Going fast and having fun have been components of automotive appeal forever, and lairy pumped-up versions of everyday cars don’t seem to be going anywhere after the dawn of the EV age. The Hyundai Ioniq 5 N is an EV you can clutch-kick, the Ford Mustang Mach-E GT is available with Magneride, and now Volkswagen’s teasing us all with with ID.X Performance concept.
It’s safe to say that X is the raunchiest, wildest, most-boundary-pushing letter in the Latin alphabet, and Volkswagen’s aiming to please. This fast four-door starts with Volkswagen’s ID.7 electric sedan, the effective replacement for both the Arteon and the Passat. However, as the Passat R36 proved, a humble sedan can pack a ton of visual appeal and performance.
The first thing most people will notice about the Volkswagen ID.X Performance is its fitment — extremely Porsche-looking centerlock alloy wheels covered by fender flares the size of Weber barbecue lids. How do you say “Dodge Charger SRT Hellcat Widebody” in German? Add in a wing that ought to be FAA-regulated and devilish red detailing around aggro new fascias, and the ID.X Performance might just be the wildest Volkswagen concept car since the Vision GTI. Of course, it also helps that this thing’s been dropped 2.4 inches to sit lower than my grades in college, but what can I say? Functional low cars are cool.
Just because the Volkswagen ID.X Performance looks ready for SEMA doesn’t mean it’s all bark and no bite. The German automaker has been fiddling with the electric motors to deliver something truly tantalizing. How does a combined output of 550 horsepower sound? Even better, sheer grunt isn’t the only thing this new motor setup has to offer. Volkswagen claims the rear drive unit is, well, extra-special.
The drive torque is controlled by a Vehicle Dynamics Manager, which also manages operation of the rear axle differential lock in the ID.X Performance.
Oh, hello there. Hopefully this is a true mechanical limited-slip rear differential instead of brake-based trickery, because as anyone who’s driven a car with a limited-slip rear differential will tell you, the real thing is a barrel of fun. I pledge allegiance to rotation, do you?
As it stands, the Volkswagen ID.X Performance is merely a concept, although I wouldn’t be surprised if more aggro electric Volkswagens appear in the future. Judging by the ID. GTI concept, the future will still be fun even if you don’t have swimming pools of cash like Scrooge McDuck. Just like EVs in general, electric performance cars are bound to get cheaper as time goes on, and during a seismic shift like this, hope is positively vital.
(Photo credits: Volkswagen)
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
VW Is Finally Making An Electric GTI, And It Can Mimic Old GTIs
-
The 2025 Volkswagen ID.7 Is A Sleek Long-Distance Electric Fastback
-
The Hyundai Ioniq 5 N Is A 641-Horsepower Track-Capable EV That Can ‘Shift’ Gears
-
The Ford Mustang Mach-E Rally: Has Everyone Lost Their Damn Minds?
-
The Genesis GV60 Performance Is A Tire-Frying Hypnotoad That Beats The Tesla Model Y In Many Areas
Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.
Something about the design makes it seem like a very narrow vehicle.
I’ve learned I need to recalibrate my HP to quickness metrics. 550HP sounds like a ton, but when your sedan weighs as much as a three row SUV that 550HP doesn’t go as far.
it has a BFW (Big Frickin wing!) so that’s an instant like from me.
I would not assume either of these statements so boldly.
I’m a card carrying VW Hater but I kind of like this. I really like big performance sedans in general but unfortunately the pickings are pretty slim these days unless you’re looking to pony up $60,000+ or willing to put up with *Dennis Reynolds voice* the implication of driving a Charger. I personally am not, although the 300C does appeal to me even if it’s wildly overpriced and I wouldn’t buy one at MSRP.
Anyway, I’m fine with this. It’s a little over-styled but it’s a concept, they’re supposed to be. I also really like the look of the Ioniq 6 N they’ve been showing off (and crashing!) even though it has all the stupid fake sound/fake shift lunacy. They may have sold enough Taycans and E Tron GTs by now that they’ll give regular ole VW access to that platform too, although who knows. The consensus seems to be that those cars drive quite well for EVs.
My concerns would of course be the weight and VW tech hell world interior…and I’m sure this weights 6,000 pounds and will have VW’s new talk to steer interface….
Wow another bloated, super fast, expensive EV. It must be Monday.
Does this thing actually have a differential or are the two motors each driving a wheel with a locker between?
If its the former why not the latter?
One motor driving 2 wheels with a locking differential can send nearly 100% of total torque to either wheel. Two motors each driving a wheel can only send 50% of total torque to each wheel.
You probably never need 100% to one wheel, but being able to do 70/30 or more is pretty useful. The alternative is to oversized the individual motors but having two motors each with 70% of the torque of one adds weight.
