The Volkswagen XL1: 147 mpg car.

[TheMightyFavog]

http://jalopnik.com/the-volkswagen-xl1-is-indeed-all-about-fuel-economy-1113312870

I love the Volkswagen XL1 because it looks like what cars from 2015 looked like in movies from the 1990s. The future is now, kids, and MotorWeek is along for the ride! P

As our intrepid European Correspondent Mate Petrany did earlier this year, the folks at MotorWeek took VW's supposedly 261 mpg futurecar for a spin around Wolfsburg, Germany and the Autobahn. They managed 147 miles per gallon on their trip.P

"I have driven the future, and it is good," Brian Robinson says, adding that you can get it up to speed "fast enough." Sweet! P

[JaneyVee]

1. Flux capacitor.

[DreamGypsy]

4. VW assures us the XL1 requires no plutonium to operate...

...if you have a reliable source of lightning.

[DetlefK]

26. Or an onboard "Mister Fusion" and some organic garbage.

[Politicalboi]

2. I think it's ugly

I know that is not what this is about, but ugly doesn't sell. It's been tried before. I wish we would just change fuels instead of charging. That way, we could possibly keep our old cars once converted, and still improve the environment.

[kentauros]

23. Ugly does indeed sell:

I've never understood why anyone would want to be seen driving one of those, but I still saw them all over when they came out. Power trumps ugly any day of the week to certain drivers, and there are enough of those types to make "ugly buy powerful" popular.

Personally, I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say the Prius is ugly. I see nothing about it that's ugly at all, yet that seems to be a prevalent criticism of it. And even there, it's still popular and sells quite well. So, "ugly" is obvious in the eye of the beholder, as the saying goes

I like how the XL1 looks, too, and have liked all the various versions of it up to now

[a kennedy]

25. ditto to that.....ugly.

Why can't they ever come up with a great looking, AND awesome milage car.

[RedCappedBandit]

3. I kinda like some of it, but really hate that the wheels are covered like that.

[jmowreader]

5. The wheels need to be covered like that for aerodynamic efficiency

[kentuck]

6. 56 Mercurys had fender skirts.

[KansDem]

28. Classic

The 1956 Mercury Montclair included all of Mercury’s evolutionary engineering. The ’56 Mercury Montclair included factory air, which was a new option in Mercury vehicles as of 1955. The ’56 Montclair also offered an “on-demand” low-gear kickdown for an extra cost with Mercury’s three speed “Merc-O-Matic” automatic transmission. The “Merc-O-Matic” was actually Ford’s first automatic transmission, which was introduced in 1950. In general the transmissions were given the name Ford-O-Matic but when a Mercury vehicles was marketed, it was given the moniker Merc-O-Matic.

The 1956 Mercury Montclair was no slouch when it came to power. It had a large V-8 engine with plenty of horsepower: There were two options available for the 1956 Mercury Montclair:
225hp 312 c.i. V-8
335hp 312 c.i. V-8 with a 4 barrel carburetor

In terms of what type of Mercury Montclair was produced in 1956, here is the actual production breakdown:
Convertible: 7,762
Hardtop Sport Coupe: 50,562,
Phaeton Hardtop Sedan: 23,493

The hardtop sport coupes were produced the most while the convertibles were fairly limited in production in 1956.

Since the Montclair was a premium Mercury vehicle, the interior would have sported upholstery that was comprised of leather and vinyl.

[kentuck]

54. My favorite car from the 50's...

Even over the 55 Chevy.

[RedCappedBandit]

7. Clearly performance trumps aesthetics in a car like this

[jakeXT]

12. It's probably fun to change a tire... nt

[flvegan]

8. 0-60 in 12.6 seconds.

That's "fast enough" for whom? Oh, right...hypermiling idiots. $120,000.00 (per C/D) and not for the US (naturally, it owes much of it's mpg to low weight, so what would be the point here right?).

I am impressed with the tech, though. Not the looks, nor the performance, but I like the diesel/hybrid idea. It's not hydrogen, but it's far more brilliant than a lump of Prius.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. It was good enough a generation ago

Typical car:

Sierra 1.6L (2/10/82) Dates tested in brackets by Autocar.

0-60 =13.1

http://passionford.com/forum/ford-sierra-sapphire-rs500-cosworth/217941-new-sierra-prices-and-performance-stats.html

No, the entire world were not 'idiots' a generation ago. We might ask if people who think ever-faster acceleration times are the be all and end all of cars are the 'idiots', though ...

