Turbine trucks...

[Marty_d]

Ok, I know it's not strictly an aircraft engine, but I found it informative. Also some motoring history I'd never heard of.

Six Decades Ago, General Motors Created A Ridiculous Twin Gas Turbine Semi-Truck That Looked Like A Moon Rover - The Autopian

WWW.THEAUTOPIAN.COM

---

General Motors once tried to reinvent trucking. This is the GM Bison a wild moon rover-looking semi-truck with two turbine...

 

[onetrack]

I don't know how many derogatory adjectives you could think up for this trucking prototype - "impractical", "unrealistic", "uneconomic", "inefficient", "fuel-thirsty", "outright dangerous" and "economically unsound", immediately come to mind.

 

Gas turbine proposals brought a gleam to oil company executives eyes, as they slurped fuel worse than any huge aircraft radial - even though it might have been kerosene.

Can you imagine the impracticality of operating a machine like that in a huge warehousing yard with hundreds of other trucks? (I might add, some trucking operations in the U.S. own 10,000-12,000 trucks, and 80,000 to 100,000 trailers).

 

The lack of driver protection in a crash is outstanding, to say the least. I couldn't even bring myself to imagine the complexity of the engines and drivetrain, and the huge range of specialist skills and tools needed to fix it.

There's a reason why trucks look the way they do, and are built the way they are. They're a time-honoured, proven and practical design and shape, and the basics of them haven't changed a lot since the late 1940's.

 

I'm staggered at the amount of money that the likes of the big corporate vehicle manufacturers wasted on what amounts to design masturbation sessions in this era. It comes back to the fact that GM was the richest and most powerful corporation in the world, in the 20th century, in the 1950's and 1960's, and they had hundreds of millions to spend on outlandish designs and stupid prototypes, that wasn't even missed.

 

Come the 21st century and decades of GM mismanagement and poor planning, though, and it was a totally different story, leading to GM's bankruptcy in 2009. Naturally, GM's bankruptcy was also the worlds largest bankruptcy, up to that time!

[skippydiesel]

I may be mistaken but didnt Rover have a turbine powered car and weren't some tanks similarly powered ??😈

[turboplanner]

8 hours ago, onetrack said:

I don't know how many derogatory adjectives you could think up for this trucking prototype - "impractical", "unrealistic", "uneconomic", "inefficient", "fuel-thirsty", "outright dangerous" and "economically unsound", immediately come to mind.

 

Gas turbine proposals brought a gleam to oil company executives eyes, as they slurped fuel worse than any huge aircraft radial - even though it might have been kerosene.

Can you imagine the impracticality of operating a machine like that in a huge warehousing yard with hundreds of other trucks? (I might add, some trucking operations in the U.S. own 10,000-12,000 trucks, and 80,000 to 100,000 trailers).

 

The lack of driver protection in a crash is outstanding, to say the least. I couldn't even bring myself to imagine the complexity of the engines and drivetrain, and the huge range of specialist skills and tools needed to fix it.

There's a reason why trucks look the way they do, and are built the way they are. They're a time-honoured, proven and practical design and shape, and the basics of them haven't changed a lot since the late 1940's.

 

I'm staggered at the amount of money that the likes of the big corporate vehicle manufacturers wasted on what amounts to design masturbation sessions in this era. It comes back to the fact that GM was the richest and most powerful corporation in the world, in the 20th century, in the 1950's and 1960's, and they had hundreds of millions to spend on outlandish designs and stupid prototypes, that wasn't even missed.

 

Come the 21st century and decades of GM mismanagement and poor planning, though, and it was a totally different story, leading to GM's bankruptcy in 2009. Naturally, GM's bankruptcy was also the worlds largest bankruptcy, up to that time!

Promotional; It was the 1950s; TV was feeding information about "Jets" and Americans couldn't get enough of how clever they were. The cars got "Jet Fins" and walked out the doors. People wanted Jet cars - one even had a modified steering panel and airctaft instruments.

That Show truck was probably three parts wood/paper/clay, but clearly successful because both Ford and GM started developing gas turbine Tractors. Over the road trucks are close to cruise power applications, so it was a good bed and the engineers desperately tried to find a way of generating fast intermittant power, or covering the requirement with huge torque, but gave up. Here's a photo of the working GM version.

 

You're being a little harsh on the GM financial story. GM was based on the 2 cents off a part equalling and extra million dollars net profit, and were one of the most successful companies in the world, but the US Government thought they were too rich and did a reverse Walmart on them, taking away their Frigidaire refrigerator division. That killed a complete factory in Dandenong Victoria and the area never recovered. They took their GM 2stroke diesel engine business , their Allison Transmission business etc. and GM was headed downhill. 

[Thruster88]

The jet or turbine powered car dream is alive and well. 

