Volkswagen XR1
 

How the Honda Insight should have been done the first time:

Volkswagen XL1 Could Spin Off Into XR1 Sports Car | AutoGuide.com News

I would actually drive this car for a fun sports car or even a commute car. Not sure if it will actually make it to production at this point but it has a lot of potential if it does. Sub 2000 lbs, mid engine, RWD, over 200hp/200tq on an engine that has a lot of current aftermarket support, and an aerodynamic body. Too bad it is still a VW.

Paging Joe Perez

I am really surprised no one else has chimed in. This car is right up this sites alley.

A few years ago they had the mid engined TDI sportscar that did like 65mpg or something. Hopefully they bring something out instead of teasing us.

It probably won't happen which is why someone should just build a 914 with a TDI + DSG.

Unfortunately, it's just a test bed. Never see it in production in the current form. It'll be slower, heavier, get worse mileage and cost more than it's worth. All that coupled with legendary VW reliability.

While I agree completely with the fact that it will likely cost more then its worth and have VW reliability the rest of the article seemed promising. They stated that the XL1 which is being produced and sold elsewhere is "the test bed" with all of the really exotic parts. If they made the XR1 it would use more conventional glass, no carbon fiber, etc. The weight of 1875lbs was after they made it heavier. I am not saying it will be an end all be all but I still think if it makes it to production it would be a really great platform.

I love the idea. I've always wondered why no manufacturers have noticed similarities between performance and efficiency, and tried to merge the two. Honda seemed to stumble on the idea with the CR-Z, then disappointed terribly with their poor mileage, under powered, overweight, overpriced, crap mobile hybrid.

I'd love to see this turn into something. An inexpensive, sub 2000lb, 2.0T would absolutely bend lotus over for some prison style pick-up-the-soap kinda destruction.

I am hoping that they bring it to reality and don't kill too much of its aerodynamics in the name of style. What would make this design so cool is that it would be crazy fast and should return really really good mpg. I bet its going to be rather expensive though.

I'll become moderately aroused when it goes on sale in the US for a reasonable price, weighs less than 2,000 lbs, and returns >70 MPG.

I'll be downright horny when it goes on sale in the US for a reasonable price, weighs less than 2,500 lbs, and is a range-extended plugin with at least 30 miles pure-EV range.

Until then it's just a concept car and some vague specs written on paper.

What do you think a "reasonable price for a car like this would be?

Keep in mind that it would still have to meet current safety standard which means more expensive materials to make weight and will probably accelerate from 0-60 in under 4.6 seconds.

lets not ruin a good concept.

this car is a good concept?

yes

hmmmm.

I should draw wheels on the dead/dying bird in my sig and call it a good concept as well.

What is the drag coefficient of your dead bird? What kind of mpg does it get? Does it have enough room for two? I bet it hauls ass off the line and through the turns.

depends on the bird:

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/204/6/1167.full.pdf

The XL1 supposedly is going in to or has gone in to production:

2014 Volkswagen XL1 First Drive – Review – Car and Driver

Price tag north of $100k, though.

Quite a lot less than $100k:
At that price point, it's just another Tesla Roadster- a low-production status symbol for the very rich.



More expensive materials as compared to the cast-iron that most automakers seem to be building their chassis out of? Probably.

But materials-cost is not a binary concept, it occupies a continuum. For example, replace the words "carbon fiber" with "fiberglass," and "titanium" with "aluminum," and you can get 80% of the benefit at 20% of the cost premium as compared to materials produced in the blacksmith's forge.

There are a number of companies (such as Aptera) which have actually succeeded as designing ultra lightweight, mass-producible cars without resorting to exotic materials. Unfortunately, they have also tended to be under-funded and go way overboard in terms of hippy-ness, resulting in a car that nobody actually wants to buy, followed by bankruptcy.

It would be far less than $100k. The XL1 was built as more of an exercise in technology than as a practical car.

The first article I linked discussed that they would be cutting the most exotic lightweight materials that the XL1 uses and replace them with more cost effective alternative for the XR1. They are trying to make a business case for this type of vehicle which is why they would be using the 2.0T that is in every audi and vw. What I am getting at is that if you want it for <$30k then it is just not going to happen.

What do you think would be a reasonable price for a car with all of the capabilities the article suggests?(Which is basically a lotus elise that gets 70mpg)

I saw a new telsa on the side of the road yesterday.

