I remember my brother saying how much he loved the proving grounds, I still miss him. After he and the others died in 67, we were forgotten. He always told me how gentle Jerry Wenk was to him while on the endurance runs.
@@dinoferrante1718 I believe he is talking in terms of the car having others like him (brothers), that were destroyed by the government. He is pretending that he is the car. Or maybe it actually is the car talking. Who knows.
I started at Chrysler engineering in 69 and spent some time on further development. I look for me in these videos, i wonder if i would even recognize me? :-)
I remember seeing one of these beautiful Turbine cars at the Chrysler Exhibit at The New York World's Fair 1964 1965. When the engine was started the sound was like a small jet plane and rather quiet during performance. As far as being a slow car, I disagree, it was average on speed. It was not meant to be a hot rod or a top speed car anyway.
I saw the Turbine, but didn't realize its significance as a eight year old. Remember the local morning news show promoting the semi ownership and all those mail in ballots I filled for my moms. One of my favorite prototypes. Have a few scale models. Proud to see Chrysler Corporation.
Makes you wonder what Cuda's and Chargers would have been like as the Turbine engines evolved into performance cars, the Shaker would be renamed Jet Intake.
My dad drove one of these cars home and we tried to roast marshamallows at exhaust for kicks. We then went to Saginaw for a 2 hr drive and was stopped by a few state troopers so they could check out the car. The car was a hit at every gas station or intersection we were at. The jet engine was very cool sounding.
King Rose Archives He was one of the engineers developing the car. He also test drove the car on on a new un-opened freeway prior to public trial. He brought the car home for several weeks at a time. It was a very cool car as well as the everyday cars made with the engine installed.
Steven Sparks I had a chance to drive one too. A friend's father was a dealer district manager for Chrysler and he had picked one up from one of the "test drivers" on Friday and brought it home before delivering it to someone else on Monday. Quite a thrill for a 16 year old!
McCormick1215 Even if the Turbine car got less mileage than your Subaru,the stylish one of a kind Turbine would beat out your simple and ugly Subaru in every other category especially style,looks,cool car,looks,impression,awe inspiring, fuel types. If I ever got to Jay Leno's garage I would hope he lets me drive his Turbine car after he hears that my dad helped in the program.
I still think this is one of the most beautiful cars ever made. Love the roofline and front grill........really wish that Chrysler put them into production....if that damn government bail out didn't occur, they would have gone into production in 1981 or 1982
Not sure they were actually headed for production. They weren't fuel efficient but an interesting concept and great Italian design. Interesting how Chrysler became wedded to Italian designers and is now owned by Fiat.
It was on the production schedule for 1981 based on the LeBaron and Newport/St Regis/Fury. But killed by the Government Bailout. It almost went into production, at that point, they had enough real world testing with M1 Tanks and programs to give it the green light....but The Bailout and Bankers in the Bailout gave it the red light, it's documented in numerous places on the web.
King Rose Archives It may have been built in Italy but the design was American. I don't recall the designers name, but he was the same fellow that did the 1961-63 Thunderbird for Ford (which you can tell by comparing the two cars)
I would like a Rubicon 4X4 off road SUV set up with such an engine. I know the acceleration is not like a powerful gasoline engine, but the torque at the rear wheels with this setup is amazing due to the gear-down from the high RPM's. Back in 1963 my father was seriously looking in to getting this type of vehicle if he could have one. It was an amazing car that was far ahead of its time.
When I was in school one of the kid's mom would pick him up in a Chrysler Turbine. I remember at the Detroit auto show they had one on a turntable sitting on a white shag rug. They started the car and put the peddle down, the exhaust blew the carpet flat but there were no black spots on the carpet like you would get with an ICE.
A turbine engine Has to have its blades perfectly balanced to achieve such high rpm smoothly. Ad marvelous as this engineering is, I dont think it would hold up as well to the shock of landing off jumps as a v8
Flying cars have been around for a while, they’re not popular since giving your average driver an airplane would make every day like 9/11 times a thousand
@BrapBrapDorito wrong that's not a flying car that's a car that can fly a car with wings doesn't even count its just a small plane what I mean by fly is true born hover car that's capable of lifting itself off the ground the next step after that is a true born flying car
yanik ivanov it was designed to literally take ANY combustible liquid, such as vodka, perfume, diesel, gas, it shouldn’t take leaded fuel since it would clog the filters a bit faster and is a pain to reach them when needed.
