Finding good non-Volvo wheels for front-wheel-drive Volvos can be tough. It’s not necessarily the offsets, as Volvo’s front-wheel-drive platforms employ high positive offset like many modern cars. It’s not the hub bore either, as a relatively small hub bore of 65.1 millimeters on P1 and P2 cars means flexibility in that department thanks to hub-centric rings. No, it’s the bolt pattern, because it’s frustratingly uncommon.

Since the 1960s, Volvo has used five-lug hubs with 4.25-inch spacing, or a 5x108mm bolt pattern in modern speak. Since most five-lug Japanese performance cars use a 5×114.3 mm bolt pattern, many five-lug German cars use a 5×112 mm bolt pattern, and even BMWs used a 5×120 mm bolt pattern before switching to 5×112 mm on the latest models, factory wheels from other cars wide enough for wider rubber are relatively uncommon outside of China. Sure, Ford has used 5×108 mm on various models from the original Taurus all the way down to the Focus ST, and Jaguar has used 5×108 mm, but not all of these options work. However, there is one place to look for wider, offset-friendly 5×108 mm wheels for front-wheel-drive Volvos, and that’s Maranello.

By some strange coincidence, most Ferrari models from the 348 tb to the F430 also ran 5×108 mm hubs, with wheel hub bores compatible with front-wheel-drive Volvos. This means that so long as a di Montezemolo-era Ferrari’s wheels are the right offset for the new application, there’s a chance they fit with a caveat—check the stagger. Indeed, the owners of some Volvos have put it to the test.

Take a look at this Volvo V70 on Ferrari 348 wheels, posted in the public Facebook group “OEM Wheels on Other Makes & Models.” Those front wheels fit great, although it wouldn’t be surprising if some massaging was required to fit the nine-inch-wide Ferrari rear wheels under the back arches of the Volvo. At the same time, wider rear tires at the back of a car than at the front generally promote understeer, so this sort of setup likely hinders the ultimate performance of a front-wheel-drive Volvo.

A better solution might be to source four Ferrari front wheels, all the same width. Indeed, the Volvo V70R above sold on Bring A Trailer back in 2023 sporting a particularly distinctive set of alloys. Yes, those are four identically-sized wheels from a Ferrari 360 Modena, and while I’m not the biggest fan of this set’s anthracite finish, the overall style looks great on a red V70R.

A full set of Ferrari fronts is also what this XC90 owner went with, notably those from a 550 Maranello. As detailed in the “OEM Wheels on Other Makes & Models” Facebook group, “No special process required. Bolt pattern, center bore, and lug nut thread are an exact match, offset very similar to factory Volvo.” Boom. Bolt-up, look sweet, job done.

So how much will a used set of Ferrari wheels cost you? It varies depending on the model, and while you aren’t exactly looking at chump change, certain secondhand sets of Ferrari wheels might not be as expensive as you’d think. The full set of 360 Modena wheels above is listed on eBay right now for $1,989, which isn’t bad considering most Ferrari merch is pricier.

Likewise, the full set of Ferrari 456 GT wheels above is listed on eBay right now for $1,800. Sure, they might only be 17-inch wheels, but they’re cool and different. Plus, even though they’re used, it’s nice knowing that OEM wheels have to go through all sorts of research and development. While cheap aftermarket cast wheels have improved greatly over the past two decades, they can still sometimes be a bit of a gamble.

So now you know, Ferrari wheels might fit your Volvo, but your Volvo wheels probably won’t fit a Ferrari without some milling, unless you’re driving an XC90 or something. Actually, who’s going to see if XC90 R Design wheels fit on a 550 Maranello?

Top graphic image: Bring A Trailer

The post Turns Out Ferrari Wheels Bolt Right Onto Volvos And They Just Look So Sweet appeared first on The Autopian.

When it comes to motorcycle companies, few are currently doing more bonkers things than Yamaha. From filing a patent for a fake internal combustion engine that doesn’t serve any purpose other than to make noise to unveiling a three-wheel-steering trike, the company just seems to be on a “why not?” streak. However, if those concepts weren’t crazy enough for you, take a look at this concept bike being unveiled at the Japan Mobility Show. I don’t think I’ve seen anything like it.

