turbine engined chargers that never were..

[moparstuart]

 when are we going for a ride in it  INDY

[SFRT]

hey Brock I have blueprints for a V-1 pulse jet lets build it and stick it in your roadrunner!

[Brock Samson]

BTW: Jim Ebejer gets the designing credits dispite the the original 1963 mid engine double diamond design which is credited to R. Sias...

related info on this thread.

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,14937.0.html


more stuff from our site...

           http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,13295.0.html

"Burton Bouwkamp wrote: "The Chrysler turbines had reached the point where production would be practical, and the decision to make a special, limited-production turbine car with different styling was reached. Tom Golec, supervisor of car development, said that low-volume tooling for a 500-vehicle production run had already been ordered, and a no-slip clutch unit was developed (but not used because of its cost). The project was cancelled, and the special body became the Charger (but with a different grille)."

             http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,5719.0.html

  Recognisable as a 1st gen. charger with a turbine script of course we now realize the grill ended up on the 1970 Challenger...


 other misc crap...
    http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,26989.0.html
 and yes.. Carl Cameron actually got the nod to do the 2nd gen...
    http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,18047.0.html
here's the original 1964-'65 clays that led to the 2nd gen...
if you haven't read the text it's well worth the effort...

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,14937.0.html



 
I'm just wondering here if the Charger should have been turbine powered, mid-engined and called the "Monte Carlo".

[69_500]

Having talked to a person who was working on the turbine cars, throughout the whole process, I find them a very fascinating group of cars. I didn't know until talking to him, that they were doing the turbine cars all of the way up to the K-car's as well. I had always thought they had stopped back in the late 60's. Very interesting cars. I believe they even did a turbine powered Duster as well.

And as far as anyone knowing things about the turbine cars, it would be the guy I talked to. Sharp as a tack, and very very very knowledgeable on the cars.

[moparstuart]

would that be AL bradshaw ?  HE is the man when it comes to the original turbine car program , I have heard him talk 3 differnt times just awesome .

[jackel440]

I know 2 years ago they had 1 turbine car from detroit and the one from a private collector at the annual Cruz In car show at the kokomo transmission plant.They would start them up and put a glass of water on the top of the engine.I was amazed that there were no ripples in the water in the glass.no vibration whatsoever.

[69_500]

would that be AL bradshaw ?  HE is the man when it comes to the original turbine car program , I have heard him talk 3 differnt times just awesome .

Actually it wouldn't be (not at liberty to share his name or information). I had forgotten about Al. I believe that i might go pay the gentleman a visit sometime in January, still gotta work out some details for a trip.

[Brock Samson]

 It sure would be nice to find out the disposition  of the '66 B-Bodied turbines, the Charger in particular and if there are any more info about the turbine/charger design/marketing plans...

[moparstuart]

would that be AL bradshaw ?  HE is the man when it comes to the original turbine car program , I have heard him talk 3 differnt times just awesome .

Actually it wouldn't be (not at liberty to share his name or information). I had forgotten about Al. I believe that i might go pay the gentleman a visit sometime in January, still gotta work out some details for a trip.

    I love these cars if you do sometime get an interview I would love to here some info if he lets you disclose 

[Alaskan_TA]

Look here as well;

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,50947.0.html

[69_500]

Well I can say that an official interview won't be happening. He wasn't open to the idea of being on tape talking about the cars, but boy was there a lot of stories and information in his head.

[Ghoste]

That's too bad, it would have been interesting.

[Leeedy]

BTW: Jim Ebejer gets the designing credits dispite the the original 1963 mid engine double diamond design which is credited to R. Sias...

related info on this thread.

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,14937.0.html


more stuff from our site...

           http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,13295.0.html

"Burton Bouwkamp wrote: "The Chrysler turbines had reached the point where production would be practical, and the decision to make a special, limited-production turbine car with different styling was reached. Tom Golec, supervisor of car development, said that low-volume tooling for a 500-vehicle production run had already been ordered, and a no-slip clutch unit was developed (but not used because of its cost). The project was cancelled, and the special body became the Charger (but with a different grille)."

             http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,5719.0.html

  Recognisable as a 1st gen. charger with a turbine script of course we now realize the grill ended up on the 1970 Challenger...


 other misc crap...
    http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,26989.0.html
 and yes.. Carl Cameron actually got the nod to do the 2nd gen...
    http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,18047.0.html
here's the original 1964-'65 clays that led to the 2nd gen...
if you haven't read the text it's well worth the effort...

