I think not, it STORES it.
ToyKingWonder 8 months ago
Comment removed
3nasacova 8 months ago
@ToyKingWonder I just put the news article on my channel, to save you hunting for it.
3nasacova 8 months ago
@3nasacova Again, there is no new news here. That is why you just saw it on one news source and its not on the wires. This is the same rehashing of a bulk of current to charge a battery within a few seconds. Just by viewing your link, there is no mention of doing this at home. You are once again talking about a huge infrastructure build out, or with smaller batteries, dependency on road-embedded charging plates. Pipe dreams. Tomorrow we'll here about chargeable capacitors for the 1000 time
ToyKingWonder 8 months ago
@ToyKingWonder I am "once again talking about a huge infrastructure build..." I'm not talking about anything. I'm reporting something I saw on the news. You said to prove that it was on the news, and I did.
On tonights news was a report saying the world is ending this Sunday. I can prove that was on the news too if you would like.
That doesn't mean I agree with it, or think its true.
3nasacova 8 months ago
@3nasacova That doesn't mean I agree with it, or think its true.
You must think its true, you won't stop talking about it. And something being used as filler on one news program does not make it "two new technologies". No other news agencies carried it, and it's not new technology.
That is my point.
ToyKingWonder 8 months ago
@ToyKingWonder Are you fucking thick or something? I haven't talked about "it" once. You are the one that won't shut up about it!
Don't reply to this. You're making humanity look retarded
3nasacova 8 months ago
@3nasacova I'll reply to anything I fucking feel like you a-hole. First you a freaking BSer, and when your "news" is debunked you turn into a flaming asshole. Go fuck yourself you loser.
ToyKingWonder 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@3nasacova The news article is on my channel.
3nasacova 8 months ago
most beautiful car made. to bad the oil companies shut it down.
blazer53 8 months ago
@blazer53 How did the "oil companies" shut this down? Turbines were an ongoing experiment by Chrysler since the early 50s. I have a book from Chrysler that shows the engine in a 50s Fury. Again, dollars drive everything. The turbine, with its associated lag off the line, was too costly and inappropriate at that time for passenger car use. The cars were destroyed so Chrysler did not have to pay import duties on them from Ghia.
ToyKingWonder 8 months ago
Very good car. The body is by Ghia Italy
306fiat 9 months ago
3:16 bless you...
goreur10 9 months ago 6
My friend cut most of these up by hand at the Chrysler Proving grounds near Chelsea, Michigan--and he didn't enjoy it.
spazoidification 9 months ago
it would be great to see this kind of stuff developed with the kind of tech we got avalible today....this is phenomenal for the 60's.
form109 9 months ago
hmm, sounds like a vacum cleaner :)
mjmichu 9 months ago
There is a much more efficient car engine called Gun-engine invented by a Polish Canadian Kazimierz Stan Holubowicz ! just google gun-engine and/or Kazimierz Stan Holubowicz.
SlavonicFighter 9 months ago
Superb automobile,...i built a model of one in the 60's. Could someone please tell me the name of the movie this car was in? p.s. detroit had a really stiff dick when it came to these designs of 60's muscle touring cars. Incredible!
fidosharker 9 months ago
@fidosharker Hello! The movie was 'The Lively Set'
akabaka99 9 months ago
if i had this car i would run it on vegetable oil left from fried potatoes..fry potato to drive for free :D
boxerSubaru 9 months ago
Flight attendants, prepare for departure...
sw0rdf1sh2326 9 months ago
wud run off perfume
psppwner 10 months ago
супер крутая тачка! =)
Sergei75RUS 10 months ago
apparently these things did 18-19 mpg on the highway-really not too shabby for a 60's car. I can't help wondering if with today's technology they could do a hell of a lot better with this concept
mrspivvy 10 months ago
i,ll take a turbine body with a new MYT motor
silverbird58 10 months ago
sounds like a vacuum cleaner
cheaptrades 10 months ago
sounds too noisy to be practical. even if we overlook efficiency issues
DanFrederiksen 10 months ago
@DanFrederiksen I'd much rather listen to a bit of whirring air than the fart cans every douchebag around my town has installed onto their cars. Besides, the sound and city driving efficiency issues could be solved in large part with hybrid technologies--a less powerful engine could be used, since battery power would be used to get it up to speed.
