I have a few of the actual turbine wheels, The actual probes used in testing, I believe to test wind pressure/volume, and a un-touched case of promo models. My Grandfather worked on the Turbine project back then and developed the probes used in testing, and for our family, these cars marked a part of our history. Such a sad sight, but whats been done has been done.
I know a guy that worked for Harley-Davidson in the 80s. He was supposed to crush some bikes but stuck them in his buddies garage instead. Yhose bikes were from the NOVA project and are now some of H-Ds most treasured pieces of engineering history. What a shame not everyone cared about cool stuff like these cars. Like the lost scrolls of antiquity these cars are gone forever. What a shame.
This has to be THE WORST decision ever made. How short sighted Chrysler was in destroying these rare cars. The only winners were Jay Leno and all others who got the remaining cars. $$$$... $$$$$... $$$$... for all those greed mongers who have them now.
I can't believe they crushed those magnificent cars! I remember seeing one parked on the street in Chicago back in 1963. I was mesmerized by it. There's one in the Henry Ford Museum at Greenfield Village, but I don't know if it's functioning. What a shame.
ScatPack440 - you're absolutely correct. Runs on any fuel, from gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, to peanut oil. And with todays technology? What could be accomplished? After highschool, I expected cars to advance radically. WHERE IS MY BACK TO THE FUTURE MR. FUSION CAR? Running on empty beer cans and banana peals? Todays autos are ancient hogs, with fancy wheels and some chrome. What a pity. After 100 years, no radical advancements. What a shame!
There is one of these at the Peterson Automotive Museum in L.A. An amazing place full of amazing cars. They also have the LAST EV-1, and many other rare cars. The turbine has it's own little corner, with a great display on how it worked. The problem with turbines were that they were VERY loud, and took a while to get up to speed. Nice idea, but not great in this application!
No, you are wrong. Chrysler continued with the Turbine on the military side. The M1 Tank was designed by Chrysler and uses a turbine. Chrysler had planned to make available to the public a 1981 New Yorker Turbine car. But the Banks involved in the Government Bail out of Chryslerin 1980 killed that plan. The banks didn't want to fund the tooling costs which was risky, it wasn't certain whether the public would buy the idea. The Turbine developed didn't do any worse or better on fuel usage.
The thought of their engineers crying tears of sorrow upon witnessing the destruction of their greatest creation of and for all eternity kills my soul....
Love 'em or hate 'em, you've got to admit that both the Chrysler Turbine Car was an engineering marvel. Watching this is like watching engineers' hopes and dreams being crushed. Look at the styling of those cars. Destroying them is like destroying the hopeful futurism of the 1950s. Kind of reminds me of the EV-1 crushing.
I agree with what you said. In my opinion cars between 1977-2005 lacked any style or class. I like the 68 Camarrow too, but you have to admit, cars today are looking much more stylish than they used too. (Nothing will replace the glorious cars of the 1900's-1960's)
Out of 55 made, 46 were crushed. Chrysler still owns two, another three are owned privately (Jay Leno is one such owner), and the other four are in various museums.
Yes they did have a turbine engine in them. I am 58 now and in St. Louis, Mo. in about '62 or '63, Chrysler had a showing of the car I was 11 or 12 at the time. The engine would run on any combustable fluid so they said. It also ran so smooth that the Chrysler Rep. stood a nickle on edge on the engine, it never fell over. As I recall the problem they had was the high rpm, and very specialized ceramic parts in the engine. It was a pretty car and definately unique!
I tell you it's a real shame to see those cars get destroyed instead of ending up in the homes of collectors or people who appreciated them for what they really were. We may not be able to bring them back, but it would sure be cool if someone re-produced them in a kit-car form. Sure you probably wouldn't be able to buy a turn-key model with a turbine engine, but who says you can't put one in yourself? I'd still be happy with one with a Hemi-v8.
Chrysler continued to do research on these engines, they did for many years, Rover of England was another car company interested in the turbine. Chrysler eventually put the turbine engine into the M1 Tank. But when Chrysler had financial dificulties in the late 70's and early 80's, they sold off their Military Division to General Dynamics. So the turbine is alive and well but not in Chrysler's hands.
I live just north of Detroit , when i was 13,14, 15 or so i had a chance to see one of these . It was driven on the street and parked two doors down from my grandmas in Gross Point Woods. I was of the age that i knew what it was and the sound was really something to hear. That was the only time i saw it , someone had it for the weekend i'm guessing.
