backtop

Print 57 comment(s) - last by M'n'M.. on Feb 23 at 12:49 AM
The car will make its appearance at the Geneva motor show in March next month

Volkswagen has confirmed its XL1 hybrid for production, which will make its appearance at the Geneva motor show next month.

The two-seat Volkswagen XL1 has a plug-in diesel hybrid system that allows it to achieve 314 MPG and 31 miles on electric power alone. The CO2 emissions sits at 21 g/km, and it is considered the most aerodynamic car with a Cd figure of 0.189. It's also very light at just 1,752 pounds.


The XL1 hybrid features a 47 bhp 0.8-litre, two-cylinder diesel engine with a 27 bhp electric motor and 5.5 kWh battery pack. According to VW, the XL1 can go from 0-62 MPH in 12.7 seconds with a top speed of 98 MPH.

The XL1 also has some other interesting features, such as a design that completely covers the rear wheels to reduce drag; a pair of rear-facing mirrors on the side of the car instead of door mirrors; wing doors that swivel upwards and forwards, and slightly offset seats for the most interior space possible.


As mentioned, the XL1 is very light at just 1,752 pounds because it is mainly made of carbon monocoque. Aluminum is used on the suspension and dampers as well as ceramic for the brakes and magnesium wheels.

A price has not been confirmed yet, but some reports say the XL1 could cost as much as £70,000 ($107,000 USD). The car will make its appearance at the Geneva motor show in March next month.

Source: Autocar


Comments     Threshold


314 mpg might be overstating it a little
By alpha754293 on 2/21/2013 11:40:24 AM , Rating: 2
314 mpg might be overstating it a little (probably mpg-Imp.) and that's probably the combined mpg-e-Imp. at that). But still, anything north of 100 mpg-US would be welcomed!




RE: 314 mpg might be overstating it a little
By ppardee on 2/21/2013 12:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
Even if it isn't overstated, it's not really as big a deal as most people think as far as the pocketbook (who has a pocketbook anymore? Is that what you'd call a small Kindle today?) is concerned.

A car getting 10mpg would burn 10 gallons in 100 miles, yes?

A car getting 50 mpg would burn 2 gallons in 100 miles. Yeah! Saved 8 gallons!

A car getting 100 mpg would burn 1 gallon in 100 miles... Only saved 1 gallon??

A care getting 300 mpg would burn .33 gallons in 100 miles... tripled the gas mileage and only saved 0.66 gallons.

If you drive the car 100k miles in its lifetime, going from 50 mpg to 300 mpg will save you about $6500 (assuming around $4/gal) That's not chump change, but it won't offset the price difference between this (ugly) car and a Prius.


RE: 314 mpg might be overstating it a little
By bug77 on 2/21/2013 12:47:22 PM , Rating: 5
That's why I like the European way of measuring consumption better. This VW actually uses 1l/100Km.


RE: 314 mpg might be overstating it a little
By Mint on 2/21/2013 1:06:18 PM , Rating: 1
True, but on the other hand the European MPG tests are much less representative of the real world. A car marketed as 60MPG+ in Europe will get 35MPG combined with the EPA test in the US.


RE: 314 mpg might be overstating it a little
By Argon18 on 2/21/2013 3:55:22 PM , Rating: 3
I'd argue the opposite, that the US EPA tests are not representative of real world consumption, while the EU tests are. Modern diesels in particular, get much better real-world numbers than what the EPA sticker states.

The fact is, that Europe "gets" diesels, and understands that they must be tested differently - both in terms of emissions, and fuel economy - from gasoline cars, if you are to obtain accurate numbers.


RE: 314 mpg might be overstating it a little
By Spuke on 2/21/2013 6:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Modern diesels in particular, get much better real-world numbers than what the EPA sticker states.
And what numbers are those? Most of the numbers I've seen for VW diesels in particular are right at rated hwy. How is that better? Also, most auto publications state that the EU's testing methods are NOT anywhere near real world. Most politely say they're optimistic at best.


By Strunf on 2/22/2013 8:00:40 AM , Rating: 2
hmm I get exactly the rated "mpg" VW states for my car, the thing is people drive differently and that counts a lot on your "mpg" performance.


By bug77 on 2/21/2013 5:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
I was strictly speaking about the measurement unit, not about _how_ it's measured.


By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 2/21/2013 7:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
Are those US gallons or Imperial gallons?


By alpha754293 on 2/22/2013 4:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
Like I said in my original comment, it's probably mpg-Imp. Even if it were, that would probably still mean that the fuel economy in mpg-US would be something like 261 mpg.

And also like I said in my original comment, ANYTHING over 100 mpg-US would be greatly appreciated!


RE: 314 mpg might be overstating it a little
By theapparition on 2/21/2013 12:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
To add another point, I love how these mega MPG claims completely neglect the cost of electricity, which is how they are achieving such high numbers.

