Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 36    Average: 3.5/5]
57 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 8319
Rating: 3.5
Category: Tech
Date: 05/06/12 04:45 PM

57 Responses to US Government Doesn`t Allow Efficient Vehicles??

  1. Profile photo of Buiadh
    Buiadh Male 30-39
    6739 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 2:13 pm
    Link: US Government Doesn`t Allow Efficient Vehicles?? - Is this legit? I know of the Bluemotion over here, but not in the US...? Wow. Prepare to be infuriated.
  2. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 5:05 pm
    In a democracy, we all get the government that the majority deserves.
  3. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 5:12 pm
    It`s true, but there`s another "explaination":

    It`s all about the GEARS. You put high speed gears into a diesel (which has lots of torque!) it gets better mileage!
    BUT they could potentially go really fast, like 150 miles per hour fast.
    SO the USA and Canada too, refuse to allow them.

    Oh sure, they let other expensive cars that go fast get sold, but it`s different than having thousands of cheap cars FLYING down the highways. Like the origional Rabbit way back when. (on that one, they nothced the cylinders so if it went 100 MPH it would explode the motor).

    There`s plenty of huge conspiracies: this is one of them (with two possible "explainations")
  4. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36208 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    This is true. I sold Toyotas. the Prius will go up to 30 mph on electric only in Japan but only 15 mph in the USA. Government regulation won`t allow it so they have a line of code in it`s computer that forces the gas engine on at 15 mph.
  5. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3348 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 5:35 pm
    Kinda sounds like my theory as to why we go to war. (the MIC profits from it). Anyway, this pissed me off, and I`m going to do more research on it. I have a feeling there`s more to it.
  6. Profile photo of Crabes
    Crabes Male 30-39
    1285 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 5:44 pm
    There is more too this. The first electric car as been created in 1839. link Why we did not try too make it more efficient instead of the fuel car?
  7. Profile photo of gscales
    gscales Male 30-39
    1 post
    May 6, 2012 at 5:53 pm
    This was already proven to be incorrect on PESN a clean energy org; you can all take off your tinfoil hats....
  8. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3348 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 5:54 pm
    Well, did some looking into it. I`m no expert, but some of these guys make a valid point. (or several) Anyone got better arguments thab they do?
  9. Profile photo of dm2754
    dm2754 Male 40-49
    3284 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 6:03 pm
    liky a Miles to Kilometers conversion math
  10. Profile photo of dm2754
    dm2754 Male 40-49
    3284 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 6:04 pm
    @Crabes
    becuse of a fire at Ford
    look it up
  11. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10443 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 6:23 pm
    Free market? Where are you? I can`t find it! You guys must have lost it somewhere...

    ... sounds like someone`s government is f*cked up, and can`t pay for roads in any other way...

    Raise your taxes.
  12. Profile photo of Rick_S
    Rick_S Male 40-49
    3275 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 6:29 pm
    One word for you. Lobbyists. If this video is true, that`s the only reason that they don`t allow them here. If it`s a tax issue, increase the tax on the gas, slowly over time. As people adopt the new technology, they will still end up paying less per mile, even though they are paying more per gallon.

    Think about it. The government needs a certain amount of money per mile in taxes. The gas itself will still cost the same per gallon. So a gallon of gas costs us $X for the gas, and $Y for the tax. They figure out $Y by looking at the miles per gallon and how much they want per mile. The $X part won`t change, but the $Y part will go up. So our cost per mile will go down while the tax per mile stays the same.
  13. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 6:41 pm
    @dm2754 True that: The UK (Canadian) gallon = 4.54 litres
    The US gallon = 3.89 litres
    iirc...
    SO: yes, 70MPG UK is going to lose something in the translation to US gallons.

    I`m sticking to the gears, it`s happened before.

    PLUS: there is no reason ON EARTH why Diesel should cost the same as gasoline (as an enraged former Diesel driver, I know this for a fact!).
  14. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 6:47 pm
    There is more too this. The first electric car as been created in 1839. link Why we did not try too make it more efficient instead of the fuel car?

