Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Volkswagen Unveils 313 MPG XL1, Slates Production For 2013

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the looks-fun-for-texas-highways dept.

Transportation 417

An anonymous reader writes "Volkswagen just unveiled a new car at the Qatar Motor Show that gets an astounding 100km for less than a liter of diesel fuel – that's the equivalent of 313 miles per gallon! The XL1 concept car is an upgraded version of the VW L1 vehicle, and it features an ultra-efficient diesel engine in addition to an electric motor that is powered by a lithium-ion battery. The vehicle is currently slated to enter production in 2013 and is expected to cost approximately $29,500." Autoblog calls it 261 mpg, which isn't too shabby, either. At less than a thousand pounds empty, I hope this comes with a really good bike lock.

cancel ×

417 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow (1)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 3 years ago | (#35023896)

Just wow. Speechless. Very cool.

Re:Wow (3, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024470)

Just like the "1 Liter" car or the "3 Liter" Lupo, you won't be able to buy it outside Germany. Which is sad. Best you could find in the United States is the 70mpg Honda insight, but it was discontinued due to lack of interest. :-(

All I need is a commuter car. That's it, and any these high MPG units from Volkswagen would be more than adequate. I don't require a Ford Living Room SUV.

Not fugly... (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#35023912)

Hey, at least it isn't as fugly looking as most every other 'green' car that is coming out....except for the covered rear wheels...I kinda like it.

I wonder what its 0-60mph times are? Top speed?

Re:Not fugly... (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#35023948)

"Top speed?"

Oops...reread the article...99MPH.

Hmm..not too good, you could get run over on some patches of highway down here doing that...

I'd take a bit less mileage if they could improve the top speed and what I'm guessing are fairly abysmal 0-60mph speeds. It sure looks sport though!!!

Re:Not fugly... (4, Interesting)

Altus (1034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024114)

the light weight is actually kind of worrisome too. Around here crosswinds are nasty for the current crop of small cars when running on the highway, this thing barely weighs as much as my motorcycle and has a much larger cross section. I could see it being kind of scary to drive on the highway unless its got some serious aerodynamic down force.

Re:Not fugly... (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024322)

How does it handle in snow and ice, is my question....

My guess would be... shittily.

Re:Not fugly... (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024444)

given its ground clearance you can pretty much forget about using this in the snow.

Re:Not fugly... (1, Funny)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024498)

Can it tow a trailer full of doughnuts? Can my sofa fit inside? If I bend my knees I fall down because I weigh 600 pounds. Is the seat at ass height? No to all of these? This car will be useless to most Americans and all Slashdotters.

Re:Not fugly... (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024382)

I could see it being kind of scary to drive on the highway unless its got some serious aerodynamic down force.

If it had serious aerodynamic down force, they would lose a lot of fuel economy. There's a good reason most sports cars have surprisingly high coefficients of drag.

Re:Not fugly... (3, Informative)

Bitsy Boffin (110334) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024502)

99 mile An Hour is too slow??

That's near enough to 160 K/hr!

I think it would be safe to say that in most parts of the world that speed is going to get you walking home after the authorities take your licence.

Re:Not fugly... (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024082)

I don't know that I agree with you... I don't think this is a very attractive car at all.

That said, it would still be worth looking into. I don't try to make a statement with the appearance of my car.... I got over that when I was about 20.

I'm curious though. I don't know enough about battery technology, and probably wouldn't understand if I hit a few websites to learn more at the deeply technical end of the pool. Is LI the only way to feasibly go on these? You cannot refurbish LI, so it would seem you're creating another non-green problem by using cars like this.

Re:Not fugly... (1)

no1nose (993082) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024146)

Agreed. Covered rear wheels are ugly. Or if the wheels are closer together in the rear than in the front. Other than that, it looks Ok.

Re:Not fugly... (1)

areusche (1297613) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024280)

Covered rear wheels help decrease drag which equates to better fuel economy. The reason most fuel economic vehicles look fugly is because they chose function over form to decrease drag as best they can.

