Dodge Turbine Car Commercial Promo Film

[@donaldperrotta8514]

My dads good friend owned a Chrysler-Plymouth dealership at the time and I remember how excited he was when the Chrysler Turbine was first introduced !!!

[@tomcardon1364]

I was a junior in high school in El Paso TX when I 1st the Tubing car. It was a beautiful red color. Chrysler Corp had a lady in El Paso test the car, we were all jealous that we weren't chosen. It was the most beautiful automobile we'd ever seen. I wish Chrysler Corp had continued to build & market the car. Im almost 76yrs old & there's seldom a day that goes by that I don't remember that car.

[@stevensparks8712]

My dad drove the both versions of the car. The turbine bronze car was the best though. The long distance trips we took when my brothers and I were kids was exciting as the state police pulled us over just to look at the car. We drew crowds at gas stations with the sound. It sounded like a jet and was very cool to hear. I would like to own one today if I could. We were fortunate to be able to ride in the cars.

[@OsbornTramain]

Wow! Tell more! what else to you remember about these cars?

[@jblist100]

Thanks!

[@albear972]

Awesome! "*****"! and a favorite too! I bet the oil companies were against this car back then. No oil chages ever? And no carbon Monoxide coming out of the tail pipe? It may be worth looking into this technology again. Chrysler was truly head of it's time.

[@christof139]

I live in Detroit and I remember a Chrysler engineer driving the Chrysler Turbine around Detroit, Ferndale, Highland Park, Pleasant Ridge, Michigan.

[@eldo59]

Jay Leno has a great video on the Turbine Car.

[@TheElPajero]

@markfran11 As it was said in the video "The turbine will burn practically anything that can flow through a pipe", so the car could run 12 miles per gallon of just about any liquid. That's what was one of the main ideas, not needing to use gasoline. Steve Lehto has written a great book on the car called "Chrysler's Turbine Car", check it out folks.

[@AirmanCylon401]

Wow, I had no idea- I was basing my theory on my old snapshots that look kinda bluish. I know, whole different thing. Gotta say, I love all the old car stuff you have! My dad had several of those cars and is a fan of many others- his Rivieras were cool. Nice first car you had! A real land yacht. I miss those days. So..... does your shadow miss Rip Taylor? LOL!!! :)

[@andyharman3022]

I love this vintage auto stuff! This was very relevant in its time. A cross-country trip in a cutting-edge car on the new Interstate Highways. Post-war American optimism at its finest.

[@JBofBrisbane]

Australian motoring writer Bill Tuckey tried a Chrysler Turbine when one came to Oz in '60s - remembered as most frightening car he ever drove! Engine reved to 42,000 RPM and took 3 to 4 seconds to spool down, during which the brakes were useless. Forget emergency stopping. Took the car back, handed in keys and said "Never again!"

[@atomicbreaker]

Back when America actually had an innovative car industry.

[@JoMo91]

its amazing, we all talk about the technology we have today, but howcome we dont have cars like this today?

[@TheElPajero]

@JBofBrisbane One of the major reasons why the car might have misbehaved is that Chrysler flew around the same car all over the world within a few weeks as hundreds of magazine editors and reporters kept test driving it. Australia was the last or among the last places to get a look at it so it might have been pretty worn out by then. I'm rather sure it was in better condition when it left Detroit.

[@BaltimoreAndOhioRR]

@ RSBSTEADICAM " I figure there is still a monopoly that prevents common engineering sense from breaking through the market" Yes, that monopoly is called the US Government, more specifically, the EPA.

[@superallye]

That was awesome. Why can't they use that technology in today's cars as an alternative to electric cars?

[@OsbornTramain]

Thanks for the comment. There were a number of reasons why Chrysler/Dodge abandonded the Turbine engine. But remember, the Turbine isn't gone completely. They are used to power or M1 Tanks. This was a direct result of the research Chrysler did over 30 years. The big drawback is that they eat gas fuel. The M1 Tanks have to have a tanker follow them where they go to keep refueling them.

[@OsbornTramain]

Before the Goverment Bail out in 1980. Chrysler (Iaccoca) had pushed forward to put into production, a Chrysler New Yorker. It was to be available for the public. During the bail out, the many banks involved felt that the program was too risky and part of the deal was to kill the program. They at the time got as much fuel economy as a Standard New Yorker. This New Yorker Prototype is still owned by Chrysler.

[@creamyfilling102]

yeah i think some company built a car like that already. it was quite a while ago, but i thought it got like 110 mpg or something. those turbine engines are efficient,

[@mastermoarman]

interesting. how many did they wind up making? and with the coming of a cvt (constant variable transmission) it would be cool if the made something like this again.

