With gas prices going through the roof and regulators requiring cars to be ever more miserly, Volkswagen is bringing new meaning to the term “fuel efficiency” with a bullet-shaped microcar that gets a stunning 282 235 mpg.
Volkswagen’s had its super-thrifty One-Liter Car concept vehicle — so named because that’s how much fuel it needs to go 100 kilometers — stashed away for six years.
The body’s made of carbon fiber to minimize weight (the entire car weighs just 660 pounds) and company execs didn’t expect the material to become cheap enough to produce the car until 2012.
But VW’s decided to build the car two years ahead of schedule.
According to Britain’s Car magazine, VW has approved a plan to build a limited number of One-Liters in 2010. They’ll probably be built in the company’s prototype shop, which has the capacity to build as many as 1,000 per year.
That’s not a lot, but it’s enough to help VW get a lot of attention while showing how much light weight and an efficient engine can achieve.
VW unveiled the slick two-seater concept six years ago at a stockholder’s meeting in Hamburg. To prove it was a real car, Chairman Ferdinand Piech personally drove it from Wolfsburg to Hamburg.
At the time, he said the car could see production when the cost of its carbon monocoque dropped from 35,000 Euros (about $55,000) to 5,000 Euros (about $8,000) — something he figured would happen in 2012.
With carbon fiber being used in everything from airliners to laptops these days, VW’s apparently decided the cost is competitive enough to build at least a few hundred One-Liters.
VW’s engineers — who spent three years developing the car — made extensive use of magnesium, titanium and aluminum to bring it in at less than one-third the weight of a Toyota Echo. According to Canadian Driver, the front suspension assembly weighs just 18 pounds.
The six-speed transmission features a magnesium case, titanium bolts and hollow gears; it weighs a tad more than 50 pounds. The 16-inch wheels are carbon fiber.
The magnesium steering wheel weighs a little more than a pound. How much of the concept car’s exotic hardware makes it to the production model remains to be seen.
Low weight only gets you so far in the quest for ultimate fuel economy; aerodynamics plays a big role. The One-Liter is long and low, coming in at 11.4 feet long, 4.1 feet wide and 3.3 feet tall. It features an aircraft-like canopy, flat wheel covers and a belly pan to smooth the airflow under the car.
The engine cooling vents open only when needed, and video cameras take the place of mirrors. The passenger sits behind the driver to keep the car narrow. The car has a coefficient of drag of 0.16; the average car comes in around 0.30 and the Honda Insight had a Cd of 0.25.
As for the engine, the concept had a one-cylinder diesel engine producing 8.5 horsepower and 13.5 foot-pounds of torque. Car says the production model will use a two-cylinder turbodiesel for a little more oomph.
Doubling the number of cylinders is sure to cut fuel economy, so VW may install a diesel-hybrid drivetrain. The engine turns off at stop lights to save fuel, then automatically restarts when the driver depresses the accelerator pedal.
(Update: The car reportedly has anti-lock brakes, stability control and airbags. According to Canadian Driver, “Volkswagen says the One-Liter Car is as safe as a GT sports car registered for racing.
With the aid of computer crash simulations, the car was designed with built-in crash tubes, pressure sensors for airbag control and front crumple zones.”)
What’s it gonna cost? Car quotes “one well-placed insider” who says the One-Liter could have a sticker price of anywhere from 20,000 to 30,000 Euros (about $31,750 to $47,622). That’s a lot of money. But then, the One-Liter, despite its diminutive size, is a lot of car.
Note/Update: Turns out the 282 mpg figure refers to Imperial gallons; the proper figure when converted to U.S. gallons is 235 mpg.
Photos by Volkswagen
7 Comments
If it’s a VW well then it’s got to be good. I’ve owned several VWs over the years. I’ve got a 1970 Beetle in my driveway and drive a Passat to work everyday at 28+ MPG average. I also have a Lincoln Towncar that we use when necessary. I think I’d buy one of these in a heartbeat. It is certainly safer than a motorscooter. It’s wind resistance looks low especially because it’s low to the ground. The design looks more like a military jet than anything and those are safe if flown within the planes design. Kind of reminds me of an F-104D or a T-38 (although not near as fast) with a lot better gas milage.
My suggestion for all those that don’t care for it is don’t buy it. Think those BIG trucks are safer? I have a 1980 Chevy K-5 Blazer that stays parked. Since we live in rural America it does come in handy sometimes. But it can be hard to handle if the wind is high, the gas milage sucks and I don’t know that it is any safer than my Passat. With Electronic Stability Control and airbags at every corner the Passat is a pretty safe car.
