Your video is full of mistakes and blatant lies. Perhaps making you tube videos isn't for you since you clearly don't understand the subject matter or you just threw a bunch of video clips together while drunk...
You seem confused between the engine and the automobile. Let me help you. The engine is the component that propels the automobile. You lose all credibility by not understanding the difference. The Pacer came with one of the best online 6 cylinder engines of its era. The Vega fuel tank was located in the exact same location as the Pinto, both were located about as far as you could get from the supposed topic of this video. Too bad you failed to state why so few turbine Chrysler remain. BTW, 60 years later and the turbine engine in production powering many different types of vehicles.
The Caddy 8-6-4 was actually a very good V8 if you disconnected the cylinder deactivation, which only cost about 100 bucks. Mostly this video producer is kind of full of it. The Iron Duke served it's purpose pretty well & the AMC 6 was a very good & reliable engine.
The AMC Pacer's straight six engine lasted into the 21st century. Terrific torque, long lasting, it was a wonderful engine. I owned several AMC cars and SUVs and never had a problem with them.
That was AMCs fleet engine from ramblers to modern jeeps. The Pacers were slated for a rotary engine, but AMC was having financial problems so the tried and true 6 was instead.
the iron duke engine was a point A to point B engine if you wanted power you didn't buy the engine i had those in several cars and were damn good engines just like the chevette
The Chrysler Turbine was in NO WAY silly, under powered, or poorly engineered. They were powerful, quiet, economical, and robust. They were outlawed by the Federal government to protect GM and Ford. Chrysler had bullet proof patents on the engine, transmission, and control system that would have locked out the competition for 17 years. GM and Ford would not have survived. They also refused to pay Chrysler to produce the engines under license. The law even required Chrysler to buy back the few they had sold, destroy them, and hand over the documentation to the DOT. The few that remain today were hidden away for years until the regulations were changed. It was completely unconstitutional but the politicians were well paid...
I have worked for GM on one its gas turbine engine programs. I worked for Chrysler and drove one of their gas turbine cars. Your information is all weird fantasy. None of it is true.
An old gentleman and his family had a turbine car in Denton, Texas where my college was. One day, I stopped him to ask him about it, since he was parked and just getting in. He said it was a wonderfully performing car that they all liked very much. He was proud of the fact he ran it on peanut oil.
@@jeffreyfwagner The part about the engineering, power, reliability (as long as NO leaded gasoline was ever used) and smooth running is true. Lackluster performance because of throttle lag was an issue, but a couple of Chrysler engineers who played with a turbine car back in the day did discuss in an interview how they would "linelock" a turbine car and after spooling up the engine and releasing the brakes the car would do a smoky burnout. 0-60 times were cut almost in half by doing it this way instead of simply stomping the gas pedal from a standing start, which did bring that coveted 0-60 figure into the same range as many other larger piston engine'd cars of the time. Likewise quarter mile times, which dropped considerably via the "linelock" starts. Fuel economy was still pretty bad, about the same as one would expect from a 426 "Max-Wedge" engine of the same period, which means around 6-8 mpg around town and maybe 14 highway if you kept your foot out of it. Jeffrey, would this coincide with your experiences with the turbine car?
The no worse engine feature is the engine auto stop and restart design flaw. Every time the engine turns off, the oil pressure goes to zero. This will assure a shortened engine service life all to save a few spoonfuls of fuel per full tank. Then all the fuel savings will disappear instantly. You will be in a deep hole of debt and saved nothing.
Any mention of the Pinto and its "dangerous" gas tank always leaves me scratching my head. I could go on and on, naming other cars with the tank in the same location (had a few GM cars like that myself, and knew many others who did as well) but only the Pinto got flack for it.
Exactly! The pinto engine was actually a great design and was used in many other Ford cars like the Mustang and the Turbo Thunderbird. There was also a kit to use it in VW dune buggies.
I agree. Nothing wrong with the Pinto especially if it had the smaller Kent "pushrod" engine... (instead of the OHC variant that had a soft camshaft) The Kent was probably one of Ford's best designed powerplants, good economy and reliable and with some mods able to make some serious horsepower. And don't get me started on the bogus "exposee" stories of Pintos exploding. Pure nonsense, perpetrated by "Safetynazies" looking for a cause to champion and the more popular the better, and the Pinto was enormously popular when introduced. More people were killed in 1st gen. Mustang fires. More people were killed in burning Crown Vics. More people died in flaming Merc Marquis. In order to make a Pinto actually catch fire it had to be rammed from behind so hard that it would buckle the roof and warp the floors, usually either springing the doors open or jamming them shut, an impact that would generally kill the occupants outright. I drove a Pinto and enjoyed it, never any issues. Shoulda kept it... I'd drive another today if I could find one that the owner was willing to part with. They've become popular with the performance crowd who know that a smallblock Ford V8 will fit under the hood quite nicely. Yeah, smear the Pinto if you want, there are a lot of people who know better.
I think what enraged the public most, was finding out that Ford knew about the filler neck problem, but decided it would be cheaper to just let those people die, and pay off whatever lawsuits came about, rather than fix the cars, because it was cheaper that way.
@@mothman-jz8ug All the people that love to talk trash about the Pinto conveniently forget what happened when Dateline news was caught in 92 intentionally lying about Chevy-GMC pickups being dangerous with explosive gas tanks.
@@d.e.b.b5788 It is debatable whether that was the right decision, however there is nothing wrong with the principle of weighing cost vs safety. Safety is always a tradeoff. The modern viewpoint is to always favor safety but this is ludicrous. Jordan Peterson said that if the automobile were invented today, we wouldn't even be allowed to drive them at all, and I think he's right.
They did, well it was in the Pontiac Astre,, also the put a V-6 in the Monza line, and the V-8,, if GM would of done that sooner,, things would of been different with the Vega.
From what I've heard the iron Duke was half of a Pontiac 301 and shared parts as such. I never thought it was a bad engine. If I'm wrong I have no doubt someone will comment on this.
I had a 1968 Dodge Super Bee. The engine would not produce heat in winter. Reason is: Top of radiator was hot but bottom was cold. Remedy: car was converted to full race eliminating heating system. It would cruise @ 150m.p.h. all day. Problem solved.
Don't criticize car engines unless you can do better which you probably can't most older engines can get over 500.00 thousand miles on them so keep your silly comments to your yourself thanks .!!
All of these failed engines had one thing in common; they were too small and under powered. The cars that failed all had three wheels, which meant they were unstable on sharp turns. The other problem with three wheels is that you can't avoid pot holes or obstacles in the road. With four wheels you can straddle a pot hole, but with a three wheeler the third wheel will hit it. With a mini car you don't hit a pot hole, you fall into it! The Iron Duke and Pinto engines were basically old GM and Ford engines from the 1920s! When I was learning to be a mechanic these were used as "typical" engines to illustrate basic principals!
The Iron Duke is an engine from the '60s, based on a V8 from 1955. The Pinto base engine was a British Ford engine From the '50s, not a flathead 4 from the model T. If everything else you said was as far off in knowledge, you have nothing helpful to say.
@@ramblerdave1339 Too bad. I'm 74 years old and I'm recounting what I was told back in the 70s by older mechanics. These old mechanics had learned their trade during the second world war, and later from mechanics who had learned during the 1920s and 1930s. One of the mechanics I learned from owned a Model-T and drove it to work every day during the summer for over five years. He knew more about old cars then you will ever know!