Re:Not fugly... (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024530)

Oh no not ugly, because of course the first function of a car is to look cool.
Grow up.

Only 1 Generation out! (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35023914)

Okay, so expect some bumps the 2013 year - but it doesn't look like an overgrown scooter either!

But maybe by 2015 a $100 gas card might last a month!

Heh - But how expensive is recharging the battery?

Re:Only 1 Generation out! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024268)

I use less than $100 in gas a month today.

Re:Only 1 Generation out! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024312)

Because everyone has the same commute length, speed limits and traffic as you.

Re:Only 1 Generation out! (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024328)

In 2015 a $100 gas card will buy you 12 gallons of fuel.

Right now I spend about $25 / month on gas.

Mmmmm (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35023942)

Can I drop those engines into my SmartCar?

Re:Mmmmm (1)

LoganDzwon (1170459) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024338)

no.

Will this get Americans out of their SUV/Pickups? (1)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35023946)

Nope.

Film at 11: Crash.

Re:Will this get Americans out of their SUV/Pickup (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024094)

When gas is 5$ a gallon it will.

Re:Will this get Americans out of their SUV/Pickup (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024106)

This American drives an S40. I actually have a pickup that rarely gets driven, and is only used for (shocker) hauling stuff when I need to. My S40 is terrible when it comes to picking up lumber.

Re:Will this get Americans out of their SUV/Pickup (-1, Troll)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024518)

We understand that by "lumber" you mean your 600 pound fat ass.

Re:Will this get Americans out of their SUV/Pickup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024112)

There are a large number of Americans who couldn't drive a car like this. Where I'm from, this car would be feasible three months out of the year. For the other nine months, I doubt this car would keep anybody safe in a snow/ice/wind environment. But guess what... my truck keeps me safe those 9 months of the year, and I wouldn't trade it for anything.

If I lived in a warm metropolis, I'd love to have a vehicle like this. 313mpg is crazy-good and I've never known VW to put out a bad product. However, this just isn't practical for my neck of the woods.

Re:Will this get Americans out of their SUV/Pickup (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024250)

I guess it's a good thing they don't have snow or ice in Germany. My Hyundai does just fine in Wisconsin winters, most problems with small cars and snow and ice come down to poor driving.

Re:Will this get Americans out of their SUV/Pickup (3, Informative)

rsborg (111459) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024216)

Nope.

Film at 11: Crash.

One word: Rollover [pbs.org] . Sadly, many places in the US still have decreasing radius turns (cloverleaf off-ramp), and this, combined with the dangerously high center-of-gravity of the average SUV results in statistically abnormal rollover rates. In fact, driving an SUV is not only more dangerous for the SUV driver, but everyone else around.

Re:Will this get Americans out of their SUV/Pickup (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024226)

Why would you? If I lived in Alberta(or the canuck plains) I'd own a pickup, well if I lived in any of the plains states too. Why? Because we get some pretty extreme weather from one day to the next. 10" of snow? Meh go on with your day in North America(unless you're in parts of the mid-east). 10" of snow in Europe? Countries shut down. Get 5.6' of snow in 2 days in Canada? Whatever, life as normal.

Luckily the most we get in a 'dump' here is around 3' at one time. But 12-25" of snow in a single day is pretty common. Sure I'm simply talking about winter, but whatever. I'm sure you'll come up with all kinds of reasons why cars with 4-6" ground clearances will work just fine.

Re:Will this get Americans out of their SUV/Pickup (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024318)

Just like Florida and the rest of the south shutdown, Michigan goes "Meh." In the same way Italy and France probably shut down while Russia/Sweden/Norway probably go 'meh'.. Lumping all of Europe together is as bad as lumping all of the states together.

Re:Will this get Americans out of their SUV/Pickup (2)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024274)

Sure. The moment they build a vehicle that gets 200 mpg whilst carrying our family and three rescue dogs, towing the trailer I use to gather firewood, and doesn't cost like a lamborghini, I'm all over that sucker.