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,14937.0.html



 
I'm just wondering here if the Charger should have been turbine powered, mid-engined and called the "Monte Carlo".

I have no idea who "Burton Bouwkamp" is or was... but I wrote these EXACT words credited to this person here. Grrrr. I wrote this in 1979 and it was published (and copyrighted) in my original Chrysler Gas Turbine car history in Hemmings Special-Interest Autos magazine. This appreared on news stands in June of 1980. Absolutely no idea who "Burton" is or how he gets credit for my writing. And yes, it was me who interviewed Tom Golec... in the 1970s.

I am continually amazed at the fact that I was first to reveal the information about proposed Dodge Charger gas turbine production in the 1970s (it would have been called "TurbineCharger"). But neither my original 1980 article nor me ever seems to get mentioned when the subject comes up today. Amazing. Even worse, only my imitators and those (including Motor Trend) who repeat my original story over and over again continue to get credit for something they never knew and never originally wrote. My info was in the Hemmings SIA story along with photos. I DO like to get credit for my own work.

By the way, I once had a complete set of photos of the TurbineCharger and most of these managed to "disappear" when I sent them into a magazine that claimed they "lost" them years ago. I originally got these photos from Bill Brownlie himself. And yes, the TurbineCharger front end is what eventually and morphed and became the front grille and headlights for the 1970 Dodge Challenger (coincidentally, the original intended 1972 Challenger front end would have looked like Charger Daytona, but the public never saw it).

Anyway, to set the record straight here, you are quoting Leon Dixon and not some guy named "Burton" here. No idea how he gets credit for something I wrote.  The exact passage quoted here was written by me... it appears in my copyrighted 1980 Hemmings SIA article and the info on the Dodge TurbineChargers originally came from me. And no, it was Chargers, not "Coronets" that Chrysler intended to produce in a run of 500.

I am also one of few people in the world who drove both the Chrysler Ghia Gast Turbine Car (several times) AND the Turbine Aspen DOT/DOE car. In the 1950s, I was the youngest person in the country on the Chrysler Press Preview mailing list.

My Hemmings SIA article was posted with permission on Mark Olson's turbine car web site. You can still see and read it there: http://www.turbinecar.com/sia/sia57.htm

[TUFCAT]

Thanks for coming on here Mr. Dixon. I've read your articles about Chrysler's gas turbine program.  Do you know anything about a 4-door Barracuda some people claim Chrysler built?  

[moparnation74]

Thanks, Leeedy.  Do you know anything about a 4-door Barracuda some people claim Chrysler built?

And the rematch shall begin.........

[wingcar]

Tufcat.....you are such an instigator!   

[wingcar]

The picture of the white Turbine car was from the 1964 movie "The Lively Set" with James Darren, Doug McClure and Pamela Tiffin.  It has excellent footage of the 1963 Turbine car in action, and for a "car movie" is actually pretty good.   Unfortunately, it was destroyed along with most of the other examples. 

[Patronus]

Sure love the Turbine cars. Didn't know about the other body styles involved, thanks for posting! Also, in the engine pic. What is that yard ornament in the fore-ground?

[Ghoste]

I agree 100% that you should get credit for your research and anything that you wrote.  I would add however that with the inside access you had at Chrysler I'm surprised about the not knowing who this Burton Bowkamp guy is.  He was the director of product planning at Dodge at that time.  He was certainly someone important and definitely a guy whose name would have been all over the project if they were seriously looking at making it a reality.