“One motor driving 2 wheels with a locking differential can send nearly 100% of total torque to either wheel. Two motors each driving a wheel can only send 50% of total torque to each wheel.”
Hence the locker between the motors. When one wheel slips the locker effectively makes the two motors into one. I’d think such a setup would be lighter and less complicated than a similarly sized single motor and a locking differential.
I’d have to dig more deeply into it but in my experience two motors are heavier and more expensive than one, even when the total power output is the same, especially when you factor in the cooling and power supply.
How much mechanically simpler is it to couple two motors with a locker than a locking differential? That I don’t know, my engineering work is on process equipment and I don’t deal much with mechanical couplings.
In my mind the two motors are essentially a single larger motor sliced in half and a clutch inserted in between. The added cost and weight of such a pair of motors over an equivalently powerful single I think would be more than offset by the lowered cost and weight of eliminating a locking differential. In my mind anyway.
This thing looks shit. Bland jelly mold saloon with a sharp edged body kit that doesn’t match the car styling at all, it’s modified the way a 17 year old would do it.
The ID2GTI concept suggests decent looking EVs might be on their way from VW, but this first generation, possibly even including the Buzz, are ugly and bland.
A wing on an EV seems like a sign that you’re in bad idea territory. If the car is quick enough that one needs to worry about lift on the 5,000+ lb brick then that’s probably an indication that you should dial it back a bit.
Good lord my friend. VW just gave their performance/marketing team some leeway to spice up the car. The wing won’t make it to production, nor will the center-lock wheels, and flares. Not everything has to be functional.
Sema 2023 is coming up in a few months, maybe they built the car for display there. Sema cars are definitely not for everyone, if its not for you, then all good, someone else will like it. A lot of stuff there isn’t for me, some are, I just enjoy that someone out there is having a good time.
Highly doubtful that there is sufficient lift to justify the wing.
Further, consider that it has flared fenders, when the car SHOULD have been designed for the sides of the body to be flush with placement of the wheels, in order to keep wind resistance down.
This is yet another overly-aggro, form-leads-function design. Those are ubiquitous today, and this car is therefore BORING.
This company should do something interesting, like make an affordable, lightweight, minimalist performance EV with the aero slipperiness of the XL1. Or an affordable, long-range family sedan with the same level of slipperiness.
It would be nice wouldn’t it? Like an e-UP! but just as unobtainable in ‘Murica.
It’s not just boring, it’s ugly and it’s mom dresses it funny.
Counterpoint: wings are fun. Live a little! My erstwhile shitbox V6 Camry (RIP) came with a spoiler (with integrated CHMSL, which always slaps). It exchanged slight amounts of drag for absolutely zero downforce, but hey, it was fun!
Agreed. That Camry with the TRD package, I had no idea what to make of it or what the demographics of that car was, but I see a bunch of them so I guess it worked.
Mine was a 1998, so far before the TRD EVERYTHING phenomenon that has recently afflicted Toyota (not that I’m necessarily complaining).
A beigemobile with a couple racy bits tacked on and enough torque steer to pull you into next week (or at least the next lane) wasn’t a bad way to get around.
Ah that generation. One of the last ones Toyota offered with a v6 manual i think. Those with the oem spoiler was subtle, just about every competitor offered some sort of spoiler as well.
I’d like to see an article on all the various spoilers that was once offered as an option, i can’t think of too many cars that have that option these days
I miss sedans with long-ass trunks and wing/spoiler option packages. It makes sense that they’re effectively dead, since those wings kill the aero benefits of styling sedans like faux-liftbacks.
That said: we’re maybe starting to see something approaching wings on new EVs as companies get creative with improving aero. The Toyota Bizzyforks isnt generally styled to my liking, but the goofy aero bits coming off the roof above the rear glass are fun.
A wing alone doesn’t solve lift problems anyways.
A lot of serious, serious sports cars still generate significant lift. If you want to get into true zero-lift (or net downforce) territory you’re spending real money.
Even what most people would consider reasonably serious sports cars — non-Z06 Corvettes, non-GT 911s, AMG GTs — with actual real aero still are zero-lift until at best around 120mph or so. After that, yes, significant net lift as track speeds increase. And its evident as you go faster as even in a straight line eventually the front end will start to bob significantly unless you are on PERFECTLY smooth pavement.
— —–
If you want zero lift or net downforce, it ain’t on anything cheap. Normal cars start to generate meaningful noticeable amounts of starting at 90mph, and around 120mph is when you tend to you get the typical YouTube videos where someone loses the front end and has a bad time.
And that’s before we get into speed ratings of tires (why most 700HP supertrucks have a speed limiter the same as a 20-year old Corolla), weird driveline resonances where you get driveshaft failures, inadequate brakes, etc.
Good post.
