My Next Car Will Get 235 MPG
by Ted Slater on 07/06/2009 at 12:42 PM
This morning, while catching up on my blog reading, I came across a fascinating subcompact Volkswagen, one that's been in development for a few years now.
Turns out that it's no longer a mere concept car, but is scheduled to be sold in China next year.
In addition to getting amazing gas mileage, the L1 can go about 75 MPH, will take you about 400 miles on a single tank, can accommodate a driver and a passenger, and has a Chinese sticker price of about $600. [Update: The actual price will likely be much higher.]
Not bad for a German-designed VW.
Yeah, it's basically a motorcycle wrapped in a car-like body. But unlike a motorcycle, you could drive it to work in the rain and not get soaked. And unlike an electric car, it'll be a snap to fuel up and go. And it'd pay for itself in less than a year.
I've only just heard about this tiny car. But I've already got a lot of respect for it. What a perfect way to get from home to work and back again!
Sadly, this non-tree-hugger is likely to have to wait many years for them to become available here in the States....
1. obewan said the following at 12:53 PM on Jul 6:
Sadly, this non-tree-hugger is likely to have to wait many years for them to become available here in the States....(Ted)
-------------------------------
I don't think the DOT or NHTSC will help either. If it is classified as a motorcycle there is more hope, but if they call it a "car" there will be a lot of safety red tape.
This is not the first motorcycle car though. Similar ones have been sold in the States in the past.
2. Jason said the following at 1:14 PM on Jul 6:
The article you linked to has been updated to show that the original price was wrong and it really should have been ~$31,000.
3. Dan Gill said the following at 1:25 PM on Jul 6:
You couldn't begin to make the seats in that vehicle for $600. From your own source:
Pricing is expected to fall somewhere between €20,000 and €30,000 ($31,400 to $47,100). Assembly is tipped to take place in VW's prototype shop, which can produce 1,000 cars per year at full tilt, reports CAR.
4. Ted Slater said the following at 1:41 PM on Jul 6:
Yup, it looks like they've updated that site with a new price tag since we published this blog. Not quite as exciting now. Hmf.
Initial prices will probably be as high as $45k, but prices would drop by tens of thousands of dollars once the carbonfibre monocoque becomes cheaper to manufacture and the vehicle goes into mass production.
I think the details are still muddy, though. If they're scheduled to be sold in Shanghai, China next year, I naturally assumed they'd be made there as well. And so they could be manufactured and sold for very little money, perhaps with a subsidy from their government. And that more than 1,000 would be available.
That's a problem with blogging about something that's still in development....
I wonder where that VW prototype shop is located....
5. Doug Rowles said the following at 1:44 PM on Jul 6:
It is amazing to me that we can be so far advanced in technology but yet allow the government to keep us so far away from it.
6. DEH said the following at 1:50 PM on Jul 6:
According to one of your source articles, the cost is actually predicted to be $30,000+ rather than $600, which makes me sad because I'm ready for a "green" car that doesn't require mortgaging my first child to purchase. Oh well. It would probably cost that much in the U.S. anyway, once it went through all of the pertinent safety tests. :)
7. JB said the following at 2:19 PM on Jul 6:
Obewan,
I don't know, I think the government ensuring my vehicle won't detonate and engulf me in flames if it's rear ended seems like the kind of red tape I can deal with.
8. Mrs. Spit said the following at 2:38 PM on Jul 6:
Well, even if you don't get that one, a diesel Rabbit still has great mileage . . . .
So says the owner of a diesel jetta wagon (there's no way to put an english mastiff in a rabbit. None.)
9. BDB said the following at 3:16 PM on Jul 6:
Mrs. Spit (#8) wrote:
>>(there's no way to put an english mastiff in a rabbit. None.) <<
Well, with the possible exception of the convertible.
10. mary kate said the following at 3:26 PM on Jul 6:
yay for VW! just bought an 07 rabbit (not diesel), and i love it.