It’s called the MOTOROiD:Λ and it’s Yamaha’s latest venture into asking a question consumers aren’t: What if we took the rider out of the equation? Yes, this is a vision of a fully autonomous motorcycle, and while a self-driving car or a self-cleaning shower make sense, a self-riding motorcycle is less-obvious. Still, I reckon it’s important.

According to Yamaha, “The system trains in virtual environments and then applies its skills in the real world using Sim2Real techniques. By giving the machine a degree of independent decision-making, MOTOROiD:Λ represents another step toward a new relationship in which it can grow alongside its user.” That’s great and all, but where does the user sit? I don’t see any handlebars or a seat, or even traditional pegs. Or is this a bit like owning a racehorse?

Well, it’s sort of neither. What we’re looking at here is less of a concept and more of a new-generation testbed. Back in 2017, Yamaha unveiled the original MOTOROiD, a self-balancing electric motorcycle that could stand up and even come to a rider at the wave of a hand. Think Knight Industries on two wheels. Beyond turning sci-fi into reality, self-balancing technology could be genuinely helpful for riders with tired knees who don’t want to get trikes.

As anyone who’s ridden a bicycle—let alone rode a motorcycle—will tell you, two-wheeled things don’t like to stay upright on their wheels when stationary. Sure, Yamaha has demonstrated autonomous auto-balancing tech, but what happens when the battery runs down on one of these self-balancing bikes? Well, if you take a closer look, those legs coming off the bottom of the frame are stands, and the way the Yamaha MOTOROiD:Λ leans over onto one of those stands is suitably bonkers. When parked and powered down, it’s reminiscent of a RipStik, the caster board every younger millennial/older Gen Z either fell off of or watched their friends fall off of.

Speaking of falling, that’s exactly why the MOTOROiD:Λ looks the way it does. Yamaha claims the beefy frame, forks, and trailing arm with electronics tucked inside are “engineered to withstand the trial-and-error impacts of the learning process.” Perhaps that’s why so many finishes are still somewhat coarsely machined, because this thing would only look perfect for about five seconds. There’s something novel about a bike designed to drop itself, but in that context, the lack of rider provisions makes sense. If it’s pretty much guaranteed to crash in the pursuit of autonomous system training, I certainly wouldn’t want to be on it. That being said, this is the first MOTOROiD concept to not feature some sort of seat. Heck, the last one was occasionally meant to be ridden ““centaur” half-man, half-horse style.” Whatever that means.

While Yamaha is fairly vague as to exactly what use cases the MOTOROiD:Λ’s tech is for, I can see two potential benefits to autonomous motorcycles, the first really being fundamental mobility. There’s a chance that as we get older, our joints and backs and whatnot will start to give out long before our minds do. Riding is a physical experience, and even if our older selves are still able to do it for short periods of time, wouldn’t it be nice to have a little help in some of the moments when physical strength is needed the most? As a creative, I have a contentious relationship with artificial intelligence, but there’s a big difference between using vision models to put people out of their jobs and using them to help people pick up their bikes.

Of course, if Yamaha achieves a higher level of autonomy, the possibilities are much greater. Just as an autonomous car is a replacement for a traditional taxi, an autonomous motorcycle could be a taxi for your deep-fried cravings. Even though the MOTOROiD:Λ doesn’t have panniers to deliver you ghost kitchen chili cheese fries well after last call, an autonomous motorcycle can be useful for stuff like food delivery, where you don’t need the footprint of a four-wheeled vehicle but don’t want to put gig workers in the sightlines of any local area’s least considerate CDL-holder. For now though, it just seems like Yamaha’s having fun developing something new. Considering some of the other stuff the company’s been up to, the weird MOTOROiD:Λ seems like it’ll fit perfectly on their Japan Mobility Show stand.

Top graphic image: Yamaha

The post Yamaha Now Has A Bonkers Riderless Concept Bike That’s Designed To Fall Over appeared first on The Autopian.

When I look at what the future of automotive taste is, I think China is always the best example. Chinese consumers are excellent students of trends and culture. For years, that meant copying Western ideals of beauty and fashion. Now? It’s us copying them, whether it’s a Labubu or a Lincoln.