Re:Will this get Americans out of their SUV/Pickup (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024494)

I doubt you ever really need to do all of those things simultaneously, and you could almost certainly rent a capable vehicle on those occasions when you would.

Of course, that's not your real point, you just want to make excuses for driving a gas guzzling eyesore while retaining some smug self-righteous superiority over anyone who would dare to call you a fool for it.

Exciting new technology! (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#35023950)

It's great to see diesel-electric hybrid technology [wikipedia.org] reach the consumer market so quickly!

In all seriousness though, this is very neat stuff (and I'm sure someone will point out how my submarine reference is totally inapplicable...).

Re:Exciting new technology! (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024136)

Yeah, that's how trains [wikipedia.org] have been running here for decades. The engines were a little large for smaller practical purposes though :)

Re:Exciting new technology! (2)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024212)

Diesel-electric drives are not hybrids any way you want to look at it. There is only one type of motor directly attached to the propulsion unit. There is only one type of motor generating power. It's an electric drive with a generator, or a diesel drive with a fancy transmission, but not a hybrid.

Either way, I doubt this car has such a setup. The article mentioned a 7-speed gearbox. The only reason you would do that is if you were connecting the engine directly to the drive train and wanted to ensure efficient operation. If it were straight electric, the engine could be run at optimum conditions at all times, and the electric motor would have at most a 2-speed gearbox.

Re:Exciting new technology! (1)

Zorpheus (857617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024490)

Diesel-electric drives are not hybrids any way you want to look at it.

Well, if a battery is added, the diesel- electric drive becomes a serial hybrid [wikipedia.org] . So it is not that different at least.

"Sport" mode (2)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35023952)

While the tech is very cool and impressive, I always laugh at cars like this with a "sport" mode. In this case, the car has a "sport" mode of 39hp, for an astounding 99mph. I don't think the type of person who will want this car cares about driving super fast, and the type of person that does want a fast car won't want this one. Why try catering to both markets?

Re:"Sport" mode (5, Funny)

skids (119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024038)

Because it allows to to convince the SO you share the car with who just cannot stand reasonably powered cars that on Tuesday's when s/he drives it to the mall s/he can hit the "sport" button and won't have to "sacrifice" his/her ability to cut off trash trucks from the right-turn-only lane at stoplights.

For the first few years I owned a Prius, I considered it my environmental duty to drive like an ass, because the hybrids would never have caught on unless Americans saw that you could, indeed, drive like an ass in them.

Re:"Sport" mode (3, Insightful)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024440)

Most people who want to have fun with their car would rather a "traction control off" button over a "sport" button.... I know I made sure that my new car has that button before I bought it.... :)

Re:"Sport" mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024514)

So why haven't you stopped driving like an ass?

Re:"Sport" mode (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024078)

I don't think the type of person who will want this car cares about driving super fast, and the type of person that does want a fast car won't want this one. Why try catering to both markets?

Maybe it is a single market but that market uses it in two different ways. For example, as a commuter car this might make for real savings, but not have quite enough top end to make everyone comfortable driving on the expressway where the flow is going 80 and you might need to accelerate to get out the way in some circumstance. As a result, you make a dual mode car that saves the most gas, around town and saves a lot of gas and can still be safe on expressway trips. Calling it a "sport" mode does seem a little over the top though.

Re:"Sport" mode (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024132)

my guess is that sport is the only way to go on the highway but buy having a low power mode they can make city driving much more efficient.

Re:"Sport" mode (3, Informative)

Scootin159 (557129) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024138)

At 1000 lbs 40hp actually is very sporty. In fact, most Formula Vee race cars will reach 120mph and post lap times comparable to a Z06 Corvette.

Re:"Sport" mode (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024160)

That's the "try to get on the freeway and maybe not die" mode, as opposed to the "try to get on the freeway and almost assuredly die" mode.

My first car was a Mazda GLC with ~87HP. That was barely enough. At the time my father had an Isuzu diesel pickup with ~65HP which wasn't enough.