[Leeedy]

I agree 100% that you should get credit for your research and anything that you wrote.  I would add however that with the inside access you had at Chrysler I'm surprised about the not knowing who this Burton Bowkamp guy is.  He was the director of product planning at Dodge at that time.  He was certainly someone important and definitely a guy whose name would have been all over the project if they were seriously looking at making it a reality.

Regardless of who this Burton fellow was or what position he held, I can assure you of three things:
1.) I will not instantly recognize the name of each and every guy who worked at each and every car company and what he did... even at Chrysler, where I knew a lot of people, but did not know a lot more. And certainly not in an online internet forum today. This is a HUGE number of people we are discussing here!

2.) As someone who has personally worked in automotive product planning at a major car company AND.. who has actually developed and even designed things that actually got made and are out there in the real world–right now, this does not mean that people automatically know who I am–or what I have done. Even people who worked for the same companies as me did not always know what I did or even who I was. Being the head of product planning just means he was the head of product planning. Period.
3.) It does not matter that this guy was head of product planning. Heads of product planning are rarely known and to say their "name would be all over a project" is a nice thought, but it just doesn't work that way in the real world of car companies. The "head of product planning" at a company where I worked and where a famous car was developed has YET to ever be mentioned in print or on the internet... yet one of the regular planners in that department is mentioned all-the-time-every-time!

I have always known about the TurbineCharger car, but the name of anyone in product planning just never came up as far as I can recall in connection with this car. If it did, I have forgotten it (something I rarely do) decades ago. Either way the subject is a moot one since it does not matter WHO is parroting back my copyrighted writing and being credited for originating rather than imitating me... it is still a rip-off of what I wrote. No matter who is claiming and who is being credited. This person simply did not write such a statement and if he did, it was only copied word-for-word from my article.

I assure you that I can run down a list of people I knew at car companies–including Dodge–who did important things or impressive things, but I can bet many of their names would not be common knowledge–even if one is "connected." A good friend of mine did early illustrations of Charger and Challenger... in fact the most famous and controversial illustration of Challenger. But I would venture a guess that mentioning his name in a online car forum would not result in recognition–even with hardcore fans.

As far as "research"... SOME of what I have written is from research, but much of it was simply information that I always knew without having to "research" it.

And finally, regarding the movie, "The Lively Set"... I was also the one who first wrote about the CGT turbine car's connection and use in that movie. And this was back when nobody even noticed or cared. After all, I also lived in SoCal, worked in movies and had friends there. Still to this day I have all of the original photo stills and promos from the movie. I also was the first to interview the Chrysler movie crew and turbine car staff about the movie. I can even tell you how and why the concrete in one scene and photo still was gouged with a huge groove leading from the curb.

Thanks for your comments.

[dual fours]

Sure love the Turbine cars. Didn't know about the other body styles involved, thanks for posting! Also, in the engine pic. What is that yard ornament in the fore-ground?

That yard ornament is a "Marvel the Mustang", a riding toy, and no I did not have one.
(This is in reference to Reply #3, third picture down)

[Ghoste]

You hardly need to defend your position to me, I just said I was surprised and I guess I still am. As someone who does not work in product planning, automotive or otherwise, and has never had his work put into production I guess I should have researched it before making the statement.  Maybe its the use of the phrase "Burton fellow"?  It gives me (and this is just me here) the impression that you are trying to belittle his importance in the matter.  And truthfully maybe he wasn't that important.  I don't know, I don't know him either so I really don't have a side to pick there.
There is a really good chance that he was never aware of you or your articles either and has (had? is he even still alive) and idea of your words being credited to him.  I assumed that as head of product planning that if a car was being considered for production they would at some point have to notify that person. 
In any case, congratulations for writing the article?

[Leeedy]

You hardly need to defend your position to me, I just said I was surprised and I guess I still am. As someone who does not work in product planning, automotive or otherwise, and has never had his work put into production I guess I should have researched it before making the statement.  Maybe its the use of the phrase "Burton fellow"?  It gives me (and this is just me here) the impression that you are trying to belittle his importance in the matter.  And truthfully maybe he wasn't that important.  I don't know, I don't know him either so I really don't have a side to pick there.
There is a really good chance that he was never aware of you or your articles either and has (had? is he even still alive) and idea of your words being credited to him.  I assumed that as head of product planning that if a car was being considered for production they would at some point have to notify that person. 
In any case, congratulations for writing the article?

