Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Aerodynamics
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-15-2013, 07:36 AM   #1 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: scotland
Posts: 1,429

The Mistress - '88 Bmw 320i Touring SE
Team m8
Last 3: 27.17 mpg (US)

Germany Beadle - '91 Mercedes 300td (estate, N/A)
90 day: 24.63 mpg (US)

The Bloodylingo - '05 Citroen Berlingo Multispace Desire
90 day: 39.77 mpg (US)

Shanner Scaab - '03 Saab 9-5 estate Vector
90 day: 26.19 mpg (US)

Clio 182 - '05 Renault Clio RS 182 182
90 day: 31.73 mpg (US)
Thanks: 89
Thanked 89 Times in 74 Posts
Quantifying the aerodynamic impact of lowering a car? (drag coefficient Cd)

I'm aware that lowering a car can improve the fineness (Length to height) ration, and also drops the cD of the car..

Its also not normally an economically viable thing to do..

However...

The golf's suspension is shot- very little damping up front, and the bottom arms are clanking. It will need replaced sooner rather than later.

there are two options (both roughly similar in cost..)

1. Replace with standard parts (dampers/springs/arms)

2. Replace with a coilover kit to allow for a 40mm drop


Would the impact of lowering provide any tangible savings that I could use to justify the work?

or am I better just going with original/pattern parts?

__________________
My Blog on cars- Fu'Gutty Cars
http://fuguttycars.wordpress.com/

US MPG for my Renault Clio 182


---------------------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 02-15-2013, 10:27 AM   #2 (permalink)
Do more with less
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: North Eastern Missouri
Posts: 930

OD - '05 Ford Econoline
90 day: 18.64 mpg (US)

Joetta - '86 Volkswagen Jetta Turbo Oil Burner
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 49.71 mpg (US)

Benzilla - '85 Mercedes Benz 300D
90 day: 28.08 mpg (US)
Thanks: 66
Thanked 177 Times in 112 Posts
My Jetta was lowered with a similar setup. It rides terrible but gives good mileage. I can not quantify the change as it was like this when I got the car.
__________________
“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” George Orwell

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed.”

Noah Webster, 1787
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 10:37 AM   #3 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
justme1969's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: ff
Posts: 459
Thanks: 59
Thanked 38 Times in 30 Posts
In the post "fast n furious movie" world of automotive resale direct advantage to you and raises value. You will get better economy but it probbably wont be so amazing that you will be reimbursed the project cost ever.
It may make ride harsher as mentioned above andhas penalties with ground clearance and perhaps tire clearance.
But it looks cool and I say why not if its near same cost!
Especially if you are sure the parts are required no matter what.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 11:08 AM   #4 (permalink)
Hypermiler
 
PaleMelanesian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,321

PaleCivic (retired) - '96 Honda Civic DX Sedan
90 day: 69.2 mpg (US)

PaleFit - '09 Honda Fit Sport
Team Honda
Wagons
90 day: 44.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 611
Thanked 433 Times in 283 Posts
Ironic that you used the word impact when talking about lowering a car.
__________________



11-mile commute: 100 mpg - - - Tank: 90.2 mpg / 1191 miles
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 12:58 PM   #5 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: scotland
Posts: 1,429

The Mistress - '88 Bmw 320i Touring SE
Team m8
Last 3: 27.17 mpg (US)

Germany Beadle - '91 Mercedes 300td (estate, N/A)
90 day: 24.63 mpg (US)

The Bloodylingo - '05 Citroen Berlingo Multispace Desire
90 day: 39.77 mpg (US)

Shanner Scaab - '03 Saab 9-5 estate Vector
90 day: 26.19 mpg (US)

Clio 182 - '05 Renault Clio RS 182 182
90 day: 31.73 mpg (US)
Thanks: 89
Thanked 89 Times in 74 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varn View Post
My Jetta was lowered with a similar setup. It rides terrible but gives good mileage. I can not quantify the change as it was like this when I got the car.
Thanks-at least this suggest there wont be a disadvantage

Quote:
Originally Posted by justme1969 View Post
In the post "fast n furious movie" world of automotive resale direct advantage to you and raises value. You will get better economy but it probbably wont be so amazing that you will be reimbursed the project cost ever.
It may make ride harsher as mentioned above andhas penalties with ground clearance and perhaps tire clearance.
But it looks cool and I say why not if its near same cost!
Especially if you are sure the parts are required no matter what.
Believe you me, if waterbeds had wheels and engines they'd handle and ride better!

as you say, its not really an "improvement", more a maintenance issue



Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian View Post
Ironic that you used the word impact when talking about lowering a car.
good spot

Bumpstops add unnecessary weight
__________________
My Blog on cars- Fu'Gutty Cars
http://fuguttycars.wordpress.com/

US MPG for my Renault Clio 182


---------------------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 01:02 PM   #6 (permalink)
Super Lurker!
 