Big Oil loved this car, gas turbine engines are major gas burners, no where near as frugal as a good old combustion engine. Chrysler M1 Tanks in the battle field have to followed by Gas Tankers to keep them going. It's one of the reason's why Chrysler didn't produce this car
That happened to most of the car companies. Especially GM. My dad told me the 1980 buick had the same engine as his 1968 Olds Cutless. It was a plan for car companies to save money. However, in the ever growing market for better foreign cars, it can be seen as a major long term mistake.
The cars were made in Italy. The US Customs Service charged Chrysler duty based on the total development cost of the project which amounted to millions of dollars per car. The only way to avoid the huge expense was to destroy them.
Looks like the turbine engines were pulled. What did Chrysler do with them? I would guess they were thrown into a different smelter because of the different alloys.
the exhaust temperature was 180 degrees F, coming out at a high rate! Like holding your hand in front of the furnace grate at your house, but with much more force.
@kamikazeOS They actually continued working on the engine - the program wasn't cancelled until 1980 - but the cars had served their purpose. All development prototypes get destroyed eventually, it's sad but true.
I saw somewhere that Chrysler was not allowed to pursue these engines any longer. When they were having finacial difficultys the DOE and DOD helped bail them out. But they had to agree to hand over all their research and not to pursue these engines any longer.
I feel the pain for every 2 door made before 1970 facing this demise. Odly enough, even foreign cars had more character than today or in the last 25 years. Few exceptions. I think the last Mazda RX7 might have been the last foreign masterpiece but put out of consumer`s price range. Nothing is sweeter to me than a 68 Camarro SS!
The reason they were destroyed was for LIABILITY. They were built as show cars and were not DOT legal for street use. They were predestined to be destroyed after their show circuit tour was complete. The Big-3 did this with many of their dream/concept/show cars of the '50s and '60s. Some cars survived for museum preservation.
I just remembered the viewing was held at the Northwest Plaza near the St. Louis International Airport. Of the era, all of the auto manufacturers had body stylings that took design elements from jet fighter aircraft. Note the sleek body, the interior, the front and the rear of the vehicle. To see it in person you thought that you could fly.
There were three reasons the Turbine car (1963 version seen here0 did not go into production, based on absolutely uniform critiques they received from all 200 famlies/test subjects who had these cars to drive over a two week period: 1. very slow to leave the line--0-30 was painful, at a time when cars were getting really good at this. 2. No sensation of engine braking--unlike every car you have driven all your life, these have very little engine braking, they feel like they are just coasting.
@smoothie6ft3 M1 tanks use turbine engines - at 22,000 rpm, they use plenty of fuel even when you're at a red light. I doubt very strongly oil companies would dislike them. As Jay says, in town your fuel mileage is terrible.
As stated in previous post the reason these were destroyed (and filmed to prove it was done) was to avoid paying the import duties, since they were bodied in Italy (I think). The gas mileage really sucked; even in 1960's America was discouraging enough not to produce the car. Big Oil would have loved this car. Also engine rpms were very high but acceleration was sluggish. I've seen pics of people holding their hand by the exhaust so doubt the heat of the exhaust would melt anything.
Not all of'em where destroyed, ten cars was presented to museums but not possible to drive. Chrysler kept a couple, I've seen one running at the Chrysler Chelsea Proving Grounds in 1985, during the WPC Club annual meet. It sounds like a jet and it's idling at 18.000 rpm. Two of the museum pieces is probably possible to drive today.
Chrysler destroyed them (not all) due to import duties. These cars were built in Italy by Ghia for Chrysler. The US goverment had a large value on these cars in relation to import duties. This was due to the value of the total Research and Developement work done on the turbine to produce the cars. If Chrysler destroyed the cars within 2 years of importation, the duties would be eliminated. It made sense for Chrysler to do it since these cars served there purpose as Test Vehicles.
To all who wonder why oh why? Because all car manufacturers have corporate policies that state all prototype vehicles are to be destroyed beyond a usable point after the research program is over. These vehicles are not allowed for sale or on the road, and do not even have VINs. This is all based off of liability, as dictated by their lawyers. Some do escape their fate, as with around 3-5 of these. Chrysler has 1 or 2 I hear, and a museum in Kansas has 1. NATMUS in Auburn, Indiana has an engine.
oh,oh the warning was right... this really hurts to watch. I love the Ghia body on the Turbine Car.. My grandpa was one of those chosen to be a test driver for one of these cars here in the Milwaukee area. We have a few nice pics of the car. He liked it a lot and hoped that Chrsyler would put them into production, but alas..... sick video !!! It should be flagged !!!
