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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-14-2014, 10:07 AM   #1 (permalink)
Rat Racer
 
Fat Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Route 16
Posts: 4,150

Al the Third, year four - '13 Honda Fit Base
Team Honda
90 day: 42.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,784
Thanked 1,922 Times in 1,246 Posts
Inadvertently "tuft" testing a Taurus

A Taurus with a garbage bag backglass went by me this morning and I was kind of surprised by the bad aero it showed. The driver hasn't discovered EZ-Pass technology yet, so a few miles later he had to pass me again:

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Taurus.jpg
Views:	178
Size:	140.1 KB
ID:	14876  
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepdog44 View Post
Transmission type Efficiency
Manual neutral engine off.100% @MPG <----- Fun Fact.
Manual 1:1 gear ratio .......98%
CVT belt ............................88%
Automatic .........................86%

  Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Fat Charlie For This Useful Post:
aerohead (04-15-2014), MetroMPG (04-14-2014), Xist (04-15-2014)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 04-14-2014, 10:24 AM   #2 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
doviatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 388

Grey Goose (Retired) - '89 Geo Metro LSI 4 door hatch back
Last 3: 57.16 mpg (US)

Tweety - '91 Geo Metro Convertible -2 Door convertible LSI
Team Metro
90 day: 43.97 mpg (US)

Shadow - '02 Honda Shadow VT1100
90 day: 43.46 mpg (US)

Sonic - '07 Honda CBR1000RR
90 day: 42.69 mpg (US)

Filmore - '84 Volkswagen Vanagon
90 day: 20.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 47
Thanked 44 Times in 31 Posts
You Know You Are An Eco Modder if....you see this and can turn it into thought experiment other than poor guy lost his rear window.
The fact that it is a high pressure back there (bag pushed in) is a good sign of attachment. With bad aero you usually get low pressure at the back which would pull the bag out. Also kind of depends on if he had windows up or down and if he had cabin fan on or not too.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2014, 10:42 AM   #3 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,024 Times in 1,304 Posts
The right front fender to door gap isn't helping either. Should have moved the heater control to fresh air.

regards
Mech
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2014, 02:55 PM   #4 (permalink)
Batman Junior
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,513

Blackfly - '98 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Last 3: 70.09 mpg (US)

MPGiata - '90 Mazda Miata
90 day: 52.71 mpg (US)

Even Fancier Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 70.75 mpg (US)

Appliance car - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage ES (base)
90 day: 60.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4,058
Thanked 6,957 Times in 3,602 Posts
Isn't that strange! And interesting - thanks for posting.
__________________
Project MPGiata! Mods for getting 50+ MPG from a 1990 Miata
Honda mods: Ecomodding my $800 Honda Fit 5-speed beater
Mitsu mods: 70 MPG in my ecomodded, dirt cheap, 3-cylinder Mirage.
Ecodriving test: Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown



EcoModder
has launched a forum for the efficient new Mitsubishi Mirage
www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners
www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2014, 03:22 PM   #5 (permalink)
Rat Racer
 
Fat Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Route 16
Posts: 4,150

Al the Third, year four - '13 Honda Fit Base
Team Honda
90 day: 42.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,784
Thanked 1,922 Times in 1,246 Posts
You've got to love the 21st century, where our first reaction is "what will the internet think of that?" and our second is "where's my camera?"

The air on that backglass doesn't look attached to me- it looks like it's detatched, come around and is pushing its way back in! I always expected that from the rear end, but I thought the backglass curve would be less horrible.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepdog44 View Post
Transmission type Efficiency
Manual neutral engine off.100% @MPG <----- Fun Fact.
Manual 1:1 gear ratio .......98%
CVT belt ............................88%
Automatic .........................86%

  Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 01:36 AM   #6 (permalink)
Not Doug
 
Xist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Show Low, AZ
Posts: 12,186

Chorizo - '00 Honda Civic HX, baby! :D
90 day: 35.35 mpg (US)

Mid-Life Crisis Fighter - '99 Honda Accord LX
90 day: 34.2 mpg (US)

Gramps - '04 Toyota Camry LE
90 day: 35.39 mpg (US)

Don't hit me bro - '05 Toyota Camry LE
90 day: 35.79 mpg (US)
Thanks: 7,217
Thanked 2,217 Times in 1,708 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Charlie View Post
You've got to love the 21st century, where our first reaction is "what will the internet think of that?" and our second is "where's my camera?"
Us: Providing telemetry or something of the sort.

Everybody else? They are talking on it!

[or texting]

Last edited by Xist; 04-16-2014 at 06:38 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2014, 12:58 PM   #7 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NY state
Posts: 501

XJ Cherokee - '00 Jeep Cherokee Sport
90 day: 12.96 mpg (US)

FoFO - '11 Ford Focus SE
90 day: 36.78 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 51 Times in 38 Posts
That car is pretty much the same as the 96-99 Taurus - which was very aerodynamic for it's time. Basically the front and rear clip are the only difference on the body.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 10:16 PM   #8 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Greater Milwaukee area, Wisconsin
Posts: 157

To Be Determined (Too-be) - '15 Chevrolet Malibu LS Eco
90 day: 35.41 mpg (US)
Thanks: 46
Thanked 30 Times in 23 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller88 View Post
That car is pretty much the same as the 96-99 Taurus - which was very aerodynamic for it's time. Basically the front and rear clip are the only difference on the body.
Actually everything rear of the B-pillar is different, minus the rear doors.

Here's a rear pic of the gen 4 (2000-2007):


Here's a rear pic of the gen 3 (1996-1999):

The roof line was extended to provide more passenger headroom, and the trunk was raised for more luggage space. On the gen 3 the trunk lid slopes down towards the rear. On the 4th generation the trunk lid is flat.

Interestingly, the 4th gen also has an indentation at the rear. That's something that UC Davis put on their hybrid Taurus which they named Joule. UC Davis Joule

I'm guessing Ford looked over some of their work.

Both the 3rd and 4th gen Taurus's had the same Cd as far as I'm aware, although fuel economy dropped 1mpg with the 2004 refresh (which only had front and rear bumper cover changes externally). It is a shame that Ford made such an aerodynamic sedan, then put relatively inefficient drivetrains in it.

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to The Other Andy For This Useful Post:
suchy21 (08-11-2014)
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