11. Kellie said the following at 4:46 PM on Jul 6:
Is it me or does that car look like a coffin?
12. Brandon said the following at 5:36 PM on Jul 6:
I drive a diesel Jetta and get 54MPG at 60-70 MPH. You can get a used one for around 15K. It gets better gas mileage than my motorcycle.
13. Becca said the following at 6:02 PM on Jul 6:
I drive an '09 Jetta and I get over 400 miles on a single tank. Yes that is highway miles but I tell ya my husband's Jeep doesn't get anywhere near that.
14. brx said the following at 6:30 PM on Jul 6:
High MPG vehicles are not at all difficult - so long as consumers are willing to compromise crash safety and costs. :)
Monocoque carbon-fiber is great for strength and light weight but is very difficult to manufacture at low cost because laying the fiber and resin is labor intensive. Maybe someday demand will be high enough to develop the complex robotic handling to do it. ...oh, but carbon-fiber chassis aren't very recyclable...
Compressed-air technologies are wonderful for achieving fast tank fill-up, maximum brake-energy harvesting, and ultimately, very high MPG. However, getting dangerously high pressure compressed gas systems through US DOT safety regulations looks pretty difficult.
Grace, peace & innovation...
15. Chris said the following at 7:23 PM on Jul 6:
JB writes:
Obewan,
I don't know, I think the government ensuring my vehicle won't detonate and engulf me in flames if it's rear ended seems like the kind of red tape I can deal with.
Well said! I love how people complain about red tape when it comes to government regulation of cars.
People who love to berate red tape should hop over to Youtube and search for crash test results for Chinese-made cars.
Now see how you'd feel driving one of 'em.
Yes, VW is the designer, but I can tell you from personal experience in dealing with Chinese fabricators that you get what you pay for....
16. DannieA said the following at 8:02 PM on Jul 6:
yeah VW. I love it! Like mary kate I too have an 07 rabbit, stick shift and love every second of it!
viva VW!
17. obewan said the following at 9:43 PM on Jul 6:
#15. Chris said the following at 7:23 PM on Jul 6
Obewan,
I don't know, I think the government ensuring my vehicle won't detonate and engulf me in flames if it's rear ended seems like the kind of red tape I can deal with.
Well said! I love how people complain about red tape when it comes to government regulation of cars.
----------------------------------
You guys are putting words in my mouth that I don't completely agree with.
I was attempting to draw a distinction between a car and a motorcycle, and hope the government does the same.
If a person buys a motorcycle, they "buy into" all the associated risk. No amount of big brother "protections" can save them in the event of a tragic accident.
I am OK with car safety regulation, but only because a person who chooses a car over a motorcycle may be doing so to be "safer".
And there are limits to what the government can do. I used to work in the auto industry in the area of safety and body integrity. It is true that the industry accepts a certain statistical number of deaths and chooses them over "safer" cars because the cost of litigation is cheaper than the expense of building additional safety. As a case in point, Mercedes and Volvo put 25-30% more spot welds on their structures then the Big-3, and their crash safety reflects it! The cost of tooling a robotic production line is $5000 per spot weld, and most cars have between 3500 and 4000 spot welds. (They used to have 5000-6000, but took some out to save cost.)
I got over most of my moral heartburn when it occurred to me that the “moral” answer is to not be involved in an accident. I suppose that conclusion does not account for rear end collisions though, but rollovers are the ones that usually maim and kill the most people.
18. Sadie said the following at 10:17 PM on Jul 6:
Here is a question: If the vision and original mission of a particular car manufacture was questionable then should we buy the car even if it gets great gas mileage, last forever, and is economical?
My ex-fiance and I had a rather heated discussion about this very topic. He hated the fact that I wanted to own a VW when my existing car no longer worked because Adolf Hitler helped plan the original VWs and intended it to be a car of the people. I argued for the value and economy of VWs. I have always wondered what other people would have said.