I'm 73, and have been submerged in Car culture since I learned how to read nameplates when I was 4. Never went anywhere without a toy car in my pocket, until grade school. Had my first subscription to Car Craft when I was 11, been building model cars since I was 7, My Uncle was a mechanic and machinist, since the 1920s,nd my Dad was a physics professor at General Motors Institute (but not a car guy) and we lived 1/2 mile from the Chevy Plant in Flint, Mi., where I went on tours every year from '56-59. I have read, cover to cover, several books on the first 100 years of the Automobiles, and lived in Detroit from 1966-1995, and moved back into the area in 2010. All my friends are Retired Ford engineers, and I have been working on cars myself since a senior in High School, had a Design Engineering apprenticeship from the SAE upon graduation, but dropped out due to a health emergency, worked as a parts Counterman for 15 years, for VW, Datsun/Nissan, and Fiat dealers , 2 Import parts warehouses, and NAPA and Big A stores. Worked in a Pontiac Body Shop, for a year, 5 years as a Mechanic and body man in race car shops, designed and made molds for fiberglass race car parts, and made fiberglass parts. Built race cars from the frame up and have fabrication skills, and a couple years in machine shops. I have raced formula and sports cars for about 12 seasons, Ice raced, some paved oval races, Drag raced, and Rallied, all doing my own maintainance. Currently building a street / track '68 Javelin, while restoring the body of a ' 70 Datsun roadster. Don't even assume that you or your mechanic friend are in my league.
@@bullettube9863you only need to read up on engine development to know that your old buddies were feeding you crap. I maybe only 66 but I served my apprenticeship in the 70s and worked with 2 mechanics that retired before my 5 year apprenticeship was over. They both learned on flat heads and also were around for the introduction of ohv 4, 0:03 6 and 8 cylinder engines. When I started mechanics had air impact guns, with the younger ones also having air chisels. Your buddy that drove his model t had a flat head 4 cylinder Ford engine.
@@22099dscott There were two mechanics in my shop in 1973 and both were forced to retire because they were 74 and 75 years old and the county had just mandated a retirement age of 70. One of them had the model T and the other had worked in China before WW2 at an air base for the "Flying Tigers". And before the war he had traveled with a company that harvested wheat with steam tractors. To say they were experienced would be an understatement! They were both born before 1900! They were teenagers when the Model T was introduced! I'm 75 and my memory is still good. I worked on old construction equipment the county had bought in 1947, They had air compressors and Buffalo Springfield rollers with 6cly Continental flat heads that were the smoothest, quietest engines I've ever known. These machines were still in excellent shape when they were auctioned off in 1988.
Regarding 2-Stroke engines, some of the modern snowmobile engines are now direct injection, with pressure lubrication of the bearings. Quite a leap from the old Saab and other old 2 cycle engines.
And the direct injection 2 strokes are INSANELY efficient while direct injection 4 strokes are CRAP and a train wreck like most 4 strokes. The direct injection 2 strokes get their design from the RARE but AWESOME GM Detroit diesel 2-51 and 4-51 loop scavenged valveless Day cycle (which most all gas 2 strokes are) engines while all other Detroit diesels are valve-uni-flow Clark cycle 2 strokes with circumferential (all the way around the cylinder) intake ports and 2 or 4 exhaust valves in the head, both are open at same time and air from a roots blower that is a scavenge pump only, pushes in air and forces spent gases out the exhaust valves. Both designs are incredibly efficient. The Detroit diesels are the greatest diesels in world history. The EMD locomotive engines are huge versions of the Clark cycle Detroits, and are the best diesel locomotives on earth! So yeah, 2 strokes can put 4 strokes to shame, even the old ring-dingers! 👍🏻😋
I wonder what would have happened to turbine engines if they had been used to drive a generator that provided electricity to electric motors instead of directly powering the car.
It could have been a success... but electric motor tech then was nowhere what it is today. Not sure if the turbine engine tech of those times would have made reliability in the long run practical or not, which is where such a hybrid drivetrain would be practical, like long haul trucks.
@@22099dscott Certainly not. Change what the turbine drives-not the wheels but the generators that drive the wheels. Driving a generator would allow the turbine to run at a constant speed, be much more efficient, and make it less complicated to manage its heat problems. Like any other generator, that arrangement would require fuel, eliminating any idea of perpetual motion.
@@chrisbraswell8864Really? My father had one - a 2-stroke that actually did well in rally. Later, Saab fitted a european Ford V4. I wasn't aware that GM ever manufactured 2-strokes...
Let's not forget that it was reliable and did exactly what it was designed to do. It also responded well to performance mods... some guy called "Smokey" Yunick (remember him?) did some interesting things with the Iron Duke and since he was already a somewhat legendary NASCAR figure, when he started doing performance development work on the Iron Duke people began paying more attention to it.
Nuclear fusion isn't a thing yet. If it was no need to worry about radiation because there would be none. I'm sure you meant nuclear fission that powers power plants around the world but can be dangerous if not handled properly.
The Wankel engine was first used by NSU. They used it in the Wankel Spider and the RO80. Mazda had to wait until NSU gave up the patent so they can release the RX-7 and later on the RX-8. These engines are not very fuel efficient and they have to burn oil. Due to the construction there is no other way to lubricate the rotary part
@@snork6664 There were also the R100, the RX-2, and RX-3, the Cosmo, and ( help me out, Mazda guys), before the RX-7 , and starting around 1970. I know I test drove a RX-2 , at a dealer in 1972.
You might note that @25:30, it was not supposed to be powered by a fusion reactor, but by a fission reactor. Fusion is still something being worked on.
5:16 it have a lots of mistakes, the vehicle showed in the video is a lancia beta montecarlo, sport mid engine (4 cyl) car, but the car wich have ferrari engine and 4 doors is the Lancia thema 8.32
Erm it was a theme 8,32 you are showing the mid engine lancia lancia beta. Also the lancia V8 had a different crank shaft to the Ferrari sourced engine making the engine character completely different. You also missed that the thema 8,32 was the first car to have active aerodynamics. You need to proof read your chat gbt scripts and videos
Who writes this crap. The Pinto the third worst car!!!!??? Me and my family owned several of these cars they got good mileage for that time period. They were fun to drive and what's this lack of power crap that four cylinder engine is still being built ever heard of Eco boost? I'm 76 yrs old I drove those cars owned a 71,72,&76 models even had a 1980 station wagon they were good cars. One last thing I was a safety officer for a large trucking company. Any small car involved in a rear-end collision is prone for a gas tank failure, Not just Pinto take a walk thru a salvage yard see how many burned, You'll be surprised. Many streetrods use Pinto parts and that under powered engine that you claim is use in Inboard Hydroplane racing So perhaps you will do more research before you make judgements based on hearsay
You went from talking about the engines in the vehicles to talking about the vehicles them selves and nothing about the engines except to mention they had one.
I wouldn't consider the Wankel engine to be silly. All things considered it's been around a long time, and *IF* broken in correctly would last forever. I came very close to buying an RX-7 a number of years ago that had over 600,000 miles on the original powerplant. That said, there have been talks about resurrecting the idea to power future Mazda hybrids, possibly using alternative fuels. Likewise there have also been the rumors of an RX-9 over the last few years as well, though I consider that one unlikely.
The Chrysler Turbine isn't silly. The AMC Pacer six wasn't silly. It was the smallest engine AMC had. I was a great engine. It's a legend in Jeeps's! The Pace may have been silly, but the not the engine. What does the Pinto gas tank have to do with the engine. The engine power and MPG's were typical for a car that size in the '70. All car engines in the '70's were terrible starting in about '73. The Corvair engine was really different . Located in the rear, air cooled and a flat six design.
The Chrysler turbine is still in use. Chrysler engineers built the original and still very much in use engines for US main battle tanks. It was an engineering marvel and provides unsurpassed power and greater speed than traditional diesel engines. It was ahead of its time and is now a timeless design, not too silly now is it?