@CuyahogaMustang Sorry! But could they do that? The Chrysler Turbines were destroyed in the 1960s. Honda and Toyotas started to be exported to America in the 1970s, so how is that going to work? Whilst we are talking about Chrysler, they destroyed the Rootes Group over here in the UK.
@knightjp007 The problem was the government with growing emissions and efficiency laws.There was just not enough public interest in them at the time to make research into practicality worthwhile.Also they had such a complicated startup procedure, if you weren't on your game you'd ruin the engine. Still, it's such a shame we don't have these today.
That's one of the worst tax evasion excuses I've ever heard! That car would have really helped now and maybe even during the gas crisis of '73 and '79.
GM's annual reports are available on their website, the 2008 report isn't available there yet, but yesterday they announced a $30.9 billion loss for 2008 which brings their losses for the past few years to $82 billion (the $72 billion I quoted was an optimistic estimate ).
I think they made about 50 of them, and about 9 survive, am I a correct on that? And I think only 3 are in working condition. Makes me sick seeing the video. Why couldn't they just have left them alone.
So there was nothing wrong with the cars, it took 10+ years to even get it all together. People dedicated their lives to this car.. only to have this happen.
they used to have very large cash reserves, but they've been losing billions of dollars per quarter for the last few years. GM alone has lost $72 billion since 2004 (that's a lot of rainy days). However I agree that a bailout shouldn't have been necessary, instead they should have started taking many of their current last ditch measures two years ago, when they still had a healthy cash reserve.
This is sad to see. Back then nobody thought much about it though, it would be like crushing a prototype neon today, nobody would care. I still think they should of kept them just because they are a milestone in automotive history and they are cool.
So the bodies had to be destroyed because they were imported from Italy-what happened to the the engines/transmissions? AFAIK,they were destroyed,too. What was the excuse there? In the full version,some engineers were seen crying nearby.I'm sure they would have removed them for free.Litigation was not as big a problem then as it is now. There is no excuse for this. No wonder the world is in economic crisis.
@MrAlexprm No, they were phased out due to upcoming EPA regulations-- the death of most turbine cars in the 60s and 70s (including commercial duty) was due to poor emissions and fuel economy at lower speeds. Oil companies truly had nothing to do with the demise of gas-turbine cars.
I'm still trying to understand the mindset of Chrysler Executives in the early 60's. When you only build 55 examples of something totally unique and one of a kind, do you not realize that it will become a "collectible"? There are probably more existing Tucker's than Chrysler Turbines! Was there a safety issue that could have been a liability for Chrysler? What a shame!
people didnt really realise they would be so desireably in the future they also wouldnt sell concepts to the publie for fear of being sued if someone got hurt driving a non crash tested vehicle
The reason the project was destroyed was cause of the import tax on the bodies. Chrysler had them made in Italy and imported to the US. The technology was ahead of the time also and never really caught on.
Turbines are much more efficient than piston engines. Useable output from a gasoline piston engine is approximately 25% efficient at best. Diesels are better and approach 40%. Turbine engines can vary but 60% is not uncommon from a good design. Some systems have reportedly met 90%+ efficiencies when high temp materials are used. Higher combustion temperatures increase efficiency significantly.
@robert3302 nobody outside of the company would have needed to know that number they could have been sold internally for a dollar and avoided crushing valuable research. chrysler was bribed into not making these for a reason.
Here in St Louis Mo The Musuem of Tranportation has the ONLY functional Chrysler Turbine car in the world!!! Runs and drives!! Sad Chrysler crushed all the those back then.
@LegalizePsychedelics I now understand part of the reason why Pontiac rebadged some Holdens to fill out their lineup. GM Holden, the smallest and least known about division, was given the job of designing GM's Zeta platform, their world rear drive platform. So far, only two cars use it; the current Chevy Camaro, the Holden Commodore and its international versions; The Pontiac G8, Chevrolet Caprice and Chevrolet Lumina.
This isn't recycling; it's art being destroyed. It must be hard for the people who put effort in this project to see it end this way, instead of seeing it further developed into f.i. turbine/electric cars. (hybrids have been around since the beginning of the 19th century...)