The Morning Dump will start in China this morning, where European automakers are failing to sell electric cars and, more importantly, to sell luxury cars. I think this is because what a luxury car was is not what a luxury car is. I think “brand” is a more malleable concept than it was before. It’s a tough lesson for some automakers to learn.

Polestar is one of these automakers that could have thrived in this environment, but it doesn’t seem to be happening based on its most recent sales. Ford has done slightly better than the market this year in North America. That’s premised on selling a lot of F-150s, and that ain’t happening without aluminum.

If you’re in Tennessee, there’s one product that Ford does seem to be able to produce at scale, though it’s maybe not one you’ll want to see in your rearview mirrors.

It’s Not That China Doesn’t Want Luxury Cars, It’s Just Luxury Has Changed

I’m not an expert in Chinese culture or even Chinese cars. I’m just an observer, and what I’ve noticed over the years is that Chinese cars have gone from following to leading when it comes to features and taste.

At first, it was just obvious things. Chinese consumers still bought luxury cars from European brands like Audi and Volkswagen; it’s just that they wanted longer wheelbase versions of everything. One oft-told reason is that government officials got chauffeurs, but couldn’t have a nicer car than their boss. Ergo, your direct report got an A6, you got an A6L, and your boss got an A8 (and their boss got an A8L).

There’s maybe some truth to that, though a bigger reason might be simple economics: It’s more car for not that much more money. Dig down even deeper, and you’ll see that many of the cars that were extended were locally produced, meaning that an A6L built by FAW-VW-Audi under a JV was way cheaper than an imported A8.

Whatever the reason, more Western consumers started getting the longer-wheelbase versions of traditional models as well. It didn’t stop there.

One of our earliest posts was about how the Chinese Explorer’s interior was so much better than the interior on the North American version, and, lo and behold, the American version looks a lot more like the one Chinese consumers had three years ago.

When Tesla debuted, the simple designs absolutely killed companies like Audi and Mercedes, with the Model S quickly becoming the best-selling luxury car in America. For years, European automakers said that their brand image, years of engineering prowess, and special sauce of driving feel made them untouchable. Tesla’s first luxury sedan absolutely whomped them.

Chinese automakers have taken this one step further. It doesn’t seem to matter what the form factor is (sedan, SUV, MPV), the cars that Chinese consumers view as desirable are the ones with the most driver-focused technology. It may not entirely appeal to gearheads, but people want stuff.

If you look at the Xioami Xu7 (a car so good that Ford CEO Jim Farley didn’t want to give his up), the vehicle runs the company’s HyperOS  (via Qualcomm’s Snapdragon system-on-chip), which allows the infotainment system to mirror smartphones, tablets, and interface with the company’s smarthome systems. It also has an advanced driver-assistance system that is as good (or better) than anything else out there on the consumer side.

You know who is having a hard time competing with that? Per Bloomberg:

Western manufacturers are losing ground in the world’s biggest car market to homegrown rivals such as BYD and Xiaomi, whose feature-packed EVs are undercutting them on price. Fierce competition in China is squeezing profit margins, while a slowdown in the real estate sector is limiting luxury demand. BMW lowered its earnings forecast earlier this week, citing the China slump and costs related to U.S. tariffs.

Weak demand for luxury EVs is hitting automakers already dealing with muted growth in Europe. All of them have corrected course by cutting costs or shifting funds back into combustion-engine and hybrid models.

I don’t think it’s just a cost thing. European automakers are trying to sell “luxury” with cars that lack the features that the consumer views as luxury. That’s not a recipe for success.

Polestar Sales Were Up 13%, That’s Not Enough

Sam wrote last year that the Polestar 3 “gives the Polestar brand a reason to exist.” I’m less convinced.

The Volvo-aligned, Geely-owned company has produced some good cars, but it’s not really differentiated enough from the rest of the market in any way that seems to matter. Proof?

Most automakers saw a huge increase in EV sales thanks to the death of the IRA tax credit. Polestar? Not so much:

Polestar (Nasdaq: PSNY) global retail sales amounted to an estimated 14,192 cars in Q3 2025, up 13% versus Q3 2024. For the first nine months of the year, retail sales approximated 44,482 cars, a growth of 36% compared to the same period last year.

