Talk:Volkswagen 1-litre car

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Concept car?[edit]

Is VW 1L a concept car if it has been approved for limited production? There must be a better term. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which comes first? The concept car or the prototype? My understanding is that the concept is the original idea taken to some form of usefulness. The concept vehicle can be a basic shell, with rudimentary running gear. After the concept the prototype is built into a mostly complete, usable vehicle, which in this case is the 2002 1-Liter. I'm wondering why the introduction doesn't mention the 2002 1-Liter, but instead says the concept car was modified in 2009.Flight Risk (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legal?[edit]

"The engine is switched off automatically during deceleration and stops, and auto-restarted when the acceleration pedal is pressed." Isn't coasting like that illegal (in the UK at least)?User:LaFoiblesse 2008-11-04 22:28 (GMT)

The act of taking your car out of gear by putting the gearshift in neutral while moving ("coasting") is illegal in many states of the US as well. Modern vehicles are designed around "normal" driving behaviors, and do not respond well to actions that are "outside the envelope." Coasting down a grade by setting the gearshift to neutral requires that the driver try to rematch the speed of the engine to the speed of the vehicle when the clutch is engaged again. If an inexperienced driver does not do this, and pops the clutch without matching engine speed, the drive wheels can lose their grip with the road (especially in rainy weather), and the driver can lose control of the vehicle.
Clearly none of this would apply when automatically disengaging the engine is part of the vehicle's design. Robertwharvey (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It also doesn't apply considering companies have sold the Insight, Civic Hybrid, and Lupo 3L, all of which have this function to turn-off the engine. I find it difficult to believe you've never heard of these cars. ---- Theaveng (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Mini and the BMW 1 series come with this feature in certain engine/gear box combinations as well. I am pretty sure you all have heard about those two cars --78.42.238.149 (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency - at what speed?[edit]

What speed was the efficiency tested at? This is critical to knowing what the hell 200+ mpg means in this vehicle. I very much doubt the test was up to usual standards. Does anyone have any info about this? As it stands, the MPG rating is almost propoganda. Fresheneesz (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some of the articles I've read, the chairman of VW drove the car from the test factory in Wolfsburg to the annual meeting in Hamburg. I suspect that it was driven at Autobahn speeds and surpassed the 1 L/100 KM goal at 0.89 L/100 KM [1]. I think that article quotes it at miles per Imperial gallon so switch to the SI method now and avoid the hassles. It stands to reason that highway traffic flow is more fuel efficient than side roads and city travel. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does not stand to reason. At higher speeds exponentially more energy is expended to overcome air resistance. For example, the similar Canadian eVaro obtained 275 MPGe at city speeds and 165 MPGe at highway speeds. [2] --IanOsgood (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I know I'm late to the party here, but you're ignoring that the best speed-to-fuel-consumption ratio is when you're in the highest gear (and at minimum RPM), and stop-and-go traffic such as you'd find at low speeds absolutely kills fuel economy. --70.20.116.242 (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, that comment is mine. I thought I was logged in. --Jemiller226 (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any news from the 2010 Frankfurt show?[edit]

Just read that it's under way. Is there any news on the vehicle? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that every other year? 90.4.45.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Production date estimates?[edit]

Do they really plant to produce this vehicle? Do they have an estimated time frame for production to start? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.98.75 (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some time during 2013 is the latest announcement from VW as of Feb 2013. Warren (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truthorfiction.com[edit]

Since when is Truthorfiction.com a credible source ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.23.246 (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"L1 would be sold in China for 4000 yuan (US$600)"[edit]

I deleted this section, sayng "Removed comment about the L1 selling for $600, because it's incredibly absurd. The engine alone would cost far more than that. The tires probably cost about that much." Walter Görlitz reverted my change saying "Find a source that contradicts this source, don't remove it."

The cited source itself already mentiones another site reports this is false. What evidence is there that ABC News reported the $600 price?

You're not going to find a serious site contradicting this claim, because, as I said, it's really absurd. Without a government paying for the vast majority of the cost of the car, or VW selling it as some kind of drastic loss leader. Which wasn't suggested anywhere.

What I can tell you is, when I tried to find an engine remotely similar to the diesel used in the L1, I ended up here: http://www.kineticvehicles.com/MAX.html

It's a project that resulted in a DIY 100mpg car costing only $10,000 to build. It uses a Kubota D1105T turbo diesel garden tractor engine. That engine costs "$4500+" new. "Between $1000 and $2000" used. The adaptor plate, to attach the engine to another transmission, a single piece of aluminum (plus mounting hardware), costs $350.