[EOTE]

14. What makes you think that a Sierra 1.6L represents the typical car of a generation ago?

A "typical" car hasn't had a greater than 10 second 0-60 time in a very long time.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. OK, we'll take a really high selling model - the Toyota Corolla

1984 Toyota Corolla 0-60 mph 13.0
1985 Toyota Corolla GT-S 0-60 mph 10.4

http://www.zeroto60times.com/Toyota-0-60-mph-Times.html

Maybe we should take the Ford Escort - better selling than the Sierra: 1987 Ford Escort L 0-60 mph 11.3

I think the problem may be that car enthusiasts forget what average cars are, or have been in the recent past, like.

[EOTE]

21. Economy cars with low compression four bangers do NOT represent the average car.

You're presenting some of the slowest cars of the time and suggesting they're average. They're not.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. What part of 'world best selling car' do you not understand?

Hell, we don't have to go back 30 years - just 10:

Europe 2003: Peugeot 206 most popular, Golf down to #2

5 years after its launch and after missing the title by only 500 units last year, the Peugeot 206 finally becomes the best selling car in Europe in 2003. It is the first time a Peugeot ever achieves this feat, and only the second time in 21 years the VW Golf is not #1 (after the Fiat Punto ranked first in 1997).

http://bestsellingcarsblog.com/2004/01/24/europe-2003-peugeot-206-most-popular-golf-down-to-2/

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/peugeot/206/hatchback-1998/

0-60 times for the non-sports models mostly between 11.6 and 14.6 seconds.

You see, you obviously don't know much about cars - economy cars with low compression four 'bangers' ARE the average car.

[EOTE]

24. None of them, especially considering you didn't use those words until now.

And I know quite a bit about cars, thanks. It's a rather stupid comparison, using cars from an era known for destroying performance and then using the worst performing cars as the "average" car of that era. In the late 70s and early 80s, economy cars just began to take off in this country. If you're suggesting that "average" cars have low compression 4 bangers, that means that around half of cars at the time had less than 90 or so HP, that's simply not true.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. Maybe it's your American blinders, then

"around half of cars at the time had less than 90 or so HP, that's simply not true. "

I would say it probably is true. Maybe you're thinking of the American market - those cars they found so hard to sell to the rest of the world, because they were heavy and inefficient. But take another best-selling car of the 80s - the VW Golf. Mid-range engine: 1.6L 75 PS (55 kW; 74 hp) I4. Or another popular car, slightly larger - the Opel Vectra. 1.6L engine: 80hp. 1.8L engine: 89hp. These are not the worst performing cars (they're not a 2CV, for instance) - they are the most popular. Average, in other words.

And, as I pointed out, the best selling car in Europe of 10 years ago had a similar acceleration to this VW XL1, so it's not just "an era known for destroying performance". And most of the rest of the world does not go for thirstier cars than Europe.

[EOTE]

32. Maybe it's your European blinders, then.

Because Europe certainly doesn't speak for the rest of the world when it comes to automative performance. Your "best selling car in the world" is not, actually, the best selling car in the world, not even close. It's the best selling car in Europe. Do you know what the best selling automobile in the U.S. has been for the past few decades? The F-150 which doesn't even offer a 4 banger and doesn't have an engine option currently under 300 hp. If what you are suggesting were average, that would mean that half of cars would have less power than that and that's simply ludicrous. The great bulk of cars made now have over 150 hp. What you're talking about is not average by any means. The average car hasn't had acceleration to 60 in over 10 seconds for QUITE a long time. You may want to believe that Suzuki Swifts are the "average" car nowadays, but that's simply ridiculous.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. I've been showing the figures that prove you wrong; you just assert things

without evidence. I have shown you what typical car acceleration has been, just 10 years ago. And here's the world best-selling cars:

World 1960-1974: VW Beetle conquers the planet

World 1974: Toyota Corolla takes command

World 1975-1978: Toyota Corolla in the lead

World 1979: VW Golf passes Toyota Corolla to claim top spot

World 1980: Toyota Corolla clear leader, Renault 5 and VW Golf follow

World 1981-1989: Toyota Corolla from strength to strength

World 1990-1991: Toyota Corolla closes in on the million

World 1992-1997: Toyota Corolla reinforces world domination

World 1998: Opel Corsa the best-selling car in the world

World 2000: VW Golf in pole position! See the Top 120 best-selling models here!

