Volkswagon's new 300 MPG car not allowed in America

[donnay]

VOLKSWAGEN’S NEW 300 MPG CAR NOT ALLOWED IN AMERICA BECAUSE IT IS TOO EFFICIENT



You won’t find the 300 MPG Volkswagen XL1 in an American showroom, in fact it has even been denied a tour of America because it is too efficient for the American public to be made widely aware of, and oil profits are too high in America with the status quo in place. No tour has been allowed for this car because the myth that 50 mpg is virtually impossible to obtain from even a stripped down econobox is too profitable to let go of, and when it comes to corporate oil profits, ignorance is bliss.

Years ago I had calculated that it should be possible to get a small car to exceed 100 mpg by putting parallel direct to cylinder water injectors side by side with the fuel injectors, and using the exhaust manifold to preheat the water so it would enter the cylinders as dry steam, thus providing added expansion (which drives the engine) while allowing the combustion process to proceed without reducing it’s efficiency. But I was obviously wrong with my calculations, because they were in fact over 2x conservative.

The 100 mpg carborator was indeed a reality, and the Volkswagen XL1 proves it with only straightforward nothing special technology we have had since the 1970?s.Though the XL1 can be plugged in to deliver a 40 mile all electric drive, it does not need to be plugged in EVER to achieve 300 mpg. And it does not cheat in any way to achieve the rating, it weighs over 1,700 pounds, has normal tires, and delivers a very good driving experience with a governed top speed of 99 mph. The XL1 could reach a top speed in excess of 110 mph absent governor and turns in a 0-60 time of 11.5 seconds which is by no means leisurly for a car designed for efficiency. The XL1 in no way cheats on performance to hit it’s rating. It is simply the car we should have always had, and have had taken from us in the name of oil profits.

Though the XL1 can hit 300 mpg under ideal driving conditions, it’s combined mileage is usually a little over 200 mpg, and if you do city driving only that will drop to a minimum of 180 mpg under the wors

Continued...

[Bastiat's The Law]

Looks like a concept car and not a real production car.

[fisharmor]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/xl1.asp

[GunnyFreedom]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/xl1.asp

^^^ That article is so whiney and full of justifications and excuses that it actually makes me believe the OP more.

[ghengis86]

Looks like a concept car and not a real production car.

true, but proof of concept cars prove the concept for a reason. but if that's not your gig, check these guys out:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...conomy/4288444

high mileage in non-hybrid cars has been around for quite a few decades.

here's a 65 mpg Ford that you can't have:

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/...-dot-cant-have

a 60mpg civic
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...old-in-the-u-s


There's plenty out there to show that we shouldn't be 'elated' to get a new car with 35 mpg

[Anti Federalist]

Not collusion with oil companies but restricted by big government.

It would not comply with NHTSA and EPA regulations.

Hell, you can buy a Ford Focus diesel in the UK right now that gets close to 80-90 MPG.

Can't buy one here, thanks to Uncle Sucker.

My 2013 VW Jetta wagon, that can break into the low 50s on mileage with a very gentle foot, can easily get mid 60s in it's original design sold overseas that you can't get here.

[Anti Federalist]

There's plenty out there to show that we shouldn't be 'elated' to get a new car with 35 mpg

You could get 30-35 MPG out of a Ford Falcon 50+ years ago.

Almost immediately the new Falcon was a success and more than one million total units were sold by 1962. The Falcon was offered in several new models thanks to the sales and interest and it now included the Falcon Futura and Sprint. In 1961 the Futura model was released and came with very appealing exterior ornamentation and new deluxe interior trim with floor console and bucket seats. On the Futura model, standard equipment included the 144 cid six cylinder engine that was capable of '32.68 mpg' in Ford testing.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/autom...#ixzz3FQSrCCEI

[CPUd]

They seem to have forgotten the rear wheels.

[ghengis86]

Not collusion with oil companies but restricted by big government.

It would not comply with NHTSA and EPA regulations.

Hell, you can buy a Ford Focus diesel in the UK right now that gets close to 80-90 MPG.

Can't by one here, thanks to Uncle Sucker.

My 2013 VW Jetta wagon, that can break into the low 50s on mileage with a very gentle foot, can easily get mid 60s in it's original design sold overseas that you can't get here.

i would say it's more of a latent symbiosis than collusion or complete innocence at the other end of the spectrum. i don't see oil companies lobbying big gov to eliminate the EPA, NHTSA regulations on high mileage cars.

