Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The 1963 Chrysler Turbine Car

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 12:30 AM
Original message
The 1963 Chrysler Turbine Car


Chrysler Turbine Cars were automobiles powered by gas turbine engines that the Chrysler Corporation assembled in a small plant in Detroit, Michigan, USA in 1963, for use in the only consumer test of gas turbine-powered cars. It was the high point of Chrysler's decades-long project to build a practical turbine-powered car.

The fourth-generation Chrysler turbine engine ran at up to 60,000 rpm and could use diesel fuel, unleaded gasoline, kerosene, JP-4 jet fuel, and even vegetable oil. The engine would run on virtually anything and the president of Mexico tested this theory by running one of the first cars — successfully — on tequila. Air/fuel adjustments were required to switch from one to another, and the only evidence of what fuel was being used was the odor of the exhaust.

The engine<1> had a fifth as many moving parts as a piston unit (60 rather than 300). The turbine was spinning 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) and an instant 425 pound-feet (576 N·m) of torque at stall speed, making it good for 0-60 mph in 12 seconds at an ambient temperature of 85 °F (29 °C) — it would sprint quicker if the air was cooler and denser.

The absence of a distributor and points, the solitary start-up spark plug and the lack of coolant eased maintenance, while the exhaust did not contain carbon monoxide (CO), unburned carbon, or raw hydrocarbons. Nevertheless, the turbine generated nitrogen oxides (NO) and the challenge of limiting them helped to kill the program.

Its power turbine was connected, without a torque converter, through a gear reduction unit to an otherwise ordinary 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, high fuel consumption — 17 miles per US gallon (14 L/100 km; 20 mpg-imp) — and exhaust gas temperatures at idle plagued early models. Chrysler was able to remedy or mitigate most of these drawbacks and deficiencies. The Turbine Car also featured a fully stainless steel exhaust system, the exits of which were flat in cross section. This was intended to spread the exhaust gases thinly and thus cool them further, so that the vehicle could stand in traffic without risking damage to following traffic. The combustor, or burner, was somewhat primitive by the standards of modern turbojet engines. A single reverse-flow canister featuring a more-or-less standard spark plug for ignition was employed. Had the engine been further developed, annular combustion chambers along with a second power turbine might have improved power and economy even more.

The turbine car had some operational drawbacks. The car sounded like a giant vacuum cleaner, which was not satisfying to consumers who were more comfortable with the sound of a large American V8. High altitudes also caused problems for the combined starter-generator. Failing to follow the correct start-up procedure would cause the engine to stall; some consumers thought they could "warm" the engine up similar to the way they did with a gasoline engine. They would press the accelerator pedal to the floor before the engine had reached proper temperature. Instead of warming the engine, the excess fuel slowed the turbine down and resulted in the opposite of the desired effect. Doing this, however, did not do any permanent damage to the engine. In fact, 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. However, troubles were remarkably few for such a bold experiment. More than 1.1 million test miles were accumulated by the 50 cars given to the public, and operational downtime stood at only 4%.

cont'd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. Now THAT'S Engineering!
60k RPM? That's difficult to believe -- but if it's true, it's a mind-blower. (No, this isn't an "I-call-bullshit-rinse-repeat" moment. I am truly in awe.)

Given almost half a century of advances, such designs could make the internal combustion engine in a world weaning itself off the car culture a thing of perverse admiration. But I have the feeling the word "perverse" will be among the mildest of our epithets.

:thumbsup:

--d!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. These cars are rare birds. But Jay Leno snagged one.
Tavis Smiley was just interviewing Jay and asked him what his newest addition was to his car
collection and he replied that it was a Chrysler Turbine. So I had to look it up, and glad
I did!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obliviously Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. For prolonged use
at those rpms the sleeve bearings would have to be replaced with something different!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
3. Heres a 3 minute video of the turbine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IF0VbUb_Ug
YouTube - Chrysler Turbine Car
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FredStembottom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #3
21. It sounds exactly like a shop-vac!
Edited on Sat Sep-12-09 09:01 AM by FredStembottom
And the styling is just an exaggeration of the Dodge Dart production car of the time - which gives it a Grandma's Spaceship look.

Really enjoyable!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
4. God that's a gorgeous automobile!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. I agree. I'm just so confused why this caliber of engineering and style can't be achieved today.
From the Wiki article it sounds like the design was done in Italy. And there's more...