 

 

[facthunter]

GM at one stage went BROKE and was bailed out by the US Government. The GM 2 stroke diesels would never meet the later pollution standards. GM was steadfastly anti electric, ALWAYS.  The BEST Piston engine for specific fuel consumption/ HP Hour was a Wright RADIAL  with 3 Power recovery Turbines.   Radials are NOT more thirsty than any other configuration for their HP Output .  There are several reasons why they should be better. and most of the Bigger ones are Radials.Jet engines  that are NON fan jets are Very thirsty. Yes Rover did build a turbine Powered CAR. Thirsty and slow to accelerate. Nev

[turboplanner]

12 minutes ago, facthunter said:

GM at one stage went BROKE and was bailed out by the US Government.

See above.

12 minutes ago, facthunter said:

The GM 2 stroke diesels would never meet the later pollution standards.

There were no emission standards in the 1950's

 

12 minutes ago, facthunter said:

GM was steadfastly anti electric, ALWAYS.  The BEST Piston engine for specific fuel consumption/ HP Hour was a Wright RADIAL  with 3 Power recovery Turbines.   Radials are NOT more thirsty than any other configuration for their HP Output .  There are several reasons why they should be better. and most of the Bigger ones are Radials.Jet engines  that are NON fan jets are Very thirsty. Yes Rover did build a turbine Powered CAR. Thirsty and slow to accelerate. Nev

After the collapse of the electric car market in the 1920s due to lack of range, GM was the first to introduce an EV, the EV1. 

Edited yesterday at 01:13 AM by turboplanner

[onetrack]

Turbo, I wouldn't strictly say it was correct that the U.S. Govt "took away" divisions of GM. In 1959, the U.S. Govt, fearful of GM's massive financial powers, initiated an anti-trust lawsuit against GM, specifically against its merger with the Euclid Road Machinery Company, that occurred in Sept 1953. This was the precursor of the U.S. Govts attempts to break up GM.

 

In essence, Euclid, prior to its merger with GM, used a variety of engines for its construction equipment, mostly GM 2 stroke diesels or Cummins. Once Euclid was folded into GM, you could only get GM diesels and Allison transmissions, nothing else.

Companies such as Clark, Cummins, and Caterpillar were dismayed at GM's massive controlling ability in the construction equipment field, and complained bitterly. As a result, the Clayton Act lawsuit was initiated.

 

Added to this lawsuit, in 1961, the U.S. DoJ initiated criminal charges against GM executives, in relation to GM's Electromotive Division (EMD), which according to the D0J, used its massive rail freighting power (shipping GM products) to arm-twist railroads into buying EMD locomotives. GM stonewalled the Govt on these charges until the DoJ gave up.

 

More Anti-Trust actions were proposed as regarding the too-close tie-up between DuPont and GM, and between GM and GMAC (GM Acceptance Corp, the finance arm of GM). I'm not conversant with the GMAC result, but in the case of DuPont, DuPont was forced to divest itself of its huge level of GM shares.

 

The Euclid lawsuit dragged on for years, with Robert F Kennedy, as the U.S. Govt A-G, playing a large part in the negotiations. GM was finally ordered to divest itself of Euclid, in 1968. GM sold Euclid to the White Truck Corporation - but because the legal decision only affected the U.S., GM kept their Euclid factory outside the U.S. (specifically, Motherwell in Scotland) and shortly after, renamed its construction equipment division, Terex.

 

From there, Terex went on to have a very fractured history, with GM selling Terex to the IBH company of Germany in 1981. Unfortunately, IBH was run by a con-artist, and when all his fraud was uncovered, IBH went bankrupt. Terex was then broken up again into multiple operations, and eventually recovered as a construction force under management ownership.

 

America has strong laws against monopolies and deceitful corporate actions, but trying to prove them in court, when those corporations can also employ gifted lawyers with accountancy degrees as well, mean the U.S. Govt often has great difficulty pinning illegality on corporate moves, that the corporations insist, are all for the betterment of everyone!

 

Speech by A-G Robert Kennedy, 1961, outlining his approach to Anti-Trust law enforcement - https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/01/20/11-13-1961.pdf

 

1960 Anti-Trust lawsuit against GM by the U.S. Govt - https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/183/858/1973615/

 

EMD Anti-Trust case - https://utahrails.net/loconotes/emd-antitrust-case.php

 

The DuPont, GM shares divestiture - https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/us-supreme-court-orders-du-pont-disburse-gm-holdings

 

Interesting outline of the U.S. Govts Anti-Trust actions against GM in the 1960's - https://www.pontiacv8.com/blog/2018/9/14/gms-infamous-racing-ban-of-1963

 

Wikipedia article on Euclid - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid_Trucks

[BrendAn]

