Recommended Posts

Volkswagen CrossBlue Coupe concept

Several new pictures of the Volkswagen CrossBlue Coupe concept have surfaced online, following a leak earlier today.

The CrossBlue Coupe is a five-door crossover that has a sporty front fascia with a slender grille and LED headlights. Moving further back we can see a ventilated hood, plastic body cladding and matte aluminum trim. Last but not least, the model is equipped with a tailgate-mounted spoiler and a dual exhaust system that is integrated into the rear bumper.

The cabin echoes the original CrossBlue concept and adopts a restrained design with flat and angular surfaces. Notable highlights include leather seats, metallic trim and gloss black accents. There's also a digital instrument cluster, an infotainment system and a rear seat entertainment system.

Power will reportedly be provided by a turbocharged V6 engine which is backed up by two electric motors. This setup could enable the crossover to have a combined maximum output of 415 bhp (309 kW). This should allow the model to accelerate from 0-100 km/h in 5.9 seconds, average 3L/100 km (78.4 mpg US / 94.1 mpg UK) and travel up to 20.5 miles (33 km) on electricity alone.

268749048649324223.jpg

21114835121180938130.jpg

75710481828307290.jpg

1263884487218425597.jpg

1812772719263574131.jpg

2602408051626869918.jpg

581986019688753973.jpg

1057814259233604030.jpg

1989617991375570632.jpg

With some luck, we'll see its sibling soon, Audi Q6.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1147958-volkswagen-crossblue-coupe-concept/
Share on other sites

Since when have coupes become 4 door SUVs :/

Tell me your definition of a coupe and how it differs from a two-door sedan and I'll tell you where you are wrong.

It's a common misconception to call two-door vehicles coupes just judging by the number of doors. It's not the decisive factor. In fact, there's nothing mentioned about the number of doors or the height of the clearance in the definition of a coupe.

Tell me your definition of a coupe and how it differs from a two-door sedan and I'll tell you where you are wrong.

It's a common misconception to call two-door vehicles coupes just judging by the number of doors. It's not the decisive factor. In fact, there's nothing mentioned about the number of doors or the height of the clearance in the definition of a coupe.

Yeah I know there is a technical difference between a two door sedan and a coupe (capacity, b-pillar presence, etc.) I am also one one of those who for simplicity sake combines the coupes and two-door sedans into the same category even though they are technically different. To me the "Coupe" in this model's name is just a label for marketing purposes.

It looks good, but why make it a hybrid? Why not push towards the EREV (Extended Range Electric Vehicle) route? Yes, it does cost more than a hybrid, but frankly, if anyone's willing to pay the extra for a hybrid, I reckon they can stretch towards an EREV. The fuel savings would be a lot bigger, so it'd probably be better in the long-term.

It looks good, but why make it a hybrid? Why not push towards the EREV (Extended Range Electric Vehicle) route? Yes, it does cost more than a hybrid, but frankly, if anyone's willing to pay the extra for a hybrid, I reckon they can stretch towards an EREV. The fuel savings would be a lot bigger, so it'd probably be better in the long-term.

Maybe because hybrids have a vastly larger audience. Electric vehicles still need a ton of work. Give them another 5 years.

Agreed, this is not a coupe (roof bars on a coupe?)

And I'm not really a fan of how this looks. It looks a bit like they designed it for the sake of designing it. Like the "W"s on the rear lights look stupid, as do the bonnet vents.

The interior also looks a bit too clinical to me.

also reminds me a bit of the new range rover or landrover which ever it is, always get them two mixed up.

Yes, look at it from the side, there's definitely some resemblance there to Range Rover's Evoque as far as body styling goes. However, this is a much larger car.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!