Re:"Sport" mode (1)

grahamd0 (1129971) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024278)

My first car was a Mazda GLC with ~87HP.

Mine too. 1980. Station wagon. Rust colored. (Not rusty, rust colored.)

That terrible car has a special place in my heart.

Re:"Sport" mode (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024462)

I had the "5 door" white, looked like an egg. And for some odd reason I agree with you, to the tune of looking once in a while for one for sale to drive around in it a bit. It would be a lot cheaper than my second car, which was a '72 Challenger.

Re:"Sport" mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024356)

Yet somehow I'm still alive driving a 50HP '86 Vanagon diesel every day for > 10 years now.
67mph top speed and 0-60 in 52 seconds.

Re:"Sport" mode (1)

no1nose (993082) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024466)

My first car was a silver, 4 door-sedan, 5-speed stick, Mazda GLC. With all of the smog controls on cars in the 1980's it seemed like it didn't even have 87 HP. I bought it at 180,000 miles and sold it to a friend when it hit 225,000 miles. That thing was a tank! I think I even put some Slick 50 in it at one point. I liked the timing chain vs belt idea. However the head gasket blew once and my friend and I had to replace it in our apartment complex parking lot. That was a lot of work. Dam I enjoyed that car though! Now I have a couple Honda's that are 2008 and 2011 models (Pilot and Accord respectively). They're ultra reliable and have plenty of power, but seem pretty boring compared to the cars of the 80’s :-)

Re:"Sport" mode (1)

rbollinger (1922546) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024384)

Consider this:

A Yamaha GS500 has a 47hp engine at 439lbs (9:1 Weight to HP ratio). It pulls a 0-60 in around 5.7 seconds.
(Point: Light vehicles need less HP)

The Honda Civic EX has a 140hp engine 2820lbs (20:1 Weight to HP ratio). It pulls a 0-6 in around 9.6 seconds.
(Point: notice how acceleration scales with this ratio)

This car is 838lbs fully fueled with a 39hp engine (21:1 Weight to HP ratio).
(Point: The Honda Civic is no sports car but its not terrible either. This new car is not going to be screaming fast, but that 39hp is gonna go much further than you'd expect with such a light vehicle.)

Re:"Sport" mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024492)

Because sometimes you actually want to be able to accelerate.

I am weary of VW... (2)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35023970)

...and will not touch it with enthusiasm mainly because its products lose their value so much as compared to the competition in every category.

In addition, the VW is quite complex even when it comes to a simple oil or a timing belt change. That's my beef with VW.

I wish them well on this one though.

Re:I am weary of VW... (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024118)

In addition, the VW is quite complex even when it comes to a simple oil or a timing belt change.

Don't know about the timing chain, but the fan belt [youtube.com] seems easy enough to change...

Re:I am weary of VW... (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024412)

And with battery powered vehicles like this how long will they last?

I have a perfectly good Chevy GMT400 pickup that will be 20 years old this spring and only has 70,000 miles on it.

It's been good in the hot and cold of South Dakota, the rain of Oregon and now the cold of Alaska.

This VW is carbon fibre, something which there are questions about safety for commercial airplanes like the B-787 and A-350, we don't know how well it's going to stand up to weather over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamliner#Composites [wikipedia.org]

I'm not. (2)

RingDev (879105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024464)

Lose value? You must not have been looking at the TDIs.

In 2006 I was looking for a new car, the Golf TDI was just the ticket. Only problem was getting one. We looked for a few months for a used one. We found a number of 2000-2004 Golf TDIs with 50k+ miles on them. The cheapest one was $16,000, and had close to 100k miles on it. We finally tracked down a new 2006 model and paid $21k for it.

We actually refinanced the loan, using the Golf as collatoral, so we could merge our two car loans together a few years ago. Yup, over 40k miles on it at the time, and the blue book for the TDI was still 18k.

I did pay to have someone else do the timing belt. It took him about 45 minutes, but he did have a number of specialty tools. I probably could have done it myself, but it would have taken the better part of a day and the cost of the tools.

