Slashdot Mirror
VW Concept Microcar Gets 235 MPG
Hugh Pickens writes "Volkswagen is bringing new meaning to the term 'fuel efficiency' with a bullet-shaped microcar that gets 235 mpg. Called the One-Liter, because that's how much fuel it needs to go 100 kilometers, the body's made of carbon fiber to minimize weight and the One-Liter makes extensive use of magnesium, titanium and aluminum so the entire vehicle weighs in at 660 pounds. Aerodynamics plays a big role in its fuel economy, so the car is long and low, coming in at 11.4 feet long, 4.1 feet wide and 3.3 feet tall with a coefficient of drag of 0.16, a little more than half that of an average car. The One-Liter could have a sticker price of anywhere from $31,750 to $47,622, and VW plans to build a limited number in 2010."
So small, light and snug (from the picture), that when you get knicked by a Toyota on the autobahn, it can substitute as your coffin too! Now THAT's eco-friendly.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
Well it's actually a two-seater, though the person in the back seat isn't going to have a lot of leg-room I'll grant you...
It's official. Most of you are morons.
You do realise that while there a some things that both cars have in common there's quite a lot more that differs between a ultrahigh mileage experimental vehicle and a road-registerable car usable in everyday traffic. Things that come to mind is having: a performance in both speed and acceleration that doesn't make it a slightly mobile roadblock, safety regarding both collision and usability, and comfortable enough to actually be usable.
Some Americans weigh that much!
In 2006, this vehicle got 3,145 miles per gallon, and some high-school students last year won a mileage contest by creating a similar vehicle that got mileage in the 1000-mpg range.
If VW want to impress, they will have to do a hell of a lot better than that.
The problem with your post is that all of those kids are probably mysteriously dead.
The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
It weighs 300 kilograms, and the dimensions are 3.47x1.25x1 meters. With that, it would qualify for a microcar class. In some places you wouldn't even need a licence to drive it..
A moped with rider has a much, much higher coefficient of drag, probably more frontal area, and no protection from the elements, to boot.
Also, here in Ohio, a moped is legally defined as a motorized bicycle limited to 20 MPH, with a maximum of 1 hp and 50 cc displacement. This has almost 9 hp and 300 cc displacement, and is designed to go a lot faster than 20. ;)
By the time this car makes it into regular mass-production, (if it ever makes it at all), it'll look just like every other car on the road.
I totally agree.
Neal Boortz, a local talk show host that tends to sway conservative where I live, keeps railing on how the U.S. needs to have a "Manhattan Project" to explore for oil and develop domestic resources. He says that within three years, if we really focus our time, effort, energy, money, and our brightest minds on it, we could wean ourselves off dependence on foreign oil by replacing it with oil from domestic sources.
I can't help but think, if we're going to gather our time, effort, energy, money, and brightest minds, why can't we come up with a "Manhattan Project" to wean ourselves off of oil entirely?
I'm so tired of the U.S. taking a technological back seat to the rest of the world, but it looks like we're about to yet again. Let other countries develop, test, and build the products while we sit back and get further behind. That way, we'll have yet more industries we can't compete with and yet a higher trade deficit.
I look at a vehicle this small and wonder what would happen if it was hit by a 3000lb vehicle. Even if it has a crumple zones, I could see it being sent flying across the road like a hockeypuck, or it's lack of mass being unable to stop the forward progress of the impacting vehicle after the impact.
What arguments does one use to convince laymen that these tiny vehicles are safe? My gf wants to get a volvo SUV, but when I even mention a Corolla/Tercel/Yarvis, she likes that they are fuel efficient, but is concerned about being hit by any full size vehicle (not just a Hummer/SUV).
I recently rode in a coworkers SmartCar, and while it seemed like a great car, I realized that if were were rear ended, we'd be killed. There's about a foot between your back and the back of the car. Less than that of a Jeep Wrangler. My biggest fear would be having to stop quickly on the highway and the guy behind me doesn't stop in time.
