My Diesel Rant....

[CoolAirVw]

Some of you may remember that I mentioned my "ex-boss", who just happens to be my current boss as of last friday (corporate switching personell), bought a 77 rabbit that I discussed in the <a href="viewtopic.php?t=8317&" target="_blank">New Wagon in the Circle </a> thread.

Well, Scott needed a brake master cylinder and brake line replaced so I got to do the work, and he let me drive the car for the weekend.

Let me refresh you, this is a 77 Rabbit, 4 speed, no power steering, no power brakes, no AC, and a sweet running original 1.5 liter that still gets 45 mpg.

I've been "putting" around in this car and just loving it!

So in 1977 when this car came out the bug was still going, although losing steam. America had fallen in love with the bug for its style & looks but also for its efficiency. So when the rabbit came out, why didn't America embrace the diesel technology? Who on earth would turn down 45 mpg? Remember diesel was cheaper than gas.

Now I know all the standard answers to this....
1. smoke
2. smell
3. lack of power
4. rattly
5. vibration
6. Oil companies squashed the idea????

I know well about the huge failure of the Olds diesel, because I worked on lots of those in the beginning of my career. I also know the reason for alot of those failures.

I even remember doing some clutch/transmission work on a few VW diesels back in the beginning of my career, and when I test drove them, I thought, what a gutless wonder.

After driving this car all weekend, yes it has less power, but its just not an issue! Is this just maturity, or am I slowing down in my old age (I'm 29..... ).....

There's just no reason why America shouldn't have emraced these cars just as they embraced the bug, but instead, they wanted Escalades, Navigators, Corvettes, V8 mustangs, Camaro's, and of course the Classic, and effiecient Hummer.

Yesterdays soccer mom mini-van, has been replaced with todays V8 ,4wd, super heavy, super gas sucking, SUV. Today, it seems the "in" car for all my friends is a 4 door truck. That seems to be the "station wagon" of today. Two of my fellow co-workers just bought 4 door trucks. One 2 years old and one brand new. Some of my friends have done the same.

Someone here on this forum has the tagline of....The VW RABBIT the most important car for VW second only to the BUG. And I have to agree thats probably true. But is it true due to the greatness of the rabbit? Or is it true because VW of america fell into decline as the bug was phased out and the rabbit, and other liquid cooled cars were phased in.

Why is this so?? Rabbit Diesel with its 45 MPG should have been the most important car for VW. And I dont mean second to the bug!

45 MPG in 1977! Why weren't people flocking to this technology? I'll tell you why. Cuz they're stupid, self absorbed, concerned with their image, and gotta "keep up with the Smiths" ect! If people made descisions based on logic and sense they would buy cars that save them money. But instead they make descisions based on image, noteriety and "coolness factor". OOOOhh! Look at my heated seats, and mirrors, plus I got the model with the wipers on the headlights!

Scotts Rabbit will never have a powersteering problem repaired. How about a list of repairs it will never have...

1. EGR valve
2. O2 sensor
3. EVAP purge solenoid
4. Power window motor
5. Power lock
6. Idle air control motor

All the time I have tonight.... If I finished my train of thought on this one I'd have a thread longer than Hagars!

[ribguy]

A true enthusiast always preaches to the choir, thanks bro!

[libbybapa]

But, you had to wait a few seconds for the glow plugs................

Andrew

[jets]

I agree with you coolair. I purchased a '79 when it was a couple of years old. In Aust they were very expensive, around $11,000 when you buy a Mazda [petrol] for around $7000. This was mainly due to exchange rates at the time. Naturally they didn't sell too many & were discontinued in '80.
The main market seemed to be retirees looking for a car that was economical & last a very long time. At the time I was looked at as a little eccentric for owning a car that made such rattling noises particularly when leaving late at night from our friends home. The other downside was the waiting the 20 odd seconds for the glowplugs & the performance when loaded with my family & luggage. I loved that car, liked working on it because is was relatively basic & the regular 57 MPG[imp]
This is the reason I now own 3 of them.

