300 MPG Car Is Not Allowed In America Because It’s Too Efficient

[Elixir]

Volkswagen’s New 300 MPG Car

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.

Was going to put this in "science", but it's more of a political issue than a scientific one if this article is correct - or even close.
Thoughts?

 

[Derec]

Maybe you should have put it in Pseudoscience?

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.

Except that it's not true.
Volkswagen XL1: 'World's most efficient car' makes its US debut
Also the "50mpg" is neither a myth nor is anyone claiming it's a hard limit. There is just a limited energy content in a gallon of gasoline or diesel, maximum thermodynamic efficiency is limited by the Carnot theorem and there are demands on vehicle size, features, safety and price that impose practical limits.

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.

Seldom have I read such BS and I hang around in the Politics forum. Water would cool the cylinder right down, given water's high heat capacity even if it is heated up by the exhaust. That would just kill thermodynamic efficiency (see Carnot) without gaining you anything - the energy to expand this "steam" must come from somewhere - namely the combustion process that water doesn't contribute to. Water injection has been used in some high performance engines that are operating on the limit to cool them down and increase compression ratio before "knocking". It has nothing to do with steam expanding "for free" and pushing pistons along and it would do nothing to increase efficiency in normal, small car engines.
I see this tendency to imagine old technologies as a panacea. It's just silly at this point given how much real technology is used to improve efficiency.

But I was obviously wrong with my calculations, because they were in fact over 2x conservative. The 100 mpg carburetor was indeed a reality, and the Volkswagen XL1 proves it with only straightforward nothing special technology we have had since the 1970′s.

Cars haven't been using carburetors for 30 years for a reason and that reason is not a conspiracy by oil companies to suppress miracles.
XL1 certainly does not use a carbureted engine and neither does it use water injection. Also the "straightforward nothing special technology" involves
- very small (0.8L) 2 cylinder diesel engine. Note that diesels are more efficient than Otto (gasoline) engines and diesel fuel is a little more energy dense than gasoline by volume (so a bit higher mpg would be expected just from that).
- hybrid electric technology
- extreme lightweight construction using exotic materials like carbon fibre, Magnesium and ceramics, resulting in a weight well less than a ton, including batteries.
- aerodynamics optimized for slipperiness including covered real wheels, no side mirrors (uses cameras instead) and overall small size giving a tiny cross-section area . That also makes it a two seater with seats staggered somewhat to make it as narrow as possible.

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.

More like 200 mpg without charging. "Over 1,700 pounds" is a joke - that's extremely low for a road legal car and especially a hybrid one with all the batteries. "Normal tires"? It uses hard "low rolling resistance" rather thin (in the front) tires. Let's just say I don't expect it would do too well on the track.

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.

Given aerodynamics optimized for efficiency I don't expect there to be too much downforce at speed. Combined with thin, rock-hard tires in the front I'd be nervous even getting close to 100 mph in that thing.
And while I think it has much cool technology that will find its was in more useful VW cars this is by no means "the car we should have always had". It's simply not a very useful car for most people (O also expect it will cost a fortune) and those that can get by with a pricy two-seater mid-engined car will opt for a sporty roadster anyway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And how will such a car fare in an accident??

 

[SLD]

Oh please. Another bullshit conspiracy nut with tons of speculation and no facts to back it up.

Never in America?

View attachment 93

Oops.

It's basically a concept car. Just 250 will be made. All for Europe. You wouldn't want one here. It's for two people, and shorter than a Lamborghini. About as expensive too.

http://jalopnik.com/the-mpg-conspiracy-theory-is-crap-and-heres-why-1562574926

In all Big Oil sucks. But you don't need imaginary conspiracy theories to come up with valid critiques of them. There's no reason for VW to be in cahoots with them.

SLD

 

[Sheshbazzar]

In the realities of a highly competitive auto industry the achievement of a high MPG rating is a huge sales advantage. If Volkswagen or any other manufacturer could produce an acceptable and marketable vehicle that would attain even 80 mpg, they would certainly be doing so.
There are many reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with greed or politics for why high motor vehicle fuel mileage is difficult to attain in a vehicle that would be acceptable and safe for use by the general public. The technology simply is not there.

Solar power would theoretically produce unlimited mileage with zero pollution, but who is willing to purchase a vehicle that can only be used when the sun was shining? or would be willing to pay the purchase price, and the daily 'price' of a dozen or more other impracticalities.

Had to edit my response a lot as others beat me to the significant points. But I'm sure glad to see that intelligent persons are present.

 

[Derec]

And how will such a car fare in an accident??

I would imagine it would not do bad at all, especially for a vehicle that size. Bulk is not everything.

 

[dockeen]

I am not certain gas is yet expensive enough for MPG to be a driving force for the bulk of the driving folk. On my commute I see plenty of pointless lead footing going on in SUVs. In discussions with people about how they could change their driving habits just a bit and get more MPG, they indicate that driving that way is no fun.