    "we" did. There were large improvements in electric cars after the initial prototype powered carriages you refer to. You can easily see that by comparing the specs of electric cars over the following decades.

    Internal combustion engine cars improved vastly more and electric cars were completely outclassed by the early 20th century. A 20 mile range per non-rechargeable battery in a very expensive car is tolerable when car use is limited to very wealthy people being driven around town, but it`s no use at all for mass transport.

    Even now, despite vast sums of money being poured into battery technology on top of the huge general improvement in tech since then, electric cars are still very inferior to ICE cars.
  15. Profile photo of Zeegrr60
    Zeegrr60 Male 40-49
    2105 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 6:55 pm
    when middle class and poor people can afford something,it means less money in republican pockets. You don`t even have to do the math.
  16. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 7:05 pm
    It`s all about the GEARS. You put high speed gears into a diesel (which has lots of torque!) it gets better mileage!
    BUT they could potentially go really fast, like 150 miles per hour fast.

    Would you explain that? Either you`re wrong or my understanding of how gears in an ICE+transmission work is wrong. I`m pretty sure that altering the gearing to enable a much higher top speed would (a) ruin low-speed acceleration and therefore daily usability and (b) greatly increase the cost of the engine and transmission.

    An EV could potentially work better for that because it`s more practical for a bigger difference between gears as the power band is much wider. Not that it matters for normal use, since a powerful EV can do 120+mph with only one gear.
  17. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 7:11 pm
    It does seem like quite likely that EVs will be viable for the mass market within 10 years. There is a vast amount of R&D on batteries and a lot of it can be scaled into the charge, weight and size range suitable for a car. Briefcase-size batteries light enough to swap quickly and holding enough charge for a couple of hundred miles range will probably be available not too far into the future. So what`ll happen then? Governments will get tax revenue one way or another.
  18. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 7:23 pm
    Like the origional Rabbit way back when. (on that one, they nothced the cylinders so if it went 100 MPH it would explode the motor).

    Maybe I`ll regret this, but I`ll bite. Do you have any evidence for that claim? It`s a bit silly, since it would be very obvious.
  19. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3348 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 7:35 pm
    zeegrr60: "when middle class and poor people can afford something,it means less money in republican pockets. You don`t even have to do the math."

    Nope. Not necessarily. When the poor and middle class can afford something, it benefits the wealthy, because more people can afford their products. (i.e. Henry Ford making his cars affordable to his workers). Hence, this is why the Republicans are wrong in going after affordable health care, unions, teachers, firefighters, etc, etc.
  20. Profile photo of Groogle
    Groogle Male 30-39
    2172 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 7:45 pm
    Because this is news for you guys?

    It`s your economical system. That`s how it was working before, that how it`s working right now and that`s exactly how it`s going to keep on working until the end of times or until someone find something better.

    We`re rich people and we <3 you.
  21. Profile photo of Burgh
    Burgh Male 40-49
    300 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 8:12 pm
    Put a tractor motor in your vehicle.

    http://tinyurl.com/yae8xn6

    I can imagine a big reason for the mileage not being too great is politics. Govt. requires makers to improve overall mileage over time. You can stretch that time out over a greater period if you dont bump the mileage up all at once.

  22. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3435 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 8:49 pm
    Figures.
  23. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2346 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 9:09 pm
    this is not news to me. I have been all over Europe and have found what he is saying to be true.

    aside from the better MPG their cars get they are also typically better quality.

    Ford makes much better cars then they sell here...why? because Euros will not tolerate crappy cars they way Americans will.


  24. Profile photo of shaustin
    shaustin Male 18-29
    143 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 10:40 pm
    wait so do you not have the chevy volt in the states?
  25. Profile photo of TKD_Master
    TKD_Master Male 18-29
    4794 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 11:04 pm
    Oil companies kill efficient cars, too. Which is stupid because think of this.

