Copyright reasons prevent us from showing you spy photos of the Volkswagen XL1 – if you want them, take a look here . The XL1 will apparently be the world’s most fuel efficient car when it goes on sale in 2013, getting 0.9L/100 km – or about 260 mpg.
With the rear wheel now exposed, the prototypes seen here look more like a Lamborghini than anything that would suggest an undying obsession with the environment. An 800cc two cylinder TDI powerplant making 47 PS is linked to an electric motor making 27 PS. A range of 22 miles is available in pure EV mode, and power is put to the ground via a 7-speed DSG gearbox.
A 1,753 curb weight helps achieve these astounding fuel economy numbers. A carbon-fiber reinforced plastic body shell, carbon ceramic brakes and magnesium wheels are all featured. Only 23 percent of the car is said to be made from steel. Pricing is all speculative, and our initial reports suggest that the XL1 will be released in very limited numbers.
As always, I would want to know how the 260 mpg figure was arrived at for this plug in hybrid with a reported electric range of 22 miles.
It obviously needs some aesthetic work around the rear wheels now with the covers removed. It will be interesting to see exactly what the final car for sale to the public looks like, the price, and how many they will produce. Move over Chevy Volt.
According to VW: “Expect to to see the production XL1 later this year, with sales starting in 2013 priced from around £30,000.”
At that price– $47,632– you could buy TWO Toyota Prius C hybrids! And, unlike the VW, with the Prius, you wouldn’t have to worry about constant mechanical problems!
And the claim– 260 miles per gallon- made by Volkswagen? If you believe that nonsense, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you!
As always, European prices are not directly comparable …
Probably 260 mpg counts some level of plug-in pack usage.. so sort of like the Volt’s 230 mpg claim.
I expect this to do about as well as the 1G Honda Insight, for the same reasons. On the other hand .. if that means you can pick up a used one in 5-6 years for $10k, so much the better!
Well for me since I drive about 200 miles per day if it drives the way it looks and has at least a 11 gallon tank then I will take one. The tank size would allow me to drive for about a week (not including side trips) and not have to fill up. Of course it may get here and get only about 70 MPG. Thats good but not 260.
Fail if it can only achieve 70mpg. The Honda Insight did that, what, 10 years ago?
According to Car and Driver, the XL1 concept has a 2.6 gallon tank. So about 678 miles per tank if you can achieve the advertised 261 MPG, which is still pretty good range. I’d be extremely surprised if this car is ever available in North America. I think we’re more likely to see the Amarok TDI on VW lots than the XL1.
Looks like the rear wheels will likely still have the fairing based on the track width vs the body width, and the fact that it looks like there are clips exposed to hold the fairing on. It’s just been removed for those pictures; maybe there was too much snow accumulating under there, or they needed room for sensor wheels to mount to the outside of the hub or something.
While I’m sure it will be expensive and not sell in large numbers, sometimes a engineering show case like this sets the stage for future mass products. I’ll be interested to see what it’s real world mileage will be.
No rear window?
Volt 230, Volkswagen 260. VW wins, ja?
I am skeptical, and reside in the real world of cold weather, hils, friction, etc.
Assuming 12,000 miles per year, the difference between 230mpg and 260mpg is a measly 7 gallons.
high fuel efficiency : economy cars :: top speed : supercars
Even between 250 and 125mpg at 12,000 the dif is all of 48 gallons. And at 125 vs 62.5mpg the dif is still only 96 gallons.
This brings up a good point usually lost when discussing high mpg cars. Even if it gets 250 mpg (Gallon of what? Do these estimates somehow incorporate electric costs? What type of usage are we assuming?)that would still only save 192 gallons of fuel versus a car getting 50 mpg (Prius?) for every 12,000 miles driven. And, at what cost? Much less people and cargo hauling capabilities and a much higher price tag.
Just as when I evaluated the cost of a Prius versus an economy car getting 30 mpg, the savings in gas doesn’t begin to break even with the additional initial cost until the price of gas gets north of $6 per gallon. If I had bought a Prius seven years ago when I got my not economical Mazda6 with the V6 engine, I would still be in the hole, and I wouldn’t have enjoyed the past seven years of driving nearly as much. Paying over $10,000 extra for even drastically improved fuel economy just doesn’t make economic sense, yet. If that type of car excites you, fine; just be honest about your motivations and don’t include saving money.
“0.9L/100 km – or about 260 mpg.”
Want to make a bet. We heard similar sorts of numbers for the Volt when it is in development. Better info would be m.p.g. for gasoline only and miles/KWh in electric mode.
This weighs half what a Volt does, which will make a drastic difference in the amount of energy it consumes.
Ok, but Volt didn’t matchthe intial Hype once they had to produce semi-honest numbers.
If it gets better than 100mpg engine only or even in hybrid mode, I don’t see much impetus for battery electrics unless there’s a real breakthrough that revolutionizes range and recharging time.