19. BDB said the following at 10:33 PM on Jul 6:
Yep. Safety is important cars. I'm sure Government Motors will come out with something similar that adds a few thousand pounds of steel to make it safer. Like, I dunno, a Buick.
And then fine you for buying it because of low MPG.
20. BDB said the following at 2:57 AM on Jul 7:
Sadie (#18) wrote:
>>because Adolf Hitler helped plan the original VWs and intended it to be a car of the people. I argued for the value and economy of VWs. I have always wondered what other people would have said.<<
Um...the guys who did that aren't the ones building the cars you buy today.
Mitsubishi built the A6M Zero fighter aircraft for the Japanese.
The BMW logo with the blue and white? That's a reminder of the company's history - also building fighter aircraft. There are worse allegations from the WWII era for BMW.
If you go back far enough in time, you'll become paralyzed by all the conflicts in history. In the case of WWII companies, for the most part they were blown to smithereens by bombing. The modern companies of today were really built out of the wreckage of those companies.
Technically, the U.S. system of freeways was inspired in part by another one of Hitler's projects, the Autobahans. I presume that in order to be internally consistent, your ex would only drive on surface streets and never on the freeway, right?
It's probably best to just invoke Godwin's Law to end the argument.
21. T.Smith said the following at 6:56 AM on Jul 7:
It seems the U.S. never receives the most efficient cars. That car would be a dream.
My ex-fiance and I had a rather heated discussion about this very topic. He hated the fact that I wanted to own a VW when my existing car no longer worked because Adolf Hitler helped plan the original VWs and intended it to be a car of the people. I argued for the value and economy of VWs. I have always wondered what other people would have said.
I agree with you: whatever is productive and efficient.
22. obewan said the following at 7:12 AM on Jul 7:
If you go back far enough in time, you'll become paralyzed by all the conflicts in history. In the case of WWII companies, for the most part they were blown to smithereens by bombing. The modern companies of today were really built out of the wreckage of those companies. (BDB)
----------------------------------
That is so true. When I worked in Detroit, I learned the untold history of Ford. Henry Ford was friends with Adolph Hitler, and had factories in Germany before the war. When we invaded during and after D-Day, our Army met the German army head on - some of the German army were driving trucks with the Ford logo.
But if you really want to open a can of worms, you could check into arms sales. How many times have we sold cruise missiles to Middle East nations who have turned around and used them against us? I suppose if we are smart we can include Trojan Horse electronics that disable them against NATO forces though. LOL
23. Dan Gill said the following at 9:32 AM on Jul 7:
How many times have we sold cruise missiles to Middle East nations who have turned around and used them against us?
Ummmm . . . None.
24. obewan said the following at 10:15 AM on Jul 7:
#23. Dan Gill said the following at 9:32 AM on Jul 7
How many times have we sold cruise missiles to Middle East nations who have turned around and used them against us?
Ummmm . . . None.
------------------------------------
I guess I am confused. Maybe I mean anti-aircraft rockets and artillery.
Didn't we sell a lot to Iraq that we later regretted? And I am talking about NATO hardware too. Then there was the US ship sunk by a French Exocet missile during the Falkland Islands war, but that was not Middle East I guess.
25. Dan Gill said the following at 11:01 AM on Jul 7:
We gave Stinger missiles to the Afghans when Russia occupied them. We have sold (and just abandoned) artillery in lots of places, but that's readily available from any number of nations. We sold F-14s to Iran when the Shah was in power, but they now sit useless because of lack of maintenance and spare parts.
The French sold Exocets to Argentina, who used them against the British, not agains the U.S. I suppose one could call that a cruise missile, since it does cruise, but it's really an anti-ship missile. But we didn't sell them to Argentina, and they haven't been used against us.
I don't know of any times we've sold cruise missiles (Tomahawks) to anyone who has used them against us.
26. brx said the following at 12:15 PM on Jul 7:
Re: Sadie [#18];
If a person has done some sinful things, then everything that person is or has ever been associated with, is sinful also... that is not sound reasoning.