The East-German Trabant (No. 11 - at 12:37) was way ahead of West-German mini cars when it hit the market in the 1950s - just compare it with the also introduced Messerschmidt or Zündapp Janus. Both West-German brands actually disappeared while the Trabant was mildly modernized in the 1960 but completely outdated latest by the end of this decade. It was made until 1991. It carried already almost all modern features of a modern mini car: horizontal mounted engine and gearbox block, a steel monocoque body (only the outer planking was made from plastic), a fully-synchromesh 4 gear box and front wheel drive, independent suspension for each wheel, a large boot and quite reasonable space for the two rear passengers. It had a full 6V-electric system with DC-generator and separate electric starter (later in the 70s "upgraded" to a 12V-system with an AC-generator). No rope, crank or kick starter like the others, just turn the key. The two-stroker air-cooled engine was a standard for many European-made passenger cars up to the early 1980s and quite sufficient for its time - but of course in the end of the 1960s completely outdated, same for the two horizontal mounted leaf springs. About 2.9 million units were made. The stock two-stroker engines never had 30 hp as claimed, it started with 18 (500ccm), then with 23 (500ccm) and later most "Trabbies" built with 26hp (600ccm). Individual rally versions were built by increasing the capacity up to 800ccm and 46hp. The final official Rallye version had 800ccm and 65hp (all based at the same standard engine) but only a handful were built. Trabants actually won many international rallies in the competition class of mini cars open for up to 1300ccm like the infamous Rallye Monte Carlo and winning at the Nürburgring. In the 1980 it was not competitive any longer and therefore all over, but the car design had won 161 gold medals, 118 class victories and 7 overall victories at the international stage. Shortly before the wall came down, VW Polo engines (4-stroke) were with 1.1l capacity were fitted in cooperation with VW.. A standard sedan and a station were available (only two door bodies) and a kind of convertible light-weight jeep version for the military and foresters. Never having a 4x4 drive train it was still of a climber. If it got stuck, it took three men only to get it out - two pushing and one behind the wheel. The East-German army (NVA) had a lot of them. I drove two Trabant 601 until 1992 as a student. In 1991 I moved to Hanau in West-Germany to work as a freshly graduated engineer, with Hanau still having a huge US military base back then. The GIs loved to borrow it for a spin and photo. Unfortunately my English was still less than basic at the time but we still managed to overcome the old cold-war mentality and had some great fun together. Legendary was the ease to fix them: standard parts, standard tools and basic common automotive knowledge. However they were now indeed much too slow for modern traffic and the two-strokers difficult to refuel because the mix gas pumps disappeared, but still with correct mix with two-stroke oil essentially needed and therefore to be mental-math estimated and the correct amount of oil being filled into the tank before refuelling (for good mixing, the gas needed to hit the oil inside the tank and NOT vice versa). One needed also to understand how to use the carburettor choke properly - particular in winter - otherwise a lot of the 26hp was lost with the massive blue exhaust smoke of unburned two-stroke oil covering and fragrancing half of Hanau city. Mix ratios improved over the years with small engine evolution from 1:25 to 1:33 and finally (like the ones I drove) 1:50 of oil versus gasoline. The good news was, it always fired up even after a strong winter night since as with any two-stroke engine needs only one turn to compress and fire. Never a long battery sucking cranking, the first spark and it sputtered into life.. Loved the car, but still needed something more spacious and modern by then. So to call it a one of the most silliest car is of course a bit of propaganda BS (probably because it was a "Commie" car), since as I wrote by the time production started it was in many aspects ahead of its time. It was very reliable, mass-produced and heavily exported even into the West and Scandinavia. The economic limitations of the GDR (East Germany) and of course also some massive stupid decision making by the top bras of the Socialist government prevented a proper successor. Today VW is having a big modern car plant at the location where the Trabant was once built. For better photos and more details go to the English (or German) Wiki and enter "Trabant". Peace! from Dresden / Germany
Showing the Lancia Monte Carlo (Scorpion), and Beta while discussing the Lancia Thema 832 which is a completely different car from a different era that used the world-car chassis found in the Saab 9000 and Alfa Romeo 164. The Thema, had a detuned Ferrari V-8 derived from the 308 model. It was a 4-door sports sedan, not a sports car. None of the cars you showed were Themas.
Let's not forget that those tiny engine'd three-wheel cars were city runners, designed to get you from A to B as cheaply and easily as practical. In that department they were quite successful. Just don't try highway cruising. That was never their intended purpose. We had a Fiat 600 Multipla for years, handy and fun around town, no issues... but top speed was around 48 mph, barely enough to stay with traffic on the Interstate and you had to run it flat out to do it. Then again, it was a CITY CAR, and in that realm it was perfect for the job of A to B. And let's not even bother with talking about fuel mileage. The little sucker just sniffed gas fumes while running, it would go a week or so between fillups which cost a few bucks. I forget how much gas it held, usually a fillup on top of what was already left in the tank only took maybe 2-3 gallons. We had two 600 Multiplas, one a project, one a regular "novelty" daily driver that never failed to attract attention at cruise-ins or at the grocery store. 22 horsepower... probably the only household in the state that had TWO 600 Multiplas that were within a hundred miles of each other. Sold them both for MUCH more than we paid for either of them. Too many other car projects and not enough spare time. 🙂
The GM 2.5L was found to have a casting flaw that led to engine failure! They knew about the problem but kept making it. They put out a service bulletin if you were the original owner and less than 50K miles...they would replace it. My mother's 1983 Camaro had just over 60k on it when the engine failed! That POS couldn't get out of its own way and would stall in first gear from a start unless you had the RPM higher than normal.....
2 strokes are NOT “silly” at all. I have a 2 stroke SAAB, and they are well engineered, nice little cars. The modern 2 stroke oils don’t smoke much. They run great. I collect all kinds of 2 stroke engines and they are quite reliable. They sound better than most 4 strokes too. And no stupid problematic valve train. You failed to mention that the Subaru 360 is an air cooled 2 stroke twin. The Saab is a 3 cylinder except the early model 92 which is a 600 cc DKW built twin, water cooled, while the 93 and newer 96’s had a 750 cc and then an 850 cc triple accordingly, also DKW made. Speaking of that, you totally missed the DKW 3=6 cars with 900 and 1000 cc 3 cylinder 2 strokes and the F model DKW’s from the 1930’s with 600 cc twins that was also the engine used in the Saab 92!
Every Australian car made had the fuel tank in that Pinto position , by law, the US fuel tank position under the passengers is not even legal in Australia as its seen as dangerous !
Many of these the idea was good, but they just were not reliable or long lasting!! In general the two stroke engine could/Should have developed Further!! A basic two stroke has three moving parts; piston, conrod, crankshaft! Simple but Good!! 👍👍 On the Peel P50 the handle is because they do not have reverse gear, you just use the handle to turn it around!
You start the video by talking about engines and finish it by talking about shape (the title says: ...car engines...not shape.) Whatever you forget one of the strangest cars of all time: the rhomboid car, nearly like the number 2 but with a fourth wheel at the rear improving stability, but this car was notorious for another feature: Its shape was supposed to avoid frontal collision (2 rhomboid car during a frontal impact were supposed to slip against each other, each one going to one side avoiding collision)
I had a few niggles to start with, but then you extensively used images of a Beta Montecarlo, a Beta Coupe etc ... and no images of the actual 8.32? Seriously? Dude ...
Regarding the stability, this was not a bad engine when this came out in the 60's no one has heard about emissions, so should not be on the list, if my memory serves I think it won the monte carlo rally
Not all the engines in this video are silly. The cars they were put in might have been silly but that is not supposed focus of this video. Maybe next time stick to the actual topic and not use other things as filler to make the video longer.