Chrysler's turbine engine program did not die completely. A new coupe body would appear, re-engineered and rebadged, as the 1966 Dodge Charger. Chrysler went on to develop a sixth generation gas-turbine engine which did meet nitrogen oxide regulations, and installed it in a 1966 Dodge Coronet, though it was never shown. 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. 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.


Lucky Jay. He bought (I assume) one of just a few models that is operational from Chrysler.

Picture
http://cmsimg.detnews.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C3&Date=20090803&Category=OPINION03&ArtNo=908030315&Ref=AR&Profile=1383
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
global1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Conspiracy Theories Aside - Why Can't They Bring Development Of This Engine.......
back. We come a long way from 1963 and have newer materials and newer technology that perhaps can work around the problems of this '63 - 70 versions of this engine. Maybe now it can be modified to work for us in this new century.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. I'd be thrilled if I could buy a 1983 Civic.
I think it's 1983. Probably basic compared to today's plush Hondas, but it got some outrageous gas mileage, like 36 city and 45 highway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
8 track mind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. and bulletproof
you couldn't kill one of those if you tried. Good engineering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. Its amazing how the old Hondas have been forgotten
I got 47 mpg om the highway in my 1987 carburetor civic. My stepdad still drives an 88 CRX, which got 48 mpg regularly (though its a very well-worn oil burner now). They were very good affordable cars back then, but every new model after them came out bigger, more powerful, more complicated (electric everything), and more expensive. Needless to say, mileage of modern cars sucks for a reason, and we pay for it in more ways than one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FredStembottom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #8
22. Wind resistance killed all the fun.
Edited on Sat Sep-12-09 09:08 AM by FredStembottom
Those pointy, rimmed and protruding things all have too much drag for today's higher MPG goals.

Darn it!

It turns out that the lowest drag is acheived with a smooth, potato shape for the car.

That's why we have such U.G.L.Y. cars today.

Damn it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
26. There's one at the Peterson Museum in LA
At least there was last time I visited. The car is even more striking in real life.

I also recall reading something way back in the mid-sixties that Ford was experimenting with gas turbines in over-the-road trucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XOKCowboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 01:22 AM
Response to Original message
6. On a related not.. Chrysler Turbine cars being crushed...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. I can't look. Tavis Smiley asked Jay Leno what he thought of the cash for clunkers program.
It was obviously very painful for Jay and he said he just doesn't get it. He also doesn't
understand why our country doesn't manufacture anything anymore...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obliviously Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 01:25 AM
Response to Original message
7. Thank you for posting
this I enjoyed it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. You're welcome! I had never heard of this car prior to tonight so it was fun for me too!.n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obliviously Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I remember being in school in the 60's and being told
that this was quite probably the future of engines. It is funny how things can actually turn out so different!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cutlassmama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 02:46 AM
Response to Original message
13. there were so little of these made in the first place.
Only 55 and 46 were destroyed.

Jay is a lucky, lucky man
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
704wipes Donating Member (966 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 03:13 AM
Response to Original message
14. my father raved about this car and I saw one at the
Edited on Sat Sep-12-09 03:25 AM by 704wipes
Home Show in Raintree County one summer around the time it came out.
there WAS a Chrysler factory in Raintree County and so I assume that is why they displayed one there...


Wasn't this also around the time that Parnelli Jones and Andy Granatelli were having success with a turbine at the Indianapolis 500? or was that later? -well, success for 180 laps or so...

And... didn't Mazda have a turbine engine of some sort in stock production later?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indenturedebtor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 05:05 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Mazda still produces a rotary engine - which is similar to a turbine
They aren't very fuel efficient but they are extremely torquey! Fun as hell to drive too, but BY FAR the most unreliable thing that Mazda makes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comtec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. I'd call near 25 MPG and FUN fuel efficient
my dad has had several over the years, my sister one (it's death was a roll over. The rood HELD, and the engine turned over after wards!!!).
I drove my dad's while he was fixing my car at the time.
they are FUN, but yeah... I would not call them super reliable. but they were safe.
Each one is unique, with it's own foibles.

Tell you what, if they know you will get a screwdriver and fix them yourself they tend to respect you.. if you are afraid of cars however.....

Thankfully my dad is a scary good mechanic, and over all tech. I simply have a gift for making things work.

My sister is just plain scary when pissed! (family trait)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indenturedebtor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-13-09 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. Well the engine is good if you cool down and warm up properly
But most people don't, and the rest of the Rx-8 was wracked with problems.