Yes, I saw that article. And to be honest, I'm conflicted.

On the one hand, I believe that what they are describing is technically feasible.

On the other hand, I'm trying to remember the last time that a concept car actually made it into production intact and lived up to the hype.

On the gripping hand, I'm just not sure who the target market for the car is. People who want an actual two seat sports car are going to continue buying Boxsters, Miatas, Z4s, etc. And people who want an extreme high-efficiency vehicle are going to continue buying Leaves, Volts, Sparks, Pious Plugins, etc.


I mean, you're suggesting that $30k is an unreasonably low price for a compact diesel hatchback. I grant you, the performance numbers (on paper) appear impressive. But I'm not sure that the kind of people who actually care about lightness and 1/4 mile times are going to opt for this car as opposed to an Elise or a Corvette, and I don't think that this car is going to seriously detract from the sales of all of the other small, lightweight 70 MPG diesel cars available all over Europe at half the price.


If they'd have scaled back on the ICE and put in a plug-in-able EV drivetrain good for 20-30 miles, then maybe I'd be singing a different tune. But as it stands, I'm not sure why anybody would want to buy this car even if it does make it into production as it stands now, much less after the inevitable happens and it misses the ultra-optimistic benchmarks presently being set by 30-50%.

First I am going to ask why you keep mentioning diesel? They are talking about using the 2.0T gas engine from the GTI.

I assume people would buy the car because it would be fun and to be different. The same reason people buy a lotus or alpha romeo 4c. It is not going to be a high volume car but it would definitely be something I could see myself using as a commuter/track car.

The split of performance/efficiency would be a better argument for a car like the cr-z which failed miserably in both aspects. This would really be more of a performance car that is efficient as a byproduct. After all, increasing performance is just increasing the efficiency of any number of components. I would drive this if it got 30mpg because it would be an absolute blast. The 70 mpg is just a bonus.

I do understand your skepticism about the claims though. However, the BRZ/FR-S pretty much hit the nail on the head for most of the initial claims they were targeting. I followed that particular car for 3+ years and I was planning on buying one but I needed a new car before it was on the market. The price was about the only thing that was off and it was not by very much.

Oh, my bad. I just assumed it was going to be a diesel, since the XL1 was and that's what everyone's comparing it to. Seems like it would have made more sense to use the 260 ft/lb 2.0 TDI engine...


So, basically, it's a 1999 Honda Insight with the hybrid drivetrain stripped out, one extra cylinder and a turbo added in, and at a much higher price.


All in all, I have about as much faith that we'll see this car come to market in its presently-envisioned form as any of the other wacky concepts that VW has come up with over the years, including the 640 HP W12-equipped Golf GTi that they built in 2007: Revealed: 641bhp VW Golf GTi - MSN Cars UK

I feel like that is a vast oversimplification of it but yes. That sounds like a winning recipe to me. The price will be the make a break part of it and I think they could reasonably get it around or under 40k. I am not a marketing expert by any means and I have no idea if the car would be a flop in practice but I still think it would be one hell of a car.

But you can charge it anywhere! :jerkit:


Maybe after pushing it somewhere willing to let you charge a car off their outlet, the owners took some time to save baby seals, or picket outside a gas station.

Somewhere a crate full of check engine lights are humming with anticipation.

Why can't a car company just release a 1.0 liter turbo diesel hatch that gets 1xx-mpg and has zero-frills?

Edit: Volkswagen, FUCK YOU. Give me my Lupo tdi

Because no one would buy that car. :facepalm:


0-60 in 20 seconds, manual trans, no AC, etc. No big-gulp-chugging American would sacrifice infinite convenience and consumption of 10mpg if it meant driving one of those.

I'd buy the shit out of that car.

jesus christ, this nation of fat fucks and status fags are ruining my chances of getting the best fucking daily in the world. Seriously, everyone else has these awesome cars besides us and we waste so much time and money on these retarded hybrids.

butthurt/

Preach it brotha'. I'd love to have some of the euro cars. But 'murica refuses to allow even the current polo to be imported.


Personally, I blame obama.

I'm not so sure about that.

VW sold over 1.4 million first-gen Rabbits in the US alone between 1974 and 1984, of which 406,000 were diesels.

That's roughly double the entire GLOBAL sales of the Miata from 1989 to the present day, and EIGHT TIMES total Miata sales in the US when adjusted for an equivalent time scale.