Why, when you are talking about the "iron duke" 4 cyl motor ,are you showing pictures of a 1972-4 Olds Omega or Nova? GM never put a 4 cyl in any Nova,Omega,Ventura or Apollo from 60's to 79'. The smallest motor that went into that body style was either the Chev 250 straight six or the Buick 231 V6. Also ,do not confuse the Chev "iron duke" 140 c.i.d. 4cyl with the Pontiac 151c.i.d. 4cyl that came in Fiero's and just about every 4cyl equipt 80's GM cars. The "iron duke" was used in most Jeep mail trucks you've seen for years and they look completely different than the 151 4cyl. The valve cover is a shape is a dead giveaway. If the valve cover is straight,rectangular and has 4 bolts ,similar to a Chev smallblock ,then it's an iron duke. Otherwise, it's a Pont 151(tech4).
Crap video. It's titled "silliest car engines", but rapidly becomes "silliest car designs" regardless of the engine. The AMC Pacer for example used the same inline 6 that most other AMC cars had, such as the Gremlin and Hornet. The AMC inline 6 engine itself was OK if somewhat anemic (I owned one many years ago), but there was nothing silly about it. The Pacer on the other hand was not a good design, BUT that's not what this video was supposed to be about, was it?
There is another two stroke engine you the first Suzuki Jimny which had a three cylinder two stroke 540cc water cooled engine which was the first Suzuki vehicle sold in Australia although Suzuki had been selling motorcycles before the little 4X4 came along and there a couple of them still driving around
When I was a kid we got a 63 Plymouth Renault. It had a 3 cylinder engine that was about the size of a lawn mower engine. A lot of things about that car was really weird.
AND YES YOU MISSED TGE VEGA WITH THE ALL ALUMINUM ENGINE BLOCK WHICH WAS PRONE TO USE COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF OIL IF YOU DROVE THEM CONSERVATIVELY ☝️ IF YOU DROVE THEM REAL HARD THEY WOULD SLOW WAY DOWN THE BLOCK AND CYLINDERS WERE ALL ALUMINUM SILIBORE IT DIDN'T GO OVER
Awful, photos unrelated (SAAB 2 stroke, showing a V8?), and no mention of why AMC put the 6 cylinder in the Pacer (GM shelved the wankel it'd been designed around, with little warning). Quit after that part as it's full of mistaken info and missing important info.
The Wankel engine was an nsu design not Mazda. The Fiat air is a four cylinder engine not a two cylinder. The lancia was a theima not a beta model. This was supposed to be about engine's but your talking about vehicles.
The Lancia 8.32 was a Lancia Thema with an Ferrari Engine What you are showing is the Lancia Montecarlo /Skorpio in Usa) and the Beta those Cars have nothing to do with it! I mean i would certainly take a Montecarlo with that Ferrari Engine but it does not exist!!!
The Pacer was supposed to have a GM sourced Wankel engine. GM couldn’t make their Wankel work and pulled the plug. Without the GM Wankel, the only small engine cash strapped AMC had to get Pacer to market was its own straight six.
Interesting vehicles but terrible video. Pretty sure any of of those would beat walking a few miles in the rain? If written by a 12 yr old, fine but these were products of their time, hindsight is always 20/20
The boss asked me to deal with his girlfriends, " '1969 Caprice diesel.'" The " carburetor " had a two inch buildup of carbon inside the " air horn." I couldn't do a thing with it.
But I could make up a story what i should have done.... Chip 🍟 out the carbon. Add ether. Add stuff to the tank. Take it to the dealership and ask for advice. Drive it on the highway. Take a break from mundane draftsman humdrum. Call the boss and update him how impressive I look in it. Hang up after asking for his girlfriends number so I could give it to her....
My first new car was a 2 Liter Pinto hatch back which except for color and tire size, mine was yellow and had Polyglas A-70/13 wide ovals, was just like the one shown at 22:38! As inexpensive small cars go, it was top of the heap back then. Larger and better handling than any Japanese car of similar size and much less expensive too! Considering that all small cars from every maker back then had the gas tank between the bumper and rear axle and would burst into flames if rear ended by a pig pickup truck, it got an undeserved bad reputation. Mainly because it outsold them all! We put over 125,000 miles on that car in Germany including autobahn driving WO a single hitch before selling it to buy a 71 Boss-429 Mustang out of the PX in Heidelburg!
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
20 RAREST American Old Car Engines From The 1970s, That No Longer Exist!: th-cam.com/video/tUfpavqNjbo/w-d-xo.html
Your video is full of mistakes and blatant lies. Perhaps making you tube videos isn't for you since you clearly don't understand the subject matter or you just threw a bunch of video clips together while drunk...
Your opinions are based on ignorance. Keep them to yourself, don't drag us into it.
You seem confused between the engine and the automobile. Let me help you. The engine is the component that propels the automobile. You lose all credibility by not understanding the difference. The Pacer came with one of the best online 6 cylinder engines of its era. The Vega fuel tank was located in the exact same location as the Pinto, both were located about as far as you could get from the supposed topic of this video. Too bad you failed to state why so few turbine Chrysler remain. BTW, 60 years later and the turbine engine in production powering many different types of vehicles.
The dymaxion actually drove the front wheels.
Ah, more A.I. Jackassery.
As a retired automotive engineer, I saved myself pain by stopping at 7 minutes of this nonsense. Do not waste your time on this poorly titled video.
5.30 for me. When a Beta Montecarlo is announced as a Beta 8.32 whilst giving a description of the Thema 8.32 I knew it wasn't worth continuing
I absolutely agree!
I agree with you. Badly done, badly titled, badly narrrated.
@BackSeatHump most of these are AI narrated. Ever notice how they will mispronounce word 3 different ways in the same vehicle.
@@22099dscott You got that right.
When you think your bot can create, narrate and edit a video, and it FAILS.
Kinda lost your way there, pal. Went from SILLIEST Car Engines To bad car designs.
100% AI created spam video, they fail like that 80% of the time...
You are having trouble matching the right video footage with the dialogue.
It is AI created spam video, no humans ever touched this or even proof watched it...
I do not see anything silly about any of these engines.
The Trabant wasn't the popular choice, it was the ONLY choice at the time.
The Caddy 8-6-4 was actually a very good V8 if you disconnected the cylinder deactivation, which only cost about 100 bucks. Mostly this video producer is kind of full of it. The Iron Duke served it's purpose pretty well & the AMC 6 was a very good & reliable engine.
The AMC Pacer's straight six engine lasted into the 21st century. Terrific torque, long lasting, it was a wonderful engine. I owned several AMC cars and SUVs and never had a problem with them.
That was AMCs fleet engine from ramblers to modern jeeps. The Pacers were slated for a rotary engine, but AMC was having financial problems so the tried and true 6 was instead.
Actually, the rotary engine was supposed to come from g.M which canceled the project@@michaelschranz5666
sound of engines was replaced by elevator music
the iron duke engine was a point A to point B engine if you wanted power you didn't buy the engine i had those in several cars and were damn good engines just like the chevette
The Chrysler Turbine was in NO WAY silly, under powered, or poorly engineered. They were powerful, quiet, economical, and robust. They were outlawed by the Federal government to protect GM and Ford. Chrysler had bullet proof patents on the engine, transmission, and control system that would have locked out the competition for 17 years. GM and Ford would not have survived. They also refused to pay Chrysler to produce the engines under license. The law even required Chrysler to buy back the few they had sold, destroy them, and hand over the documentation to the DOT. The few that remain today were hidden away for years until the regulations were changed. It was completely unconstitutional but the politicians were well paid...