Anybody have any good arguments for justifying these ultra-light cars (VW, SmartCar) to those that do equate a certain size=safety measure?
Yep you nailed it. The gas prices we're seeing have less to do with scarcity, and more to do with a captive market - well, that and the fact that the majority of oil producing countries are literally overrun by the OPEC cartels, which is what inevitably happens when you stick a trillion-dollar business in a 3rd world country.
I agree, we don't need fuel efficiency, we need a whole new form of fuel. One that doesn't shackle every civilized nation to every uncivilized oil producer.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
A better picture might help put things into... perspective.
There's no way in hell something like that will ever be able to enter regular traffic.
The main article is slashdotted, here's the summary article for the "Totemcrappen" which has a picture. Notice the priceless licensence plate which is Leet speak "Wobbly".
Interestingly the car was desinged 6 years ago but the 2012 was the release date as the prices would fall far enough to manufacture it. But they decided to roll is out 2 years early.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I don't find that depressing at all. As nice as H2 sounds on paper, when it comes down to it, we're already using the ideal fuels for transportation. Liguid hydrocarbons have far superior energy density compared to other options, they're liquid at room temperature, stable, require no special containment, are basically insensitive to temperature extremes, and very scalable.
Until there's and alternative that does nearly as well in all these categories, i think the most feasible eco-solution is finding ways to displace conventional petroleum (biofuels and whatnot)
Simply kick all the senseless SUVs, Trucks, Offroaders and so on off the streets.
If there are only light cars around, no one get's hit by a 2.5 ton doctor's wife with her Porsche Cayenne.
It's really time for it. And by the way, if your car is extremely light, an much heavier opponent in an accidend would push your micocompact away instead of crushing through it. Especially if the microcompact is made of an robust security cell (see the Samrts Tridion Security Cell) or a Formula One like cage of carbon fiber like the VW 1L. I assume there are almost no more secure big cars around as these compacts are.
Let's discuss the hypothetical non-hybrid Civic DX sedan with 34mpg @ $15,010 and the American average 12,000 miles a year.
$24,706 dollars spent in fuel over ten years at $7 a dollar gasoline.
total cost = $39,716
Not to mention the Honda Civic can haul you, your family and your stuff at that price, this VW? Nope.
We won't even get into the cost of money and the lost value of paying the high up-front charges of the VW option.
That's where the fallacy lies - do the math.
How about we actually put pen to paper on this one and figure out exactly how much money we would save in fuel costs each year :
I am going to be generous and work with easy numbers - $4 gasoline, 1,200 miles per month.
Start with a relatively easy to find 40 mpg car :
1,200 miles / 40mpg = 30 gallons * $4 = $120 per month.
Crank that up to one of those Volkswagon TDI or a hybrid getting 50 mpg :
1,200 miles / 50mpg = 24 gallons * $4 = $96 per month. Saved about $25 per month.
And now for this ultra-cool one man car made of recycled SR-71 parts at 235 mpg :
1,200 miles / 235mpg = 5 gallons!
5 * $4 = $20 total fuel costs for the month. Which sounds great, except it's only saving about $75 per month, assuming the production models get the same mileage as their hand made prototype - which isn't going to happen.
Let's pretend they get them in viable quantities getting 120mpg, which is still crazy good, right?
1,200 miles / 120mpg = still only 10 gallons, which is only $40. Pretty awesome!
Except compared to a current Prius or a VW TDI, you're only saving $55 a month.
It's because of the way the 1/x curve flattens out on the tail end, after about 40-50 mpg it really doesn't make much of a difference. The dollar difference between 40mpg and 120mpg is the same dollar difference between 17mpg and 21mpg, again - because the curve of 1/x is so high below 20mpg. Get down into the 9mpg-11mpg range and difference for every 1mpg = $40.
Want to make a killer difference in our gas consumption, engineer a way to make the current 500 million cars already on the roads today get 3 more mpg, because I figure 1/3rd of the cars on the road are in the sub 20mpg range.