    1. If cars got on average 50-75+ MPG, the total amount of gas in the world would be stretched further. Thus keeping big oil in business for longer.
    2. If the same were true, then they could charge MORE per gallon and nobody would care, because 70-80 dollars for a tank would last SO LONG that it`d still be cheaper than what we do today.

    So basically, less fuel consumed, more money (in the long run) for oil companies) and less money spent per mile for us. But noooo big oil has to be a whiny little bitch with no brain.
  26. Profile photo of TKD_Master
    TKD_Master Male 18-29
    4794 posts
    May 6, 2012 at 11:04 pm
    pretend the "." after "this" is a ":". Kthnx.
  27. Profile photo of thesandwich
    thesandwich Male 18-29
    150 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 2:32 am
    Ok I hear what you and the guy in the video is saying. But,
    1. Yes you can make more efficient motors, as for the environmental and tax aspects, I will briefly defend the US and oil companies. Emissions are not just CO2, but also CO and nitrides of oxygen (any combination of nitrogen and oxygen atoms attached) which are bad and be subverted by making it mostly CO2 as it is *more* efficient for emissions. As for taxes I live in ND, which has the highest highway budget in the US. If you have driven on these roads (not HWY-2 or the 2 interstates) you can understand why, the weather does not allow for roads to last for more then 5 years without construction.
    2. Without any tinfoil hats, we know we can make more efficient motors. But as all other motors require a battery. Gas makes it own reaction allowing for quicker fueling and more continuous use.
    Yeah it sucks, but thanks to politics and our current science that is were we are at.
  28. Profile photo of tedgp
    tedgp Male 30-39
    3287 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 4:49 am
    Theyve been doing this for years. Why put fuel efficient cars on the road when they can just tell manufacturers to release the same garbage you get now, and the fuel companies ( and politicians) keep on raking in more and more money ever hour?
  29. Profile photo of MrChipcho
    MrChipcho Male 18-29
    11 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 5:29 am
    It is such a pity, what you have in US is a consumer society, companies do not want good built cars as they will last too long, and you may not need to buy a new one anytime soon. About the fuel consumption, yes big ineffective engines, but the whole US policy seems to be revolving around fuel, just look at its "foreign" policy these last years. Dont get me wrong, EU mainly UK, France, Spain also are looking at ways how to get their hands on better deals for oil, but US is really reaching too far and everyone is getting tired of this. I just hope that some big nation will not one day get very tired of this and put a swift stop to it. That will be very, very bad.
  30. Profile photo of EgalM
    EgalM Male 30-39
    1707 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 6:42 am
    If you think this guy is full of it, Honda released a Hydrogen fueled car about 7 years back for a family to test, that was the last I ever heard of it. If you don`t know, hydrogen comes from adding electricity to water, which releases two gases, hydrogen and oxygen. As long as there is water and power, we can make hydrogen.
  31. Profile photo of keith2
    keith2 Male 18-29
    2587 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 7:23 am
    the 69 "mpg" he`s seeing on euro versions if were actually kilometers convert to 42 actual mpg. Very close to 44 mpg the dealer quoted him. Possibly getting his shxt mixed up?
  32. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 7:50 am
    BUT they could potentially go really fast, like 150 miles per hour fast.
    You do know what governors are (although now I think it`s all ECM performance chips), correct? It`s the reason why my vehicle won`t let me go above 160kph. Even if a vehicle could go as fast as you claim, they can set the engine to not let people go that fast.
  33. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 7:56 am
    IT a conspiricyz from da Republicanz eben doe da Democratz iz in powerz!!!!! Or it could be someone failing to convert KM/MH and Liters/Gallons not to mention not all nations fuel economy testing is the same either.
  34. Profile photo of thenedman
    thenedman Male 18-29
    294 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 10:22 am
    @keith2 unlikely as he said that he looked at the British websites and we do everything in mpg here not with km.
  35. Profile photo of drawman61
    drawman61 Male 50-59
    7707 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 10:31 am
    The downside here in the UK is that our governments bends us over to the tune of over 10 dollars per gallon. One of the worlds highest as we are for most gadgets, CDs, DVDs etc.
  36. Profile photo of N-Vet
    N-Vet Male 30-39
    105 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 11:16 am
    Actually 1.2 US Gallons equal 1 UK Gallon. Which gives us the equation UK MPG x .83 = US MPG (roughly, the 3 in .83 is repeating).
    So 73 UK MPG (from the UK website) = 64.99 US MPG. Since it was in the UK they still sell in Imperial Gallons and standard Miles. Also Efficiency in KM/L is listed as Liters Per 100Km traveled.
  37. Profile photo of Tiredofnicks
    Tiredofnicks Male 30-39
    5101 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 11:59 am
    Well, there`s always the alternative.

