1963 Chrysler Turbine
As odd as it may sound, the Chrysler Turbine was not just a concept car but a limited-production model; 50 were actually produced and placed with Chrysler customers for real-world testing. Consequently, this was closer to actual production than your average concept car.
The idea of using a turbine engine in automobiles has been around for a while and the concept continues to be batted around and appears every few years in popular technology magazines. A turbine engine works by first compressing air, heating it up either directly or indirectly by burning fuel, and using the expanding air in a turbine which results in work which is used to both further compress incoming air and also provide either rotational energy or thrust, depending on the application. Regular aircraft engines are too large and emit too much heat to simply be placed in a car, so Chrysler's research focused on reducing the size of the engine and developing a regenerator to recycle hot exhaust gas back into the combustion chamber--thus increasing gas mileage and reducing the output temperature of the exhaust gases.
In fact, turbine engines have several advantages over internal combustion engines: They have far fewer moving parts which reduces maintenance and increases use-life; they can operate on a wide variety of fuels (including, legend has it, tequila); have much less vibration; cold-starts are not an issue; and are much more compact, light-weight, and efficient. Not to mention they produce massive amounts of torque for their size. Disadvantages? We'll get to those.
Chrysler had some experience with turbine engines due to some work done for the U.S. Navy on aircraft engines during the late 1940s, and the company continued working on an automobile version throughout the 1950s. After experimenting with several generations of engine designs and installing them in various Chrysler cars and trucks--including doing some coast-to-coast trips to test reliability and performance--in 1962 Chrysler announced that it would produce 50-75 turbine-engined cars for consumer testing. The first was delivered in October of 1963. Each user was to drive the car normally for three months, after which the car was sent to another user for 3 months for a total of 203 individual tests.
In all, 50 were produced, plus 3 prototypes. The body of the cars were designed by Chrysler and built by Ghia of Italy. They were 2-door coupes with four bucket seats (front and rear), power everything, and numerous styling cues representing its unique power plant. My favorites are the backup lights styled to look like exhaust nozzles.
The engine used in these cars was the fourth generation turbine, the A831. A few numbers:
-- 130 bhp at 3,600 rpm
-- 425 (!) lb-ft of torque at zero output shaft speed
-- Fuel requirements: diesel, jet fuel, vegetable oil, kerosene, the aforementioned tequila, etc.
-- Mileage tended to range in the low 20s for gasoline
Here is AllPar.com's description of how to operate it:
"To start it, place the transmission shift lever in the "Idle" location and push down to engage the "Park/Start" position. Turn the ignition key to the right and release it. Starting is automatic. Within a few seconds, the inlet temperature and tachometer gauges on the instrument panel will read about 1700 F and 18,000 rpm, respectively, indicating that the engine is started."
How cool would that be every morning?
So why have turbine engines never gone into production? Several reasons. Despite their overall simplicity, they operate at higher temperatures and tighter tolerances than normal engines and thus require specialized manufacturing and materials. And, despite their reliability, when they do fail it is often catastrophic. They are also generally noisier than standard engines, requiring fairly sophisticated noise suppression systems. There is also the problem of lag time between pressing the accelerator and the engine spooling up. Perhaps the biggest drawback is in fuel economy. Even though the engine itself is relatively efficient, it operates at a high rpm even while at idle. As a result, turbines will probably remain limited to their role in naval and large vehicle (and aeronautic) applications.
Photos courtesy of AllPar.com. For a lot more information on the Chrysler Turbine see TurbineCar.com for copies and transcriptions of some original documents and essays by some of the principals.
--Anthony Cagle
Bryan Frymire on August 13, 2008 at 04:52 PM
The Indy race car piloted by Parnelli Jones was a real world beater on the track. The other drivers called it the "Whooshmobile" because it would just make a whooshing sound as it passed the other cars like they were standing still. In the Indy 500 race (can't remember the year) it was killing the field when it broke due to some small part malfunction. A rules change the next year made it no longer competitive. They restricted the size of the intake. Booo.