nominalvelocity 10 months ago
@nominalvelocity I prefer electric
DanFrederiksen 10 months ago
@DanFrederiksen If they ever make a reasonably priced electric with a respectable range, I'm with ya.
nominalvelocity 10 months ago
@nominalvelocity when oil runs out in a couple of years you'll be able to know that you should have been less obtuse than that. you don't get to lean back and make idiotic demands. you get to support electric cars fully or be wrong.
and they will be plenty good
DanFrederiksen 10 months ago
@DanFrederiksen Oh, Right. You're European, which means you have little sense of proportion to anything in else in the world. You live in a country that occupies less than 1/6th the land area of my *state*, which is only the 10th largest amongst all of our states.
Hell, to get to the next major population center, I would have to drive a distance equivalent to the entire width of your largest land mass, and in truth, that's not even seen as a particularly long drive amongst our people.
nominalvelocity 10 months ago
@nominalvelocity so because I'm european I'm ignorant? I think you got that backwards..
DanFrederiksen 10 months ago
@DanFrederiksen Well, we all have to live with all of our own little ignorances, don't we? In your case, it's ignorant to think electric cars in their current form are capable of replacing fossil fuel cars in any significant capacity.
If you commute less than 100 miles a day, there's a couple pure electric options like the Nissan. And that's great. But, if you like to go on trips, you're *screwed*. I look forward to better battery technology, so it covers more people for more uses.
That's all.
nominalvelocity 10 months ago
@nominalvelocity I'm not advocating the current few existing electric car products. I know what can be done with current tech however and it can nicely replace ICE cars. the trick is to make them light and aerodynamic and either have a small range extender in the car or blitz charge capability. say 200km range and the ability to recharge most of it in 15 minutes or less. and that's both technically possible and commercially viable. can be done and should be done.
DanFrederiksen 10 months ago
this is the coolest car ever!
form109 11 months ago
That car is so badass! What a great sound!
JimBryanMusic 11 months ago
I actually rode in one at the New York Workds Fair when I was 6 on a track they had, it was a life experience and the most awesome car I have ever seen.
soccercleatscrush 11 months ago
Interesting car. However, the car had its disadvantages.
The engine was quite feeble with only 130 hp at 44,000 rpm. 425 lb-ft at 0 rpm. Im not sure if that's gross or net rated. The market was used to big cubes and high horsepower by the mid 60s. The car was a bit heavy, 3900 lb, and had poor gas mileage, around 12 mpg. What do you expect with those RPMs. Zero to sixty in 10 sec, and around 115 mph max with a 3-speed auto.
Of the 55 built, 46 of them were destroyed by Chrysler.
DistortedMannequin 11 months ago
@DistortedMannequin Don't forget the exhaust heat. Supposedly, the heat back there was so intense, it could easily burn a person's legs if he happened to be behind there as it drove by.
itsmegp46 11 months ago
@itsmegp46 Sorry, not true; the Turbine's exhaust is barely warm at the outlets. I saw one of these running at a classic car show, and put my hand back there to check the temp.; it's virtually the same as a conventional car. That one seemed quieter than this one, btw.
odantoro 9 months ago
@odantoro I suppose we're at an impass. I saw a Chrylser Turbine cat at the 1964 New York City World's Fair when I was a teen. The car was running and we were kept well away from the car because of the heat. However, before killing the project, Chrysler made a few improvements to the exhaust system to dissippate excessive heat (Wikipedia for quick reference).
itsmegp46 9 months ago
@DistortedMannequin When you take a look at the common factory small block V8 engines (say, about 300 inch^3) of the late 50's and early 60's and compare the numbers to the Chrysler turbine, they just about come out even. Power, 0-60 time, 1/4 mile times, gas mileage...everything comes out too close to call.
