Chrysler Turbine Car Running and Driving!

This is one of the few remaining Chrysler Turbine cars that actually runs. It sounds like a jet airplane!

[@kasteman1]

If Chrysler had a dedicated team working on this since 1960, we'd probably start to see some of them on the road. Given the simplicity of parts and the ability to burn nearly any kind of combustible liquid, this idea is far from dead, and i'm sure today's technology could solve 95% of the problems these early models faced.

[@erdingtown]

Our next door neighbor Dick Wanton worked for Chrysler. We lived in Lathrop Village Michigan a suburb of Detroit. When I was a teenager, Mr. Wanton brought home one of these cars and I got a ride! I still remember the experience. I am 70 now. As a kid with parents in the automobile industry, my Dad at GM tech Center, it was a great time for a kid. I remember that their were 50 prototypes built

[@DavidSmith-sb2ix]

A beautiful car. I'd love to have that. Incredible concept.

[@litllebk]

My dad tested this vehicle over in the states.. back in 62'. He still tells the story now!!!!

[@Sarcasticscum]

Well I guess that is the probably the most in-depth and true answer I've heard yet.. Thanks!

[@form109]

it would be great to see this kind of stuff developed with the kind of tech we got avalible today....this is phenomenal for the 60's.

[@kblackav8or]

Very cool. Turbines of that era were both crude and thirsty. A modern one would probably work but they still gobble fuel like crazy. A turbine electric makes a lot of sense. Can run on pretty much any liquid that will burn if you make changes to accommodate the fuel.

[@CoD6HModthedeisel]

I've always wanted one of these. The whole idea of it is amazing. If we had a more efficient turbine car, like Jag's new turbine car, we can get any alcohol factory to start making fuel. Alcohol is a renewable source, and we have the means to mass-manufacture it. That and hydrogen is the way to go.

[@kolbpilot]

One of the most unique cars of all time, from any country. Yankee know-how at one of its best examples.

[@jedgarsquink]

Apparently there are nuances to this. What I think we can say is that there's a tradeoff between size/weight efficiency and thermal efficiency for engines generally. With turbines, one can play the tradeoff over a wider range. One can add lots of stages, or a heat exchanger as in this car, or a steam turbine using exhaust heat. But turbines found in cars or helicopters tend to be optimized for size/weight.

[@safetychoice]

I remember this car well. The exhaust was so cool you could put your hand in it. Chrysler was really pushing this technology until the first OPEC oil embargo hit in '74 when the price of gas went up and gas mileage became all important. They simply couldn't get the mileage up to compete with piston engined cars. Also, the turbines were really expensive. They also had a turbine powered bus. It was so smooth and quiet, not like a piston engined bus. It's a shame they had to give up on it.

[@TomHunsaker]

Is there anyway you can post the pictures somewhere? They would be great to see!

[@gojoe283]

B-H I read in a magazine, the way to get quick acceleration: tromp on the brake when stopped, floor the accelerator to 50,000 rpm, then let off the brake. You'll burn rubber...Tranny was a 3 speed TorqueFlite auto but without the torque converter. It wasn't needed. I tried to build the Jo-Han kit, very detailed, but gave up. I got a used promo instead, as well as a re-issued Johan kit, and the YatMing diecast. That is really a gorgeous model.

[@jedgarsquink]

Turbines are thirsty, as a rule, compared to piston engines, and expensive to build. They also have a lag in power delivery, a bit like turbo lag, that is a problem in a car. They do have good size and weight efficiency, which makes them attractive for aircraft. The response lag is not much of an issue for aircraft. This car used a set of ceramic heat recovery units that transferred heat from the exhaust to the incoming air. This hurt the size and weight, but added thermal efficiency.

[@ward6226]

I was given a model of the Turbine by a Chrysler Dealer back in 65 while my dad was shopping for a new car. My dad ended up buying a 65 Mustang but the Turbine model was fun to play with. I wish I would have kept it in the box along with the 65 Mustang 2+2 I got from Ford.

[@vinyltiger]

I had a ride in one at the 1964 Worlds Fair in New York. The Ford Mustang was introduced that year at the fair also.

[@canolaskies5306]

ah man so much coolness.. Im still putting off buying a modern car as long as I can..

[@midatlanticcycle]

the 63 turbine car is actually quite beautiful in person. front end looks like the back end of a 61-63 thunderbird.

