VW XL1 production version gallery

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by ctgottapee

Producing a car with tandem seating strays too far from the basic car nomenclature.

Once again, that's the idea.

The offset seating is a great compromise, and most single travelers take advantage of the spare seat as storage; much less convenient in a tandem array.

With the provision of rear seat passenger leg room either side of a driver, there's space for storage.

Tandem requires height

Why?

Tandem sacrifices drive-ability, especially with a passenger as any motorcyclist will know.

How? Particularly in a very light vehicle, the weight distribution is less affected than it is with side by side seating.

If the wheels have to be wide, might as well put the seats wide anyhow.

Except that there are advantages in putting the driver close to the centreline of the car, regardless of where the wheels are.

Many others have tried to produce a tandem or single seat vehicle and have all failed so clearly there is not a viable market. In the end its basically just a covered motorcycle...

Yes, there are marketing reasons why a tandem seat arrangement might be seen as less desirable. Very large (fat) people won't fit in the passenger seat, and women won't like not being able to wear a skirt with dignity intact but they're not engineering reasons.

The Light Car Company Rocket was successful, at least for what it is.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Where would the battery pack be in a tandem seat design? To keep the height the same as the XL1, a tandem design would need to be quite long. The side taper would have to be reduced because you still have to fit the wheels and the passenger and the drivetrain.

Take another look at the original "One-Liter" prototype. It's not particularly tall nor long, has low aerodynamic drag and does have a battery in there (somewhere).

Another "compromise" of tandem seating is that the people can't see the other person's face.

Valid criticism. Is it any worse than offset side by side seating though?

[NeilBlanchard]

The battery in the L1 was not very large capacity. By the way, the XL1 is as efficient *or better* than the original L1, and it is much more practical. The L1 had an 8.5HP single cylinder diesel engine. And the electric motor was tiny, too - it was a snail.

The two interim designs were much lower efficiency.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The battery in the L1 was not very large capacity.

I would expect the battery in a 600lb car to be of lower capacity than one in a 1600lb car. Either way, it's a non issue. There's plenty of space for a battery around the car without compromising the driver's seating position, tandem or not (which I think is your point).

By the way, the XL1 is as efficient *or better* than the original L1, and it is much more practical. The L1 had an 8.5HP single cylinder diesel engine. And the electric motor was tiny, too - it was a snail.

The two interim designs were much lower efficiency.

So how much better could the original concept be now had it received the same level of development?

When I first commented in this thread I said that the XL1 is fantastic. It is. It's just that it could have been so much better. When it was reported that the "One-Liter" might go into production I was prepared to do whatever it took to own one when/if it was released. Not so for the XL1. It strikes me that this is what a first gen. Insight would look like if it were being produced today. I'd prefer to own an original Insight. I'm not particularly passionate about either car.

[Frank Lee]

Lotta talk about how bad tandem seating is... sure doesn't seem to bother the two-up touring bike riders, or those who have the privilege of riding in a small tandem-seat general aviation airplane.

[GreenHornet]

I think that every car is a compromise and no one car will fit the bill for everyone. Someone will always be able to find something about a car they dislike. With that said the XL1 is a modern marvel in my opinion. Could they have done better? I think so and I am sure they will best it in the future. In fact there is little doubt in my mind.

Shoot I still remember black and white TV, 99 cent and under gas LOL

I am only in my mid thirties btw so another 30 to 40 years we will see this technology refined and bested for sure.

But look at what it is you get now, a car that can obtain 1 Liter fuel economy and do it while cruising at normal speeds! What other car can say that? None...

My question is how much do you have to pay for the 1 Liter fuel economy?

Anyone in Europe know what these cars price tags are?

GH..

[NeilBlanchard]

Well, VW has released the price of the XL1: €111,000 which is $146,000 ...

Volkswagen XL1 to be Priced at $146,000

So, they really don't want to sell very many, I guess? The production is limited to 250, and they might not even sell out...

Halo car, pure and simple.

[wyatt]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Well, VW has released the price of the XL1: €111,000 which is $146,000 ...

Volkswagen XL1 to be Priced at $146,000

So, they really don't want to sell very many, I guess? The production is limited to 250, and they might not even sell out...

Halo car, pure and simple.

Holy cow! I was hoping to see a $50,000 price! Since I can't afford a $50,000 car, I sure can't afford a $150,000 car! You wouldn't buy an XL1 to save gas money, that's for sure!

[botsapper]

...better save some money to be able to buy something to...save some (gas) money?!! VW XL1 Said to Be Priced at €110,000 / $145,0000 in Germany! - Carscoops

[Xist]

Originally Posted by botsapper

...better save some money to be able to buy something to...save some (gas) money?!! VW XL1 Said to Be Priced at €110,000 / $145,0000 in Germany! - Carscoops

I tried to purchase a couple of homes that each cost much less than that. Had I been approved for that much, I could have moved into my sister's neighborhood!

I still would not necessarily see my nephews any more often, though...

Numbers:
Bacon gets around 27 MPG. If I can get 243 with the XL1, then I would save 88.89% on gas! Driving 15,000 miles a year (I don't) and if gas always cost $3.50 a gallon (it won't):

15,000 mi / 27 mpg * $3.5/g = $1944.44/year
88.89% of that would be $1728.40/year
83.89 years.

How about I get an old Civic?

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

It sure doesn't seem so practical and cost-effective, but I'm sure it might be a cool weekend toy.