World 2005: Toyota Corolla reclaims leadership

World 2006-2008: Toyota Corolla should stay on top

World 2009: Toyota Corolla #1 with 900,000+ sales

World 2010: Toyota Corolla leader, Hilux #1 in 28 countries

World 2011: Corolla faithful to pole position, discover the Top 100 best-selling models!

http://bestsellingcarsblog.com/2011/09/17/world-1997-2005-detailed-historical-data-now-available/

Notice all those years the F150 took the title, eh? Yes, clearly, me talking about VWs, Opels and Toyotas has been completely wrong when looking at the typical car the world buys! We must bow to the American lumps of metal that the rest of the world doesn't give a toss about.

'Suzuki Swift'? I didn't mention Suzuki. I didn't even mention a car in the same class as the Swift (though the Corsa, top selling for a year or two, is; 0-60 times of 10.2 to 16.5, except one sports model). Again, I get the impression that your knowledge of cars is limited.

[EOTE]

39. No, you're spouting off random bits of information which really says nothing in totality.

The current Corolla does 60 in around 8 seconds, not even in the same league as 12+. There are also a ridiculous amount of Golf models, some that do 60 in under 5 seconds. To say that 12 seconds to 60 could be considered "average" even 30 years ago is a joke. That's pretty much been exclusively the realm of really shitty economy cars for decades now.

I get the impression that I've forgotten a good deal more about cars than you've ever known.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. And you ignore both what most models do, and what my point was:

that being satisfied with a car that does 0-60 in 12 seconds does not make you an 'idiot'. It worked fine for decades. I have shown, repeatedly, that the most popular models had times like that. Your repeated assertions that these facts are all 'jokes' means nothing. The facts are on my side. You now point to current cars, but your claim that typical performance has been like that 'for decades' is a fantasy.

Having a fast car may be fun, but it's unnecessary. Maybe you have forgotten a lot about cars, but in that case, you need to re-educate yourself.

[EOTE]

41. I never said it makes anyone an 'idiot'.

But to suggest that this was average 30 years ago is a joke. That would mean that there are just as many cars with UNDER 90 hp, a good number SIGNIFICANTLY so to make up for all those 200+ hp sedans, 400+ hp super sedans and 500+ hp sports cars. The fact that there are some popular models with low HP doesn't suggest anything. For it to be an average, that would mean that there are a huge number of cars with lower output than that. Considering these popular cars are already at the bottom of the output ladder, that's utterly impossible.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. flvegan said it, and that was what I replied to; you replied to me

Again, you calling something a 'joke' doesn't change reality.

"That would mean that there are just as many cars with UNDER 90 hp"

Not 'are'; 'were'. You brought horsepower (as opposed to acceleration) for late 70s and early 80s cars into this; we've seen some figures for the 1980s, and they back me up. "200+ hp sedans, 400+ hp super sedans and 500+ hp sports cars" were not sold in large numbers in the 1980s. There were plenty of cars with power well below 90hp; the Renault 5 (another very popular car) had engines ranging from 36hp to 108hp - the last being a sports version; all the rest were 62hp or less. Its competitors would have been similarly powered. In the next class up - the 3rd generation Ford Escort - we have 1.4L and 1.6L engines producing 75hp and 90hp (or a 1.3L engine, presumably producing less than 75hp).

Is the problem that you're having difficulty remembering the early 80s?

[TheMadMonk]

47. Any you just demonstrated your abysmal lack of understanding of basic statistics.

Pretty much any time Jeremy Clarkson reviews 500+ HP supercars, it can be pretty much guaranteed that one of of the "features" he mentions will be limited (low hundreds, and less) production runs.

The contribution of ALL supercars to average car horse power is approximately one hamster wheel.

Your super sedans might contribute as much as a full HP to the average.

You don't calculate population averages by comparing individual exemplars. Funnily enough you calculate population averages by looking at populations as a whole.

There are a fuckload more Ladas and Yugos on the road than Maybachs.

[EOTE]

50. And of the other myriad 200+ HP vehicles remaining?

And the even more common 150+ HP vehicles? To suggest that these 90 hp vehicles were the "average" suggests that there are just as many cars with even LESS HP than them. And I'd say there are a fuckload more Mercedes on the road than there are Ladas and Yugos. Those Mercedes may not be super sedans, but I'd imagine they have on average a lot more than 150 HP.

[LTX]

59. "Those Mercedes" most certainly did not average more than 150 HP.