[@BaddaBigBoom]

It sounds like a hoover!

[@andybuzz2u]

Every jet pilots dream car! Hard to believe 50 years later a large number of these cars are still original and running strong. If the Chrysler engineers could have figured out a way to silence them down a few more decibels, they would be common place today.

[@yuandrew]

The recommended fuel for the Chrysler Turbine (according to the owner's manual) was #1 Diesel. #2 Diesel can also be used.

[@garydunn3037]

What an unusual car, just discovered it on Jay Leno's Garage channel. A very interesting concept, which I had never heard of until now.

[@markwalsh54]

I grew up around classic cars, during my childhood, I was at a car show or cruise night or whatever on every Sat. night & then in a motocross race every Sunday morning...ok...all that being said, I only ever saw a few of these things...one showed up at a Saturday night thing at this place in Natick, Massachusetts called "Nicks" in about 1996 or 1997. the other was at a really big commercialized car show called "the World of Wheels" at the Bayside Expo Center in Boston, MA

[@imasteelrose]

I was allowed to take a ride in the one Chrysler sent in the nose of an airplane around the world. My father worked on the project and he brought it home for us kids (me and 4 siblings) to ride in when I was in kindergarten. We have photos of him with the car in Saudi Arabia, London, Paris, India and all over the world. Chrysler sent each of us kids a model of the car. I still have mine.

[@tomlocascio]

I rode in one at the 1964/65 World's Fair and saw one on the road on 2nd Ave, NYC in 1965.

[@bfaulkner17]

I got to ride in one. My father's commanding officer was one of the people Chrysler chose for real-world testing of these things. I was about nine years old.

[@MakerMaxCorbett]

That is sweet! Bet it sounds hella scarey when it passes you. Similar to the Y2K motorcycle.

[@PianoGuy60]

Turbine powered supercar I think you might see. It would sell to the likes of Jay Leno and such who would buy it because it's different. Yes, a turbine - even the one used to power the Chrysler concept car 46 years ago - does put out way more HP for its size and weight than a piston engine ever could. It's great for aircraft, especially helicopters for this reason. There's a video nearby this one of a more up-to-date Toyota turbine concept car being driven, check it out.

[@KX6D]

I would love to own one of these cars!

4)Like all turbine engines, The engine had to always run at %80 or full throttle. That was an augmenter of consumption too. Because of these issues, the engine yield per fuel is too decreased. Minimum consumption was about 22mpg (17lt/100km) (Even with heat salvation of regenerator bolters) 5)Loudy Turbine noise wasn't suitable for city and ground usage

[@ToyKingWonder]

@blazer53 How did the "oil companies" shut this down? Turbines were an ongoing experiment by Chrysler since the early 50s. I have a book from Chrysler that shows the engine in a 50s Fury. Again, dollars drive everything. The turbine, with its associated lag off the line, was too costly and inappropriate at that time for passenger car use. The cars were destroyed so Chrysler did not have to pay import duties on them from Ghia.

[@mzhukov]

This looks like the one from the museum in St Louis. Theirs runs as well. They sometimes bring it to the Mopar event at the NASCAR track at St. Louis.

[@CoD6HModthedeisel]

Thanks for the video!

[@gwendolyn899]

back in the 60's these engines ran at indy.were blowing past everything on the track,so they limited the intake size.killing the whole concept.so much for new technology.piston pumpers are still here 45 years later.(tech. from 1900)

[@dallaspolo]

Didn't one of the remaining 3 go through the Barrett-Jackson Auction several years ago?

[@Tiberiumfreek]

This man is simply lucky. Love to drive something as odd as that.

[@MidwestPicker]

I saw one of these at the Chicago museum of science and industry. It may have been on loan. It may have also been a proto type or concept car because it didn't look like this one at all

[@itsmegp46]

@DistortedMannequin Don't forget the exhaust heat. Supposedly, the heat back there was so intense, it could easily burn a person's legs if he happened to be behind there as it drove by.

[@PursuitofSpeed]

@markhinr The main problem for all turbine cars (there were quite a few competing models for production) was emission-- they could not meet the new 1970s standards. This, more than anything, was what killed the gas turbine.

[@estebanramirez4788]

Batman technology brought me hear. According to the program the cars had terrible gas mileage. It's incredible that anyone even made a turbine car! Too cool!

