[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.

[thackney]

but a turbine requires major maintenance every few 100 hours

That depends on the turbine. Many, many industrial turbines operate 10,000 hours or more before shutting down for any maintenance at all. Nearly all operate continuously for years before any major maintenance is performed. This type of application is typical for a Natural Gas Pipeline or other similar service.

[sgtbono2002]

Makes sense to me. perhaps a small engine could provide electric power and get good mileage.