Is that enough? That doesn’t seem like enough. By comparison, GM’s Q3 EV sales were up over 100%.

The Aluminum Fire Seems Like It’s Going To Cost Ford A Ton Of Money

Ford pioneered the use of aluminum in trucks. The company took some heat for it, but now everyone seems to be following the F-150’s lead. The problem is that new tariffs on aluminum mean that Ford really needs a domestic source for automotive-grade aluminum, and a fire at the Novelis plant in upstate New York is going to make a dent in the company’s operations.

According to Reuters, that might be a big dent:

A fire at a New York aluminum plant that is expected to affect production of Ford Motor Co.’s F-150 truck for months will sap up to $1 billion from the automaker’s earnings, according to Evercore ISI analysts.

Meanwhile, Ford is pausing production next week of the F-150 Lightning electric pickup in Dearborn, Mich., because of the aluminum plant fire, a union official at the plant said.

A memo shared with workers at the plant, viewed by Reuters, said the Rouge Electric Vehicle Center will be off next week. Nick Kottalis, the UAW chairman of Dearborn Truck, as well as the REVC, confirmed the shutdown was related to the aluminum factory fire. Ford declined to provide specifics on any production adjustments.

A billion? With a “b”? That’s bad timing, given all the tariff disruptions.

Tennessee Has A New Car To Fight Reckless Driving

The Tennessee Highway Patrol has a new tool to ” stop reckless driving, enforce speed laws, and respond when lives are on the line.”

I do like the THP livery, and it looks great here. I’m also a sucker for Mustang police cars.

“This is one reason why we still make 5-liter V8s. To serve and protect,” a Ford spokesperson told me this week.

Obviously, using a Mustang to fight reckless driving is a bit like using kerosene to fight a forest fire. Perhaps it’s like a control burn situation? A control burnout?

What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD

TMD favorite Blondshell did a version of “Arms” with breakout singer Gigi Perez and it’s predictably great.

The Big Question

What’s a luxury car?

Top photo: Xiaomi

The post A Luxury Car Isn’t A Luxury Car Anymore appeared first on The Autopian.

W. C. Fields? Peter De Vries? Joe Sandwich? Morley Callaghan? Mary Steele? Ed McMahon? Chris Browne? Anonymous?

Question for Quote Investigator: A paraprosdokian is a figure of speech in which the latter part of a statement is unexpected. This surprising element requires a comical reframing. For example, the following remark initially seems to be about spirituality:

A person has got to believe in something, and I believe I’ll have another drink.

This quip has been attributed to U.S. comedian W. C. Fields and U.S. novelist Peter De Vries. Would you please help me to find a citation and determine the correct originator?

Reply from Quote Investigator: The earliest match for this quip known to QI appeared in the 1967 novel “The Vale of Laughter” by Peter De Vries. The main character, Joe Sandwich, delivered the line while conversing and imbibing with the character Gloria. Boldface added to excerpts by QI:¹

The conversation had somehow gotten round to existentialism. Our Schweinhund leaned negligently back on one elbow and said, “Well, a man’s got to believe something, and I believe I’ll have another drink,” and held his glass out to the fractured Gloria, who knelt bottle in hand. He was pretending to be a wastrel. Tilting the bottle over his glass, Gloria said, “Just exactly what is um existentialism in a nutshell?”

De Vries built his reputation as a humorist via short stories published in “The New Yorker” magazine. QI believes De Vries is the most likely creator of this quip.

W. C. Fields died in 1946. He received credit by 1972. Overall, the evidence supporting the attribution to Fields is not substantive.

Below are additional selected citations in chronological order.

In November 1967 “Time” magazine reviewed “The Vale of Laughter”, and the clever remark was reprinted. Thus, it achieved further distribution:²

Joe Sandwich, the hero of The Vale of Laughter, has his own way of saying it: “Well, a man’s got to believe something, and I believe I’ll have another drink.”

In 1968 a columnist in “The Rockport Journal” of Indiana mentioned the “The Vale of Laughter” and presented a slightly altered version of the quip using the phrase “believe in something” instead of “believe something”:³

During a philosophical discussion, Joe says, “Well, a man’s got to believe in something, and I believe I’ll have another drink.”