[@SkaBob]

Ive thought those would be great for a hybrid. Runs on battery power around town, turbine powers a generator that kicks on at higher speeds and when the battery gets low.

[@JBofBrisbane]

A big problem with this was the throttle delay - backing off from 42,000RPM took about 2 to 3 seconds, and during that time drive was still being delivered through the transmission, rendering the brakes next to useless. Not the sort of thing to have to deal with if you need to stop in a hurry.

[@douro20]

Those things could run on any motor fuel available. Of course, it runs best on fuels which have a high energy content, such as diesel fuel, kerosene or jet fuel. Do any of you have an idea what they were running it on?

[@Sarcasticscum]

Why did they halt production on these cars? because of the expense of repairing them?

[@itsmegp46]

@odantoro I suppose we're at an impass. I saw a Chrylser Turbine cat at the 1964 New York City World's Fair when I was a teen. The car was running and we were kept well away from the car because of the heat. However, before killing the project, Chrysler made a few improvements to the exhaust system to dissippate excessive heat (Wikipedia for quick reference).

[@PursuitofSpeed]

@markhinr Yeh, the only downfall to the turbine was low-speed efficiency and emissions. While cruising fuel economy was very good for the time, city/mixed driving was abysmal. If I recall right, it was NOX emissions that were the problem, just a nature of the turbine, but other emissions were quite a bit lower than a regular gas motor. It was pretty successful in racing, until it was effectively outlawed.

[@PursuitofSpeed]

@markhinr Mazda still runs the rotary in the RX8, and has a next generation rotary in the works too. However, the rotary is inefficient everywhere (as far as fuel economy and emissions are concerned), where as the turbine's weak spot was low RPM. Though, a small gas turbine powering a generator that drives electric motors would allow the turbine to remain at an ideal speed. The Gas Turbine Engine: Design, Development, Applications by Jan P. Norbye is a good read.

[@kasteman1]

You could use the exhaust heat for a grill on your next tailgate party... So many ideas... lol

[@uticaplay]

@ADSLISKEWL Yes they did but you have to remember back then they did not have Radial tires (SAVES FUEL) the cars back then were made of steel no plastic or composite materials like we have today. They did drive one from NY to LA I believe average like 50 MPH (Consider the roads back then) and it averaged I think it was about 17MPG. With today's better alloys and CNC machines we do do far better.

[@form109]

this is the coolest car ever!

[@kblackav8or]

@stELjedi It wasn't oil monopolies. In fact in those days there wasn't an oil monopoly - mono meaning 1. The car wasn't all that practical. Probably very difficult to find a dealer who wanted to support it or had technicians who could work on it. I have been around turbine engines for over 20 years and think this was more of a novelty then practical regardless of what fuel you burned in it. Diesel would have been cheapest but average station on the corner didn't carry diesel generally.

[@JackFlemingFan1]

Beautiful car!!

[@xerokill86]

Subaru uses Boxer engines (same style as Porsche), which still has all the same moving parts that your standard car's engine has, it is essentially a 180 degree V-4 motor with standard pistons. The rotary engine is a completely different animal and has nothing in common with turbines or piston engines.

[@garrettwilliams1970]

Was this at a mopar show? I see an alpine white superbird in the back. Would have loved to see both of them.

[@gavinmatt6624]

I see 3 superbirds

[@romanmir01]

@Kingmerik999 you are insane. That engine is a turbine that can run on any fuel, including any oil, alcohol, kerosene, bio-fuels, anything with any energetic content in them. It provides 60,000 RPMs. 60 THOUSAND. It requires NO OIL CHANGE. The engine is much lighter than a piston engine. The engine is near 2 times the durability of a piston engine, will last near 2 times longer. In the 60s it was an amazing achievement. It is an amazing achievement now. It should be redeveloped again.

[@bertgold4654]

I am wondering why you couldn't build an electric generator based on turbine, that would accept any fuel, and then power the car via DC motor. This would permit a smaller turbine (undoubtedly), fuel flexibility, and perhaps additional fuel economy. The oil companies would hate it. But, it would not pollute and would be 'greener' than current day hybrids. Just a thought...

[@drosera88]

If I ever came into ownership of one of those (like that would happen) I'd put landing lights on by driveway and a spinning radar dish in my front yard. Driving in parking lots becomes "taxiing." My garage becomes "a hangar." I don't get out, I "disembark." The trunk becomes the "hold." Stopping at a gas station or rest stop is "a layover." A police car behind me with lights on becomes "Bandit! 6 o'clock!" You get the idea.