Chrysler made it heavy to give it a very luxurious feel, all of the luxury cars were built stupid heavy. Chrysler 300s were about 3900lbs, too. The one big disadvantage was expense.
nominalvelocity 10 months ago
You could balance a nickel on its side because it was so smooth, NPR radio
tamick21 11 months ago
That is an amazing piece of automotive history. I love it.
stlbrian 11 months ago
whats the mileage
CEMSTR3RK 11 months ago
The jet age really had some strange effects on the auto industry
MonsterXQuattro 11 months ago
I'm just really glad to see theres still a few of these left and in running condition.
Unibodyguy 11 months ago
i want one or have Chrysler put them back into production.
heath78039 1 year ago
so how do you start it
yosefwanger 1 year ago
back in the 60's these engines ran at indy.were blowing past everything on the track,so they limited the intake size.killing the whole concept.so much for new technology.piston pumpers are still here 45 years later.(tech. from 1900)
gwendolyn899 1 year ago
@gwendolyn899 what they should have done is limited engine size by half they still would have gotten the same power with turbos and such that have also been outlawed in indy racing
Tagard1995 1 year ago
the only reason this thing wasnt popular was the gas mileage
LandonCoffey 1 year ago
Ive thought those would be great for a hybrid. Runs on battery power around town, turbine powers a generator that kicks on at higher speeds and when the battery gets low.
bobjr94 1 year ago
@bobjr94 in that case Jaguar's C-X75 gas turbine hybrid is what you want :) Still only a concept at this stage, but I'd sure buy one.
ChayD 1 year ago
I understand why most of these beauties were scrapped-if Chrysler wouldn't have done that, oil companies might have gone bankrupt!
smellytoilet1996 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video is great. See my home energy stuff using Home Wind Turbines and solar panels. I won a Green Design Contest with my product on EarthDay
C-ya
HomeWindTurbines7 1 year ago
Simply sound like an Hoover
cabaneen 1 year ago
@cabaneen Hopefully it doesn't suck like one.
Garselo 1 year ago
look at the gas we had back then contained lead (all grades of it) i wonder what the smog test of today would bring with todays fuels?
tsi87supr60 1 year ago
Yeah close the hood.
caleb6868 1 year ago
@bertgold4 You're Right on the Money; a Turbine powered hybrid would be the best combination of everything...
BlueHeavenBound 1 year ago
@DroidNoid While 1st, they were never put to the level of testing that the Chrysler was.
philyt 1 year ago
You could use the exhaust heat for a grill on your next tailgate party... So many ideas... lol
kasteman1 1 year ago
Comment removed
kasteman1 1 year ago
@Kingmerik999 in that case any engine can run on anything...
but with a turbine the only thing you have to do to run on say kerosene instead of gas... is put kerosene in the tank...
mageac 1 year ago
There is five in running condition, three are in museums. Jay Leno has one. Frank Kleptz of Terre Haute has the other one.
akrackenberger 1 year ago
@akrackenberger Well, it figures that if anyone has a Chrysler Turbine car in running condition, it would be Jay Leno!
scotpens 1 year ago 7
It uses even more fuel that the usual fuel-hungry american cars.
kefsound 1 year ago
Comment removed
scotpens 1 year ago
That engine is loud as hell, no wonder the project was abandonned. I live next to an airport, the planes overhead are enough, I wouldn't want more jet engines in the street!
0x1 1 year ago
No wonder this was abandonned - that thing is LOUD AS HELL! Imagine dozens of these driving down your street every day. No thank you!
0x1 1 year ago
sup reddit.
shoegazer666 1 year ago
@Kingmerik999 you are insane. That engine is a turbine that can run on any fuel, including any oil, alcohol, kerosene, bio-fuels, anything with any energetic content in them. It provides 60,000 RPMs. 60 THOUSAND.
It requires NO OIL CHANGE. The engine is much lighter than a piston engine. The engine is near 2 times the durability of a piston engine, will last near 2 times longer.
