Click above to view high-res gallery of the Volkswagen Space up!
We'll admit to being a bit shocked that Volkswagen was even considering a move back to the rear-engine configuration it made fashionable all those years ago with its first vehicle, the ubiquitous Beetle, for the production version of its up! concept. Although we have some fondness in our hearts for the good ol' Bug and its backwards engine location, modern packaging constraints may force VW to ditch this idea for the production version of the up!, just like it did for the modern reincarnation of that first Vee Dub, the New Beetle. Out would go the uniqueness of the concept vehicle with this decision, but such is life in these days of platform sharing and cost considerations.
To go along with the previously noted nostalgia-crushing news, rumors indicate that both a 1.2-liter gasoline engine and a new diesel engine of the same displacement are expected, both offering just 55 horsepower. If this power level is accurate, at least the up! will share one thing with its Beetle forebear: really slow acceleration.
[Source: AutoZeitung (translated) via Motor Authority]
Paris Preview: Officially Official, Honda's new hybrid is the Insight!
Mazda Kiyora city car concept, MX-5 facelift head to Paris
Leaked: Official updated Mazda MX-5 image
Reader Spy: Chevy Volt caught on set of Transformers 2
Spy Shot: Production interior of Chevy Volt (maybe)
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Jaguar XF Supercharged
By the Numbers - August 2008: New Digs Edition
In the Autoblog Garage: KITT Shelby GT500 KR
First Drive: 2009 Cadillac CTS-V
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Nissan Murano
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Keat @ Jun 20th 2008 2:34PM
Thats kind of neat....I guess...
User @ Jun 20th 2008 7:30PM
This thing is awesome! BTW, I pay $4.79/gallon for regular gas here.
gearhead18 @ Jun 21st 2008 10:42PM
IMO without it being rear eangined rear wheel drive it looses some of its niche potential. And all of the packaging issues are kind of BS because they managed to do it it the smart ForTwo
Keat @ Jun 20th 2008 2:35PM
Thats kind of neat....I guess...
DP @ Jun 20th 2008 2:36PM
Bummer about the engine placement, that would have been a fun bit of novelty/nostalgia. I am not overly concerned about "really slow acceleration" however. I think the most important feature would be really great MPG, and perhaps that is what more people are looking for, rather than a race car.
Red @ Jun 20th 2008 2:37PM
Isn't the Up! the next "Lupo"? I wouldn't have expected a RWD/Rear engine vehicle anyway.
Definitely would've been nice though. lol
Solo Racer @ Jun 20th 2008 5:51PM
Not a compromise in the right design. I was at one of the up! unveilings and John "Spider" Salley got out of the passenger seat. For those not in the U.S. Salley is a former NBA player, 6'10" if memory serves.
Solo Racer @ Jun 20th 2008 5:52PM
Damn! Meant to reply to the post below. Argh!
gotsmart @ Jun 20th 2008 2:40PM
Not surprising, really.
Rear engine is a compromise for both people and luggage space.
drunkenpublicness @ Jun 20th 2008 2:46PM
Not really. Mitsubishi sells the 'i' which also uses this configuration and has plenty of interior room. Well, 'plenty' as in adequate.
VW could theoretically use the Mitsu. 'i' platform to bring the UP! closer to reality and concept.
zamafir @ Jun 20th 2008 2:59PM
drunkenpublicness is right, if you've played with this car, it's clear the rear space isn't grealy impacted by the engine in pre production guise. Now that also had tiny ass seats so perhaps the production Lupo is providing problematic. I'm sure it's just Porsche insisting the car be more profitable and conventional.
And as others have mentioned, if it's returning high mpg, over 70, 55hp won't be as annoying... though a 1.4TSI would rock for north america.
Bungle @ Jun 20th 2008 6:25PM
Not at all. You just move the luggage space up front, where there's no longer an engine. Also, if you've ever been in an old VW van, you'd be amazed at how little room the rear engine takes - it just means a slightly higher floor in the rear luggage compartment.
Coffee Jones @ Jun 23rd 2008 1:41AM
Also that engine placement probably does something for the crash rating.
Bill @ Jun 20th 2008 2:46PM
Keep the weight down, and 55hp is fine. My 83 Civic had about that, and while sluggish (by today's standards), it wasn't glacial, and got low 40's combined.
davido @ Jun 20th 2008 2:51PM
I've driven old Bugs. There is no particular packaging advantage for rear engine cars vs front engine fwd cars.
And I for one have no nostalgia whatsoever for oversteer. Old Bugs would spin in a heartbeat if you cornered too fast and spin just as quickly if you backed off the throttle mid-corner.
I'm sure that VW could make a new car more stable, but why bother building in the problem in the first place.
tankd0g @ Jun 20th 2008 3:15PM
Tell that to Porsche, lol. Took them what, 50 years to finally give in and build the Cayman? :)
Throwback @ Jun 20th 2008 3:00PM
The UP's engine is mounted in front of the rear axle, as opposed to behind it as in the original Bug. Oversteer should be much less than the Bug.
Yago Bal @ Jun 20th 2008 3:54PM
And not at all, when we think that we're close to have mandatory stability systems in all cars sold in Europe.
tankd0g @ Jun 20th 2008 3:15PM
Rear engine is the way to make RWD as fuel efficient as FWD but it does limit cargo space since the "trunk" in the front is obviously going to be limited by aerodynamics. In a car like this you have to ask yourself, "What's the point?" because it's not like you're going to be having any RWD fun on a grossly underpowered bread box so might as well make it FWD.
Richard Warren @ Jun 20th 2008 3:32PM
"Not surprising, really.
Rear engine is a compromise for both people and luggage space."
So is front engine design as well as mid engine design. Try a VW type 3 or 4 with two trunks and behind the seat storage or a variant.