There is more here on this video on RUclips: "Chrysler Turbine Cars From 1954 to 1976 Part 5" by leif44444 It starts halfway through and goes on into part 6. The part where I saw the engineers crying was in the History Channel film: "The Chrysler Turbine". It's on ebay but not youtube. I hope that helps.
That's almost as bad as scrapping all of the F-14s which were still the best jet fighter / bombers when they were replaced by "super hornets" that were slower, didn't fly as far, didn't haul as much, just as heavy and cost more.
@@anthonymavrick7238 Bill Carry who worked on the project said "there was an import duty payable on the car bodies from Ghia if they were sold. This duty also declined in amount payable over time, I believe. By the time the disposition of the bodies was being determined, this duty had decreased to next to nothing, if I remember correctly what I was told by George Fenstermacher, the Special Vehicles Manager in Product Planning. The decision to destroy the Turbine cars was pragmatic. Anything done outside of the control of the corporation could potentially create all sorts of PR headaches and diminish the good image effects from the program in the eyes of the public. Nobody wanted a bunch of those bodies running around with piston engines in them, etc., and they sure would not let them out of hand with the gas turbines still installed. Best and most logical decision - destroy them. It was a crummy experience. I went to the scrap yard and watched them all be burned and crushed, and that indeed was no fun."
These were low emission engines concerning unburnt hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide but could not meet the regulations relating to nitrogen oxide output. simply Chrysler were not allowed to sell them. still a crying shame to see them destroyed. for me its one of those unattainable dream cars like a Tucker.
Pretty close. 55 were made, and 50 were given to the public. The program lasted about two or three years, and 203 families, businessmen, etc. had them for two to three months each. Ten were left until the 70s or 80s, when one was crash tested, leaving nine around, three of which are operational. Why would you say Jay Leno is a greedy ass?
How much could those import duties have been? Isn't there also a cost associated with crushing the cars and disposing of them? In hindsight, if they had held them in storage somewhere, they could have been sold decades later, at a huge profit, not as roadworthy registered cars, but as collectibles for someone's showroom or garage. Why can't Pontiac do this with all Azteks on the road?
Well thats not entirely true. these cars were prototypes and never sold to the public, as the ev1 was. Chrysler was experimenting with alternate fuels and methods of combustion in the 1950's and 60's when the turbine project finally ended the cars were sent to be destroyed because they couldnt be sold to the general public. A few cars did escape, they were retained by Chrysler corp and 2 found their way to private collectors.
So sad. Such a great car for the time and the value of these rare machines is crazy.
This really is a sad video :(
I have a few of the actual turbine wheels, The actual probes used in testing, I believe to test wind pressure/volume, and a un-touched case of promo models. My Grandfather worked on the Turbine project back then and developed the probes used in testing, and for our family, these cars marked a part of our history. Such a sad sight, but whats been done has been done.
I know a guy that worked for Harley-Davidson in the 80s. He was supposed to crush some bikes but stuck them in his buddies garage instead. Yhose bikes were from the NOVA project and are now some of H-Ds most treasured pieces of engineering history. What a shame not everyone cared about cool stuff like these cars. Like the lost scrolls of antiquity these cars are gone forever. What a shame.
This has to be THE WORST decision ever made. How short sighted Chrysler was in destroying these rare cars.
The only winners were Jay Leno and all others who got the remaining cars.
$$$$... $$$$$... $$$$... for all those greed mongers who have them now.
They were forced to
@@Leatherface123. they could've just said no
@@Royalbigness they were about to be bankrupt and they couldn’t pay taxes so there choice was, destroy 50 rare cars or go out of beusness
I can't believe they crushed those magnificent cars! I remember seeing one parked on the street in Chicago back in 1963. I was mesmerized by it. There's one in the Henry Ford Museum at Greenfield Village, but I don't know if it's functioning. What a shame.
There's a functioning turbine car on display at the National Museum of Transportation in St. Louis Mo.
The one at the Henry ford is not functional. There is one at the Stahl museum in Michigan that is.
Jay Leno has a functioning Chrysler Turbine.
Sad to see any classic car destroyed
One giant leap backwards for mankind...
Idiots at Chrysler. Scrapping a part of automotive history (and one of the few things that Chrysler built which was cool).
