Volkswagen's 170 mpg car
The VW L1 concept falls short of its goal to go 100 kilometers on 1 liter of fuel.
(Credit: CNET)In 2002, Volkswagen designed a concept car that could go 100 kilometers on 1 liter of fuel, equivalent to about 235 mpg. This year, Volkswagen shows off the second generation of the 1 liter concept, the L1, with the intention of production by 2013. Using an extremely light and aerodynamic body and a diesel-electric parallel hybrid power train, the new L1 falls short of its fuel efficiency goal, requiring 1.38 liters of diesel to cover 100 kilometers, or 170 mpg. Still, not bad.
The L1's cabin uses virtual rearview mirrors and instruments.
(Credit: CNET)Volkswagen designers looked at glider design to evolve the L1 concept, resulting in a narrow body with two seats in tandem, the single passenger consigned to a rear seat. Access to the L1 is through a hinged canopy, which should inspire Top Gun fantasies for the driver. Furthering those fantasies are the camera-based rearview OLEDs, offering a 180 degree view behind the car. In keeping with the high-tech cabin, the speedometer and other instruments are all virtual. Although we didn't see a stereo in the cabin, there are volume controls on the steering wheel.
However much the cabin might inspire feelings of piloting a fighter jet, the performance will make the driver envy scooter riders. The L1 takes 14.3 seconds to get to 62 mph. However, the top speed is a reasonable 99 mph. To power the L1, Volkswagen developed a new .8-liter version of its TDI engine with only two cylinders. The driver can select between Eco and Sport modes: in the former, the engine produces 27 horsepower, while in Sport it peaks at 39 horsepower. Being a diesel, its torque is much higher, hitting 74 pound-feet at 1,900rpm.
Although narrow, the L1 sits on four wheels.
(Credit: CNET)Where Volkswagen gets really clever is incorporating a hybrid system into its seven-speed Direct Shift Gearbox (DSG). The DSG transmission uses two computer-controlled clutches to provide automated shifting with manual transmission performance. A 13 horsepower electric motor situated between propeller shaft and transmission supplies additional power to the car. The motor is powered by electricity from a lithium ion battery pack in the front of the car. As a hybrid, it has a start-stop system, shutting down the engine when stopped in traffic. With its 10 liter fuel tank, Volkswagen estimates a range of 416 miles.
Although the L1 may not seem all that practical, the research that went into designing it, including engineering the hybrid system into the DSG, could be applied to other cars, increasing their efficiency.
I'm not sure about 3.2 seconds, but there is some point around 8-9 seconds after which merging onto freeway entrances and such actually becomes considerably more dangerous, as long as traffic is allowed to go 60-70 mph on the freeway. If we really want to head this direction and start making the majority of cars get to 60 in 13-15 seconds, we really should lower the speed limit where there are entrances to something more like 45 mph. I'm doubting people want to do that, so the solution is to make reasonably zippy cars.
I applaud VW for this effort, but once again, this thing really isn't practical for a typical driver. But, the article is correct that similar technology could be put in more practical vehicles. I think VW already has one of the best systems with the ultra clean TDI.... and now couple that with good hybrid technology seems like a winner to me. And there is NO reason it couldn't go 0-60 in the 6 second range or faster and STILL get amazing MPG in all the times one is not tromping on the accelerator. That is the one awesome thing about electric motors. You can get both great performance AND economy with the same motor... which is something you can't do with Gas or Diesel .
Also, I have no idea how they are getting the claimed numbers. Even from what I can see in the article, it would seem more like roughly 100 mph. Hopefully they aren't using the same failed math and physics the EPA is using on stuff like the Volt.
The point for safety isn't top speed, but acceleration. I haven't driven in NYC, but I can't imagine it would be easier to merge there than in many other cities I've driven in (my gut tells me it would be worse). Even if traffic is moving at 45, when congested, you need a bit of go-power to safely merge in... unless you are driving among super-polite drivers (NYC doesn't exactly have a reputation for this from what I hear). Also, are you seriously telling me that traffic around NYC doesn't go over 55?
Why don't auto companies just bite the bullet and make a small light weight hybrid for those of us who spend more time driving in the suburbs than on the freeway. 14.3 seconds to get up to 62MP/h? I rarely get that high. Or need that much acceleration. And I certainly don't need all of the flashy gadgets that they've put on that thing.
Give me a small European or Japanese car with a hybrid motor and a low sticker price, and I'll be happy. It will get me down town and back.
I somewhat agree. Part of the problem is just that until real recently, very few companies were even trying (VW and Toyota being exceptions... at least with one or two models). The TDI clean diesel is probably the closest to what you are talking about, though WAY more luxurious and modern, so a bit less MPG.
