5 surprising similarities between Tesla Cybercab and Volkswagen Cybercab

When Tesla unveiled its futuristic Cybercab, many eagle-eyed observers were quick to spot unexpected similarities to an obscure eco-wonder from the past, the Volkswagen XL1. While Tesla’s latest product hopes to revolutionize urban transportation with full autonomy and mass-market ambitions, the XL1 is an ultra-efficient, ultra-limited experiment in fuel-saving technology. Although their missions are very different, the visual similarities between the two cannot be ignored.

var adpushup = window.adpushup = window.adpushup || {que:()}; adpushup.que.push(function() { if (adpushup.config.platform !== “DESKTOP”){ adpushup.triggerAd(“4d84e4c9 -9937-4f84-82c0-c94544ee6f2a”); } else{ adpushup.triggerAd(” 6a782b01-facb-45f3-a88f-ddf1b1f97657″); } });

Tesla’s Cybercab (commonly known as a robotaxi) is an all-electric, fully autonomous vehicle. Elon Musk is targeting production to start in 2027, with an expected price of $30,000. What makes Cybercab unique is that it completely eliminates steering wheels and pedals, relying entirely on artificial intelligence and a network of sensors to transport passengers to their destinations without human intervention.

More: Volkswagen’s 262 MPG XL1 is the perfect supercar Skinflint, here’s one for sale and what it’s like to drive

Meanwhile, the Volkswagen XL1, a true unicorn of the automotive world, was built in just 250 units, all aimed at European buyers, and priced at a whopping €111,000 (about $121,500 today). The XL1 was first launched as a concept in 2002, refined in 2009 and 2011, and finally launched in 2013. What are its main features? Fuel consumption is just 0.9 liters per 100 kilometers, or about 260 mpg. Volkswagen achieves this with a 0.8-liter, two-cylinder, plug-in diesel hybrid system that produces 68 horsepower and combines cutting-edge lightweight materials and wind-proof aerodynamics.

var adpushup = window.adpushup = window.adpushup || {que:()}; adpushup.que.push(function() { if (adpushup.config.platform !== “DESKTOP”){ adpushup.triggerAd(“5646c171 -cb6e-4e2c-8440-49013ca72758″); } else{ adpushup.triggerAd(” e7c4c913-3924-4b2d-9279-6c00984dd130″); } });

So how come two seemingly unrelated vehicles—one an affordable robotaxi, the other an ultra-expensive eco-cruiser—end up looking like long-lost cousins? The most obvious explanation is their shared goal of aerodynamic efficiency, and the desire to create something futuristic and desirable. Let’s break down five key similarities between the Tesla Cybercab and the Volkswagen XL1.

contour

We start with the most obvious similarity, the overall shape. This is largely determined by aerodynamics, as droplets are the natural form of least resistance. A short nose and sloping roofline are common features of various concept and production cars, but the similar greenhouse design accentuates the effect.

However, the XL1 pushes aerodynamics even further with its elongated tail and rear wheel covers, designed to cut through the air with minimal drag. In contrast, the Cybercab opts for larger disc wheels and a rising beltline to make it look more approachable and less aggressive.

butterfly door

Another key feature of the Tesla Cybercab and VW XL1 are the butterfly doors, which underline their futuristic stance. In addition to the cool factor, the design also makes it easier for occupants to enter and exit the cab, especially in low-slung vehicles. This is why you typically see unconventional door arrangements on supercars and hypercars rather than SUVs, but the Tesla Model X is a notable exception.

var adpushup = window.adpushup = window.adpushup || {que:()}; adpushup.que.push(function() { if (adpushup.config.platform !== “DESKTOP”){ adpushup.triggerAd(“e96f0476 -8b1d-4bb8-b64c-33f9656987b2″); } else{ adpushup.triggerAd(” 0f9edca9-aa84-4c07-8987-4cad23928c2d”); } });

The XL1 goes a step further and incorporates part of the roof into the door design, which is necessary given the car’s ultra-low height (just 1,153 mm (45.4 inches)). While Tesla hasn’t released detailed specs on the Cybercab’s height, the prototype appears to be significantly taller than the XL1, making this door style more about form than function.

No rear windshield

lighting fixtures

The omission of a rear windshield isn’t as uncommon in 2024 as it was in 2013, but it’s another common feature between Tesla and VW that contributes to the overall appearance of the rear deck. In the XL1, the lack of rear glass is likely to achieve weight and aerodynamic goals. For Cybercab, fully autonomous driving completely eliminates the need for rear vision.

Interestingly, other new models, such as the Avatr 12 and Polestar 4, have also ditched rear windshields, signaling a trend in modern car design that favors technology-driven solutions over traditional visibility.

That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but the Cybercab and XL1 have full-width light bars on either end, which gives them an undeniable sci-fi aesthetic, especially at night. While each model has its own unique lighting signature, the Cybercab appears to draw inspiration from Tesla’s infamous Cybertruck, blending angular, futuristic elements with clean, continuous light strips front and rear. One body.

two-seat cabin

Finally, both models feature a two-seat interior layout, although not geared toward performance driving. The Tesla Cybercab is unique in its omission of driving controls (no steering wheel or pedals), while the VW XL1’s seats are significantly offset to maximize use of its narrow cabin.

One clear advantage the Cybercab has over the smaller XL1 is cargo space. Thanks to its all-electric powertrain, Tesla has more room to play with packaging, giving the Cybercab a larger trunk. The XL1, on the other hand, has to use a rear-mounted 0.8-liter turbodiesel engine as part of its hybrid setup, limiting practicality.

Finally we list the similarities between an all-electric robot taxi (Tesla Cybercab) and an efficient car freak (VW XL1). Do you think Tesla designers intentionally copied (or were at least influenced by) Volkswagen, or are these features simply a byproduct of engineering for maximum efficiency and usability?