The Official Eleanor Roosevelt (And Anything Else Non-Topical) Thread

[Modelcar]

Firelock76:

I'm no expert on DC-3's but I agree with everything you said....

Lake Central Airlines used to fly them into Muncie here....and to Chicago.  Rode on them quite a few times.  Also from Marion to Detroit.

And did the same on a military version from Korea to Japan and back.

Always felt confident in them, even though they made all kinds of noise and fire flying out the exhausts {visible}, at night....

No Question....One of the best in many categories of all times.

[Firelock76]

Oh Lord have mercy, I loved the video of that DC-3 making those high-speed passes!  Greatest aircraft of the 20th Century!  Think I'm nuts?  Listen for excellence of design, ability to handle any task thrown at it, and especially its longevity and ability to still earn its keep nothing can touch it.  As long as parts are available there'll be a DC-3 flying somewhere, and may it always be so.  Thank you Juniatha for that great video!

[Anonymous]

Juniatha

 

As concerns best transmission for turbine power in vehicle application I think it’s the electric :  high transmission efficiency , widely variable torque / speed range while primary engine runs at suitably tuned rpm .

On the Paris Salon 2010 Jaguar presented a super sports car CX75 with a small gas turbine to load batteries and comparatively very powerful electric traction motors .  The idea is to have the gas turbine running at relatively constant output and rpm – where it’s most economic – and use batteries as energy storage for powerful electric motors .   Drawback of course is :  you can only use this superior motor power for a very limited time before the batteries – having to be the lightest possible of necessarily limited capacity – are being drained .  

 

 

Juniatha,

 

In your description of a turbine-battery-electric car, you mention that the drawback would be that it would quickly run out of power because of the battery storage limit.  But wouldn’t the turbine engine produce enough power to sustain the battery charge?  My impression is that the battery is just to smooth out the peaks and valleys of power demand while driving, and thus allow the turbine to run at a constant speed and load in maintaining the battery charge. 

 

Considering this basic hybrid concept of engine-generator-battery-electric motor, with the inherent advantage of the motor running at a constant, optimal power output: What would be the advantage of a gas turbine over a gasoline or diesel piston engine as the prime mover? 

 

I have heard a generalized statement that diesel engines inherently are capable of being made more efficient almost indefinitely, although at higher a cost of manufacturing.  And I also understand that this diesel potential is being explored in Europe, whereas in the U.S., there is relatively little interest in developing the potential of diesels.  Assuming that is true, why is that?  

 

I have heard two different explanations.  One is that U.S. emissions laws preclude this exploitation of the diesel.  The other is that the U.S. consumer market rejects diesels because they perceive them to be noisy, clunky, smoky, and old fashioned.  If the latter is the reason, I am surprised that that perception cannot be overcome.      

[Modelcar]

Checked out the videos....Enjoyed.

Believe the Convair 880 was the first commercial Jet I ever flew in....TWA, Chicago to Vegas. {1969}.

Loved the sound of the Connie's taking off...was beautiful.

And who doesn't love the DC-3.

The last 3 Connstellation airplanes that I saw were setting at the Kingman, Az. airport back in 1969.  Some parts had been "robbed" from at least one of them.  Do not know if any were flyable....It looked like one might have been, but don't know if it was.

[Juniatha]

Hi Folks

 

 

Some aspects can be translated into railroad use , some not , for instance RR train load is incomparably larger per 1 hp that in cars , even in trucks .  That is why RR engines have to be extremely sturdy and must endure prolonged high load running , yet must be more flexible than marine engines at the same time – locomotion is a tough job !

Gee – never thought of bringing drag racing to rails .    I think I would rather propose 4 miles instead of quarter mile because of much slower acceleration .    If in a drag competition of locomotives you would accept overhead wire electrics – there everyone else goes quitting , because the electric’s power output per construction mass of vehicle is unparalleled by any heat engine .   Actually , present day synchronous electrics , light engine running could almost compete with automobiles in the upper speed range , say above some 80 – 90 mph .   An acceleration competition between such electrics where electronic slip control has been taken off , with complete trains (incl passengers !) , could be interesting : winning largely depends on a sensible hand at the power wheel !   What might be interesting could be a kind of tractor pulling with diesel locomotives – either on a stiffening incline ( see how far you can go ) or in direct transcription with a tow car having one side on a sleigh with a moving load being brought forward to the sleigh side at a fixed ratio per yard towed .

 

My own ideas on automobile design are not much concerned with present day efficiency hype .    It’s all about down-sizing now , although a smaller engine is harder pressed on average , there is an advantage left because of lower inner friction and higher average mean cylinder pressure and generally hotter running – all combined yield higher mechanical and thermal efficiency .

Curiously , you may be reassured with downsizing American cars still keep double number of cylinders over European cars since in Europe downsizing already has turned design to turbo charged two cylinder engines for small cars .   It’s all but a craving to cling to known ways as the great gates of history are slowly closing in on oil-fuel based economy .

The term used for the CX75 in that TG article – ‘tree hugging’ – of course is a gross embellishment :  if the car is environmentally less polluting it is still far from protecting nature – or maybe I have misunderstood the term in this context when it actually it’s supposed to  warn a trip with this car might thoughtlessly culminate in a spontaneous ‘tree hugging’ posture involving some hefty re-sculpturing of sheet metal – which might tend to be less than forwarding in view of continuing the trip .