German engineering has always been great and I’d trust that this will be a fine little car, especially in city driving.
This is for the person who signed in as “Eurpoean” the only problem with Americans is that they rebuilt your economy and infrastructure after the disasters YOU created in the first half of the 20th century. So how ’bout a little respect for American Industrial Power and the American people that repaired the rubble that you left behind. And yes, I do appreciate both the French and the Spanish for their aid in our Independence… and NO I don’t think the US should be in Iraq. So why don’t we just stay on subject here ‘cuz there’s plenty of mud to sling if ya want to.
Here I see we have a lot of guys talking about the US safety regulations.
Well let me tell you something about US safety regulations compared to the European ones. Anyone of you guys ever wondered why there are almost no American cars in Europe? Two answers: Gas prices and safety. Every car that comes into Europe that has been assembled in the US needs to undergo some changes. The best story I have about this one so far was on the Nissan Murano, the first model that was build took over 1 year to get into Europe. Why? Because Americans really don’t care how the electric wiring is done, they really don’t care about what kind of lights should be used, they really don’t care about the size of the lights that are being used……there is an endless list here of American safety against the European safety regulations.
I´m not saying Europe is so perfect, but before all you guys start yelling; I don’t think this car will pass our own safety regulations, take a look at your own manufactured cars first will yah.
Hey, and if you dont like it, simply shut yer yap and keep buying those big trucks and keep sucking down 1 mile per gallon and throw your money in the %&$%$# waste-basket.
Just my 2 cents for ya!
The weight issue would be the biggest problem that I can see while driving it in the USA. When a large SUV or bigger vehicle hits it you’ll bounce around like a ping pong ball. As long as the Body cage is sufficient enough to take the beating and the air bags cushion you while you are bouncing. I see nothing wrong with driving these small cars.
And if you really look into crash test data & real world data those big monster SUV & Pickups SUCK. The idea that these large cars are great in crashes came is only in your mind NOT IN REAL DATA.
The next biggest issue is cost the average person can’t afford to spend that kind of money on a car. $10k-$15k (maybe 20k) is what I’m willing to spend on a new car. I have a very large truck (12 mpg) but it only gets used when I need to haul. It over 10 years old and has less than 50k miles. I would love to buy a car in my price range that gets better than my 28 mpg my 02 Chevy 4 door gets but there just are not that many in the USA yet.
If it does what they say it does and they actually manage to get it into production then it’s a step in the right direction – regardless of the perfection of that step.
1) Safety: As someone already mentioned, smaller cars aren’t easily seen by semi drivers. Carbon fiber vs semi isn’t gonna fare any better than steel vs semi. Neither mass nor weight really matters when that much kinetic energy slams into your tiny potential energy – you’re gonna be gardening daisies from the underside in either case. In carbon fiber vs tree the issue isn’t mass or weight either – it’s how big is the crumple zone between me and the tree? SUV drivers’s won’t survive every tree encounter of the close up kind – but the larger size of the SUV gives it an advantage in the walking away afterward department. People like that walking away thing so any car on the market – no matter how good its gas mileage – is gonna have to not only meet standards but convince the public that they aren’t sacrificing walking away for saving a few bucks – the reality is that Americans will largely avoid cars they view as unsafe.
Technically, carbon fiber doesn’t have a ‘crumple zone’ – it doesn’t crumple; it shatters. Nevertheless, it chews up energy in doing so which is the purpose of the crumple zone (granted it’s the chassis not the body that’s really supposed to have a crumple zone but any little bit helps!). Either way, it’s not a ding against its safety – but it is an understandable concern for drivers.
If you plan to market a vehicle in the American market you simply have no choice but address safety concerns both by meeting standards and more importantly by winning over public opinion. Hint: ‘of course it’s safe, dummy’ rarely works in any nation.
2) America bashing: It’s passe, gang. It’s also extremely counterproductive. Jealousy doesn’t become you – and frankly, it’s such an old song no one is listening anymore. We American’s don’t sit there and think “Gee, maybe the vitriolic furriner has a point”; we just assume you’re an idiot and go on about our business. Name calling doesn’t work and bashing just makes people tune you out – regardless of nationality.
3) High gas prices will make American’s act like Europeans – or at least less wasteful: You’re dreaming on that one, folks. Americans like big, comfortable, useful (try carrying lumber in a Corolla – go on, I dare you! Driving home with an 8′ board sticking out the window really doesn’t make your day – especially not when the temp is in the upper nineties – ask me how I know)cars – deal with it. The ‘high gas prices are good’ theory doesn’t take into account that America has done this before – Corollas once outsold everything on the market. But the small car was abandoned in the 80’s by people who’d lived through the oil embargo of the 70’s – high gas prices will only slow them down for so long. ANWR is about to get drilled – Americans aren’t gonna just accept high gas prices and drive less in the long run – they didn’t before, why assume they will now when there are other oil production methods? There is an opportunity now for alternative fuel vehicles but ultimately if you haven’t built the better mousetrap you can only scare people into using it for so long.