In theory with no inefficiency, a typical designed sedan, with Cd around .3 and normal frontal area, could only achieve ~140mpg @ 60mph under typical sea level atmospheric conditions. That's it. There's X amount of energy in 1 gallon of gasoline and it takes X amount of energy to move that car against the wind resistance and rolling resistance of tires at that speed. That's also assuming you can convert 100% of gasoline's energy into motion, which right now runs closer to 20-25%. So using the engine and driveline inefficiency, we are closer to 30-40mpg highway as a theoretical top limit for a typical sedan. In reality, car's today aren't that far off.

This is simplified, and of course ignores weight that affects rolling resistance, and the additional energy required to overcome changes in momentum (eg, stop and go, City MPG). A gallon of Diesel contains more energy, and hence would boost those calculations slightly.

To improve this, you need to lower the Coefficient of drag (Cd), significantly reduce the cross sectional area, improve the tires (but improved rolling resistance means less traction.....not quite a good tradeoff) and of course improve engine efficiency. Or go the hybrid route which stores energy in another form.

You can't create energy out of the blue, but you can store it for later use. In this case, the electric batteries. But that doesn't come for free, so it needs to be calculated and provided in these MPG Equivalent claims.


By wordsworm on 2/21/2013 1:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
The VW 1l wasn't hybrid at all, but achieved similar results.

I hope they find a way to make this car under 40k. There's something incredible about being able to take a trip across Canada on $50-60 worth of fuel.


By Jeffk464 on 2/21/2013 11:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
My understanding is the electricity cost for running an electric car is extremely cheap. The money is all tied up in battery packs.


RE: 314 mpg might be overstating it a little
By Solandri on 2/21/2013 2:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
Was gonna post that. Thank you for making the point.
quote:
If you drive the car 100k miles in its lifetime, going from 50 mpg to 300 mpg will save you about $6500 (assuming around $4/gal)

More relevant for comparison:

- Going from a SUV which gets 14 mpg to a 25 mpg sedan will save you about $12,600.
- Going from a 25 mpg sedan to a 50 mpg hybrid will save you about $8000.
- Should be obvious from the above, but going from a 14 mpg SUV to a 50 mpg hybrid will save you about $20,600.


RE: 314 mpg might be overstating it a little
By Spuke on 2/21/2013 3:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
- Going from a SUV which gets 14 mpg to a 25 mpg sedan will save you about $12,600.
What SUV gets 14 mpg?


RE: 314 mpg might be overstating it a little
By twhittet on 2/21/2013 4:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
Chevy Suburban for one (no, I'm not going to bother listing all the years it's rated for 14mpg or less).

I'm sure there are plenty of others out there that get that - especially real world mpg vs EPA.


RE: 314 mpg might be overstating it a little
By Spuke on 2/21/2013 6:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
I see it gets 15/21. That's not 14 and the 15 is city only mpg. I had inlaws with these and they all averaged 16 mpg in regular driving (meaning a mix of hwy and city). Also, why did you pick the Suburban? There aren't exactly a lot of these being sold and they're no where near what people buy when purchasing a SUV. It would make more sense to pick the CR-V or the Explorer as those sell in MUCH greater numbers, #11 and #16 respectively, than any other SUV.


By Souka on 2/22/2013 11:55:18 AM , Rating: 2
My wife has a Acura MDX and gets 17MPG avg
I had a Subaru Forester and got 20MPG avg

I now have a used Prius ($6k, 35k on the odo...friend of family deal). I'm averaging 47MPG.

But I did give up a bad weather capable car...but saving $1200+ year in gas is well worth it. I'll call a cab if/when needed.


By Masospaghetti on 2/22/2013 9:18:59 AM , Rating: 2
14 MPG was pretty typical of a full size V8 SUV from the previous decade...most of which are still driving around.

Toyota Sequoia is like 13/17 IIRC
Even Explorer V8's were 12/17 - 13/19


By djcameron on 2/21/2013 9:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
The Prius is ugly too.


By alpha754293 on 2/22/2013 4:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
who the hell drives 100k miles in the lifetime of the vehicle?

Granny going shopping and church?

And if that's the case, WHY would you be buying a $100k car that can do 300 mpg for that purpose?

(The premise of your argument is invalid; therefore, your argument is invalid.)

100k miles, I do that in like two years. Average/nominal.

Right now, I get an actual combined of around 27 mpg or so (+/- 2 mpg). Even IF it were ONLY rated at 270 mpg-US, that'd still be a 10 TIMES increase.

50000 miles / 27 miles/gallon = 1852 gallons
1852 gallon * $4/gal = $7407 per year.

50000 miles / 270 miles/gallon = 185.2 gallons
185.2 gallon * $4/gal = $740.74

Cost difference = $740.74-$7407 = $6666.67/year.

