Volkswagen’s New 300 MPG Car Is Not Allowed In America Because It’s Too Efficient →

December 02, 2014 |

The Mind Unleashed:

If the XL1 was equipped with an 18 gallon fuel tank, and you did all highway driving, you could fill it up with an oil change and when the next change was due you could change the oil and keep driving without filling up for and additional 2,400 miles. But it comes with a much smaller fuel tank, because if it could go that long on a single tank chances are the fuel would foul before it got used. The tank is only 2.6 gallons to prevent fuel age related problems from happening. So fill ups are cheap.

That’s impressive. But why wouldn’t such an efficient car be allowed on American roads?

The answer is obvious. Simply for the sake of raking in huge profits from $4 a gallon gas, getting guzzled at 10X the rate it should be, the corporations have via campaign contributions and other types of pay outs succeeded in getting the FED to legislate the best cars off the road for irrelevant trumped up reasons. The XL1 will not meet American emission standards NOT because it is not clean enough, it will not meet them simply because inefficient parts that are mandated by the EPA are not part of the XL1′s power train.


Via The Loop.

UPDATE: Apparently, the conspiracy claims implied in this article may not be entirely reliable. Here’s the flip side of the story:

First of all, it’s not true that the XL1 has “been denied a tour of America because it is too efficient for the American public to be made widely aware of.” Existing safety and traffic regulations do limit where the current XL1 models can be legally driven in public roads in the U.S., but Volkswagen has taken at least three of the vehicles on tour around the U.S., and the staff of Jalopnik drove one around Manhattan at the end of 2013.

Second, the primary reason the XL1 won’t be seen in the U.S. anytime soon is that Volkswagen is only producing 200 units for retail sale (not 2,000 as claimed above), all of them to be sold in Europe via some sort of selection (i.e., lottery) process.

Frankly, I’m not entirely convinced of either version, but it’s only fair to present both sides of the argument. That said, a healthy dose of skepticism is always a good habit to maintain and as ever, it’s your duty as a reader to make up your mind in light of the facts.

Thanks to Mark Bylok for the heads up!