If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Jalopnik)   VW's 261 MPG car is here, and it actually looks like something you would want to drive   (jalopnik.com) divider line 371
    More: Cool, fuel efficiency, TDI, lithium batteries, Volkswagen, cars  
•       •       •

38493 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Feb 2013 at 9:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



371 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-21 07:38:37 PM
If they can sell them for $30k a pop, they'll have a winner!
 
2013-02-21 07:48:52 PM
I'll take off the rear wheel covers and live with 150mpg.
 
2013-02-21 07:51:51 PM
That rear end is definitely from the "What's Behind Me Does Not Matter" school of driving.
cineplex.media.baselineresearch.com
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-02-21 07:54:39 PM
The result is 47 horsepower and 89 foot pounds of torque. Since the car weighs only 1741 pounds...

Instant classic. Those numbers are close to the 1960s VW Bug.
 
2013-02-21 08:13:41 PM

markie_farkie: If they can sell them for $30k a pop, they'll have a winner!


Make it $10k and I'd want one.
 
2013-02-21 08:21:24 PM
I know it's not meant to be a performance vehicle, but I'm not sure I could live with 12.7 seconds 0-60.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2013-02-21 08:25:11 PM
Uh, it's a Volkswagen. I'd be driving it to the shop more than anywhere else.
 
2013-02-21 08:30:10 PM
You and I have very different views of what you think I would want to drive, <b>submitter</b>.
 
2013-02-21 08:41:47 PM
How about no?
 
2013-02-21 08:43:52 PM
If everybody started driving one tomorrow, I bet you even money, that they would find an excuse to raise the price of gas to $20 per gallon.
 
2013-02-21 08:54:31 PM

Popcorn Johnny: I know it's not meant to be a performance vehicle, but I'm not sure I could live with 12.7 seconds 0-60.


Seriously, there are some on ramps that require more pick up than that.

And wing doors? Really? Am I going to go back in time if I manage to get this thing up to 88mph?
 
2013-02-21 09:05:46 PM

Popcorn Johnny: I know it's not meant to be a performance vehicle, but I'm not sure I could live with 12.7 seconds 0-60.


I used to think that, but I've been driving cars for years that can beat at least 7 seconds and I never use it.  My usual 0-60 time is probably in the 20 second range just because I don't like wasting gas.  I tend to use the power when passing, but that's about it.

Also:

Gimmie!
 
2013-02-21 09:08:10 PM
Thirty years must be the cut off before competitors can use your concept cars for their designs.  That thing is sooo 80's concept.

Another thing, Europeans complain about Americans sticking to standard measurements, but atleast we stick to one most of the time.  62miles/lt, 1,741lbs for the weight of the car, gas engine 47 hp & 89 ft lbs and electric motor 68 hp & 103 ft lbs; pick a measurement system and own it.  Although no one in the metric community has bothered to redesign the hp or torque measuring system, how come?

Also, if you are putting diagrams in an article, have it match the language.  Germans sure use long words for car parts.
 
2013-02-21 09:12:04 PM

Popcorn Johnny: I know it's not meant to be a performance vehicle, but I'm not sure I could live with 12.7 seconds 0-60.


I rarely need a freeway to get anywhere, so for me it wouldn't be that bad, but that does seem really slow.
 
2013-02-21 09:35:56 PM
47 horsepower? I live where it's hot. I don't want to have to choose between air conditioning and forward motion.
 
2013-02-21 09:36:44 PM
Looks almost exactly like what sci-fi movies in the 80's predicted future cars would.  Needs a back window, though.
 
2013-02-21 09:42:59 PM

davidphogan: Popcorn Johnny: I know it's not meant to be a performance vehicle, but I'm not sure I could live with 12.7 seconds 0-60.

I rarely need a freeway to get anywhere, so for me it wouldn't be that bad, but that does seem really slow.


It's twice as fast as the "super Beetle" (scroll down).
 
2013-02-21 09:52:31 PM
Where's the flux capacitor?
 