The 123 chassis fitted with diesel engines, which were far and away the most popular models, were considerably less than 150 HP. In fact, between 1976 and 1986, those models produced from a low of 54 HP in the 200D to a high of 136 HP in the 230CE. It wasn't until you got to the gasoline motors in the high end 280E, C, and CE that you saw HP above 150 (they ranged from 154 to 182).

We tend to forget that the HP and acceleration wars are fairly recent phenomena.

[TheMadMonk]

63. And you'd be wrong. How many millions of VW's still cruise the roads of South America?

How many Tatas do you think are being build right now in India?

Frankly most of the world does not define itself by the amount it can afford to waste.

[spin]

43. You're talking best selling car. The Ford F-series is a full sized pick-up truck and has been ...

the best selling vehicle in the United States for 28 consecutive years.
(Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_automobiles)

As a viewer I think this argument is about apples and oranges.

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. Again, what truck the US buys is not relevant to a German car (subject of the OP)

so I can see that you'd think the F150 is indeed a red herring. Trucks do sell well in the US thanks to dodgy rules about classes; in countries that don't distort the market like that, they are less popular.

[spin]

55. Pick up trucks sell well in the U.S. for many reasons. ...

If gasoline prices were as high here as they are in Europe, the sale of full sized pickup trucks would probably fall dramatically.

Years ago I owned a Volkswagen diesel Rabbit which took over 20 seconds to get to 60 mph. If I could get 147 miles per gallon with a 0-60 time of 12.6 seconds, I wouldn't spend a lot of time crying in my beer.

In passing I currently own a 2005 NIssan Frontier (a mid-sized pick-up). It has a V-6 261 hp engine with a 0-60 time of 7.5 seconds. The gas mileage is 15 in the city and 20 on the highway. I'm retired and the vehicle has only 26,000 miles on it at this time. It should be obvious that gas mileage is not as important to me as it is to many people. If I owned a car that was capable of 147 mpg, I would only have to stop at a gas pump three times a year if it had a 10 gallon tank.

[Union Scribe]

57. The Ford Focus, an "American lump of metal" is the world's best-selling car.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/09/autos/ford-focus/index.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. Sure; it was developed in Germany

http://www.egmcartech.com/2012/08/17/2013-ford-focus-review/
http://corporate.ford.com/vehicles/global-models/ford-focus-story

Ford has wisely taken its good German-designed car and manufactured it globally.

Notice I haven't been excluding American companies from the cars I point out as the popular ones - I talked about Fords (Sierra, Escort) and the GM-owned Opel.

[Orrex]

38. Heh heh. "4 banger."

Heh heh.

[flvegan]

15. LOL! The Sierra 1.6? The Pinto engine?

Just because you found a forum apparently discussing the RS500 Cosworth, don't think that all posts are about performance. And 1982, really? When America's sportscar, the Corvette, had all of 200 anemic horsepower. Good example. Ever-faster acceleration times are simply going hand in hand with other improvements altogether unheard of in 1982. Good Lord, 0-60 in 13.1 seconds. That car will be defeated by a slight incline.

If you'd like to go through the umpteen million other things that were "good enough" during such a laughable time in the colonies here, I'll be happy to. We can talk about what DU would look like on a Commodore 64 (a/k/a a dem Free Republic).

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. You see, your mentality is the problem

You appear to think that people were unable to drive around on roads in the 1980s. And that they were all 'idiots'.

No, I didn't look for a forum discussing the Cosworth. I looked for the 0-60 times for the standard Sierra, a car introduced in the mid 80s, and of medium size.

No, cars do not have to keep up with the technological innovation that computers have managed. That you think, even for a second, that it's worth bringing in that comparison shows how your world view is screwed up. You have no sense of proportion, or normal life, or the recent past.

[flvegan]

18. What, that I'm not satisfied by crap? Okay. Guilty.

Of course folks could drive in the 1980's. And the 1960's. And the 1940's. It doesn't mean that even the worst lump of beige 'n boring today, the Toyota Camry, isn't leaps and bounds technologically better than even most of the best that the early 1980's had to offer.

My world view is screwed up. Okay, you enjoy 1982. Let me know how that works out for you (you'll want to shut the internet off now, you know, to stay true to your world view, as it hasn't improved since then LOL!).

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. The problem is you call people who aren't like you are 'idiots'

and you really seem to believe that.

[flvegan]

65. Please see post #64 and try again.

Your "outrage" has been noted.

Next?

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. No, you said the only group it is fast enough for is 'hypermiling idiots'

thus calling anyone who accepts a 12.6s 0-60 time an idiot.