My dad worked with a guy who at the time had one of these cars for evaluation. He took my dad for a ride in it and a torsion bar broke while they were cruising on the interstate going through Indianapolis.
I saw one of these briefly in Carlisle PA, when I went to school at Dickinson College during the 1964-5 school year. I don't know whose it was, or why it was there.
I heard Jay Leno say that his car can run on anything from salad dressing oil to diesel, why not bring this engine Idea back and let people run that type of engine off used oils from restaurants? Less needs for gasoline, actually gasoline is the last thing you want to run in this engine, it leaves performance damaging deposits in the engine...I would love to have this type of engine in a modern day vehicle, no oil changes, 1/5 the moving parts of a internal combustion V8, so less opportunities for wear and break down....I think Chrysler was on the brink of taking over the automotive world with this car, too bad they scrapped it, with cost of gasoline now they would have the car market..
Just another woudda/couldda/shoulda. Chrysler, being a small company, was lightyears ahead in engineering. How many people know they were involved w/NASA and the space/moon programs. It's just a shame it wasn't developed more so.
I wish this had caught on. This idea of a car with a jet engine is a fun idea for one very important reason... This car's engine can run on any liquid that burns oxygen. You can literally pour tequila into this car and it will run fine, that's what I heard they did in Mexico. But this design did not catch on because the only fuel this car could not burn was leaded fuel. Had this car come around about 10 or more years later, this idea may have caught on. 1974 was the year unleaded gas was introduced to consumers. I wish this idea would be brought back today. Having a car that burns almost any fuel type definitely serves as a convenience and an economic supporter. This idea really should be brought back. I don't see any real reason why it can't be brought back. This would be an expensive car simply because of the expensive Ghia style bodies from Italy... But I'm sure some minor design changes could bring the cost down. I'd like a jet powered car. Come on, don't say you wouldn't like on as well
Yanni Agrotis how do you reverse? Start - stop in traffic? Brake? Not to mention fuel consumption and emissions. Too many inefficiencies, no real advantages.
navnig Gas mileage wasn't great, it used a lot of oil and if you stood behind it you'd get burned. Wasn't a practical application for a jet engine. But they tried it and that's great. Ghia did a wonderful job with the design and the public ate it up.
King Rose Archives Not true that "if you stood behind it you'd get burned" - the car was specifically designed so that WOULDN'T happen.The more interesting cars were the Chrysler turbine...taxi cabs.Look it up. They could've made it, but the real drawback is that there neither was nor is a maintenance regime for turbine cars. If we couldn't support Wankel (rotary) engines as regular drivers (ask Mazda), how would we maintain a completely different motive power? Ask the NSU and Mazda companies...... The unsaid thing in this video is that this car had the power potential to literally smoke any contemporary car - with almost no detectable vibration, minimal sound, and it would do it for hours. And you could run it on any combustible fuel, from diesel to gasoline to Thunderbird wine.
caribman10 The Turbine was never intended to be put in production. It was strictly a test Vehicle. The cars were given to selected members of the general people to drive in regular conditions for a period time, as an experiment, then they were turned back to the factory for someone else to test. As I recall each car went to about three or four different users, each one for a period of about three months each. (I'm going from 50 year old memories here, I may be in error on details) The biggest problem while actually driving the car was poor acceleration. (And the Wankle was worse, the main reason people didn't like it was if you were going UP an on ramp, if was hard to get to freeway speed by the time you had to merge into traffic!)
+CDSquaredance I'm just going to guess that you never actually drove a Mazda with a Wankel engine? Everything you said was dead wrong. My brother owned a '73 pickup, my buddy had an RX-3 and another buddy had an RX-7 and they were all ridiculously powerful, especially compared to the garbage the US was putting on the streets at the time. The biggest mechanical issue was overheating the suckers and burning off the rotor-tips.
Define irony, in the 50s & 60s they put a turbine engine in a car to no avail. Now they put a turbine engine in a motorcycle and everybody goes nuts over it!!!!
