VW UP! (production)

[2o6]

Rubber-burning performance then? 


The primary reason is likely cost, and even so 59HP is par for the course for base models in the class. Not too sure why they need a turbo to get there.

[CJ]

He's not wrong.  For driving around a congested city, this thing is probably fine.

Wimmer, have a look at some typical American on ramps and then tell me 59 HP is adequate.

[MX793]

Cost.


The other optional motor is a 1.0L Turbo making about ~80 HP.

I'd wager a 59 hp, naturally aspirated 1.0L motor would cost less to make than the turbo one.  I can also guarantee you that the 59 hp version is no less expensive than the more powerful variant.

[2o6]

There are other motors, guys.



For example: Did you know you can get a new Fiesta with 58 HP?





The 59HP in the Up! is likely adequate, since it probably weighs next to nothing and is geared quite short. If you want more power, get the more powerful ~75HP unit.

I'd wager a 59 hp, naturally aspirated 1.0L motor would cost less to make than the turbo one.  I can also guarantee you that the 59 hp version is no less expensive than the more powerful variant.

Honestly, I don't know why this motor is an option, unless it's a typo, and the 59HP motor is the one without a turbo. It might be an old motor, I really don't know.

[3.0L V6]

Where do I claim it was a "stupid" idea? What I basically said was that it didn't make much sense to me to detune a big block, heavy, RWD and fullsize sedan. I'm pretty sure the 150-hp Buick Electra was completely underpowered and got worse mileage than a 350-hp Buick Electra.

Come on. Most American fullsize cars (and probably most American cars) from the early '70s were not designed to get good gas mileage. Only the oil crisis of 1973 and the smaller ones thereafter caused fuel economy and emissions to become a topic.

Detuning the engines was a knee-jerk-reaction to a problem. It was probably the only thing the carmakers could logically do without pulling off from the market a brand new 455cid V8 Buick Electra that had debuted two weeks before the oil crisis...

Maybe at the time it made sense, but now, looking back, I don't think it did. Like I said. I think a 350-hp Buick Electra would probably have gotten the same if not better mileage than the detuned 150-hp Electra.

The loss of power would have occurred anyway. Big engines weren't detuned to get better fuel mileage, they had lower output due to lower compression for running on unleaded gas and the primitive emissions controls.

Had the automakers been able to increase the power density of their engines during that era, they likely would have substituted their small-block engines for the big-block designs.

[2o6]

I mean, obviously, the car will be slow as a slug with that base motor, but it won't be immobile.



I think the 1.2TSI unit would make a nice little GTI or sport or whatever of this car. (105HP)

[Eye of the Tiger]

It's a silly inquiry IMO. This guy doesn't stop to think that maybe this engine is tuned for efficiency and not burning rubber on the 'Ring.

It's also one of those "In the year 1723 Honda produced a 1.0-l engine with 115-horsepower. Now in the year 2525 VW's 1.0-l engine can only produce 59-hp?" claims.

But even a 3cyl 1.0L Geo Metro from 1991 manages 55hp, and that was most certainly tuned for effishensee

[sportyaccordy]

Cost.


The other optional motor is a 1.0L Turbo making about ~80 HP.

It would cost less to get the same power from the 1.0L w/o the turbo. I'm pretty sure the Geo Metro was making that power from its 1.0L 20 years ago.

[2o6]

But even a 3cyl 1.0L Geo Metro from 1991 manages 55hp, and that was most certainly tuned for effishensee

Wasn't that thing carburetted, too?

[Eye of the Tiger]

Wasn't that thing carburetted, too?

At some point they upgraded to electronic carburetors and called it "TBI". Also single cam with special flat lobes acting on six puny valves, yet it still revved to 6000 RPM.

[Raza]

The car still looks a little too concept-y still. 

[Soup DeVille]

A German female name and an extinct automobile brand.

Although both technically correct, in the US it commonly refers to the boob shaped protrusion on front bumpers of carts in the fifties.

In other words, he's a boob.

[93JC]

They were named after her:

[Galaxy]

I would assume that the turbo is intended to iron out a torque pit. The I3 used are apparently all new. One will be offered as a natrual gas version, not sure if CNG, or LPG.

[cawimmer430]

He's not wrong.  For driving around a congested city, this thing is probably fine.

Wimmer, have a look at some typical American on ramps and then tell me 59 HP is adequate.

I'm sure it'll be adequate in this car, which doesn't weigh much.

There are still Americans driving around in 65/72-hp Mercedes 240D W123s. Those are older, slower and heavier and these guys manage.

[CJ]

I'm sure it'll be adequate in this car, which doesn't weigh much.

There are still Americans driving around in 65/72-hp Mercedes 240D W123s. Those are older, slower and heavier and these guys manage.

And they're driven primarily around town, it seems.  I don't think you'd be able to go up a mountain range in a 240D.

[cawimmer430]

And they're driven primarily around town, it seems.  I don't think you'd be able to go up a mountain range in a 240D.

They're not that slow. I've driven a 1979 W123 200D with 60-hp and a 4-speed manual. They're actually pretty "quick" from 0-80 km/h. 80-100 km/h takes awhile though.

[Cookie Monster]

I don't care what anyone says, I want an UP! with the 59 HP engine.

[Vinsanity]

doesn't a Smart car have like 70 hp? I'd love to see a 4-way drag race between a Smart, an UP!, a M-B 240D, and an old VW bus.

[Madman]

doesn't a Smart car have like 70 hp? I'd love to see a 4-way drag race between a Smart, an UP!, a M-B 240D, and an old VW bus.

I once had a 1975 VW Bus and have driven both an ancient 240D and a Smart.  My money is on the Smart with the Bus a close second.

[Colonel Cadillac]

It sure wouldn't be that efficient for me, because I would have it at the redline as much as possible.

[Soup DeVille]

And they're driven primarily around town, it seems.  I don't think you'd be able to go up a mountain range in a 240D.

I've been to the top of Pike's Peak in a type-2 VW Bus. The 240d gots the diesel type torques at least, and twice the horsepower.

[2o6]

5-door model.


http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/277579/vw_up_5door.html

Rear windows don't roll down, but they look like they do flip out.

[Cookie Monster]

With the glass that big and the resulting door underneath so small, it's easy to see why they don't roll down.

[Eye of the Tiger]

They should roll up and just stick out the roof.

[2o6]

With the glass that big and the resulting door underneath so small, it's easy to see why they don't roll down.

It's probably cheaper not to put anything back there anyways. Lots of cars in this segment (that are 5-door) don't have retractable rear windows. The C1/AYGO/107 don't, the Suzuki Alto/Nissan Pixo doesn't. The only ones that do are the Kia Picanto, Chevy Spark and the Hyundai i10.

[Eye of the Tiger]

It's probably cheaper not to put anything back there anyways. Lots of cars in this segment (that are 5-door) don't have retractable rear windows. The C1/AYGO/107 don't, the Suzuki Alto/Nissan Pixo doesn't. The only ones that do are the Kia Picanto, Chevy Spark and the Hyundai i10.

That's retarded. If I was stuck in the back of one of those things, I'd teuton-smash the window out so I could get a breeze.

[Laconian]

You'd what-smash them?

[Cookie Monster]

You'd what-smash them?

He-would-love-to-tell-you-but-he-really-can't-smash

[2o6]

That's retarded. If I was stuck in the back of one of those things, I'd teuton-smash the window out so I could get a breeze.

]

The ones on the AYGO/C1/107 flip out, as do the Pixo/Alto.