Vw xl1, 261 mpg

mikefrommaine Posted By mikefrommaine, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:01 PM

  1. pen

    pen
    There are some who call me...mod. 2.
    NULL
    
    Staff Member

    Aug 2, 2007
    7,738
    1,525
    Loc:
    N.E. Penna
    Very neat. Out of my league though :(

    You'd think we'd be seeing cars with 100mpg for a low price tag w/ few options by now.

    pen
     
    ScotO likes this.
  2. Seasoned Oak

    Seasoned Oak
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Oct 17, 2008
    4,467
    780
    Loc:
    Eastern Central PA
    Not hard to do if the weight and aerodynamics are right. This car takes both to a new level. Note. that it needs only about 8 HP to maintain 62 MPH.
     
  3. ScotO

    ScotO
    Guest 2.
    NULL
    

    The technology has been here for a LONG time, but the lobbies in Washington run the show......
    It's about making money, not about saving the planet, to those lobbies....
     
    scooby074, Tuneighty and Ehouse like this.
  4. velvetfoot

    velvetfoot
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Dec 5, 2005
    9,057
    661
    Loc:
    Sand Lake, NY
    diesel rulez
     
  5. pen

    pen
    There are some who call me...mod. 2.
    NULL
    
    Staff Member

    Aug 2, 2007
    7,738
    1,525
    Loc:
    N.E. Penna
    I also blame the people and our expectations. Take a look at how a car like the honda civic has changed in hp, size, and fuel economy over the years. Even giving it credit for dealing with extra weight for advanced safety, it's still become technically "bloated" IMO.

    Heck, look at a 1980 VW rabbit or the truck model! 70-80ish hp and 45 mpg. Or a Chevy Luv w/ about the same power, etc. Try finding anything on the market like that now. Wonder what the price tag would be to essentially build the same thing except with updated safety regs. Heck, ford doesn't even make the ranger anymore in the US and even the 4cyl colorado isn't very good on gas.

    pen
     
    scooby074 likes this.
  6. Where2

    Where2
    Feeling the Heat 2.
    NULL
    

    Feb 3, 2013
    261
    44
    Loc:
    South Florida
    Obviously, I need to go strap some vinyl cladding to the undercarriage of my 2004 Jetta Wagon TDI. I'm only getting 40mpg city with 90Hp. Considering I drive 650 miles per month on one fill-up of 16.x gallons, I don't think I'll be springing for a new VW to replace the ones in the driveway.

    The electronic rear view mirrors are curious, are they DOT legal?
     
  7. begreen

    begreen
    Mooderator 2.
    NULL
    
    Staff Member

    Nov 18, 2005
    61,881
    7,908
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    Are they effective? You can't shift your body for a better view with a camera.
     
  8. Corey

    Corey
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Nov 19, 2005
    2,301
    158
    Loc:
    Midwest
    "261 mpg" ...well, figure there is likely a 20+% BS factor (cars RARELY get the advertized mileage in real world driving ie-Chevy Volt was advertized at '230 mpg'...the epa numbers are less stellar at <100 figuring in the electric usage), figure another 25% cost penalty for diesel vs gasoline, and figure a 20% penalty because when they say Geneva, Europe and Volkswagen, they are most likely talking UK gallons which are larger than US gallons. So 261 - (261 x .20 x .25 x .20) = 261-170 = So now we're down to a 'real world, American, gasoline equivalent of about 90 mpg.

    Now figure you only have 2 seats and 48hp engine and 0-60 in about 13 seconds. Look back at the Honda Insight which came out 14 years ago with an epa rated 70mpg - 2 seats, 69 hp engine and 0-60 in 10 seconds, for a little under $20K. Sure I bought one, but not a lot of people really beat the door down to buy that car...I don't see a lot of people really flocking to one which is likely more expensive, marginally better mileage* and much slower/lower power.

    * The difference between '70' and '90' looks impressive, but consider 20,000 miles a year and $4.00 gallon gasoline:

    20,000 / 70 = 286 gallons of gas x 4.00 = $1,143 in fuel

    20,000 / 90 = 222 gallons of gas x 4.00 = $889 in fuel... only saving about $250/yr in fuel costs, so assuming you keep this car on the road for 10 years with no additional maintenance (good luck with those lithium batteries!) - it's only worth a 'real world' premium of about $2,500 over technology which was in production 14 years ago.
     
    pen likes this.
  9. pdf27

    pdf27
    Member 2.
    NULL
    

    Feb 14, 2012
    155
    19
    Loc:
    UK
    The press release says it will be handbuilt, so don't expect it to be anywhere near as common as the Honda Insight - it's mostly greenwash for VW.

    Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if a second generation car came out in 4-5 years or so with many of the same technologies, just made more practical for common use. At a guess it would be a similar body and drivetrain (what percentage of the market actually needs more than 2 seats, at what cost in efficiency? This isn't going to be taking over from the Golf as their biggest seller any time soon), but a much bigger electric motor and probably slightly bigger battery. That gives much better acceleration at minimal weight cost - the engine is probably just fine if it only needs 8 bhp to cruise at 60mph, with the electric motor providing acceleration.

    So what I'm thinking of is basically some kind of frankencar made up of this and the McLaren P1. Note that the McLaren has some pretty incredible performance levels but emits less CO2/km than a Toyota Camry...
     
  10. velvetfoot

    velvetfoot
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Dec 5, 2005
    9,057
    661
    Loc:
    Sand Lake, NY
    I looked at a used one a few years ago, but it didn't have room in back of the seats for a couple golf bags.
     
  11. mikefrommaine

    mikefrommaine
    Guest 2.
    NULL
    

    That's some pretty fancy figuring. We might as well take it a step farther. By your logic we should divide 90 mpg by what say 3.2? ( they probably didn't account for the molecular weight of fuel for the current 20 degrees at my house) that gets us down to 28 mpg 'real world'. And wait what if you want it in red? Red paint has more pigments and weighs more. Better knock off another 12 mpg. Now we are at 16mpg... And what if its metallic pearl finish, my goodness the drag coefficent is going to be way off. We might as all drive v-10 f350 super duty trucks as commuter vehicles. More or less the same efficency.

    BTW VW is claiming 313mpg under European standards.
     
  12. begreen

    begreen
    Mooderator 2.
    NULL
    
    Staff Member

    Nov 18, 2005
    61,881
    7,908
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
  13. nate379

    nate379
    Guest 2.
    NULL
    

    Thing looks uglier than a monkey's butthole!

    My 8yr old Jetta with 130 hp gets ~43mpg "real world driving" without trouble. I'm sure if I drove like an old lady I could get 50+
     
  14. pdf27

    pdf27
    Member 2.
    NULL
    

    Feb 14, 2012
    155
    19
    Loc:
    UK
    It's a tech demonstrator and designed for aerodynamics, not aesthetics - a production version would look a hell of a lot better (and probably have four wheels).

    Incidentally, I get ~42 mpg winter, ~45 mpg summer from my 10 year old 130 bhp Golf diesel. Best I've seen is 50 mpg on long motorway runs (70-80 mph) in summer (low air density and hence air resistance).

    (all numbers in US gallons)
     
  15. begreen

    begreen
    Mooderator 2.
    NULL
    
    Staff Member

    Nov 18, 2005
    61,881
    7,908
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    We are talking about an over 100mpg vehicle here. In that area function sometimes is the beauty over form. But the point is that new technology is making safe, strong, lightweight vehicles a reality.
     

Share This Page