Video: The Infamous Chrysler Turbine Ghia Snuff Film

[Guest Magoo]

For those who haven't seen it before, here it is: The infamous Chrysler Turbine Ghia snuff film. Not for the weak or squeamish. Parental Advisory, etc.

Video: The infamous Chrysler Turbine snuff film | Mac's Motor City Garage.com

[keiser31]

I actually have a copy of this film on VCR. It's a ghastly death for some beautiful, innovative cars.

[Guest Oldengineer]

I actually got to see one of these cars, and, see it operate. Chysler Corporation sent one to the campus of the University of Cincinnati in the late 60's. Two Chrysler engineers gave a presentation to my engineering class on it while we were standing around the car. They were beautiful cars.

Regards:

Oldengineer

UC class of 69.

[Guest Magoo]

I actually have a copy of this film on VCR. It's a ghastly death for some beautiful, innovative cars.

Yes, it is sort of a dark classic. I hadn't seen it featured on the web in five or six years, so I figured it was time for another airing. Sad tale but real history.

[keiser31]

My neighbor in Michigan was a Chrysler engineer and had the chance to test drive one for about 6 months. Unfortunately, I never got a chance to ride in it, but I would get up early every morning to hear him start it up for work.

[JMAV8FORD]

I was there too. UC Engineering Class of 68.

[Guest 89 Maui]

I work as a contractor for the Smithsonian Museums in Washington, DC. What historic items on display in the museums are the tip of the iceberg, things that are not on display are stored in locked buildings which I normally do not have access to. One day a care-taker for one of the stored buildings requested that I check out one of our systems.

He unlocked the door and took me to our panel and I took care of the problem and then I looked around and found some historical things such as Amish buggy's from the 1800's, the 3rd manufactured Harley-Davidson motorcycle, a Don Gartlits (?) dragster, a '65 Mustang 6 cyl auto coupe (why?) dontated by a fed employee, and a Chrysler Turbine. It was absolutely gorgeous, I was drooling over it. The care-taker told me that this was one of six remaing Turbines and he also has a spare engine!

We only hear about special cars and only see pic's of them, but to see one and to touch it is mindboggling. Unfortionately, this car will never be started or run. It will not be taken out of storage until the museums have a theme that this car would help fulfill. I surely hope that a theme will arise that they can display the Turbine, it is one awesome car.

[Guest my3buicks]

I remember one being at Hershey about 15 years ago - it was a highlight seeing/hearing it run and go.

[Guest Oldengineer]

I was there too. UC Engineering Class of 68.

Nice to run across another Bearcat on this forum. I graduated with an ME degree.

Regards:

Oldengineer

[NTX5467]

The "deal" with the Turbine cars was that Chrysler paid no import duties when the car bodies came over from Italy. Hence, they had to be destroyed when their usefulness had expired.

I saw (and got pictures of!!) one of the cars from a private museum at the Mopar Nationals held at Indianapolis Raceway Park. You could tell the people who knew what it was by the way they walked around it on the entrance to the track, for its "parade lap". A BEAUTIFUL car, with a lot of '61 Thunderbird in it (same designer, as I recall). Even had the original tires on it, too! It's been at a few later Mopar Nationals after that first time at IRP in the middle 1990s.

I believe that Jay Leno has one of the Turbine Cars and a spare engine. When that year's turbine car program was ended, the cars which were not destroyed were put out to private museums and such, including "spare parts". I believe there's one in the (now closed, except for particular functions) Chrysler Museum.