[@MegaShmoozer]

9 cars remain. Jay Leno has one, another one is also in a private collection. Chrysler has a couple, and a couple are in museums. This thing is idling at around 22,000 RPM!!

[@DanFrederiksen]

@nominalvelocity I'm not advocating the current few existing electric car products. I know what can be done with current tech however and it can nicely replace ICE cars. the trick is to make them light and aerodynamic and either have a small range extender in the car or blitz charge capability. say 200km range and the ability to recharge most of it in 15 minutes or less. and that's both technically possible and commercially viable. can be done and should be done.

[@BPoe07]

Actually, I've heard that was the problem. Gas mileage was on a par with that of a big V-8, it was a bit of a gas guzzler because as a turbine it burned fuel continuously.

[@computerguy5437]

A piece of history is what I call it

[@SpiritsoftheWolf]

wondering what the fuel mileage for that??

[@AthenaSaints]

@romanmir01 How much money is spend on maintaining the turbine engine each year?

[@QCprepper]

@CudaHemiTom they specially designed the exhaust system to cool the exhaust so it wouldnt burn the car behind the jet car...

[@alfie9876]

Does it have a hose attachment? It sounds like an Electrolux XD I've done some research on this car a few years ago. It's very cool and could be very dangerous if you know how to modify the engine to tap into all it's power :) I think that's why they scrapped them.

[@brianosnoches1]

Someone should do a kickstarter and remake this amazing car ... if only for pure enjoyment... but maybe with todays technology they could make it more fuel friendly( it already can run on anything that burns) someone call jay leno and ask him to get behind the idea - we could have a modern day jet car .. seriously who doesnt want that ..:) thumbs up if you want a jet car ..

[@gojoe283]

B-H Of course it looks like a T-bird...the body was designed by Elwood Engel, who worked at Ford before coming over to Chrysler in the early 60s. Engel designed the 61 T-Bird (and the beautiful '61 Lincoln Continental as well). Turbine Car fans nicknamed this car the "Engelbird..."

[@ManWithBeard1990]

If I'm not mistaken, the Charger was initially intended for a turbine. Hence the name. Shame they didn't do it in the end.

[@Milner62]

I wonder why every specs I found on this gas turbine engine says it has a redline of around 60,000 rpm. A turbine does not run at just one specific rpm. If the cass told you that the instructor is wrong. This vehicle didnt sell good because it was slow it took along time to get up to rpm when accelerating and it didnt have the power that people wanted. Thats why it flopped cause the ones given to people to test drive they basically didnt like it.

[@fireworkstube]

I wonder if a small turbine running on alcohol, which is easy to produce, to act as a generator for an electric car would be feasible. Using a turbine as a primary motive force seems to complicated but they do burn practically anything...

[@DennisChaves]

That engine is loud as hell, no wonder the project was abandonned. I live next to an airport, the planes overhead are enough, I wouldn't want more jet engines in the street!

[@TRX400atc1994]

yea thats how i am. im always around old cars. my dad trades alot on old cars. i Got a 1977 cutlass iv been workin on for awhile. And i also am into the hole MX thing got an 2005 Trx 400ex with the 440 bigbore.. But yeah intill i saw this video i never even heard of this car b4. yea i heard my dad talk about goin to the world of wheels once but i think he went to the one in Atlanta..

[@ORbZ909]

didnt these cars melt the asphalt if stood to long?

[@mthansen176]

That is sooooo cool!

[@centralnyguy37]

Does anyone know what kind of power these cars put out ? Or what the fuel economy was ? Just curious.

[@ASSHOLELA]

yes but performance in terms of the actual output wasn what i was mentioning. I was talking in terms of hp/ton output.The turbine car puts out twice as much hp per kg compared to piston, so if the turbine weighed a much as a piston that time, it would have double the hp.jay lenos' turbine only produces about 600hp which isn't enough to smoke the bugatti veyron. If sm1 builds an engine equal to the w16s weight, it could produce 3000hp ,get to 500kmh and 0-300 in less than 10s and own the veyron.