Most didn't get anywhere near 25 mpg... more like 12.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
excess_3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 03:51 AM
Response to Original message
15. stupid. ...small turbines are inefficient
especially at part throttle and idle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NecklyTyler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Turbine Hybrid
Build a Honda Insight with a gas turbine generator to charge the batteries
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. Exactly.
Turbines achieve efficiency at high constant speeds, which would be much more suited to keeping a bank of batteries up than dealing with stop-and-go traffic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
excess_3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. are turbines, better than a diesel?
please be as specific as you can.

keep in mind that a diesel can be efficient
at wide range of speeds.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Not pretending to be an expert, but I doubt it.
Edited on Sat Sep-12-09 07:02 PM by bhikkhu
but then again what makes one engine "better" than another anyway - different engines has different characteristics, and it would depend upon what values you were applying to the problem.

For example, you could say that a turbine can be extremely simple, with very few moving parts, so is superior to a diesel engine in that respect. An electric motor can be simpler than either of them, though. In any case, I don't think that the turbine represents an overlooked technology that might have saved us from our current problems. Its just another way of burning fossil fuels. Maybe it would be better than a gas engine, however, if you had to burn fuel in a hybrid car to charge its batteries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-14-09 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Ford tried to make a truck turbine in the 70's
The Power Turbine is probably better suited to long haul trucking anyway. But the problemn in the 70's was materials. They were unable to get any reliability with enough "compression" to make the engine as efficient as a diesel of the time. And given the problems with needing to train mechanics to maintain them, parts etc. It never went forward.

Of note last I chacked the record for the most efficient engine goes to the Wartsilla Diesel used in shipping. 5-13 Cylinders, up to 1.2 x 10^6 Lb-FT of Torque and over 200,000HP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 04:31 AM
Response to Original message
16. the mpg rating is more like 2 mpg, not 17. I don't know where you got that figure.
Gas turbine engines are massively inefficient on fuel. The turbine engine used in the Abrams tank gets 3 gallons per mile, and can only use expensive jet fuel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #16
31. That is 3 gallons per mile NOT 3 mpg, tanks just eat fuel
The range of the M1 tank is only 279 with a 500 Fuel tank (ideal situation, rarely in real combat). 500/279 is only 1.72 gallons per mile. In actual usage more like 3 gallons per mile.

By the way turbines are fuel efficient, but only have two speed, full speed or stop. If a turbine is used to charge batteries in a hybrid then the turbine could run full speed, its most efficient speed and then off when the battery is the primary source of power.

When it comes to tanks (and cars) most of the time you do NOT need full power, thus turbines can NOT be used at their best operating space (i.e. at full throttle all the time). When a turbine is used in an area where it can operate at full speed, nothing beat the turbine, but if you have a lot of idle time it will just eat fuel.

M1 Tank:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

As to jet fuel, the army actually opposed adoption of Jet fuel for the M1 tank do to problems with the fuel system (since changed) but till recently only diesel was used. Since 2000 all services are to use Jet Fuel in everything, including trucks. The conversion is still going on the last time I checked (do to problems with fuel systems on trucks is the biggest hand up).

More on JP-8, the "Jet-Fuel" used by the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Army for not only aircraft but also diesel engines. The difference between JP-8 and Diesel fuel has more to do with lubrication of Diesel Engines then any real difference (the Concern is LONG TERM USE not short time use):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-8
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-14-09 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. That engine is also overkill
IIRC The turbine is capable of powering the tank to well over 60+ MPH. However other parts of the drive train would come flying off.
Seems to me it was also conciderably more expensive than the diesel to procure as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
25. I remember them, and Andy Granatelli's Indy...
turbine car. It didn't win, but it was so fast they rewrote the regs to ban it.

The biggest problem I remember with the turbine was that they were never able to deal with the exhaust. Couldn't cool it to where it wouldn't fry something behind the car.

Melting the plastic bits on the car stuck behind you at a light was bad enough, but walking behind one was worse.

Gas mileage wasn't the big thing back then, with 427 V-8s and 4.23 rear ends being so popular, but that much waste heat coming through the exhaust meant even worse mileage than the big iron of the time.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-14-09 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #25
33. What a car...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-12-09 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
28. Beautiful car!!
I really wish they'd bring back the Really Cool car designs, only with alternative energy--now that would kick butt. It is possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC