Volkswagen's sleek XL1 concept car will actually get produced

Unlike most concept cars, Volkswagen's XL1 will be making that difficult jump from fantasy to reality. It's going to get produced, and when it does, it'll be the most efficient production car on the planet.

Volkswagen's Formula XL1 Concept is a plug-in hybrid, meaning that it's capable of running on battery power alone for awhile, and then if you need the extra range, it's got a seriously tiny two cylinder diesel engine that can extend its range. Reportedly, it gets a whopping 260 miles per gallon, which would make it the most efficient vehicle to to be available to the public.

This public availability was just announced yesterday, and Volkswagen says that they'll be producing about a hundred XL1s, to be made available first in Germany and later in the U.S., if there are any left. This is obviously not very many vehicles, but in order to sell any at all, Volkswagen has to put them through crash tests and emissions tests and make sure that they're not going to fall to pieces within the first few miles, which is a big investment of time and money when you're talking about a car that's currently just a concept. This could imply that if everything goes well, Volkswagen might consider kicking production of the XL1 up a notch sometime down the line.

All this reminds me a little bit of what happened with the Chevy Volt, although Volkswagen certainly isn't promising the same level of production. What I'm worried about is that the XL1 is going to get its designed nerfed in the same way that the Volt did (going from this pile of awesome to meh), in order to make it more palletable for consumers, among other things. The XL1 is a futuristic car, and keeping it looking that way would definitely be a good thing.

Lots more futuristic pics below.

The design is fine except for the concealed rear tears. Im guessing to reverse and see out the back you gotta use that monitor with some type of rear camera set up along with the side mirrors.

That along with the fact that it is a hybrid will make this one expensive car. Either they are going to strip all those fancy technical bits to make it more commercially viable for the public or this car is going to be marketed directly to the rich douchebags with a conscious demographic.

I am not big on the idea of hybrids. And I doubt rich douchebags care for them either.

Heh, I was like, "where are the side mirrors?"

With this car, I think it's going to be for the rich. Sigh. But hey, I guess it's another step forward for the conservation direction for automobiles, and affordability.

The use of hybrids is just delusional, conscious consumerism. In my opinion hybrids do not help the environment in the way they are advertised. The only reason why people buy hybrids is that they believe they are buying into something more then a car. They are buying this car for mother earth, and for themselves just a little. They are buying their redemption from such a consumerist act. Automobile manufactures know about this new trend of conscious consumerism and the ignorance of the mass majority. And they are using it to make an extra buck off of you while you believe you are actually helping the environment.

Firstly, hybrids are not more efficient or cleaner. On the surface they appear to be that way with there high tech duel engines. That however is also one off your problem right there. Your engine is twice the weight. This will add on to your mpg to the point that buying a small shitty honda might be better if you are truly want to be eco conscious. Also the statistics released on mpg from hybrid manufactures often come under scrutiny of cherry picky there results and such. I wouldn't be surprised.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/used_car_reviews/article3552994.ece

And for running on electricity half the time. Where does our electricity come from? More than 85% of all primary energy on earth comes from fossil fuels. Meaning that nice clean energy you juice your hybrid up with actually came from some smoggy dirty coal plant. Well shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant

And for a last point the batteries themselves. Most early models of hybrids use lead-acid batteries, they are still very popular. The manufacturing of these batteries release heavy metals into the environment which is already a separate problem in its own. Along with the other chemicals in the batteries they are almost as much of a problem as the smog released by normal cars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_acid_batteries

Basically people are getting suckered into a new form of capitalism. Capitalism with a face. The Idea that we can fix problems caused through capitalist greed through more capitalistic greed is absurd. However without knowledge of what we can truly to do help problems which may not even be as bad as mass hysteria would like us to believe, we wallow in ignorance.

We are using too much energy. We need to drop consumption while simultaneously look for clean alternatives in a rational way. We need to stop falling for such obvious conscious consumeristic shams and educate ourselves on products and whether or not the are truly useful.

Hybrids are a crock of shit.

As Doug Stanhope said, "The next time you see a hybrid car with a baby seat in the back, smash out the windows fight club style. Steal the baby seat and leave a condom."

/rant


Sorry about that. Hybrids and the whole idea behind the society that has produced a need for them and all this "think green" shit really grates on me.

That's quite valid.

Although I understand that the vehicle and technology themselves are quite awful, don't you believe that we should steadily adjust to improving out technology, rather than remaining with the old combustion-on-wheels? Coal and oil is inevitably going to increase in price and become a rarity, and although the materials we have today may be as bad as the product of the conventional engine, would the economy not slowly adjust itself into researching and developing new devices and methods of furthering itself away from oil reliability?

This all ties in with economic theories: if there is demand and interest for some good, then surely there would be more focus on improving the industry and overall consumer wisdom (eventually, anyways)? I think without any place to begin, there is no end, and for this industry there has to be some sort of expressed interest with such technology for the companies to even consider innovating away from oil and petroleum. They're the money-makers, anyhow.

I don't think we are at the beginning. There has always been a market for eco friendly products. Now however hysteria is making this market explode. There is nothing wrong with that itself, except for the reason for the increase. I don't think irrational fear will further any meaningful increase in technologies associated with enviromentalism.