I looked at the Touareg; almost 30 mpg in a mid-size SUV? and that's the official numbers; i'm sure you could get more.


Go here for some great info, resources: http://ecomodder.com/

[FindLiberty]

300 MPG and looks like that? DOUBTFUL They're all just ah blowin' smoke, more or less.

There's no free lunch, no free ride (so far), but with a tiny lightweight chassis, three skinny tires
with a footprint like a bicycle = possibility for high efficiency "car" that's under-powered by a
gasoline/hydrogen internal combustion engine or powered by an electric motor
w/batteries or maybe a hydrogen fuel cell as the energy storage system.

Lite (blows over in a crosswind) - Tiny - Think Motorcycle - maybe 95 MPG is possible... ?

[fisharmor]

^^^ That article is so whiney and full of justifications and excuses that it actually makes me believe the OP more.

Was it the quotes from Car and Driver where they did an actual mileage test, or the rest of the article where it said exactly what AF posted in #6?

[GunnyFreedom]

Was it the quotes from Car and Driver where they did an actual mileage test, or the rest of the article where it said exactly what AF posted in #6?

Their complaint was that it's not a 300mpg car because under spirited driving the car only got 128 mpg. really?

And no kidding fedgov isn't going to SAY "that car is too efficient" it will always be about ambiguous 'safety concerns.'

Snopes went and called it "False" and then proceeded within the debunking section to verify the claims they had just called "false."

[Jackie Moon]

Not collusion with oil companies but restricted by big government.

It would not comply with NHTSA and EPA regulations.

Hell, you can buy a Ford Focus diesel in the UK right now that gets close to 80-90 MPG.

Can't by one here, thanks to Uncle Sucker.

My 2013 VW Jetta wagon, that can break into the low 50s on mileage with a very gentle foot, can easily get mid 60s in it's original design sold overseas that you can't get here.

I agree. It's the government safety and environmental regulations that are making it more difficult.

And that American consumers want cars with more power and performance.

But, if a car company were able to make a stylish, affordable, well performing car that got 100mpg they would most definitely want to sell it here.

Even if they were currently colluding with oil companies they'd be quick to screw them over if they thought they had a chance to dominate the market with a car like that.

[ghengis86]

Their complaint was that it's not a 300mpg car because under spirited driving the car only got 128 mpg. really?

And no kidding fedgov isn't going to SAY "that car is too efficient" it will always be about ambiguous 'safety concerns.'

Snopes went and called it "False" and then proceeded within the debunking section to verify the claims they had just called "false."

give me any car, truck, van, bus, limo, etc. and I can get 10-20% MORE than the EPA miles per gallon number simply through modifying driving habits alone. So, the capability of the car with regard to mileage should be with the best driver, best conditions, etc. so you can establish a maximum. a real-world mileage (similar to the current EPA) is what the 'average' guy can expect. but hypermilers will contended that it's just user input that can make or break any vehicle's MPG

basically, that 'justification' on snopes is bull

[Tod]

http://www.eliomotors.com/

Coming next year, supposedly. Made in Louisiana. $6,800 84 mpg.

[Zippyjuan]

VW says they will only make 250 of them and those will only be sold in Europe which is why you won't be able to buy one here in the US. Car And Driver magazine estimates price at about $120,000 each. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t-drive-review The engine is just two cylinders.

Here’s another example of VW chairman Ferdinand Piëch going to extremes—in this case, to show his many critics in the German Green Party where to stick it. The XL1 is 1800 pounds of carbon fiber, aluminum, and plastic propelled by a two-cylinder turbo-diesel engine sharing the trunk with an electric motor. As of this writing, this Karmann Ghia of tomorrow may be sold or leased, VW hasn’t decided, but any sticker price should exceed $120,000. Sorry; European distribution only.

Just 45.4 inches tall, the XL1 is half an inch lower than a Lambor*ghini Gallardo, and it would be impossible for anyone but Tom Thumb dipped in Vaseline to enter through conventional doors. Even so, normal people climbing in have to bow deeply under the forward-winged hatches, step over a sill that is nearly a foot wide, and drop into a body that clears the ground by a mere three inches. If you expect this Volks*wagen XL1 to be a sports car, with its proportions and ultra-lightweight carbon-fiber tub with attached aluminum crash structures and body panels, you are mistaken. Push the starter button to see.