The other problem is the luxury and safety... and therefore weight (which equals big drops in MPG). Your Sprint and other small cars in the 80s were more or less made out of very thin steel and cardboard. People who bought them did for economy, and in the case of Honda, etc. the excellent engines. They certainly didn't do it for safety or luxury by any stretch of the imagination. At that point the US brands were just magnitudes of order nicer cars. But, they didn't get the economy or long lasting engines... which some people really wanted. It took quite a long time for the foreign cars to start to come up to the level of luxury of the US cars (and then pass them in some cases). Also, a ton of safety stuff gets added today that didn't back then. It all adds up to making it really hard to even get the mileage MOST small cars in the 80s got.
@ perfectblue97 -
You're right in some ways... but I suspect the overall market segment for such a vehicle is relatively small. Most of the people who would buy such a vehicle live in large urban areas where those same people take public transit. It would only appeal to a VERY small number of suburb people in poorly designed cities (which I admit there are several of in the US currently).... but I'm not sure enough for too many models to be designed specifically for it.
My question is, who really needs an SUV? I understand people need trucks for towing, hauling, etc, but what purpose do SUVs serve? Next time you see a big SUV, look to see how many people are in the damn thing...bet it's the stupid wifey texting while driving and no one else. Oh, that's right, I remember now why we "need" SUVs...it's cause the American car companies have to put so much content in a car just to turn a profit so they have to build big bloated mammoths that soccer moms everywhere adore.
And is there anything less productive than wasting time building Escalade hybrids? Gimme a break people, just buy a smaller car!!!!!!!!
I don't think I'm following your logic on this one. It costs more to put more material into a manufacturing process. The don't save money by making large vehicles.
I agree that most people don't need SUVs. They are basically status symbols for rather silly people. Some actually put them to good use, but for most I totally agree. But, the reason US car companies are making them, is the same reason most of the foreign companies have added them to their line-ups... because people WANT to buy them. Their popularity only dipped slightly when gas prices peaked.... after it went back down, they started selling again (short memory, huh?).
Also, the US companies just haven't put the time and effort into making good small cars until rather recently. You don't get good at something without some practice. Many of the foreign companies STARTED with the small cars and excellent small engines. They have only recently started making bigger vehicles. It is a lot easier to go that direction, which explains the demise of the US car companies pretty well. I do certainly agree about the hinderance the unions are to any chance the US companies might have... but that is a whole different issue which has little do do with the size of the vehicles produced.
Why are so many people driving to no where beats me. I see them every day driving around from morning to night; yet for no reason what-so-ever. One should drive only when it is absolutely needed and not simple "fun" or checking out the ladies. We tend to waste money and pollute the air for our own selfish reasons.
I drive a 1997 Buick supercharged 3.8 with lots of horses under the hood and it the long 12 years; I have only driven 71,000 miles. That's a lot and due to long distance (Florida to New York) (Pittsburgh to New York) and back. Came someone calculate how many miles per month I have driven? By the way, my car did not qualify for the clunker program and I intend to keep it another 5 years at least as she is sweet and power everything.
12 years X 12 months/year = 144 months.
71,000 miles / 144 months = 493.06 miles per month
I have a huge 4X4 big block powered pickup truck in my driveway (it only burns 1/10 of a gallon every mile :) ). I've owned it for roughly 8 years and have put a little over 20,000 miles on it in that time. It's a blast when I do take it out (even dump runs are fun!), but obviously I don't do that often. I ride a mountain bike most of the time around town, which saves me a bucket load of money on gas, but I'm lucky in that I work a mile away from my house. I know most people don't enjoy that same kind of luck (most of my co-workers commute in over 50 miles from adjacent counties).
The real question is how many miles per gallon can a car run on fuel alone INCLUDING how many miles per gallon can a car run on a killowatt of electricity alone: mpg/fuel + mpg/electricity.
Just because a car can run on 170 mpg of fuel doesn't mean there aren't any costs in charging the battery cell for any hybrid. The hybrid industry really needs to get with the program so real savings can be gauged accurately and carefully; display both miles achievable from fuel and electricity for hybrids - not just fuel alone.
Adakin Valorem
Support the politician that supports the FairTax!
Thanks to research by Ricardo UK (a well-known automotive technology research company), we can now build turbodiesel engines that can meet even the CARB SULEV (equivalent to EPA Tier 2 Bin 4) emssions standard without needing expensive urea gas injection in the exhaust stream to reduce NOx gases. That could open the way for just about every class of vehicle in the USA market getting 27-32% fuel economy, and we could within two years drive a Ford Fiesta that gets the type of fuel economy normally associated with a Toyota Prius but costing thousands less.
How many people do you think can buy these, with all the high end gadgets inside it, shooting up the overall price.
-
by gimosul
October 1, 2009 4:03 PM PDT
- I am happy with my VW Jetta TDI. 1st foreign car I ever owned, diesel 46mpg. I can drive over 600 miles for $30. Anyone that has spent time in Europe knows the cars are more efficient and can outperform the new cars here. Its too bad I could not feel comfortable buying a new american car.
-
Like this
Reply to this comment
-
(28 Comments)