I’ve noticed that you don’t need extensive add-ons to get net downforce if the car is designed properly from the start. A Mercedes 300 SDL I used to own could hold 120 mph all day long if I wanted it to, and it felt well-planted and stable. The fact that it was a 4,000 lb tankolatapus helped things I’m sure. I also used to own a Ford Contour that I removed the governor via a Diablo tuner, and it would do over 125 mph as a result(was formerly governed at 112 mph). It also didn’t feel very loose at speed, and it was no performance car by any stretch of the imagination and was designed as a “world car” with low per-unit low production costs in mind. My Triumph GT6 driven as an ICE when I was a kid got squirrely around 110 mph or so, but most of the issue was me being skinny at 120 lbs and struggling to keep control of the steering wheel when the road surface was uneven, since the imperfections in the road wanted to rip the steering wheel from my hands. The GT6 was also designed before downforce was a serious consideration in automotive design, and at speed, it felt like it was floating. I plan to correct that with custom-made aero pieces, mostly in the interest of drag reduction and efficiency, but they should also have the effect of stabilizing the car.
The things that reduce aero drag TEND to also reduce lift. Both lift and downforce add net drag, and a slippery bastard would have ideally JUST ENOUGH downforce to stay planted, and no more. Basically, no net lift is the ideal, while having as few downforce aides as possible to keep from having any net lift within the vehicle’s speed range.
The Lotus 79 pioneered ground effects. In doing so, Lotus figured out a way to keep a car planted with minimal downforce aides(the 79 had a lot of downforce aides, but the proof of concept for ground effects was demonstrated in this car, arguably for the first time). IMO, ground effects is the way road-going sports cars should generally go to get the downforce they need, without adding drag. No obnoxious wings, splitters, lips, or spoilers are required. Even at 200 mph, if you design it right. Some cars do use this technique very effectively with minimal bullshit addons, and consequently, are very slippery relative to everything else available that makes similar net downforce at a given speed(T.50, I’m looking at you, good work. And this isn’t even considering the fan that sucks the car down which enhances it further. Another good example is the VW XL Sport, a concept based on the XL1, but designed not to be as slippery in the interest of adding more downforce).
Many “performance” cars are designed for looks, more than function, to the expense of their ultimate utility as go-fast machines. This is your typical 2-ton supercar. It’s designed for marketing, more than anything else, and both aero slipperiness and downforce took a backseat to LOOKING aerodynamically slippery and LOOKING like they make a lot of downforce. I loathe these sorts of designs. All sizzle, no-steak. And they guzzle fuel and then people kill themselves in them.
Unlike many supercars, racecars are generally designed to generate as much downforce as possible, at the expense of aero slipperiness, but to the benefit of aiding high-speed cornering and increasing lateral grip, and screw looks. This is your typical LM car or F1 car(at least within the context of the bureaucracy that runs these organizations with all their damned rules that ultimately stifle innovation). THIS is what supercars should really be, except made to be marginally street legal, not 2-seater limousines bloated with bullshit luxury features pretending to be effective go-fast machines.
To my understanding, the Lucid is designed around a diffuser starting extremely far forward for road cars. The idea that the highway-miles optimization (and weight) necessary for a luxo ev could make it more stable on a runway than a Stingray is funny to me.
Lucid is more concerned with function than aesthetics. They get a superior product as a result. Almost no one in the industry does this, when it’s so obvious, especially with EV buyers being concerned about range and value per dollar spent.
Corvette has lost its way. Peak Corvette was C4 and C5, their most slippery designs, having Cd values around 0.28, and when brand new were relatively affordable cars. Their most fuel efficient designs, as well, both able to exceed 30 mpg at 70-75 mph highway driving without any modification. I wish GM would have continued in this direction, and brought Corvette nearer to its roots, by making a small car like the C1, except applying the modern V8 that goes into them as well as making the best use of GM’s extensive aerodynamics knowledge to make the slipperiest Corvette ever that is still stable at top speed. Imagine if the new Corvette had a CdA value comparable to the GM EV1, slimmed down to around 2,700 lbs or so, yet retained the same big-displacement pushrod V8 we all know and love. It’s highway fuel economy would be very Prius-like… and its top speed would be in the territory of cars that cost 20x as much, and at triple digit speeds there’d be very little drag to hold back acceleration allowing it to extend the violent portion of its acceleration curve further out.
Instead, we get a watered-down pig that weighs as nearly much as a 2000s Silverado crew cab, and whose aero has gone backwards to a Cd value of 0.47 which is probably the most drag-inducing Corvette ever built. It’s become another expensive, gas-guzzling, two-ton lardass of a supercar made for looks over performance, mathematically designed to extract money from people more concerned with their image than the actual substance of the car they choose to operate, when the market is already saturated with crap like that.