The XL1 should run 31 miles solely on electric power, says Mitze. But on the cold and rainy April day we drove it, the small, 60-cell, 5.5-kWh, 150-pound lithium-ion battery pack needed a recharge after only 22 miles. Recharging can be done with a 220-volt outlet in one hour or on the fly by the diesel engine.

According to the on-board computer, we are fuel hogs. Having started with a full tank (2.6 gallons) and fully charged batteries, we ended our trip after 67 miles; fuel consumption plummeted at one point to a dismal 128 mpg. Achieving the XL1’s theoretical 749-mile range would take a right foot as light as a moonbeam.

Seems they are demoing a couple in the US- even if they don't intend to sell them here which makes this part untrue:

in fact it has even been denied a tour of America

http://jalopnik.com/we-drove-the-261...aus-1482688104

We Drove The 261 MPG Volkswagen XL1 In Manhattan Because You Can't

What is it about the Volkswagen Group that produces wild, insane, magical engineering projects like the Lamborghini Veneno, Bugatti Veyron and Porsche 918 Spyder? The 261 MPG Volkswagen XL1 isn't in the same league as those cars in terms of speed, but it's every bit as amazing. But there's one problem: Most Americans will never experience it.

Sadly, Volkswagen is only making 250 of these tiny, spaceship-like diesel hybrid two-seaters, and they're only going to sell them in Europe where they retail for about $150,000 in our currency. That's kind of a shame. Even if super eco-friendly hypermiling hybrids aren't your thing, the XL1 is fascinating from a technological standpoin

The car has two modes: spaceship and school bus. It hums along silently in electric mode, but when you push the seven-speed DSG selector into sport mode, the diesel engine kicks in and propels you forward at a moderate rate of speed. It's a deep, industrial, truck-like engine sound, but it's cool. The car isn't fast, but it gets the job done.

Of course, you realize this after getting used to the sound of the engine behind you. It may only be an 0.8, but it sounds like a FedEx truck. Yeah, it's charming. Another strange sensation is your passenger sitting very far behind you, as there isn't much width to the thing.

You still don't want to be a large person riding in the XL1, though. I'm 5'10" on a good day and headroom isn't exactly plentiful. Getting in and out needs a how-to guide that dangles from the door handle so you don't strain any muscles if you do it wrong. Oh, and seeing headlights is a problem. In a city where drivers behind you honk if you aren't rolling into the intersection as lights turn green, you'd better bring your head lower down.

The seats are staggered, so it means you can't really see your passenger.Holding a conversation means you're constantly turning around, which works in stop-and-go NYC traffic, but not really in the rest of the world. I can't imagine things are much easier for the passenger, and I'm sure the lovely PR lady next me wasn't thrilled about staring at the side of my head wile I blabbered about how cool diesel engines sound.

And the mirrors. There are none. There are little screens instead, embedded inside the doors and linked to outside cameras. You might think that if you yourself got a chance to drive an XL1, you'd spend the whole time thinking about the future or moonshot fuel efficiency. Nah. You spend the whole time double checking what's around you because the screens aren't where the mirrors are supposed to be. And the cameras can't angle down, so parallel parking is a bit of a bitch.

Full disclosure: Volkswagen is taking three XLs on tour around the U.S. at the moment, and while they're extremely limited in where they can go on public roads for a variety of reasons, your Jalopnik staff talked VW into letting us all take the briefest of spins around Manhattan. Here's what we all thought of it.)

With only three inches of ground clearance and a $150,000 price tag there are probably not a lot of places you would WANT to drive this thing. It would bottom out in a lot of roads.

[Mani]

While I'm sure Big Oil doesn't like to see this kind of technology coming through, I don't know if they'd have gov't folks outright ban the thing.


I mean, Teslas are all the rage in USA. How is that not a threat to Big Oil? Why are Teslas allowed to be on the roads if Big Oil was preventing cars like this from being in USA?

I realize in electric cars fossil fuels are looked at from 2 perspectives. #1) Filling gasoline up at the pump and releasing emissions. Electric cars eliminate this. #2) Filling up at the electric pump or charging into the wall at home. This is STILL USING fossil fuels depending on the local mix of the nearby power plant.