I have worked for GM on one its gas turbine engine programs. I worked for Chrysler and drove one of their gas turbine cars. Your information is all weird fantasy. None of it is true.
An old gentleman and his family had a turbine car in Denton, Texas where my college was. One day, I stopped him to ask him about it, since he was parked and just getting in. He said it was a wonderfully performing car that they all liked very much. He was proud of the fact he ran it on peanut oil.
@@jeffreyfwagner The part about the engineering, power, reliability (as long as NO leaded gasoline was ever used) and smooth running is true. Lackluster performance because of throttle lag was an issue, but a couple of Chrysler engineers who played with a turbine car back in the day did discuss in an interview how they would "linelock" a turbine car and after spooling up the engine and releasing the brakes the car would do a smoky burnout. 0-60 times were cut almost in half by doing it this way instead of simply stomping the gas pedal from a standing start, which did bring that coveted 0-60 figure into the same range as many other larger piston engine'd cars of the time. Likewise quarter mile times, which dropped considerably via the "linelock" starts.
Fuel economy was still pretty bad, about the same as one would expect from a 426 "Max-Wedge" engine of the same period, which means around 6-8 mpg around town and maybe 14 highway if you kept your foot out of it.
Jeffrey, would this coincide with your experiences with the turbine car?
Conspiracy theory much?
The no worse engine feature is the engine auto stop and restart design flaw. Every time the engine turns off, the oil pressure goes to zero. This will assure a shortened engine service life all to save a few spoonfuls of fuel per full tank. Then all the fuel savings will disappear instantly. You will be in a deep hole of debt and saved nothing.
Any mention of the Pinto and its "dangerous" gas tank always leaves me scratching my head. I could go on and on, naming other cars with the tank in the same location (had a few GM cars like that myself, and knew many others who did as well) but only the Pinto got flack for it.
Exactly! The pinto engine was actually a great design and was used in many other Ford cars like the Mustang and the Turbo Thunderbird. There was also a kit to use it in VW dune buggies.
I agree. Nothing wrong with the Pinto especially if it had the smaller Kent "pushrod" engine... (instead of the OHC variant that had a soft camshaft) The Kent was probably one of Ford's best designed powerplants, good economy and reliable and with some mods able to make some serious horsepower. And don't get me started on the bogus "exposee" stories of Pintos exploding. Pure nonsense, perpetrated by "Safetynazies" looking for a cause to champion and the more popular the better, and the Pinto was enormously popular when introduced.
More people were killed in 1st gen. Mustang fires. More people were killed in burning Crown Vics. More people died in flaming Merc Marquis. In order to make a Pinto actually catch fire it had to be rammed from behind so hard that it would buckle the roof and warp the floors, usually either springing the doors open or jamming them shut, an impact that would generally kill the occupants outright. I drove a Pinto and enjoyed it, never any issues. Shoulda kept it... I'd drive another today if I could find one that the owner was willing to part with. They've become popular with the performance crowd who know that a smallblock Ford V8 will fit under the hood quite nicely. Yeah, smear the Pinto if you want, there are a lot of people who know better.
I think what enraged the public most, was finding out that Ford knew about the filler neck problem, but decided it would be cheaper to just let those people die, and pay off whatever lawsuits came about, rather than fix the cars, because it was cheaper that way.
@@mothman-jz8ug All the people that love to talk trash about the Pinto conveniently forget what happened when Dateline news was caught in 92 intentionally lying about Chevy-GMC pickups being dangerous with explosive gas tanks.
@@d.e.b.b5788 It is debatable whether that was the right decision, however there is nothing wrong with the principle of weighing cost vs safety. Safety is always a tradeoff. The modern viewpoint is to always favor safety but this is ludicrous. Jordan Peterson said that if the automobile were invented today, we wouldn't even be allowed to drive them at all, and I think he's right.
Video went off topic after the beast of Turin, and the Lancia was the thema not the beta with the Ferrari engine
and only one model of Thema (8.32), came out in the mid 80s, and was 2.9l not 3.0 ...
This video isn't about the engines, it's about the cars.
Wish they put the iron duke engine on the chevy vega.
...didn't they start putting Iron Dukes in the Monzas which were a Vega offshoot/replacement?
They did, well it was in the Pontiac Astre,, also the put a V-6 in the Monza line, and the V-8,, if GM would of done that sooner,, things would of been different with the Vega.
From what I've heard the iron Duke was half of a Pontiac 301 and shared parts as such. I never thought it was a bad engine. If I'm wrong I have no doubt someone will comment on this.
@@michaelschranz5666 The Tempest "slant-4" was half of the Pontiac V8 you mentioned. The Iron Duke post-dated the pontiac 4-cyl by some years.
Also why are you bringing up Pinto's when this video is supposed to be about "ENGINES"?
AI created video, they fail like that all the time and it is a cancer on youtube...
I had a 1968 Dodge Super Bee. The engine would not produce heat in winter. Reason is: Top of radiator was hot but bottom was cold. Remedy: car was converted to full race eliminating heating system. It would cruise @ 150m.p.h. all day. Problem solved.
Don't criticize car engines unless you can do better which you probably can't most older engines can get over 500.00 thousand miles on them so keep your silly comments to your yourself thanks .!!
don't criticize engines unless you can make engines? for reals? So mechanics can't criticize engines? Race car drivers? Informed consumers?
The silliest engine to my opinion is the Pontiac Tempest half V8 to make it 4 cylinder, totally unbalanced
All of these failed engines had one thing in common; they were too small and under powered. The cars that failed all had three wheels, which meant they were unstable on sharp turns. The other problem with three wheels is that you can't avoid pot holes or obstacles in the road. With four wheels you can straddle a pot hole, but with a three wheeler the third wheel will hit it. With a mini car you don't hit a pot hole, you fall into it! The Iron Duke and Pinto engines were basically old GM and Ford engines from the 1920s! When I was learning to be a mechanic these were used as "typical" engines to illustrate basic principals!
The Iron Duke is an engine from the '60s, based on a V8 from 1955. The Pinto base engine was a British Ford engine From the '50s, not a flathead 4 from the model T. If everything else you said was as far off in knowledge, you have nothing helpful to say.
@@ramblerdave1339 Too bad. I'm 74 years old and I'm recounting what I was told back in the 70s by older mechanics. These old mechanics had learned their trade during the second world war, and later from mechanics who had learned during the 1920s and 1930s. One of the mechanics I learned from owned a Model-T and drove it to work every day during the summer for over five years. He knew more about old cars then you will ever know!
I'm 73, and have been submerged in Car culture since I learned how to read nameplates when I was 4. Never went anywhere without a toy car in my pocket, until grade school. Had my first subscription to Car Craft when I was 11, been building model cars since I was 7, My Uncle was a mechanic and machinist, since the 1920s,nd my Dad was a physics professor at General Motors Institute (but not a car guy) and we lived 1/2 mile from the Chevy Plant in Flint, Mi., where I went on tours every year from '56-59. I have read, cover to cover, several books on the first 100 years of the Automobiles, and lived in Detroit from 1966-1995, and moved back into the area in 2010. All my friends are Retired Ford engineers, and I have been working on cars myself since a senior in High School, had a Design Engineering apprenticeship from the SAE upon graduation, but dropped out due to a health emergency, worked as a parts Counterman for 15 years, for VW, Datsun/Nissan, and Fiat dealers , 2 Import parts warehouses, and NAPA and Big A stores. Worked in a Pontiac Body Shop, for a year, 5 years as a Mechanic and body man in race car shops, designed and made molds for fiberglass race car parts, and made fiberglass parts. Built race cars from the frame up and have fabrication skills, and a couple years in machine shops. I have raced formula and sports cars for about 12 seasons, Ice raced, some paved oval races, Drag raced, and Rallied, all doing my own maintainance. Currently building a street / track '68 Javelin, while restoring the body of a ' 70 Datsun roadster. Don't even assume that you or your mechanic friend are in my league.
@@bullettube9863you only need to read up on engine development to know that your old buddies were feeding you crap. I maybe only 66 but I served my apprenticeship in the 70s and worked with 2 mechanics that retired before my 5 year apprenticeship was over. They both learned on flat heads and also were around for the introduction of ohv 4, 0:03 6 and 8 cylinder engines. When I started mechanics had air impact guns, with the younger ones also having air chisels.
Your buddy that drove his model t had a flat head 4 cylinder Ford engine.
@@22099dscott There were two mechanics in my shop in 1973 and both were forced to retire because they were 74 and 75 years old and the county had just mandated a retirement age of 70. One of them had the model T and the other had worked in China before WW2 at an air base for the "Flying Tigers". And before the war he had traveled with a company that harvested wheat with steam tractors. To say they were experienced would be an understatement! They were both born before 1900! They were teenagers when the Model T was introduced! I'm 75 and my memory is still good. I worked on old construction equipment the county had bought in 1947, They had air compressors and Buffalo Springfield rollers with 6cly Continental flat heads that were the smoothest, quietest engines I've ever known. These machines were still in excellent shape when they were auctioned off in 1988.
Regarding 2-Stroke engines, some of the modern snowmobile engines are now direct injection, with pressure lubrication of the bearings. Quite a leap from the old Saab and other old 2 cycle engines.
And the direct injection 2 strokes are INSANELY efficient while direct injection 4 strokes are CRAP and a train wreck like most 4 strokes. The direct injection 2 strokes get their design from the RARE but AWESOME GM Detroit diesel 2-51 and 4-51 loop scavenged valveless Day cycle (which most all gas 2 strokes are) engines while all other Detroit diesels are valve-uni-flow Clark cycle 2 strokes with circumferential (all the way around the cylinder) intake ports and 2 or 4 exhaust valves in the head, both are open at same time and air from a roots blower that is a scavenge pump only, pushes in air and forces spent gases out the exhaust valves. Both designs are incredibly efficient. The Detroit diesels are the greatest diesels in world history. The EMD locomotive engines are huge versions of the Clark cycle Detroits, and are the best diesel locomotives on earth! So yeah, 2 strokes can put 4 strokes to shame, even the old ring-dingers! 👍🏻😋
I wonder what would have happened to turbine engines if they had been used to drive a generator that provided electricity to electric motors instead of directly powering the car.
Now, there's an idea!
It could have been a success... but electric motor tech then was nowhere what it is today. Not sure if the turbine engine tech of those times would have made reliability in the long run practical or not, which is where such a hybrid drivetrain would be practical, like long haul trucks.
It wouldn't be any more efficient. You are starting to think of perpetual motion. It does not exist.
@@22099dscott Certainly not. Change what the turbine drives-not the wheels but the generators that drive the wheels. Driving a generator would allow the turbine to run at a constant speed, be much more efficient, and make it less complicated to manage its heat problems. Like any other generator, that arrangement would require fuel, eliminating any idea of perpetual motion.
Title doesn’t match what the video is about. It is about silly car designs, not silly engines. Still fun to watch!
Has the cameraman got Parkinson's?
Or are you in an earthquake zone?
So much camera shake that its hard to follow the script.
I totally agree with you.
Whoever thought shaking pictures was a good idea has rocks for brains
What was silly about these engines?
Nothing.
Especially the SAAB engine that was a small block Chevrolet.
AI created spam video with clickbait...
I think a Ford V4. The Saab was a successful rally car.
@@chrisbraswell8864Really? My father had one - a 2-stroke that actually did well in rally. Later, Saab fitted a european Ford V4. I wasn't aware that GM ever manufactured 2-strokes...
Don't forget the 2.5 L Iron Puke was used in Jeeps as well.
Let's not forget that it was reliable and did exactly what it was designed to do. It also responded well to performance mods... some guy called "Smokey" Yunick (remember him?) did some interesting things with the Iron Duke and since he was already a somewhat legendary NASCAR figure, when he started doing performance development work on the Iron Duke people began paying more attention to it.
Nuclear fusion isn't a thing yet. If it was no need to worry about radiation because there would be none. I'm sure you meant nuclear fission that powers power plants around the world but can be dangerous if not handled properly.
I worked at an AMC dealer and drove a Pacer several times. It had the turning radius of a Mack truck.
The Wankel engine was first used by NSU. They used it in the Wankel Spider and the RO80. Mazda had to wait until NSU gave up the patent so they can release the RX-7 and later on the RX-8. These engines are not very fuel efficient and they have to burn oil. Due to the construction there is no other way to lubricate the rotary part
@@snork6664 There were also the R100, the RX-2, and RX-3, the Cosmo, and ( help me out, Mazda guys), before the RX-7 , and starting around 1970. I know I test drove a RX-2 , at a dealer in 1972.
@ramblerdave1339 ok I don't know these cars. Maybe they built the Wankel engines in license.
You might note that @25:30, it was not supposed to be powered by a fusion reactor, but by a fission reactor. Fusion is still something being worked on.
2:54 bro is talking like the rotary has gone the way of the dodo
5:16 it have a lots of mistakes, the vehicle showed in the video is a lancia beta montecarlo, sport mid engine (4 cyl) car, but the car wich have ferrari engine and 4 doors is the Lancia thema 8.32
The jet turbo Oldsmobile was awesome. It would rev to over 20,000. Gimme gimme
Delusion.
Rotary engines are still being mass produced and used in cars by mazda to this day. Currently they're being used as range extenders in mazda EVs.
You forgot the Crosley and its sheet metal engine block.
Rover wandered into the turbine street too. But gas turbines because of their design, are not congruent with automobiles.
Performance and economy are not mutually beneficial. One or the other, your choice.
Erm it was a theme 8,32 you are showing the mid engine lancia lancia beta. Also the lancia V8 had a different crank shaft to the Ferrari sourced engine making the engine character completely different. You also missed that the thema 8,32 was the first car to have active aerodynamics. You need to proof read your chat gbt scripts and videos
Innovation means success and some times failure.
Who writes this crap. The Pinto the third worst car!!!!??? Me and my family owned several of these cars they got good mileage for that time period. They were fun to drive and what's this lack of power crap that four cylinder engine is still being built ever heard of Eco boost? I'm 76 yrs old I drove those cars owned a 71,72,&76 models even had a 1980 station wagon they were good cars. One last thing I was a safety officer for a large trucking company. Any small car involved in a rear-end collision is prone for a gas tank failure, Not just Pinto take a walk thru a salvage yard see how many burned, You'll be surprised. Many streetrods use Pinto parts and that under powered engine that you claim is use in Inboard Hydroplane racing So perhaps you will do more research before you make judgements based on hearsay
You went from talking about the engines in the vehicles to talking about the vehicles them selves and nothing about the engines except to mention they had one.
you can't give people nuclear reactors that's asking for it that's the worst one
I wouldn't consider the Wankel engine to be silly. All things considered it's been around a long time, and *IF* broken in correctly would last forever. I came very close to buying an RX-7 a number of years ago that had over 600,000 miles on the original powerplant. That said, there have been talks about resurrecting the idea to power future Mazda hybrids, possibly using alternative fuels. Likewise there have also been the rumors of an RX-9 over the last few years as well, though I consider that one unlikely.