In the 60s it was an amazing achievement. It is an amazing achievement now. It should be redeveloped again.
romanmir01 1 year ago 29
@romanmir01 The M1A1 Abrams tank
RacerX5034 1 year ago
@romanmir01 YES, YES, YES!!!
naamanb 1 year ago
@romanmir01 While I do agree with your points, gas turbines do have alot of advantages, however, rhe main problem with them is horrendous fuel economy. I believe they could barely get over 12mpg.
kazimann 10 months ago
@romanmir01 It would have cost a billion dollars to construct the facilities to build the turbine car. Chrysler didn't have the money to do it, even if they wanted to according to the book, Chrysler's Turbine Car. One of the big stumbling blocks was the need for the investment casting process to make the engine parts. I don't know if that could be done today or whether something has come along since then to replace it and make the engine viable for mass production.
CampKohler 10 months ago
@romanmir01 How much money is spend on maintaining the turbine engine each year?
merakhagen 9 months ago
@Kingmerik999
And only you could eat it.
5inthehole 1 year ago
Very rare car indeed. Can you even imagine putting a jet engine in a car the size of that? It had a special option that when pressed extruded wings from the door so the car could take to the air! What were those Chysler boys smoking that day? If anyone has any send it my way, I want to fly too!
5inthehole 1 year ago
I work at an airport, these cars would require ear protection headphones while driving.....ouch....
MNBluestater 1 year ago
@Kingmerik999 Anyone could, only Chrysler would
Dean5629 1 year ago
Next time I need an expensive, noisy car that can go 5 MPH, I'll have to get me one of them Christler Turbine cars.
Bramicus 1 year ago
Maybe the italian greaseballs who now own Chrysler thanks to president OlympDick will revive this technology, . . . . . .
Probably not, what they are going to do is stuff you into a Geithner-OlympDick approved Fiat Punto 300.
OBAMASTINKSLIKEANAPE 1 year ago
The Government also must have realized that Chrysler was getting too close to a finished product, which would have put the other carmakers at jeopardy, due to the fact that they would be competing with an entirely new technology. The "playing field" for the auto business would no longer be level. Don't think this hasn't happened before; remember the Dodge Daytona with the snub nose was dis allowed, because it's aerodynamics gave it an "unfair advantage" during races. -Will-
BlueHeavenBound 1 year ago
Chrysler had worked on a turbine car since the 1950's; Two problems presented themselves. Chrysler solved the first problem by adding a "regenerator" to the design to "scavange" heat, and lower the amount of heat coming out of the exhaust.
Contrary to opinion, the only problem left, was the lack of "parasitic drag" during cornering, which occurs when you let off the gas on a conventional car. The Gov't ended funding for the program, and the cars had to be destroyed. -Will-
BlueHeavenBound 1 year ago
This car was produced during a time when America was unstoppable; anything used to be possible for us. How sad that the government forced these great cars to be destroyed. The technology was just being perfected; they could pretty much run on anything.
BlueHeavenBound 1 year ago
@BlueHeavenBound Hi! Why did the Government force to destroy those cars? Any idea of how many could be saved? Thanks!
gusneaker 1 year ago
@gusneaker Final assembly on the Turbine Cars was done in Italy. Because they were experimental vehicles, Chrysler was allowed to import them duty-free for testing purposes. When the test program ended, Chrysler would have had to pay import duty on all 50 cars to keep them on the road. They coughed up enough to pay the duty on 10 cars. The remaining 40 were sent to the crusher.
scotpens 1 year ago
@scotpens Hi. Thanks a lot for the information! I'd always imagined it had something to do with safety or such...