You are rude, and an environmental problem. How would you like it if someone said "who is tofu acceptable to? Vegan idiots".

[Union Scribe]

58. Apparently we are to go backwards in performance

in order to go forward in technology, or some such paradox.

[nil desperandum]

31. corvette

We sure do know how to ruin a good car....my 1969 Corvette with the 427 has sub 6 second 0-60s and just under a 14 second quarter mile....I didn't know they ruined the 'vette so much by '82....

[Orrex]

29. When might someone need faster acceleration than that?

I ask that without snark, believe it or not. I don't think that I've ever needed faster acceleration, but I could certainly accept that other might.

[Glassunion]

49. Short on-ramp.

[Orrex]

51. Thanks

After I posted, I realized that I was misunderstanding the issue. I was thinking solely in terms of a literal zero-to-60, rather than from a need to accelerate while already in motion or to ascend a grade.


Thanks.

[demwing]

42. Why do you feel the urge to call people idiots

just because they don't see things through your eyes?

[flvegan]

64. That's not why.

I was specific: hypermiling idiots. People who hypermile are idiots.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. My 1991 subaru loyale goes 0-60 in roughly 14 seconds and I enjoy driving it.

But my other car is a 70 chevelle, so I don't feel the need to compare apples to oranges.

[leveymg]

52. That's about the same as the original VW Beetle.

But, that wasn't $120K

[DirkGently]

9. It's a diesel (hybrid).

[NV Whino]

10. I will never buy another Volkswagen product

And certainly not that ugly piece of metal.

[B Calm]

13. I hope the owner never has a rear tire blowout. Looks

like you would have to tear the body of the car off the frame to change the tire!!

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. No, you can see there is a U shaped cover over the real wheel

It's clear at about 34 seconds into the video.

[Go Vols]

34. Fender skirts aren't new

My mother drove a New Yorker like this when I was in HS.

[markiv]

27. looks like a 1990 Ford Probe covered in shrink wrap

[PowerToThePeople]

33. It would save me a couple thousand a year in fuel costs

What is the selling price? Because that is the issue. If it is 20k over the cost of a non-hybrid than there is no financial reason to choose this vehicle. Heck, even at 10k premium it would be debatable. And, if choosing to drive this for purely "green" reasons, I would prefer to ride a bicycle, as they life-cycle carbon footprint on a bike would be non-existent compared to this thing.

[EOTE]

36. It's 7 figures over the price of a non-hybrid.

So, unfortunately, you won't be saving much money by buying this particular vehicle.

[Lee-Lee]

35. Don't know how true it is

But the guys servicing my TDI at the dealer said that VW had the technology now to make a straight diesel car that would push 100mpg, but that the stringent diesel emission laws, coupled with safety standards and the consumer demanding more comfort that increase weight (can't get manual windows, etc anymore and that is heavier) mean they can't bring it to market.

I regularly can average just over 52mph highway.

[Glassunion]

48. I think it looks horrible. I like the idea, but I'll stick with my more economical vehicle.

I would have to drive it for 159 years before I noticed any financial savings.

[tridim]

53. Reminds me of the eartly 2000's...

2002 Honda Insight Hybrid:

[hunter]

56. The car I drive cost $800 and I usually drive it less than ten miles a week.

This is not the car of my future.

In my personal utopia I don't need a car.

[Motown_Johnny]

60. the 0.8L diesel engine is the secret to this thing.

Yes, the carbon fiber body and other weight saving methods utilized help, but being able to create enough electricity to keep the thing running on that small and efficient an engine is the breakthrough.

This thing is basically a Chevy Volt style vehicle. That is to say, an electric car that brings it's own electric generator with it to create electricity when needed. The Volt uses a 1.4L 4 cyl. engine to generate electricity. It is also run on regular gasoline, not diesel. Of course the Volt seats 4 and is a mass production vehicle, so in a way I am comparing apples and oranges.

I think a diesel and bio-diesel version of the Volt is inevitable but they better get moving. VW isn't going to be the only one making new vehicles like this. Diesels have always been more efficient when it comes to generating electricity. This has to be the next step.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. There are already diesel hybrids coming out

Peugeot: http://www.peugeot.co.uk/hybrid-cars-range/

Mercedes: http://fleetworld.co.uk/news/2013/Jul/New-S-Class-abandons-downsizing-for-diesel-hybrid-technology/0434009956

Volvo: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/07/volvos-new-diesel-hybrid-gets-a-sleek-foldable-solar-charger