[surfcam]

I guess I'm not the average consumer. I brought a new gas 1977 VW rabbit. At the time I wasn't a where they made a diesel. I was pretty busy working full time and building a house in my spare time. I had a bug at the time. The mileage wasn't that great with it and it was cold driving it in the cities. It needed rpm's to get heat. I bought it for 1100 and sold it for 1800 four years later. I think I walked into the dealer ship and layed 5 big one on the desk and told them to take it or leave it. After the dumb looks subsided I drove away in the rabbit for 5000. One of the main selling fetchers was the roomy back seat and you could disable the inside door handles with a lever. So the kids wouldn't jump out the back doors. The K- car actually had less leg room in the back seat. I liked the engine because it was one of a few cars around with fuel injection.
I think you made so good points about consumers. But I would add that cars are more of a fashion assessory or fashion statement. The marketing has been so effective that consumption is at 110%. People go broke ever year because they buy to much stuff. There brains have been colonized with wants not needs and they act like robots.

[FineFrank]

After driving this car all weekend, yes it has less power, but its just not an issue! Is this just maturity, or am I slowing down in my old age (I'm 29..... ).....

Maybe you've just stopped trying to compensate for something.....

[libbybapa]

I read a report at some point that the fuel economy of a vehicle was way down on the list of priorities for the average customer. It was like 20-something. Up near the top of the list for importance was the number of cup holders.

Andrew

[JRM]

i must admit, my senior year in highschool fuel was $0.88 cents a gallon and MPG never crossed my mind- I attened a rural highschool and everyone had lifted trucks, so i picked up a 1988 F350 with a 460ci in it- great truck, rocked past anyone on the hills even while pulling a 30' travel trailer... but in 1998 when fuel hit a whopping $1.30 a gallon i sold it and picked up my current Toyota. Then in 2003 I found my Diesel VW at a yard sale for $42 and began the fix up and rebuild- the VW MPG saved me big $$ threw the last 2 years of crazy fuel prices! Thank you VW

[Diesel Dean]

My wife and I worked the Dave Rameys plan to get out of debt three years ago and the VW diesels have been a blessing to us. I can work on and fix almost anything on them. We won't be buying a F-350 four door to take the kids to school any time soon. No more car payments ever.

[A1-2-A3]

Oh thats my tagline. It is true the rabbit saved VW from going under. I read that in a article somewhere.
I seen a survey done and it was I would rather be in my, and #1 was SUV?? How lame!! SUV = zero fun. A real 4x4 is fun and SUV's are not real hard working off roaders. They are impractical, fuel guzzling garbage. The wagon make the most sense, areodynamic and great mileage and lots of people/cargo area, more than almost all SUV's.
The crossover truck cars are the dumbest idea I have ever seen. People dont want fuel suckin SUVS and they could not be caught dead in a car cause it would not look expensive and flashy enough and tough enough. So they make cars that are like putting a 4x8 sheet of plywood into the wind and from the back seat to the rear window is 24". So how usefull are these crossovers?
Dad had a 1978 ford bronco with a 351 4speed brand new 7800.00 traded in 86 for a 86 bronco and got 8000.00 for the 78. It was our hunting, fishing, family vacation, hill climbing machine. By the time of the coined term SUV it was already 20 years old to us.
I guess I am just ahead of the times.

[82vdub]

I read a report at some point that the fuel economy of a vehicle was way down on the list of priorities for the average customer. It was like 20-something. Up near the top of the list for importance was the number of cup holders.

Andrew

Back when fuel was in the upper $2's, the number I remember was 66. Yes, cupholders were more important to most than fuel mileage. Of course, I'm sure fuel mileage is still not close to the top of the list and likely never will be close to #1 either. It seems that the average American baby boomer generation wants what they want, when they want it and they don't care how much it costs because they want it. American auto manufacturers made vehicles that Americans wanted, not what the Govt or any other agency forced them to buy. The truck and SUV is the new station wagon for sure. However, you could even likely argue that it's possible that all the environmentalists pushing for smaller and smaller cars, higher and higher average fuel economy ratings pushed the market towards cars that were so small, that you couldn't pull an empty trailer with them. So, what does the smart guy go do? They go get a vehicle that's large enough to pull their trailers and haul the family, then you get the environmentalists yelling and screaming and wanting to force pickup manufacturers to make them get like 35MPG when they are made to haul things.