'A quality, affordable, car of the people.' That is a GOOD vision. A.Hitler's error was that he obviously meant only his select people rather than all people.
My thoughts on buying decisions: buy the superior product and use it for the good of the Kingdom of God. If a company claims they should receive your business because they are 'Christian' and yet do not produce superior product, one might question whether they are really 'annointed for business.'
Re: BDB [#20]; first I've heard of Godwin's Law - and it's hilariously true; thanks.
Grace, peace & excellence in the marketplace
27. obewan said the following at 12:37 PM on Jul 7:
#25. Dan Gill said the following at 11:01 AM on Jul 7
The French sold Exocets to Argentina, who used them against the British, not against the U.S.
----------------------------------
Thanks for that clarification. I learned the same shortly after posting but it was too late to correct. I have a bad habit of getting the facts 1/2 right unless I Google everything. My memory is fading I guess. I should have said NATO forces instead of US ship I guess. My point is that NATO and the UN sometimes confuse the whole friends and enemies thing in our world, and things can always change.
I had no trouble buying a Japanese car since it was a superior product, but my Union/Democrat/WWII Air Force Veteran Uncle was offended by my decision since he had bitter memories from the war. I think he even bought American TVs as long as he was able to get them.
28. BDB said the following at 1:22 PM on Jul 7:
The U.S. did sell F-14 Air Superiority fighter aircraft to the Shah of Iran. When the Islamic Revolution took hold, the fire-control systems for the long-range air-to-air missles were mysteriously disabled - one presumes by the American contractors that were servicing them. They could still be flown and had working radar, but they could not be used for long-range air intercept.
Most of the Iraqi equipment was French and Russian. To my knowledge, the only nation the U.S. has sold Tomohawk cruise missles to is Great Britain, which has test fired them from a submarine. They are quite expensive.
29. BDB said the following at 1:29 PM on Jul 7:
When the U.S.S. Stark was attacked by an anti-ship missile by Iraq, it was a French-built Exocet fired from a French-built Mirage. Seem that Saddam Hussein got away with it at first.
Not unlike how the weak response after the U.S.S. Cole bombing invited future attacks.
The Navy has done well under Obama - first the SEAL snipers with the pirates and more recently the destroyer that shadowed the North Korean cargo ship until it turned around and went home. Perhaps Obama will get a reputation for letting the Navy be firm.
30. Dan Gill said the following at 8:55 AM on Jul 8:
"The U.S. did sell F-14 Air Superiority fighter aircraft to the Shah of Iran. When the Islamic Revolution took hold, the fire-control systems for the long-range air-to-air missles were mysteriously disabled - one presumes by the American contractors that were servicing them. They could still be flown and had working radar, but they could not be used for long-range air intercept."
And now they sit, unable to fly. As they have for a long time.
31. John said the following at 11:40 AM on Jul 9:
"Obewan,
I don't know, I think the government ensuring my vehicle won't detonate and engulf me in flames if it's rear ended seems like the kind of red tape I can deal with."
Right, just like they did an amazing job of "ensuring" consumer products from China wouldn't make us sick or kill us.
Or preventing terrorist from murdering us.
Or getting us out of this recession.
Man, what would we do without that wonderful red tape?
Do you really think that without government "ensuring" this that nothing would prevent a company from building such cars?
Because if a company built cars like that they'd make millions?
Give me a break.
32. BDB said the following at 1:33 PM on Jul 9:
Dan (#30) - I think they just disabled the ability to use the Phoenix air-to-air missles. According to this article, Iran was able to field a couple of squadrons during the Iran-Iraq war. Of course, they haven't gotten spare parts since the Arms-for-Hostages deal under President Reagan. My guess is that they used basic heat-seeking missles during the Iran-Iraq war.
It's an interesting balance point - selling arms to oil-producing nations to keep oil supplies safe and thus keep the price down.