18

There are dozens of articles similar to this one floating around claiming the new Volkswagen XL1, which can get 300+ MPG (0.78 L/100 km) in ideal driving conditions, has been banned in the USA because it is too fuel efficient and it would cut into oil company profits.

You won’t find the 300 MPG Volkswagen XL1 in an American showroom, in fact it has even been denied a tour of America because it is too efficient for the American public to be made widely aware of, and oil profits are too high in America with the status quo in place.

No tour has been allowed for this car because the myth that 50 mpg [4.7 L/100km] is virtually impossible to obtain from even a stripped down econobox is too profitable to let go of, and when it comes to corporate oil profits, ignorance is bliss.

I cannot find any information to substantiate that it is even banned in the first place, never mind the reason for the banning, which could just as easily be for safety or other regulatory reasons. It also appears that Volkswagen only made 250 of these and may not even have interest in selling them in the USA in the first place.

Can anyone shed some light on whether or not it is actually banned, and if so, what reason was given for the banning?

Community
  • 1
MDMarra
  • 291
  • 2
  • 10
  • 9
    The article that you linked to states "in fact it has even been denied a tour of America," however, that is false. Here is the car in New York City: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/12/17/future-drive-volkswagen-xl1/ and here is the car in Tennessee: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-volkswagen-xl1-world-efficient-car.html – Ryan Ries Apr 12 '14 at 14:48
  • 2
    http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/9273/does-the-us-ban-high-gas-mileage-cars – Ryan Ries Apr 12 '14 at 14:51
  • EPA regulations continually make development of fuel-efficient diesel engines more and more difficult in the US. Many claim (rightly or wrongly) that these regulations are pushed through by Big Oil™ to keep fuel efficiency down, and to keep profits up. It's a bit of a difficult claim to prove, though, and certainly avoiding fuel efficiency is never the *official* reason for such regulations. I suspect the author of this article is taking liberties with similar claims here, and simply not explaining them efficiently (most such claims fall apart when explained sufficiently, so why would he?). – Flimzy Apr 12 '14 at 22:54
  • 1
    Also, if that is indeed where such a claim comes from, that makes this a question about motivations, which is sadly off-topic. – Flimzy Apr 12 '14 at 22:56
  • I'm not asking about motivation anywhere. I'm not sure how this could possibly be off topic. – MDMarra Apr 12 '14 at 22:57
  • It is a concept car. "The new car is the third concept built to the vision of travelling 100km (62 miles) on a single litre of fuel." http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/concept-cars/vw-reveals-new-300mpg-coupe –  Apr 13 '14 at 03:02
  • 1
    I interpret @Flimzy's argument as: *If* the car is banned, *and* it is ostensibly banned for emissions reasons, it could be argued that the ulterior motive is, as claimed, to protect oil profits, but that would be impossible to prove or disprove. – Oddthinking Apr 13 '14 at 03:46
  • @Oddthinking: Exactly. – Flimzy Apr 13 '14 at 06:10
  • @MDMarra : If you don't speak about motivation what do you mean with the word "because"? – Christian Apr 13 '14 at 16:52
  • 3
    The word "because" is used in my summary of the article. My questions can be summarized as: "is it banned" and "if it is banned, what reasons if any were given by whoever banned it." I'm having a hard time understanding what hairs are being split here in my question's wording. Is there a meta post somewhere? – MDMarra Apr 13 '14 at 16:55
  • 4
    I agree with @MDMarra, the question asks about the official motivation for banning (if there is indeed a ban), not about any possible unspoken one, so it is answerable. – nico Apr 13 '14 at 17:45
  • I've updated the question to be as clear as possible about what I'm asking. I've also asked about why this question is being interpreted the way it is by some users, if anyone would like to chime in: http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/2718/15311 – MDMarra Apr 13 '14 at 17:49
  • Please note that my comments were not meant to say it is a bad question, but rather to explain that the claim may be "correct" (at least according to some interpretations) even without such an official reason. – Flimzy Apr 13 '14 at 18:46
  • Note that the article makes no claim of a ban. It simply says `it has even been denied a tour of America because it is too efficient` -- this could have been a marketing decision on the part of Volkswagen execs to deny a tour of their own product in a market where they believe it is not in their best interest to market such a product. Do you have a source that actually claims a government ban? – Flimzy Apr 13 '14 at 18:53
  • [This source](http://americanlivewire.com/2014-04-09-300-mile-per-gallon-volkswagon-xl1-sold-america/) simply says "the powers that be" -- again this could be Volkswagen management. – Flimzy Apr 13 '14 at 18:54
  • You are effectively arguing against a strawman. A source like the one you cite doesn't claim that the officially stated reason was that the car was too fuel efficient. – Christian Apr 16 '14 at 13:45
  • 1
    I find myself very skeptical of the assertion. Why would "Big Car" be interested in forgoing the huge profits that a, say, 100mpg car would bring in? Certainly not out of brotherly love for "Big Oil". – BobRodes May 06 '14 at 01:23

1 Answers1

23

Safety rules

According to a December 2013 article in USA Today, the XL1 cannot meet US safety rules.

The latest teaser: XL1. It's a spaceship-like, ultra-high-mpg, plug-in diesel-electric hybrid. VW used exotic, but obtainable, materials and technologies to craft a mileage-above-all car able to get 261 mpg in European tests, equating, very roughly, to perhaps 200 mpg in U.S. tests.

Barely a real production model, it's made in a factory, but largely by hand. It couldn't meet U.S. safety rules

The sleek roof provides no rear window. Equally sleek sides aren't interrupted by mirrors. Rear view is via two cameras in tiny pods about where mirrors would be. Inside, each door has a view screen in which to see what's beside and behind.

It would take us longer to get used to the camera system than it would to get comfortable with the noise.

A car without mirrors — you can begin to see the kinds of regulatory hurdles the XL1 would have to jump to become mainstream. Just one air bag, in the steering wheel. Another non-starter almost everywhere

So it seems the stated reasons for VW not marketing this vehicle in the USA are insufficient conventional safety measure, not excessive fuel economy.

The press pack describes the approach to safety taken by VW with the XL1. It may be that changes in safety law may be needed before it is accepted that the vehicle is as safe as more conventional vehicles (other news reports support this view, saying that rules were changed in Germany to allow the XL1). This is an expensive limited-production hand-made car, perhaps VW are really using this mainly as an exercise for testing the reaction of the public and of legislators to technologies and approaches that may be used in future vehicles.

Community
  • 1
RedGrittyBrick
  • 24,895
  • 3
  • 100
  • 111
  • 1
    Are the differences in mpg between American and European tests due to differences in definition of the gallon? – gerrit Apr 15 '14 at 16:30
  • Of course, this does not disprove the conspiracy theory that the *true* reason that it is banned is its efficiency. – gerrit Apr 15 '14 at 16:31
  • 1
    1) That's how I interpreted it but maths suggests standard test cycle also differs in US * EU. 2) True but my alien lizard overlords prohnv\uij – RedGrittyBrick Apr 15 '14 at 16:35
  • It seems to be regrettably true that safety standards have led to inevitably-higher curb weight. I have a '92 Civic which has a highway rating of 49MPG. Can't touch that with today's non-hybrid / electrics. (Of course, "safety standards" is just the conspiracy's tactic...) – Larry OBrien Apr 15 '14 at 20:36