Display:
The real-world chrysler turbine that I serviced as a kid (I was a passionate hot-rodder, and worked at a dealer station run by Texaco)was "on lease", like all the chrysler turbines" to the police chief of the city of Grandview, Ohio. The actual turbine was tiny, but the largest thing under the hood was a heat exchanger shaped like a beer keg that rotated through the exhaust and induction air, and preheated the combustion air as it came in to improve throttle response and fuel efficiency, as well as cooling the exhaust gasses. It got about 12- 14 miles to the gallon in actual use, put out about 140 horsepower, and was surprisingly peppy for so little listed power in so large a body-chassis (Chrysler 300-series).It had about a one or one and a half-second lag between throttle application and the onset of acceleration- disconcerting at first, but easily adjusted to.
The incredible thing about the car was it's simplicity. It was just a true gutless wonder. The total number of moving parts in the entire engine powerhead was under ten. During the two years we serviced it, we did nothing but change the synthetic oil. Once. Chrysler bragged about the near-miraculous simplicity and ease of maintenance of the car-- and then realized their mistake, and recalled every one, and destroyed them. Sad. What a sucky business model.  

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat Oct 20th, 2007 at 03:46:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I can assure you that no one in MY town got to drive one of those 50 turbine cars.  In fact, even though I closely followed this story, I never got to see a real Chrysler turbine until last spring.  I also had forgotten that in 1963, 12 mpg was acceptable gas mileage.

What I hadn't forgotten was how pathetic 140 horsepower was in those times.  By the time I got to my hot-rodding days in the late 1960s, you could buy a Chevy Nova with 375 hp.  No tires or brakes or suspensions, mind you, but enough power to rotate the planet ;-)

My guess is that Chrysler bailed on the turbine engine when they actually discovered how expensive it would be to produce.  As my university professor of transportation technology reminded me one day when I was extolling the future of the Wankel engine, "Just remember, the easiest, most reliable machining operation is the production of a round hole.  Piston engines will be with us a long time."  Even now with CNC mills, machining turbine parts is still hideously expensive.

And they would never have fixed the fuel consumption problem.  Even after 45 years of expensive research since 1963, gas turbine engines are only fuel efficient in high-altitude uses where operating rotations are fixed for long periods.

But when I was bouncing along in my dad's Ford station wagon in the early 60s, I would dream of the silkiness of a turbine powered ride.  The technological optimism of those days was utterly intoxicating.

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Sat Oct 20th, 2007 at 07:27:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series