2013-02-21 09:53:47 PM
Maybe something you would want to drive subby, but that car is HIDEOUS.
 
2013-02-21 09:56:04 PM

Popcorn Johnny: I know it's not meant to be a performance vehicle, but I'm not sure I could live with 12.7 seconds 0-60.


Ain't nobody got time for that.
 
2013-02-21 09:56:58 PM
bring back a decent looking retro Karmann Ghia, they'll sell like strudel.
 
2013-02-21 09:58:28 PM
The nice thing about the TDI is how mod-friendly it is.   Give the tuners a month or two and you'll eke out another 25% power from the TDI motor.
 
2013-02-21 09:58:45 PM
Too bad it's a volkswagen.  Crap on wheels.
 
2013-02-21 09:59:10 PM
brake-o-rama.com

Good luck!
 
2013-02-21 09:59:27 PM

nmrsnr: Popcorn Johnny: I know it's not meant to be a performance vehicle, but I'm not sure I could live with 12.7 seconds 0-60.

Seriously, there are some on ramps that require more pick up than that.

And wing doors? Really? Am I going to go back in time if I manage to get this thing up to 88mph?


88mph with that thing? Good luck.
Not even mexican overdrive would help that car get there.
 
2013-02-21 10:00:28 PM
If it's around $30k, I'll give you a deposit today.
 
2013-02-21 10:01:03 PM

Popcorn Johnny: I know it's not meant to be a performance vehicle, but I'm not sure I could live with 12.7 seconds 0-60.


It was about 25 sec 0-60 in my '68 VW Bus.
 
2013-02-21 10:02:38 PM

I want your skull: 47 horsepower? I live where it's hot. I don't want to have to choose between air conditioning and forward motion.


To hell with AC. 47 hp is supposed to move around your average American? It may work . . . if they always go downhill.
 
2013-02-21 10:03:01 PM
Ugly piece of crap.
 
2013-02-21 10:03:08 PM

Lsherm: Popcorn Johnny: I know it's not meant to be a performance vehicle, but I'm not sure I could live with 12.7 seconds 0-60.

I used to think that, but I've been driving cars for years that can beat at least 7 seconds and I never use it.  My usual 0-60 time is probably in the 20 second range just because I don't like wasting gas.  I tend to use the power when passing, but that's about it.

Also:

Gimmie!


true! My car runs sub 5.5 and I can count with the digits on one hand I've push it that far. None of those times were out of necessity. In actual driving I think the average car is probably doing 20-25s, 0-60 speed off the line.
 
2013-02-21 10:03:43 PM

Bob Falfa: That rear end is definitely from the "What's Behind Me Does Not Matter" school of driving.
[cineplex.media.baselineresearch.com image 700x515]


"P - R - N - D - L"

"R...RACE!"
 
2013-02-21 10:04:22 PM
Price of gas is kicking my ass... So, yes, I'd drive it.
Island needs being what they are tho, I need one with some ground clearance and loose the ugly wheel covers.
 
2013-02-21 10:04:26 PM
I could handle the rear wheel covers and the lack of a rear window (camera's are not the same).  I could probably deal with the doors eventually.  The key element for me would not be the 0-60 time, but the 35-60 time.  Around here, there are some very short on ramps and people will run you over if you can't speed up fast enough for them.
 
2013-02-21 10:05:09 PM

lack of warmth: Although no one in the metric community has bothered to redesign the hp or torque measuring system, how come?


What do you mean? Metric units for hp and torque? Well, torque can be measured in newton meters, and power can be measured in Kilowatts, but since BHP is torque relative to engine speed, you can do it that way too.
 
2013-02-21 10:06:27 PM

timujin: Looks almost exactly like what sci-fi movies in the 80's predicted future cars would.  Needs a back window, though.


Could be worse.

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2013-02-21 10:06:59 PM
not too shabby.
 
