How not to - the Chrysler Turbine Car
The 1963 Chrysler Turbine Car was a child of its time, when the motto was " higher, faster, further! ".
After all, at roughly the same time, even the youngest children were enthusiastically watching the British science fiction series "Thunderbirds" and NASA still had the status of a modern technology religion.
Chrysler, the smallest of the "Big Three" in Detroit, lagged behind GM and Ford at the time, as they offered a significantly more modern and appealing product range. In Auburn Hills, they had some catching up to do, and so the idea was born to provide the answer to a question no one had actually asked: a gas turbine-powered car that would be extremely smooth-running, produce fewer overall emissions (apart from the NOx emissions of a small town), and be capable of running on virtually any fuel.
Whether gasoline, diesel, kerosene, or turpentine: the turbine could be operated with any flammable liquid!
Adolfo López Mateos, the then-President of Mexico, even drove one of the first cars that ran on tequila !
So a small series of 50 "series" vehicles plus 5 prototypes were put on, which were distributed to "real" customers for test purposes for everyday use from the end of 1963. The bodies were built according to the design of the Chrysler design department under Elwood Engel at Ghia in Italy, in order to then celebrate the wedding with the futuristic drive train in the USA. The technology was so fancy that the design had to be just as breathtaking. Chrysler succeeded in this - and the accompanying media presence - as well as Elon Musk recently with the Tesla Cyber-Truck ...
After hundreds of thousands of test kilometers (or miles), and following consultation with volunteer testers, the conclusion was reached that this car was unsaleable due to the turbine's long start-up time, operational problems in fluctuating ambient temperatures, exorbitant fuel consumption, and the noise level of a vacuum cleaner. The idea was quickly abandoned. With the exception of a few examples, all Turbine Cars were scrapped. Incidentally, the American late-night talk show host and legendary car collector Jay Leno owns one of the few surviving examples.
Although the car is still considered a milestone in automotive technology and design history, it never went into mass production due to a lack of everyday usability and therefore never received a mass-market successor.
What does all this have to do with alternative energies, electromobility and synthetic fuels?
Firstly, the turbine could indeed be operated without any problems using XtL fuel, which would posthumously give the Turbine Car a significantly improved climate footprint. Secondly – and this is the real point – the Turbine Car can justifiably be described as a "dud," thus drawing a parallel to some currently offered vehicles from traditional German brands...
It's a historical symbol of what happens when industry – for whatever reason – tries to establish a half-baked product without market demand or proper market research, a product that nobody asked for and that actually offers no advantages over mature technology with further development potential. The few advantages it does have, such as smooth operation, are cannibalized by massive losses elsewhere.
We are similarly critical of the push to establish electromobility as a stand-alone alternative to the combustion engine in the market, without also considering other technological solutions. While electromobility has progressed significantly further today than the development of the turbine car was back then, this does not mean that it offers any global benefit for decarbonization. It is never too late to apply the brakes decisively and turn to pragmatic, technology-neutral action; after all, our climate is at stake, and it cannot be saved by either turbine cars or half-baked electric cars powered by "green" electricity that is not available in sufficient quantities.