That's a garden tractor engine. $4,500. Vastly less fancy than just the internal combustion engine in this diesel / electric hybrid "constructed from aluminium and carbon fibre weighing just 380 kg and capable of returning 189 mpg" this article is saying might have been sold for $600. It doesn't even have direct injection. With some solid numbers, can you now see that the cost of $600 is not appropriate to even mention in this article without some serious evidence?

Including it all reflects poorly on the credibility of wikipedia. —Darxus (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only absurd thing is removing a referenced entry. We don't remove referenced material, we supply referenced material to restore balance which is what we have. However what you fail to have done is read the reference. It's not ABC: http://www.resourcesforlife.com/docs/item3583 and it reports both ABC and TruthOrFiction. The ABC reference, is just one that states the $600 price. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A silly report by ABC, making a ridiculous speculation, that we know did not happen, shouldn't be included in this article. Jimbowley (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A silly editor making ridiculous claims shouldn't be allowed to remove referenced claims from Wikipedia. Let the reader decide or restore balance. I will be adding it back now thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell what value this reference adds to the article? Should any dumb article on the vehicle be mentioned?Jimbowley (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as you seem to be a fan of referenced material, please supply a link to the ABC report.Jimbowley (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. How in the world would you like to reference a live broadcast? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I thought it was the ridiculous report you found notable, but it's the rumour of the report you think is worthy of inclusion in the article? Still waiting to hear why you think this rumour of a report that made a mistake is worth including in the article. Jimbowley (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Still waiting for you to prove it was an error. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prove what was an error? Jimbowley (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, it that doesn't matter. Why should this article mention http://www.resourcesforlife.com/docs/item3583 ? Jimbowley (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BALANCE. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are the 2 viewpoints you are trying to balance ? Jimbowley (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Expensive car vs inexpensive car. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will add something to the article about predicted production prices, but it will be Volkswagen's forecasts not some clearly ridiculous value that circulated in some emails. At the moment the WP:BALANCE is all wrong. Jimbowley (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? They cite one single email. And truthorfiction.com is a reliable source since when? Drmies (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this talk, which makes it even worse. Are you going to claim that "Resources for Life" is a reliable source as well? Drmies (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should actually read the discussion rather than look at it. There were other references that were removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? ABC? That video seems to have disappeared from that website. And what "compromise" are you talking about? The only thing I see is you defending two gossipy websites and bullying two other editors--and keeping a ridiculous, unreliably referenced rumor from years ago in an encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So every source needs to stay in place forever so that you can personally review it? Where were you when it was added? I watched it. I saw that it was a RS. The compromise was to remove the source as it as a deadlink, although that's against guidelines. There's no ridiculous rumour, but thanks for your WP:POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you can't prove that this is anything more than a ridiculous rumor (ridiculous: defeating common sense) "reported" on two websites. BTW, your "balance" is really quite funny. The real balance you're striking is between encyclopedic and unencyclopedic information, by maintaining the inclusion of the latter. FYI, WP:BALANCE refers to viewpoints. Here, there are no viewpoints. Even if there were, there are no reliable sources on your side. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you don't understand WP:DEADLINK. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a piss-poor assumption. DEADLINK doesn't even apply since the "ABC News" clip wasn't cited in the article. You manage to avoid every relevant point. Let me ask you a few simple questions, then, which you should be able to answer if you stand by the two references (or just one?). Let us suppose there was a video by "ABC News" on that Holistic wellness website. Can you establish which ABC reported this? Was it American Broadcasting Company or one of their twenty-thousand affiliates? Was it Australian Broadcasting Corporation? Was it ABC (Swedish news programme)? Was it Asahi Broadcasting Corporation? Was it [ABC (newspaper)]], which has videos on its website? And can you tell us anything about when this was broadcast? And what they said? Did they report it as news? As a rumor? As an internet hoax? And since the person you say also saw the supposed report is this guy, what does that mean for reliability? Drmies (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dead link applies to outside sources as well as the document starts, "Like most large websites". It's a major problem on the internet, but that particular page applies best to Wikipedia, yes.
It was the American Broadcasting Company as can be seen in the source file of the site: http://abcnews.go.com. They reported it as a rumour, but not as an Internet hoax. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No more than you understand WP:BALANCE which states: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." So if you have another viewpoint with RSes to counter this claim, they should be added so that balance is presented. So feel free to add balance, but removing this section doesn't satisfy that section or even WP:UNDUE. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you don't have reliable sources to verify your claim, why should I have to come with mine? Drmies (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article ownership being inferred here by numerous reverts by Walter Görlitz, and seems to think he is the only correct editor here. The "rumour" is poorly cited, and no reliable sources support the need to include the article. If it was that important, a newspaper or even a motoring magazine would have run the story. Warren (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that I'm showing ownership. I suppose I feel responsible for all sources on all article I edit, not just this one.
The fact is that the other sources were removed. I suppose we should have added a direct link to ABC when it was added, but I didn't know as much as I do now about how not all sources are made equally. You are right that other sources should have run the story though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Walter, there is no room in Wikipedia for rumors and speculations. This is an encyclopedia. So you might have "n" reliable sources for a rumor, it is still a rumor. And this one is particularly ridiculous, so please there is about to stop this nonsense discussion.--Mariordo (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Power figures are wrong[edit]