Slow_s10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 88

Rusty - '88 Chevrolet S10 base
90 day: 23.72 mpg (US)

Doc - '08 Honda Civic EX-L
90 day: 29.6 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4
Thanked 14 Times in 11 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian View Post
Ironic that you used the word impact when talking about lowering a car.
I chuckled at that too.
__________________
-Kevin
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 01:45 PM   #7 (permalink)
Aero Wannabe
 
COcyclist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NW Colo
Posts: 738

TDi - '04 VW Golf
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 53.2 mpg (US)
Thanks: 705
Thanked 218 Times in 169 Posts
Does the 96 Golf TD have the magnesium oil pan like the TDI? I put an aluminum skid plate on my Golf and resisted the urge to lower. I continued with a coroplast belly pan to the rear bumper instead. There are some downsides to lowering but IMO it can make a car look good. I think it is safe to assume that if you raise your suspension to mount giant tires you will lose mpg but I am not sure the reverse will gain you anything measurable.
__________________
60 mpg hwy highest, 50+mpg lifetime
TDi=fast frugal fun
https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...tml#post621801


Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard View Post
The power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. Mechanical friction increases as the square, so increasing speed requires progressively more power.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 02:00 PM   #8 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: usa
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
lowering to reduce drag

Reduced height springs are used primarily to lower the vertical center of gravity in race cars to improve handling in circuit racers Not reduce undercarriage airflow.

Undercarriage air flow is reduced somewhat but that is better achieved by air dams and chin spoilers in the frontal area.
Drag reduction is better achieved by the use of undercarriage slipstream modifications by using bolt on flat panels of a suitable materials.These can be attached in such a way as to reduce he under carriage air mass ( road clearance ) by the use of stand offs. this requires no modification the suspension or ride.

The cleaner aerodynamics also contribute to lower overall drag for better performance and gas millage. If the panels contact the ground they are a cheaper sacrificial donor than your exhaust system or other expensive components.

Frosty 944
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 03:04 PM   #9 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Vman455's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Urbana, IL
Posts: 1,935

Pope Pious the Prius - '13 Toyota Prius Two
Team Toyota
SUV
90 day: 51.62 mpg (US)

Tycho the Truck - '91 Toyota Pickup DLX 4WD
90 day: 22.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 198
Thanked 1,797 Times in 937 Posts
Since the cost is a wash (you'll spend the money either way, for a new stock suspension or lowered), I am strongly in favor of lowering. I've seen widely-varying estimates on Cd change when a vehicle is lowered, from -.01 per inch to -.08 claimed by Ford on the Fusion 999 hydrogen Bonneville car, which was lowered several inches (but not 8!)--but all sources agree, lowering a car has a beneficial effect on drag. The primary benefit, I think, is not in the (tiny) reduction in frontal area or airflow under the car, but the improvement in fineness ratio, as you mention. I put coilovers on my car a year and a half ago, dropped it just until there's no gap between the top of the tire and fender, and haven't looked back.
__________________
UIUC Aerospace Engineering
www.amateuraerodynamics.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 05:27 PM   #10 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: scotland
Posts: 1,429

The Mistress - '88 Bmw 320i Touring SE
Team m8
Last 3: 27.17 mpg (US)

Germany Beadle - '91 Mercedes 300td (estate, N/A)
90 day: 24.63 mpg (US)

The Bloodylingo - '05 Citroen Berlingo Multispace Desire
90 day: 39.77 mpg (US)

Shanner Scaab - '03 Saab 9-5 estate Vector
90 day: 26.19 mpg (US)

Clio 182 - '05 Renault Clio RS 182 182
90 day: 31.73 mpg (US)
Thanks: 89
Thanked 89 Times in 74 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by COcyclist View Post
Does the 96 Golf TD have the magnesium oil pan like the TDI? I put an aluminum skid plate on my Golf and resisted the urge to lower. I continued with a coroplast belly pan to the rear bumper instead. There are some downsides to lowering but IMO it can make a car look good. I think it is safe to assume that if you raise your suspension to mount giant tires you will lose mpg but I am not sure the reverse will gain you anything measurable.
I honestly do not know re the sump- Think it may be steel.

The roads I use can be easily passed using the 328, and thats MUCH lower than I'd be going with the golf..the cheaper coilover kits prefer to have a bit of height to retain damping- 40-50mm drop max

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty944 View Post
Reduced height springs are used primarily to lower the vertical center of gravity in race cars to improve handling in circuit racers Not reduce undercarriage airflow.
Undercarriage air flow is reduced somewhat but that is better achieved by air dams and chin spoilers in the frontal area.
Drag reduction is better achieved by the use of undercarriage slipstream modifications by using bolt on flat panels of a suitable materials.These can be attached in such a way as to reduce he under carriage air mass ( road clearance ) by the use of stand offs. this requires no modification the suspension or ride.
The cleaner aerodynamics also contribute to lower overall drag for better performance and gas millage. If the panels contact the ground they are a cheaper sacrificial donor than your exhaust system or other expensive components.
Frosty 944
i'm intending to fit a front airdam in addition to lowering the car- to get the majority of benefits of a bellypan, without the additional work, but you make valid points, especially if I was going to replace stock suspension that was in good order..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vman455 View Post
Since the cost is a wash (you'll spend the money either way, for a new stock suspension or lowered), I am strongly in favor of lowering. I've seen widely-varying estimates on Cd change when a vehicle is lowered, from -.01 per inch to -.08 claimed by Ford on the Fusion 999 hydrogen Bonneville car, which was lowered several inches (but not 8!)--but all sources agree, lowering a car has a beneficial effect on drag. The primary benefit, I think, is not in the (tiny) reduction in frontal area or airflow under the car, but the improvement in fineness ratio, as you mention. I put coilovers on my car a year and a half ago, dropped it just until there's no gap between the top of the tire and fender, and haven't looked back.
Thanks for the report oun your experience- I dont imagine I'll go as low as you suggest, more likely leave 1-2cm above the tyre for clearance reasons.

The addition of a front air dam should make up the "lost" drop!

__________________
My Blog on cars- Fu'Gutty Cars
http://fuguttycars.wordpress.com/

US MPG for my Renault Clio 182


---------------------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com