My grandfather was a turbine engineer for Chrysler. Must be a bummer when your lifes work to never comes to fruition, tho he bailed on my grandma when my dad was born so...
My father took me to Yardley Chrysler in Fort Lauderdale in 1964 to see and hear this amazing experimental car. Even at that young age I understood it was not going to show up on the road and today design engineering is a large part of my work.
Brilliant design. Well thought. So sorry that it never entered mass production. So many fuels... Imagine what this engine could have been after 10 or 30 years for improvements...
Perhaps then. Perhaps not now. Today steam engine would better fill requirements of euro 6 than piston one. No need for complicated accesories, high temperature fills it all. Egr, cataliser, silencer, NOx emissions etc, etc, etc...
Perhaps then. Perhaps not now. Today steam engine would better fill requirements of euro 6 than piston one. No need for complicated accesories, high temperature fills it all. Egr, cataliser, silencer, NOx emissions etc, etc, etc...
@@krzysztofwaleska Euro 6 sets very strict limits on NOx emissions. No legitimate manufacturers would even consider steam cars today just based on the cost, of course fuel efficiency would make them unsalable
Too bad turbines in automotive engineering didn’t stay long. Today a small multi-fuel turbine could be used as range extenders just like the incredible Ariel Hipercar, and with the current technologies in modern turbofans such as combined cycle and 3D-printed compressor could further reduce EGT, improve fuel economy and longevity.
Volvo did an hybrid with a (volvo aero sourced) gas turbine range extender, it was fully working concept that introduced the styling of the S80. It was in the 90's.
Oh it stayed. It's in airplanes all over the world, from giant 747 to the single-prop turbine powered aircraft. Also very reliable, hooked up to Garmin units, monitored by microprocessors, and all the rest. But if it's got 4 wheels on it? Nope, won't pass emissions. Regulate regulate regulate. If you have wings, you can pollute all day long. If you are stuck on the ground, nope, no polluting allowed.
@@exothermal.sprocketExactly, it's because airplanes are still allowed leaded fuel for reliability. Mazda is supposedly bringing back the Wankel rotary as a range extender. I loved this video, I learned for than I ever wanted to know about the Turbine cars.
I don’t know that you could rightly call it a failure. They tried hard to make it viable and it just wasn’t. I think you could call it a failure if it made it to production and flopped.
@@frederickmfarias3109 Not true, it was a failure. The estimated mass production cost of the engines was over $55,000 in 1965, more than 16 new V-8 cars or a new luxury home.
@@frederickmfarias3109 Sorry, but that was the cost adjusted for economy of scale and automation of manufacturing process. Gas turbine engines are extremely expensive to manufacture and a similar 130 horsepower non-flight rated engine would cost around a half million dollars each in today's value. Much too expensive for mass produced automobiles.
The car was made in italy, shipped in the US to receive the drivetrain. Can remember who was the coachwork, Pininfarina? Bertone? It's a very famous name. And the car is beautifull. So sad so many were destroyed.... Very painful to see... The efficiency they have achieved with these turbines are pretty amazing, even as of today. Chrysler did mass produce gas powered vehicle in the end : the M1 Abrams. But they didn't make the engine.
Yes, excellent point. Although the emissions regulations did not exist yet, NOx pollution was a factor in the cancelation, the Chrysler program was ultimately canceled because of the astronomical production costs of these difficult to manufacture engines
Very nice video as always, thank you! It is clear that turbines are unsuited for cars, but I've been wondering if *maybe* one could consider using a turbine as a power generator/range extender for e.g. an electric/hybrid truck (either semi, or else). That would retain many of the advantages of the turbine wrt piston engines, while alleviating many disadvantages like throttle response, etc. Just an idea :D
This tech used along with hydride tech. Seems to be a perfect car. Use the electric motor to handle the acceleration duties. While the engine slowly accelerates. The vehicle is moving at the requested speed. Then the engine recoupled to the drive. It could be electric with a turbine generator. The turbine only running to charge the batteries only, It could have a location for a 20lb propane tank. A 10 gallon gas tank, a 10 gallon kerosene/Diesel tank, and a 10 gallon ethanol/methanol tank. And s used oil tank, to akloe used and cleaned vegetable oil, or used engine oil to be used as fuel, Or the gas, diesel, kerosene could be one tank. And the methel/ethenol tank could be separate. Alcohol doesn't mix well with diesel,
Gas turbine engines are completely unsuitable for hybrid electric vehicles. Not a very practical concept, you need multiple fuel control systems for each type of fuel.