Ok, I'm done now.

I have a 1984 pickup and will never be without one. I just drive it when I need to. I've been looking at getting a newer one, because afterall, prices are pretty dang good if you're in the market to get a pickup and are going to have one no matter how much fuel costs. I couldn't live without the pickup to use when I need it.

[Krank]

A little history for those of us who weren't around at the time...

When the diesel Rabbit was first introduced, it was VW's attempt at a work around for the first OPEC embargo. Diesel was plentiful, but there were very few stations that carried it. The price was much lower than standard petroleum, as it was considered a byproduct of gasoline production. This is one reason why big rigs were built so often to use it... the price was right for an over the road hauler, and increased his (or hers) profits.
As a world, we were looking for an alternative fuel that would be plentiful and still get us around. Diesel filled that need. Then diesel became a victim of it's own success.
As diesel became more popular (with the sales of more diesel cars), there was a larger market with limited supplies. The prices went up. When the prices approached that of gasoline, no one saw a reason to get a crazy rattle trap that sounded weird and (at least from American car manufacturers) were maintenance nightmares. They could buy a gas car that used known technology for the same price and with no headaches, so they did. There was no incentive to buy the diesel anymore. In order to overcome the notion of driving a car that billowed big black clouds of nasty smoke, the consumer needed an incentive. The rising cost of diesel killed the incentive, and Americans did what we Americans do best... we went back to whatever we were doing before and forgot all about it (save for a few redeeming souls).
When Carter was in office, putting aside all his failed notions and weak presidency, his administration actually spent considerable effort working with the energy crises. He enacted legislation that was intended to get us off our dependency of foreign oil. They researched biodiesel (even the whole algae production idea!), and WVO as well as solar systems and photovoltaic. They were decades ahead of their time, and would have successfully weaned us, if not for the Reagan years where it was all repealed due to no more oil crises. Don't think I'm going political on you here... I'm only stating the facts. I was a registered Republican at the time.
As far as the Rabbit being a bit stark in order to eliminate maintenance issues... I think there might be a misconception here. You'll find that most cars at the time the Rabbit was introduced were very basic by today's standards. Electric windows were simply not common due to expense and maintenance issues at the time. The Rabbit was VW's attempt to bring a more luxurious vehicle to market in order to keep up with the times. At the time it was introduced, it was pretty close to state of the art. It's suspension was incredible for it's period. The uni-body was practically unheard of, and the power to weight ratio of a gas version was just a blast! In 1977 VW introduced the worlds first fuel injection system... again a state of the art type system that no one else had! I had a gas version that would rocket me down the road!
As the years passed, VW kept up with the Jones' and added more features as they became available. I don't believe for a second that the austere nature of their first Rabbits were intentional, but rather a reflection of the times that were.

[VW Jon]

Chevrolet had fuel injection from 1957 to 1965, so VW was not the first. Pontiac had it for a short time in the late 50s, too.

[surfcam]

Hay Krank I really enjoyed your post. It takes me back to 39 cent gallon. I guess when you generalize its hard to be 100% accurate but the thrush of the message rings very truth. I have heard many things about Carter as well. Theirs a guy on the net the sells zero energy design house plans. He says that the funding for this came from the Carter years. When Regan came in they took the solar cell off the White House and big oil took over. My generalization on RD for alternative energy is less that 1%. Big oil with all the lobbying 99%. Oh I forgot to mention I get a pension from big oil. This could all be very bias.

[CoolAirVw]

Oh I forgot to mention I get a pension from big oil. This could all be very bias.

Lets get a rope and form lynch mob!

The main point of my post was why didn't America embrace the technology????