High gas prices are going to open up drilling and oil shale/coal oil in the short run (and the long) – they will result in some short term (maybe a few years) driving changes but given a choice between Flipper and the family budget, Flipper is just gonna have to take his chances. Translation: if you view no drilling/incursions as the best environmental policy, high gas prices are a nightmare for you.
The way to make those changes is to use the marketplace to your advantage: build the better mousetrap. Great gas mileage (okay, it won’t be 235 mpg), comfortable, stylish and able to transport three kids and gear, that will sell in the American market for more than a few years. Incredible gas mileage, cramped, ugly and barely able to carry the driver and his cup-holder will end up as a curiosity in a museum within a very short time. All the ‘you oughts’ in the world won’t change that reality.
All said, I think it’s a good step in the right direction but not a practical enough step – yet. I wouldn’t buy it at that sticker price but I’d consider it at a much lower price. I’d keep the Corolla, though – have to. I may not use all four seats everyday, but I do use them enough that a two seater won’t suffice by itself.
Aside: To the one point about having smaller families – in 20 years you’ll be thanking God for all those big families. Who the heck do you think is gonna support you though your old age? Someone has to pay for your medical care, pension, Social Security (it’ll still be here – politics trumps budgets every time. What shape it’ll be in is another question) as well as build and maintain the infrastructure that lets you and your fancy walker stroll to the grocery store and find something in it to buy. The population decline is going to be more nightmarish than any population boom has ever been.
As a former automotive design engineer and plastics engineer, I am shocked by the veracity and ignorance exhibited by many of the comments. Here are a few key points to consider: Dust to Dust Cost, Mass Wins, and The Bottom Line: 1. Dust to Dust Cost Carbon fiber composite is a great building material. Our university team used in back in the 90’s to create a solar vehicle for a race sponsored by (wait for it) GM. Most of our competitors — including the winners — did too. We used most of the other exotic materials mentioned here and a few others as well — epoxies, titanium, aluminum, magnesium, honeycomb. The problem is that many of these materials often take a lot more energy to produce than high-strength steel (especially recycled steel, see below). In fact, they can require so much energy that the inputs may never be recovered through savings in fuel over the life of the vehicle when compared to a vehicle using conventional high-strength steel and the same design goals. Even if energy parity (or better) is reached for manufacture and operation of the vehicle, one must consider the disposal and recycling costs: steel is fully, easily, and inexpensively recycled — it is estimated that doing so requires perhaps 20% of the energy to create virgin steel, and sorting requires a magnet. Carbon fiber typically uses a thermoset resin as the matrix and as such is not fully recyclable (e.g. you might make plastic lumber, but not another automotive component). Epoxies are also thermosets. Thermosets — and especially thermoset composites — are difficult to dispose of in an environmentally friendly way. The other metals mentioned are fully recyclable for the most part, but may also come at increased energy costs. And while there may be a place for them, some — such as titanium — are prone to scarcity and design restrictions. Titanium alloys, for example, can be prone to catastrophic failure, unlike steel. In addition, if you put a mix of materials into a vehicle, either the recycling stream becomes more complex and expensive, or some of the materials simply don’t get recycled. What /does/ get recycled will depend on the amount used and the economics of recovery. Many people point to hybrid drives to help ease fuel consumption, but this too is not a foregone conclusion: Problems include energy for manufacture, scarce materials, energy density, added weight, and battery life. There is no doubt that hybrids on the same vehicle are less energy efficient than fuel propulsion systems for highway travel although they do certainly improve city mileage. But at what cost? One must consider the nickel (and other materials) in the batteries which is growing scarce and is energy intensive to produce. The life expectancy for hybrid vehicle batteries is perhaps 100k miles at best. What is the environmental impact for disposal and recycling of the batteries? Wat is the energy required to create replacement batteries? Are there contamination concerns in a crash? Google for “dust to dust mileage costs” to see the debate. While there is dissent about what percentage of a vehicle’s energy consumption comes from manufacture and disposal, there is little doubt that increased use of carbon fiber composites, hybrid drives, and exotic materials drive up energy required for production, maintenance, recycling and disposal of such vehicles. The details are even uglier for electric and hydrogen powered vehicles. They are not the panacea many politicians pray they are. In fact, they are almost certainly much worse for the environment than hybrids with exotic materials or most conventional vehicles. In the near term, if you really care about energy and resource efficiency, you are probably better off buying a small, well designed conventional vehicle such as the NZEV Ford Focus, Scion xB, or a clean diesel rather than a Prius. Especially if the majority of your mileage is on the highway. 