The government made them
ScatPack440 - you're absolutely correct. Runs on any fuel, from gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, to peanut oil. And with todays technology? What could be accomplished? After highschool, I expected cars to advance radically. WHERE IS MY BACK TO THE FUTURE MR. FUSION CAR? Running on empty beer cans and banana peals? Todays autos are ancient hogs, with fancy wheels and some chrome. What a pity. After 100 years, no radical advancements. What a shame!
@bryanttillman It is mandatory to destroy a car that was used to ANY type of tests.
There is one of these at the Peterson Automotive Museum in L.A. An amazing place full of amazing cars. They also have the LAST EV-1, and many other rare cars. The turbine has it's own little corner, with a great display on how it worked. The problem with turbines were that they were VERY loud, and took a while to get up to speed. Nice idea, but not great in this application!
I think it was the work of the oil companys as these cars were able to run on anything remotaly flamable
why they destoyed them?
why they destroy the cars?
No, you are wrong. Chrysler continued with the Turbine on the military side. The M1 Tank was designed by Chrysler and uses a turbine. Chrysler had planned to make available to the public a 1981 New Yorker Turbine car. But the Banks involved in the Government Bail out of Chryslerin 1980 killed that plan. The banks didn't want to fund the tooling costs which was risky, it wasn't certain whether the public would buy the idea. The Turbine developed didn't do any worse or better on fuel usage.
Never had the engineers spill so many tears than at that very moment.
why are they destroyed????:(
The warning was deserved.
I could have sworn one of them looked at me in horror.
The thought of their engineers crying tears of sorrow upon witnessing the destruction of their greatest creation of and for all eternity kills my soul....
what was the point in this?
Love 'em or hate 'em, you've got to admit that both the Chrysler Turbine Car was an engineering marvel. Watching this is like watching engineers' hopes and dreams being crushed. Look at the styling of those cars. Destroying them is like destroying the hopeful futurism of the 1950s. Kind of reminds me of the EV-1 crushing.
A few of them survived. I believe two of them are running.
I agree with what you said. In my opinion cars between 1977-2005 lacked any style or class. I like the 68 Camarrow too, but you have to admit, cars today are looking much more stylish than they used too. (Nothing will replace the glorious cars of the 1900's-1960's)
Out of 55 made, 46 were crushed. Chrysler still owns two, another three are owned privately (Jay Leno is one such owner), and the other four are in various museums.
Yes they did have a turbine engine in them. I am 58 now and in St. Louis, Mo. in about '62 or '63, Chrysler had a showing of the car I was 11 or 12 at the time. The engine would run on any combustable fluid so they said. It also ran so smooth that the Chrysler Rep. stood a nickle on edge on the engine, it never fell over. As I recall the problem they had was the high rpm, and very specialized ceramic parts in the engine. It was a pretty car and definately unique!
I tell you it's a real shame to see those cars get destroyed instead of ending up in the homes of collectors or people who appreciated them for what they really were. We may not be able to bring them back, but it would sure be cool if someone re-produced them in a kit-car form. Sure you probably wouldn't be able to buy a turn-key model with a turbine engine, but who says you can't put one in yourself? I'd still be happy with one with a Hemi-v8.
Chrysler continued to do research on these engines, they did for many years, Rover of England was another car company interested in the turbine. Chrysler eventually put the turbine engine into the M1 Tank. But when Chrysler had financial dificulties in the late 70's and early 80's, they sold off their Military Division to General Dynamics. So the turbine is alive and well but not in Chrysler's hands.
I live just north of Detroit , when i was 13,14, 15 or so i had a chance to see one of these . It was driven on the street and parked two doors down from my grandmas in Gross Point Woods.
I was of the age that i knew what it was and the sound was really something to hear. That was the only time i saw it , someone had it for the weekend i'm guessing.
Sad thing is now Chrysler is doing the is planing to crush 93 vipers (including VIN#4)
:(
Why.
Damn.....for a person who loves cars that Hurts to see.
How the hell could these guys even be paid enough to want to do that!!!!
There's one turbine car left (at least) on display at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, MI. Great that they saved one for the "history books"
There's one that's still running on display in St. Louis Mo. at the National Museum of Transportation.
Big Oil loved this car, gas turbine engines are major gas burners, no where near as frugal as a good old combustion engine. Chrysler M1 Tanks in the battle field have to followed by Gas Tankers to keep them going. It's one of the reason's why Chrysler didn't produce this car
@bd189 One thought ...bird strike..how you gonna protect the delicate turbine from impact of forgien objects,in normal driving
That happened to most of the car companies. Especially GM. My dad told me the 1980 buick had the same engine as his 1968 Olds Cutless. It was a plan for car companies to save money. However, in the ever growing market for better foreign cars, it can be seen as a major long term mistake.
