# Talk:Chrysler Turbine Car

The opening paragraph described the color of Turbine Bronze as, quote, "roughly the color of root beer".  Can we remove the root beer part?  Ultimately, it's only an opinion and not encyclopedic.  (And IMO very wrong.  I've never seen a root beer anywhere close to Turbine Bronze.)  Elsquared67 (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Elsquared67: See p. 45 of Steve Lehto's book Chrysler's Turbine Car, essentially the definitive work on the Chrysler Turbine Car. The relevant direct quote is "'turbine bronze,' a metallic root beer color unlike any other paint commonly used on cars at that time." Michael Barera (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction.  I still never saw root beer that color, but the info is sourced.  (Gotta get that book one of these days.) Elsquared67 (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Michael Barera:
In a shaft engine, power is:

  
    
      
        P
        =
        ω
        ⋅
        M
      
    
    {\displaystyle P=\omega \cdot M}
  

I.e., Torque is:

  
    
      
        M
        =
        P
        ⋅
        (
        
          n
          
            s
          
        
        ⋅
        2
        ⋅
        π
        
          )
          
            −
            1
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle M=P\cdot (n_{s}\cdot 2\cdot \pi )^{-1}}
  

In this particular case, P=130 hp = 97,000 N·m/s and nmin=36,000/min → ns = 600/s; thus:

  
    
      
        M
        =
        97
        ,
        000
        
        N
        ⋅
        m
        
          /
        
        s
        ⋅
        (
        600
        
          /
        
        s
        ⋅
        2
        ⋅
        π
        
          )
          
            −
            1
          
        
        ≈
        26
        
        N
        ⋅
        m
      
    
    {\displaystyle M=97,000\,N\cdot m/s\cdot (600/s\cdot 2\cdot \pi )^{-1}\approx 26\,N\cdot m}
  

If torque was 425 lbf·ft (about 575 N·m), then:

  
    
      
        P
        =
        575
        
        N
        ⋅
        m
        ⋅
        (
        2
        ⋅
        π
        ⋅
        600
        
          /
        
        s
        )
        =
        2167.699
        
        k
        W
        ≈
        2168
        
        k
        W
      
    
    {\displaystyle P=575\,N\cdot m\cdot (2\cdot \pi \cdot 600/s)=2167.699\,kW\approx 2168\,kW}
  

This makes no sense as no car has so much power. Even if we assume that we have 575 N·m at idle (18,000/min or 300/s), then:

  
    
      
        P
        =
        575
        
        N
        ⋅
        m
        ⋅
        (
        2
        ⋅
        π
        ⋅
        300
        
          /
        
        s
        )
        =
        1083.849
        
        k
        W
        ≈
        1084
        
        k
        W
      
    
    {\displaystyle P=575\,N\cdot m\cdot (2\cdot \pi \cdot 300/s)=1083.849\,kW\approx 1084\,kW}
  

This would still make no sense. Thus, the engine cannot produce so much torque. 425 lbf·ft cannot be correct. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Johannes Maximilian: Quoting directly from Steve Lehto's Chrysler's Turbine Car, the definitive book on this subject (p. 31): "The turbine weighed a mere 410 pounds and delivered 130 brake horsepower. It also generated a starting 425 foot-pounds of torque, putting it in the same league as Chrysler's legendary Hemi." The way this passage is written makes it clear that this is not a misprint. Furthermore, Car and Driver and Motor Trend both give the 425 ft-lb figure as well. Therefore, it appears that this figure is correct. Are you sure that your equations (which I must admit I do not understand scientifically) are applicable to turbine-powered cars and that they are not specific to reciprocating-engine cars? In the meantime, the references appear to clearly back up the 425 ft-lb figure, so I'm going to restore the article to that figure for the time being. Michael Barera (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I see what the problem is: The article read "the engine produced 130 bhp (97 kW) at 36,000 revolutions per minute (rpm) and 425 lb⋅ft (576 N⋅m) of torque", which makes no sense (per above); Car and Driver says that the engine produces 425 lbf·ft at stall and not at 36,000/min. While this is at least not outright impossible, it still seems unrealistic:

  
    
      
        
          n
          
            m
            i
            n
          
        
        =
        P
        ⋅
        (
        2
        π
        ⋅
        M
        ⋅
        
          60
          
            −
            1
          
        
        
          )
          
            −
            1
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle n_{min}=P\cdot (2\pi \cdot M\cdot 60^{-1})^{-1}}
  

  
    
      
        P
        =
        97
        ,
        000
        
        N
        ⋅
        m
        ⋅
        
          s
          
            −
            1
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle P=97,000\,N\cdot m\cdot s^{-1}}
  

  
    
      
        M
        =
        575
        
        N
        ⋅
        m
      
    
    {\displaystyle M=575\,N\cdot m}
  

  
    
      
        
          n
          
            s
          
        
        =
        97
        ,
        000
        
        N
        ⋅
        m
        ⋅
        
          s
          
            −
            1
          
        
        ⋅
        (
        2
        π
        ⋅
        575
        
        N
        ⋅
        m
        
          )
          
            −
            1
          
        
        ≈
        27
        
        
          s
          
            −
            1
          
        
        ≈
        1610
        
        m
        i
        
          n
          
            −
            1
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle n_{s}=97,000\,N\cdot m\cdot s^{-1}\cdot (2\pi \cdot 575\,N\cdot m)^{-1}\approx 27\,s^{-1}\approx 1610\,min^{-1}}
  

I.e., the lowest possible stall speed would be approx. 1610/min, which is low, considering that the idle is more than 10 times as high, but maybe Chrysler engineers pulled off a feat I'm unaware of. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)