[@leapoffaith20]

@brownmachine6969 NO, it isn't, go look it up. Turbo charging or supercharging a car it the practice of inducing higher air pressure ( and therefore more oxygen) into the combustion chamber of a normal piston internal combustion engine. A TURBINE powered car uses a TURBINE engine. Hence the use of the word: TURBINE!

[@eskimo810]

wow that looks like the epitome of the "future car" from that era

[@VictrolaJazz]

From the golden age of automotive engineering! Ten years hence this would all be gone, replaced by government oversight and the bean counters! This was really the only time such a thing could have happened!

[@alexf4659]

What fuel does it run off? Jet fuel im assuming.

[@nominalvelocity]

@DistortedMannequin When you take a look at the common factory small block V8 engines (say, about 300 inch^3) of the late 50's and early 60's and compare the numbers to the Chrysler turbine, they just about come out even. Power, 0-60 time, 1/4 mile times, gas mileage...everything comes out too close to call. Chrysler made it heavy to give it a very luxurious feel, all of the luxury cars were built stupid heavy. Chrysler 300s were about 3900lbs, too. The one big disadvantage was expense.

[@nominalvelocity]

@DanFrederiksen If they ever make a reasonably priced electric with a respectable range, I'm with ya.

[@bertgold4654]

@DrMotorDude: Your comment appears completely irrelevant to my post. My point was that a turbine electric generator that could flexibly accommodate fuel inputs like french fry grease, turpentine, methanol, ethanol, etc., would be a vast improvement over current combustion engine/electric motor hybrid technology like Prius or Honda Hybrid. You don't need to drive the car with it; just pass a coil past a magnet. Maybe you hadn't noticed, but the internal combustion engine is in its last years.

[@randyueharamistrot1783]

WOW! I WANT IT NOW! is this one privately owned ? I thought Chrysler owned all of them, even the ones that were found recently as they were supposed to be destroyed but were in fact stolen.

[@PursuitofSpeed]

@DroidNoid While 1st, they were never put to the level of testing that the Chrysler was.

[@timsimmk]

How loud is this thing?

[@albear972]

The Chrysler turbine car. One of my favorite cars ever! "*****" all the way!

[@markhinr]

@philyt Kind of like the Wankel rotary engine, except I think Mazda is still using a variation of that motor? I had an RX-7. For such a light little car, the gas mileage was absolutely pitiful (19 mpg hwy). That was the last time I bought a car only because I liked the styling.

[@SuperVideHo]

:=))> IN The Early 60's - Got to Ride in GM's Turbine Car ~ My Good Buddies' Dad was a Speech-Writer for GM Execs & got to "Take-Out" (from being on a 'List' think it was) & Drive (Demo) The Turbine Car for a WeekEnd (?or week) & it was very KoooL & Yes Quiet & Purrring all-the-way~~~ok> Whirrring :=P ... it was a GAS!!! Etc. / thnx4comments! Nice to see Jay Leno's ride/s...

[@dunn98632]

i wonder if he has a title to it. Why there were crushed they were experimental and do to that dact they did not go into production and did not have a title or registration or even vin numbers. And by law they were required to have that stuff to be on the road and thats why they were crushed

[@moparmonster1965]

I believe the reason they didn't was because tungsten was required for the inner housing and the price made it cost-prohibative.

[@georgekalajdzic3190]

I wonder why we don't have this vision anymore? people back then were so optimistic about the future.

[@raymondleggs5508]

union pacific had 56 gas turbine electric locomotives the exhaust would get so hot it would damage road bridges they would go under and they were extremely fuel hungry and loud.

[@Jigsjigz]

oh and whats the mpg like?? stupid to ask but...

[@TRX400atc1994]

i hate to sound like a dumby iv been around old cars all my life and know alot about them but did dodge actully make a car with a turbine engine?

[@TheScafmaster]

There is a automobile restoration company in St Louis and the owner actually HAS ONE!

[@akrackenberger]

There is five in running condition, three are in museums. Jay Leno has one. Frank Kleptz of Terre Haute has the other one.

[@markhinr]

@BlueHeavenBound The government didn't force the cars to be destroyed. Chrysler received a grant from the EPA (the government) for further development, and a 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.

[@markhinr]

@philyt Thanks. I had wondered if emissions wasn't a part of the problem.

[@usmctanks1]

Unfortunately one of the problems with turbine cars is the slow inertial acceleration. it takes a while to spool up, a "flying 1/4 mile might be better, from a standing stop, not too good.