  38. Profile photo of obhwfgirl
    obhwfgirl Female 18-29
    582 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 12:54 pm
    Oil companies is my guess.

    If the government just shifted all the taxes that they give to oil companies to subsidize lower gas prices for Americans to maintaining infrastructure instead, then there wouldn`t be an issue. However, oil companies will never let that happen.
  39. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 3:05 pm
    EgalM:

    Yes, Honda have made a hydrogen-powered car. It`s actually an electric car - the hydrogen is used with a fuel cell to generate electricity inside the car. Basically, hydrogen+fuel cells instead of batteries.

    The reason you don`t see them at all often isn`t that The Conspiracy is suppressing them. It`s because they are very, very expensive to make and fuel. It would be utterly impossible to replace more than a tiny fraction of current vehicles with this system, *which is hugely inferior to using batteries instead*.

    You`re right that water is hydrogen and oxygen.

    You`re right that it can be split by passing energy through it.

    You`re completely wrong to conclude that makes it viable.

    (explanation in next post)
  40. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 3:05 pm
    The amount of electricity that you need to put into the water to split it is quite a few times as much as the amount of electricity you get from running the hydrogen through a fuel cell.

    Then there`s the problem of storage and transport. You can`t generate hydrogen inside the car - where would the electricty come from? Besides, it`s dangerous. So you have to store it. It`s very difficult to store hydrogen, partly because it tends to destroy almost any material and partly because it requires high pressure, extremely low temperature or both. Then there`s transport - it`s far harder to move than electricity is.

    Hydrogen is not a fuel. It`s an *extremely* inefficient energy carrier. Currently, power stations, national grids and batteries are far, far more efficient. Tankers and petrol or diesel are far more efficient. Hydrogen is a crappy idea with any technology existing now or likely in the near future.
  41. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 3:08 pm
    Oh, and the hydrogen used in the few of those cars that exist?

    It`s a waste product of the oil refining industry.


    Nobody, not even the people showing hydrogen technology, gets it from electrolysis of water. Anyone who knows anything about the subject knows how inefficient that is. It`s only viable if you have such a superabundance of electricity that you can afford to waste most of it and not care at all how wasteful you`re being.
  42. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 3:19 pm
    The only way hydrogen would make a useful fuel with any technology expected to exist in the near future is in a nuclear fusion power station.

    It`s possible that a vastly less wasteful way of obtaining hydrogen might be invented, maybe. There is some research being done in the area. For example, some people are looking at the possibility of an industrial-scale process to extract hydrogen from some kinds of plants, based on the digestive system of termites. Others are experimenting with bacteria or algae, trying to make some that will split water in a biological way, which might possibly be made into something that might possibly be efficient enough to perhaps make hydrogen viable.

    Maybe possibly perhaps.