In 1969 a letter published in “The Capital Times” newspaper of Madison, Wisconsin presented another altered version of the quip using the word “everybody”:⁴

A noted humorist, Peter De Vries, summed it all up perfectly when he said, “Everybody has to believe in something, and I believe I’ll have another drink.”

In April 1972 “Forbes” magazine printed the quip on a page titled “Thoughts on the Business of Life” which listed miscellaneous quotations. The magazine credited W. C. Fields, but no citation was provided. This was the first linkage to Fields found by QI:⁵

A man’s got to believe in something. I believe I’ll have another drink. — W. C. Fields

In July 1972 “The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle” of Milwaukee, Wisconsin printed the quip with an ascription to W. C. Fields as a filler item.⁶

In 1973 “The Houston Post” of Texas published the following:⁷

It was W. C. Fields who said: “A man has to believe in something. I believe I’ll have another drink.”

In 1975 Canadian novelist Morley Callaghan published “A Fine and Private Place” which contained a dialogue version of the joke without attribution:⁸

“Well, I’ve got to believe in something.”
“What do you believe in, Al?”
“Well,” and he paused, looking at her gravely, “I believe I’ll have another drink.”
She blinked and then laughed.

In 1976 “House Beautiful” magazine published an advertisement for “Colorful Party Aprons”. One apron displayed the following text:⁹

A Man’s Got To Believe In Something: I Believe I’ll Have Another Drink

In 1977 the book “Murphy’s Law and Other Reasons Why Things Go Wrong!” compiled by Arthur Bloch contained the following entry:¹⁰

STEELE’S PLAGIARISM OF SOMEBODY’S PHILOSOPHY:
Everybody should believe in something — I believe I’ll have another drink.

In 1978 the book titled “The Official Rules” compiled by Paul Dickson printed the same “Murphy’s Law” entry with additional details. The item was submitted by Mary Steele to a list of miscellaneous material called the S.T.L. (Schneiker, Townsend, Logg et al.) collection from the University of Arizona. The word “plagiarism” signaled that Mary Steele disavowed credit.¹¹

In 1980 the “Los Angeles Times” of California discussed an event celebrating the career of W. C. Fields. Entertainer Ed McMahon delivered an elaborate version of the quip while playing the role of W. C. Fields:¹²

Also there was Ed McMahon, the TV personality and a Fields cultist, who has signed to play the comedian in an upcoming network series. He delivered this Fields line in appropriate tone (once described as a high nasal mutter loaded with pretentious articulation): “I guess it was the great philosopher Nietzsche, then again it might have been Spinoza, who said men should believe in something, so I believe I’ll have another drink.”

In 1982 Robert Byrne published the collection “The 637 Best Things Anybody Ever Said” which included the following entry:¹³

Everybody should believe in something; I believe I’ll have another drink. Unknown

In 2005 a columnist with “U.S. News. and World Report” attributed the joke to a cartoonist:¹⁴

Chris Browne, the cartoonist of “Hagar the Horrible,” said, “Everybody has to believe in something — I believe I’ll have another drink.”

In conclusion, QI believes Peter De Vries deserves credit for this quip which appeared in his 1967 novel “The Vale of Laughter”. QI was unable to find earlier instances. The attribution to W.C. Fields occurred by 1972, but this date was many years after Fields’s death in 1946. Thus, this evidence was very weak. Other writers such as Morley Callaghan employed the joke after it was already circulating.

Image Notes: Picture of bottles of alcohol from Paolo Bendandi at Unsplash. The image has been cropped and resized.

Acknowledgement: Great thanks to lizardky whose inquiry led QI to formulate this question and perform this exploration. Great thanks to researcher Barry Popik who found the important 1967 citation and other helpful citations.

1. 1967 Copyright, The Vale of Laughter by Peter De Vries, Chapter 6, Quote Page 317, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Massachusetts. (Verified with hardcopy) ︎
2. 1967 November 24, Time, Volume 90, Number 21, Books: The Slipped Discotheque or, How to Defy Mortality, (Review of “The Vale of Laughter” by Peter De Vries), Quote Page E5, Column 1, Time Inc., New York. (Online Time magazine archive at time.com; Accessed October 21, 2025) link ︎
3. 1968 December 27, The Rockport Journal, Grace Notes by Grace Brown, Quote Page 12, Column 1, Rockport, Indiana. (Newspapers_com) ︎
4. 1969 March 29, The Capital Times, Letter to the Editor, Letter Title: ‘We Take God Too Seriously’, Letter From: Joseph Hoffman, Quote Page 22, Column 1, Madison, Wisconsin. (Newspapers_com) ︎
5. 1972 April 15, Forbes, Volume 109, Number 8, Thoughts on the Business of Life, Quote Page 104, Column 3, Forbes Inc., New York. (Verified with scans) ︎
6. 1972 July 21, The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, (Filler item), Quote Page 6, Column 6, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Newspapers_com) ︎
7. 1973 February 8, The Houston Post, Channel crossing by Dave Ward, Quote Page 2BB, Column 6, Houston, Texas. (Newspapers_com) ︎
8. 1975, A Fine and Private Place: A Novel by Morley Callaghan, Chapter 2, Quote Page 18, Mason Charter, New York. (Verified with scans) ︎
9. 1976 October, House Beautiful, Volume 118, Number 10, Advertisement Title: Colorful Party Aprons, Advertisement Company: Anthony Enterprises, San Francisco, California, Quote Page 197, Column 4, Hearst Corporation, New York. (Verified with scans) ︎
10. 1977, Murphy’s Law and Other Reasons Why Things Go Wrong!, Compiled by Arthur Bloch, Chapter Humanship, Quote Page 85, Price Stern Sloan Publishers Inc., Los Angeles, California. (Verified with scans) ︎
11. 1978, The Official Rules, Compiled by Paul Dickson, Quote Page 172, Delacorte Press, New York. (Verified with scans) ︎
12. 1980 January 31, Los Angeles Times, W.C.’s Old Admirers Have a Fields Day by Lee Grant (Times Staff Writer), Quote Page F1, Column 2 and 3, Los Angeles, California. (ProQuest) ︎
13. 1982, The 637 Best Things Anybody Ever Said, Compiled by Robert Byrne, Quotation Number 19, Fawcett Crest Book: Ballantine Books, New York. (Verified with scans) ︎
14. 2005 December 26, Kingsport Times-News, A collection of aphorisms that’s worth sharing by John Leo (Columnist for U.S. News. and World Report), Quote Page 9A, Column 2, Kingsport, Tennessee. (Newspapers_com) ︎

It seems like everything is outrageously expensive nowadays, from the prices of new cars to rates at public charging stations. If you’re looking to escape the squeeze, I just found a car that claims to get as good gas mileage as a small motorcycle. This is the XR-3, and it’s somehow the best and the most shocking car-thing that you’ll see in a while. It has a turbodiesel engine and gets 125 mpg, but just look at it.

Amazingly, this car was not exactly a one-off, but a kit car, and it’s somehow even crazier than the lede suggests. The XR-3 was marketed as a diesel-electric plug-in hybrid. When equipped as a hybrid, this thing is supposed to get a combined 225 mpg.

I have found what appears to be the only XR-3 for sale in America out of who knows how many were ever built, and I’m sort of shocked at the whole thing. This car is like a homebuilt version of the Volkswagen XL-1, but with a body closer to that of the HMV FreeWay and a top speed apparently as high as 80 mph. Let’s jump into it!

Creator Of Many Things

The XR-3 was the work of Robert Q. Riley Enterprises, LLC., a green vehicle company located in Glendale, Arizona. Chances are, if you’ve read Popular Mechanics or Mechanix Illustrated at any point in the past half-century, you’ve seen one of mechanical engineer Robert Q. Riley’s ideas, and oh my, he had lots of them. Let the folks of 3-Wheelers.com bring you up to speed:

Robert Q. Riley Enterprises was founded in 1986 by Robert. Q. Riley as a Design Consultancy who specialise in Product design and development. Along with a number of other innovations the company has also created a number of 3-wheelers that are sold as plans ready for the owner to build them selves completely from scratch.