The Chrysler Turbine isn't silly. The AMC Pacer six wasn't silly. It was the smallest engine AMC had. I was a great engine. It's a legend in Jeeps's! The Pace may have been silly, but the not the engine. What does the Pinto gas tank have to do with the engine. The engine power and MPG's were typical for a car that size in the '70. All car engines in the '70's were terrible starting in about '73. The Corvair engine was really different . Located in the rear, air cooled and a flat six design.
The Chrysler turbine is still in use. Chrysler engineers built the original and still very much in use engines for US main battle tanks. It was an engineering marvel and provides unsurpassed power and greater speed than traditional diesel engines. It was ahead of its time and is now a timeless design, not too silly now is it?
This vid is in no way a reference, quoting this video more than likely will make you wrong.
Wow.A lot of stolen content shame on you
Nucleaan.... how did that idea get out of the bathroom staal?
My first car was a 1973 Mazda RX-3.
Rotary engine.
Only problem I had was the carburetor.
No other issues.
Fast for a basic old Japanese car.
The Fiat 500 you spoke of is not the first they made. It was originally released in the 1960’s. I pulled a few of the older ones apart.
The East-German Trabant (No. 11 - at 12:37) was way ahead of West-German mini cars when it hit the market in the 1950s - just compare it with the also introduced Messerschmidt or Zündapp Janus. Both West-German brands actually disappeared while the Trabant was mildly modernized in the 1960 but completely outdated latest by the end of this decade. It was made until 1991.
It carried already almost all modern features of a modern mini car: horizontal mounted engine and gearbox block, a steel monocoque body (only the outer planking was made from plastic), a fully-synchromesh 4 gear box and front wheel drive, independent suspension for each wheel, a large boot and quite reasonable space for the two rear passengers. It had a full 6V-electric system with DC-generator and separate electric starter (later in the 70s "upgraded" to a 12V-system with an AC-generator). No rope, crank or kick starter like the others, just turn the key.
The two-stroker air-cooled engine was a standard for many European-made passenger cars up to the early 1980s and quite sufficient for its time - but of course in the end of the 1960s completely outdated, same for the two horizontal mounted leaf springs.
About 2.9 million units were made. The stock two-stroker engines never had 30 hp as claimed, it started with 18 (500ccm), then with 23 (500ccm) and later most "Trabbies" built with 26hp (600ccm).
Individual rally versions were built by increasing the capacity up to 800ccm and 46hp. The final official Rallye version had 800ccm and 65hp (all based at the same standard engine) but only a handful were built.
Trabants actually won many international rallies in the competition class of mini cars open for up to 1300ccm like the infamous Rallye Monte Carlo and winning at the Nürburgring. In the 1980 it was not competitive any longer and therefore all over, but the car design had won 161 gold medals, 118 class victories and 7 overall victories at the international stage.
Shortly before the wall came down, VW Polo engines (4-stroke) were with 1.1l capacity were fitted in cooperation with VW..
A standard sedan and a station were available (only two door bodies) and a kind of convertible light-weight jeep version for the military and foresters. Never having a 4x4 drive train it was still of a climber. If it got stuck, it took three men only to get it out - two pushing and one behind the wheel. The East-German army (NVA) had a lot of them.
I drove two Trabant 601 until 1992 as a student. In 1991 I moved to Hanau in West-Germany to work as a freshly graduated engineer, with Hanau still having a huge US military base back then. The GIs loved to borrow it for a spin and photo. Unfortunately my English was still less than basic at the time but we still managed to overcome the old cold-war mentality and had some great fun together.
Legendary was the ease to fix them: standard parts, standard tools and basic common automotive knowledge. However they were now indeed much too slow for modern traffic and the two-strokers difficult to refuel because the mix gas pumps disappeared, but still with correct mix with two-stroke oil essentially needed and therefore to be mental-math estimated and the correct amount of oil being filled into the tank before refuelling (for good mixing, the gas needed to hit the oil inside the tank and NOT vice versa). One needed also to understand how to use the carburettor choke properly - particular in winter - otherwise a lot of the 26hp was lost with the massive blue exhaust smoke of unburned two-stroke oil covering and fragrancing half of Hanau city. Mix ratios improved over the years with small engine evolution from 1:25 to 1:33 and finally (like the ones I drove) 1:50 of oil versus gasoline.
The good news was, it always fired up even after a strong winter night since as with any two-stroke engine needs only one turn to compress and fire. Never a long battery sucking cranking, the first spark and it sputtered into life..
Loved the car, but still needed something more spacious and modern by then.
So to call it a one of the most silliest car is of course a bit of propaganda BS (probably because it was a "Commie" car), since as I wrote by the time production started it was in many aspects ahead of its time. It was very reliable, mass-produced and heavily exported even into the West and Scandinavia. The economic limitations of the GDR (East Germany) and of course also some massive stupid decision making by the top bras of the Socialist government prevented a proper successor.
Today VW is having a big modern car plant at the location where the Trabant was once built.
For better photos and more details go to the English (or German) Wiki and enter "Trabant".
Peace! from Dresden / Germany
Showing the Lancia Monte Carlo (Scorpion), and Beta while discussing the Lancia Thema 832 which is a completely different car from a different era that used the world-car chassis found in the Saab 9000 and Alfa Romeo 164. The Thema, had a detuned Ferrari V-8 derived from the 308 model. It was a 4-door sports sedan, not a sports car. None of the cars you showed were Themas.
The title of this video is very misleading and SILLY!
This video is about unusual CARS not unusual engines as the title suggests. Also, some serious editing flaws
I made it to the 9:21 mark. I don't know why. Maybe I was looking for the few occasions where the picture matched the talking robot
🦄
For decades America has been owing the world a fuel efficient vehicle, where is it?
It's built in Asia, usually Japan.
Let's not forget that those tiny engine'd three-wheel cars were city runners, designed to get you from A to B as cheaply and easily as practical. In that department they were quite successful. Just don't try highway cruising. That was never their intended purpose. We had a Fiat 600 Multipla for years, handy and fun around town, no issues... but top speed was around 48 mph, barely enough to stay with traffic on the Interstate and you had to run it flat out to do it. Then again, it was a CITY CAR, and in that realm it was perfect for the job of A to B. And let's not even bother with talking about fuel mileage. The little sucker just sniffed gas fumes while running, it would go a week or so between fillups which cost a few bucks. I forget how much gas it held, usually a fillup on top of what was already left in the tank only took maybe 2-3 gallons.
We had two 600 Multiplas, one a project, one a regular "novelty" daily driver that never failed to attract attention at cruise-ins or at the grocery store. 22 horsepower... probably the only household in the state that had TWO 600 Multiplas that were within a hundred miles of each other. Sold them both for MUCH more than we paid for either of them. Too many other car projects and not enough spare time. 🙂
The Edsel is another one. 😂
The GM 2.5L was found to have a casting flaw that led to engine failure! They knew about the problem but kept making it. They put out a service bulletin if you were the original owner and less than 50K miles...they would replace it. My mother's 1983 Camaro had just over 60k on it when the engine failed! That POS couldn't get out of its own way and would stall in first gear from a start unless you had the RPM higher than normal.....
2 strokes are NOT “silly” at all. I have a 2 stroke SAAB, and they are well engineered, nice little cars. The modern 2 stroke oils don’t smoke much. They run great. I collect all kinds of 2 stroke engines and they are quite reliable. They sound better than most 4 strokes too. And no stupid problematic valve train. You failed to mention that the Subaru 360 is an air cooled 2 stroke twin. The Saab is a 3 cylinder except the early model 92 which is a 600 cc DKW built twin, water cooled, while the 93 and newer 96’s had a 750 cc and then an 850 cc triple accordingly, also DKW made. Speaking of that, you totally missed the DKW 3=6 cars with 900 and 1000 cc 3 cylinder 2 strokes and the F model DKW’s from the 1930’s with 600 cc twins that was also the engine used in the Saab 92!