2013-02-21 10:07:14 PM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Popcorn Johnny: I know it's not meant to be a performance vehicle, but I'm not sure I could live with 12.7 seconds 0-60.

Ain't nobody got time for that.


FTFA: "There is some for luggage though, as the XL1's trunk can take 4.23 cubic feet of stuff cold pop."

FTFY
 
2013-02-21 10:07:18 PM

Bob Falfa: That rear end is definitely from the "What's Behind Me Does Not Matter" school of driving.
[cineplex.media.baselineresearch.com image 700x515]


I was thinking Gumball Rally and Raul Julia, but same idea.

What's on the sides doesn't seem to be a priority either.
 
2013-02-21 10:07:25 PM

KrispyKritter: bring back a decent looking retro Karmann Ghia, they'll sell like strudel.


Absolutely.
 
2013-02-21 10:07:44 PM
Whoever designed that will be dead by the weekend.
 
2013-02-21 10:07:58 PM
How are you supposed to see behind you?  The back end looks like one solid, ugly plate.  I see the side view mirrors as the little video screens in the doors (which I actually think is kind of neat) but I can't see anything like a rear view mirror, unless you're supposed to toggle the gps screen back and forth.  Maybe they want you to lean out of the open door to see what's behind you when you're backing up.
 
2013-02-21 10:08:28 PM
 aluminium suspension components, brake calipers, dampers and steering gear housing, as well as carbon fiber anti-roll bars, ceramic brake discs, magnesium wheels and plastics for the steering wheel body. Electronics are 176 lb, equipment is 231, which leaves 507 pounds for body made entirely of carbon fiber.


Yeah, trouble with all that is, anyone who could afford it really doesn't care about the price of gas anyway.  No way is this car going to cost under $50,000.
 
2013-02-21 10:08:30 PM
Don't get me wrong: I love good gas mileage.  But this car gets a giant NOPE from me on an acceleration/top speed/design perspective.

Now, if they can make one that gets similar gas mileage AND doesn't look like the retarded offspring of robocop and a prius, then I'd be all in...
 
2013-02-21 10:08:41 PM

Lsherm: davidphogan: Popcorn Johnny: I know it's not meant to be a performance vehicle, but I'm not sure I could live with 12.7 seconds 0-60.

I rarely need a freeway to get anywhere, so for me it wouldn't be that bad, but that does seem really slow.

It's twice as fast as the "super Beetle" (scroll down).


Huh.  I guess my Honda Civic was about 9 seconds, so 12.7 might not be that bad anyway.
 
2013-02-21 10:08:51 PM

TommyymmoT: If everybody started driving one tomorrow, I bet you even money, that they would find an excuse to raise the price of gas tax to $20 per gallon.


FTFY
 
2013-02-21 10:10:44 PM
That thing looks sweet.  Throw a V6 or supercharged V4 in there and I'll buy one after my current lease is all paid off.
 
2013-02-21 10:10:45 PM
Lots of people in this thread have never owned a volkswagen.  I have a TDI, and after 6 years I have no desire to drive anything else.  I guess changing the oil every 10k miles is pretty arduous, but I can live with it.
 
2013-02-21 10:11:33 PM
I had a nightmare about a Volvo that looked just like that. Yikes.
 
2013-02-21 10:11:36 PM

KrispyKritter: bring back a decent looking retro Karmann Ghia, they'll sell like strudel.


wodumedia.com

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
 
2013-02-21 10:11:58 PM

Lsherm: Popcorn Johnny: I know it's not meant to be a performance vehicle, but I'm not sure I could live with 12.7 seconds 0-60.

I used to think that, but I've been driving cars for years that can beat at least 7 seconds and I never use it.  My usual 0-60 time is probably in the 20 second range just because I don't like wasting gas.  I tend to use the power when passing, but that's about it.

Also:

Gimmie!

You must not live near me. In my neck of the woods, people stop at the bottom of on ramps, leaving you 20 feet to get up traffic speed, which is from 55-75 depending on time or freeway.

 
Displayed 50 of 371 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report