The referenced Telegraph article got the figures wrong. As an engineer it is obvious to me that the car wouldn't have an eco mode 20kW and sport mode 21.6kW. The figures here http://focusgear.com/archives/4570 20kW and 29kW seem sensible, especially if you consider the torque curve of the volkswagen 1600tdi engine.

I will try to make changes, but not sure about removing references. Jimbowley (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/14/frankfurt-2009-volkswagen-l1-concept-the-most-fuel-efficient/ This link has what appears to be a complete transcript of the Volkswagen press release. Confirming 20kw/29kW Jimbowley (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here are two competing claims. To say that one got it wrong and one got it right is opinion. Please fix it or I will do so. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't, we have a transcript of the Volkswagen press release, and a Telegraph article that got its numbers muddled up.Jimbowley (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. You have a blog that claims to be a transcript of the Volkswagen press release and fact-checked Telegraph article. Please see WP:RS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL 'fact-checked'. 3 days later the eco power has changed to 7hp http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/motor-shows/frankfurt-motor-show/6198163/Frankfurt-Motor-Show-Volkswagen-L1-Concept.html Jimbowley (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you're reading selectively or not, but the discussions were the same.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/6192992/VW-unveils-180-mile-per-gallon-two-seater-L1-hybrid-at-Frankfurt-Motor-Show.html states "Its tiny, 800cc engine is one half of a VW 1.6-litre TDI turbodiesel unit, which delivers maximum power of 29 brake horsepower together with a 14 horse power electric motor to provide extra oomph for overtaking." While http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/motor-shows/frankfurt-motor-show/6198163/Frankfurt-Motor-Show-Volkswagen-L1-Concept.html states "It uses one half of a 1.6-litre TDI engine in a hybrid installation to give amazing fuel economy. It also looks the business. The 800cc, twin-cylinder, common-rail, turbodiesel is joined by a 14bhp electric motor.
"The engine operates in two modes with the eco mode giving 7bhp and sport mode 29bhp, the electric motor provides extra acceleration and can power the L1 on its own for short distances."
The material checks-out. Now for the real problem: horsepower can be described differently. Your figures you changed the article to may be correct, but removing a correct reference wasn't necessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing out the 7bhp (which is wrong) in order to refute your assertion that the Telegraph is a reliable source of 'fact-checked' information.
The 29hp figure is a mistake, it's either a typo of 39hp or 29kW. As for your different horsepowers, 20kw = 27ps = 27hp to 0decimal places. 29kW = 39ps = 39hp. There is no 29hp figure to be found.
' but removing a correct reference wasn't necessary.' Even if it was correct, which it's not, I changed the reference to a better one that gives the full press release with all the figures, not just a journalist's summary.
Overall, it's a shame someone chose to use the Telegraph as a source back in Sep 2009, the other reference, treehugger.com, managed to get the figures right.
And finally, https://www.volkswagen-media-services.com/medias_publish/ms/content/en/pressemitteilungen/2009/09/15/volkswagen_shows_future.standard.gid-oeffentlichkeit.html Jimbowley (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your math is flawless but your logic isn't. The 7 bhp was not describing sport mode or extra power for sport mode. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
what do you think the 7hp is describing ?Jimbowley (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between two modes, but not the sport mode. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get the idea that there are more than 2 modes? 92.236.83.246 (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't. Perhaps I should I have written "The difference between two modes, but it's not discussing the sport mode alone." --14:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Vehicle Class[edit]

Any sources classifying this cars class as a sports car? I believe it is in the compact class like the Cadillac elr.(im Unable to verify as I don't have time) Among Men (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for the restrictions not discussed[edit]

I have a question: Could this car not really contribute greatly to help solve the main environment problems of our times? At least to some extent? If one city completely changed their cars from ones with an average of consumption of 6 litres per 100 km to that with 1 liter, the CO2 would have to go down per 85%. No one would complain about bad air anymore. --212.95.8.145 (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking for reliable sources that discuss this issue to be added, feel free to provide some. Otherwise, talk pages are not forums to discuss general concepts addressed in the article but rather on how to improve them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Volkswagen_1-litre_car&oldid=1198349464"