I already figured that one out too - tire pressure during the winter. I used to think that the gas stations used different formulas in the winter (which they probably do) which is why my gas mileage went from 21 in the summer to 17 in the winter (which wasn't why.) My most recent car has air pressure sensors on the tires so I noticed that during the winter months the air pressure in the tires dropped from 35psi to about 28psi (cold air shrinks) - when I pressured up my tires to the suggested 35psi, my gas mileage went right back to 21mpg. How many people go the entire winter without adding air to their tires (well ... it doesn't look flat and it had plenty of air in August, air isn't leaking out ...) and spend their entire lives thinking the reason they get crap gas mileage in the winter because of the 'winter gasoline formula'? Bingo.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
I'd rather see VW work on an improved version of the GX3 concept. If they enclosed it for better aerodynamics and reduced the engine power from the concept's 125 bhp, they'd be able to eke out much better mileage than the measly 46 mpg of the prototype. There really wasn't any need for a 1.6 L engine in the GX3. They could have gone with the engine from the Lupo 3L, which was a 1.2 L inline three cylinder TDI engine that made 61 bhp.
Of course, the first thing they should do is bring the Lupo 3L back to life and bring it to the US.
The Lupo 3L weighed about 1830 lb, and the GX3 weighed about about 1260 lb, so you can see that the Lupo 3L engine would still give quite interesting performance in the GX3 chassis, and the fuel consumption, with a new aerodynamic, enclosed chassis for the GX3 should enable that configuration to easily reach at least the ~80 mpg of the Lupo 3L, and probably even better that figure by a good margin, while offering the advantages of side-by-side seating.
Does that mean in 65 million years, we'll have cars powered by extinct soccer moms?
When some new gas saver comes out (like the smart4two), do people really line up to purchase it?
The waiting list for the smart is close to a year.
More people in the world with high disposable incomes drive on roads where American SUVs are in a small minority. Here in the UK SUVs have been making inroads which have come to a sudden halt as fuel approaches $3/liter. On the other hand, the sales of class A,B and C vehicles - microcars, minis and superminis - are rising fast. Expect European roads to look rather different in 2010, when the first of the new technologies really start to reach the market.
The guy who wrote the article did not get this - quoting US gallons is pretty irrelevant. 1 liter/100km, or miles per UK gallon, are appropriate because that is where they will be used.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
This is Slashdot. If you can't do better in every possible way than every single thing that has ever been done before, then you're worthless.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
If it has less than four wheels, though, it's not considered a car, and the safety standards become much, much lower.
Four wheels, the safety standards have been going up. That's part of the reason many manufacturers are making 3-wheelers - nobody would pay $100,000 for a stripped out single-seater car, just so they could get something that could get extreme fuel economy. 3-wheelers only make sense for legislative reasons, not practical.
235 MPG is impressive, and this concept car is *really* cool looking, which is a rare thing when it comes to super efficient, futuristic concept cars. While I really doubt will see cars like this on the road anytime soon, this car does bring to mind some things, though, particularly in the weight department. If we took our current engine technologies (not even hybrid) and put them in much lighter cars, we'd likely be able to have cars average close to 100 MPG without any special work.
Compared to light cars in the 1970s, our cars are much heavier (1000-2000 pounds heavier on average), but produce much, much more power from the same amount of gas than engines in the 70s did. Not to mention they are now better looking than the boxes of the 70s.
Basically all the extra efficiency our engines now have is pretty much wasted by the fact that we're hauling around so much extra weight. If we lighten our cars a bit and then stop this silly addiction to "power" (really acceleration), we'd be a long ways closer to practical cars that get 100 MPG right now. That'd pave the way for mass appeal of cars like this VW concept.
I must disagree. In my experience, people who are considering or who already own SUVs due to their perceived safety generally think that, in the event of a two-vehicle accident, the other guy is essentially on his own. If he gets the worst of it due to having a smaller car, it's his own fault for not having also bought an SUV. I've never heard anyone say "I've never thought of that!" after being asked about the other guy in a hypothetical accident.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.