While our editors traverse the country to find the best content for those magazines, we find other oddities related to the old-car hobby that we really had no place for - until now. With this blog, we're giving you a behind-the-scenes look at what we see and what we do during the course of putting out some of the finest automotive magazines you'll ever read.
While Ford did have its own turbine program, largely focused on powering heavy-duty trucks, it was General Motors and Chrysler that put significant and long-term investments into the engine technology for automotive use, often touting it as an engine that would power the cars of the future. Chrysler arguably came closest to implementing turbines in production cars with the 1964 Ghia-bodied Turbine cars that a select few in the public got to experience first-hand before most of the cars were subsequently scrapped, and the company spent far longer investigating turbines with multiple generations of its engine design spanning several decades. But let's not forget that GM had its own multi-generation turbine program in the Fifties, that it too looked into using turbines to power big rigs, and that GM returned to turbines in the Eighties and Nineties.
But which automaker really sold the public on the potential for turbines? To decide that question, let's look at how they both showcased their turbine programs. The body of literature between the two certainly far exceeds one promotional video from each, but that's just what we're going to highlight here today, starting with GM's introduction of its bubble topped and befinned Firebird III gas turbine-powered concept car from 1958.
Then from just a few years later, Chrysler's pronunciation that "tomorrow is today" with the Turbine:
Which is the most convincing and makes you wonder why we all weren't driving gas turbine-powered cars over the last half-century?
Re: GM's Firebird III or Chrysler's Turbine: Which was More Convincing of a Jet-Powered Future for Cars?
11/03/2022 9:58 PM
The GM car clearly looks the part, but the Chrysler model was obviously more practical. Interesting in concept, but the realities of gas turbines does not make them well suited for good economy in a land based vehicle, M1A2 Abrams not withstanding at about 1.9 gallons per mile.
Re: GM's Firebird III or Chrysler's Turbine: Which was More Convincing of a Jet-Powered Future for Cars?
11/07/2022 8:26 PM
The priorities of the leadership in the DoD really leaves me wondering. Having sustainable jet fuel does not make our aircraft any more lethal. Only more expensive.