Turbine car..interesting video

[Kyle Communications]

A mate just sent me this Youtube video. I never knew anything about this. Its a really good video. It has the same issue that we all face with the want for a turbine in our planes and why it usually will never happen

 

 

[kgwilson]

The Chrysler of 1963 was the most famous but there had been plenty of other attempts including Fiat, Renault, Lotus & Rover. Rover built the first turbine road car in 1950 & it exceeded 150 mph in 1952 culminating in them running a BRM/Rover turbine in the Le Mans 24 hour race in 1963 where they finished unofficially 7th. Slow response & a huge appetite for fuel as well as jet noise were the biggest problems.

[onetrack]

There's a fair amount of BS in the video (he could've easily reduced the video to half its length) - but the greatest amount of BS is around why the cars were destroyed, what they actually ran on, and what their major sales problems were.

 

1. The cars were not destroyed because of tariffs. The tariff at the time was a trifling amount for Chrysler. The reason they were destroyed is because Chrysler didn't want them in public hands, and thereby costing them a heap of money to support.

 

2. They wouldn't "run on anything". They needed kerosene or diesel. Petrol fuels left highly undesirable deposits in the turbine. Kerosene wasn't readily available in bowsers, and diesel produced higher smoke levels.

 

3. They suffered from serious throttle lag. When you needed response when you planted your right foot, the turbines couldn't do it. They took time to spool up. A few seconds is a lifetime when you want instant power with a truck bearing down on you.

 

4. Their fuel consumption was abysmal, to say the least - and their maintenance levels were horrendous. They were high-tech engines requiring very close tolerances, and they weren't good at running well when worn - unlike a Chrysler V8.

 

The article below covers most of the reasons why the Chrysler Turbine cars were destroyed. It does seem a shame that more weren't kept in existence, but there have been plenty of very expensive vehicles sent to the scrappers.

 

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/11/the-truth-about-why-chrysler-destroyed-the-turbine-cars/

 

There's more interesting information in the links below.

 

https://turbinecar.com/

 

It's amazing how many of the turbine cars on loan to the public were damaged - by carelessness, in most cases. 

 

https://turbinecar.com/KarlPippart-2013.htm

 

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by onetrack

[turboplanner]

Drivers of cars have always wanted instant acceleration on demand; you're about to turn into oncoming traffic, there's a gap, and you hit the accelerator pedal and get through in time.

 

Buyers for a long time avoided buying turbocharged cars when they had that 1/2 to 1 second turbo lag, and the manufacturers managed to reduce the lag, then the Japanese water-jacketed the turbocharger, avoiding most of the overloading failures. Today, while mandatory to achieve current emission levels, we'd probably be comfortable buying them.

 

It's possible similar changes could have been made to gas turbines to reduce lag, but the 1979 fuel crisis and 98% echaust emission reductions have meant we now build our ICE engines to use as little fuel as possible, so gas turbine would still have trouble in the market, even if there was a way to match ICE emission levels.

 

Cost must still be a problem, because gas turbines still haven't found their way into small aircraft, even though these aircraft are suited to the rpm profile. There are plenty of small turbines built - APUs on bigger aircraft is one application. 

 

In the 1950s Jet Pilots had replaced the Spitfire Pilots of the fourties, advertisers were drawing jet planes on food products and the automotive design studios were featuring jet intakes around radiators and fins on cars, so it made a good future-car project for Chrysler. In the sixties we had space rockets, and those decades were all bright and shiny and new, so it fitted right in.

 

[kgwilson]

Even by somehow getting rid of lag and noise turbines have never been able to reduce fuel consumption to anything near reasonable so they are not a choice for most who want reasonable running cost. My hangar mate has a Helicycle with a Chinook APU as the powerplant. Heaps of grunt, heaps of noise and an insane thirst. A fair bit of the energy disappears as heat as the grass anywhere near where he lands is always burnt to a crisp. Not good in the fire season.