No, the car didn’t have a turbine. It had a turban in it- If you listen to the commentary : that is an Egyptian hat, a much more difficult thing to engineer into a car.
i think the real reason turbines never made it was its multi fuel capability. they were afraid that farmers would quickly discover that they could make their own alcohol and sell it to city people for lower price than gas or diesel undermining oil business. rockefellers success at prohibition 50 years earlier would have gone in vain.
A good theory but George Steecher, one of the lead engineers on the turnbine project told me that it was about the money. "Chrysler was in deep trouble financially in '81. I think someone from the Department of Energy said why don't we show Mr. Reagan that we are trying to cut our budget and drop Chrysler's contract and so they did, they dropped Chrysler's contract. as I said, at that time Chrysler was financially burdened at that point, they didn't have enough money to continue, that was the end, it was terminated at that point for Chrysler," he said.
so it could run off Anything combustible huh Gas, Diesel, Vodka, Kerosene, Propane, Aerosols, Anything like that so God forbid you didn't have money foe gas No Problem just go to the pantry and throw some Vodka in it
Actually the car had 20 mpg on the highway. And one major design flaw ive heard about turbine engines is that starting one while warm can ruin them real quick
Why they ever built turbine cars is beyond me. They do not perform at variable speeds. The one a friend of mine and I rode in at E.P.A. Ann Arbor, idled from memory, at 19K. R.P.M. My friend designed and built the Lowest Emission Engine in the world [still is after 50yrs.] took it to America and they didn't want it. Work that out. Ralph Nader may be able to tell you why. They could not [still can't] build an L.E.E. so they overwhelmed the public with these show horses. If the state of CA is going to ban all diesel trucks in the future somebody better get smart and listen up in a big way.
USA is not really free. New techniques, such as jet cars, electrical cars, Tucker, Tesla's inventions etc. were not encouraged because the ruling industrialists felt threatened. Instead the public was left with unsafe, ridiculously sized fuel guzzlers. The v8 engines produced a mere 65hp.
My 2 cents about it: a radical new powerplant calls for a radical car. This one looks too... conventional. Also to light up public imagination and catch the market a flashy high performance sports car would have been far mor appropriate than a dull family sedan. Remember Tesla's first entry? It was a hot two-seat roadster.
Design was pretty far out for its day but they also wanted it be seen as something that was attainable. Tesla's first foray was based on a Lotus built by a couple of scientists who really were on to something. I rode in one and it blew me away. The torque and instant acceleration. What a blast.
It's not only about looks but also about performance. A 500-700HP turboshaft was a trifle even in the 1960's, any decent helicopter had one. To compensate for the poor fuel economy they could have switched to a cheaper fuel such as diesel, smoke not being a problem because turbines burn very clean anyway. And to compensate for the rather poor acceleration of the turbine, how about using a flywheel to store excess energy during braking and release it when needed, also helping with stability in corners by the way of the gyroscope effect? A turbine-flywheel hybrid with unmatched performance, imagine that.
It was failed because of emissions standards where not met, i bet you bring it back fuel it with hydrogen, then see if it passes the test, i say it dose.
@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke , nope, government stated it failed the emissions test as they used leaded gasoline , Chrysler killed the project because of the cost of production, that's was wrong with it. Even today they wouldn't be able to build it at affordable prices, E.v's as expensive as they are would still be cheaper priced. I now a few people that built custom cars with a turbine they said it works fine, but the fuel price kills it. To gas hungry zero fuel economy.
@@richardst-laurent6660 The Chrysler turbine cars only ran on UNLEADED gasoline. The federal government never tested the turbine cars for emissions. EPA vehicle emissions did exist prior to 1971 (1972 model year.) It would have also been exempt from 1967-8 California emissions as an alternative fuels vehicle. TRUE, the cost to manufacturer the engines was prohibitive, production cost estimates ranged from $50,000 to 55,000 dollars each in 1965, about a half million dollars today. Those who tested and were surveyed indicated they were not willing to pay that much for the car as it did not offer any particular advantages that would offset the huge cost increase. The program was terminated and everything scrapped to be written off for tax credits that could be used to fund the development of new concepts and vehicle models..