Gas turbine engines are completely unsuitable for hybrid electric vehicles. Not a very practical concept, you need multiple fuel control systems for each type of fuel.
This was the gen 4 engine but they had a gen 7 witch was smaller more effective an fuel saving and easyier to build but this engine was to good for the other Companys
Not a failure at all, as your video demonstrates, jet engines are the most efficient and powerful. And it worked. Chrysler was the greatest automaker at the time. But did not have the infrastructure to manufacture and market its turbine car. It’s a failure of having a regulatory regime on the U. S. banking system.
It was an epic failure and was never a viable concept. Gas turbine engines are completely unsuitable for automobile applications, they are too expensive and not fuel efficient at all, these cars averaged 5 mpg circuit and 15 highway, not impressive either with just 130 very sluggish horses.
The program was canceled simply because consumers were not willing or able to afford the staggering cost of the gas turbine engine estimated to be over $55,000 dollars!!!
@@WilhelmKarsten Chrysler had previously problems in costs in manufacture of costs of critical parts of the car, but in engineering innovation was able to bring it down. They could have done the same in manufacturing the car itself overall, and In economy of scale.!
@@frederickmfarias3109 Sorry, but that was the cost adjusted for economy of scale and automation of manufacturing process. Gas turbine engines are extremely expensive to manufacture and a similar 130 horsepower non-flight rated engine would cost around a half million dollars each in today's value. Much too expensive for mass produced automobiles.
Please stop saying "degree of celsius" 😂 I don’t know where the "of" came from but it’s not needed. It’s just "degree celsius". Most of the time people just omit the degree part and say something like "water boils at 100 Celsius or 212 Fahrenheit"
I believe Chrysler would have continued development of the turbine. There was concerns and pressure brought by the government, I believe that was more the reason then technology.
Regulations, regulations, regulations. That's why. Also, aircraft have furthered jet-turbine technology very well. Turns out if you have wings, you can pollute the skies to your heart's content. If you are stuck on the ground, nope. Regulations, regulations, regulations.
@@exothermal.sprocketNope, it a matter of economics and duty cycle. Gas turbine engines are more economical in commercial and military aircraft and their long service life spreads the cost of producing them over decades. Aircraft need high power output in cruising, automobiles seldom require high power output.
Fun fact the research and development that went into Chrysler's turbine technologies was one of the main reasons they got the contract to build the m1 Abrams.
Wrong! The AGT-1500 was designed by former Nazi Jumo engineer Dr Anselm Franz and manufactured by Lycoming. Chrysler had absolutely nothing to do with the development or production of the tank or the engine!
This was never an economically viable concept. The M1 Abrams scandal is not a good analogy.. The General Motors XM1 won the army trials, it's Continental AVCR-1360 Diesel engine beat the Lycoming AGT-1500 gas turbine in every respect. The Turbine is the biggest flaw in the M1 design.
@@WilhelmKarstenin the second trial of the competition, Chrysler heavily fixed their prototype and GM basically changed nothing. All of Chrysler fixes made their tank better
@@2003AudiS3 That's completely false, GM won the trials and the Army awarded them the contract. The Pentagon, under pressure from corrupt politians in congress overruled the Army's requisition process. The Army cried foul and demanded an investigation which led to the congressional hearings and one of the most shameful cases of corruption in American history!
@@2003AudiS3 *The US Army rejected the Chrysler and awarded the contract to the Diesel powered General Motors XM1.* *The rest of the story is one of the worst corruption scandals in American history.*
At that time the race was for a low emission engine. A friend of mine designed and built a steam power unit that was the lowest emission in the world and still is to my knowledge. Took it to C.A.where it was successfully demonstrated to the public, Senators from Washington, vehicle builders and car clubs. Did they do anything about it, NO. We went to a demonstration at ANN ARBOR M.I. by the major motor mfrs.. Disappointing to say the least. Around that time a German company was given by the government100Ml. Euros to build a steamer. It turned out to be a lemon. As for the turbine car we did not it as a winner . Sorry to say just don get, it They just can't get it.
still much much better than the ev cars being offered today ! you can literally burn hundreds of types of fuels in this car ! takes coal or petroleum products to make power to charge a tesla or ev ! destroy the planet mining materials to build the tesla these turbines were a great idea ! still are
My grandfather was a turbine engineer for Chrysler. Must be a bummer when your lifes work to never comes to fruition, tho he bailed on my grandma when my dad was born so...