As for the Don Garlits dragster, that was the first of his Swamp Rat series of dragsters to have a particular distinction (although I don't recall what it was, other than possibly the first one to break a particular speed or elapsed time record in the 1/4 mile). As it was moving from Callifornia to The Smithsonian, our Mopar Club (North Loop Dodge Performance Team) persuaded them to take a little detour to our annual car show that year, about 1986, I believe. We advertised the event lightly and the lot was crawling with people. Between the main building and the parts/service/body shop building was a covered area about 6 cars wide. That was where the trailer parked and unloaded the car. Per normal practice, it was "fired off" for everybody to see and hear. When that time came, many (unitiated) spectators started to crowd around it for a "front row view". The crew requested and strongly advised that everybody "stand back". After several warnings, few people moved. So they doused some fuel into the injector stacks and started it. When it "lit", the noise reverberated under the roof BIG TIME . . . and THEN the people backed away. The exhaust fumes and the noise were enough in themselves . . . enough motivation to get away. AND . . . the sound waves broke all of the flourescent lights in "the ceiling" of the building over the service drive-up area.

Some people complained about the noise, but this was probably the closest they'd ever been to such a car, much less a drag race venue, so what they didn't know, they soon learned. I was about 120 feet away and it was interesting how quickly that "front row" of spectators moved 50' away . . . like in two seconds, it seemed. As I walked closer, the fuel fumes were strong, taking several minutes for the wind to disburse them.

Just some rememberances . . .

NTX5467

[keiser31]

The Chrysler Museum Turbine car.....and the spec book that I ended up with that came with my neighbor's Turbine test car.

[Guest Magoo]

The "deal" with the Turbine cars was that Chrysler paid no import duties when the car bodies came over from Italy. Hence, they had to be destroyed when their usefulness had expired.

I have heard and read that story many times over the years and have even written it up that way myself once in a magazine feature. The trouble is there is no documentation for this explanation, and the available info seems to stack up against it. As it stands, it would seem the cars were destroyed for the same reasons prototypes generally are destroyed when the automaker no longer needs them. If you know of any supporting info for the import duties explanation, it would be very helpful.

On the destruction of the Chrysler Turbine cars and import duties | Hemmings Blog: Classic and collectible cars and parts

The Truth About Why Chrysler Destroyed The Turbine Cars | The Truth About Cars

[keiser31]

I have heard and read that story many times over the years and have even written it up that way myself once in a magazine feature. The trouble is there is no documentation for this explanation, and the available info seems to stack up against it. As it stands, it would seem the cars were destroyed for the same reasons prototypes generally are destroyed when the automaker no longer needs them. If you know of any supporting info for the import duties explanation, it would be very helpful.

On the destruction of the Chrysler Turbine cars and import duties | Hemmings Blog: Classic and collectible cars and parts

The Truth About Why Chrysler Destroyed The Turbine Cars | The Truth About Cars

The cost of import taxes IS the story according to my Dad who worked at the time as an executive for Chrysler Corporation Export-Import Division and according to my neighbor who was a Chrysler engineer for the Turbine cars. This Chrysler history book also states the same. I am pretty sure the stories are true as I have studied the rise and fall of the Turbine car for years. Don't think my Dad and the neighbor had any reason to make that story up.

Edited March 5, 2013 by keiser31 (see edit history)

[Guest Magoo]

The cost of import taxes IS the story according to my Dad who worked at the time as an executive for Chrysler Corporation Export-Import Division and according to my neighbor who was a Chrysler engineer for the Turbine cars. This Chrysler history book also states the same. I am pretty sure the stories are true as I have studied the rise and fall of the Turbine car for years. Don't think my Dad and the neighbor had any reason to make that story up.

I am not accusing anyone of making things up. People can be mistaken, get bad info, or simply forget, and in automotive history this often happens. For example, in your book excerpt above it says 10 cars were preserved when it is well documented and generally accepted, that only 9 cars survived. So the source is hardly infallible.

Here's the problem with the import duties story: the cost would amount to ~$250 per car or $11,500 total for 46 vehicles: spare change given the size and scope of the turbine program. Isn't it more reasonable to presume that the cars were scrapped for the usual reasons prototypes are scrapped?

For example, imagine how much it would cost to maintain all 55 cars in perpetuity, either within Chrysler or in the hands of consumers. The cars were virtually handmade. Where were owners going to get fenders or windshields or air filters?

[keiser31]

I am going by my Dad's and neighbor's first hand experiences.....not hearsay. After all....they were there and we were not.

And about one of the links you posted....since Wikipedia is mostly input from folks adding what they THINK is correct, I would never go by what that site says as far as history goes.

Edited March 5, 2013 by keiser31 (see edit history)

[1957buickjim]

My dad worked at Trenton Engine for Chrysler and brought one home for the weekend..what a beautiful vehicle and a real buzz around the neighborhood. I was only 7, but what a cool car for a young kid to experience!

[Guest Magoo]

I am going by my Dad's and neighbor's first hand experiences.....not hearsay. After all....they were there and we were not.

And about one of the links you posted....since Wikipedia is mostly input from folks adding what they THINK is correct, I would never go by what that site says as far as history goes.

The links do not cite or rely upon any Wikipedia info. One story simply mentions Wikipedia in passing. I only asked if you had any written documentation or info beyond simple word of mouth. Obviously you don't, so OK.

[Guest Magoo]

My dad worked at Trenton Engine for Chrysler and brought one home for the weekend..what a beautiful vehicle and a real buzz around the neighborhood. I was only 7, but what a cool car for a young kid to experience!

A family in my neighborhood had one to drive. It certainly burns into the memory -- such a gorgeous car and unique sound.

[NTX5467]

With all due respect, I'll concur with the "import duty" orientation. It makes sense to me. I never did know what the official import duty on the vehicles would be back then, nor did I really care, just that it was "there". In many ways, the whole Chrysler Turbine Program was possibly more of a marketing "thing" to keep Chrysler at the forefront of vehicular turbine engine development . . . starting in about 1954, in "the jet age" era's first years. Additionally, to keep "The Engineering Car Company" orientation fresh in the public's mind, I suspect. In THAT orientation, the whole program (including import duty costs) could have been written-off into the R&D Budget or Advertising itself.

I suspect there might have been some in the corporation who felt corporate money could be spent better elsewhere . . . very possibly for their OWN pet projects . . . rather than on a project that would not effectively relate to later-production vehicles. And THAT could have been the reason the "import duty" story came about, if indeed it was "a story". Even though the cost of the import duty payments might have been small in comparison to the total corporate budget, there most probably were some that would have raised their voices against such "a waste of money", at a time when (as I recall) Chrysler was not in the very best of financial health at or just prior to this timeframe.

At THIS point in time, it's kind of a moot point WHY it all happened. We just know that what happened did happen.

When Wikipedia first came out, many students started (from what I saw) using it as references just as they might have used the prior World Book Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, or similar. These students found out very quickly that their public school and college/university professors would not accept Wikipedia as a valid information source for research -- period. You can suspect the dismay when they got their research papers back with red marks over their information source listings! That was about 25 years ago, so I expect the current listings are much more accurate, but anything which can be "user updated" (which puts into play "perceptions" rather than "facts", in some cases) will always be suspect of complete accuracy. At least if a noted and accepted encylopedia prints something, what's printed can usually be accepted as "fact" . . . moreso than many books by a variety of authors on any particular subject.

ALL of these information sources can be good, just that some are accepted as being more accurate than others, with all due respect. Taking ALL of them to reach a conclusion might be termed "good investigative research" . . . something that seems to be very missing in our modern "sound byte" society . . . especially with the many 24-hour news channels (with their own "perspectives and orientations" influencing what and how things are reported). Typically, NO new versions of "Huntley & Brinkley", Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, unfortunately. I'll accept the fact that I've just highly-dated myself (and some others, too!).

One of my observations is that only "credibility" and "integrity" are all that matters any more, as what can be termed "truth" (and the opposite) seem to have become highly "point-of-reference" situations in more recent history. Even the operational definition of "expert" has changed from the days of Perry Mason.