I know of people that have installed solar panels on their roof at home, which provides enough fuel for their Teslas. The people charging their cars with solar have eliminated Big Oil completely. They get their car off any dependency of fossil fuels or Big Oil. This you would think would be the worst nightmare scenario.

No need to go to the pump and charging the car on pure sunshine. Wouldn't big oil want to kill these people?

Yet Teslas are all the rage.


I do know that some of the dealerships are cartels and are always suing Telsa for allowing customers to buy cars directly, completely eliminating the need for a dealership. This is causing chaos in some parts of USA and Teslas are banned or something in NJ I believe. But that's dealerships crying foul over their monopoly instead of Big Oil.



Again, maybe this car is being prevented from the marketplace, but if that's true I wonder why a Tesla would be allowed to exist and thrive when they are a bigger threat than this XL1.

[Schifference]

In the end it doesn't matter. Either you use more gas or pay more some other way. If all vehicles got 300mpg taxes would not be equated on a per gallon cost of gasoline.

[Working Poor]

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Their complaint was that it's not a 300mpg car because under spirited driving the car only got 128 mpg. really?

And no kidding fedgov isn't going to SAY "that car is too efficient" it will always be about ambiguous 'safety concerns.'

Snopes went and called it "False" and then proceeded within the debunking section to verify the claims they had just called "false."

Snopes is full of people that research crap on the internet for 5 minutes and then come to a conclusion

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

In the end it doesn't matter. Either you use more gas or pay more some other way. If all vehicles got 300mpg taxes would not be equated on a per gallon cost of gasoline.

it would still be better for our health. but yeah if cars got 300mpg, then gas would be 25 dollars a gallon

[acptulsa]

Are we talking cars again? Some people never learn.

Fact checking time (yay)!

VW says they will only make 250 of them and those will only be sold in Europe which is why you won't be able to buy one here in the US.

Gee, Z2.0, this is the first time I've heard of a manufacturer's reluctance to export cars to particular nations preventing people from having them shipped themselves. Indeed, I recently heard of a Hispano-Suiza being brought into the U.S. That certainly wasn't done with the manufacturer's consent, considering the manufacturer didn't survive the fascist takeover of France in the early 1940s.

Fact is, people could import these things, but can't drive them. And this isn't Volkswagen's fault. Yeah, VW could make a U.S.-legal version of it, but then it would get the same 42 max mpg as everything else sold here, and what would be the point?

Don't listen to the government apologist and blame Volkswagen, folks. This one falls squarely on the fedgov for making this kind of innovation illegal here.

Car And Driver magazine estimates price at about $120,000 each. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t-drive-review The engine is just two cylinders.

Suffering under the delusion that Americans won't pay extra for something powered by a twin? Go tell Harley-Davidson. But don't be surprised if they laugh indulgently and tell you they have about a hundred years' worth of proof you're dead wrong.

Seems they are demoing a couple in the US- even if they don't intend to sell them here which makes this part untrue:

Well, well. You caught jalopnik in a mistake, gee. Like that's never been done before.

Yes, Zippy, for only six digits you, too, can have one. And you can have it towed to the supermarket parking lot and drive it around in circles. And it's perfectly legal, too--if you have the supermarket's permission.

With only three inches of ground clearance and a $150,000 price tag there are probably not a lot of places you would WANT to drive this thing. It would bottom out in a lot of roads.

Because all springs are soft and ground clearance is the only thing that affects whether or not a car bottoms out? Tell it to the owner of a Z.06 Corvette. They have only 3.2" of ground clearance--and a notably longer wheelbase, which makes high centering a Corvette significantly easier than doing it to one of these.

Come on, Z2.0, this is fun. Blather some more.

While I'm sure Big Oil doesn't like to see this kind of technology coming through, I don't know if they'd have gov't folks outright ban the thing.

They did just that long before the project was begun. In 1973, right when we went off the gold standard and right when OPEC did their trick, the government was right in the middle of demanding that cars be made heavier ("safety" stuff like five mph bumpers which only ever made insurance companies safer, for example) and lighter (CAFE), more efficient (CAFE) and less efficient (restrictions on output of oxides of nitrogen), and all at the same time. The way those regulations were written have made it impossible for this kind of innovation to hit the U.S. market first. And also killed the independent U.S. automakers, much to Ford and G.M.'s benefit.

