[QUOTE=NeilBlanchard;377909]It has the smallest frontal area of an car I can think of. The engineers needed the front wheels to be a certain distance apart, and they want the side crush zone to be adequate. It is the most efficient car in "production" - and it has the lowest CdA, too. In fact, it is almost 25% lower than the EV1.[QUOTE]
I agree its great but
Initial visual impressions. XL1 is visually striking; 153.1 inches long,
65.6 inches wide, and only
45.4 inches tall. By comparison, a Volkswagen Polo is slightly longer (156.3 in) and wider (66.2 in), but is significantly taller (57.6 in).
SUBARU 360 0.4 - 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971
Length 118 in OR 2997 mm
Width 51 in OR 1295 mm
Height 60.5 in OR 1537 mm
Understand 51" is to the mirrors
on the subar, its actually 48" wide at the widest door point and taper inward to only about 40" wide at the top of the roof.
The actual frontal area between the subaru and VW are only square inches different, but the subaru wins.
CD is however several orders of magnitude different. I just wondered what all the space to each side of the seats was for, the car could beat the subaru frontal area is that space were reduced and trim CDA further and I don't think it would dramatically affect seating.
Ah well.
Ryan