The article says 313 mpg, I call B.S.!
John
UK gallons are 20% bigger than US gallons.
So lets say that means they’re saying it gets around 250 US mpg. Are we going to believe it can do that without fuzzy electric-equivalent-of-MPG accounting? When a lot of really weird, really light machines are struggling to win an X prize for a car that can get north of 100mpg, and be produced commercially?
I would be hugely impressed, and very happy for the future of driving if this thing could get even 125 real MPGs. And I’d have a huge party to celebrate if the thing could accomplish 180 real MPGs.But I wouldn’t bet my property tax on either figure.
I’m pretty sure that the covered rear wheel will stay. Look how deep in the well rear wheels are, and look at the edge of the wheel well.. definitely something missing there.
I’m guessing they were removed to prevent fenderbergs from building up and interfering with the rear wheels during snow testing.
Looks like a 93 Ford Probe to me.
http://static.cargurus.com/images/site/2010/08/09/01/22/1993_ford_probe_2_dr_gt_hatchback-pic-5608762590910743598.jpeg
260 mpg – just as at 100 mpg – means we should stop calculating fuel cost altogether as it becomes inconsequential. The real cost is the vehicle, and this one won’t be cheap.
At 23 lb/HP, it will also be pretty slow.
I was thinking Ford Probe as well, although it was the Probe IV concept car with its sleek covered wheels rather than the 2nd gen consumer version.
Haha, I read that as 23 HP/lb. Now that’s what I’m talking about.
40,319 HP.
While the wing mirrors may be less expensive to implement, I prefer the original prototype’s smooth appearance without them. The side view camera nacelles are still present; perhaps the final version will feature interior view screens instead of the mirror pods.
The original Honda Insight LIVES!
The difference between the Volt and this car is that is a Diesel!
With such a short electric only range I am guessing it has a much smaller battery than the Volt and there in lies some of the weight savings. A smaller battery will cost less to replace to.
It probably only needs a quarter the battery capacity of the Volt to achieve the claimed range, although VW may have a more conservative battery management regiment than GM, which would bump the battery up in size a bit.
Lose the batteries, and drop the 2.0T in there.
I suppose the world’s most profitable automaker can afford a halo car like Volt, even without my bailout money. And this thing is promised to beat Volt in efficiency, too. Looking forward to it.
P.S. The WV car underscores the current “Insight” travesty from Honda: Japanese cannot even repeat their own performance anymore. How the mighty have fallen.
I’m not happy with the dilution of the concept. The initial project was purposed to create a diesel-fueled ICE vehicle that returned 100km/1L, but the car has completely lost its identity. Tandem seating and the tiny diesel engine were probably never going to reach production, but the concept of creating the world’s most efficient closed-loop fossil fuel propulsion system was very intriguing.
VW have simply added a plug so they can declare “mission accomplished”, and capture vehicle tax credits.
If the US had only orbited the moon during the Apollo missions, no one would really care. VW declared a moon mission, and now they are eager to cash in without really achieving the objective. Opportunistic marketing hacks taint the hard work done by the engineers.
Nice halo, let’s see if some of the light from it will shine on other vehicles in the range. This type of vehicle is a great idea, but ultimately this type of performance needs to trickle down to the affordable cars. As long as they don’t just show off the technology and then ditch it.
I don’t like its aesthetics, even though the rear is clearly a 10-year update on the rear end of the Nardo W12, which I always liked.
Horses for courses, etc.
Looks sort of like a copy of the Loremo concept, or maybe Loremo copied them in concept and looks: http://www.google.com/search?q=Loremo&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=hdz&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=8HxoT-i_MZTiggfYloHSCQ&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CA4Q_AUoAQ&biw=1376&bih=623&sei=83xoT677BcbqgQfF–XYCQ
I’m pleased to see someone else remembers that project. I think it’s more a case of convergent design, as all the high mileage/low drag vehicle shapes tend to mimic the rounded lozenge which became the dominant form during the early days of the fuel consumption contests.
Let’s be a little realistic, here.
I’m sure that lots of people could make a car that approached these numbers if, like the XL1, they needn’t concern themselves with things like passenger space (it’s a two-seater), cargo capacity (next to none) or performance (we’re talking Smart ForTwo levels of power).
This is an interesting idea, but the magic of the Prius (over the original Insight) is that it didn’t require much in the way of compromises. Even the Volt and Leaf don’t ask all that much of their owners. This car has hardly any market.
This is an eco-bling toy for affluent beta testers. But then I’ve only seen announcements of a ‘limited’ production run; VW doesn’t seem to expect buy-in from the general public, unlike GM did with the Volt.
With the low weight, super-low drag and 163 lbs-ft of torque from the two engines, it could potentially be enjoyable to drive. It’s not just horsepower that matters …
But as Hildy says, VW is not looking to make it a mass-market model: this will be a different kind of a halo car from a Phaeton or LF-A. And VW can certainly afford to do it.