2. Mass Wins The safety arguments posted are all over the map. Yes, F1 drivers walk away from very high velocity impacts, and yes they are driving carbon fiber vehicles. But those designs are optimized for safety beyond nearly all other design concerns (a major exception is weight). But the F1 cars usually impact other F1 cars of the same mass, or retaining walls, some of which may be designed to absorb some of the impact. A more general vehicle needs to compromise crumple zones and other safety features to allow for practical issues that don’t affect F1 cars, such as larger payloads and costs. Contrary to many posts, many vehicles from the US, EU and JA have structural designs compatible for all these markets as a mater of design policy. Much safety testing involves impacting objects such as walls, or the ground, or a moose. The mass of these objects are all independent of the vehicle mass. A well designed sub-compact vehicle might get a 5 star rating for frontal impact and rollover, whereas a large body-on-frame truck might get 2 stars. But, have the truck run into the sub-compact, and the truck “wins” always. It wins in that it must absorb much less energy than the sub-compact. The energy transferred to each vehicle is proportional to their individual masses. Thus, if an 35,000kg truck collides with a 400kg vehicle, and both are traveling 100 km/hr, the truck absorbs comparatively minimal energy. The 400kg vehicle, on the other hand, experiences an energy transfer equivalent to hitting a brick wall at perhaps 190km/hr. It would be silly, of course, to suggest that all vehicles should be 35,000kg for safety sake — that would put us back to all vehicles of the same mass. However, when vehicle masses differ, more mass definitely gives a edge in survivability. 3. The Bottom Line It is sad to consider that people as ill-informed as some of the commentators set vehicle policy in any nation. Unfortunately, it appears to often be the case (see California). Vehicle design is the most complex engineering task undertaken for mass produced consumer goods (before anyone says it, commercial jets are not mass produced in anywhere near comparable quantities, and individuals buy very few of them). If people wish to comment on vehicle design so vehemently, they might benefit from a little research in the field before putting up an ill-informed post that exposes ignorance. Google is your friend.
OMG that thing is so cute, ill buy one for my son and never let him drive it out of the neighborhood, the engine could have found a better use, TURNING A 220Volt GENERATOR!!!!!! place twin AC electric motors in the place of transmission, Or direct drive to the gear box axle, to provide regenerative braking and turn the fuel tank into a hold for LifePo4 batteries, this way you drive for 50 miles on battery and 20 minutes on gas while it runs and recharges the car.Do it to a GOLF/RABBIT, or something more spacious yet still light like a JETTA or even a LUPO!!!! DAMMIT! ALL are all those university technicians the auto makers have stupid on purpose or just stonewalling the electric car phase??? dammit this is cheap, don’t need carbon fiber, this technology is 100 years old!
hey automotive_engineer! all that long peach you wrote? useless, take a car that is already passed crash testing, put the technology in it, why the hell do they make it so complicated, the consumer is not worried in all those things they want a car with doors, comfort, some form and tons of function, you still get AC and heater out of it and produce closer to (0) ZERO! emissions and tipple the millage that they say this thing gets. get out of the FORD, GM, automaker company mentality and ask yourself what is cheaper to do, 5 thousand dollars in motor controller wire and batteries to turn a car into electric, or 2million in research and development of light weight materials, a stupid design you cannot commercialize because it is a test bed, having to completely design a whole new car with this materials 10 more million in infrastructural the plant for the particular vehicle and the 3 years of wait for the car to meet the pavement.
Personally id take the Golf production line and just replace the engine blocks with electric motors, and not enclose the gas tanks to affix batteries to them, not much change on wiring, it still uses an ECU, i to am an engineer, but i specialize on aerospace, armament and electronics and have always been a grease monkey, so ill tell you from the beginning, THERE IS NO JUSTIFYING the overspendure of money wasted on this vehicle, a 60HP/1.3 litre 1987 honda CRX is a high millage ultra low emissions car that can RACE! to 120 MPH in no time at all, comfortably, beat that, then! ill be impressed. I’v made some design for cars and motorcycles one i’m already working on that if my math is correct will run over 100MPH over 90 miles per charge, plus the hungry hamster for an engine im installer to run generative power all ran in electricity should see 300+ miles per gallon of fuel while sitting on a seat similar to a car (recumbent), and the auto i have in the garage jacked in the air will do the same.