I might be one of the "sheep" as I desire to believe the "import duty" story regarding the Chrysler Turbine cars, as that's the information I've seen in print since "back then". Yet, I'm willing to listen to alternative orientations that can have some real information and facts in them. Still, though, it seems the "corporate line" was the cars were destroyed as (for some reason) Chrysler didn't pay the necessary import duties on the cars when they were imported. The tax authorities could be somewhat "pesky" back then, too, from what many who had to deal with the IRS have noted (including my late father).

Respectfully,

NTX5467

[Guest Magoo]

With all due respect, I'll concur with the "import duty" orientation. It makes sense to me. I never did know what the official import duty on the vehicles would be back then, nor did I really care, just that it was "there". In many ways, the whole Chrysler Turbine Program was possibly more of a marketing "thing" to keep Chrysler at the forefront of vehicular turbine engine development . . . starting in about 1954, in "the jet age" era's first years. Additionally, to keep "The Engineering Car Company" orientation fresh in the public's mind, I suspect. In THAT orientation, the whole program (including import duty costs) could have been written-off into the R&D Budget or Advertising itself.

I suspect there might have been some in the corporation who felt corporate money could be spent better elsewhere . . . very possibly for their OWN pet projects . . . rather than on a project that would not effectively relate to later-production vehicles. And THAT could have been the reason the "import duty" story came about, if indeed it was "a story". Even though the cost of the import duty payments might have been small in comparison to the total corporate budget, there most probably were some that would have raised their voices against such "a waste of money", at a time when (as I recall) Chrysler was not in the very best of financial health at or just prior to this timeframe.

At THIS point in time, it's kind of a moot point WHY it all happened. We just know that what happened did happen.

When Wikipedia first came out, many students started (from what I saw) using it as references just as they might have used the prior World Book Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, or similar. These students found out very quickly that their public school and college/university professors would not accept Wikipedia as a valid information source for research -- period. You can suspect the dismay when they got their research papers back with red marks over their information source listings! That was about 25 years ago, so I expect the current listings are much more accurate, but anything which can be "user updated" (which puts into play "perceptions" rather than "facts", in some cases) will always be suspect of complete accuracy. At least if a noted and accepted encylopedia prints something, what's printed can usually be accepted as "fact" . . . moreso than many books by a variety of authors on any particular subject.

ALL of these information sources can be good, just that some are accepted as being more accurate than others, with all due respect. Taking ALL of them to reach a conclusion might be termed "good investigative research" . . . something that seems to be very missing in our modern "sound byte" society . . . especially with the many 24-hour news channels (with their own "perspectives and orientations" influencing what and how things are reported). Typically, NO new versions of "Huntley & Brinkley", Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, unfortunately. I'll accept the fact that I've just highly-dated myself (and some others, too!).

One of my observations is that only "credibility" and "integrity" are all that matters any more, as what can be termed "truth" (and the opposite) seem to have become highly "point-of-reference" situations in more recent history. Even the operational definition of "expert" has changed from the days of Perry Mason.

I might be one of the "sheep" as I desire to believe the "import duty" story regarding the Chrysler Turbine cars, as that's the information I've seen in print since "back then". Yet, I'm willing to listen to alternative orientations that can have some real information and facts in them. Still, though, it seems the "corporate line" was the cars were destroyed as (for some reason) Chrysler didn't pay the necessary import duties on the cars when they were imported. The tax authorities could be somewhat "pesky" back then, too, from what many who had to deal with the IRS have noted (including my late father).

Respectfully,

NTX5467

Again, Wikipedia has absolutely no role in this discussion. It's a big fat red herring. Beyond that, the facts speak for themselves and folks are free to use their own judgement and make up their own minds. Whichever way they decide is fine with me.

I only know that I will never make the import duties claim in another article. It seems to make sense from middle distance but once you actually look at it, it doesn't add up.

[Guest 59-in-pieces]

I recognize that I am late to this party, but for what it's worth, here is my 2 cents.

I saw this car as a Freshman at my alma mater, UCLA here in California, 1963ish.

The car was stunning in its unique design, apart from the fact it was a turbine.

I recall that when it was started it sounded just like a turbine was expected to sound - a low whine.