[@pheenix42]

spencnaz...turbine/electric? YES!! It'd be the PERFECT setup!

[@travlr222]

Gotta' love it. 3,000 miles, 4 1/2 days, in business suits and chain smoking with the windows up...

[@spencnaz]

@10yroldcarlover what does the powertrain have to do with the body work? how does the cosmetic aspects of the vehicle have any relevance to what the engine does?

[@jayocular]

@clap5 lots of reasons...1, it was very sluggish take off,2, the heat generated by a turbine is immense and the cost of creating an engine bay that could withstand all the heat was very expensive and it wasnt practical.also the fuel milage on these thing is rediculously bad.the last thing i can think of is they put out a whole lot of heat out of the rear.youd have to stand at least 20 feet away to not get burnt up.i was a tanker on the m1a2 tank and they have turbine so i am familiar with it

[@expressview1]

Cool video, Why doesn't chrylser review this concept and make a modern version of it?.

[@OsbornTramain]

John Smith Because they transferred the Technology over to the US Government during the 1980 Chrysler Bail Out Loan Guarantee. The Chrysler M-1 Tanks were turbine (and still are) powered. It was a national security issue that this technology needed to be in the hands of the Government to ensure it's safety. NASA stepped in and so did Contractor General Dynamics. Turbine powered vehicles are used by the military now. We just don't see them in automobiles.

[@highoctanephotos]

one of the reasons given for not going into production with this car was its high fuel consumption... the ability to burn pretty much anything, however, is something that was probably not a major consideration back then....

[@moparjim63]

they look like 1963 polara 500 taillights. makes it unique, like all turbine prototypes.

[@mrjustin5]

I read in a car and driver BOOK (1990 I believe) about this Turbine powered car. For some stupid reason dodge abandoned this car design. It took something like 22 seconds to get up to 60MPH. The RPMs went up to 60,000+. Amazing that it ran on so many types of fuel. IMAGINE A turbine top car of TODAY?! You could run it on anything with todays high fuel prices. TIME TO REINVENT THE AUTOMOBILE!

[@highfuturamic]

the sky is yellow

[@OsbornTramain]

They use them in the military in Tanks on the battle field....the real problem is that they don't have good fuel consumption. They simply can use all types of fuels.....but just a lot of it. A conventional engine is more fuel friendly. Tanks on the battle field are followed by tanker trucks ready to fill them up as they make military progress.

[@jerryg50]

If this type of engine was available, I would like to have an off-road SUV 4X4 with it. I can use this for severe winter storm weather, and hard road conditions here in Northern Quebec. A Jeep Rubicon would be ideal with this type of engine.

[@Jthumper]

the car that was almsot 100 years ahead of its time...

[@66Beanshit]

Yeah, but we had the 15-years-ahead-of-its' time Avro Arrow, which shows Canadian engineering innovation--and the out-of-the-box thinking behind it--can stand with ANYONE, and stand above most. Thanks, mate, I'll happily continue to do so!

[@Jaybird248]

Turbines are great for steady state operation, as in an airliner cruising at 500 mph. But they are not good for constant changes of speed as in automotive operation. They need to spool up, slowing acceleration, and they freewheel down, making braking harder. The materials to build them are also very expensive. All told, they're great for flying NY to LA, but not for the trip to the supermarket.

[@thrummer1953]

How about a turbine -electric hybrid?

[@spencnaz]

Now a turbine/electric hybrid would be perfect. Just have that turbine humming along at a constant speed and get all the torque you want with the electric drive! Multifuel capability and lower emissions? Sign me up! I'll run that thing on my homebrew biodiesel!

[@rrusston2]

Actually it would run on several fuels but it would not give good service on anything but the fuel it was trimmed for, be it unleaded gasoline, kerosene, or diesel fuel. Alcohols were rough on the fuel system as the materials were made for petroleum fuels. Leaded gasoline was also troublesome on the regenerators. A piston gasoline engine will run on alcohols just as well with minor modifications. It isn't economic which is why no one does it, unless the gummint subsidizes it.

[@manoman0]

1) how did they reverse? 2) what if you stood behind the car as it accelerated?

[@moparmonster1965]

Shouldn't the Sopranos theme be playing when they're on the NJ turnpike?

[@Oddman1980]

There were problems with manufacturing cost, first and foremost. It's tricky to make a gas turbine accelerate like a reciprocating engine. Also, you have lots of very hot exhaust. Lastly, people didn't care for the "shop-vac" sound, cars at the time had V-8's.