 

Regards

                              Juniatha

 

 

More great engine sounds of big gas guzzlers with lots of CID :

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dExlu488bM4&feature=related

Super Connie blue hour take-off on Air Show , Avalon , Australia

No , these are no lights at the engine pods – mind , flames from exhaust are white flames !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3PlWvoJyxw&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Super Connie night take-off , Avalon Air Show , Victoria , Australia 2003

Speaker (oh , shut up please) : “.. we will just listen to the sound of it , first of all …” (a-l-right !)

First Movement :

The sound of four demons howling ,

played by supercharged Wright R-3350 18 cyl radial engines at full throttle during take-off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyUJIC6I7ic&feature=related

Get more sound without turbo chargers : old goony bird low fly-bys – alive and kicking in South America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=FLMmdx7y5-4

…and yeeeeooowaaaahh more sound with four engines !  beautiful Red Bull DC-6 engine start and take-off

I think we’re all a bit nuts : gee , the noise of hot combustion gases blazing from engine exhaust is music to us !

And why not :  when engineering and craftsmanship have neatly combined to achieve a piece of (tech) art it is (tech) music after all – dunno what you say , I think if the growling of these radial engines don’t give you a shiver down your spine , you should be concerned about your mental livelyness *g*:

 

[Modelcar]

Morning J:

With {obviously}, so much auto data at your fingertips, you might throw out your thoughts on so many different auto models making the move to 4 cyl. engines, and many of them turbocharged....and still, some of them with two turbos.

Seemingly, to take the place of so many V-6 engines we've been using now for some time.  And even V-8's in some cases.

I would think to get the performance from the smaller 4 cyl. turbo engine, and when one uses that potential, the fuel consumption might be as much as the larger V-6 anyway.....

Might we take from that, the companies are going to the 4 cyl. set up to actually get the official fuel consumption rating to meet some new regulations on the way in a couple of years.....?

Meaning, keep one's foot out of the throttle, and be able to get the higher mpg rating, but still have the performance available to use....

I have a friend who drives an HHR Chevy SS turbo, with the 2.0L engine, and it will pull pretty hard when asked to.

Just some thoughts....

[Victrola1]

All the commentary of high automotive performance, can it be applied to steel meets steel at the flanged wheel? Develop railroad drag racing as a spectator sport and technical test bed.

Lay straight standard gauge tracks side by side and let the competition begin. Who will be first to reach the quarter mile finish line? The vehicle need not be a behemoth locomotive, but the roughly the size of  what currently races on rubber.

Any form of propulsion would be permissible. Internal combustion, electric, turbine, steam, military aircraft jet, if you can tie it down and strap yourself in, take off. There could be special classes of speedsters as with super fueled funny cars.

A fiberglass shell over the machinery mimicking a standard locomotive would make the tie to the everyday.  Think of it along the lines of racing street rods. For that matter, race smaller versions of such classics as a New York Central Hudson locomotive. It would be a marketing draw for screamer radio ads.

SUNDAY.. SUNDAY...SUNDAY.

See Daring Danny Dreyfuss in his Howlin' Hudson challenge Racin' Ramond's Piston Poppin' Pennsy Perfecto. The steam and sparks will fly.

When the Union Signal style "christmas tree" goes green, there shall be wheel slip. Crowds love the sight and smell of tortured rubber on bleached pavement. Let the sparks fly as steel on sanded steel seeks adhesion.

If the sport takes off, there could be practical spinoffs as from racing to family sedan. Who knows what shade tree mechanics may come up with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Juniatha]

Hi Folks

 

As concerns best transmission for turbine power in vehicle application I think it’s the electric :  high transmission efficiency , widely variable torque / speed range while primary engine runs at suitably tuned rpm .

On the Paris Salon 2010 Jaguar presented a super sports car CX75 with a small gas turbine to load batteries and comparatively very powerful electric traction motors .  The idea is to have the gas turbine running at relatively constant output and rpm – where it’s most economic – and use batteries as energy storage for powerful electric motors .   Drawback of course is :  you can only use this superior motor power for a very limited time before the batteries – having to be the lightest possible of necessarily limited capacity – are being drained .  

I felt tempted to compare this car’s energy character with a predator crocodile’s behavior :  the croco can be uncannily rapid and agile for a short time , surprising an antelope and catching it .   However , if it doesn’t make it , it has to let go and retreat to a restful posture for some time before it can make another assault or else it would overcharge it’s circulation .   Same with this super sport hybrid :  if it races for a Cavallo Rampante ( Ferrari ) and can’t quite make it – overtake it , that is – then pretty soon it has to ease off and retreat to a very sedate gait or rest , preferably , to reload batteries –  *g* .

I see , progress is indeed limited in this car …

 

Regards

Juniatha

 

 

Links to topgear article on Jag CX75 at Paris Salon 2010 …

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/paris-motor-show-2010-jaguar-cx75-supercar

Jag CX75 gas turbine electric hybrid super sports car

… and my comments on it

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/paris-motor-show-2010-jaguar-cx75-supercar?&pager.offset=25#commentsListBottom

page 6 with my first comment

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/paris-motor-show-2010-jaguar-cx75-supercar?&pager.offset=30#commentsListBottom

page 7 with more comments

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/paris-motor-show-2010-jaguar-cx75-supercar?&pager.offset=40#commentsListBottom

page 9 with answer by ‘sporty 883’ to me

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/paris-motor-show-2010-jaguar-cx75-supercar?&pager.offset=50#commentsListBottom

page 11 with my answer to ‘sporty 883’ and part 1 – 3 of 4 of my comments  

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/paris-motor-show-2010-jaguar-cx75-supercar?&pager.offset=65#commentsListBottom

page 14 with comments part 3 and 4 at last (I had lots of posting issue with IE8 in this thread)

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/paris-motor-show-2010-jaguar-cx75-supercar?&pager.offset=70#commentsListBottom

page 15 with answer to ‘darrian’

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/paris-motor-show-2010-jaguar-cx75-supercar?&pager.offset=75#commentsListBottom

page 16 with comments part 1 – 4 combined

 

For ease and better reading

 (without hyphens and the like turned into faulty question marks)

I copied my comments from topgear :

 

Juniatha commented on this article

at 07:29 pm on 30 September 2010  (page 6 of comments)

Well, the idea of using a gas turbine for car propulsion is not new at all. Chrysler tested turbine powered cars back in the early 1960s. They even came as far as building a number of cars, I believe 50 of them, to hand out to special customers for road testing. In the end the idea did not enter production status for lack of customer interest. The concept then did not include electric motors - impossible for power/mass ratio then, still heavy chunks today’s after all those marked improvements - but an automatic transmission adapted to the higher revving levels of the turbine. One problem was the high temperature exhaust gasses, but that had been solved in the end. The cars, based on a Dodge intermediate were appreciated for their smooth quietness. Because of light weight acceleration was good and offered great scope for development. =J=

 

Juniatha commented on this article

at 07:37 pm on 30 September 2010  (page 7 of comments)

@ samwise: Uuh, there is more to it, I'm afraid, much more! You are right as far as mechanical efficiency is concerned. It is a much more complex affair with thermodynamic efficiency at various load and rpm parameters. And it becomes just a trifle bit more complex yet with the jet as we consider "other" - i e cheaper, lower grades of fuel. Conditions ruling in aircraft engine design cannot be directly transmitted to road vehicles. I make an emergency stop here or else I would keep writing with no end in sight. =J=

 

Juniatha commented on this article

at 08:00 pm on 30 September 2010  (page 7 of comments)

(Part 1) -- Ok, the trick here is: They use powerful electric motors capable of high short time efforts, install high capacity batteries as energy reservoirs and use the smallest possible gas turbine reloading set to constantly run at optimum efficiency point to constantly recharge batteries. Theoretically, this cycle should go endless - or in fact as far as a fill of gas will support - 560 miles in this case. It would appear perfectly possible though to considerably shorten the range by heavy foot driving, emptying the batteries flat out - which should be no problem with electric motors that powerful. Then you'd have to sit and wait until the micro turbo recharging unit has built up a minimum of voltage - *g* (cont part 2)

(Part 2) -- So - no car for the race track. Its performance is rather like your average crocodile: from standstill it can make a few gigantic leaps forward and be stunningly fast on a short stint. But if that doesn’t get it to bite - erh sorry: beat - it's Porsche (or other) prey, then it has to let go and retreat to a restful position - *ggg* =J=

 

Juniatha commented on this article

at 07:15 am on 02 October 2010  (page 9 of comments)

@ sporty883    (Part 1) - You are sure right in that turbines can be thermodynamically optimized for a certain working range. Unfortunately though, that range near best efficiency is rather smaller that that of piston type combustion engines, namely diesel engines. With aircraft this is much less critical because after a short time of maximum output at starting, engines run at near constant output for most of the journey. Turbines *basically* aren’t’ all that complex, mechanically - the challenge is in heat loads, centrifugal forces fan contouring and other factors which combine to very high demands in material qualities - thus send production costs soaring. Other than in road vehicles, aircraft use direct thrust rather than torque - this greatly simplifies design, helps to minimize rotating mass and ideally suits the nature of this concept of engines. (cont. part 2)

(Part 2) -- The main reason jet engines were such a success in aviation is simply in their power to mass ratio. Go to any air show where they fly classic airplanes with radial piston engines and you will see that they take off like your typical goose: near horizontally - and that is with fire from the exhaust at full throttle! It's a long way to from having 4 x 3300 hp by 4 Wright 18 cylinder radial engines at your hand in a Super Connie - to name what may be considered the best and final type of piston engines planes - and, initially, 4 x 13.000 pounds (57.85 kN) of thrust by 4 Pratt & Whitney JT3 turbojets as in the early Boeing 707. The JT3 was the civil version of the J57, which was the first jet engine that had a dual-rotor axial-flow compressor which was the key to lowering fuel consumption over a wider operating range. The power unit later on got considerably beefed up to deliver up to 18000 pounds (80.1 kN) for starting power. (cont. part 3)

(Part3) -- Yet, even the power of the first version was an astonishing step forward over piston engines. Demonstrating the new jet liner to airline executives gathered at the annual convention of the international air transport association, then held at Seattle, test pilot Tex Johnston thoroughly knowing the B-707 prototype flew a roll to show what the new aircraft can do. He remembers: „Monday morning, I was called to Mr. Allen’s office (William M. Allen, then president of the Boeing Airplane Co). Mr. Allen asked me what I thought I was doing. I said: I was selling airplanes.“ Johnston explained it as a 1g maneuver, absolutely non hazardous, but very impressive. „His (Allen’) comment was: You know that, now, we know that, but just don’t do it anymore!“   *g*   =J=

 

Juniatha commented on this article

at 02:13 pm on 10 October 2010  (page 11 of comments)

@ darrian -- Chrysler was seriously investigating turbine car production. They built several prototypes based on series cars. They solved the inherent technical challenges involved with a gas turbine for car propulsion and finally built a small series of turbine cars with a special body type of their own. These cars were given to selected customers for road testing over a lengthy period of time. (cont part 2)

(Part 2) -- In the end it all came to nothing - be that due to lack of car buyers interest, be that because the rate of series production deemed interesting by management was not realistic. In retrospect, it would seem that Chrysler management has not often been up to the technical competence of that company as displayed in the 1950s - 60s - 70s. Management, it would appear, did not realize what special position the company could have attained by those technical advances achieved by their engineers. Instead, they opted for the conventional - in which Chrysler was just third place behind Ford and GM car mass producers. That meant Chrysler could never win a unique market position of their own. =J=

 

Juniatha commented on this article

at 02:16 pm on 10 October 2010  (page 14 of comments)

@ WolfiePeters   (part 1) -- Well, as I said: they’re using a small gas turbine running at optimum output all the time. In any concept of engine you always have to define a working range for optimum efficiency, a gas turbine is specifically sensitive in this respect. Its best efficiency does not necessarily have to be at maximum output, usually isn’t. Preferably chosen output range is in the upper level, say 3/4 - 7/8 of full output while at maximum effort fuel efficiency tends to drop. This is acceptable for a short time maximum effort. You ask what sort of driving can produce an average rate of energy consumption of 200 hp, especially with energy recovery from braking? Well, let’s just mention three points: -- (cont part 2)

(part 2) -- Well, let’s just mention three points: -- (1) - Take a look at some TG tests of an AMG Mercedes 560 or other super sports car being swung around on that airfield when the car gets shrouded in tyre smoke and before long the whole vicinity vanishes in smoke as if a tyre warehouse is burning down (guess they use gas masks and oxygen supply for driving). (2) - Energy recovery from braking - sounds nice, but it’s a long way from ‚recovering’ all the kinetic energy built up by acceleration - don’t forget acceleration and deceleration processes are both realized at less than 100 percent efficiency. -- (cont part 3)

 (part 3) -- (3) - With a car, wind and rolling resistance per mass unit are relatively high at speed as compared for instance to that of a train or, in fact, an aircraft. So, over covered distance, there is a substantial fraction of energy spent without any chance of recovery. Further, the most interesting driving with powerful cars is in the mountains. So, you have to add another post: energy spent in climbing. Look at the video of ‚World’s best driving road’ Davos to Stelvio, for example, a great piece of road, I can fully agree with the enthusiasm of the topgear boys! Driving up that road in a positively sportive attitude - braking, accelerating / braking, accelerating and so on, it won’t help batteries running down low that there would be a down hill section ahead after just a couple more miles up. -- (cont part 4)

(part 4) -- Just combine (1), (2) and (3) and you can produce a substantial consumption of energy per min, per mile as you please. There is no way around it: it’s the primary engine’s output, by factor of overall efficiency, that defines what energy per min or per mile you can spend on average. If that engine’s output is small, so is you average budget for your road show. I you want to go 560 miles: no squealing smoking tires, no whiplash get anyways, no short bursts of high speed runs, cut by braking at adhesion limit - just plain boring sensible smooth driving at average speeds as any 50 hp car would do ? and would do so at the same or better fuel efficiency! Asides from a certain show effect, where is real progress in that car?!? Show me, please. =J=

[narig01]

Weird questiion.What difference would a different method of transmission make?  I have always wondered if a Gas Turbine would make more sense with an electric transmission like RR locomotives use.  IE have the engine drive an alternator or generator. Then have that drive a electric motor.  

     Kind of like hybred automobiles.  From what I remember about turbines the main disadvantage is they are sloow to load up. Iln a hybred all you would be doing is running the engine to charge batteries and or provide a boast.

     I have been wondering for a long time.

   Thx IGN

[Firelock76]

All this talk about cars makes me wish "They"  would just quit foolin' around and bring back the Model "A"!

[Modelcar]

"Oops, they did build the Vega".  Yes, J, you're so correct on that.  I related {in former post}, the Wankel engined version that was about ready for production is what was stopped, just short of production.

{Item}...They did produce a hot rod version in production:  A Cosworth Vega....Pretty rare.  Believe that engine {4 cyl}, was just 122 c i.  But had overhead cams / 4 valves, etc.....Aluminum.  There is still one here in our area, and it can be seen in the Summer Car meets around the area.

All the points you relate in your post re: The problems with the Wankel certainly were there.  Especially the oil sealing situation.

If I remember correctly, one of our test vehicles was a 3 rotor version of the engine, and with the Vega weight, that made it a real hot rod...!

More engine than that car could handle.

Another experience I had with Wankel....In a German Capri.  Again, our action with it was transmission.  I experienced a rapid ride in that one on a Motorway in U K @ 220 Kmh.  After leaving off the throttle, the smoke poured out the tail pipe, obviously, {as your article said}, burning oil.  That car didn't handle that speed very well either.  Was glad to get out of that one.

Edit:  Turbine race car....Check out the data on the Turbine Indy car that just about won the Indy 500 back some decades ago...Entered by Andy Granatelli.  Believe it "broke" with just about 10 mi. remaining, while leading the race...!  And the part that failed, was a couple dollars in value...

[Juniatha]

 

Quentin :

Oops ?  They did built the Vega , see :

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2008/12/19/the-chevy-vega-the-worst-detroit-car-ever

However , maybe your sentence relates to Felix Wankel’s rotary piston engine not being applied .   (btw : [ger] ‘wanken’ means to waver , teeter (waffle) – quite fitting for the motion of the rotary piston which doesn’t exactly rotate but sort of wavers inside a space in the engine block of a shape called ‘trochoide’ , somewhat like two interweaving circles where the crossing points have been rounded off .  

A contemporary info motion picture published by NSU car maker for their rotary engine Ro 80 – at it’s time a really innovative car :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckOpGfsVr6U

As far as that it’s all fine and convincing – trouble was to be with the sealing , mainly with circumferential strips that were to isolate the three chambers (curved strips to the sides of the rotary piston were less critial : NSU forever kept laboring with materials and wear patterns , it proved extremely taxing to meet all the various requirements of heat resistance , dimensional trueness and mechanical wear resistance , demands on these sealing strips proved much higher those on piston rings of a conventional piston engine .  

To mention just two points :  as you can see by the motion of the triangular rotary piston , sealing strips ran over  circumferential wall at varying slanted angle of contact .   That caused them to develop a rounded contact tip which made for a very thin line of contact of sealing strip to wall that for low wear would ask for relatively low spring load  , actually , at higher rpm speed centrifugal mass force might have been sufficient by itself .   In contradiction with that the rounded tip shape provided for combustion pressure to cause an inwards pointed force on one side of the shoulders of the rounded tip and this worked against sealing , demanding counteraction by spring load .    Further , what was praised in the information picture as an advantage , namely the concept’s high intensity of power producing stroke i e angle of rotational movement against non-productive stroke i e angle of rotational movement caused problems with lubrication and heat dissipation – which again caused wear problems which were difficult to contain with consequential high demands on material characteristics and qualities . 

See a Ro80 featured on topgear in 1994 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TMgo7DfT9o

Intriguingly , it seems the Wankel engine concept’s obvious advantage of light mass and compactness related to output never came to fruition in car racing , or not as far as I know – maybe because using rotary piston engines was made illegal or rules were tailored to cause set-back severe enough to discourage the engine’s application .

Although Madza became quite successful later on in solving most all of the inherent mechanical problems , the rotary piston engine was doomed when it proved practically impossible to meet modern standards of clean combustion and high energy efficiency – which was an problem caused by the typical squeezed shape of combustion space and thus was inherently characteristic of the Wankel engine .   Even Jeremy concedes there is something special to the Madza RX8 with 1.3 liter 220 hp rotary piston engine :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRiPSlx8PxA&feature=related

 

Victrola1

>> Would this be the locomotive equivalent of the AMC Pacer? <<

Dunno – why , AMC never was as successful as EMD …

As for mass production as well as for relative horse power , each in it’s context , I think the early EMD diesels were to locomotives what the VW beetle was to cars :

A round nosed standard model mass produced in vast numbers – with an austere short list of options , except for colors – pathetically under-powered both in absolute value and in specific power to mass ratio , yet ‘economic’ if only you looked at it from a suiting angle – for a long time selling like mad to replace about any previous engine / car – for years with no ends an inescapable sight , a ubiquitous part of the scene everywhere and going all places in all kinds of utilization  – late models got their power pepped up with parallel decline of reliability – to be handed down to second and third users –  with a used parts scrap market – outer shape never changed until the model was dropped and replaced by completely new model with straight angular lines and various options of more powerful engines …

 

Narig01

Ooh , sorry – I usually think of jet airplanes when talks is of gas turbines ,

 

Tree68

               I looked up some photos – dunno why they always had this drive for making the body ‘turbine-shaped’ somehow , or rather :  shaped the way people were supposed to believe a turbine might look .   There even was a Formula One turbine race car some time in the Sixties – trouble was it took some time for the turbine to realize a ‘floored’ :  power was abounding by the end of a straight or in the middle of a chicane – when it was no more exactly wanted .  A driver had to ‘plan ahead’ and that would seem up-set natural car handling .  

 

Regards

                        Juniatha

[tree68]

narig01

Also the turbine vehicle i got to drive for 15 minutes in the army, an M 1 Abrams Main Battle Tank.

GM built several turbine-based concept cars in the fifties - the "Firebirds."

The first two had very distinct jet-like styling.  I had a model of the Firebird I.  The last came closer to "normal" styling, but it was still very futuristic.  It has a single stick for driving it - forward to go, back to stop, left and right to go, well, left and right.  Reverse required a quarter turn of the stick itself.

Alas, I was far to young to drive it at the time, but according to my father (who worked at GM's Proving Grounds at the time), a number of staffers, including secretaries, got to drive it around GMPG.  I understand it was quite the lark.

It made an appearance (on a flatbed) in Milford's 125th Anniversary celebration parade in 1959 - the only time I saw it in person.

[narig01]

The Pacers had an interesting nick name especially if it was silver  "MOON BUGGY"

 

Also the turbine vehicle i got to drive for 15 minutes in the army, an M 1 Abrams Main Battle Tank.

Thx IGN

[Victrola1]

The Electro-Motive Division's (EMD) BL2 would be the stepping-stone for the company’s legendary early GP series, the GP7 and GP9 (two of the most success diesel locomotives ever built).

http://www.american-rails.com/bl2.html

Would this be the locomotive equivalent of the AMC Pacer?

 

[Anonymous]

My older brother had a '77 Pacer Wagon.  What a piece of....um.....uh......What an interesting car! 

[Murphy Siding]

     I saw a Pacer driving down the street yesterday.  I couldn't help but smile.  They just tickle my funny bone.

[narig01]

The AMC Pacer that we had(my wife & I) had a 3 speed automatic.  I think the manual transmission was also a 3 speed.

     Room in the Pacer wagon for a small vehicle it was huge. My wife is on the large size and when she was pregnant with out oldest son it was about the only vehicle she was comfortable in.

       I had this for a number of years and was also using for courier/packet work in the SF Bay Area.  Someone else still has the vehicle believe it or not.  It is out of registration in California but can not pass a smog test at this point.

Thx IGN

[Modelcar]

narig01

 

          I am kind of a little nutty about my vehicle likes. I did own an AMC Pacer Station Wagon.(silver).  

  

          Many Thx IGN

Have not seen any comment on the Pacer vehicles for some time.  I'll make one:  We {at work}, had a Pacer for a time in the Lab for transmission work.  I am not recalling now if it was the SR-4 or our T50 5-sp, but I do remember driving it.

One impression I still remember:  It had really a comfortable seating position for the driver.  Chair height.   And of course, we remember it had two different size doors....Difference between left and right side.

Also, believe that design was also one of the cars that was made to accept a rotary engine.  High center tunnel....to accept the high drive shaft height.... the center line of the Wankle engine.

But it never happened.  Same story on the Chevrolet Vega.  Saw prototype vehicles that were finished, and looked ready for production, but that too, never happened.  Program stopped at the last minute.

[Juniatha]

Hi

>> Personally I would love to have driven a turbine powered car. Closest thing I ever got there was a lot heavier in the Army. <<

Ah , I see .   Well , this at least could take you to the sky !

.. which neither Merc nor Caddy nor Rolly can as yet do and likely never will

and actually no Ekranoplan neither .

Regards

=   J =

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OnD_SG35GM

[narig01]

I hope you do not mind a few comments/questions from outside.  Just remember when your #2 2 one has to try harder.

      Was Chrysler able?    In practicle terms remember the voyager Mini Vans? May not have been a work of art but very practicle. 

          I am kind of a little nutty about my vehicle likes. I did own an AMC Pacer Station Wagon.(silver).  

  Personally I would love to have driven a turbine powered car. Closest thing I ever got there was a lot heavier in the Army.

          Many Thx IGN

[Modelcar]

....And good morning J:

You covered a wide spectrum of automotive lore, and very much in detail.  Can't disagree with any of it.

On the Chrysler Turbine....I agree, 50 was the number, and I believe the selected people to have the Turbine cars, if I remember correctly, was on a rotation basis.  Think it was a 90 day period.

They must have pulled out one or two to save for museum units.  I think I've seen photos of two in such a location. Of course, the others crushed.

Item:  Back in about 1989, we received {in a closed secure semi}, one of the original prototype Vipers...here at our Lab in Muncie....{BWA}.

We {BWA}, was in line to supply the six speed manual transmission for that car in production.  It was complete, but a little rough around the edges, being a prototype.  Car was used to help final fine tuning of the 6 speed for that application.

Had the original version of the V-10....300hp.

That 6 speed transmission and tooling and some other manual units {5 speed}, were later sold to Tremac and believe it's still produced.

Of course it was used in the Corvette too.

These units came out of the same "Lab" as the much earlier T-10  4 speed unit. 

This was my place of employment for many years.  In the Lab.

On Chrysler....Again, they have tried to make a jump forward with the 012 model year, 300.  We'll see how they do with that effort.  It has been given  quite a "facelift"....

[Juniatha]

Hi Modelcar

To quote >> The Chrysler Turbine....Looked like a slightly smaller 4 seat Thunderbird.<<

That was the last of turbine car designs .   I think there were 50 of them built and handed out to selected customers .   Then they were recollected again only to be scapped when management had decided to dump this engineering effort .

Chrysler at times seems to have had quite a capable engineering and testing staff and I believe they could have achieved much more than they were allowed to .   Unfortunately , with Studebaker having turned bankrupt and American Motors always labouring along fighting not to crush on the riffs , Chrysler was the smallest of the Big Three and maybe management was looking to keep from getting into shallow waters more than anything else – in hindsight maybe too much .   There are several examples of smaller makers surviving competition by making the most of their better agility as compared to big companies and offering special automobiles the big competitors wouldn’t want to engage on because they were invariably looking for mass production .   Porsche is an example of how a small manufacturer can be very successful although specializing in what was originally considered niche market with high performance sports cars .   I think it must always have been hard for Chrysler to stay competitive with Chevrolet and Ford in the bread and butter car market and equally difficult to gain recognition in the high price luxury car market that was dominated by Cadillac ( Ford with Lincoln division found it almost as difficult because in America luxury was then spelled Cadillac , no matter what ) .   Still , Mercedes sold S-class cars quite successfully – their luxury sedan , of almost compact size by American 1960s / ’70 standards .  

So I tend to think Chrysler could have been successful pursuing a path of Advanced Technology and Quality Automobile Manufacturing .   This would have meant to quit bringing up some feature , explaining how indispensable it will be in the next future and then dropping it silently , trying another new feature only to drop it too – there was no consistent building up on advanced technical features so they could be combined to multiply effects and to form a company image of progress and class that would have been clearly above both GM and Ford .   Second stumbling stone was varying and at times wanting quality :  each time they had a car that customers rushed at , they equally rushed the cars off the production plant , within a year or two accumulating a formidable level of frustration with customers , consequently finding it hard in years following to sell just any car no matter what technical or styling features or improved quality .   So , the Chrysler House of Usher has had times of swell business followed by times of depressing austerity , repeatedly had fought their way back only to get on the same merry-go-round .  

When Daimler-Benz was merged with Chrysler mainly by Juergen Schremp’s driving initiative , it was like the solid middle-aged German banker marrying the American good looking yet unpredictably wild daughter of High Society – at times partying on ends , about to commit suicide next time , somehow making it to start all over again .   Once married , sorry , merged it was party time again for Chrysler – or so it seemed ( it didn’t take long for Schremp to repeat Alfred E Perlman’s boasting when he blew his mind to reporters on the alleged merger of equals in fact having been “a take-over , frankly” – and that proud moment of his was to cost Daimler about as much as the PennCentral disaster ) .   For some time there was an effort at improving quality – yet it’s conduct was not all that sensitive and perhaps lacked some imagination .   With Dieter Zetsche rushed in for quality management while at the same time trying to re-establish Chrysler as something like an American budget Mercedes , or Not-Quite-Mercedes , I feel the venerable marque of Walter P Chrysler was clearly sold below value and all in all it was about the same aspect of insult by the Germans insensitive bullish approach from Stuttgart as the British must surely have felt when BMW of Munich tried to twist Rover into a budget Not-Quite-BMW affiliate .   Both efforts ignored national character of the marques and turned out nowhere’s .   Customers probably didn’t know what to think of D-C and besides , quality management wasn’t that successful neither with Mercedes then all by themselves having lots of quality problems back home .  

The way Daimler , after some years of trying to ‘run’ Chrysler or run as Daimler-Chrysler double bubble Inter-Trans-Atlantic argumentation corporation , went panic and paid out ( again very much divorce-like ) at almost any price I saw as yet another undignified treatment .   After all , how was Chrysler to explain to workers why to stay with the torn corpus of the company and please will you do a good job , too ?   Now , with Marchionne of FIAT ( at the same time said to have financial problems by itself ) having bought in on Chrysler , sell-out continues as Chrysler cars are to be sold as Lancia in Europe .   However , shrewed Marchionne may have marched on a bit too nonchalant with that simple a scheme of re-labelling :  customers who had formerly been devoted to Lancia , an earlier times renown Italian maker of fine medium to high price automobiles , will see through it and those who were willing to buy a Chrysler will not know if to think of it as an Italian American or an American Italian car while feeling haunted by some rather unfavourable connotations about certain infamous figures of the 1930s .   

Well , as usually , let’s hope for the best – what else can we do !

Regards

Juniatha

[Modelcar]

.....Just a comment on one thing Juniatha mentioned in her post...

The Chrysler Turbine....Looked like a slightly smaller 4 seat Thunderbird.

Had a chance to set in one and see / hear it run over in Somerset, Pa., back in the early 60's.

We were going to head out for a ride, and unfortunately, the fellow that had it....{Owned a lumber yard business, etc...}, got a phone call, and in a few minutes he had to head to some destination.

So....no ride....Bummer.

We did get to hear / see the engine run.  It was full of {stuff}, under the hood.  It idled at about 18,000 rpm.

You can still pull up a picture of them on the internet here....

[Modelcar]

.....I keep forgetting to look at the "New York Times", Auto section.

Murray, you find interesting stuff....

[Juniatha]

Hi Murray

 

 

Well , I saw the site – yet what struck me more was this :

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2011/10/09/automobiles/09motion-slideshow-2.html

See pictures #2 and #4 :  Chevy Camaro 1^st Gen by BALDWIN !

Gee , Baldwin , alright ?  ok , it was a dealer by that name .. yet I feel confirmed : in my personal ‘equations of company characters’ Baldwin has always stood for Chevrolet , ALCO for Ford and Lima for Chrysler Mopar . 

About the 1960 Lincoln Continental :  I wonder how , if at all , they had kept the car body from twisting without a roof – but then again :  wasn’t that a time when the Twist was en vogue ?  Maybe the Continental was still built in the traditional way with a separate chassis – yet with that massive engine and long wheel base I guess on a bumpy road there was an appreciable degree of shaking going on .   The new 1961 pontoon style with the vis-à-vis opening doors was said to have been even more sloppy .  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frB4z6EqK-4

Black 1961 drive by – almost an UFO , an encounter of the uncanny kind in between bug-shaped modern cars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA1mb-fVHjQ&feature=related

Advertising – gee , those enthusiastic voice modulations of the era , advertisings freely and innocently telling you wonders and tall tales for a bargain .  One personal remark :  looking at the video , it came to me at Ford automobile styling intriguingly never seemed to find a matching back end once they had a good looking front :  that ’61 back end arguably was a tongue-in-cheek effort , with a slight reminiscence of infamous gorp styling like the Turnpike Cruiser’s only a few years before .

Chrysler , my favorite , unfortunately not too fortunate American automobile manufacturer .   I wish they had more persistently pursued some of their very innovative ideas like gas turbine , torsion bar suspension ( front end only – the rear end remained what it always was with leaf sprung live axle ) and high performance engines and classy styling as it had sprung up in some years only to die away all too soon , like desert flowers spring up after a  wash of rain to die away again – wish they still were independent ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhtOoLABXfc&feature=related

Chrysler 1960 advertising ;  in this one they were really offering an intro to some automobile technology , even dragged Bob Rodgers away from drawing board and pencils ( looks like they didn’t have to drag him too hard for that ) to opt on a little teaching in engine engineering ( he’s kind of a combination of an engine nerd and Frank Sinatra ) and by this occasion , casually yet inevitably , giving us an idea of what a marvelous car the 1960 Chrysler 300-F was – with 413 Wedge engine and optional 4-on-the-floor Pont-à-Mousson gear box that came from their co-operation with Facel Vega , in those years a member of the family of super sports cars .  

Uuh-uuh-uuh , hold on a second – now earnestly :  how were those swivel seats meant to go with a sporty image ?   Ok , skirts were long then – in later Swinging Sixties mini skirt a woman wouldn’t necessarily want to swivel that seat all that much in certain circumstances .   A centrally posed tachometer – equally remote from road look out for driver and passenger , yet ideally impartial in case they wanted to engage in a spontaneous discussion about best revving range to be used for sensible driving .   The AstroDome instrument panel – gee , that’s just what I mean :  styling was imaginative , innovative , sometimes even daring in those years .  

Having talked slightly detached so far , Bob then reaches a point where it’s really at :   “You know , to get the feel of this automobile and the thrill you *r-e-a-l-l-y* have to drive it !”   Oh , I can see why !   Then he kind of warns like ‘beware , this car is not for the average driver’ – on the other hand , who would admit he or she is the average driver ?  not me certainly !   If I had lived back then and had been told something like this I’d have almost felt compelled not to step back from buying it !   Listen to how he explains ram charging to the more unassuming mind .   And isn’t that 413 looking cute with gold colored air filter housings and what appears to me like copper / orange ram ducts ?  mind , this was the real thing , not a plastic cover on ‘what-ever’ engine !   I think it must have been quite an engine , with two four barrel carbs on each side and crossing ram effect intake – a challenging arrangement to tune properly ( on you tube you can hear a couple of dual four carb or six-pack carb Hemi engines idling quite roughly – which probably isn’t just because of aggressive custom cams alone .  

Finally , see the car passing by at the Chelsea testing ground oval in high banked curve – I like the subdued yet powerful engine sound , telling of its ease at the job .    Bob said peak ram charging was tailored to a revving speed range best useable for hill climbing – yet at test plant hill climbing acceleration from standstill ( see 8:56 ) to my view it’s at the very start the F gained its lead and didn’t much enlarge it on the climb when engines were revving .   Well , we don’t know what they had done to gear ratio or rear axle ratio – it struck me , though , there was absolutely no wheel spin to be heard at the start .   Not that it can’t be avoided by a sensible foot , however they wanted to exclude influence of ‘lighter’ or ‘heavier’ foot , didn’t they ?   Never mind , it’s in that sound where the thrill was – still is !   Only Mopar BigBlocks had that specific smooth , yet powerful sound !  

One thing I’ll never get , though :  inexplicably the ’55 / ’56 body was longer than the swift swept look ’57 – ‘59 !??  Never saw a ’55 / ’56 Chrysler – so , really how big were they ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssxzPTa0l8k&feature=related#

A ride through a city highway tunnel (probably in France) in a 57 Chrysler New Yorker with a 392 Hemi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6sXkDIeymg

See my favourite youtube example of what a Mopar could do : American Scream Machine against European Aristocat

( winning hands down even though having to lift momentarily to stop a slide , half way down the run ) .

 

Regards

Juniatha

 

edit:

replaced wrong link - it should now let you see the drag race Chally / Lambo

add on Chrysler turbine cars :  sadly , they have all been scrapped ( minus some very few then hidden away by private initiative against company intentions )

[Anonymous]

Another one for the car buffs:

1960 Lincoln Continental Mark V

http://collectiblecars.nytimes.com/View_Listing.asp?ListingID=COL8110210&From=F

[Anonymous]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/automobiles/involuntary-layoffs-even-for-cars.html?_r=1&ref=automobiles

 

 

[Anonymous]

Models Take A Final Bow:

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2011/11/27/automobiles/27farewell-slideshow.html

 

 

[BaltACD]

Wasn't Lowey the designer of the Northern Pacific's two tone green paint scheme for the North Coast Limited?