    Hydrogen is massively over-hyped for power generation or energy carrying. It`s nowhere near useful yet and maybe it never will be.
  43. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 3:44 pm
    Just in case anyone is thinking "but nuclear fusion is sci-fi, not something expected in the near future"...JET managed q = 0.7 15 years ago and could probably get over 1 today if they ran it with an optimal deuterium-tritium mix. ITER, the sucessor to JET, is being built right now and is expected to get as high as q = 10 by the mid to late 2020s. They`re seriously talking about moving the schedule up by several years because development has been more successful than expected - we could see q > 1 by 2020.
  44. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 5:07 pm
    @Angilion: when VW first made the Rabbit in 1975 it was a hit in Germany. They got great gas mileage and would FLY down the Autobahn! When they got to the USA, these early Rabbits had to be altered so they couldn`t go so fast. In either 76 or 77 they completely changed the gearing and put some kind of "limiter" into the engine so it wouldn`t go so fast.
    A German born VW mechanic told me this, and lots more, about VWs. I have owned Type 1,2,3 and a Rabbit. I spent a lot of time getting them fixed! lolz!

    Lower top gears = lower RPM = better mileage.
    My motorcycle has gears 4&5 almost the same, if gear 5 was lower, it would go a LOT faster! This only works if you have enough torque, eh? A friend had a Mazda truck that got fantastic highway mileage, but a headwind meant it`s "top gear" wouldn`t work...

    IDK, I`m no expert eh?
  45. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 5:24 pm
    You do know what governors are
    Yes @patchy! lolz!
    My point about gears is: a German market car needs to go on the Autobhan at 150+ mph, right? Either you`re going to rev the snot out of your motor OR have different gears than a car made for the American market.

    It`s easy now to fiddle with the computer, but in 1976 the Rabbit`s computer (and it did have one!) was about as smart as a pocket calculator...
  46. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 6:46 pm
    @Angilion: when VW first made the Rabbit in 1975 it was a hit in Germany. They got great gas mileage and would FLY down the Autobahn! When they got to the USA, these early Rabbits had to be altered so they couldn`t go so fast.


    So...how are you claiming that unsupported statement as being proof that the engines in the Rabbit were deliberately sabotaged by the secret conspiracy to blow up if the car reached 100mph?

    That was your original claim. Making another unsupported (and irrelevant) claim is not support for it.

    Just to be clear: I don`t believe your new claim either. I think it`s just an attempt to direct attention away from your first claim. My rule of thumb is to assume anything you write is untrue unless you can support it.
  47. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 6:54 pm
    Lower top gears = lower RPM = better mileage.

    If it was that simple, every car would be geared very differently and hit the rev limiter at maybe 3000rpm.

    I`ve just spent a couple of hours reading up about gearboxes and differentials. I`m convinced that manufacturers are already making their cars with gearing that`s as efficient as possible for general use. Which makes sense - if it was (as you claim) possible to hugely improve both performance and economy simply by changing gear ratios, then either a manufacturer would do it to gain an advantage over a competitor or tuning companies would be offering it as a no-brainer mod.
  48. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    May 7, 2012 at 8:11 pm
    @Angilion, the guy built VWs, in the factory, then moved to Canada and fixed them, he knew a thing or two about VWs I assure you.
    However it is true: it`s not "proof" and I never knew IAB had such high standards!
    Hey, if you`ve read up on the subject then you undoubtedly know more than I about it.

    Why do big rigs have 22+ gears then? Because it`s more effecient is my GUESS.
    It is true, car makers have to balance effeciency with performance in a multitude of driving situations. Just keeping the RPMs low isn`t the "best" solution.

    As for cars with good gas mileage? They`ve been around for a long time. My brother owned a POS Subaru that got 45 & 60 mpg (Imperial Gallons though) city/highway. They sacrificed speed and weight to get good mpg. So it was slow and rusted out, not the best...
  49. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 12:16 am
    @Angilion, the guy built VWs, in the factory, then moved to Canada and fixed them, he knew a thing or two about VWs I assure you.

    So how is that proof that the secret conspiracy sabotaged all VW Rabbit cars in the USA so that the engine would explode if the car reached 100mph? Did he tell you that? Did he provide any evidence? Do you wish you hadn`t pulled that claim from under your tinfoil hat?
  50. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 12:18 am
    Why do big rigs have 22+ gears then? Because it`s more effecient is my GUESS.

    Yes, but not in the way you think.