The turbine came to driving speed, but not as quickly as you might expect.

When asked about the design difficulties, one particular issue still hangs on in my memory.

They had to "widen the exhaust pipe" in order to dissipate the enormous heat from operating the engine, so as to avoid melting the street asphalt - if the car remained stopped for too long a time.

We were allowed - if only briefly - to sit in the car while it was not running - such excitement.

In truth, I could not get over the fact - even with all of its design cues and spectacular gold metal flake paint - that it looked like my mother's new Thunderbird.

Still, it was a "big deal" in this ol'guy's experiences.

Steve

[jdome]

They had to "widen the exhaust pipe" in order to dissipate the enormous heat from operating the engine, so as to avoid melting the street asphalt - if the car remained stopped for too long a time.

It doesn't get that hot. A turbine is a simple engine. It has one set of fans that suck in a large volume of air and compresses it into a chamber with a blow tourch that heats the compressed air so it expands with more force on the drive fan. The "exhaust pipe" (or better yet exhaust outlet with no pipe) has to be large enough to allow the expanding exhaust air to exit without any restrictions. As the air expands rapidy it also cools rapidly. It would be warm to the touch at the end of a ten ft tail pipe but not hot enough to melt asphalt.

My Dad tried to get one of the turbine cars during the trial but was not selected. He did get to test drive one for an afternoon though and I got to ride in the back seat. I was a young kid at the time and was fasinated by all things trains, planes and autos and this was a real thrill to me at the time. In the mid 70's I started a project to convert a car to electric drive. I ran across a guy that had several small military surplus turbines for sale so I bought one. It is 100 HP and only weighs about 100 lbs. I lost interest in the electric car and sold that project before I barely got started. I never did anything with the turbine engine but I still have it. I used to fire it up once in a while just for the fun of it. You have to wear ear protection when working around turbines because they suck in so much air that it lowers the air pressure around the intake enough to pop an eardrum.

The biggest engineering problem to overcome with using turbines in cars is that they have to run at a near constant speed. You can't vary the RPMs very much. My engine for example has to run at a constant 30,000 RPM. That's at idle too, so they waste a lot of fuel at a stop light. Chrysler got around the constant high RPM's by using a torque converter and the the throttle pedal controlled the amount of fluid that was pumped in and out of the converter which caused the noted delayed or sluggish acceleration waiting for the fluid to pump in. The speed of the car was controlled by the amount of coupling between the torque converter halves by varing the amount of fluid. I found a big old 50's Buick auto trans torque converter I was going to modify for my car. I also bought an industrial TC from junked wood chipper that I thought I could experiment with but That is about as far as I got. A new family and a career got in the way.

There is a turbine car in Indiana that has been in private hands for a long time. I have seen and heard it run several times. The last time I saw it was when they trailored it to the Glenmoor Concoor in Canton, OH about 2 years ago. They played around with it all day but couldn't get it started.

[Aaron65]

I recommend Steve Lehto's book on the Chrysler Turbine Car. It has all you'd need to know on it. The book states that the import duties were the stated reason for scrapping the cars, but in reality, they tried to give them away to car museums, but very few wanted them. It would be like giving a car museum a Volt today. Additionally, they didn't want a bunch of Turbines running around with engine swaps, diluting the effect of the program.

[Guest Magoo]

I recommend Steve Lehto's book on the Chrysler Turbine Car. It has all you'd need to know on it. The book states that the import duties were the stated reason for scrapping the cars, but in reality, they tried to give them away to car museums, but very few wanted them. It would be like giving a car museum a Volt today. Additionally, they didn't want a bunch of Turbines running around with engine swaps, diluting the effect of the program.

Agreed. I know Leno, who owns one of the two running Ghia turbines in private hands, rates the book highly.

[Guest WBrownIV]

Here in St. Louis, there is a Turbine Car in running condition ( at least it was running last I heard!). It was a static display with extra engine for years until Chrysler made it functional.