If I keep the car for ten years, I would have saved $66,666.67 over its lifetime.

How is it not a big deal? OBVIOUSLY if you're looking at getting a car like this, you're either trying to be green, or you just drive a lot.


RE: 314 mpg might be overstating it a little
By Trisped on 2/21/2013 2:15:28 PM , Rating: 3
If you go to the source linked at the bottom of the article (http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/geneva-motor-sho... ) it states:
quote:
The XL1 can travel for 31 miles just on battery power alone and has a claimed range of 310 miles on diesel and battery power combined, despite having a tiny 10-litre fuel tank.

Rough calculations suggest that the XL1 is capable of a real-world 127mpg in ideal conditions, a product of the car’s 795kg kerb weight, its very slippery body and wind-cheating and low resistance narrow tyres on magnesium wheels, which measure just 115/80 at the front and 145/55 at the rear. A guide to the XL1’s efficiency is that VW claims it requires just 8.3bhp to be able to maintain a steady 62mph cruise.
So we are looking at a 127 MPG, the 314 number quoted in the article is probably the maximum driving range when fully fueled (full battery, full diesel tank).


By Spuke on 2/21/2013 3:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So we are looking at a 127 MPG, the 314 number quoted in the article is probably the maximum driving range when fully fueled (full battery, full diesel tank).
At what speed and in what conditions?


By alpha754293 on 2/22/2013 4:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
*edit*

Sorry. I originally make the assumption that this is a PHEV. Whoops. My bad. So it's not MPG-e-Imp. But still, it's pretty damn good.


Nice, but...
By Odysseus145 on 2/21/2013 11:26:50 AM , Rating: 5
It's a fantastic piece of engineering, but if anyone's spending $100k+ on a car, they aren't that worried about gas mileage.

That said, maybe VW can use what they learned from building this thing to improve the rest of their hybrids.




RE: Nice, but...
By GotThumbs on 2/21/2013 11:44:22 AM , Rating: 2
Have you seen the price of a standard car these days. Prices are just going to get higher with all the manditory additions like rear cameras and proposed "black-boxes".

While this IS very expensive car initially, any new device is sold at a higher price for the early adopters and to try to recoup R&D; costs sooner. As time goes on, the cost of production for each unit will fall and will be more affordable for the masses.

When LCD monitors first came out, a 15" monitor cost $1,000. Now you can get a 27" for $250.00 with better quality than before.

Economics and finance courses need to be taught in US high-schools IMO.


RE: Nice, but...
By michael67 on 2/21/2013 1:11:58 PM , Rating: 3
Still even if take the European prices for a US gallon, you have to drive 375.000 miles, before you earn the extra $75.000 that this car cost over a Prius.

Call me silly, but i think that thats just bad economics. o_0

And i drive a Think City EV to and from work every day, think the Tesla Model S i have ordered is a better pick. ^_^


RE: Nice, but...
By JediJeb on 2/21/2013 3:12:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have you seen the price of a standard car these days. Prices are just going to get higher with all the manditory additions like rear cameras and proposed "black-boxes".


I have, and that is why the vehicle I have owned for 16 years had better last me quite a few more!!


RE: Nice, but...
By Jeffk464 on 2/21/2013 11:38:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Economics and finance courses need to be taught in US high-schools IMO


Good luck, maybe better start with teaching how to balance a check book.


RE: Nice, but...
By bug77 on 2/21/2013 11:55:13 AM , Rating: 2
No, it's the perfect car for the average Joe.
Sure the entry point is a little steep, but you'll be making all those $ back in a hundred years or so. In two hundred years you'd be making quite a profit.


RE: Nice, but...
By Stuka on 2/21/2013 12:24:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. I love VW, but wow, talk about a product with no market. Ed Begley Jr., Bono, Sheryl Crow, Al Gore, Mrs. Bill Gates, etc. will probably buy one, but the effect from this will be minimal, infinitesimal even.


RE: Nice, but...
By JediJeb on 2/21/2013 3:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
Al Gore would probably preach that everyone else should buy one, but I doubt he ever would. Just look at the electric bill for his house and you can see he isn't that worried about his actual power consumption, just that of everyone else.


RE: Nice, but...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/21/2013 4:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
I just can't believe how ugly this thing is. For that price?


RE: Nice, but...
By Jeffk464 on 2/21/2013 11:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
I dig the front end styling and even what they did to streamline the rear wheel well looks pretty cool, but it all falls apart on the back end.


RE: Nice, but...
By Jeffk464 on 2/21/2013 11:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That said, maybe VW can use what they learned from building this thing to improve the rest of their hybrids.


Yup, they should be able to incorporate the streamlining designs into practical models without much expense. Unfortunately nobody has figured out how to do extreme weight savings on the cheap.


