• Mar 6, 2009
Volkswagen Bluesport Concept - Click above for high-res gallery

Volkswagen has plans to prove that it can "make a connection between fun, performance and low consumption," according to R&D head man Dr. Ulrich Hackenburg. To that end, the German automaker is likely to introduce a BlueSport brand to go along with the BlueMotion moniker already in use for the greenest of its current model range.

The performance-minded eco-friendly name was first introduced on the BlueSport roadster concept that the automaker revealed in Detroit late last year. According to Evo, there's a 90% likelihood that VW will follow through with a production model based on that concept by 2011.

Ahead of that potential model's introduction, VW could test the waters with a BlueSport edition of the Euro-only Scirocco, as well as a diesel-powered version of the GTI hatchback. Considering VW's recent small-scale success with diesel engines in the U.S., it seems possible the automaker could continue testing the waters with an American BlueSport line.



[Source: evo]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 19 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      Fantastic, except they got it backwards. They shouldn't be taking the name of this car and building "sporty" diesels. They should be building the roadster, ditching the oil burner, and cramming the VR6's powerplant in it. What they choose to call it is irrelevant.
      • 5 Years Ago
      I honestly have not driven a modern diesel. I consider myself rather openminded but I had such awful experiences with diesels in the past that I just can't consider one. I know that is probably an ignorant way of thinking but I think it is prevalent in America. We had some crappy diesels foisted on us. I wonder how many people will ever give diesels a chance here especially with the cost differential?

      Question; What do you guys think can be done PR wise to change my and so many other Americans minds?
        • 5 Years Ago

        "Question; What do you guys think can be done PR wise to change my and so many other Americans minds?"

        Very little. I don't see what's preventing you to go to VW, MB or BMW dealership and asking for a long test drive. Then take it either to Red Canyon or uphill towards Death Valley and come back when you get to the summit.

        If possible, ask for a stick - if you chose VW, that is. I don't know about MB, but BMW believes that 335d should not be driven with a stick. Good. $40,000 more in my bank account and same amount less in BMW coffers.

        After the drive, remember that if you have anything positive to say about it, it will get 5 times better after the first 1,000 miles or so when you learn how to get maximum out of diesel by driving it as a diesel instead of driving it as a gasoline engine.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Maybe think of it this way. Leaded gas was available in the US legally until 1995. We all know how bad that was for the environment and us, yet we're still driving gas powered cars. Changes over the years made the engines better, and able to run off of unleaded.

        Diesel now has 90 something percent less sulfur than before, and under current EPA regs, burn cleaner than the monstrosities of the 70s. It's not like diesel tech research stopped in the 70s. Our friends across the pond have done all the innovation for us with diesel, and now we can sit back and reap the rewards.

        Not a super awesome correlation, but perhaps close enough for some to forget the old crapola diesels of the past, just as many people have no idea why pumps say unleaded at the gas station.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Sick car!
        • 5 Years Ago
        Audi R8 convertible
      • 5 Years Ago
      Nice car, but regardless of the ethereal Audi race car efforts, diesel engines that people can buy are not sporting engines. No one can yet buy and drive an Audi diesel-powered V10 endurance prototype race car on the street. We are talking about a little turbo-diesel I4 here, with a low redline, and all the rev-ability of a John Deere.

      They are fuel efficient. They are torquey. in bigger formats, they are good workhorses, in small formats, they are fuel-sipper efficient.

      But they don't rev beyond 4000-4500 RPMs, and don't rev that fast to get there.

      What is the point of a sporting vehicle, let alone a mid-engined sports car, with a tiny tractor engine in it?

      And econo-box, ok... I get it. A sports car? WHY? I can even see a Beetle convertible, for open air atmosphere, in a front-drive econo-car mode.

      But why a RWD mid-engined car, a design that is less practical, and more suited for real performance and handling... why hobble it with a diesel just to get fuel economy? Performance car enthusiasts are not going to sacrifice that enthusiasm for frugality, that is kind of the POINT of a sports car.

      HCCI, direct gas injection, turbos, all sorts of things can make sporting engines more efficient. But they are still sporty, quick engines.

      This is like buying nice specified running shoes to go wade through a bog or something. The tool is not suited for the job.

      Please tell me that I am not the only one who sees the discrepancy here?
        • 5 Years Ago
        New Beetle, Scirroco and any other car VW produces has a diesel option. So why not their sports car?
        If they are gonna make it, it will prolly be available with a 1.4/1.8 TSI, 2.0 TSI and a 2.0 TDI. And why not? people who want a revvy gas engine will opt for the TSI, and people who want a sports car and use it for the daily run to work will buy the TDI.

        Audi already does it with the TT.

        You're just making a big deal out of it because you think it'll only be available as a diesel, but it won't.

        Modern diesels redline at about 5000rpm btw.
        And believe me when i say you will be impressed when you drive a 1200kg car and you get a V8 like push in the back when you punch the gas.
        I once drove a Seat Cordoba 1.9 TDI with 320nm of torque, that's a car weighing only 1100kg. It was so damn much fun and it felt like it would do 0-60 in 6 seconds even though it only does it in 9. Nothing quite like it.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I believe the main reason diesels are not used in range topping sports cars are:
        a) they are much much heavier than petrol engines - while this matters less in larger cars, the weight can seriously mess up the weight balance, power to weight and overall handling. This is because the much greater pressures required for diesel engines to run require a heavier and more robust engine block.
        b) Diesels don't have the sound, nor the required 'persona' to sell in large numbers in Ferrari or Lamborghini. Few people in the US get diesels in their trucks let alone would pay hundreds of thousands for a novelty that everyone thinks is a big-rig engine without the awesome exhaust note.