Now... what a bunch of misers those Chrysler guys at that time!! There were only 50 cars... not 500 000! LOL!!
gusneaker 1 year ago
@BlueHeavenBound The government didn't force the cars to be destroyed. Chrysler received a grant from the EPA (the government) for further development, and a 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. 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.
markhinr 1 year ago
@markhinr The main problem for all turbine cars (there were quite a few competing models for production) was emission-- they could not meet the new 1970s standards. This, more than anything, was what killed the gas turbine.
philyt 1 year ago
@philyt Thanks. I had wondered if emissions wasn't a part of the problem.
markhinr 1 year ago
@markhinr Yeh, the only downfall to the turbine was low-speed efficiency and emissions. While cruising fuel economy was very good for the time, city/mixed driving was abysmal. If I recall right, it was NOX emissions that were the problem, just a nature of the turbine, but other emissions were quite a bit lower than a regular gas motor.
It was pretty successful in racing, until it was effectively outlawed.
philyt 1 year ago
@philyt Kind of like the Wankel rotary engine, except I think Mazda is still using a variation of that motor? I had an RX-7. For such a light little car, the gas mileage was absolutely pitiful (19 mpg hwy). That was the last time I bought a car only because I liked the styling.
markhinr 1 year ago
@markhinr Mazda still runs the rotary in the RX8, and has a next generation rotary in the works too. However, the rotary is inefficient everywhere (as far as fuel economy and emissions are concerned), where as the turbine's weak spot was low RPM.
Though, a small gas turbine powering a generator that drives electric motors would allow the turbine to remain at an ideal speed.
The Gas Turbine Engine: Design, Development, Applications by Jan P. Norbye is a good read.
philyt 1 year ago
ahhhhhhhhh great
javaton899 1 year ago
sounds like a vacuum cleaner to me
Streamliner009 1 year ago
@DrMotorDude: Your comment appears completely irrelevant to my post. My point was that a turbine electric generator that could flexibly accommodate fuel inputs like french fry grease, turpentine, methanol, ethanol, etc., would be a vast improvement over current combustion engine/electric motor hybrid technology like Prius or Honda Hybrid. You don't need to drive the car with it; just pass a coil past a magnet. Maybe you hadn't noticed, but the internal combustion engine is in its last years.
bertgold4 1 year ago
A turbine IS a type of internal-combustion engine, unless it's a steam turbine.
Anyway, the internal-combustion piston engine is a tried and proven technology that's been improved and refined over the past century-and-a-half, and it will be around for a long time to come. Fifty years from now, most cars will be powered by engines that are essentially the same as today's piston engines, though they may burn something other than gasoline.
scotpens 1 year ago
I am wondering why you couldn't build an electric generator based on turbine, that would accept any fuel, and then power the car via DC motor. This would permit a smaller turbine (undoubtedly), fuel flexibility, and perhaps additional fuel economy. The oil companies would hate it. But, it would not pollute and would be 'greener' than current day hybrids. Just a thought...
bertgold4 1 year ago
@bertgold4 There are thousands of them around the world generating electricity right now. BUT, turbines actually use LARGE amounts of fuel. They are not nearly as economical as piston engines. The pay off is they produce lots of power for little weight.
DrMotorDude 1 year ago
was turbine car just another word for torbo charged car?
why didn't it do good in sales?
brownmachine6969 1 year ago
@brownmachine6969 NO, it isn't, go look it up.
Turbo charging or supercharging a car it the practice of inducing higher air pressure ( and therefore more oxygen) into the combustion chamber of a normal piston internal combustion engine.
A TURBINE powered car uses a TURBINE engine. Hence the use of the word: TURBINE!
leapoffaith20 1 year ago
Too bad this thing didn't catch on. Kind combines my love of jet aircraft with a car...
That said... nothing like a good old American V8 too....
knightjp007 1 year ago
A big problem with this was the throttle delay - backing off from 42,000RPM took about 2 to 3 seconds, and during that time drive was still being delivered through the transmission, rendering the brakes next to useless. Not the sort of thing to have to deal with if you need to stop in a hurry.
