VW presents the XL 1 (a "not for petrolheads" thread)

[MacGuffin]

The EU figures are realistic as long as you don't view them as average numbers. They're good-case-numbers (slightly worse than best-case, but massively better than average-case). Taking my Octavia as an example, its combined figure is 6.3l/100km. I've matched/bettered the figure on about 10% of the fillups so far. In other words, my average over a long distance can be as good as the stated figure. A shorter-distance average could be way better. For added data, the Astra claims the same combined figure of 6.3l/100km (at only three quarters the power :lol. It has also been matched by the average of a fillup, hence is achievable in the real world.

It indeed depends. I have no problem matching the car makers' fuel consumption numbers with diesel cars. However, I have much more trouble getting even close to them with petrol cars. I have yet to see a petrol car, which can do an Autobahn run at high speeds with a consumption under 10 liters/100 km. I have had several diesel cars, though (BMW 330d or Audi A6 3.0 TDI), who had no trouble achieving that goal over a distance of a few hundred kilometers alternating between 120 and 250 km/h.

Some say downsizing petrol engines is a solution but German car magazine Auto Bild busted that myth in their recent edition. They measured the fuel consumption of cars at higher speeds. For example they compared a BMW 523i with a BMW 525d. Same power figures (204 HP) but one is petrol and the other one diesel. Then they sent both cars out to do an Autobahn run, with the cruise control set to 180 km/h, which can be considered cruising speed in a BMW 5er.

Not only did the petrol-engined version use up a good 25 % more fuel -- it is also the less pleasant drive. The diesel has much less trouble setting the heavy new 5er in motion, it seems. And I know that to be fact, since I had a 5er Touring last year and even the 3-liter-diesel with 245 HP had problems setting it quickly in motion.

Apparently a petrol engine is only economical, when you don't rev it. Decades of developing haven't changed anything about that. But where's the fun in having a petrol engine and not reving it?

So from my experience fuel consumption numbers of car makers are much more easily t achieve with diesels. Therefore I have no doubt, that the VW XL 1 will be able to do the 1 liter/100 km consumption.

 

[narf]

I have yet to see a petrol car, which can do an Autobahn run at high speeds with a consumption under 10 liters/100 km.

Going 200km/h is unrelated to EU (and EPA, for that matter) fuel cycles.

On your discovery of "diesel cars consume less than petrol cars" ...

They measured the fuel consumption of cars at higher speeds. For example they compared a BMW 523i with a BMW 525d. Same horsepower but one is petrol and the other one diesel. Then they sent both cars out to do an Autobahn run, with the cruise control set to 180 km/h, which can be considered cruising speed in a BMW 5er.

Not only did the petrol-engined version use up a good 25 % more fuel -- it is also the less pleasant drive. The diesel has much less trouble setting the heavy new 5er in motion, it seems.

Peak power only tells a tiny part of the story. I would assume the 525d is heavier than the 523i. They have the same peak power. Yet, the 523i takes 10% longer to 100. Why? While I'm too lazy to look up torque/power graphs (why does Skoda appear to be the only auto makter that lists graphs for all their models and engines readily available?), I would assume the diesel provides more power at non-peak-power rev ranges. As a result, the average power produced during a 0-100 run is much greater.

On the fuel, - the EU cycle suggests the 523i uses 23% more fuel than the 525d. Pretty close to your results.

Apparently a petrol engine is only economical, when you don't rev it. Decades of developing haven't changed anything about that. But where's the fun in having a petrol engine and not reving it?

Low-end torque, that's where the fun went to. I don't need to rev my petrol engine to get power.

 

[MacGuffin]

You are up awfully late, mate... I thought I was the only one. Hence all the yawning, I presume

 

[katwalk]

I like it. It's a shame if they sell it her they will probably build it in mexico and be the quality I have come to expect from owning a VW

 

[narf]

I like it. It's a shame if they sell it her they will probably build it in mexico and be the quality I have come to expect from owning a VW

Will be goldplated built in Germany, if at all. No point in going to Mexico for a few hundred cars a year made of hightech stuff.

You are up awfully late, mate... I thought I was the only one. Hence all the yawning, I presume

Meh, still got about six hours until work

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Like it, looks like an scene prop from Robo Cop/Judge Dredd/Blade-Runner/Total Recall

awesome.

 

[Vette Boss]

This is the first attempt to make an eco car that looks like a proper car, just more modern. It doesn't look at all like a Prius or those other ridiculous egg cars.

 

[H0nzik]

Most of the standard fuel consumption numbers of current cars are not realistic, too. They are measured in the lab, not on the road. So I really don't know what you're up against.

The problem here is quite different. What the 0.9l/100km really means is that, when the batteries are fully charged, then over the initial undisclosed distace, the car will use up an undisclosed amount of electricity and an amount of diesel corresponding to 0,9l/100km. I.e., the 0,9l/100km tell us pretty much nothing about the actual energy efficiency of the car. If the car can go 35 km just on the batteries, then why not go all out with marketing BS and claim that fuel consumption is actually 0l/100km.

I haven't realised that it has already been more than 10 years since the original 1L was unveiled. That makes this attempt even more pathetic. If they fitted the 1L with a more modern diesel engine and even if they used a bit less exotic materials to make the production less unrealistic, it could hardly do worse than this.

 

[WillDAQ]

The EU figures are realistic as long as you don't view them as average numbers. They're good-case-numbers

Here it is the opposite. Most cars here get better millage in the real word than they do in the EPA's tests.

There's a very good reason for this. The EU tests are a synthetic cycle, i.e. they're a composition of speeds that represent different driving conditions approximately but they're constructed artificially.

By contrast the EPA tests are based on actual recorded data of a car driving around the LA basin.

The EPA seems like a more logical choice, but it's more challenging for the person driving the test to match the US cycle than the EU cycle, so the skill of the test driver has more of an impact.

 

[ALXBWSCREW]

I'd buy one to use it in the city. 0.9l/100km is the shit for city and taxi drivers.

 

[MacGuffin]

The problem here is quite different. What the 0.9l/100km really means is that, when the batteries are fully charged, then over the initial undisclosed distace, the car will use up an undisclosed amount of electricity and an amount of diesel corresponding to 0,9l/100km. I.e., the 0,9l/100km tell us pretty much nothing about the actual energy efficiency of the car. If the car can go 35 km just on the batteries, then why not go all out with marketing BS and claim that fuel consumption is actually 0l/100km.

I haven't realised that it has already been more than 10 years since the original 1L was unveiled. That makes this attempt even more pathetic. If they fitted the 1L with a more modern diesel engine and even if they used a bit less exotic materials to make the production less unrealistic, it could hardly do worse than this.

You are speculating and assuming. You cannot look at this car with a clear mind and seriously doubt the technological progress that's been made over the past 10 years.

What I sense in you instead, is the general dislike of VW that you repeatedly expressed, and which prevents you from seeing anything positive in everything VW ever comes up with. That's ok, though, it's your opinion and your views. And maybe I'm completely wrong with my perception but I doubt it.

Only don't forget, that without VW you wouldn't drive a Skoda today... or at least not a competitive one

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Short wheelbase is no fun at high speeds.

Also, I'm surprised at the 11.9s 0-100 figure. It has 61% of the Octavia's power and 59% of its weight. It should go about as quickly. Yet, the Octavia does the trip in single digits.

Well it's not that simple is it. What if the little 2'er takes an age to rev up to it's point where it makes it's power? What if it's got super long gearing? What if it's geared like a truck and you need to murder a prostitute in-between changes?


Also ive bested skodas figures for my superb before, many times. And that's doing more than the speed limit. Seems pretty easy to do with diesels and careful foot work.

 

[hajj]

They do say that the car will run for 550km with its 10l fuel tank, so it uses 1.8l/100km which is about double what it uses with the plugin hybrid. This is still impressive, but only half of what some production models use.

 

[MacGuffin]

They do say that the car will run for 550km with its 10l fuel tank, so it uses 1.8l/100km which is about double what it uses with the plugin hybrid. This is still impressive, but only half of what some production models use.

As I understand, that number indicates the range when only running on diesel without the help of the electrical engine. But maybe somebody can clarify that, since i only took those numbers from an article on spiegel-online.de.

 

[H0nzik]

You are speculating and assuming. You cannot look at this car with a clear mind and seriously doubt the technological progress that's been made over the past 10 years.

What I sense in you instead, is the general dislike of VW that you repeatedly expressed, and which prevents you from seeing anything positive in everything VW ever comes up with. That's ok, though, it's your opinion and your views. And maybe I'm completely wrong with my perception but I doubt it.

Only don't forget, that without VW you wouldn't drive a Skoda today... or at least not a competitive one

Well, how else do you explain the discrepancy between the range and the supposed fuel consumption then?

I quite like VW and if I were to buy a new car, I would be inclined to buy a VAG car again. When it comes to the interiors in the non-premium category, they still are pretty much unmatched. But lately, it seems to me that they have really stopped trying. All the new cars look equally boring, many of those are just facelifts of the old cars, and instead of making better VWs, they want to make worse Skodas.

I don't exacly see it as triumph of engineering, when they introduce a car that's actually less energy efficient than a car from 10 years ago. I also don't find it all that impressive, when they have come up with a hybrid that is, yes, more energy efficient than the other hybrids, but also even less practical and dramatically more expensive. For the same amount of money, you could buy an electric car for the city, a diesel car for longer journeys and still have plenty left.

I also can't really take it as an important step into the furture, because until there will be a major brekthrough in battery technology, all the hybrids and electric cars will suck. I don't think trying to make hybrids and battery cars anyway will somehow speed up the delopment of batteries, it will still be no match for the sheer amount of batteries used in laptops and phones.

 

[settler]

This plug-in hybrid is like cheating, because the first 35km is 0l/100km (or rather this energy is used during the whole trip). We can't forget this energy is made from other "fuel" in a power plant. Publicity numbers aside it's a great idea, because you get some advantages of a electric car without biggest disadvantage - charging after every 150 km.

Also I think that numbers are good. 0-100 in 11.9 is not that bad, my mother had Alfa 147 in which it was over 11 seconds and Alfa is sporty, isn't it? 160 km/h is just what you need from a city car that will see motorways quite rarely.

Like probably most of us, I don't like Prius, hate what Honda has done with a CR-Z's engine, but this is something so much better that my internal geek is really happy. With so low cd and so high mileage it's some very impressive engineering.

 

[Scott]

I am digging the SVX-esque windows...

 

[MacGuffin]

At least there is a general positive reception of the project here. I also have my doubts about the whole hybrid thing but I can appreciate the effort.

If you read the forum on SPIEGEL Online thread to this topic, however, you'd get the impression, that most Germans are a mass of bitchers, grousers, complainers, fuddy-duddy know-it-alls and pedantic smart-asses with a completely negative world view.

Which we actually are, to be honest And the worst gather at the SPIEGEL-Online forum.

 

[H0nzik]

As I understand, that number indicates the range when only running on diesel without the help of the electrical engine. But maybe somebody can clarify that, since i only took those numbers from an article on spiegel-online.de.

I've tried going though quite a lot of articles and none of the journalists seem to have noticed this elephant in the room quite yet. So I take my explanation as the most likely. One of the articles clearly says, though, that the 550 km is the combined range of the diesel and electric drivetrain. So if the battery charge was to be the same when you leave as when you arrive, the fuel consumption would probably still be a little higher than 1,8l/100km. Reading into it though, I quite like the superlight bodywork, if the car helps to bring the production cost of it down, then it will be woth it. But I still think, that if they ditched all the hybrid nonsense and just kept a small diesel engine in there, it would have ended up being more efficient.

 

[MacGuffin]

There is now a video available:

So far only in German, maybe somebody can come up with subtitles. I don't have the time.

Interesting bit is, that they indeed plan to offer such a car on the market, not for 100,000 but for 20,000 Euros, which is much more like it.