[@Sjanzo]

these engines had a freepower turbine, just like helicopters. They did drive the rear wheels, not by air thrust. The air is cooled in the two long and flat exhaust pipes under the car, so you could freely walk behind it. The biggest problem i think, is the inefficiency (fuel consumption) of turbine engines. Today, the consumption is even a bigger drawback than in the 60's...

[@steffidude]

I love the 62 Dodge and Plymouth I alway wondered why Chrysler fired designer Virgil Exner.

[@ocool6]

the i think is from Chrysler but you cant relly tell because of the shape of the film

[@OsbornTramain]

@clap5 They did. All thru the 60's and 70's, Chrysler worked on this. There's much documentation. For 1981, Lee A, Iaccoca wanted to launch a Chrysler New Yorker that offered this Engine Design as an option. But, this was 1980 and the Government Bailed Out Chrysler but Gaurantteeing loans with Banks. Many of those Banks didn't feel comfortable with this new unproven technology. As part of the deal, all of the work was turned over to the Government (I think to NASA) and locked away.

[@mrjustin5]

army-technology dot com reports that the M1 tank uses depleted uranium (almost twice as heavy as lead) as Armor for the tank. Tanks are not known for their fuel efficiency. Lets try coupling that ol' Dodge turbine with a new Infinitely Variable Transmission (IVT) and a super light frame (Which could easily be mass-manufactured) and lets see what kind of fuel efficiency we get.

[@zsvdkhnorc]

So are piston engines. Frankly, I find the possibility of using any fuel enticing.

[@OsbornTramain]

@jayocular Chrysler Designed and built those tanks but only when they ran into finaicial difficulties in the late 70's were they forced to sell the Military division to General Dynamics. Those Tanks are all Chrysler.

[@thuggyman]

i wish this america still existed!!!

[@OsbornTramain]

@clap5 During the 1980 Chrysler Government Bail Out (Government gauranteed Loans for Chrysler with Banks) the technology was turned over to the Goverment. Chrysler agreed not to move forward with it. The Banks who loaned the money were nervous about the new technology. They did burn a lot of gas too. The plan was to use this engine in 1981 in chrysler new yorkers which were big luxury cars. It never happened.

[@RSBSTEADICAM]

The 55 pre-production cars were run on Tequila and perfume as stunts. I agree with the guy who wants to pair a turbine with an electric drive. I haven't figured that one out myself since it makes perfect sense. If RC modelers can have jets that fit in the palm of your hand why can't someone put that together? I figure there is still a monopoly that prevents common engineering sense from breaking through the market.

[@clap5]

Why did they stop the project?

[@OsbornTramain]

To be fair, American cars shrank significantly after 1973. Park any average 1980's USA car and they are very small compared to the 50's or 60's. With gas prices further falling in the 90's, cars grew significantly in size. They are actually bigger now than they were in the 1960's

[@kfs025]

WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AYE? why was this project abandoned?

[@rubbersoul420]

Wow the sky was yellow back then!

[@jerkyturkey007]

rubbersoul420 No, i think that was the nicotine on the i side of the windows from the chain smoking for four days, lol.

[@Junkyard-Restorations]

@spencnaz hello, im from wilsons body shop. your repair total is $37,758 with tax

[@AirmanCylon401]

I thought it was probably from age deterioration, but couldn't help myself :)

[@ObiTrev]

This technology could see a comeback. This technology, if made modern could be the most eco-freindly and fuel efficent vehicle on earth!

[@AirmanCylon401]

Everything was so YELLOW back then!

[@Suburbanhotrods]

what was the problem with the turbine

[@pvhn]

killed because people could drive on any fuel as stated in the vid. and there for people would have cheap fuel at hand everywhere and they wouldn't have to pay taxes on those fuels.. Gov loss of tax money and oil companies loss of fuel money that is why it was killed .... not for the tech or the expansive building cost or what ever they say

[@Mr.Worf63]

It was ahead of its time but plaged with fuel consumption and noise. I like the guy having a smoke while fueling , ha ha.

[@garywood9525]

One employee got to use a turbine car to test it, it wouldn't shut off in their driveway and pretty well melt the tar until an expert came to cut off the fuel. It can run on peanut oil, just like the engine designed by Rudolph Diesel around 1910 . Somebody tell VW and Benz that their cars don't need the dirty Diesel fuel when pure bio will do.

[@yourallbrainwashed]

600 MILES IN 12 HOURS? THATS ONLY 50MPH? well i guess they probably didnt have the interstates set up the way they are today huh? i dont think they were finished until to 70s?

[@thebattleforsoulsison5300]

They lucked out using diesel fuel in the cold weather , it could have gelled up and spoiled everything for them.