JBofBrisbane 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it sounds like a vacuum
jejejeje!!
nice car!!
renaulttwingoo 1 year ago
wow that looks like the epitome of the "future car" from that era
eskimo810 1 year ago
@eskimo810 Actually the Turbine Car's styling was very conventional. It resembled a contemporary Thunderbird -- no coincidence, since it was designed by former Ford chief stylist Elwood Engel, who designed the 1961 T-Bird. Only the deep-V, Batmobile-like rear end looked a bit futuristic for the time.
scotpens 1 year ago
@scotpens To me the back end looks similar to an El Camino of that period.
kasteman1 1 year ago
real world star wars!
penguinmaster7 1 year ago
Thank you for the wonderful opportunity to see an operable marvel of technology. This is the finest automobile that never was, and you have to love how it sounds just like a Boeing 737. Good times on Southwest airlines. You really made my day!
boeing727man 1 year ago
Should have stayed with it, but they were way ahead of there time. Other manufacturers copied many things from Chrysler Corporation.
chapie9 1 year ago
jay leno has everything
hearseman09 1 year ago
It sounds like a tiberian space junker!
MegaFubar44 1 year ago
it sounds like luke skywalker's landspeeder
ldaccardi 1 year ago 25
@ldaccardi It sounds more like a vacuum cleaner.
alceuzinho 1 year ago
@ldaccardi And so do I!!!
Aussiewayne100 1 year ago
They had one of these Chrysler Turbine cars in a movie called "The Lively set". It came out in 1964. Starring James Darrin, as he drove the car in a race. I believe its available on DVD.
jeff1969z 2 years ago
If this is the Turbine from the St.. Louis museum, my wife and I got to ride in it while at a PT Cruiser show in Indiana a few years ago. Those of us that had the honor of getting a ride signed a book that is part of the car history! Too cool. I didn;t get any video's , but I took plenty of photos of the ride.
mecuda72 2 years ago
The man that is responsible for the maintenance of this car (the "cartaker") is Mike. He is a great guy to talk to, and has extensive knowledge of these turbine cars...
mecuda72 2 years ago
Bear with me as i know nothing about this...
...this is actually a standard car that chrysler made? What sorta MPG would you get?
paulwisdom2008 2 years ago
1770kg , 0-100 km approx 10 sec , approx 150 km/h
longjohnad 2 years ago
Oh , 1-3 sec delay throttle :)
longjohnad 2 years ago
130 hp at 45700 , 18000 idle , approx 60000 max , 575 nm torque from zero to max .
longjohnad 2 years ago
I only found out about this car recently, and i am very interested in the car, could anybody tell me about the performance, things such as horsepower and torque? Has anybody driven one? Is there a delay in throttle responce? any help?
cpotti23 2 years ago
This car was an experiment and a costly one. The gas turbine is only efficient in aircraft because of the high speeds involved. There were high nitros oxides in the exhaust of these engines as well, which made them worse than piston engines for the environment. They tried but they failed and the whole thing cost a lot of money which is why they damned near went broke.....
wcbol1 2 years ago
thanks 4 the info wcbol1
cpotti23 2 years ago
you can run it on perfume, vodka, tequila pretty much anything
KypHeM 2 years ago
If you want to void the warranty....ha....ha
wcbol1 2 years ago
One of the most beautiful never mass produced. Truly stunning.
Krashdavus 2 years ago
Designed buy the guy that did the 64 T-Bird
wcbol1 2 years ago
The cool thing abpout this car is that it can work with any kind of fuel.
AugustoAAL 2 years ago
i heard you could run it off hairspray if you wanted to lol
pentium6xx 2 years ago
That thing is HUGE!
HugeJasFilms 2 years ago
@HugeJasFilms
Not really. It's about mid-sized.
DocWolph 2 years ago
Chrysler destroyed hundreds of these brand new, at the time collectors and museums didn't want them, bet they are kicking themselves now
theeasybeats 2 years ago
@theeasybeats You've got that right! :D
VolkswagenGolf1400 2 years ago
(rolls eyes) They didnt destroy hundreds. They only made 50 prototypes.
pressrolls 2 years ago
There were more than 400 made
wcbol1 2 years ago
@ wcbol1
wrong...one of the most documented failures by Chrysler. (Since they were in the public eye asking for Federal Loans at he same time) They NEVER made anything approaching that number.
pressrolls 2 years ago