@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke then you need to go argu with those responsible for the documentary. They claimed it was leaded gas. Unleaded was enforced in the 70's the car was made & tested before that.
@@richardst-laurent6660 Sorry my friend, you got leaded and unleaded mixed up. The Chrysler turbines featured a recuperator in the exhaust stream that would get fouled and completely plugged up by lead deposits if leaded fuel was used. If you check any of the credible sources they all say unleaded fuel only. Having said that I worked with Lockheed P-2 Neptunes with Westinghouse J34 jet engines which guzzled 100LL leaded Avgas like a thirsty sailor without issues, the exhaust nozzles would be coated inside with a fairly thick layer of crusty yellow ash that was nearly pure lead oxide. Of course, no recuperators to get plugged so problems related to lead deposits.. Cheers!
My father test drove this car for three months, when I was young. It sounded like the Batmobile.
He probably got divorced and drowned in woman didn’t he lol
Just kidding though. That’s so cool!
He was one of the guys who won the ability to keep it for a few months? ..man's insanely lucky.
Came to this because my cousin's classmates's dad took one home on lunch break and gave both boys a ride in one. Detroit, early 60s.
3 months 😂😂😂
Did they have air conditioning and how did they power the compressor?
I saw the car in 63 when it went on national tour. They revved it up to cruising rpm and balanced a quarter on edge on the top of the engine.
I remember my brother saying how much he loved the proving grounds, I still miss him. After he and the others died in 67, we were forgotten. He always told me how gentle Jerry Wenk was to him while on the endurance runs.
What are you talking about?
@@dinoferrante1718 I believe he is talking in terms of the car having others like him (brothers), that were destroyed by the government. He is pretending that he is the car. Or maybe it actually is the car talking. Who knows.
Gentle in a sexual way?
Lol!!!!!! Now this is jalaeriius
Chrysler was always ahead of the times in styling and in engineering
oh how the times change
It got 20mpg, a rocket car, got 20 mpg, in 1963.
On about any liquid that was flammable. Cool.
Oh i was driving in 63 and i seem to remember $.22 a gallon, i think I'm right. Just a memory.
@@4406bbldb exactly
the Ford Falcon station wagon with the 200 CI six got 30mph in 1962
@@kenwittlief255I would hope it could reach 30 MPH!
THIS THE CHRYSLER PROVING GROUND JUST DOWN THE ROAD FROM WHERE I SIT. VERY COOL PLACE TO DRIVE. WE SEE EVERY NEW MODEL YEARS BEFORE THE MARKET DOES.
I started at Chrysler engineering in 69 and spent some time on further development. I look for me in these videos, i wonder if i would even recognize me? :-)
Thanks for being a part of legendary American history
I remember seeing one of these beautiful Turbine cars at the Chrysler Exhibit at The New York World's Fair 1964 1965. When the engine was started the sound was like a small jet plane and rather quiet during performance. As far as being a slow car, I disagree, it was average on speed. It was not meant to be a hot rod or a top speed car anyway.
Thanks for sharing your memories with us.
I saw the Turbine, but didn't realize its significance as a eight year old. Remember the local morning news show promoting the semi ownership and all those mail in ballots I filled for my moms. One of my favorite prototypes. Have a few scale models. Proud to see Chrysler Corporation.
Makes you wonder what Cuda's and Chargers would have been like as the Turbine engines evolved into performance cars, the Shaker would be renamed Jet Intake.
My dad drove one of these cars home and we tried to roast marshamallows at exhaust for kicks. We then went to Saginaw for a 2 hr drive and was stopped by a few state troopers so they could check out the car. The car was a hit at every gas station or intersection we were at. The jet engine was very cool sounding.
Was your father one of the chosen test drivers for the Turbines? Sounds like a fun drive.
King Rose Archives He was one of the engineers developing the car. He also test drove the car on on a new un-opened freeway prior to public trial. He brought the car home for several weeks at a time. It was a very cool car as well as the everyday cars made with the engine installed.
Steven Sparks I had a chance to drive one too. A friend's father was a dealer district manager for Chrysler and he had picked one up from one of the "test drivers" on Friday and brought it home before delivering it to someone else on Monday. Quite a thrill for a 16 year old!
I haft to know would it beat my 93 Subaru at ~27mpg?