My father took me to Yardley Chrysler in Fort Lauderdale in 1964 to see and hear this amazing experimental car. Even at that young age I understood it was not going to show up on the road and today design engineering is a large part of my work.
I don't know how you do it! Every single time I watch your video I'm glued to the screen brilliant video again pal.
That's pleasing to hear, thanks!
Brilliant design. Well thought. So sorry that it never entered mass production. So many fuels... Imagine what this engine could have been after 10 or 30 years for improvements...
Development continued into the 1980s and went absolutely no where, it was never a viable concept
Perhaps then. Perhaps not now. Today steam engine would better fill requirements of euro 6 than piston one. No need for complicated accesories, high temperature fills it all. Egr, cataliser, silencer, NOx emissions etc, etc, etc...
Perhaps then. Perhaps not now. Today steam engine would better fill requirements of euro 6 than piston one. No need for complicated accesories, high temperature fills it all. Egr, cataliser, silencer, NOx emissions etc, etc, etc...
@@krzysztofwaleska Your joking right?
@@krzysztofwaleska Euro 6 sets very strict limits on NOx emissions.
No legitimate manufacturers would even consider steam cars today just based on the cost, of course fuel efficiency would make them unsalable
Too bad turbines in automotive engineering didn’t stay long. Today a small multi-fuel turbine could be used as range extenders just like the incredible Ariel Hipercar, and with the current technologies in modern turbofans such as combined cycle and 3D-printed compressor could further reduce EGT, improve fuel economy and longevity.
Volvo did an hybrid with a (volvo aero sourced) gas turbine range extender, it was fully working concept that introduced the styling of the S80.
It was in the 90's.
Oh it stayed. It's in airplanes all over the world, from giant 747 to the single-prop turbine powered aircraft. Also very reliable, hooked up to Garmin units, monitored by microprocessors, and all the rest. But if it's got 4 wheels on it? Nope, won't pass emissions. Regulate regulate regulate. If you have wings, you can pollute all day long. If you are stuck on the ground, nope, no polluting allowed.
@@exothermal.sprocketExactly, it's because airplanes are still allowed leaded fuel for reliability. Mazda is supposedly bringing back the Wankel rotary as a range extender.
I loved this video, I learned for than I ever wanted to know about the Turbine cars.
@@bobhill3941 You know what else airplanes have in that JP8 fuel? Leaving lines across the skies every single day?
Not a viable concept.
I don’t know that you could rightly call it a failure. They tried hard to make it viable and it just wasn’t. I think you could call it a failure if it made it to production and flopped.
Most manufacturers developed gas turbine engines, Chrysler was the only one foolish enough to build a fleet of test vehicles.
@@WilhelmKarstenBulshxt!
It was a success! Chrysler did not have infrastructure to manufacture and market it.
@@frederickmfarias3109 Not true, it was a failure.
The estimated mass production cost of the engines was over $55,000 in 1965, more than 16 new V-8 cars or a new luxury home.
@@WilhelmKarsten Still not a failure, costs can be reduced by materials research which Chrysler was doing, and by economy of scale.
@@frederickmfarias3109 Sorry, but that was the cost adjusted for economy of scale and automation of manufacturing process.
Gas turbine engines are extremely expensive to manufacture and a similar 130 horsepower non-flight rated engine would cost around a half million dollars each in today's value.
Much too expensive for mass produced automobiles.
Thinking of Jay Leno. He probably owns half the cars youve ever reviewed on here. Haha
Multiple versions of each one lol
@@Minnevan maybe. I dont think he has many of those. Eastern block cars.
@@Grimm-Gaming fair point
Someone's gotta preserve history. Haha
You missed mentioning the original prototype turbine car: the Rover JET1 (1949/1950)
*BMW* was the first to build gas turbine vehicles in 1944.
The car was made in italy, shipped in the US to receive the drivetrain.
Can remember who was the coachwork, Pininfarina? Bertone? It's a very famous name. And the car is beautifull. So sad so many were destroyed.... Very painful to see...
The efficiency they have achieved with these turbines are pretty amazing, even as of today.