Every Australian car made had the fuel tank in that Pinto position , by law, the US fuel tank position under the passengers is not even legal in Australia as its seen as dangerous !
Many of these the idea was good, but they just were not reliable or long lasting!!
In general the two stroke engine could/Should have developed Further!! A basic two stroke has three moving parts; piston, conrod, crankshaft! Simple but Good!! 👍👍
On the Peel P50 the handle is because they do not have reverse gear, you just use the handle to turn it around!
Kevin Spacey is a ROBOT?
Lancia Thema 8.32 not Beta was only 4 cylinder engines
You start the video by talking about engines and finish it by talking about shape (the title says: ...car engines...not shape.)
Whatever
you forget one of the strangest cars of all time: the rhomboid car, nearly like the number 2 but with a fourth wheel at the rear improving stability, but this car was notorious for another feature: Its shape was supposed to avoid frontal collision (2 rhomboid car during a frontal impact were supposed to slip against each other, each one going to one side avoiding collision)
I had a few niggles to start with, but then you extensively used images of a Beta Montecarlo, a Beta Coupe etc ... and no images of the actual 8.32? Seriously? Dude ...
Regarding the stability, this was not a bad engine when this came out in the 60's no one has heard about emissions, so should not be on the list, if my memory serves I think it won the monte carlo rally
AI generated crappola. NEXT!
Stopped after 7 minutes. Speaking about the SAAB 2 stroke engine and showing a Chevy V8 in a tubeframe chassis
AI generated? Much of the video had nothing to do with what was being said
Not all the engines in this video are silly. The cars they were put in might have been silly but that is not supposed focus of this video. Maybe next time stick to the actual topic and not use other things as filler to make the video longer.
Why, when you are talking about the "iron duke" 4 cyl motor ,are you showing pictures of a 1972-4 Olds Omega or Nova? GM never put a 4 cyl in any Nova,Omega,Ventura or Apollo from 60's to 79'. The smallest motor that went into that body style was either the Chev 250 straight six or the Buick 231 V6. Also ,do not confuse the Chev "iron duke" 140 c.i.d. 4cyl with the Pontiac 151c.i.d. 4cyl that came in Fiero's and just about every 4cyl equipt 80's GM cars. The "iron duke" was used in most Jeep mail trucks you've seen for years and they look completely different than the 151 4cyl. The valve cover is a shape is a dead giveaway. If the valve cover is straight,rectangular and has 4 bolts ,similar to a Chev smallblock ,then it's an iron duke. Otherwise, it's a Pont 151(tech4).
Hey bud, you missed the worse, silliest car engine of all time, the 4 cylinder, OHC Vega. Burned more oil than gas, very bad design.
please don't jump the video around between presentations, it's not clever, it just hurts my eyes. otherwise, i enjoyed the video.
From the 6 wheel car on it was a waste of time no more engines.
What, no Lloyd?
When I was growing up in the suburbs of Milwaukee, Wi. a neighbor had one of the 2-stroke Saab's. Very strange car for that time and place.
i liked the vega and chevette compact cars that have high MPG
A steel sleeved Vega motor is really bulletproof.
Click bait. Almost nothing in here about silly engines. Not to mention incorrect pictures and bad date for what you did talk about.
Crap video. It's titled "silliest car engines", but rapidly becomes "silliest car designs" regardless of the engine. The AMC Pacer for example used the same inline 6 that most other AMC cars had, such as the Gremlin and Hornet. The AMC inline 6 engine itself was OK if somewhat anemic (I owned one many years ago), but there was nothing silly about it. The Pacer on the other hand was not a good design, BUT that's not what this video was supposed to be about, was it?
Better if titled "most stupid cars of all time."
Gotta get me a nuclear powered car😊Cheers Thanks
There is another two stroke engine you the first Suzuki Jimny which had a three cylinder two stroke 540cc water cooled engine which was the first Suzuki vehicle sold in Australia although Suzuki had been selling motorcycles before the little 4X4 came along and there a couple of them still driving around
When I was a kid we got a 63 Plymouth Renault. It had a 3 cylinder engine that was about the size of a lawn mower engine. A lot of things about that car was really weird.
@@notmyworldnotmypeople3614 I think your parents might have put LSD on your breakfast cereal.
Title should be silly cars not motors
AND YES YOU MISSED TGE VEGA
WITH THE ALL ALUMINUM ENGINE BLOCK WHICH WAS PRONE TO USE COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF OIL IF YOU DROVE THEM CONSERVATIVELY
☝️ IF YOU DROVE THEM REAL HARD THEY WOULD SLOW
WAY DOWN THE BLOCK AND CYLINDERS WERE ALL ALUMINUM SILIBORE IT DIDN'T GO OVER
i like quirky cars though
Awful, photos unrelated (SAAB 2 stroke, showing a V8?), and no mention of why AMC put the 6 cylinder in the Pacer (GM shelved the wankel it'd been designed around, with little warning). Quit after that part as it's full of mistaken info and missing important info.
The Wankel engine was an nsu design not Mazda. The Fiat air is a four cylinder engine not a two cylinder. The lancia was a theima not a beta model. This was supposed to be about engine's but your talking about vehicles.
Tempest motor has to be up there.
hahah, well ya that 1st one is you basically just running a car on 1 huge turbo by itself! of course you gunna get horrible turbo lag! heheh
The Lancia 8.32 was a Lancia Thema with an Ferrari Engine What you are showing is the Lancia Montecarlo /Skorpio in Usa) and the Beta those Cars have nothing to do with it!
I mean i would certainly take a Montecarlo with that Ferrari Engine but it does not exist!!!
The Pacer was supposed to have a GM sourced Wankel engine. GM couldn’t make their Wankel work and pulled the plug. Without the GM Wankel, the only small engine cash strapped AMC had to get Pacer to market was its own straight six.
Interesting vehicles but terrible video.
Pretty sure any of of those would beat walking a few miles in the rain?
If written by a 12 yr old, fine but these were products of their time, hindsight is always 20/20
The Wankel is a terrible design.
Is the Renault Dauphine in there? Almost a French Volkswagen oil 🔥 🔥 burners
Mom could shift those gears and out pace the cloud
The boss asked me to deal with his girlfriends, " '1969 Caprice diesel.'"
The " carburetor " had a two inch buildup of carbon inside the " air horn."
I couldn't do a thing with it.
But I could make up a story what i
should have done....
Chip 🍟 out the carbon. Add ether.
Add stuff to the tank. Take it to the dealership and ask for advice. Drive it on the highway. Take a break from mundane draftsman humdrum.
Call the boss and update him how impressive I look in it.
Hang up after asking for his girlfriends number so I could give it to her....
My first new car was a 2 Liter Pinto hatch back which except for color and tire size, mine was yellow and had Polyglas A-70/13 wide ovals, was just like the one shown at 22:38! As inexpensive small cars go, it was top of the heap back then. Larger and better handling than any Japanese car of similar size and much less expensive too! Considering that all small cars from every maker back then had the gas tank between the bumper and rear axle and would burst into flames if rear ended by a pig pickup truck, it got an undeserved bad reputation. Mainly because it outsold them all! We put over 125,000 miles on that car in Germany including autobahn driving WO a single hitch before selling it to buy a 71 Boss-429 Mustang out of the PX in Heidelburg!
However...
TH-cam nonsense - slowly but surely turning into a waste of time to be ignored