Now, if gas were, say, 15 dollars per gallon, that might change.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

I would imagine it would not do bad at all, especially for a vehicle that size. Bulk is not everything.

Hmmm. if I had the choice in a matchup between my 5,567 lbs. GMC Savana 2500 LWB, and a 1700 lb tin can, I know which one I'd rather be behind the wheel of.

 

[Derec]

I did not see the blasted article went on below the pic. Oh well then, on to more deconstruction.

If the XL1 was equipped with an 18 gallon fuel tank, and you did all highway driving, you could fill it up with an oil change and when the next change was due you could change the oil and keep driving without filling up for and additional 2,400 miles.

Not to mention that an 18 gal fuel tank would pose packaging problems with something this compact and would increase weight.

Many of the publications which speak about the XL1 did so when it was a concept car predicted to get right around 250 MPG. But in 2014, after extensive testing of cars now produced, test drivers report economy above 300 mpg under the correct driving conditions, which would be close to sea level, a flat straight road with no stops, and reasonable speeds.

We should test all cars like that. We could exceed latest CAFTA standard for free.

Even it’s far less efficient 85 mpg non hyrid full size station wagon counterpart – the Jetta TDI blue motion wagon (Img Carscoops.com), which is made in America is banned from American roads. And I would like to ask why? What excuse is there for banning highly efficient cars from American roads?

Jetta TDI is certainly available in US. Bluemotion I don't know - but I see no reason why a variant would be "banned" in US. Especially not when pure electrics like Nissan Leaf are allowed and even get subsidized.

One excuse is that “they don’t meet American crash test standards”, but the real truth is that the Fed simply refused to ever crash test them because of what they are, in Europe even the XL1 is considered to be a very safe car in crashes,

If you only build 250 you may not want to offer precious vehicles to be smashed by US crash test people. So it's a business decision, not a conspiracy.

and the Jetta station wagon is obviously even safer and you CAN buy the non TDI versions of the exact same car in America. The only thing different is the engine, WHAT GIVES?

Again, I would say it is a business decision. If there were enough demand, they'd bring it here. For example the bluemotion version has a smaller engine than the regular TDI. Again, no reason to suspect a conspiracy.

We will never see truly clean running and efficient cars in America, because the FED has mandated that American cars be intentionally stifled by horribly fuel wasting parts that add to the cost of the vehicle and do absolutely NO GOOD, how much more efficient and clean can you get than 300 mpg?

Like for example spare tires? Yes, the bluemotion Jetta sacrifices the spare tire on the altar of weight saving. I would say the safety of being able to replace a flat tire on side of the road is worth fractional mpg decrease, don't you think?

The Xl1 is SO MUCH the car that the oil companies do not want that there will only be 2,000 made. And no production line was set up for them, they are all hand made. And irrelevant “lightweight” parts are added to the frame, consisting of carbon fiber and other exotic materials to add to the mystique.

XL1 is a concept car that will have a very limited production run. 250 rather than 2000 although more production is possible if there is demand of course. But it started as a concept car, plain and simple.

ut the materials and production limits are a load of BUNK, the car STILL weighs over 1,700 pounds, if it weighed just 100 pounds more everything exotic could be removed, because “exotic materials” are not doing much anyway, they are just marketing.

Bullshit. Weight savings due to exotic materials result in more than 100 lbs weight saving. 1,700 pounds is very light actually and much of it is batteries for the hybrid electric drive.

Cost is not the issue either Even after being hand made with “exotic” materials in an intentionally limited edition, the Xl1 still only costs $60,000. There is a lot more of a market for this car than 2,000 units at that price, have no doubt, this car is being held back on purpose.

It will actually be much more than that ($143k according to googling "XL1 price"). But even if it wasn't, for $70k you can have an entry level Tesla S which is a much bigger car.
If it was "held back on purpose" why did they build it in the first place?

If it can be hand made for that little, automated assembly lines could do it for half. And if a 1,700 plus pound Xl1 can get 300 mpg, a 3,400 pound Chevy Truck should be able to deliver at least 150 MPG

Because fuel economy is a linear function of weight.

 

[Derec]

Hmmm. if I had the choice in a matchup between my 5,567 lbs. GMC Savana 2500 LWB, and a 1700 lb tin can, I know which one I'd rather be behind the wheel of.

And what mpg do you get with that tank of yours?

 

[Sheshbazzar]

And what mpg do you get with that tank of yours?

EPA rating of 15 City / 20 Hwy, seems fairly accurate, and as long as I keep it below 65 it regularly returns around 18-20 mpg even carrying a payload. Best vehicle, and lowest overall operating costs of any I've ever owned.

 

[Derec]

EPA rating of 15 City / 20 Hwy, seems fairly accurate, and as long as I keep it below 65 it regularly returns around 18-20 mpg even carrying a payload.

