Another look.

Crazy that the US government would make Chrysler discontinue work on it in order to get a loan.

140hp/425lbft in mid60s
0-60 in 12 seconds
Could run on anything combustible
Only 60 parts (lighter)
No oil changes
No co, unburned carbon, or hydrocarbons (no was problem, but met US govt req of time)
No antifreeze/cold engine start issues
Instant heat in interior

Further crazy they used some tech in the M1 Abrams

Wonder what could be done with today's tech.

Biggest problems with turbines is that they need a ton of fuel, a ton of air, and they make a ton of noise. Not that big of a deal for a tank that already weighs 60 tons to carry a bunch of fuel. And tank operators wear headsets for the noise. Since you have to move so much air through the engine with minimal restriction, there isn't a lot of opportunity to muffle the sound. The technology has progressed a lot, just mostly in airplane engines.

Why would it not need oil?

GAC06 said:

---

Why would it not need oil?

---

It needs oil, but doesn't consume/utilize near as much as a traditional vehicle ICE. Unlikely to need an oil change during standard life of use.

Oh ok. Turbine engines I'm familiar with all consume a fair bit of oil, although airplane engines are obviously a lot bigger than this one.

lb3 said:

---

Seems to be a better power plant for a hybrid than a direct drive vehicle.

---

Or an over-the-road vehicle.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/classic-cars/a33490/this-experimental-69-chevelle-is-powered-by-steam/

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Another look.

Crazy that the US government would make Chrysler discontinue work on it in order to get a loan.

140hp/425lbft in mid60s
0-60 in 12 seconds
Could run on anything combustible
Only 60 parts (lighter)
No oil changes
No co, unburned carbon, or hydrocarbons (no was problem, but met US govt req of time)
No antifreeze/cold engine start issues
Instant heat in interior

Further crazy they used some tech in the M1 Abrams

Wonder what could be done with today's tech.

---

Just wiki info, if anyone wants more history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car

AggieKatie2 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Why would it not need oil?

---

It needs oil, but doesn't consume/utilize near as much as a traditional vehicle ICE. Unlikely to need an oil change during standard life of use.

---

The AGT 1500 in an Abrams consumes about a quart of oil per hour of operation -- even at idle it burns oil.

Some drink more, some less -- but QT/HR is a decent planning factor.

Maybe the AGT 1500 is not representative of other gas turbines.

But assuming it is, if you reduced it's use by a factor of 10 to scale it to a car engine, the oil consumption rate of a quart every 500-600 miles.

There was a post on one of my facebook groups the other day where a deer ran head first into the prop of a taxiing King Air. It snapped the blade and stalled the turbine. Deer head was cut in half. They were $600K in repairs by the time they rebuilt the turbine and replaced the propeller.

Of course a turbine in a car wouldn't be built to FAA standards, but it would still likely be very expensive to maintain and repair.

Start up procedures are complex as well and if not done properly will lead to catastrophic engine failure.

Daughter, who did flight check (pilot who flies a plane just out of maintenance and signs off on airworthiness) told me that a prop strike on something as small as a sparrow requires an engine tear down.

This is on Air Force T-6

in a vehicle you don't have access to the intake though. There is a huge air filter front end.

from a reliability standpoint these are awesome. and can run any fuel, which is handy for certain applications.

biggest downside is inefficiency at idle / slow speeds. It's basically burning fuel at a high-rate all the time.

Quote:

---

in a vehicle you don't have access to the intake though. There is a huge air filter front end.

---

I'm missing your point. Is it that aircraft engines have to be torn down because a prop strike = ingestion of FOD?

As to your other point, that's why I said it might work for long haul trucks, or as someone else mentioned, running a generator for hybrid.

But all I've read about turbines suggests that the bearings/gearboxes/blades have to be high quality therefore, very expensive.

correct, nothing it going to fly into the intake of the jet engine on a car.
it can on airplanes quite easily.

With a prop strike though, nothing has to fly into the turbine. Just the shockwave of the strike on the propeller shaft is enough to cause damage. On a road vehicle there's all kinds of different scenarios that could cause that kind of stress.

In an auto the turbines are in a sealed compartment like an engine block. I don't see how the blades could get damaged by something except a major collision.

The weak link I would think would be in the air compressor.

Forester's point is that high magnitude, sudden shocks to the turbine system are enough to crack turbine blades, and these are not exactly rare on our highways and city streets (potholes, speed bumps, dips in intersections, etc). The real question is whether or not you have sufficient rotordynamic damping to absorb the shocks without causing significant deformation of the rotor. It can be done, but not cheaply, and vehicles are too expensive as it is.

Not to mention that while turbines are very reliable, they require extensive periodical inspections, at least on airplanes. The fuel nozzles are prone to getting dirty and giving a bad spray pattern, which will start creating hot spots on the internals, we clean and inspect them every 300 hrs. Every 1500-2000 hrs you do a hot section inspection, which requires pulling apart the power section to inspect every part, that runs on average $10-15k on a small PT6, but can hit $75k fairly easily on an old engine.

I've always been told it's tough for a turbine to compete in engine classes below 500 hp, the efficiency is just not there compared to internal combustion engines.