Wait what?
By Busboy2 on 2/21/2013 12:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
"a pair of rear-facing mirrors on the side of the car instead of door mirrors;" Is that not the same thing??




RE: Wait what?
By Johnmcl7 on 2/21/2013 12:32:17 PM , Rating: 3
I was puzzled by that as well but I'm guessing the car had rear facing cameras instead of wing mirrors with screens inside as a small camera would significantly reduce drag compared to a mirror.

John


RE: Wait what?
By bah12 on 2/21/2013 12:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
Probably correct, but DT doesn't believe in edit buttons on the articles either. So even if Tiffany acknowledges the typo, they still won't fix it.


RE: Wait what?
By Trisped on 2/21/2013 2:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
I checked the source link and the DT link in the article and neither mention mirrors or cameras.

From the images it looks like they have cameras mounted mid way down on the door. Since these only protrude a small amount compared to traditional mirrors the reduction in air resistance would be noticeable.


RE: Wait what?
By cubby1223 on 2/21/2013 5:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
It's cameras on the outside of the vehicle with display panels on the inside of the doors to replace the mirrors.


behold
By chromal on 2/21/2013 11:26:41 AM , Rating: 2
This is probably the future of cars. Boy is this not for me.




RE: behold
By Spookster on 2/21/2013 1:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute


RE: behold
By TSS on 2/21/2013 2:17:50 PM , Rating: 2
oh screw you. Have a look at this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedd...

See what comes driving past there at 0:42? This car is the first thing that even remotely dares looks like that. That movie is taking place, or supposed to, 2 years from now. 2.

Where is my 3D shark, my hoverboard and why on earth can't this car fly? The looks is all it has going for it so far.


Rebate?
By SublimeSimplicity on 2/21/2013 11:30:02 AM , Rating: 5
Is the $107k before or after the $7500 federal tax rebate, could be a deal breaker.




A collectible no doubt
By Beenthere on 2/22/2013 1:38:10 AM , Rating: 2
I doubt many folks will find this particular model all that practicle but if you want something unique that gets good mpg in spite of the sticker price, this would be an attention getting toy. The concept is good, but the actual vehicle is not so good IMO.




By 2ndGreenRevolution.com on 2/22/2013 3:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
To me, the purpose of the XL1 is brand enhancement, so if people associate VW with the concept of efficiency, that's really all that matters. It is to VW what the LFA is to Lexus and the Roadster is to Tesla.


EV1 part 2??
By Baj246 on 2/22/2013 3:01:12 AM , Rating: 2
The basic shape looks so familiar to General Motors EV1 ;)

Think GM patented the shape?

http://www.getmsm.com/ev/EV1/default.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IENnSK8Q6nE




RE: EV1 part 2??
By Nephiorim on 2/22/2013 3:35:19 AM , Rating: 2
What is the gas mileage with 2 Americans?
By omgwtf8888 on 2/22/2013 2:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
Ok car weighs 1,752 pounds and gets 300+ mpg. Ok now we take the jockey out of the drivers seat and I stuff friend and I into the 2 seats (being careful not to crush them). So with the additional 500 pounds does my 0-60 time have to be measured with a calendar and does my mileage go to 20mpg?

Problem is I guess that i need to replace these heavy bones of mine with some carbon fiber.




By M'n'M on 2/23/2013 12:49:24 AM , Rating: 2
The 0-60 time, even with a jockey as a driver, is already best measured with a calendar. 12+ secs WTH ?!?


And yet...
By StormyKnight on 2/21/2013 1:45:38 PM , Rating: 1
...another impractical car. I'd feel safer on a motorcycle.




RE: And yet...
By piroroadkill on 2/22/2013 3:53:53 AM , Rating: 2
Absolute, pure rubbish.

The things people spout...


I thought this was going to be cheap
By Wonga on 2/21/2013 1:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
I was happily reading through this article, thinking "yes, I can see a place in the market for a small, lightweight diesel-hybrid, even if it does look a bit stupid", but then I got to the price. £70,000?! I was expecting £15,000 max! As others have said, there is zero demand for a vehicle like this at those prices.




Never see a USA showroom
By DT_Reader on 2/21/2013 1:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
two-seat...plug-in diesel hybrid


That dooms it for the American market. Too bad - it's exactly what I need for my commute.




Very nice
By piroroadkill on 2/21/2013 1:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
I've been following the development of this car for some time, and I love it, hybrid 2 cylinder diesel, the lot.

But the price? Oh come on, VW, normal people need to have an efficient car too...




Model S
By CU on 2/21/2013 2:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
Why buy this over a Model S? True this should run when it runs out of battery power, but given its engine size the guy on the moped well probably tell you to get in the slow lane.




XL1, Meet Truck...
By mmatis on 2/22/2013 12:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
Should make for an interesting adventure. Wonder how much will be left of the XL1?




"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

Related Articles










botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki