Chrysler Turbine Car

[matthew1]

[continued from this Volvo literature post]

This is a fantastically interesting car. I'd read about them years ago, but never caught the interesting details, like:

The fourth-generation Chrysler turbine engine ran at up to 44,500 revolutions per minute, according to the owner's manual,[3] and could operate using diesel fuel, unleaded gasoline, kerosene, JP-4 jet fuel, and even vegetable oil. The engine would run on virtually anything with combustible properties and the President of Mexico tested this theory by running one of the first cars—successfully—on tequila. No air/fuel adjustments were required to switch from one fuel type to another and the only evidence of which fuel was used was the odor of the exhaust.

Wikipedia - Chrysler Turbine Car

[jimmy57]

That car came out when I was preschool and I thought they were the coolest. It was the Batmobile even before there was a Batmobile.
I bought a Bulletbird because of it. The 61-63 Tbirds are prettier than the C Turbine IMO.

I knew someone who was around one of those running when they were on the show circuit and he said it was too loud to be sellable. Exhaust heat was another issue it seems.

[jblackburn]

I'm glad you thought this was an interesting one too! It's definitely a cool concept, but I think it would be impractical for every day use.

The idea of being able to run on pretty much anything flammable is pretty awesome though. Leave it to Mexico to try to run something on tequila...

But no picture of its butt?! That's the coolest part!

Exhaust heat was another issue it seems.

It'd keep people from tailgating you at least!

1964ChryslerGhiaTurbineCar.jpg (63.52 KiB) Viewed 1327 times

[matthew1]

It does have a nice shape. The 1950s and 1960s were great because The Future was coming fast, and designers (car designers, notably) were in the forefront of trying to describe what it would be like.

Yes, most were not even close to the mark, but their designs were still beautiful.

[jblackburn]

It does have a nice shape. The 1950s and 1960s were great because The Future was coming fast, and designers (car designers, notably) were in the forefront of trying to describe what it would be like.

Yes, most were not even close to the mark, but their designs were still beautiful.

Agree 100%. Cars were just so much cooler from that time period.

Some of the coolest reading I've done about this car is about how the engine worked - and some of the inherent problems with such a design.

The engine had just 1/5th of the moving parts of a traditional piston-based internal combustion engine (60 rather than 300).[4] The turbine spun on simple sleeve bearings for vibration-free running. Its simplicity offered the potential for long life, and because no combustion contaminants enter engine oil, no oil changes were considered necessary. The 1963 Turbine's engine generated 130 brake horsepower (97 kW; 132 PS) and an instant 425 pound-feet (576 N·m) of torque at stall speed, making it good for 0 to 60 mph (0 to 97 km/h) in 12 seconds at an ambient temperature of 85 °F (29 °C)—it would sprint quicker if the air was cooler and denser.

The power turbine was connected, without a torque converter, through a gear reduction unit to an only moderately modified TorqueFlite automatic transmission. The flow of the combustion gases between the gas generator and free power turbine provided the same functionality as a torque converter but without using a conventional liquid medium. Twin rotating recuperators transferred exhaust heat to the inlet air, greatly improving fuel economy. Varying stator blades prevented excessive top end speeds, and provided engine braking on deceleration.

Throttle lag and exhaust gas temperatures at idle plagued early models; Chrysler was able to remedy or mitigate these to some degree. Acceleration lag, however, remained a problem, and fuel consumption was excessive. Acceleration was outstanding provided the turbine was spun up (by applying power) prior to releasing the brakes. Otherwise it was mediocre.

It was possible to apply full throttle immediately after starting the engine without much fear of excessive wear. The engines were remarkably durable considering how fragile turbine engines are when compared to internal combustion piston engines. Troubles were remarkably few for such a bold experiment. It is not known how many testers made the mistake of using the leaded pump gas of the era; the tetraethyl lead would leave debilitating deposits within the engine. It was the one flammable liquid Chrysler recommended not be used; it was also by far the easiest fuel to obtain. Even so, more than 1.1 million test miles were accumulated by the 50 cars given to the public, and operational downtime stood at only 4%.

Sadly, that sounds a lot more reliable than anything Chrysler makes today

[absolutezero273c]

I had seen this years ago but didn't put 2 and 2 together when jblackburn had mentioned it. I thought he was talking about a 'newer' Chrysler design. That said I didn't remember much about it. I sort of filed it away with the old Batman and Godzilla tv shows I watched in the early 70's as a kid. It is pretty cool though. I googled it and found a nice write up at MotorTrend.

I did like this quote:

Chrysler claimed these "real" advantages in literature for the Turbine Car: reduced maintenance, longer engine-life expectancy, development potential, 80-percent parts reduction, virtual elimination of tuneups, no low-temperature starting problems, no warmup period, no antifreeze, instant interior heat in the winter, no stalling because of sudden overloading, negligible oil consumption, low engine weight, no engine vibration, and "cool and clean" exhaust gases...

And why is it that so many of the older classics are being remade? Is it because so many of the cars in the 60's were a great looking design that they can't think of anything better? Or are they simply trying to boost their sales figures with cars they know a large majority of the population with disposable income already love?