The first of these was the Trimuter, this first appeared on the cover of Mechanix Illustrated magazine in February, 1980 and was also used as a back ground vehicle in the film Total Recall. The Trimuter is powered by either an electric engine or a 16-hp, two-cylinder industrial engine. (The electric version uses ten 6v batteries) The body is a fibreglass / urethane foam composite and houses a two seater cabin.

The Tri-Magnum which was designed as a high performance 3-wheeled sports car and was first featured in Mechanix Illustrated magazine, February 1983. The original Tri-Magnum was powered by a Kawasaki KZ900 motorcycle engine though this has now been changed to the Honda Gold Wing engine as this features an electric reverse facility. The chassis of the Tri-Magnum is a stripped motorcycle chassis minus the fork and front wheel. This is then attached a VW Beetle front suspension assembly using a simple framework. The body is a “sandwich” of urethane foam and fiberglass bonded together and houses a two seater cabin with seats side by side. In addition it also features a lift up canopy which has a steel framework embedded into it. Steering is via handlebars whilst gear change is by a “jet-fighter-style control stick” that emerges from the floor.

Riley was known best for his trikes, one of which I have written about before, but his scope was far greater. As a biography on his now-offline website says, Riley designed GM’s Drive I electric car in addition to boats, kit-built single-person submarines, a camper van, a backpack helicopter, and even a homebuilt hovercraft.

The XR-3 Hybrid

Riley wasn’t just a dreamer, either, as these kits were sent out into the wild, and people have built them. Sadly, Riley passed in 2021. He was still working and dreaming when he passed, and one of his projects was the XR-3, a trike that he had been developing since the mid-2000s. How old is the XR-3 project? Mike Spinelli wrote about it on Jalopnik in 2007!

Back then, here’s the press release that Riley sent out:

Fuel-Efficient XR-3 Will Offer 125-225 Miles per Gallon

In less than 90 days, Robert Q. Riley Enterprises, LLC, a product design firm in Glendale, Ariz., will introduce its XR-3 plug-in hybrid, a sleek two-passenger, three-wheel sports car that is expected to generate up to 225 miles per gallon. Designed to be assembled by someone with average mechanical abilities and no prior experience, the all-wheel drive vehicle will be available as a kit or plans for complete do-it-yourself construction.

“We’ve made a technology leap by designing a super-simple hybrid power system, but ‘technology’ itself was not the main thrust of the project,” said Robert Q. Riley, company president and author of “Alternative Cars in the 21st Century.” “We focused on the power of ‘design’ to define a new category of personal mobility products that are neither automobiles nor motorcycles.” The XR-3 uses the latest hybrid power system technologies in the most simplified way possible. While the front wheels are powered by a three-cylinder diesel engine, a single rear wheel uses an electric motor run by a lithium-ion battery. The ground provides the connection between the two systems, eliminating the need for a complex electronic and mechanical interface.

Driving on power from its diesel engine, the XR-3 can achieve fuel economy of 125 miles per gallon. However, when the diesel and electric power systems are combined in a hybrid driving mode, fuel economy can exceed 200 miles per gallon over an 80-mile trip. A simple three-position switch allows the driver to select between battery-only, diesel-only and hybrid driving modes. The diesel engine can remain off for local trips, since power from the advanced lithium-ion battery pack gives the car a battery-only range of up to 40 miles.

While the XR-3 was marketed as a hybrid, it was really a vehicle with two completely separate powertrains that do not interact with each other. If you built the base car, you fitted your XR-3 with Kubota D902, a 898cc three-cylinder diesel good for up to 24.8 HP depending on exact configuration. This engine transmitted power to the front wheels through a VW Type 1 transaxle.

If you wanted to go all the way, Riley also marketed the XR-3 as having the option to sport lead-acid batteries or lithium batteries, which would power an eight-inch DC motor that drives the rear wheel. As a diesel-only vehicle, Riley said, you’d get 125 mpg. Add the electric motor and batteries, and Riley said you’d hit 225 mpg. He also said that if you built the diesel version with a large enough fuel tank, you could go 1,000 miles per tank. On the other hand, if you went with a big lithium battery, Riley said, you could get the trike to go 100 miles per charge.

