Entry-level, RWD vehicles coming from VW in 2010

[bmer]

View attachment 75d84b5eb5df78b92be510cbb926662b.jpg


More news on the microcar front comes in the form of "confidential planning documents" procured by Automobilwoche outlining Volkswagen's plan for its rear-wheel-drive compacts over the next nine years. VW considers the launch of its new "Small Family" lineup of RWD vehicles as the most important launch since the Beetle was fazed out in favor of the Golf in 1974.

Production of the new minicars will being in 2010, likely utilizing the Skoda plant in Vrchlabi, within the Czech Republic, with 100,000 vehicles destined for Europe sporting the Volkswagen badge, and another 100,000 wearing Skoda and Seat logos. Variants of the uber-compact three-door are expected to come in at about 3500mm long, sporting a price tag under €8,000, with a five-door version, stretched by 80mm and priced around €9,450.

Entry-level, RWD vehicles coming from VW in 2010 - Autoblog

 

[Centurion]

Sweet. Not even Audi offers RWD.

 

[Giannis]

Can i hope for a RWD Polo with 250hp and 14.000eur in the next 4 months??

 

[Imhotep Evil]

RWD rear engined new Bettle please.

 

[Deleted member 182]

Now that's what I call pointless! RWD just takes more interior space and is more expensive which is important in entry-level markets.

 

[rev]

Sweet. Not even Audi offers RWD.

Audi should better stay with Quattro. They are experts in that particular field and that's what makes them differ from all other carmakers. It's just my opinion though.

BTW, the price tag of under 8000 Euros for the entry level sounds great!

 

[Imhotep Evil]

Now that's what I call pointless! RWD just takes more interior space and is more expensive which is important in entry-level markets.

Wrong.

The rear-engined RWD layout (old Bettle/356 and 911) is alongside the front-engined FWD (Mini/Golf) layout the most effective for interior space.

While front mid-ship and mid-rear RWD layouts are the least effective.

The more expensive part is true, but today platforms can be build to suit both FWD and RWD layouts (Nissan is good example).

 

[Deleted member 182]

True. In this case I believe it will be a front engine layout, which means a tunnel for the drive shaft. So less leg space. Might even take space from the trunk!

 

[bmer]

True. In this case I believe it will be a front engine layout, which means a tunnel for the drive shaft. So less leg space. Might even take space from the trunk!

The article is talking about microcars and that's the Up! concept (which has a rear engine) in the picture. That's why I think it will be a rear engine layout.

 

[Centurion]

The article is talking about microcars and they have the Up! concept in the picture. That's why I think it will be a rear engine layout.

Exactly. The article is refeering to the Up concept which is a modern day beetle with a rear engine and RWD configuration. Now that I thought of it they should name it the new Beetle, but with a more intruging design than the concept which look as boring as an iPod.

 

[bmer]

I think somebody here already suggested and some car site agreed that it could be named Lupo using the same logic as with the IROC concept (new Scirocco).

 

[NarutoRamen]

I don't know about VW, but I'm more excited about the revival of the Toyota AE86 Trueno!!! Long live Hachi-Roku! I would so buy that car over any other entry level car any day.

 

[Centurion]

I think somebody here already suggested and some car site agreed that it could be named Lupo using the same logic as with the IROC concept (new Scirocco).

You're right. It was mentioned a while ago that the car is going to be the new Lupo.

 

[siko]

Sweet. Not even Audi offers RWD.

I know, which is retarded. VAG should start by offering RWD on non-quattro Audis first.

 

[coolraoul]

Very few people really know what a difference it makes to have FWD or RWD. They sell a lot Audi with FWD/Quattro, which allows them giant scale savings with VW. Why should they change?

It only bothers me on TT or A5... But they are Quattro on powerful motors, so it is not really an issue.

Concerning the UP... Having rear engine allow the best space saving, the motor sits under the luggage space like in a smart.

One, the front is smaller, takes less place to the passengers. You have nearly all the space for the passengers, the motor is inside the cabin under the luggages.

Second, it is empty, so the front is only the crash zone. Which means that it can be softer, as no engine is there to annoy the deformation and absorbing of the crash energy.

Third the front can deforms itself further, because no risk to find the motor on the knees of the driver .

Fourth, on the rear, it is very easy to place the motor so that it just slips under the car in case of a crash, furthermore the crash speed is much lower in rear-crash generally.

So, it is better than a front engine, both on space and crash point of view.

The problem is that it is expensive, to create a platform from ground zero, and to adapt motors and gearboxfor it. You can't adapt drive solutions from others cars, because the comportment of a rear-engined car is totally different.

The issue with the driving safety, with strong understeer, and tendancy to go on roof because the car is lead by the motor weighting at the rear whereas the front is turning in the other side, is no more a problem with actual knowledge about drivetrain, tires and safety systems.

See the smart, which has all the drawbacks possible on earth from a drivetrain point of view (rear motor, RWD, the smallest wheelbase ever, high and narrow) and has no problems at all, save the strong understeering tendancy.

What bothers me, with the Up, is that they also will sell it as Skoda and soone. Hope they will not look too close, because it could hurt its Kultstatus.

Otherwise, wait and see. But very good idea.

 

[Merc1]

but today platforms can be build to suit both FWD and RWD layouts (Nissan is good example).

????

Nissan has such a platform?

M