Over 90k miles now, and other than the regular maintenance, the only issues I've ever had with it was a bad oxygen sensor (covered under the warrenty), some pin prick paint bubbles (manufacturer defect, VW wouldn't cover them), and a slipping clutch after some exceptionally spirited racing through a hilly course. And I still get ~44 mpg on my daily commute to and from work (mostly highway/interstate).

If this little thing is half the car that the Golf TDI is, it'll be worth every penny.

-Rick

Re:I am weary of VW... (1)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024504)

VW diesels hold their value quite well, thank you. Compare any tdi from the last 10 years versus anyone else's gasser of similar size and shape then get back to us.

Yes, timing belt changes are somewhat painful. But at every 100K miles, who really cares? Most gassers are dead or dying by that point, so it's pretty much comparing apples to tampons.

The "Green" Hornet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35023978)

This car is what the Green Hornet will be fighting criminals with from 2011 on.

Expensive (-1, Troll)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 3 years ago | (#35023984)

They made the car out of carbon fiber, so no duh they get amazing millage. Unfortunately it probably also costs > 100k in raw materials alone.

Re:Expensive (1)

kenrblan (1388237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024292)

From TFS:

The vehicle is currently slated to enter production in 2013 and is expected to cost approximately $29,500.

That would be one hell of a loss per vehicle for VW if raw materials cost more than $100k.

Re:Expensive (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024366)

VW says they will sell these for $29,500.

Bad summary info (4, Informative)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024008)

This [consumerreports.org] seems to be a better article. It mentions that the weight of the vehicle is around 1,750 pounds. Not sure where TFS got their figure of less than a thousand pounds from. They are also speculating that the 261 mpg figure does not count the contribution of the batteries.

Re:Bad summary info (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024030)

Once you put in the average American driver, you'll hit that weight.

Re:Bad summary info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024100)

Perhaps it's sans batteries?

Re:Bad summary info (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024296)

mentions that the weight of the vehicle is around 1,750 pounds. Not sure where TFS got their figure of less than a thousand pounds from.

Perhaps VW stated less than 1000kg and the journalism school grad that worked on the article thought kg was a fancy European way to say pound.

Gallons to gallons? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024010)

261*1.2 = 313

Re:Gallons to gallons? (3, Informative)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024410)

+1 Insightful

This was at the Qatar Motor Show. According to Wikipedia, the United Arab Emirates switched to liters for their standard unit of fuel measurement in 2010, but they used imperial gallons before that. Qatar is not in the UAE but I figure it's close enough. 261 imperial gallons is 313 gallons.

Crash Test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024028)

Yeah it looks like a futuristic car from 1980's vision of 2013, but how will it do in a crash test?

Re:Crash Test (1)

Vasil16 (1773348) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024284)

Carbon fiber is very good at absorbing energy from a crash. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets 5 stars on the crash test

Yeah right (0)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024040)

Just wait till safety advocates and would-be buyers cry out for anti-hummer-intrusion bars, 50 airbags, electric windows, heated seats, A/C and in-board GPS and DVD players, and when this thing hits the road for real, it'll be over a ton and get 40 mpg, just like the others

Re:Yeah right (1)

box4831 (1126771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024258)

it'll be over a ton and get 40 mpg

Still better than most of the hunks of shit on the roads here in America...

Re:Yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024388)

I would say the odds of something this cool/advanced making into the (North) American market are pretty slim. It'll probably have to be grey-marketed in so that there are no ridiculous liability issues for VW to contend with.

Mileage keeps dropping... (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024058)

"of 313 miles per gallon..Autoblog calls it 261 mpg,..."

and in the actual article, the link to the second page is "http://...volkswagen-to-unveil-235mpg-car-at-2011-qatar-motor-show/2/"

Re:Mileage keeps dropping... (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024096)

Math is wrong for 313. 261 mpg is 110.96 kilometers per liter, which fits with the 100 kilometers per 0.9 liter they quote.

Re:Mileage keeps dropping... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024222)

Part of confusion in mileage probably lies in difference between UK & US gallons. AFAIK Qatar uses UK measure (4.54l/gal), and I suspect autoblog uses US measure (~3.9l/gal)....so mpg using US gallon are always lower.

Re:Mileage keeps dropping... (3, Informative)

eltonito (910528) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024244)

FWIW, the two stated mileages in the summry are effectively the same, but they are stating it in two units of measure. The 313MPG figure is miles per imperial gallon, which is 261MPG by US units. That being said, I have no idea how to get that to 235MPG unless Qatar has invented their own mile or gallon.

Re:Mileage keeps dropping... (1)

B Nesson (1153483) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024330)

235 mpg is equivalent to 1L/100km. Since much of the world uses liters per 100km (which is actually easier for the human brain to reason about), the idea of a 'one-liter car' has been kicked around for a while now as a sort of holy grail of fuel efficiency. Converting it to 235 mpg seems like the fuel efficiency equivalent of body temperature being roughly 37 degrees Celsius, but PRECISELY 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Re:Mileage keeps dropping... (1)

leenks (906881) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024510)

"Much of the world" prefers miles per gallon. I know how big my tank is. I know my car does 58 mpg (imperial). I know that the orange light comes on at about 1 imperial gallon remaining, therefore I know I have approximately 50 miles of normal driving before I run out of fuel. I also know that on a 10 gallon top up I can go roughly 500 miles. How does knowing that I can go 100km using 21.25 litres of fuel help me here?

I find a 1L/100km quote about as intuitive as the Office ribbon, but 235 miles per gallon makes an awful lot of sense - but then I'm used to miles per gallon.

At the end of the day, who cares ? :)

Your point about body temperature is great though! As you clearly know, the 37 Celsius came about by a scientist, using Celsius measurements, taking the temperatures of a large number of people and taking their mean. He rounded. This has since been converted, by morons, to 98.6 Fahrenheit, and gets quoted as definitive! http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/268/12/1578.abstract [ama-assn.org]

Re:Mileage keeps dropping... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024364)

According to wired, the original goal was 100km on 1 liter, or 235 MPG, "[then-chairman Dr. Ferdinand] Piëch challenged his team to build a car capable of going 100 kilometers on a single liter of fuel — the equivalent of 235 mpg."

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/01/vw-xl1-concept-car/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+

Meanwhile, the Volt may be ~$33k with 60 mpg. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024072)

US citizen here. The comparison of figures is not surprising. At the rate the US is going, we will for a long time be playing catch-up to things "green" and vehicles diesel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_volt [wikipedia.org]

Imperial vs US Gallon (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024168)

The ratio of 313:261 is the same as for Imperial:US gallon. The 313 claim was reported by Timon Singh who is apparently a resident of the UK, and thus likely more familiar with Imperial than US gallons.

Re:Imperial vs US Gallon (-1, Flamebait)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024528)

Nice try. A resident of the UK uses litres, as the metric system is far superior to anything American. This is but one of the many reasons Americans are inferior.

Just under 900lbs. (2)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024172)

If they spend so much time one getting the weight down for better fuel efficiency how much will it get hindered with people and stuff in the car. Morbidly Obese people could be 400 or 500 lbs and still be able to actually drive the car. You get two in there and you actually double the cars weight... How much will it cut fuel effiency with extra weight. Heck 4 men at 250 lbs would more the double its weight.

Re:Just under 900lbs. (1)

francium de neobie (590783) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024320)

Hey, if someone is morbidly obese, then he obviously has bigger problems to worry about than his car's MPG. One or two average Joes at 200 lbs commuting with this car should be able to get >150mpg quite easily even accounting for their weight, which is still very awesome.

Re:Just under 900lbs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024520)

Yet my morbidly obese MIL has a prius because it gets better milage ... then her RAV 4 for her hour each way of highway commute.

*sigh*

Tea Party (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024176)

I'm sure the Tea Party will decry this car as anti American as it stops the free market oil companies from ripping off the consumer. Therefore the car is bad and only a Nancy Polosi supporting liberal would every think of owning, they want their God given right to drive a car that does 15mpg and supports the oil companies !

Being able to see cars being you... (1)

geogob (569250) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024182)

Being able to see behind you, that is so 1992. Should be fun when police cars try to pull over these beauties for lack of proper safety equipment.

Re: Being able to see cars being you... (1)

geogob (569250) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024202)

... and actually looking at the preview before posting is so 1976, apparently -_-

The MPG is a smokescreen (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024188)

GM, Volkswagen, etc are pushing these super high MPG figures to tweak the CAFE numbers so they can keep making cars like the Corvette, Tourareg, Phaeton and for Volkswagen's parent company, Volkswagen AG - Lamborghini, Bentley, and Bugatti.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy [wikipedia.org]

Re:The MPG is a smokescreen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024420)

GM, Volkswagen, etc are pushing these super high MPG figures to tweak the CAFE numbers so they can keep making cars like the Corvette, Tourareg, Phaeton and for Volkswagen's parent company, Volkswagen AG - Lamborghini, Bentley, and Bugatti.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy [wikipedia.org]

Aren't the CAFE numbers are based on efficiency of actual vehicles sold? How would a concept car affect that?

Re:The MPG is a smokescreen (1)

grahamd0 (1129971) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024458)

Supercars are statistical outliers. If they're using those cars to cheat mpg fuel efficiency requirements, it's so they can avoid raising the mileage of ordinary cars like the Passat. If you're an environmentalist or a peak oil weirdo and you're worried about supercars, you're wasting your time.

Why not just round up to infinity? (1)

iliketrash (624051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024190)

For cars that have an electric propulsion component that is charged off-line (i.e., not by the on-board hydrocarbon engine), calculations of miles/gallon or km/l are highly suspect as they assume a certain pattern of driving. Figures such as 313 miles per gallon can be considered accurate only the the likes of governments (e.g., the United States) who can fiddle with accounting in the most obscene ways. Hell, why not just round up to infinite miles/gallon since that is what a person who drives only short distances between charges will get.

MPG Difference Explained (5, Informative)

pleb1024 (786643) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024208)

the difference in the MPG will be cause by the difference in gallon sizes between USA and the rest of the world. US Gallon approx 3.78 litres Imperial Gallons: approx 4.54 Litres. so - and imperial gallon is 1.2 the size of US gallon. 313MPG/1.2 = 261MPG. And this is why the US should move to the damn metric system, or at least use the same size gallon as the rest of the world.

L/100km? (1)

Neuticle (255200) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024276)

This may be my American sensibilities showing through, but what I want to know is why, for the love of god, the European standard for fuel economy is liters/100km? Why not km/liter, which is a much more convenient format for any sort of day-to-day use, and is in keeping with the standard format measurement of efficiency (Output/Input)?

What advantage does using L/100km convey? I am honestly interested

Re:L/100km? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024326)

This may be my American sensibilities showing through, but what I want to know is why, for the love of god, the European standard for fuel economy is liters/100km? Why not km/liter, which is a much more convenient format for any sort of day-to-day use, and is in keeping with the standard format measurement of efficiency (Output/Input)?

What advantage does using L/100km convey? I am honestly interested

It usually is km/l in Europe. The only notable exceptions i've heard was with the VW Lupo and this, i guess their marketing department thinks it sounds better.

Re:L/100km? (1)

slart42 (694765) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024526)

It usually is km/l in Europe. The only notable exceptions i've heard was with the VW Lupo and this, i guess their marketing department thinks it sounds better.

Actually, it varies by country. While some european countries may use km/l, Germany has traditionally always used l/100km. In any case, it's all just conventions, and any of them is as convenient as another one, it's just a matter of what you are used to.

Re:L/100km? (1)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024372)

It may have something to do with this [duke.edu] . (I realize the article is not in metric units but the concept remains.)