See also: VW Beetle, Datsun 210, Chevy Chevette, AMC Gremlin, Ford Pinto, Smart Fortwo, etc.

Old, old, old and older. People aren't like that anymore, Joe. They need a big fucking tractor to haul around their beatuss kids and require antarctic a/c systems to keep the hamplanets cool.

By the way, there is a MINT mk1 rabbit diesel around here. I will offer cash for it if I ever get the chance.

Aren't they really?

I honestly don't know.

I mean, I was around then, and while I do remember the hair being larger and the TVs being smaller, I'm not sure that we've really changed all that radically. Granted, they fucked up the recipe for Chicken McNuggets and you can't get a McDLT anymore because the requisite dual-compartment styrofoam packaging is no longer socially acceptable, but aside from that, I really don't think we've evolved all that radically as a species. The white people still want all the oil, the brown people still want to kill the white people, and the President is still a fucking retard...



A/C is not that big a deal. Hell, it was available as an option on the SuperBeetle in the 70s. A modern A/C system does not add all that much weight, nor place all that much drag on the engine. In fact, there is some empirical evidence to support the claim that, in a modern car at highway speeds, the load on the engine from the A/C compressor is LESS than the aerodynamic penalty of having the windows down.

Joe - Yes, people's expectations and desires are significantly different than they were in the 1970s.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1373453692

The 100mpg Lupo cannot exist because the Nanny State now requires so much extra weight be added for crash bars, door bars, stability control systems (and all the components/computers/ABS), 43 airbags, active seatbelt tensioners, active headrests, etc. And the Murican consoomer can't abide manual mirrors, hand-crank windows, non-tilt steering wheels, non-electric seat adjusters, non-self dimming mirrors, a two speaker single DIN radio, a manual trans, 155 series tires, a lack of sound deadening material, the absence of illuminated vanity mirrors, no GPS navigation system, no cruise control, no satellite radio or bluetooth connectivity, no intermittent wipers, no power steering, and paltry acceleration.

are you trying to say that gov't regulation stiffles progress?!

That perception, to a degree, is unfairly influenced by the Vocal Minority.

It's commonplace, and always has been, to believe that avarice, ignorance and vanity are "modern" innovations, the product's of one's own generation, and that "things were different back then."

I don't know how old you are, so forgive me if it seems I'm talking down, but I can assure you that in the 1970s and 80s, the American people, as a whole, were every bit as greedy and moronic as they are today. I mean, we had polyester leisure suits and pet rocks, for crying out loud.

Weird Al's 1984 song "Gonna buy me a condo" is practically a homage to the materialistic superficiality of the 1970s.


In fact, American automakers made precisely the same claim in the early 1970s as are being made now. Amid a sea of musclecars and land-yachts, the Big Three were absolutely convinced that virtually no market at all existed for stripped-down, no-frills, ultra-compact economy cars. (Remember that back then, cars like the Ford Falcon and the Chevy Nova were considered "compact." By today's standards, those cars were beasts.)

They were, of course, proved to be devastatingly wrong by the Japanese when "genuine" economy cars like the Datsun 210, the Honda Civic and the Toyota Carina started flooding across the ocean in droves.

Nor would it be reasonable for most people to want that. Those that would be willing to sacrifice all the modern conveniences and creature comforts would be in such small minority that no manufacturer would be able to make money selling such a shitty car.


Joe, I know your grasp of history is better than you are letting on. You are telling me that sometime in the early-to-mid 1970s, small economy based cars really took off? Wow.

That's shocking, pun intended.

As in, "oil shock."

You are also comparing a time when full-size, feature-laden domestic cars were getting high teens for combined fuel economy and the stripped-out import econo cars were getting over 80% better fuel economy (~12 vs 23 MPG in 1973) .

If you want to get 80% better fuel economy than a full-sized, feature-laden sedan now (about 28 MPG), you can buy a full-sized, feature-laden 50 MPG Prius.

If you want a cheap, no-frills, shit-box economy car, you can get a 35 MPG Nissan Versa for less than that 1970s Civic would have cost (adjusted for inflation) and STILL get features like AC and stereo.


Sources:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/cafe...alcarfleet.htm
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/ri...ble_04_23.html
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymod...an_Versa.shtml

No, I am telling you that in the years leading up to this, American automakers blithely ignored the trend in both Asian and European automakers beginning to export small, no-frills cars to the US on the grounds that "nobody will want them."

In other words, the same argument which certain people are putting forth right now, and again at a time in which the consumer price of gasoline is a major issue.

The early econoboxes coming over from Germany and Japan in particular weren't just small and efficient, they were bare-bones. It wouldn't have added much weight to the car to tack on a bit of chome trim, or use higher-quality plastics and fabrics in the interior, or even style them such that they didn't look like a shoe box.

But this didn't really matter- people bought them despite the fact that they were ugly and felt cheap.

We had one of these Honda Civic wagons for several years brand new. Dead nuts reliable, 5-speed, plenty of room, hand crank windows, rubber floormats, etc.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1373480052

If they were sold new today they would weigh 500lbs more and need bigger engines and brakes and suspension components, etc.

If they were allowed to be sold in identical form to the way they were back then, I believe they would still sell very well because they were good cars and they made sense.

Joe - What is the modern equivalent to the 1974 Civic? A car that exists in foreign markets but not here, gets ~50% - 80% better fuel economy using currently available US fuels, and costs the same or less than a domestically-available counterpart?


sixshooter - The same people that would buy that car are walking around with a 20-pound boombox on their shoulder, shopping for a new 50" Mitsubishi rear-projection TV to go in their 1200 square foot house that does not have central air.

Well, let's see. (All MPG numbers below are euro-spec, converted to US MPG)

Renault Clio dCi 90, £14,345, 73.5 MPG.

Hyundai i20 1.1 CRDi, £11,740, 73.5 MPG.

Kia Rio 1.1 CRDi, £11,345, 73 MPG.

Smart Fortwo Coupe CDi, £10,675, 71.2 MPG.

Ford Fiesta 1.6 TDCi, £14,595, 71.3 MPG.

Citroen C3 e-HDi 70, £14,790, 69.2 MPG.

Peugeot 208 1.4 e-HDi, £13,545, 69.1 MPG.

Skoda Fabia 1.2 TDI, £13,875, 69.1 MPG.


That's not all of them, I just got bored searching after a while. Obviously there's room in there for the Dacia Sandero, the Fiat Panda, the VW Up!, the Euro-spec Fiat 500, etc...


Obviously these are all diesels, and diesel is slightly more expensive than petrol in the US. As of Jul 8, the nationwide spot average for a gallon of reforumulated regular unleaded (87R+M/2) was $3.66, and for ultra-low-sulpher diesel it was $3.83. That's a 4.6% premium, so you can effectively derate 73.5 MPG to 70.1 MPG and 69 MPG to 65.8 MPG on a dollars-to-miles basis.


It's tough to compare car prices in the US vs. Europe. Anybody who has ever watched Top Gear knows that in the EU, and especially in the UK, cars seem to cost a lot more (in real value) than in north America. So all prices which I have quoted are base-model OTR in UK £.

For comparison, what we in the US would consider to be a midrange 2013 Honda Accord sedan (EX trim, 2.4 liter 4-cyl gasoline engine w/ 6-speed manual and 17" wheels) has a US MSRP of $24,605.

The equivalent UK model with all the same specs (same engine, same transmission, same interior, etc.) has an OTR of £27,430, which is equivalent to US$40,957.

Thus, if we use the Accord as a broad generalization, cars cost roughly 50% more in the UK than in the states. So in real terms, the cars in the above list would effectively carry an MSRP of between $11,000 and $16,000 in the US. This, coincidentally, is almost exactly the same as the range of actual MSRPs of the ten cheapest cars available in the US today, and with roughly 65% better fuel economy, on average. (mirror image to bolded text in your leading quote.)

It's almost as though you knew the answer before you asked the question. :D




FTFY. :)

In for modern chinese version of honda in the 70's.

Is the diesel that these cars run on is roughly equivalent to the diesel available here in the United States?


Also, to be clear, you listed a bunch of primarily small European hatchbacks.

Earlier, your premise was that domestic executives in the '70s ignorantly dismissed the notion of US consumers buying small, no-frills-but-high-MPG compacts over large, feature-laden sedans and that there were parrallels with today.

Is your current premise that both domestic and global executives, including those of the Volkswagen/Audi Group, are also being ignorant on the buying proclivity of US consumers when it comes to small, no-frills, diesel-powered compacts?

I'm no fuel expert, but from what I can tell, the specs seem pretty much identical. Both have roughly the same energy content, the only noticeable difference being that the spec for ULSD in the US is max 15ppm of sulphur, and in the EU it's 10ppm. (This distinction is functionally irrelevant when you consider that the old standard for LSD was 500ppm.) I gather that apart from the resultant particulate emissions, Diesel #2 is pretty much the same stuff all the world 'round.


Yes. You asked me for cars "that exist in foreign markets but not here," and you were non-specific as to which continent they should come from.

The choice of Euro vs. Asian is mostly a factor of what TV shows I like and what countries I have visited. If there were a Japanese version of Top Gear which I watched on a regular basis, and I'd spent time working in eastern Asia, I'd probably be more familiar with small Asian hatchbacks. And, to be fair, I did include both a Kia and a Hyundai in the list.

EDIT: I also feel that, culturally-speaking, the US has more in common with western Europe than with eastern Asia insofar as values, sensibility of style, financial habits, and so forth. Thus, the car-buyers of the UK, France, etc., are a more valid proxy for north Americans than those of Korea, China, etc.


I'm not really sure, to be honest. Part of the reason why I find this subject fascinating is that I am often stymied by the behavior of both automakers and consumers when it comes to the subject of both car production and new-car buying. So my writing all of this is as much a journey of exploration as anything else.


When looking back at the performance of consumers and industry in the late 70s and early 80s, it's easy to make absolute judgements, since we have empirical data. So it's not "my premise" that US automakers dismissed small, cheap cars while US consumers flocked to them, it's a simple matter of historical fact. The data speaks for itself.


The same thing happened in the early 20th century when Ford introduced the very notion of the small, inexpensive, no-frills car, starting with the Model N and culminating with the famous Model T. Even by the standards of the day, these cars were cheap in every sense of the word, and they were scoffed by the coachbuilders which were producing much more comfortable, refined, and beautiful cars. Of course, none of those companies are still in business today.


So with regard to forward-looking statements, I really don't know. Obviously there is still a very healthy market for small and cheap- marques such as Kia and Hyundai are proof of this. And I predict that when Chery, Shuanghuan and others start selling in the US, they will be to the present-day what the Germans were in the 1960s, the Japanese in the 1970/80s and the Koreans in the 1990/2000s.

It will be interesting to observe how the industry, and north American consumers, react.

So.......why doesn't everyone who wants a crummy, no-frills vehicle with pathetic safety standards and great mpg, just start buying NA6s and swapping in diesels?

Makes me wish I'd kept my 1991 Honda CRX HF. Averaged 49 mpg on a trip to TX and back, cruising around 74 mph on the interstate.

Apologies if this was not meant as a serious question. I sometimes find it difficult to distinguish between sarcasm and ignorance.

I'd answer by observing that:

1: Not everyone wants crummy vehicles with pathetic safety standards. Some of them just want inexpensive vehicles which offer good economy.

ii: A lot of people seem to want new cars, as opposed to 20+ year old cars,

C: Performing an engine swap is outside of the capability envelope of the vast majority of car-owners, and

IV: This swap would be illegal in California, and probably in most (all?) other states and provinces in which emissions-testing is commonly performed.

1. It was half-serious, there seemed to be lots of responses complaining about weight/features of modern cars........weight being the result of dramatically improved safety, comfort, etc.

2. I don't like driving old crap cans either.......at least for my DD. Then again my last two DD's recorded less than 20mpg combined, so I don't care that much about mpg. If that's a deciding factor in your budget, you need to make some adjustments (the general you that is)

3. It was really directed at those posting in this thread. I think someone on GRM actually has done a diesel Miata.

4. Very true. In the land teen pregnancy, blue laws, and Jebus..........we don't even have annual vehicle inspections let alone emissions testing.

Having recently driven a relatively stock '66 VW Beetle with rubber floor mats and a bakelite shift knob mounted on a spindly metal shifter rod, I saw no immediate need for anything more complicated at that moment. The shifter is light with a positive engagement, the steering is tight and direct without being too heavy or light. It had turn signals, windshield wipers, and room for four people. It is transportation that makes no attempt to be your living room. And driving it was enjoyable. It actually made me smile to drive it. I haven't felt that way in a while.

It would not be legal to sell new in this country today.