8 hours ago, facthunter said:

GM at one stage went BROKE and was bailed out by the US Government. The GM 2 stroke diesels would never meet the later pollution standards. GM was steadfastly anti electric, ALWAYS.  The BEST Piston engine for specific fuel consumption/ HP Hour was a Wright RADIAL  with 3 Power recovery Turbines.   Radials are NOT more thirsty than any other configuration for their HP Output .  There are several reasons why they should be better. and most of the Bigger ones are Radials.Jet engines  that are NON fan jets are Very thirsty. Yes Rover did build a turbine Powered CAR. Thirsty and slow to accelerate. Nev

the chevy volt all electric car has been around for years before the current evs

[facthunter]

Not a serious contender. The Chinese are the ones that have pushed the concept most capably. GM's attitude to electric over a long time is well documented if you care to research it. (properly). I've got no axe to Grind. I was always claimed that "What is good for GM is GOOD for America" except when it went Bankrupt and was taken over by the Obama Gov't to  save it that all went a bit quiet..   Embarrassing really. Boeing won't be allowed to fail either. It's too involved in the Military-Industrial Complex. Nev

[danny_galaga]

53 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Not a serious contender. The Chinese are the ones that have pushed the concept most capably. GM's attitude to electric over a long time is well documented if you care to research it. (properly). I've got no axe to Grind. I was always claimed that "What is good for GM is GOOD for America" except when it went Bankrupt and was taken over by the Obama Gov't to  save it that all went a bit quiet..   Embarrassing really. Boeing won't be allowed to fail either. It's too involved in the Military-Industrial Complex. Nev

Seems they might be getting with the program again

 

https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/new-electric-car-battery-breakthrough-and-its-not-from-china-american-carmaker-gm-forging

[danny_galaga]

On 26/06/2025 at 10:51 PM, Marty_d said:

Ok, I know it's not strictly an aircraft engine, but I found it informative. Also some motoring history I'd never heard of.

Six Decades Ago, General Motors Created A Ridiculous Twin Gas Turbine Semi-Truck That Looked Like A Moon Rover - The Autopian

WWW.THEAUTOPIAN.COM

---

General Motors once tried to reinvent trucking. This is the GM Bison a wild moon rover-looking semi-truck with two turbine...

 

Why does this truck remind me of Moon Patrol?

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Not IF Trump has any say in it. He's Drill baby, drill and Bye Bye to the EPA. Out of Paris agreement. EFF all of you. Nev

[danny_galaga]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Not IF Trump has any say in it. He's Drill baby, drill and Bye Bye to the EPA. Out of Paris agreement. EFF all of you. Nev

What ol' yam tits doesn't grasp is that corporations don't care. If it's beneficial to them, they'll develop it and sell it overseas. It doesn't HAVE to be bought by Americans...

[facthunter]

Trump is way out of his depth He IS a  CON MAN Cult leader and has very developed revenge instincts and gets his rocks off on POWER. He will only get Worse because HE has no inclination (or Need) to LEARN.  Those who aren't wilfully blind have already SEEN enough.   Companies know best how to run themselves  and are responsible to their shareholders and Customers..  Centralised control is a dictator thing and usually a barrier to Profit. Nev

[BurnieM]

Agree, but ....

Dickhead Donald was voted in by Americans. They knew how stupid he was and voted him in a second time.

 

[spacesailor]

The obscene salary of ' top ' C E Os in Australia ( $ 53 million P A )

leaves litle for ' shareholders ' to celebrate . (  not forgetting  all thos junior Executive Officers ).

The J E Os always vote for bigger pay increases , as they climb that corporate ladder .

spacesailor

 

[Red]

Getting back to Turbines Steam Turbines perform well in US Carriers but only practical because they have a nuclear reactor onboard to generate the heat to make steam.

Gas turbines directly fuelled with built in combustion chambers seem to have settled mainly into aviation use, I'm unsure if they still get used in some tanks and trains but they have in the past.

Compound Turbine/electric systems could still be practical in large trucks with room for the fuel in the trailer but emissions are just too High with common fuels...hydrogen perhaps?

[danny_galaga]

51 minutes ago, Red said:

Getting back to Turbines Steam Turbines perform well in US Carriers but only practical because they have a nuclear reactor onboard to generate the heat to make steam.

Gas turbines directly fuelled with built in combustion chambers seem to have settled mainly into aviation use, I'm unsure if they still get used in some tanks and trains but they have in the past.

Compound Turbine/electric systems could still be practical in large trucks with room for the fuel in the trailer but emissions are just too High with common fuels...hydrogen perhaps?

Gas turbines are also used in electricity generation. 

[Litespeed]

The M1a Abrams tank, which we bought lots of is also turbine powered and has a huge thirst and low range.