McCormick1215 Even if the Turbine car got less mileage than your Subaru,the stylish one of a kind Turbine would beat out your simple and ugly Subaru in every other category especially style,looks,cool car,looks,impression,awe inspiring, fuel types. If I ever got to Jay Leno's garage I would hope he lets me drive his Turbine car after he hears that my dad helped in the program.
I still think this is one of the most beautiful cars ever made. Love the roofline and front grill........really wish that Chrysler put them into production....if that damn government bail out didn't occur, they would have gone into production in 1981 or 1982
Not sure they were actually headed for production. They weren't fuel efficient but an interesting concept and great Italian design. Interesting how Chrysler became wedded to Italian designers and is now owned by Fiat.
It was on the production schedule for 1981 based on the LeBaron and Newport/St Regis/Fury. But killed by the Government Bailout. It almost went into production, at that point, they had enough real world testing with M1 Tanks and programs to give it the green light....but The Bailout and Bankers in the Bailout gave it the red light, it's documented in numerous places on the web.
King Rose Archives It may have been built in Italy but the design was American. I don't recall the designers name, but he was the same fellow that did the 1961-63 Thunderbird for Ford (which you can tell by comparing the two cars)
Elwood Engel.
that was over a decade after they scrapped the program, they played with it a little later but nothing serious.
And you can get one in any color you like, as long as it's Turbine Bronze. What a beautiful machine!
Time for a 2020 model of this car.
The motor coast 10000 in the 60s
Yeah sorry.
I would like a Rubicon 4X4 off road SUV set up with such an engine. I know the acceleration is not like a powerful gasoline engine, but the torque at the rear wheels with this setup is amazing due to the gear-down from the high RPM's.
Back in 1963 my father was seriously looking in to getting this type of vehicle if he could have one. It was an amazing car that was far ahead of its time.
So the Batmobile could be real.
It's beautiful. I hope it catches on.
When I was in school one of the kid's mom would pick him up in a Chrysler Turbine. I remember at the Detroit auto show they had one on a turntable sitting on a white shag rug. They started the car and put the peddle down, the exhaust blew the carpet flat but there were no black spots on the carpet like you would get with an ICE.
Awesome machine. I still have model that I got from my Dad when I was a kid.
Man, just think what "The Dukes of Hazard" would have been if this went on the market. I feel cheated.
A turbine engine Has to have its blades perfectly balanced to achieve such high rpm smoothly. Ad marvelous as this engineering is, I dont think it would hold up as well to the shock of landing off jumps as a v8
60000rpm !
@@lattitude01 You're just saying that because it's true.
And to brake, Deploy reversing flaps! I live in Cold Canada, does it come with a remote starter?? Kidding aside, that's a nice looking car.
man do i want one so bad. thank you very much for sharing.
It was and is a stunning vehicle.
Closest we got to a flying car
.. netherlands are building flying cars..
Flying cars have been around for a while, they’re not popular since giving your average driver an airplane would make every day like 9/11 times a thousand
@BrapBrapDorito wrong that's not a flying car that's a car that can fly a car with wings doesn't even count its just a small plane what I mean by fly is true born hover car that's capable of lifting itself off the ground the next step after that is a true born flying car
There's a few giant drone style flying cars now.
this is amazing... I'm sure this turbines could use not gas but any diesel or naphtha oil too... too bad cars like this are not available
@tripasnipa ya anything from propane to JP-8
yanik ivanov it was designed to literally take ANY combustible liquid, such as vodka, perfume, diesel, gas, it shouldn’t take leaded fuel since it would clog the filters a bit faster and is a pain to reach them when needed.
My dad worked with a guy who at the time had one of these cars for evaluation. He took my dad for a ride in it and a torsion bar broke while they were cruising on the interstate going through Indianapolis.
They were so futuristic. But so much for the impressive demo. Thanks for sharing.
orange70383 These didn't have torsion bars, they had coils in front and leafs in the rear.
Every road is broken in Indiana.
I worked with a guy who worked at Chrysler ba k then who drove one for testing. He said they were great and should of been put into production.
Would've loved to see the instrument panel.
Who puts background music to this? We want to hear the car!
Chrysler did in the 60's.