Re:L/100km? (3, Informative)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024386)

It makes some comparisons a little easier. The distance you want to go is, in a sense, constant, while the amount of gas you use (aka the money you have to spend) is the variable. Some Duke researchers even got a journal paper out of it:

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2008/06/gpmfuqua.html [duke.edu]

(That's a popular account; the original article is in Science, behind a paywall.)

The key comparison: going from 18 mpg to 28 mpg saves 198 gallons of gas over 10k miles, but going from 34 to 54 mpg (again, 14 mpg) saves only half as much (94 gallons).

Slashdotters are used to doing the math in their heads and probably don't much care, but for the less math-aware, having the constant of the distance they want to go in the denominator makes the math more intuitive.

Re:L/100km? (1)

rkww (675767) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024478)

why, for the love of god, the European standard for fuel economy is liters/100km?

Because it's a measure of fuel consumption.

Re:L/100km? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35024482)

It does take some getting used to (I still haven't) but l/100km actually works more intuitively. E.g.

Person A replaces a car that gets 10 miles/gallon with a car that gets 20 miles/gallon
Person B replaces a car that gets 33 miles/gallon with a car that gets 50 miles/gallon

Who made a bigger improvement in efficiency?

Asking same question
Person A replaces a car that takes 10 gallons/100 miles with one that takes 5 gallons/100 miles
Person B replaces a car that takes 3 gallons/100 miles with one that take 2 gallons/100 miles.

Re:L/100km? (1)

flibbajobber (949499) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024506)

Well, it's not efficiency for starters, it's efficacy. And "output"/"input" is all a matter of perspective: I don't put a fixed amount of fuel in my car and then want to know how far I can drive. I know how far I must drive, so L/100km gives me consumption and therefore fuel cost of my commute. Hence I can readily estimate weekly, monthly, or yearly fuel cost.

It's also linear: 12L/100km is 20% worse than 10L/100km, and 8L/100km is 20% better, for a known distance that needs to be travelled. 8.33km/L -> 10km/L -> 12.5km/L is not linear. Whether you prefer a linear-proportional scale or inversely-proportional scale in this matter is up to you.

Consider that distance travelled is fixed (it is for me) and therefore distance is the "input", and fuel consumption (or cost) is the "output" - albeit a negative output - and then it makes perfect sense.

Production? (2)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024480)

"Production" consists of 100 cars worldwide [autoblog.com] . That's less than one tenth of the number of EV1 [wikimedia.org] cars produced.

Until I can buy one at my local VW dealership, it ain't real and it ain't relevant. The world is full of "someday I'm gonna make this".

In any event, I have serious doubts it will meet US safety standards. As for the mileage claims... a low cD and a low frontal area and all that are nice, but you can't cheat physics. It takes a certain amount of energy to move a car around, and there's no getting around that. Even a little 50cc scooter only gets a little over 100mpg [yamaha-motor.com] , and we're being told a two-passenger car capable of going 100mph with a vehicle weight of 1750 pounds [gizmag.com] gets three times that? I doubt it. In fact, I'll just plain call bullshit; that figure has to include propulsion from a full battery pack. Show me distance traveled where the battery pack has the same state at the beginning and conclusion of the run while burning 1 gallon of fuel; THAT is the "miles per gallon" that can ethically be claimed.

All that being said, it's not a bad-looking car (as eco-pharisee-mobiles go). I'd like to see it succeed, but first it has to be real and it has to be honest. There's also the little matter than I'm 6'2" tall with a 36" inseam. If it only fits oompa-loompas like the Lotus Elise (which I absolutely do not fit into, and believe me I've tried), forget it.

Magic! (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 3 years ago | (#35024516)

Amazingly it even manages to go 250 miles before using any petrol! It's almost as if the vehicle had some magic store of energy! 60KWh of magic energy!

Are we going to get endless BS milage figures gained from running hybrid cars off of fully charged batteries for these tests?

I can say with 100 percent certainty that my car does infinity MPG! I tested it with the engine off and it rolling down a hill but that's still about as valid as this crap.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?