Unlimited hydroplanes are a big user of turbine power. No more big Rolls-Royce V-12's in the winners circle for the most part now. I sorta miss the roar of the aircraft engines too. Oh well.
Fred the Fourth on August 13, 2008 at 05:05 PM
There was one of these in my neighborhood way back when. I was totally excited about it, and man did it sound cool - one might say, the EXACT opposite of the car I learned to drive in - a '49 MG-TC.
My father, a NASA pilot, was not excited. Guess he knew too much about turbine engines, esp. their exciting failure modes.
By the way, that 1700F temp is almost certainly the Turbine Inlet Temp (TIT), not the exhaust temp, though I'm sure there was enough heat left in the exhaust to melt the aforementioned snow.
Phil on August 13, 2008 at 05:08 PM
I saw this car in 2000 (plus or minus 1) at the Smithsonian in DC. It might still be there now. http://americanhistory.si.edu/onthemove/collection/object_1304.html
Mumblix Grumph on August 13, 2008 at 05:14 PM
I saw a movie about a mechanic working with these cars...it was called "The Lively Set". I found a link to it.
http://www.imperialclub.com/Movies/Lively/index.htm
Harvey on August 13, 2008 at 05:22 PM
Bill T. Yes I did. In fact if you look at the 64 T-Bird you can still see the same lines in the design. I remember the controversy that Chrysler had used the
Ford design for the 64 T-Bird to produce this prototype. True or not it is still
a great car for its' day.
Mochi Mochi on August 13, 2008 at 05:26 PM
Then there was the turbine powered Van.
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=-R2EmW-00d4&NR=1
do you think the flames are a problem around town? I'm not sure but I think they might be a little inconvenient. As Cookie noted... could be great in the snow.
then came the turbine powered mini bikes:
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=q0eSGqn2Bl4&feature=related
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=gbJvrC9Gejo&NR=1
in direct drive the startup does seem a little daunting.
Larry on August 13, 2008 at 05:27 PM
A turbine-powered series hybrid would have all of the advantages of a turbine without the drawbacks (except for noise). I think that's the next big innovation over the next hill past the series hybrid.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on August 13, 2008 at 05:33 PM
Direct-drive turbines were also tried in locomotives. They were unsuccessful for the same reason--the turbine is efficient at a constant speed, but not so efficient with variable loads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine_locomotive#United_States
There were turbine-electric locomotives as well; these were a bit more successful (especially the gas turbines on the Union Pacific), but didn't have batteries for "hybrid" drive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine_locomotive#United_States_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine-electric_locomotive#United_States
(My other hobby is being a rail geek.)
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on August 13, 2008 at 05:41 PM
How about equipment to reclaim the exhaust heat either thru some BMW-style closed-cycle steam generation or thermoelectric generator? Presumably such a thing would muffle turbine exhaust noise as well, though I'd still LOVE to wake the neighbors with my massive turbo whine...
Sarge on August 13, 2008 at 06:04 PM
"Perhaps the biggest drawback is in fuel economy. Even though the engine itself is relatively efficient, it operates at a high rpm even while at idle."
But wouldn't a small, high-rpm, constant-draw turbine be just about the perfect engine for a turbo-electric hybrid? They are very efficient when running at constant speed.
vnjagvet on August 13, 2008 at 06:42 PM
My dad, as a GE engineer, worked on the UP Gas Turbines during the fifties. Then he headed up the development of the turbodiesel/electric U25B which came out in 1960. I am not an engineer, but I think I remember that since @1948, most locomotives in the US are driven by electric drivers on each wheel.
Either the diesel or gas turbine engines drive a generator which supplies electricity to the driver motors. That way, the engine can be working at a constant speed (which it does well) and the electric drivers can do the work necessary to accelerate and decelerate the locomotive.
I think there are a number of folks working on that principle for automotive propulsion.
Ric Locke on August 13, 2008 at 06:45 PM
Turbines are not efficient. They are small and lightweight for their power level, but efficiency is right out the window. A clue for why is the discussion above, of the exhaust heat (and volume).
Efficiency depends basically on the temperature ratio. Temperature of the exhaust divided by the "working" temperature, with both in absolute (0=absolute zero) units, is the Carnot or theoretical efficiency. The whole motor can be LESS efficient than that, but never more so.
Working temperature for a turbine is the Turbine Inlet Temperature, the temperature of the hot gases hitting the power turbine. Exhaust temperature, well, obvious. Because of material limitations the TIT can't be very high (it melts the turbine) and because the expansion of the gases isn't much the exhaust temperature is pretty high. Result: small ratio, low efficiency.
In a piston engine the working temperature is the temperature of the explosion. The hot gases then expand anywhere from 8 to 1 up to 12 to 1, and the temperature goes down accordingly. Result: relatively high ratio, high efficiency. And because it only happens once in a while, the explosion temperature can be very high; the mass of the cylinder averages it out, so the engine never gets hot enough to melt even though the working temperature is twice or better anything the most modern turbine can do.
That's why rail engines are Diesels, and it's why turbine cars are not going to be common, even in hybrid form. The Chrysler Turbine was one of the coolest cars evah, but its main achievement was to determine that turbines were not the future.
Regards,
Ric
MS on August 13, 2008 at 06:55 PM
The next concept car of all time to hit the scene is the Nuclex. Its a privateer company experimenting with very small but powerful nuclear reactor powered vehicles;-capable of lasting 1000 years and transferabble from host body to new body as designs evolve.This vehicle will be fully monitored and controlled by the government to control terrorism attempts.This vehicle will be of all time foreign to the world as we know it by being constructed with a very lightweight; sophisticated;- almost indestructable material;and also by design,almost alienlike;-especially the names of the materials that are being used in building this prototype are considered out of this world.The Nuclex will be out for production in 2015.It is rumored that the designer/builder is a late descendant of the famous "Tucker" automobile who was assinated by rival car companies we now drive today.
Hucbald on August 13, 2008 at 07:00 PM
I CANNOT BELIEVE you didn't even reference the Indy turbine cars in that article. I saw every Indy 500 that a turbine car ran in, and those were some exciting times in auto racing. Today's watered down version with rules that prevent ANY innovation is boring as hell. I haven't watched an Indy 500 since the 90's as a result. The only cooler racing series ever was Can-Am.
i remember reading about the Chrysler Turbine Car in the Weekly Reader when I was in fourth grade!
Mochi Mochi on August 13, 2008 at 07:18 PM
Ric: as I remember from thermodynamics class the turbine was considerably more efficient than a piston engine. Real Life Piston engine efficiency is in the range of about 33% while turbine engines are in the range of 60% efficiency with theoretical efficiency being in excess of 65% and varying with operating temperature. Theoretical efficiency for a diesel cycle can be upwards of 50%. But that's theoretical not real.
One reason that Trains use diesel engines is drivability and massive torque. CookieTDO should be able to give more insight on train technology.
Since the vast majority of electrical power produced today is from turbines it is reasonable to assume that's for a good reason. I don't see a big effort to convert to piston engines in the power industry. Though diesels do get used sometimes for backup power in buildings, this is like a giant version of a honda camping generator and not really what we are talking about. Just on the basis of reciprocating elements and combustion cycles it is reasonable to assume that a turbine is more efficient since their are less point of loss in the mechanism and less loss or "down time" in the cycle itself. The key is to extract the most energy from the burned fuel and convert the majority of that energy into the right kind of work. We are not talking about Thrust Turbines, we are talking about power generation turbines. The relative temperatures of sizing of the turbine would have to be tailored to the application. Matching those two elements could be a very interesting and efficient system in terms of a hybrid electric vehicle.
j.pickens on August 13, 2008 at 08:02 PM
The most successful turbine powered land vehicle is the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank. The turbine engine coupled to an Allison automatic transmission has proved to be versatile and reliable. And the power to weight ratio is key to its success. New engine designs are being tested which will improve fuel consumption from 1 gal. per mile to 0.7 gal. per mile. The Abrams can burn almost anything. The US uses JP-8 jet fuel, to keep logistics simple. The Australians use diesel, as that works logistically for them.
Loren on August 13, 2008 at 08:53 PM
When I was in college, minor in automotive and diesel tech, math major, I worked in a local Chrysler dealership about half-time. One of these cars came through our smallish university town on its way to one of the assigned consumer testers. We set it up in a local parking lot and advertised it for the townsfolk to come see. The factory rep did an ongoing demo of it over and over most of two days and we housed it in our dealership at night.
In part of his demo he would balance a nickel on its edge on the engine and run it up to operating RPM without losing the nickel.
I seem to recall the fuel mileage was nowhere near 20 mpg but that was a long time ago. Gasoline was around .19/gal, diesel was cheaper, cars got 10-12 mpg.
At the same time there was a company named Turbonique down in Florida I think, that made small turbine utility engines. The major application was as a separately powered turbo-charger for a normal auto application. We put one into a new Chrysler 300 while the Chrysler turbine car was in town at the same time. The Turbonique required fuel at high pressure from cylinders installed in the trunk and carried via high pressure lines to the turbine engined turbocharger which had a single spark plug in the top. The car's
carburetor was repositioned near the turbocharger for feeding compressed air into the intake stream.
Well, somehow we loaded this turbine engine with excess high powered fuel, hit the spark plug and blew it up. Took out the whole front end of the car, blew out every light bulb in the place and a couple of plate glass windows. A buddy remembers the carburetor whizzing past his ear and complained of ringing eardrums for a long time afterward.
This was in the late evening. When the local newspaper reporter came around our service manager was on site already and prepped us saying "Don't anybody mention the word 'turbine' here. We have no idea what caused this car to blow up. Spilled fuel maybe. It has nothing to do with the turbine-powered car visiting in town."
D. Reed on August 14, 2008 at 05:14 AM
Drove one once - and rode around in one on a glorious fall weekend. Friend's Uncle worked at the White House in the early 1960s, got one for the weekend and brought it out to Springfield, Virginia. I don't remember it being loud at all. I do recall a high-pitched whine as the turbine spooled, but nothing that overwhelmed the radio (which was AM in the day). The exhaust was warm - not hot - and would make the dust move. As I recall, the engine went to 100,000 RPM, and looked like an upside-down pot suspended under the hood.
They were all the same color, and did look pretty cool. Nice memories.
Al Cavalli on August 14, 2008 at 09:04 AM
I, too, had the Chrysler turbine to drive for about a week and remember it well. The inquisitive stares I got at a stop light becuse of the "whine" of the engine! Most of all remembering my wide eyed 13 year old son Bob as I drove him around the neighborhood "showing off" to his friends. A great car, slow on take off but great torque! Also have a cast model..somewhere!I can't believe that was 45 years ago!!!
PapayaSF on August 14, 2008 at 09:31 AM
As a kid growing up in Detroit, I saw these several times. The throttle lag was said to be the main complaint.
One side note on turbines vs. pistons: the main reason jet airliners replaced piston-engined ones wasn't speed, but the fact that turbines require far less maintenance over their life, because they rotate instead of reciprocate.
Sillypickle on August 15, 2008 at 03:36 PM
I wonder how expensive fuel will have to get before incremental fuel cost savings will outweigh incremental maintenance costs...
That Car Guy on October 22, 2008 at 03:58 PM
I've only seen one Chrysler Turbine Car in person... it was at The Henry Ford in Dearborn, and I believe it to still be there. I built numerous kit models of the car at the same time Star Trek had new episodes. Many body parts in that kit actually worked, including attachable front fenders. Whoever engineered the kit must have loved the real car as much as I did!
SFC B on October 23, 2008 at 02:55 PM
I'm surprised no one mentioned the MTT Y2K, a motorcycle equipped with a turbine used in helicopters.
Gary Linger on March 03, 2009 at 02:17 AM
Check out the movie The Lively Set. You'll see the turbine car in a road race.
That Car Guy on March 31, 2009 at 11:06 AM
I saw another Turbine Car in a museum a while back. The Museum of Transportation in St. Louis, Missouri, has the only running Turbine Car on display.
They start it every two weeks. Sadly, I was not there that day. Might be an idea to call ahead and see when that moment occurs.