The cars were made in Italy. The US Customs Service charged Chrysler duty based on the total development cost of the project which amounted to millions of dollars per car. The only way to avoid the huge expense was to destroy them.
Nope. The bodies were made in Italy, the cars were assembled near Detroit.
Looks like the turbine engines were pulled. What did Chrysler do with them? I would guess they were thrown into a different smelter because of the different alloys.
the exhaust temperature was 180 degrees F, coming out at a high rate! Like holding your hand in front of the furnace grate at your house, but with much more force.
@kamikazeOS They actually continued working on the engine - the program wasn't cancelled until 1980 - but the cars had served their purpose. All development prototypes get destroyed eventually, it's sad but true.
OMG! How much are the survivors worth?
So did they destroy this car because it could burn other gas's?
I saw somewhere that Chrysler was not allowed to pursue these engines any longer. When they were having finacial difficultys the DOE and DOD helped bail them out. But they had to agree to hand over all their research and not to pursue these engines any longer.
easily one of the best looking cars of all time to be produced in the US
I feel the pain for every 2 door made before 1970 facing this demise. Odly enough, even foreign cars had more character than today or in the last 25 years. Few exceptions. I think the last Mazda RX7 might have been the last foreign masterpiece but put out of consumer`s price range. Nothing is sweeter to me than a 68 Camarro SS!
As a engine tech freak, this is make my heart broke 😢.
Look at them, still mint but get rid by ridiculous reason of destruction.
The reason they were destroyed was for LIABILITY.
They were built as show cars and were not DOT legal for street use. They were predestined to be destroyed after their show circuit tour was complete. The Big-3 did this with many of their dream/concept/show cars of the '50s and '60s. Some cars survived for museum preservation.
I just remembered the viewing was held at the Northwest Plaza near the St. Louis International Airport. Of the era, all of the auto manufacturers had body stylings that took design elements from jet fighter aircraft. Note the sleek body, the interior, the front and the rear of the vehicle. To see it in person you thought that you could fly.
I live and lived in Detroit and a Chrysler engineer had one that he drove around for awhile vack the. The turbine whined/hummed very distinctly.
There were three reasons the Turbine car (1963 version seen here0 did not go into production, based on absolutely uniform critiques they received from all 200 famlies/test subjects who had these cars to drive over a two week period:
1. very slow to leave the line--0-30 was painful, at a time when cars were getting really good at this.
2. No sensation of engine braking--unlike every car you have driven all your life, these have very little engine braking, they feel like they are just coasting.
@smoothie6ft3 M1 tanks use turbine engines - at 22,000 rpm, they use plenty of fuel even when you're at a red light.
I doubt very strongly oil companies would dislike them. As Jay says, in town your fuel mileage is terrible.
As stated in previous post the reason these were destroyed (and filmed to prove it was done) was to avoid paying the import duties, since they were bodied in Italy (I think). The gas mileage really sucked; even in 1960's America was discouraging enough not to produce the car. Big Oil would have loved this car. Also engine rpms were very high but acceleration was sluggish. I've seen pics of people holding their hand by the exhaust so doubt the heat of the exhaust would melt anything.
Not all of'em where destroyed, ten cars was presented to museums but not possible to drive. Chrysler kept a couple, I've seen one running at the Chrysler Chelsea Proving Grounds in 1985, during the WPC Club annual meet. It sounds like a jet and it's idling at 18.000 rpm. Two of the museum pieces is probably possible to drive today.
Chrysler destroyed them (not all) due to import duties. These cars were built in Italy by Ghia for Chrysler. The US goverment had a large value on these cars in relation to import duties. This was due to the value of the total Research and Developement work done on the turbine to produce the cars. If Chrysler destroyed the cars within 2 years of importation, the duties would be eliminated. It made sense for Chrysler to do it since these cars served there purpose as Test Vehicles.
