Talk:Chrysler Turbine Car

Tone & Style
Okay, I placed a tag about writing style the other day and it was suggested I should discuss it on the talk page.

Just some minor nitpicks, really. In some parts the tone is a little unusual for an encyclopedic article.

"The engine can run on virtually anything with combustible properties" - A little vague, also sounds like a promotional piece. Maybe "any substance" or add "hypothetically" to cover fuels which were never tested.

"The car sounds like a giant vacuum cleaner" - Sounds like an account of the author's first hand experience. Maybe add "is reported to sound like".

"unexpected to consumers who were more familiar with the sound of a large American V8" - Sounds far too much like a magazine article. Maybe "who were accustomed to the sound of piston engines".

The next part starting "High altitudes..." should perhaps be in the past tense? eg "caused problems"

"for such a bold experiment" - Sounds like an opinion. Something more along the lines of "high-risk experiment" or "experiment involving considerable uncertainty".

"Outsourcing this step may have saved some money for Chrysler" - Is this stated in the source? You're not really supposed to "extrapolate" things like this on WP.

"This would be over $350,000 in 2012 dollars." - doesn't sound encyclopedic. "equivalent to $350,000 in 2012, adjusted for inflation"?

"Its most prominent design features" - According to who?

"creating a striking appearance" - Opinion and also sounds like promotion or a review.

"but that was only part of the story" - Sounds like a magazine. Maybe "but additional factors are also believed to have played a role" or something similar.

Fmc47 (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Good points. Give me a day or two, I'll either fix it or put the template back. Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I fixed a few of these, but so much of the article is unsourced I don't know what to try to fix and what to just remove. I put back your template and added Refimprove. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The article also states that the turbine does not need bearings. Well it might not need cooling systems and being rotary it does not need cranks or connecting rods but its bearings are all important and most certainly present — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.190 (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Timeline
Quote from the article: "Chrysler began researching turbine engines during the late 1930s, initially for aviation applications and primarily led by executive engineer George Huebner; Huebner was part of a group of engineers who began exploring the idea of powering a car with a turbine after World War II." This is self-contradictory, stating that turbine engines for car propulsion were being researched at Chrysler in the 1930s, while the first functional turbine engines (Whittle's and Ohain's jet designs) were only in prototype form in 1939--and also stating that the idea of powering a car with such an engine came after WW2, which ended in the mid-1940s. Anybody with access to the source, please check and clarify. --Stizzleswick (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Please note that the development of turbines by Chrysler in the late 1930s were for aviation applications, and the exploration of their use in automobiles did not start until after World War II. I believe this sentence is perfectly clear in this respect. Michael Barera (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I see the logic there, thank you for pointing it out a little better than the article itself did. I still find it less than "perfectly" clear, though. Not suggesting any changes are needed, just that the wording as is may be misleading to some. --Stizzleswick (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've tried to clarify the sentence by moving the offending phrase forward, and by breaking the sentence into two sentences. Also, gas turbine research was not limited to Whittle and Ohain, as other companies recognized the potential of the concept. None brought their ideas to prototype form before those two, but there was research. See Lockheed J37 for a notable example. - BilCat (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Does the edit made by make that sentence (now two sentences) clear, in your opinion? I personally like the changes, but I'd like your perspective. Michael Barera (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yup, that looks very good! Thanks both of you! Stizzleswick (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. The sentence was too long anyway, so bringing up your issue help to address that. - BilCat (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

root beer?
The opening paragraph described the color of Turbine Bronze as, quote, "roughly the color of root beer". Can we remove the root beer part? Ultimately, it's only an opinion and not encyclopedic. (And IMO very wrong. I've never seen a root beer anywhere close to Turbine Bronze.)  Elsquared67 (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * See p. 45 of Steve Lehto's book Chrysler's Turbine Car, essentially the definitive work on the Chrysler Turbine Car. The relevant direct quote is "'turbine bronze,' a metallic root beer color unlike any other paint commonly used on cars at that time." Michael Barera (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. I still never saw root beer that color, but the info is sourced.  (Gotta get that book one of these days.) Elsquared67 (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Engine specifications
@Michael Barera:

In a shaft engine, power is:

$$P=\omega \cdot M$$

I.e., Torque is:

$$M= P \cdot (n_s \cdot 2 \cdot \pi)^{-1}$$

In this particular case, P=130 hp = 97,000 N·m/s and nmin=36,000/min → ns = 600/s; thus:

$$M= 97,000 \, N \cdot m/s \cdot (600/s \cdot 2 \cdot \pi)^{-1} \approx 26 \, N \cdot m$$

If torque was 425 lbf·ft (about 575 N·m), then:

$$P= 575 \, N \cdot m \cdot (2 \cdot \pi \cdot 600/s)= 2167.699 \, kW \approx 2168 \, kW$$

This makes no sense as no car has so much power. Even if we assume that we have 575 N·m at idle (18,000/min or 300/s), then:

$$P= 575 \, N \cdot m \cdot (2 \cdot \pi \cdot 300/s)= 1083.849 \, kW \approx 1084 \, kW$$

This would still make no sense. Thus, the engine cannot produce so much torque. 425 lbf·ft cannot be correct. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Johannes Maximilian: Quoting directly from Steve Lehto's Chrysler's Turbine Car, the definitive book on this subject (p. 31): "The turbine weighed a mere 410 pounds and delivered 130 brake horsepower. It also generated a starting 425 foot-pounds of torque, putting it in the same league as Chrysler's legendary Hemi." The way this passage is written makes it clear that this is not a misprint. Furthermore, Car and Driver and Motor Trend both give the 425 ft-lb figure as well. Therefore, it appears that this figure is correct. Are you sure that your equations (which I must admit I do not understand scientifically) are applicable to turbine-powered cars and that they are not specific to reciprocating-engine cars? In the meantime, the references appear to clearly back up the 425 ft-lb figure, so I'm going to restore the article to that figure for the time being. Michael Barera (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see what the problem is: The article read "the engine produced 130 bhp (97 kW) at 36,000 revolutions per minute (rpm) and 425 lb⋅ft (576 N⋅m) of torque", which makes no sense (per above); Car and Driver says that the engine produces 425 lbf·ft at stall and not at 36,000/min. While this is at least not outright impossible, it still seems unrealistic:
 * $$n_{min}=P \cdot (2 \pi \cdot M \cdot 60^{-1})^{-1}$$
 * $$P=97,000 \, N \cdot m \cdot s^{-1}$$
 * $$M= 575 \, N \cdot m$$
 * $$n_{s}=97,000 \, N \cdot m \cdot s^{-1} \cdot (2 \pi \cdot 575 \, N \cdot m)^{-1} \approx 27 \, s^{-1} \approx 1610 \, min^{-1}$$
 * I.e., the lowest possible stall speed would be approx. 1610/min, which is low, considering that the idle is more than 10 times as high, but maybe Chrysler engineers pulled off a feat I'm unaware of. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)