Not as bad as I thought but not good either. To go back to your assertion, I doubt it is significantly safer than modern smaller cars. Maybe in 1 on 1 collisions with your behemoth but there are many other aspects of safety, such as stability, stopping distance, how it behaves if it hits something non-yielding like a tree or concrete wall (truck frames tend to be very rigid and thus impart greater g-forces).

Best vehicle, and lowest overall operating costs of any I've ever owned.

I shudder to think what else you've owned.

 

[dockeen]

EPA rating of 15 City / 20 Hwy, seems fairly accurate, and as long as I keep it below 65 it regularly returns around 18-20 mpg even carrying a payload. Best vehicle, and lowest overall operating costs of any I've ever owned.

It is interesting that my Tacoma does better on MPG in town than on the highway at speed as well.

 

[Rich Brown]

It's a bunk article. Was this a test?
http://jalopnik.com/the-mpg-conspiracy-theory-is-crap-and-heres-why-1562574926

Rich

 

[Sheshbazzar]

Not as bad as I thought but not good either. To go back to your assertion, I doubt it is significantly safer than modern smaller cars. Maybe in 1 on 1 collisions with your behemoth but there are many other aspects of safety, such as stability, stopping distance, how it behaves if it hits something non-yielding like a tree or concrete wall (truck frames tend to be very rigid and thus impart greater g-forces).

I shudder to think what else you've owned.

Really the only type of vehicle that is adaptable and practical for my lifestyle and business needs.
Hauling a 24' enclosed trailer, have already transported around 32,000 lbs of goods and materials over 6000 miles this year. Not going to do that with any 1700 lb econobox.
My other now semi-retired van has given me 17 years of dependable service, and has lasted over 550,000 miles. It has been used almost exclusively for hauling a loaded 30' trailer.
There is fuel economy, and there are greater economies of scale. Econoboxes will likely never attain transportation efficiencies that will allow them to replace Semis.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Regarding Derec scoffing at the weight, the first gen Honda Insight is about 1850 pounds.

This car is price tagged at nearly $100k. Volkswagon is making fewer than 300. This is an asterisk car, not an actual car like the Insight or Prius.

And how will such a car fare in an accident??

Haven't read about a single person dying in a Honda Insight yet.

 

[dockeen]

Last I saw, the Prius was not a money maker for Toyota either.

 

[Elixir]

Because fuel economy is a linear function of weight.

Well, it should be close it the same technology is applied to similar enough vehicles... no, wait
Seriously though - is the water injection technology really employed in the VW, and if so, to what effect?

 

[Sheshbazzar]

Well, it should be close it the same technology is applied to similar enough vehicles... no, wait
Seriously though - is the water injection technology really employed in the VW, and if so, to what effect?

I suspect it is nothing more than another bit of the author's imported baloney.

 

[Derec]

Really the only type of vehicle that is adaptable and practical for my lifestyle and business needs.

No problem. I know many people need such larger vehicles. I was just responding to your implication that size and weight is be all and end all of safety.

Hauling a 24' enclosed trailer, have already transported around 32,000 lbs of goods and materials over 6000 miles this year. Not going to do that with any 1700 lb econobox.

No, but I am sure a lot of the technology will make it into VWs range including their vans. The "1700 econobox" was developed with a symbolic economy target of 1L/100km in mind. They actually had another 1L concept which seated two behind each other fighter jet style. That this new one is more practical than the old one is a testament of advanced technology. That there is at least some demand to buy them is a testament of consumer receptiveness to fuel sipping cars.

There is fuel economy, and there are greater economies of scale. Econoboxes will likely never attain transportation efficiencies that will allow them to replace Semis.

But that doesn't mean that semis must be powered by antiquated technology. Take the Walmart concept truck. Advanced powertrains and materials are applicable to small cars, semis and everything in between.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, it should be close it the same technology is applied to similar enough vehicles... no, wait

There are many factors, power, gearing, dimensions, shape, use that all affect fuel economy. The author used a truck which will have disadvantageous aerodynamics due to the open bed and torque requirements for hauling/towing that affect things like gearing. So no it's not that simple.

Seriously though - is the water injection technology really employed in the VW, and if so, to what effect?

No it isn't.

- - - Updated - - -

Regarding Derec scoffing at the weight, the first gen Honda Insight is about 1850 pounds.

I was scoffing at the weight?

This car is price tagged at nearly $100k. Volkswagon is making fewer than 300. This is an asterisk car, not an actual car like the Insight or Prius.
Haven't read about a single person dying in a Honda Insight yet.

Actually more, according to google. This is a concept car that they decided to make a very limited production run. But it was designed with one goal in mind - the symbolic 1L/100km consumption rate. While the car itself is not terribly practical much of the technology is and I am sure it will find itself into much of their range.