Chrysler did mass produce gas powered vehicle in the end : the M1 Abrams. But they didn't make the engine.
Elwood Engel styles the car.
Coachwork was by Ghia
The other killer was the high oxides of nitrogen emissions from the gas turbine that could not be easily reduced.
Yes, excellent point.
Although the emissions regulations did not exist yet, NOx pollution was a factor in the cancelation, the Chrysler program was ultimately canceled because of the astronomical production costs of these difficult to manufacture engines
You're the best VisoRacer! Thanks.
Very nice video as always, thank you!
It is clear that turbines are unsuited for cars, but I've been wondering if *maybe* one could consider using a turbine as a power generator/range extender for e.g. an electric/hybrid truck (either semi, or else). That would retain many of the advantages of the turbine wrt piston engines, while alleviating many disadvantages like throttle response, etc. Just an idea :D
Not a viable concept either.
Car jet engines chillin' with rotary engines thinking "where did it all go wrong?"
Another chapter of the land-going gas turbine powered vehicles that deserves a video is gas-turbine locomotives.
Neighbour looks over the fence: "Dude you left the engine running."
Turbocar owner pops his head up: "Nah ,I'm vacuuming the floor mats."
Ah yes. The Y2K motorcycle! Made in New Iberia, Louisiana. It has a helicopter turbine in it. They also made boats with that engine.
Jay Leno said he made the plastic front bumper of someone's car pucker when they got too close to him on his Y2K at a stop in traffic.
@@jameschristiansson3137
I would consider that a great feature of the design!
Motorsport Turbine Technologies, LLC.
MTT 420-RR has all kinds of claims. Would be nice to see some of those claims actually demonstrated.
@@exothermal.sprocket
There will be none of that. I lived there for a few months. It was a marketing scheme.
@@upsidedowndog1256 There's strips and tracks and places to test it. Why won't they?
@2:30
Removable front-end, like a drag car!
Two thoughts keep popping up.
Afterburner...
Supercruise....🤔😉
The Chrysler turbine car is genuinely the coolest car ever made!
My man Steve Lehto wrote a book about this car!
Thanks again :-)
This tech used along with hydride tech. Seems to be a perfect car. Use the electric motor to handle the acceleration duties. While the engine slowly accelerates. The vehicle is moving at the requested speed. Then the engine recoupled to the drive. It could be electric with a turbine generator. The turbine only running to charge the batteries only, It could have a location for a 20lb propane tank. A 10 gallon gas tank, a 10 gallon kerosene/Diesel tank, and a 10 gallon ethanol/methanol tank. And s used oil tank, to akloe used and cleaned vegetable oil, or used engine oil to be used as fuel, Or the gas, diesel, kerosene could be one tank. And the methel/ethenol tank could be separate. Alcohol doesn't mix well with diesel,
Gas turbine engines are completely unsuitable for hybrid electric vehicles.
Not a very practical concept, you need multiple fuel control systems for each type of fuel.
Gas turbine engines are completely unsuitable for hybrid electric vehicles.
Not a very practical concept, you need multiple fuel control systems for each type of fuel.
Magical video.😁
Every time I hear this car turbine engine turbine engine, it sounds like a 1940s Electrolux canister vacuum cleaner. ...but on a larger scale.
It's said u could run those on anything combustible shame they never really took off.
The production models only ran on petroleum
Ah so Christine was a jet engine too. Makes sense :p
This was the gen 4 engine but they had a gen 7 witch was smaller more effective an fuel saving and easyier to build but this engine was to good for the other Companys
oh, yeah, Laurence Fishburn Biker Boyz bike.
let's talk about that baby,
Not a failure at all, as your video demonstrates, jet engines are the most efficient and powerful. And it worked. Chrysler was the greatest automaker at the time. But did not have the infrastructure to manufacture and market its turbine car. It’s a failure of having a regulatory regime on the U. S. banking system.
It was an epic failure and was never a viable concept.
Gas turbine engines are completely unsuitable for automobile applications, they are too expensive and not fuel efficient at all, these cars averaged 5 mpg circuit and 15 highway, not impressive either with just 130 very sluggish horses.
The program was canceled simply because consumers were not willing or able to afford the staggering cost of the gas turbine engine estimated to be over $55,000 dollars!!!