Riley also said that if you built your trike as a diesel-only car, it would weigh 950 pounds. But as a hybrid with the electric motor, batteries, and the diesel engine, the total weight was projected to be 1,480 pounds. The average specification, Riley mentioned in press releases, would be able to travel 40 to 50 miles on a charge, or 375 miles on only three gallons of diesel. In 2008, the batteries were said to be able to recharge in 8 hours. Today, the company that sells the kit says that an XR-3 trike with a modern lithium battery can charge to 80 percent in less than an hour.

Riley and his team built a single prototype in 2008 and began marketing the XR-3 as a kit car or as a turn-key car that you could buy. Apparently, the guys who built the body of the prototype had never even worked with fiberglass before. According to the press material, anyone with basic construction skills should be able to complete an XR-3, and it should take about 650 hours to finish the build. Riley said that it cost $25,000 to build the prototype, which had lithium batteries and a diesel engine. In 2010, he estimated that a compatible lithium battery would cost $9,000, while an alternative equivalent lead-acid solution could be $2,000.

So then, you’re probably wondering why the XR-3 on your screen today looks nothing like the prototype.

After all, Riley’s idea was that you could buy the whole body and maybe even the vehicle’s steel frame if you wanted to, so you wouldn’t have to mess around with fiberglass or make your own structure. 3-Wheelers.com interviewed Riley and found out that Riley was $25 million short of putting the kit into production. In the meantime, Riley sold plans and instructions to build your own XR-3 on his website.

Unfortunately, Riley passed before these parts could enter production. So, if you buy plans and instructions, you’re entirely on your own for the end result.

This XR-3

That brings us to the 2019 XR-3 that’s for sale on Facebook.

As you can tell, it looks nothing like the prototype. It’s also somewhat short on the features of the prototype. This one isn’t rocking the dual drivetrain, but instead has just the Kubota diesel, which is spinning the front wheels.

This car was first put up for sale a year ago in Arizona. The buyer of the vehicle moved it to Manchaca, Texas, and put it up for sale quickly. It’s still for sale a year later. Here’s what the original listing stated:

Selling this XR3 reverse trike for the widow of a friend who built it himself.

He was a Raytheon engineer who had built 2 of these previously. This is a full body reverse trike powered by 4 cylinder Kabota Turbo diesel engine. It has a 4 speed transaxle with rack and pinion front wheel staring. The suspension includes double air lift bags and coilover shocks. Hydraulic disc brakes, rear view camera and air conditioning.

Apparently, the original builder spent $21,800 putting this car together, and then drove it only 700 miles after completing it. The seller says that he has every single receipt from the build process, as well as a container filled to the brim with documentation and even a DVD about how the original builder put the car together.

What’s pretty cool to me is that this thing has heat and air-conditioning, which isn’t something that you often see in homebuilt cars. That body is pretty wild, though. It looks like the builder roughly followed the shape of the prototype, but it didn’t come out the other end nearly as rounded. I won’t dare to say whether this thing is pretty or ugly, but I will say that I admire what the builder accomplished, considering that Robert Q. Riley Enterprises did not produce a proper body for its kit car.

The DIY nature of the car continues inside, where there’s little in the way of refinement. You can see exposed fiberglass all over, the steering wheel isn’t much to write home about, and the transmission gearshift seems like an afterthought.

So, this thing is all kinds of weird and sort of off-putting, but I dig it. The seller wants just $6,500 for it, too, which doesn’t seem that bad!

I think this car is the perfect example of the slang term “blursed.” It’s blessed and cursed at the same time. Cursed because, if you squint really hard, it’s sort of the poor person’s version of a Volkswagen XL-1. Blessed because, apparently, this car does get over 100 mpg. Riley sort of pitched the XR-3 as a cool way to save money at the pump and reduce your carbon footprint while having a ton of fun, and you know what? I believe it.

This is the kind of vehicle that everyone is going to stare at and everyone is going to ask questions about. Handling? Well, I suppose that’s going to be on the builder, but there’s still fun in building your own car and then trying to see if you can get it to do well over 100 mpg. If anything, I want to see more cars like these. They’re different, and that’s neat!

The post This Weird Car You’ve Never Heard Of Has A Diesel Engine From An Excavator And Supposedly Gets 125 MPG appeared first on The Autopian.