Put a fly-by-wire throttle on it and it would probably be possible to increase the expansion ratio - and thus efficiency - even further, especially if the intake valve closes late instead of early.
Also, whilst of no particular benefit in terms of efficiency, it might be possible to control the operation cycle such that it can run on either petrol (gasoline) or diesel, or a mixture of the two, if only to get home with it instead of being stranded, This would save a lot of strong language, not to mention expenditure, if one has filled up the tank with the wrong fuel. It would be of particular benefit to those who drive a company vehicle during the day which uses one fuel type, but commute etc. in a vehicle that runs on the other type. This is a situation that I experienced for a few years and refueling was always stressful compared to when one can operate on 'autopilot'. That said, it really is about time the car industry and the fuel suppliers go their act together and developed a way of ensuring that the correct pump was being used in the first place.

A 235 US MPG improvement! I think not.
P.S. Petrol or Diesel?

An improvement of 1l/100km is not equivalent to a 235mpg improvement. Assuming the base efficiency of the car is 5.9l/100km (2016 Jetta) an improvement of 1l/100km would equate to about 4.4 mpg. This highlights one of the issues of using mpg as an efficiency measurement, and the recent push to move to the more easily applied gallons/100 miles. 235mpg doesn't even make sense - even the Tesla has an 'equivalent' fuel economy of only 90-100mpg...

"distinct impact on the customer's everyday driving."
Is code for German Tech is superior to USA EPA desires.
Which is possibly true.

The VW XL-1 had a 1 liter engine and achieved 240mpg U.S., so maybe a 1.5 improved engine can do that kind of MPG? Would be great if it did.

Trust us ! it will get 230 mpg and is clean burning . lol

Shaggy,
It's true that gallons per mile (or liters per km) is somewhat more easily applied if the objective is to gauge vehicle efficiency. However, in daily life the inverse is a better measure of how far I'm going to go on the fuel remaining in the tank.
Personally, I prefer the measure that is most useful while driving, rather than the measure that is useful for internet kibitzing.

Mel, not sure how using a fly-by-wire throttle would possibly have any effect other than removing hard cable or rod linkage.
More importantly, where is the explanation of what the Miller Cycle actually is and why it might offer any improvement ????

Put Miller Cycle together with camless timing and some other recent advances and maybe we could have 50 mpg (4.7L/100km) [gasoline/petrol] sedans and 40 mpg (5.9 L/100km) pickup trucks and SUVs.

A total waste of money to still invest into combustion engines!