I saw one of these briefly in Carlisle PA, when I went to school at Dickinson College during the 1964-5 school year. I don't know whose it was, or why it was there.
nidurnevets An interesting experiment.
King Rose Archives I agree. Too bad turbine cars never became the standard car.
I thought a turban was a hat. This is a turBINE car.
*Turbine is a FRENCH word.. its correctly pronounced Tur-**_bean_*
olsmokey, you are so correct.
doktorbimmer, I don't care! I pronounce it in ENGLISH as turBINE, as rhymes with entwine.
+Maunster! *YOU ARE WRONG!*
+Maunster! *Do you pronounce engine, _ enGINE_ Of course not, go get yourself an education you troglodyte!*
Im a certified car guy and tgis car is very nice it works it will run on anything
I heard Jay Leno say that his car can run on anything from salad dressing oil to diesel, why not bring this engine Idea back and let people run that type of engine off used oils from restaurants? Less needs for gasoline, actually gasoline is the last thing you want to run in this engine, it leaves performance damaging deposits in the engine...I would love to have this type of engine in a modern day vehicle, no oil changes, 1/5 the moving parts of a internal combustion V8, so less opportunities for wear and break down....I think Chrysler was on the brink of taking over the automotive world with this car, too bad they scrapped it, with cost of gasoline now they would have the car market..
electric cars offer most of the same advantages maintenance wise.
I believe they couldn't get the emissions low enough to make the government happy.
If they could power a car with septic tank effluent it would be a inexpensive fuel.
They could call it the Johnny on the spot jet.
Although a bit malodorous, the miles per pit stop should be quite satisfying.
Just another woudda/couldda/shoulda. Chrysler, being a small company, was lightyears ahead in engineering. How many people know they were involved w/NASA and the space/moon programs. It's just a shame it wasn't developed more so.
DaMagnumguy GM built car turbine prototypes many years earlier, concluded they were money losers.
Excellent
thx for sharing this
Thanks for subscribing. We plan to post more videos soon
Very cool! Imagine what could have been had Chrysler worked out the bugs
Surprised this never made it into aviation. A 140HP jet engine would be fine on 4 seat single engine aircraft.
small jets all ready have capabilities surpassing that
I wish this had caught on. This idea of a car with a jet engine is a fun idea for one very important reason... This car's engine can run on any liquid that burns oxygen. You can literally pour tequila into this car and it will run fine, that's what I heard they did in Mexico. But this design did not catch on because the only fuel this car could not burn was leaded fuel. Had this car come around about 10 or more years later, this idea may have caught on. 1974 was the year unleaded gas was introduced to consumers. I wish this idea would be brought back today. Having a car that burns almost any fuel type definitely serves as a convenience and an economic supporter. This idea really should be brought back. I don't see any real reason why it can't be brought back. This would be an expensive car simply because of the expensive Ghia style bodies from Italy... But I'm sure some minor design changes could bring the cost down. I'd like a jet powered car. Come on, don't say you wouldn't like on as well
Yanni Agrotis how do you reverse? Start - stop in traffic? Brake? Not to mention fuel consumption and emissions. Too many inefficiencies, no real advantages.
I mean, it's a tested car that was sold in US, I'm pretty sure it was able to brake(why would it not be?) and reverse.
Yanni Agrotis Even better would be nuclear powered engines like the Navy aircraft carrier ships...they don’t ever need fuel while deployed at sea.
@@giannisskoun yes it could reverse. Its a turboshaft engine. You only need the reverse gear.
Wonder if it would run off of water ? H20
hydrogen 2 oxygen
😒 well nobody will ever know
Helmet on the driver is a nice touch
Where are they now?
Thank you.
So why did it fail to get into full production in the end?
navnig Gas mileage wasn't great, it used a lot of oil and if you stood behind it you'd get burned. Wasn't a practical application for a jet engine. But they tried it and that's great. Ghia did a wonderful job with the design and the public ate it up.
King Rose Archives Not true that "if you stood behind it you'd get burned" - the car was specifically designed so that WOULDN'T happen.The more interesting cars were the Chrysler turbine...taxi cabs.Look it up. They could've made it, but the real drawback is that there neither was nor is a maintenance regime for turbine cars. If we couldn't support Wankel (rotary) engines as regular drivers (ask Mazda), how would we maintain a completely different motive power? Ask the NSU and Mazda companies......
