[sgtbono2002]

Isnt this pretty much a turbine engine? Chrysler tried that once and failed.

[fireforeffect]

Yes, 40 years ago.

Do not make the same mistakes that the environmentalist make in using old data.

The M1 tank is turbine powered (yes it is not very fuel efficient, 80 ton vehicles seldom are) as are several modern types of war ships.

The problem with turbines is that they use X amount of fuel per hour. Whether they are moving or not. (NOTE: You can burn more than X amount of fuel to increase power or even add on a secondary combustion chamber and use even more fuel but you always use a rather large minimum amount) Also they generate a lot of waste heat.

The problem with the Chrysler turbine was durability, the engine did not last long. A car engine usually last about 3000 hours before a major rebuild(diesels can go 10,000+), but a turbine requires major maintenance every few 100 hours.

The materials to make turbines that can withstand the high heat are also expensive.

Where this engine might have use is in a turbine-electric drive system. This turbine drives a generator which drives an electric motor. Batteries are used for high discharge situations.

[Richard-SIA]

Tried and failed?

Not really, more like the car was a success, so long as mileage was not a concern, and many of the test drivers wanted to keep the cars.

Chrysler and Rover both had technically successful turbine cars, and both simply chickened out.

[Schwaeky]

It wasn't a failure, it was very much a success, unfortunately, big oil and the Big Four shelved the idea and took the cars back, pretty much destroying the majority of them, the few remaining examples are in museums, but it had a very successful run. Unfortunately they did with the Chrysler turbine what GM did with the EV1 (leased out to people, then recalled them). The Chrysler Turbine was very efficent for its day, doing a then outstanding 30 mpg in city driving, with some minor tuning capable of 45+mpg. That in a vehicle that weighs as much as a modern hearse.