Just a thought...

File: 1964_Ford_Turbine_Truck_02.jpg (285KB, 1024x445px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1024x445px

So did Ford

>A 600-hp turbine engine propelled Big Red and offered a 600-mile cruising range from its 280-gallon fuel capacity. At full capacity, the power plant could pull 170,000 pounds, which was a combined weight of tractor, trailers and cargo.

>>16257439
>>16257454
looks like something out of fallout

Imagine how crazy it would be if Tesla made a big rig. That's just too far fetched though, will probably never happen. You would probably need 8 90kwh packs to power it.

File: Untitled.jpg (957KB, 2750x1440px) Image search: [Google]

957KB, 2750x1440px

>>16257439
>>16257472
Its turbine generates electricity for the 4 electric motors on the rear wheels

File: DeArco_2-WEB.jpg (22KB, 252x174px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 252x174px

Here's a good read to go with this thread.

http://www.oldcarsweekly.com/news/hobby-news/tag-team_trucking

>>16257454
>barely 2MPG
Was this supposed to be impressive at the time?

>>16257514
>early 60's
>600 hp
>2mpg pulling 170,000 pounds

IDK anon, you tell me.

>>16257521
So no?

>>16257439
I dunno, going deaf every time one of them pulled up next to you at a light?

>>16257521
>>early 60's
>>600 hp
That's not impressive at all, they had engines that did nearly twice that in the 40's.
>>2mpg pulling 170,000 pounds
I mean I guess?

File: Diesel-Locomotive-Working-Schematic.png (92KB, 745x328px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 745x328px

>>16257487
how original, what a genius this telsa fucktard is

File: 12HF42_AS02.jpg (29KB, 600x471px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x471px

would have been a nightmare to maintain and your truck mechanic is now a jet mechanic

File: waltzing-matilda003.jpg~original.jpg (62KB, 792x518px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 792x518px

>>16257439
>>16257454
>>16257487
>>16257494

on the other hand, used semis would be priceless among pilot enthusiasts and people alike. Same like motorhomes are good source of big block V8s.

>>16257439
Walmart did it too.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a7284/walmart-turbine-hybrid-aero-semi/

File: 546b34b3d3600_-_walmart-advanced-vehicle-experience-wave-concept-truck-lg.jpg (52KB, 768x432px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 768x432px

>>16259179
thanks for this

>Walmart is turning to its truck fleet to reduce overhead
>The trailer uses single-piece 53-foot-long carbon-fiber panels

>>16257588
The most common engines in the '50s and '60s were in the 2-300 HP range.
>743/855 Cummins (220-335 HP)
>6-71 Detroit (238HP)
>Mack Thermodyne (
>IHC V-549 (235 HP)

600 HP was a lot for a truck engine back then. Fuel mileage sucked donkey dick, too. A bobtail IHC V200 with a 549 gets about 5MPG.

>>16259242
lel I forgot to add the Thermodyne's HP rating. They were right around the 200 Hp mark.

>>16259118
Tesla's dead you dumbass

And who said that every product ever made has to be completely original all the time? Will you bitch that the Chevy Volt is shit because it isn't original either?

>>16259242
its piss, its sickening

File: speed042.jpg (25KB, 397x300px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 397x300px

>>16257454
Mammonth Car?

>>16257533
I doubt it would be hard to come up with a decent muffler system to reduce sound output, especially by routing the exhaust up top like most trucks already do

>>16257588

Currently we have engines making 1,500 hp but 600hp on a truck is a lot.

Also 170,000 lbs is 70 tonnes. Trucks are limited to 44tons these days.

>>16259127
Turbines don't have to be complicated. The M1 Abrams runs off of a turbine powerplant, and being in the military they have some real retarded fucks working on shit like that.

Being on the road, it would'nt have to be as close-tolerance and have as many redundancies as an aircraft engine, and just like anything else if a part breaks you just replace it. It'd be more expensive for parts, absolutely, but it wouldn't be any more complicated to work on.

>>16257533

The "noisiest" turbines are the ones using thrust to propel the vehicle. The turboshafts can be very quiet

File: 500_boeing_1.jpg (127KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 750x750px

>>16259127
Turbines aren't scary

File: 18337370.jpg.square-true_maxheight-285_size-285.jpg (11KB, 285x285px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 285x285px

>>16259188

>>16257487
Why are they only doing this now in semi trucks when locomotives been doing this for years?

isnt this method a lot more fuel efficient?

>>16257439
>>16257454
What absolute cock-smoking retards.
>Next: GM/Ford introduce nuclear explosion propelled pickup truck concepts.

>>16260692
I'd bet on weight reasons. I believe the max weight of truck, trailer and load on most states is 80 thousand pounds. A heavier truck means you can't move as much cargo, so you don't make as much money

>>16260692

it actually is less effecient.

But you dont need a transmission.

>>16261112

I dont think it'd be weight. Truckerfag said that truck transmissions are just over 200lb. A 150kw generator (generator itself not the engine) is around 100lbs and then the motors for that power will be about 50lbs each wheel.

So tell me, what would things have been like?

File: Astral.jpg (42KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 800x531px

>>16260725
You joke, but there were a few nuclear powered concepts from the 50s-60s
>Ford Nucleon
>Simca Fulgar
>Ford Seattle-ite XXI
and pic related >Studebaker Packard Astral

>>16261824
They weren't nuclear powered. They weren't powered at all. They were just design studies with the marketing shouting NUCULAR for publicity.