The unsaid thing in this video is that this car had the power potential to literally smoke any contemporary car - with almost no detectable vibration, minimal sound, and it would do it for hours. And you could run it on any combustible fuel, from diesel to gasoline to Thunderbird wine.
caribman10 The Turbine was never intended to be put in production. It was strictly a test Vehicle. The cars were given to selected members of the general people to drive in regular conditions for a period time, as an experiment, then they were turned back to the factory for someone else to test. As I recall each car went to about three or four different users, each one for a period of about three months each. (I'm going from 50 year old memories here, I may be in error on details) The biggest problem while actually driving the car was poor acceleration. (And the Wankle was worse, the main reason people didn't like it was if you were going UP an on ramp, if was hard to get to freeway speed by the time you had to merge into traffic!)
+CDSquaredance I'm just going to guess that you never actually drove a Mazda with a Wankel engine? Everything you said was dead wrong. My brother owned a '73 pickup, my buddy had an RX-3 and another buddy had an RX-7 and they were all ridiculously powerful, especially compared to the garbage the US was putting on the streets at the time. The biggest mechanical issue was overheating the suckers and burning off the rotor-tips.
+navnig Just ask the Edsel. No market for them.
Define irony, in the 50s & 60s they put a turbine engine in a car to no avail. Now they put a turbine engine in a motorcycle and everybody goes nuts over it!!!!
No, the car didn’t have a turbine. It had a turban in it- If you listen to the commentary : that is an Egyptian hat, a much more difficult thing to engineer into a car.
What about the car vazirani shul concept car @ check it out
idle R.P.M @20,000 and $10,000 cost of engine VS $200 for 318 was a good reason to kill the project!
"Batman, Batman....They built a lazy Susan for your nuclear car"
whats the music?
Where was this tested??
i think the real reason turbines never made it was its multi fuel capability. they were afraid that farmers would quickly discover that they could make their own alcohol and sell it to city people for lower price than gas or diesel undermining oil business. rockefellers success at prohibition 50 years earlier would have gone in vain.
A good theory but George Steecher, one of the lead engineers on the turnbine project told me that it was about the money. "Chrysler was in deep trouble financially in '81. I think someone from the Department of Energy said why don't we show Mr. Reagan that we are trying to cut our budget and drop Chrysler's contract and so they did, they dropped Chrysler's contract. as I said, at that time Chrysler was financially burdened at that point, they didn't have enough money to continue, that was the end, it was terminated at that point for Chrysler," he said.
@@KingRoseArchives Also, each engine cost $10,000, wayyy out of reach for the average man.
Jay Leno has one
Wow, 75mph...!!!
Comes with it's own smoke screen on dirt roads!
Sad how this technology never really took off.
Message to video poster, what gives?. I share a information link on the vehicle & it's not in the replies. What gives ?.
Hey Larry!.....drive it straight to the crusher
Gas turban engine?
*Yup... sober-up and learn to pronounce your French words and smart people won't make fun of you so much.*
so it could run off Anything combustible huh Gas, Diesel, Vodka, Kerosene, Propane, Aerosols, Anything like that so God forbid you didn't have money foe gas No Problem just go to the pantry and throw some Vodka in it
I just wonder what Jeremy Clarkson would say about this. Assuming any running models still exist.
how fast
120mph at 60,000rpm
@-Charly- yup turbine cars have insane rpm
Atomic batteries to power turbines to speed.
And they went to the Crusher except for a few.... Bad Idea that cost Millions of Dollars that Chrysler didn't have...
100 miles to the gallon.... no maintenance......no wonder they scraped it
Actually the car had 20 mpg on the highway. And one major design flaw ive heard about turbine engines is that starting one while warm can ruin them real quick
Why they ever built turbine cars is beyond me. They do not perform at variable speeds. The one a friend of mine and I rode in at E.P.A. Ann Arbor, idled from memory, at 19K. R.P.M. My friend designed and built the Lowest Emission Engine in the world [still is after 50yrs.] took it to America and they didn't want it. Work that out. Ralph Nader may be able to tell you why. They could not [still can't] build an L.E.E. so they overwhelmed the public with these show horses. If the state of CA is going to ban all diesel trucks in the future somebody better get smart and listen up in a big way.