To all who wonder why oh why? Because all car manufacturers have corporate policies that state all prototype vehicles are to be destroyed beyond a usable point after the research program is over. These vehicles are not allowed for sale or on the road, and do not even have VINs. This is all based off of liability, as dictated by their lawyers. Some do escape their fate, as with around 3-5 of these. Chrysler has 1 or 2 I hear, and a museum in Kansas has 1. NATMUS in Auburn, Indiana has an engine.
oh,oh the warning was right... this really hurts to watch. I love the Ghia body on the Turbine Car.. My grandpa was one of those chosen to be a test driver for one of these cars here in the Milwaukee area. We have a few nice pics of the car. He liked it a lot and hoped that Chrsyler would put them into production, but alas..... sick video !!! It should be flagged !!!
@CuyahogaMustang Sorry! But could they do that? The Chrysler Turbines were destroyed in the 1960s. Honda and Toyotas started to be exported to America in the 1970s, so how is that going to work? Whilst we are talking about Chrysler, they destroyed the Rootes Group over here in the UK.
@knightjp007 The problem was the government with growing emissions and efficiency laws.There was just not enough public interest in them at the time to make research into practicality worthwhile.Also they had such a complicated startup procedure, if you weren't on your game you'd ruin the engine.
Still, it's such a shame we don't have these today.
That's one of the worst tax evasion excuses I've ever heard! That car would have really helped now and maybe even during the gas crisis of '73 and '79.
GM's annual reports are available on their website, the 2008 report isn't available there yet, but yesterday they announced a $30.9 billion loss for 2008 which brings their losses for the past few years to $82 billion (the $72 billion I quoted was an optimistic estimate ).
I think they made about 50 of them, and about 9 survive, am I a correct on that? And I think only 3 are in working condition. Makes me sick seeing the video. Why couldn't they just have left them alone.
So there was nothing wrong with the cars, it took 10+ years to even get it all together. People dedicated their lives to this car.. only to have this happen.
Why...why...are they all painted the same color? And why are they being destroyed.
they used to have very large cash reserves, but they've been losing billions of dollars per quarter for the last few years. GM alone has lost $72 billion since 2004 (that's a lot of rainy days). However I agree that a bailout shouldn't have been necessary, instead they should have started taking many of their current last ditch measures two years ago, when they still had a healthy cash reserve.
This is sad to see. Back then nobody thought much about it though, it would be like crushing a prototype neon today, nobody would care. I still think they should of kept them just because they are a milestone in automotive history and they are cool.
this is one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen on RUclips... I honestly am weak in the knees after seeing this.. :(
so hard to watch. thats like the same feeling as watching your own house burn down..
We all thought the smart car would be an enhancement. They said 50 MPG, but it was proven it only gets 33 MPG. The Honda fit, a bigger car gets more!
So the bodies had to be destroyed because they were imported from Italy-what happened to the the engines/transmissions?
AFAIK,they were destroyed,too.
What was the excuse there?
In the full version,some engineers were seen crying nearby.I'm sure they would have removed them for free.Litigation was not as big a problem then as it is now.
There is no excuse for this.
No wonder the world is in economic crisis.
@MrAlexprm No, they were phased out due to upcoming EPA regulations-- the death of most turbine cars in the 60s and 70s (including commercial duty) was due to poor emissions and fuel economy at lower speeds.
Oil companies truly had nothing to do with the demise of gas-turbine cars.
I'm still trying to understand the mindset of Chrysler Executives in the early 60's. When you only build 55 examples of something totally unique and one of a kind, do you not realize that it will become a "collectible"? There are probably more existing Tucker's than Chrysler Turbines! Was there a safety issue that could have been a liability for Chrysler? What a shame!
people didnt really realise they would be so desireably in the future they also wouldnt sell concepts to the publie for fear of being sued if someone got hurt driving a non crash tested vehicle
The reason the project was destroyed was cause of the import tax on the bodies. Chrysler had them made in Italy and imported to the US. The technology was ahead of the time also and never really caught on.
Turbines are much more efficient than piston engines. Useable output from a gasoline piston engine is approximately 25% efficient at best. Diesels are better and approach 40%.
Turbine engines can vary but 60% is not uncommon from a good design. Some systems have reportedly met 90%+ efficiencies when high temp materials are used. Higher combustion temperatures increase efficiency significantly.
@robert3302 nobody outside of the company would have needed to know that number they could have been sold internally for a dollar and avoided crushing valuable research. chrysler was bribed into not making these for a reason.
If Chrysler only new, even with these prototypes not being destroyed, what a HISTORIC CAR !! Sad Sad Sad ??!!
Here in St Louis Mo The Musuem of Tranportation has the ONLY functional Chrysler Turbine car in the world!!! Runs and drives!! Sad Chrysler crushed all the those back then.