I don't dispute your point on coal and oil however I think the direness of the situation has been a little more blown out of proportion then it is needed. And I agree with you, improving industry and consumer wisdom is an excellent idea. However I don't believe that consumers are truly happy with finding the truth to their consumer habits or oe the implications of finding the true solution.

We are consumers. We consume, capitalism is based on that principle. To fix our environmental issues we need to consume less. Not consume efficiently or wisely but consume less altogether. With the ever increasing population problem it wont matter how efficient and clean our cars and such will become. Do I think this is possible? No. Do I think any major car manufactures think this is possible? No. Do I think the average consumer thinks this is possible? Maybe, but in the end I think they rather keep buying products with the false sense of retribution from their environmental harm instead of cutting back on their established comfy lifestyles.

Hybrids are a delusion. It doesn't matter what technology is put in them because the fundamental idea behind them is not to help, but to make you think they help. I don't think our environmental research dollars should be invested into products of this principle. It will only encourage more products of its type and further brush the population into ignorance.

Hah, says you and this ridiculous winter! Blame it all on global warming (and perhaps Earth's natural tendency for variating global temperatures, amirite)! :p

I believe many of us know that, to some degree, overpopulation is a dangerous and realistic problem; however, I'm seeing that we don't take action upon that. I think that's a natural human tendency: to reproduce and continue to do so in lengthening their chances of survival. Humans enjoy the company of others, especially if they're family, so there's no surprise there that we continue to do so. To extend our blood, our DNA is ultimately the goal.

I think we like to use other problems as placebos so we can redirect the issue elsewhere, and so we're not seeing the immediate cause-and-effect of our excessive behavior with reproduction. Maybe it has something to do with making a realistic choice--people can't see that over-extending their family is harmful, but they do see that vehicles are wasteful machines that can be made more efficiently.

There's some correlation to the tendency to go, "hey, H2O cars are a great idea! If we can create a car that uses water as its sole fuel, I'm sure that would be better than conventional technology." However, electric vehicles are far more realistic and implementable than cars that run on water. Attention is sometimes misguided and attracted to some far-out technology, rather than something that is probably more affordable and easy to manage and progress at the given time.

So, while we're at it, do you think electric vehicles are in that same category, or is there a solid difference between hybrids and EVs? To my understanding, all a hybrid is, is simply having both electricity and fuel at once.

The problem isn't with cars. Either we are having emissions from the car itself or the factory that generates electricity for the cars. As I have stated before. The energy market has seen little to no ecological improvement and we are still transfixed on fossil fuel energy. The market for it is also still growing even with the spread of hydro and wind energy. It is not enough, to much attention is being given to the small things like recycling and vehicles when it should be directed to the energy industry.

We have the technology to fix it. We already have nuclear energy, which is the cleanest most bountiful source of energy we have. The problem however us the mass hysteria surrounding the dangers of nuclear energy have crippled its expansion do to events like Chernobyl and such. If people were to take the time to do some research on it they would find out how safe it really is and why events like Chernobyl actually happened. Then we could build new even safer reactors with new capital that will be even more efficient with technological advances from the 50 till now. We can end fossil fuel energy and stop a majority of the pollution. Then electric cars will become much more eco friendly.

How and when do you think we'll begin to improve the way we generate our electricity, then? As to my knowledge, our dependence on coal is quite nondetachable at this point, and I am not aware of any new technology beyond nuclear energy that could mostly serve our massive needs.

Because there really isn't any at this point that I know of. There are minor solutions (hydro, wind, solar) but no real game changers. I believe nuclear is the way to go right now as i have said. We can begin as soon as the cloud of fear surrounding nuclear energy lifts, which might not ever happen. The best bet would to start educating the public and creating lobbying groups. Basic stuff that takes money and willpower.

I could see another argument as being... terrorism, I suppose. Or that's why they want us to think, anyways.

I can see the concern.

Lets put forward a scenario. Want to destroy a nuclear waste cask on transport. It would be devastating, it would destroy the area around it with radioactive particles and pollute downwind for miles. Bad situation. Let's say the terrorists got a hold of some type of high powered rocket sled. Or maybe a rocket truck? No wait, a goddamn rocket powered train in order to blow it up. That might be bad. Oh wait shit, we got a video.





As you can see they also barbecued it in motherfucking jet fuel just for kicks.


As for the reactors themselves, here is an enlightening article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/21/how-safe-new-nuclear-reactors

Basically the USA is looking to build new reactors and is spending tons of money on research. The new designs will be safer then ever before. Most of them propose reinforced shells around the cores which will not break under attacks such as dropping airliners on them. The government is looking for safety measures that act passively without the need for human or electronic interference which can sometimes fail. A major idea behind building new reactors is to build them off one or two standardized designs. This will mean that if a problem does occur we will be able to quickly address it. Every reactor working now is working off of custom designs which is dreadfully inefficient, which is one of the reasons why the three mile island scare happened.

Keep in mind there has not been a new nuclear reactor built in the USA since 1977. We have a much greater understanding of the technologies, benefits and, dangers which surround nuclear power.

That's actually quite reassuring--a nuclear plant surviving impact from an aeroplane? I'm sure the standardization of the plant designs will be helpful in reducing redundancies and complications.

Interesting stuff, but I'm wondering when we'll begin to see the major replacement of conventional power with nuclear energy.