Why is he calling it a TURBAN when it is a a TURBINE
Because of had a hat of Egyptian headwear in it - kind of made of felt very difficult to make spin at high-speed and not burn
It's a aircraft engine
USA is not really free. New techniques, such as jet cars, electrical cars, Tucker, Tesla's inventions etc. were not encouraged because the ruling industrialists felt threatened. Instead the public was left with unsafe, ridiculously sized fuel guzzlers. The v8 engines produced a mere 65hp.
Simple economics killed off the turbine car...
Oh, no...running low on fuel. Better make my way to the airport tarmac to get some No 1 aviation kerosene for $35/ gallon!
they stopped production because emissions were terrible.... shame
Big oil probably canned it
meanwhile in russia: turbo nami 053 xD
My 2 cents about it: a radical new powerplant calls for a radical car. This one looks too... conventional. Also to light up public imagination and catch the market a flashy high performance sports car would have been far mor appropriate than a dull family sedan. Remember Tesla's first entry? It was a hot two-seat roadster.
Design was pretty far out for its day but they also wanted it be seen as something that was attainable. Tesla's first foray was based on a Lotus built by a couple of scientists who really were on to something. I rode in one and it blew me away. The torque and instant acceleration. What a blast.
It's not only about looks but also about performance. A 500-700HP turboshaft was a trifle even in the 1960's, any decent helicopter had one. To compensate for the poor fuel economy they could have switched to a cheaper fuel such as diesel, smoke not being a problem because turbines burn very clean anyway. And to compensate for the rather poor acceleration of the turbine, how about using a flywheel to store excess energy during braking and release it when needed, also helping with stability in corners by the way of the gyroscope effect? A turbine-flywheel hybrid with unmatched performance, imagine that.
I believe Chrysler stole the turbine car idea from the 1958 GM Firebird III
BMW built the first gas turbine vehicle in 1944.
It was failed because of emissions standards where not met, i bet you bring it back fuel it with hydrogen, then see if it passes the test, i say it dose.
Failed because it sucked compared to regular cars and the engines cost nearly a half million dollars each
@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke , nope, government stated it failed the emissions test as they used leaded gasoline , Chrysler killed the project because of the cost of production, that's was wrong with it. Even today they wouldn't be able to build it at affordable prices,
E.v's as expensive as they are would still be cheaper priced. I now a few people that built custom cars with a turbine they said it works fine, but the fuel price kills it. To gas hungry zero fuel economy.
@@richardst-laurent6660 The Chrysler turbine cars only ran on UNLEADED gasoline.
The federal government never tested the turbine cars for emissions.
EPA vehicle emissions did exist prior to 1971 (1972 model year.)
It would have also been exempt from 1967-8 California emissions as an alternative fuels vehicle.
TRUE, the cost to manufacturer the engines was prohibitive, production cost estimates ranged from $50,000 to 55,000 dollars each in 1965, about a half million dollars today. Those who tested and were surveyed indicated they were not willing to pay that much for the car as it did not offer any particular advantages that would offset the huge cost increase.
The program was terminated and everything scrapped to be written off for tax credits that could be used to fund the development of new concepts and vehicle models..
@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke then you need to go argu with those responsible for the documentary. They claimed it was leaded gas. Unleaded was enforced in the 70's the car was made & tested before that.
@@richardst-laurent6660 Sorry my friend, you got leaded and unleaded mixed up.
The Chrysler turbines featured a recuperator in the exhaust stream that would get fouled and completely plugged up by lead deposits if leaded fuel was used.
If you check any of the credible sources they all say unleaded fuel only.
Having said that I worked with Lockheed P-2 Neptunes
with Westinghouse J34 jet engines which guzzled 100LL leaded Avgas like a thirsty sailor without issues, the exhaust nozzles would be coated inside with a fairly thick layer of crusty yellow ash that was nearly pure lead oxide.
Of course, no recuperators to get plugged so problems related to lead deposits..
Cheers!
Had too many problems for a car, just not practical.
its so so suck
Ŵhy was it not productive?