    An ICE is most efficient at a specific rpm. Efficiency drops off quickly above or below that. You can design an engine to have less of a dropoff, but at the cost of reducing the highest efficiency. Engines designed for long-haul heavy load vehicles go the other way - they maximise efficiency over a very narrow rev range. So they need many gears in order to make it possible to change repeatedly to the correct gear to keep the engine in that range, which is only really viable for long distances at a steady speed. It`s not viable for normal domestic use - even at a steady speed in a straight line you`d need to change gears fairly often just to deal with variations in gradient.
  51. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 12:24 am
    There is a possibly feasible route to increase efficiency of an ICE in a car, but it`s not as dramatic and improvement as your claims, it doesn`t use gears and it`s not being suppressed by the secret conspiracy.

    It`s using an ICE at a constant speed to generate electricity to charge batteries to drive a motor that drives the car. Electric motors have a much wider power band than ICEs, so even with the losses from generation, charging, discharging, a second engine and extra weight, you can come out ahead if you choose the right ICE for the job.

    It`s been used in trains for decades, but scaling it down to a car without making it no more efficient than a good ICE by itself isn`t straightforward.
  52. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 12:47 am
    Going back to the Golf Mk1 being able to "FLY down the Autobahn!"...top speed was under 100mph. The ones sold in the USA under the name "Rabbit" were the same.

    Maybe you`re comparing a 1.8L Golf MK1 GTI with the entry-level Rabbit 1.5L. They looked pretty much the same, but they weren`t. The GTI was the first hot hatch - >60% more power, different suspension, etc.
  53. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 12:56 am
    Here`s a Golf Mk1 that could fly down the autobahn, but it has been "slightly" modified since it was made:

    More power, less weight and MORE POWER!
  54. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 12:10 pm
    secret conspiracy
    Um, I don`t remember claiming that it was either secret OR a conspiracy. The VW dealers at the time warned owners of the 100 MPH thing, up front! He fixed several exploded engines back then, he said. To avoid it, you had to buy that model from Germany and ship it back privately, which some people did.

    idk if it was "exactly 100mph" might have been 90... or certain RPMS.

    And the whole car didn`t "explode" like a Ford Pinot! lolz! The engine`s crankshaft? Camshaft? Whichever the Rabbit had, would break because one or two pistons would suddenly lose compression (notches) and SNAP! No more motor.

    You`re right about the GTI not the plain-jane Rabbit. It came out in 76 so the time period is correct (as far as my memory is concerned, lolz!).


  55. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 12:15 pm
    Nice video! 9.9 in a Golf, who knew?

    I completely agree with engine design related to RPMs. My Kawasaki KH400 two-stroke has a "power band" between 4500 and 5500 rpm. (apx) You hit 4500 and HANG ON TIGHT because it launches like a rocket!

    Putting 22 gears in a car would weigh a lot, and people wouldn`t be happy shifting every 2 seconds in city traffic, eh? Folks complain about 5-speeds!

    Anyhow, I learned stuff! Thanks @Angilion!
  56. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 4:31 pm
    Nice video! 9.9 in a Golf, who knew?

    I`m childishly amused by cars modified for a huge increase in power without significant changes in appearance, so I go looking for them. I can also appreciate the engineering involved, but its main appeal is to the ~10 year old me who`s still sort of a part of me. Powerful cars are toys, so it`s right and proper that they appeal to the gleeful exuberance of a child pointing and exclaiming "WOW!"
  57. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    May 8, 2012 at 4:42 pm
    Um, I don`t remember claiming that it was either secret OR a conspiracy.

    You claimed that the Golfs exported to the USA and rebadged as Rabbits had (a) been heavily tuned down and (b) been deliberately modified to make the engine blow up at 100mph.

    There`s no record of that happening, so if it happened it would have to be a secret conspiracy.

    I wouldn`t be surprised if the mechanic you know had to fix several with knackered engines. The official top speed of the base model exported to the USA was 93mph. Anyone who got 100mph out of one was thrashing the hell out of it, revving over what the engine was rated for.

Leave a Reply