@@WilhelmKarsten Chrysler had previously problems in costs in manufacture of costs of critical parts of the car, but in engineering innovation was able to bring it down. They could have done the same in manufacturing the car itself overall, and In economy of scale.!
@@frederickmfarias3109 Sorry, but that was the cost adjusted for economy of scale and automation of manufacturing process.
Gas turbine engines are extremely expensive to manufacture and a similar 130 horsepower non-flight rated engine would cost around a half million dollars each in today's value.
Much too expensive for mass produced automobiles.
@@WilhelmKarsten They already proved the suitability.
Alot of interesting cars were made during this time. Nowadays everyone looks the same. Keep on with the good work 😀
Please stop saying "degree of celsius" 😂 I don’t know where the "of" came from but it’s not needed. It’s just "degree celsius". Most of the time people just omit the degree part and say something like "water boils at 100 Celsius or 212 Fahrenheit"
18mpg isn't that bad at all
5mpg city is really bad
I believe Chrysler would have continued development of the turbine. There was concerns and pressure brought by the government, I believe that was more the reason then technology.
Nah, it's too expensive for Chrysler anyway
Regulations, regulations, regulations. That's why. Also, aircraft have furthered jet-turbine technology very well. Turns out if you have wings, you can pollute the skies to your heart's content. If you are stuck on the ground, nope. Regulations, regulations, regulations.
That theory doesn't hold water, production costs was the reason for canceling the program.
@@exothermal.sprocketNope, it a matter of economics and duty cycle.
Gas turbine engines are more economical in commercial and military aircraft and their long service life spreads the cost of producing them over decades.
Aircraft need high power output in cruising, automobiles seldom require high power output.
For something that sounds like a vacuum cleaner rolling down the road, what a cool little machine. Shame they never materialised.
✋🏼🇦🇺👍🏼
Fun fact the research and development that went into Chrysler's turbine technologies was one of the main reasons they got the contract to build the m1 Abrams.
Wrong! The AGT-1500 was designed by former Nazi Jumo engineer Dr Anselm Franz and manufactured by Lycoming.
Chrysler had absolutely nothing to do with the development or production of the tank or the engine!
Was it the threat of reliability affecting profits of the repair industry ???
Turbines used in a common American tank seem to prove this......
This was never an economically viable concept.
The M1 Abrams scandal is not a good analogy..
The General Motors XM1 won the army trials, it's Continental AVCR-1360 Diesel engine beat the Lycoming AGT-1500 gas turbine in every respect.
The Turbine is the biggest flaw in the M1 design.
@@WilhelmKarstenin the second trial of the competition, Chrysler heavily fixed their prototype and GM basically changed nothing. All of Chrysler fixes made their tank better
@@2003AudiS3 That's completely false, GM won the trials and the Army awarded them the contract.
The Pentagon, under pressure from corrupt politians in congress overruled the Army's requisition process.
The Army cried foul and demanded an investigation which led to the congressional hearings and one of the most shameful cases of corruption in American history!
@@2003AudiS3 *The US Army rejected the Chrysler and awarded the contract to the Diesel powered General Motors XM1.*
*The rest of the story is one of the worst corruption scandals in American history.*
@@WilhelmKarsten in the second trial the Chrysler was a lot better
It seems like a turbine-electric hybrid would be perfect for today's markets
Not a viable concept either
Fourth
At that time the race was for a low emission engine. A friend of mine designed and built a steam power unit that was the lowest emission in the world and still is to my knowledge. Took it to C.A.where it was successfully demonstrated to the public, Senators from Washington, vehicle builders and car clubs. Did they do anything about it, NO. We went to a demonstration at ANN ARBOR M.I. by the major motor mfrs.. Disappointing to say the least. Around that time a German company was given by the government100Ml. Euros to build a steamer. It turned out to be a lemon. As for the turbine car we did not it as a winner . Sorry to say just don get, it They just can't get it.
Ted Pritchard was a crackpot and a con man that embezzled from his investors and the government.
His car was a pathetic joke!!!
Wait why is the engine facing backwards in the thumbnail lol?
The car is in reverse? 😂
still much much better than the ev cars being offered today ! you can literally burn hundreds of types of fuels in this car ! takes coal or petroleum products to make power to charge a tesla or ev ! destroy the planet mining materials to build the tesla these turbines were a great idea ! still are
These turbines weren’t a great idea and probably never will be