[@Lousybarber]

Is this the only Chrysler to make it across the country and not break down?

[@manoman0]

Oh, I see. Thank you for explaining. A very interesting technology but I do think it's not a very efficient technology for cars. But great sound, like EVs.

[@KerryManderbach]

They went thru Rolla and didn't stop at the Engineering School to let the students take a look-see?

[@Tamerplane]

Sounds like a jet in a car.

[@BrokeMoeHowardUHF]

😎👍🔥

[@jayocular]

@PAMAROSHOUSE i know they were used in the huey helicopters but never heard of chrysler using it...seems too big a motor for that car

[@OsbornTramain]

Nope, we can't, but we can invent things like KZbin so you can insult us.

[@spencnaz]

oh hell yeah!

[@polarablues64]

@spencnaz Jaguar built a concept car exactly like this.

[@perrymason8670]

polarablues64 I think it was Rover that built one.

[@OsbornTramain]

@atomicbreaker To be Fair, times are different. When you have to compete with third world countries with low wage labor rates, something has to give. Nobody can afford to to expensive research anymore because there's no proof that it will pay for itself and then it gets copied by India or China immediately. That's the problem with a Global Economy. Nobody in the car industry in any country can really afford to do research like this anymore.

[@MichaelsStereo]

Did he say will burn anything !!! no smog!!

[@vcval]

diesel one of the many fuels ????

[@11094DEREK]

Does this car still exist?

[@Toolaholic7]

No,Jay Leno has one

[@jerkyturkey007]

11094DEREK The Henry Ford museum has one also.

[@OsbornTramain]

thanks and ugh on my shadow joke....I have to tell you, I can't believe how un funny those johnny carson jokes all were! lol The cars have aged better than the humor

[@minimanst]

i bet petroleum companies really killed the turbine car

[@mrjustin5]

Runs on any fuel, from gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, to peanut oil. And with todays technology? What could be accomplished? After highschool, I expected cars to advance radically. WHERE IS MY BACK TO THE FUTURE MR. FUSION CAR? Running on empty beer cans and banana peals? Todays autos are ancient hogs, with fancy wheels and some chrome. After 100 years, no radical advancements. What a shame! Its more than a shame, its a huge, international catastrophe!

[@SquidgyMcGee]

you think smart thoughts

[@locobeaver]

Look up Toyota GTV concept

[@ShogunAutoworks]

any kind of fuel...... :o

[@4thstooge]

It was a bit underpowered, too expensive to produce & used a lot of fuel even @ 1962 prices!

[@badreality2]

1:12 Smoking at a gas station. tsk, tsk

[@zsvdkhnorc]

It wasn't fuel efficient.

[@mikehileman7672]

This is a sad statement on the auto industry. Instead of cheaply built , plastic clad , overly equipped electronics and overly priced , auto manufacturers strove to be innovative and make cars that stood out . Now , cookie cutter shoeboxes that rapidly depreciate and you need a 2nd mortgage to purchase new.

[@OsbornTramain]

Not sure I agree. I think there's a lot of innovation coming out of Detroit. My Chevy Bolt is amazing, the fact that I can spend only 150 bucks for a full year of energy to go 12,000 miles is amazing. All the safety features are amazing...warns me if I cross the line....automatically adjusts my high beams...I know that was invented years ago, but it's perfected now. I can use my car as a communications devise, with SAT access to the internet. I use my wifi all the time with my car simply parked on the driveway, using it now to type and post this. I find my Bolt truly revolutionary. GM did an amazing job on the car. The quality is impeccable...and it looks like nothing else on the road.

[@thebattleforsoulsison5300]

I owned one of these and they were amazingly ugly cars. It came with the small 170 slant six, cigarette lighter and heater, and that was it

[@DrBuzz0]

That is because you have no appreciation for fine engineering or construction. Big? Sure and why not. Who would rather have less leg room than more. Roads are big in America. No reason to drive around dinky little jokes. Ugly? Well, there's no accounting for taste, I suppose, but if you think the cars of 1950's America were ugly, I suggest visiting an eye doctor.

[@66Beanshit]

@10yroldcarlover Actually, no, that was the British. Frank Whittle, Google/Wiki, go.

[@66Beanshit]

@10yroldcarlover And whilst you're at it, look up the Rover gas-turbine experimental car--from 1950. Hate to break it to you, mate, but 'Murrikka didn't invent everything--nor actually, all that much of anything.

[@66Beanshit]

Apropos of nothing else whatsoever" Gas "tur-BENN" engine? God, can Americans not speak ENGLISH???!!!