I mean, Teslas are all the rage in USA. How is that not a threat to Big Oil?

Carbon credits, Mani. Have you forgotten there's a War on Coal underway...?

[fisharmor]

Guys, this is the FIRST SENTENCE of the article in the OP.

You won’t find the 300 MPG Volkswagen XL1 in an American showroom, in fact it has even been denied a tour of America because it is too efficient for the American public to be made widely aware of, and oil profits are too high in America with the status quo in place.

This is the claim snopes is addressing:

The federal government is preventing Volkswagen's XL1 model car from being sold in the U.S. because the vehicle is too fuel-efficient.

What the original article is claiming, and what Snopes is debunking, is the idea that the Feds are forbidding the car because it is too fuel-efficient.
I'm not sure how this can be made any more clear.

And Snopes then goes on to state that no, it's not because it's too fuel-efficient at all. It's because of safety regulations.
Then a consensus appeared in THIS thread stating the same.
It seems crystal clear to me: the idea that the federal government bans things because oil companies would lose profits is quite simply crap.

Everything the federal government has done regarding fuel efficiency is actually the exact opposite: they pass mandates stating that cars have to get a certain mileage to be sold here. If oil companies held so much sway over the federal government, then why the hell has the station wagon been a dead design for 20 years now? The only reason it doesn't exist is because the federal government said cars have to get X mpg and full size station wagons don't.

[dannno]

Guys, this is the FIRST SENTENCE of the article in the OP.
[COLOR=#111111]

This is the claim snopes is addressing:


What the original article is claiming, and what Snopes is debunking, is the idea that the Feds are forbidding the car because it is too fuel-efficient.
I'm not sure how this can be made any more clear.

And Snopes then goes on to state that no, it's not because it's too fuel-efficient at all. It's because of safety regulations.
Then a consensus appeared in THIS thread stating the same.
It seems crystal clear to me: the idea that the federal government bans things because oil companies would lose profits is quite simply crap.

Everything the federal government has done regarding fuel efficiency is actually the exact opposite: they pass mandates stating that cars have to get a certain mileage to be sold here. If oil companies held so much sway over the federal government, then why the hell has the station wagon been a dead design for 20 years now? The only reason it doesn't exist is because the federal government said cars have to get X mpg and full size station wagons don't.

Um, there are some major logical fallacies here...

If I were to claim that hemp was prohibited by the federal government in the 1930s because of the hemp industry which was about to cut into the profits of the timber industry, snopes could write a debunking piece showing that no, in fact hemp was banned because it was related to marijuana and they believed that marijuana was dangerous.

However if you look more closely, you realize that the people who were creating the anti-marijuana propaganda were in fact funded by the timber industry.

[69360]

Meh, I will pass on the 120k car.

You can buy a used 90's Geo Metro XFI for a couple thousand that gets 50 MPG on normal gasoline, no hybrid, no electric, no TDI.

[DamianTV]

Shut Up, Conspiracy Theorist!

(it seemed relevant...)

[RPtotheWH]

Oh man, how long until the greenies are freaking out saying we are using up all the water? We know CA can't have anything that runs on water.

[Suzu]

we shouldn't be 'elated' to get a new car with 35 mpg

I had a 1984 Nissan that got 50 MPG on average. it had a 4-cylinder engine. Six years later, a much smaller car, the Subaru Justy with a 3-cylinder engine got at best 40 MPG. That never made sense to me. Both cars had 5-speed manual transmissions.

[Suzu]

You can buy a used 90's Geo Metro XFI for a couple thousand that gets 50 MPG on normal gasoline, no hybrid, no electric, no TDI.

The Geo Metro is a piece of junk. You'll spend so much on maintenance that it negates the gas savings.

[fisharmor]

Um, there are some major logical fallacies here...

If I were to claim that hemp was prohibited by the federal government in the 1930s because of the hemp industry which was about to cut into the profits of the timber industry, snopes could write a debunking piece showing that no, in fact hemp was banned because it was related to marijuana and they believed that marijuana was dangerous.

However if you look more closely, you realize that the people who were creating the anti-marijuana propaganda were in fact funded by the timber industry.

I'm not sure why you quoted my text, but yes, there are some major logical fallacies there.