Volkswagen 2-seat city car possibly on the fast track
When Volkswagen announced its trio of up! concepts in 2007 even the smallest model was considerably larger than the diminutive Smart ForTwo. The first up! concept was (nominally, at least) a four seater, while the Smart is strictly for two. AutoCar is reporting that VW has decided to green light the development of a shorter two-seat variant to directly compete with the Smart. Unlike the upright ForTwo, the VW is expected to be lower and narrower, resulting in better aerodynamics than the Smart. The most efficient version of the VW should handily beat its competitor with a rating of 117 mpg (US) and CO2 emissions of just 60 g/km. The actual fuel savings going from the Smart's 72 mpg to 117 mpg are almost inconsequential. At this level its like acceleration numbers or Nurburgring lap times; more about bragging rights than real benefits. Power is expected to come from a direct injected 1.2L four cylinder with a deactivation that allows it to shut down two cylinders at light load.
Gallery: LA 2007: Volkswagen space up! blue
[Source: AutoCar]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
state 5:25PM (11/25/2008)
"The actual fuel savings going from the Smart's 72 mpg to 117 mpg are almost inconsequential"
Say again? 117 mpg is "inconsequential"?
Reply
nads 5:54PM (11/25/2008)
If you only had $2 in your pocket and needed to drive 50miles (each way) to pick up your check, that 45 exta mpg would have saved you from getting stranded on the freeway, even letting stop at the bank on the way home.
In Sam Abuelsamid's world, getting an additional 45miles on a gallon is "inconsequential". I think its because these super-high mpg figures are scaring off the stocks that Sam must be owning, which is the only logical way to explain his ridiculous theory that the higher the mpg the more "inconsequential" it is. Under his theory if you should be happy with a car that gets 50mpg versus one that gets 200mpg, why? Because after driving 50mpg you really need to stop at a gas station, otherwise the price of oil will plummet and POOF there goes Sam's dreams of a yacht. People like Sam probably think you're stealing from the tv station when you change the channel during a commercial.
And forget those cars that run infinitely on free energy, they're really no better than one that get say 54highway, 48 city.
wolfman 9:54AM (12/03/2008)
I agree. I have a 100 mile round trip commute. Making that drive on less than a gallon of (presumably) diesel fuel is FAR from inconsequential. There is a tremendous amount of innovation in the market righ tnow, and I'm loving every minute of it. :D
John Hollenberg 5:46PM (11/25/2008)
A 62% increase in mileage is "inconsequential"??? Not when peak oil is here (or near) and global warming problems are ever increasing. What are you smoking?
Reply
GoodCheer 6:20PM (11/25/2008)
Ok people, let's calm down. Sam may have made a poor word choice, but look at the numbers:
If you drive 12000 miles/year (which would be a lot in a tiny city car), at 72mpg you need 167 gallons, while at 117mpg you would need only 102, so you've saved yourself 64 gallons in a year of driving.
You'd save the same amount of money, or gallons of gas, from going from a 15mpg truck (burns 800gal/year) to a 16.3mpg truck (burns 736 gal/year). Maybe you could do that just by inflating the tires to 40psi.
That was (I assume) why Sam said 'inconsequential'. The total volume of gas saved vs. the Smart is pretty small.
On the other hand, having a 117mpg option in the showrooms will make all the bragging about
***5 MODELS THAT GET 30MPG ON THE HIGHWAY!!! ***
seem pretty foolish, and might make people ask about the models that get 50mpg on the highway. That effect could be highly consequential.
Reply
MT 6:41PM (11/25/2008)
Nice explanation. The author didn't say the mileage increase was inconsequqential, he said the "fuel savings" was "almost inconsequential."
http://sciencegeekgirl.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/myth-doubling-your-mileage-will-cut-your-driving-costs-in-half-or-news-from-geek-dad/
We'll make a much bigger dent in US fuel consumption by improving the mileage of the low-MPG vehicles than doubling the mileage of the Smart or Prius. That low-hanging fruit is where the bang for the buck is.
mike 10:41PM (11/25/2008)
While I take your point, it is still silly to think of such a large difference as without consequence beyond bragging rights.
While not the imagined market, people like myself are also interested in these cars for rural/sub-suburban commuting and use.
I regularly put 30K/year on my cars... just getting to work and picking up my bread and milk.
So, I would be saving more like 175 (ballparking it) gallons a year. Let's say gas gets back to $4/gallon (a good bet as soon as economy picks back up)... that works out to about $700 a year. If I keep the car 5 years... that is $3500 in my IRA or kids college fund or whatever.
It is nothing to do with bragging rights to me.
And while it may be true that small changes in lower mpg vehicles have the same impact... none of them will impact me as I am not personally going to buy any of them for my commuting needs.
Finally.. I think this article is thoroughly confused from other stuff I have read...
The shortened blue city car is purported to be a side by side seated two passenger affair to compete with the likes of smart.
This 117mpg item that is lower and narrow (narrower than a smart !!!) is the on again/off again 1 cylinder VW super commuter which gets occasionally mentioned.
I do not believe they are the same vehicle at all, though the article seems to blend the two.
- m
UH2L 6:46PM (11/25/2008)
GoodCheer,
Thanks for clarifying. Your comment also supports why hybrid pick-ups and SUV's are significant in terms of how much fuel (and money) they can save by only going up 1-2 mpg. That doesn't justify buying them, but it shows their impact given the fact that people do buy them.
UH2L
Reply
Pudge 9:57PM (11/25/2008)
Did I miss something? Since when did the Smart Fortwo get 72 mpg?
Reply
slk23 12:34AM (11/26/2008)
The 61 hp engine with "micro hybrid drive" (MHD) that's available in the U.K. is rated at 60 mpg (U.S. units) / 72 mpg (Imperial) in the extra-urban cycle. The CDi (diesel, available in Europe) is rated at 74.5 mpg (U.S. units, extra-urban cycle). The U.S. version, with 70 hp, is rated at 41 mpg highway by the EPA. I'm not sure why there's such a large difference. Part of it is certainly due to different testing methods (EPA vs. the European driving cycles) and MHD. And there may be additional emissions equipment for the U.S. market (I don't know if that's the case).
Nick 2:21AM (11/26/2008)
Abuelsamid's comparison of 72mpg vs. 117mpg does not make sense.
Of course, saving 64 gallons per year by driving the more efficient vehicle is saving as much as moving from a 15mpg truck to a 16.3mpg truck, but the truck still uses 600 more gallons every year !
Those 64 gallons in yearly gas savings are not small, multiply that by the 300 million cars on U.S. roads and you would save over 7 billion gallons!
Reply
potzon 8:46AM (11/26/2008)
INCONSEQUENTIAL?
Are you OK autoblogGREEN ?
Reply
Paul 11:43AM (11/26/2008)
I wonder if we'll ever see it here?
Reply