        Sure they don't rev as high, but that can be simply changed by gearing and overcome by huge amounts of torque (It's basic physics - not designing or building them but the theory of adjusting revs to make the sports appropriate is quite simple). They don't even need to rev rapidly, because all of the torque means even a small amount of power corresponds to a large increase in power.

        Just my thoughts - but I think its not the power delivery of modern diesels which is holding them back in any way.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Whe whole diesel outperforming petrol/Audi thing is getting old. There's one reason that the Audi diesels are outperforming gasoline engines in series like the ALMS. They are allowed, by the rules, to run larger restrictors. Power is a function of how much fuel and air you can burn. More air can be combined with more fuel to produce more power.

        If diesels were actually capable of outperforming gasoline engines when put on equal footing, there'd be more diesel performance range toppers. There aren't any. Not even at Audi. Look at the RS and S lines. Look at the R8. They had a nice v8 and wanted something faster. What did they put in it? A gasoline V10. All of the AMG models? Gasoline. The BMW M models? Gasoline. Is there a single diesel sports car in production? None come to mind...
        • 5 Years Ago
        My friend who just got back from a 1 year tour in Germany would disagree.

        The many diesels he drove outperformed gas vecs on the twisty roads and up hills.

        For most of the driving that most of us do, which is in cities with occasional highway stints, these are a good option.

        Decent up and go from lights, and better fuel economy on highways. If you're into dragracing soccer moms, look elsewhere.
        • 5 Years Ago
        New diesel engines from Audi can easily outperform petrol. They aren't the oil burners back in the 80's as you might have thought. And this Bluesport concept... is beautiful in it's own way. Less is more!
        • 5 Years Ago
        You obviously have not driven a diesel in many years (if ever). The new stuff by MB and Audi is outstanding. A friend in the industry had a chance to get a EU spec Audi diesel test car and it was awesome. Problem is getting it to pass emissions here.
        • 5 Years Ago
        What exactly is the redline for the Audi/VW TDI 4 cylinder? What 4000 RPMs? 4500 maybe?

        Probably has lots of torque. Probably very easy to drive. Maybe what, 190 horsepower, max? I didn't say they were bad engines. I said that they weren't sporting engines like gasoline sporting engines are.

        Calling it a tractor engine is perhaps too much hyperbole, but DIESEL IS DIESEL. The fuel is thicker, burns slower and more stratified, and the engine has a much higher static compression ratio, all of which have implications on the behavior of the engine under your right foot, and how it responds.

        Technology is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't change the laws of physics or chemistry. A diesel is still pretty much a diesel.

        If people think that a 4 cylinder diesel is a sporting engine, then they haven't driven a real sporting engine, more than just a gasoline economy engine. Even Audi's inline FSI turbo 4 is not the paragon of sporting engines of turbocharged 4-cylinders. My Subaru is much quicker/faster than a gasoline 2.0 Turbo Audi A4 Quattro, and both of those rev much higher, and respond quicker than a diesel engine.

        Honda S2000 doesn't use a diesel, nor do Nissan's sports cars, Miata, Solstice/Sky, or any other 4-cylinder sports car, or any sports car with a bigger gasoline engine. There is a reason for that. Otherwise, why would near-parent company Porsche not put Diesel in it's sports cars?

        Diesel has it's purposes, and for what it does, it is very good. Torque is easy to drive. that does not make the car a better performer, though. But let's not ascribe it qualities that it just doesn't have.
        • 5 Years Ago
        New Beetle, Scirroco and any other car VW produces has a diesel option. So why not their sports car?
        If they are gonna make it, it will prolly be available with a 1.4/1.8 TSI, 2.0 TSI and a 2.0 TDI. And why not? people who want a revvy gas engine will opt for the TSI, and people who want a sports car and use it for the daily run to work will buy the TDI.

        Audi already does it with the TT.

        You're just making a big deal out of it because you think it'll only be available as a diesel, but it won't.
      • 5 Years Ago
      The look of this car is superb. A georgeous automobile! As for the diesel, I don't see that as a problem - aim the car for the market that doesn't care too much about performance (speeding = tickets) but instead to those looking for a reliable car with great fuel efficiency and amazing looks. I'd love to see this car on NA roads.
        • 5 Years Ago
        OK then, I agree - put the engine in the front or back, keep the diesel. However, I see no problem with a sporty-looking car with a smallish engine.

        I had a 92 Firebird - V6, 3.1 litre and all of 140 HP. Hardly a monster engine by any standard, but I loved that car (sold it last year for $600 on ebay). I'm not a speed-demon anyway, so a small engine doesn't faze me at all.
        • 5 Years Ago
        A car for people who don't like speed, should not be built like a sports car, then.

        A front-drive car is better set up for that, and more practical anyway. A TDI Beetle Convertible, or Scirocco would do that job just fine. A mid-engined sports car without a real sports car engine is a compromise that pleases nobody.

        The only real stowage in a mid engined car is a short front trunk and perhaps a slight shallow rear trunk. There is no real justification to mount the engine in the middle of the chassis, out of cooling airflow, other than for performance weight distribution, for handling. No other reason.

        And if the engine is not a performance engine, it might as well be in the front. Or in VW fashion, in the back, and providing more interior space, and better overall packaging, for those who aren't so concerned about performance.

        But if they are going to do a mid-engined, well balanced sports car, then it should be equipped to perform like a sports car, including engine response.
    • Load More Comments