@LegalizePsychedelics I now understand part of the reason why Pontiac rebadged some Holdens to fill out their lineup. GM Holden, the smallest and least known about division, was given the job of designing GM's Zeta platform, their world rear drive platform. So far, only two cars use it; the current Chevy Camaro, the Holden Commodore and its international versions; The Pontiac G8, Chevrolet Caprice and Chevrolet Lumina.
chrysler did, however save about 9 of them. one is privately owned, the other 8 are owned by chrysler.
This isn't recycling; it's art being destroyed.
It must be hard for the people who put effort in this project to see it end this way, instead of seeing it further developed into f.i. turbine/electric cars.
(hybrids have been around since the beginning of the 19th century...)
There is more here on this video on RUclips:
"Chrysler Turbine Cars From 1954 to 1976 Part 5"
by leif44444
It starts halfway through and goes on into part 6.
The part where I saw the engineers crying was in the History Channel film:
"The Chrysler Turbine".
It's on ebay but not youtube.
I hope that helps.
Why didn’t they just auction them off?
That's almost as bad as scrapping all of the F-14s which were still the best jet fighter / bombers when they were replaced by "super hornets" that were slower, didn't fly as far, didn't haul as much, just as heavy and cost more.
It's quite a shame that these innocent cars that were a step into the future (perhaps too far) went to waste.
If they didn't crush them Chrysler would have had to pay heavy fees to the government.
Why would they have to? did the EPA threaten penalties? It was such a cool car far ahead of it's time
@@anthonymavrick7238 Laws were different in the 1960's
@@anthonymavrick7238 Bill Carry who worked on the project said "there was an import duty payable on the car bodies from Ghia if they were sold. This duty also declined in amount payable over time, I believe. By the time the disposition of the bodies was being determined, this duty had decreased to next to nothing, if I remember correctly what I was told by George Fenstermacher, the Special Vehicles Manager in Product Planning. The decision to destroy the Turbine cars was pragmatic. Anything done outside of the control of the corporation could potentially create all sorts of PR headaches and diminish the good image effects from the program in the eyes of the public. Nobody wanted a bunch of those bodies running around with piston engines in them, etc., and they sure would not let them out of hand with the gas turbines still installed. Best and most logical decision - destroy them.
It was a crummy experience. I went to the scrap yard and watched them all be burned and crushed, and that indeed was no fun."
These were low emission engines concerning unburnt hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide but could not meet the regulations relating to nitrogen oxide output. simply Chrysler were not allowed to sell them. still a crying shame to see them destroyed. for me its one of those unattainable dream cars like a Tucker.
WHY!?
Seing this has just ruined my day... As a Chrysler Corp. car lover, this is... Well, I just have no words for it... :(
@Auggie56 I dont know, I think they were pretty neat. The suites said fail or something.
Pretty close. 55 were made, and 50 were given to the public. The program lasted about two or three years, and 203 families, businessmen, etc. had them for two to three months each. Ten were left until the 70s or 80s, when one was crash tested, leaving nine around, three of which are operational. Why would you say Jay Leno is a greedy ass?
@carlover2013 because someone didn't want a car that runs on anything ...just like they did with the electrical car EV-1
Such a sad way for 'em to go. 😢
I agree with benjamintarr. Thats sad. I hate dodge but that even makes me sad. Why would they do that?
thats one of my favourite cars. ever. :(
We may crash cars for a living but never a classic
They couldn't sell a non production car to the public and didn't want to pay for storage of all 50 vehicles.
That is sad. It is hard to watch this video. If someone offered my $100,000 to press the button on the crusher, I wouldn't be able to do it.
y wud u do that
How much could those import duties have been? Isn't there also a cost associated with crushing the cars and disposing of them? In hindsight, if they had held them in storage somewhere, they could have been sold decades later, at a huge profit, not as roadworthy registered cars, but as collectibles for someone's showroom or garage. Why can't Pontiac do this with all Azteks on the road?
Well thats not entirely true. these cars were prototypes and never sold to the public, as the ev1 was. Chrysler was experimenting with alternate fuels and methods of combustion in the 1950's and 60's when the turbine project finally ended the cars were sent to be destroyed because they couldnt be sold to the general public. A few cars did escape, they were retained by Chrysler corp and 2 found their way to private collectors.
@cb7pwn these cars were and still are one of the most innovative cars EVER NO DESTROYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!