AOL Autos reminds us of some alternative concept cars of the past
What do all of the following vehicles have in common?
- Chrysler Turbine
- Ford Maxima
- 1962 Ford Seattle
- 1961 Ford Gyron
- 1959 Chysler Levicar Mach I
- 1957 Ford Nucleon
Each one of them could be considered an alternative form of transportation, depending on your definition of alternative. Two of these vehicles, the Ford Nucleon and the Seattle were to be powered by nuclear energy.
The aerodynamic Ford Gyron had only two wheels and was to be help upright by its built-in gyroscope. It was to be powered by a fuel cell system of some sort, which had yet to be designed.
The Levicar was to levitate using magnetic forces and was powered by a blower motor. Reminds me of the air boats used in swamps!
The Ford Maxima was shaped like a jet and featured three wheels, which is a design theme that is seeing a resurgence these days. What was once old becomes new again.
One of my personal favorites is definitely the Chrysler Turbine. This was a car which was actually tested and had a good chance of seeing production. According to the all-knowing wiki, 55 of the machines were produced in total, and 4 of those are known to be in working order today. I wish that something like this would be looked at again, as technology has improved the efficiency of turbine engines, and they are capable of running using many varied fuels, including straight vegetable oil and biodiesel. Maybe someday...
[Source: AOL Autos]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
len simpson 8:37AM (7/27/2007)
1965 NY world,s fair had mopar turbines giving rides on a short closed course, sounded like a taxiing DC 8
Reply
Tim 8:41AM (7/27/2007)
Take a look at this EV-1 with a turbine range extender. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=turbine%20ev-1&search=Search Turbines are REALLY noisy.
Reply
Stéphane Dumas 10:32AM (7/27/2007)
I wish the turbine car could be revived although then the concept-car then Jay Leno showed at SEMA last year http://www.autoblog.com/2006/10/31/jay-lenos-bio-diesel-turbine-supercar-isnt-a-joke bring us some hope.
Reply
matt 2:15PM (7/27/2007)
I saw a Chrysler turbine car at an auto show. It's not that noisy. Pretty cool!
Reply
Bob_Sheaves 12:38PM (7/27/2007)
Some people are using biodiesel and turbines now....like us, to promote the viability of various fuels. In the words (somewhat paraphrased) of Chico Escuela (Garrett Morris from SNL):
"Biodiesel y turbines have been berra, BERRA good to us!"
Best regards,
Bob Sheaves
CEO
catNET Incorporated
http://www.catnetsolutions.com/catnet/turbokart
Pics of the kart:
http://www.catnetsolutions.com/catnet/turbokart/kartprogression.php
http://www.catnetsolutions.com/catnet/turbokart/buildpictures.php
http://www.allpar.com/i/meets/carlisle-2007.html
Reply
Chris M 2:52PM (7/27/2007)
There are some good reasons why the turbine car never made it to market. Gas turbines for cars have some advantages, but the disadvantages outweighed them.
Among the disadvantages was slow throttle response, low fuel efficiency, and high price due to the exotic expensive high temp alloys and ceramics required.
Reply
Joseph 5:03PM (7/27/2007)
Here's a vid of the Chrysler Turbine Car.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QnKja2RClws
Reply
pamela lorraine 8:44PM (7/27/2007)
thanks for the link the biggest problem with turbine engines and the us army has found this out with the m1 abrams tank is that a turbine uses as much fuel at idle as it does going flat out.
Reply
SpinDaddy 11:08AM (8/04/2007)
Yes, Turbines use a lot of fuel at idle, because they must idle at around 50-60% of rated RPM, neccesary to keep sufficient airflow to support combustion.
So why not a small turbine, say the size of a turbocharger from a big rig diesel, used as a range extender in a series hybrid. Only run it when neccesary to drive the generator to recharge or directly drive the traction motors. Start it, then run it only at its most efficient rpm.
The biggest advantages would be simplicity in the ICE with only a few moving parts, and vastly expanded true multi-fuels capabilty. Also they offer tremendous power density for their size, reducing the overall size/weight of the powertrain. -SpinDaddy
Reply
Bob_Sheaves 4:57PM (8/15/2007)
SpinDaddy:
The MOST effecient turbines burn about .6 to .8 pounds of fuel per horsepower/hour. By comparison, today's gasoline engines burn about .39 to .42 pounds per hp/hr and diesels burn between .30 and .40 pounds per hp/hr.
The numbers simply do not work out for cost, fuel consumption, or maintenance in any combination, outside of the military design parameters.
Bob Sheaves
CEO
catNET Incorporated
http://www.catnetsolutions.com
Reply