Talk:Chrysler Turbine Car

message: Okay, I placed a tag about writing style the other day and it was suggested I should discuss it on the talk page.
Just some minor nitpicks, really. In some parts the tone is a little unusual for an encyclopedic article.
"The engine can run on virtually anything with combustible properties" - A little vague, also sounds like a promotional piece. Maybe "any substance" or add "hypothetically" to cover fuels which were never tested.
"The car sounds like a giant vacuum cleaner" - Sounds like an account of the author's first hand experience. Maybe add "is reported to sound like".
"unexpected to consumers who were more familiar with the sound of a large American V8" - Sounds far too much like a magazine article. Maybe "who were accustomed to the sound of piston engines".
The next part starting "High altitudes..." should perhaps be in the past tense? eg "caused problems"
"for such a bold experiment" - Sounds like an opinion. Something more along the lines of "high-risk experiment" or "experiment involving considerable uncertainty".
"Outsourcing this step may have saved some money for Chrysler" - Is this stated in the source? You're not really supposed to "extrapolate" things like this on WP.
"This would be over $350,000 in 2012 dollars." - doesn't sound encyclopedic. "equivalent to $350,000 in 2012, adjusted for inflation"?
"Its most prominent design features" - According to who?
"creating a striking appearance" - Opinion and also sounds like promotion or a review.
"but that was only part of the story" - Sounds like a magazine. Maybe "but additional factors are also believed to have played a role" or something similar.
Fmc47 (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. Give me a day or two, I'll either fix it or put the template back. Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

text: I fixed a few of these, but so much of the article is unsourced I don't know what to try to fix and what to just remove. I put back your template and added Refimprove. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone & Style 

message: Quote from the article: "Chrysler began researching turbine engines during the late 1930s, initially for aviation applications and primarily led by executive engineer George Huebner; Huebner was part of a group of engineers who began exploring the idea of powering a car with a turbine after World War II."
This is self-contradictory, stating that turbine engines for car propulsion were being researched at Chrysler in the 1930s, while the first functional turbine engines (Whittle's and Ohain's jet designs) were only in prototype form in 1939--and also stating that the idea of powering a car with such an engine came after WW2, which ended in the mid-1940s. Anybody with access to the source, please check and clarify. --Stizzleswick (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the development of turbines by Chrysler in the late 1930s were for aviation applications, and the exploration of their use in automobiles did not start until after World War II. I believe this sentence is perfectly clear in this respect. Michael Barera (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see the logic there, thank you for pointing it out a little better than the article itself did. I still find it less than "perfectly" clear, though. Not suggesting any changes are needed, just that the wording as is may be misleading to some. --Stizzleswick (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to clarify the sentence by moving the offending phrase forward, and by breaking the sentence into two sentences. Also, gas turbine research was not limited to Whittle and Ohain, as other companies recognized the potential of the concept. None brought their ideas to prototype form before those two, but there was research. See Lockheed J37 for a notable example. - BilCat (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does the edit made by  make that sentence (now two sentences) clear, in your opinion? I personally like the changes, but I'd like your perspective. Michael Barera (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, that looks very good! Thanks both of you! Stizzleswick (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. The sentence was too long anyway, so bringing up your issue help to address that. - BilCat (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  root beer?