Engine wars

**robin_micmac** · February 27th, 2010 07:00 PM

the use of gas turbine engines may have some advantages over conventional reciprocating engines, like lesser vibration due to lesser moving parts and its ability to be flexible on the types of fuel it can take in and its power to weight ratio.

but i think that aside from the fact that chrysler was in financial constraints during those days, they might have also looked deeper into the feasibility of a turbine engined production car and soon they abandoned it.

there are many drawbacks of using turbine engines on road cars. one of which is that turbine engines takes time to accelerate and decelerate which is ok for an airplane which usually operates on the same engine speed for long periods of time but it is the exact opposite of the operating conditions required on a road car where engine rpm changes a lot from time to time... another thing is that turbine engines operate at a very high rpm and will require huge amounts of gear reduction to match it to road going speeds and the tremendous amounts of torque it will generate will require such robust gearbox designs which will be very costly to make it reliable in the long run. also, the engine cycle efficiency of a gas turbine engine drops significantly if operated at a lower engine speed.
these are some of the reasons why you only see them on aircrafts,locomotives and ships most of the time.

i think one of the last attempts of using a gas turbine engine on a road car was the Range Rover fitted with a gas turbine engine in a series hybrid configuration (i.e. the turbine drives an electric generator which in turn drives an electric motor to get rid of the gearbox altogether. similar to those used on high speed locomotives) but land rover abandoned the project probably due to its feasibility.

im sure there are many jet engined one-off cars out there but i think putting it into huge volume production(say toyota or vw like volume figures) is not gonna be anytime soon. maybe they will begin to appear on some hybrid cars in the future.

**ghosthunter** · February 27th, 2010 08:16 PM

I still think that turbines in an electric hybrid configuration has a lot to offer.

If Chrysler was able to develop a mechanical driven system back in the 60s to 70s prototype car development, why couldn't we, with more modern materials & technology than 40 to 50 years ago, have better success than what Chrsyler did?

The only reason why Range Rover didn't continue their turbine development is that they are more financially incapable than Chrysler to carry through this level of development. Why do you think nearly all of the British car brands are now mostly owned by someone else or totally bankrupt & closed?

Can you imagine what can be achieved if the automotive turbine engine development was done by car companies like Toyota, Honda or Ford? Can you imagine a truck powered by a turbine-hybrid package that gives clean emissions, quiet, can burn any flammable liquid or gas as fuel, lighter in weight than the equivalent diesel version yet has more power at the wheels? It can even be adjusted to work as an electric generator when off-site electricity is needed at a remote location.

**robin_micmac** · February 27th, 2010 08:48 PM

land rover was already owned by BMW when they did the gas turbine hybrid. so i assume they have relatively the same resources as chrysler if not more.

it will be possible to see turbine engines on cars in the future. as i have mentioned earlier, car companies are looking more into it lately and it will most likely appear in a series hybrid configuration.

as of the moment, the reciprocating engine has still alot to offer us. even emissions have been significantly cut down during the last couple of years. maybe this is the main reason why they wont shift to turbine engines. maybe until they will run out of innovations to the conventional engines then they will stick to this as the main primemovers. tooling costs are very expensive to car companies and a totally new production line for building turbine engines will cost them ooodles of money

**sodamninsane** · February 27th, 2010 11:21 PM

Sakin i think the rotatry engine has a lot more to offer too. If only the gurus put more research into it we know the success this engine got with the rx's so siguro more research lang it'll click.

**ghosthunter** · February 28th, 2010 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by sodamninsane

Sakin i think the rotatry engine has a lot more to offer too. If only the gurus put more research into it we know the success this engine got with the rx's so siguro more research lang it'll click.

By it's own design, I think the rotary engine has it's own limits. The engine is too sensitive to pinging so you have to run it richer than it should to prevent it destroying itself. This leads to emissions higher than what would be acceptible.

**4JGtootsie** · February 28th, 2010 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by sodamninsane

Piston vs Rotary vs Boxer

Whats your pick guys?

Rotary for me is the nearest to a turbine engine.
Unlike pistons that reciprocate rotary engine are radial, less wear and tear.
Invest and refine or even reinvent it to run in all fuels then you have good engine.

**roberto_minosa** · February 28th, 2010 11:39 AM

Why do rotaries eat up more oil than pistons?

**ghosthunter** · February 28th, 2010 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by 4JGtootsie

Rotary for me is the nearest to a turbine engine.
Unlike pistons that reciprocate rotary engine are radial, less wear and tear.
Invest and refine or even reinvent it to run in all fuels then you have good engine.

Have you owned a rotary engine before?... the seals wear out faster than piston rings. Use bad gas with resulting ping, bye bye engine.