This is a final response on this matter. If I don't need to defend my position, then let's not put me in that very position vis-a-vis "Burton fellow." Perhaps he is (or was) deserving of such gigantic respect that you appear to have. He may have been the world's greatest product planning head. However, this is not the point at all–and the amazement ought to be that this is not clearly obvious!

I don't know the fellow and wonder what you would have me call him in order to make the entire exchange somehow more palatable to you. And why it is not appropriate for ME to be offended to see my exact words that I wrote being credited to someone else–no matter who did it or how it was done? How would YOU know whether or not he saw my articles? Why are you picking sides to defend–all while claiming to be doing exactly the opposite? And why are you even imagining that it is appropriate to defend ANY of this in any way–no matter how oblique or small? Copyrights are Federal Law.

You are welcome to take any "impression" you choose or assume anything you like, but again I think we both know the ultimate meaning of that word.

By your own admission, you are not aware of how the automotive product planning process works or even how that differs from company to company–regime to regime. Or who gets credit for what in all of this–if indeed anyone ever does. However, as one who has actually been there, I assure you that I am all too familiar. And this is–despite internet presumptions–not something one can merely "research." How would you do that? The car business is the car business. Internet forums are internet forums. These are two very different things.

Further, by your own admission, you have never created anything, written articles, published works, designed anything that got made. So therefore, how could you possibly know what it feels like to see someone else getting credit for your work? Until you do, you are thus hardly in position to even comment here, much less take sides or defend the "Burton fellow" or anyone else in such a matter. I assure you that if and when you ever do create something, write and publish something or design something, STEAM WILL ROLL out of your collar too when you see another person receiving or taking credit for YOUR work!

I realize that due to the internet and general apathy attitudes today regarding copyrights and intellectual property, there are large numbers of people who either can't understand or belittle anyone defending their right in this regard. After all... what's the big deal, huh? This notion is clearly reflected in the gigantic amount of piracy in today's world. Fake Gucci bags, fake Rolexes, ripped-off music and video, ripped off movies–sold as if legitimate. Ripped-off photography and bogus copies of art sold either without permission or posing as legitimate. And yes, ripped off car design and technology. And this is also why American design and manufacturing has found itself popping up on the other side of the world with other people's names on it... or being loaded in cargo containers to be sold right back to an apathetic public that has been duped out of seeing the devastation this has caused to the economy. Or the importance of copyrights and intellectual property. And the reason why many creative people are discouraged to create simply because they have no control or protection of their intellectual property. Why labor years and pour fortunes into a design or technology (and yes, I can speak about this from personal experience too) or even a movie if someone else can just come along, rip it off and sell it as their own? OR get credit for the work when all they did was show up and rip?

Defending something that should not, ought not and cannot be excused is not something to debate. No one should ever have to be defending why or how they are upset about seeing someone else's name on their copyrighted work. End of subject and I'm not going to post further responses on this matter.

[TUFCAT]

It would be nice to have your thoughts on record about concept cars from that time period.

[ECS]

2.) As someone who has personally worked in automotive product planning at a major car company AND.. who has actually developed and even designed things that actually got made and are out there in the real world–right now, this does not mean that people automatically know who I am–or what I have done. Even people who worked for the same companies as me did not always know what I did or even who I was. Being the head of product planning just means he was the head of product planning. Period.

Thank you very much for making that point.  There are a few individuals around here that believe their awareness (or lack) of Automotive History is THE validating point for its accuracy.  Here is what Pete Estes of General Motors said about a similar subject matter:

Of course, all of this prototype work was done on the sly without the knowledge of either Chevrolet Division or the GM Corporate hierarchy.  I never told anyone anything if I could help it when I was running Pontiac.  And that wasn't the only thing they didn't know.  At the time we had a pretty good budget for advanced engineering, we built a lot of experimental cars and engines every year and we didn't tell a soul anything.