No, the US government said that if Chrysler wanted a loan to save it from bankruptcy it had to cut costs.
Turbines did end up in military vehicles but they were not Chrysler Turbines.
Lycoming Engines makes them.
In the 45 years since no other company has decided to put turbine engines in consumer cars cuz it's a terrible idea.
Turbines are best when operating at maximum power. Which is nowhere close to how most people drive.
They are really inefficient in start and stop traffic. They respond really slowly when accelerating and decelerating. Like wait two seconds after you hit the pedal. Their output is hot enough to melt the paint on the car behind you.
We don't have turbines in cars because they're not a good idea and inefficient
A couple companies tried turbines in buses, but I'm not sure they are still in business.
A new thing now is to use a micro turbine to power an electrical vehicle.
Or because they know it's off limits. Since every single big "business" in existence these days depends on continued credit and other forms of government largesse, they all know they'll never get the financing needed for this tech.
A new thing now is to use a micro turbine to power an electrical vehicle.
Electric cars have been around for more than a century. They would have had this idea in Lee Iacocca's time. But some ideas are simply un-financeable.
Did you even absorb what DueProcessFan had to say? The technology had operational down-sides, which would have prevented widespread customer acceptance. Just because something is nifty does not mean it is good for service. Chrysler continued development into the 1970s, but was unable to eliminate the thorniest problems. The closest we get to it is the turbocharged engine, which is a hybrid of a turbine engine and a piston engine. The piston engine is inserted in place of the turbine combustor. This was done commonly in military aircraft from World War II to the complete replacement of piston engines by turbine engines.
And yet it was good enough for military applications. They don’t want us to have such high efficiency technology because then we’d be less dependent on the gas they happily charge us a fortune for.
No, the US government said that if Chrysler wanted a loan to save it from bankruptcy it had to cut costs.
Turbines did end up in military vehicles but they were not Chrysler Turbines.
Lycoming Engines makes them.
In the 45 years since no other company has decided to put turbine engines in consumer cars cuz it's a terrible idea.
Turbines are best when operating at maximum power. Which is nowhere close to how most people drive.
They are really inefficient in start and stop traffic. They respond really slowly when accelerating and decelerating. Like wait two seconds after you hit the pedal. Their output is hot enough to melt the paint on the car behind you.
We don't have turbines in cars because they're not a good idea and inefficient
A couple companies tried turbines in buses, but I'm not sure they are still in business.
A new thing now is to use a micro turbine to power an electrical vehicle.
Or because they know it's off limits. Since every single big "business" in existence these days depends on continued credit and other forms of government largesse, they all know they'll never get the financing needed for this tech.
Electric cars have been around for more than a century. They would have had this idea in Lee Iacocca's time. But some ideas are simply un-financeable.
Did you even absorb what DueProcessFan had to say? The technology had operational down-sides, which would have prevented widespread customer acceptance. Just because something is nifty does not mean it is good for service. Chrysler continued development into the 1970s, but was unable to eliminate the thorniest problems. The closest we get to it is the turbocharged engine, which is a hybrid of a turbine engine and a piston engine. The piston engine is inserted in place of the turbine combustor. This was done commonly in military aircraft from World War II to the complete replacement of piston engines by turbine engines.
And yet it was good enough for military applications. They don’t want us to have such high efficiency technology because then we’d be less dependent on the gas they happily charge us a fortune for.