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

Now available from EcoModder: ScanGauge II fuel economy gauge.  Click for details.  

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-06-2011, 08:57 AM   #1 (permalink)
Cd
Ultimate Fail
 
Cd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin,Texas
Posts: 1,924
Thanks: 750
Thanked 135 Times in 84 Posts
Lower Cd, but larger wake

How is it that cars such as the '92 - '95 Civics have a slightly higher Cd ( .32 ) in 2door sedan form over the .31 of the hatchback ?
Even though the airflow separates on the back of the sedan due to the steep angle of the window, I would think that the size of the cars wake would make up for this and lower the Cd.




(Support Ecomodder.com & get rid of these annoying ads!)      
 
__________________
"You don't fail until you give up. You learn, and move on." - Christ

" Hypermiling is not going slow, it's driving with more intelligence." - UFO

Last edited by Cd; 02-06-2011 at 11:52 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 09:26 PM   #2 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Old Tele man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,352

Vibe - '09 Vibe Base (2ZR-FE)
90 day: 32.19 mpg (US)

Goldie Locks - '011 Cruze LTZ
90 day: 29.42 mpg (US)
Thanks: 56
Thanked 330 Times in 249 Posts
...no pictures in your post.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 11:26 PM   #3 (permalink)
Tenderfoot
 
ChazInMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Bozeman Montana
Posts: 437

MagMetalCivic - '04 Civic EX
90 day: 37.18 mpg (US)
Thanks: 127
Thanked 169 Times in 88 Posts
Because the hatchback more closely approximates the "Ideal Aero Template". The larger back surface area (So counterintuitive that 90% of the people in this forum who think they know better will argue) does not matter, it is how close we come to the template that matters, rear surface/wake area be damned.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 11:34 PM   #4 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
AeroModder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 424

Darwin - '96 Aspire 4 door
Team Ford
90 day: 44.82 mpg (US)
Thanks: 15
Thanked 53 Times in 39 Posts
It's the virtual boattail effect.
__________________
In Reason we Trust
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2011, 11:37 PM   #5 (permalink)
ooo ooo ooo ah ah ah
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 7,357

Blue - '93 Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 F150 XLT
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 636
Thanked 848 Times in 591 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT View Post
Because the hatchback more closely approximates the "Ideal Aero Template". The larger back surface area (So counterintuitive that 90% of the people in this forum who think they know better will argue) does not matter, it is how close we come to the template that matters, rear surface/wake area be damned.
Er... hah?

The rear surface/wake area is THE DEAL MAKER.

BTW, how are the roof spoilers coming along?
__________________



Last edited by Frank Lee; 02-07-2011 at 12:17 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2011, 06:46 AM   #6 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JasonG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charlotte NC / SC
Posts: 658

1 Ton - '94 C3500
90 day: 19.7 mpg (US)

Big White Brick - '03 Express Van
90 day: 15.19 mpg (US)
Thanks: 70
Thanked 42 Times in 39 Posts
Spelling

Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroModder View Post
It's the virtual boattail effect.
Look at your Avatar Cd.
It may be a larger wake area, but it reattaches smoothly.
The reverse eddies are what create the backwards suction we call drag.
__________________
Support Bennelson !

I can't understand why my MPG's are so low..........
16000lb, 41' Toy Haulers are rough on FE!
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2011, 12:48 PM   #7 (permalink)
Cd
Ultimate Fail
 
Cd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin,Texas
Posts: 1,924
Thanks: 750
Thanked 135 Times in 84 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonG View Post
Look at your Avatar Cd.
It may be a larger wake area, but it reattaches smoothly.
The reverse eddies are what create the backwards suction we call drag.
And more eddies equal more drag and a higher Cd right ?
The sedan ( actually coupe ) would have less of these eddies due to a smaller wake, as well as having the air re-attach just behind the trunk / boot.

Perhaps it is all just a misprint ?

I used to collect much of the same literature as Aerohead.
I had a sales brochure from Saturn that had the Cd figures for their cars and remember being puzzled at how that the Saturn station wagons had the same Cd as the SC-2 .
( it was either the SC-1 or the SC-2 . I can't remember after all these years. )
__________________
"You don't fail until you give up. You learn, and move on." - Christ

" Hypermiling is not going slow, it's driving with more intelligence." - UFO
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2011, 02:23 PM   #8 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
AeroModder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 424

Darwin - '96 Aspire 4 door
Team Ford
90 day: 44.82 mpg (US)
Thanks: 15
Thanked 53 Times in 39 Posts
I think you need to start looking at CdA figures as well. The Cd can be the same for large and small cars, but when the frontal area is factored in, the drag numbers change.
__________________
In Reason we Trust
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2011, 03:20 PM   #9 (permalink)
Cd
Ultimate Fail
 
Cd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin,Texas
Posts: 1,924
Thanks: 750
Thanked 135 Times in 84 Posts
It's the exact same car. The only difference is one is a coupe and the other a hatchback.
Frontal area stays the same. Same with the example of the Saturn coupe verus station wagon.
on early 90s Saturns, the front end was the same on both cars, as well as the frontal area.
__________________
"You don't fail until you give up. You learn, and move on." - Christ

" Hypermiling is not going slow, it's driving with more intelligence." - UFO
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2011, 05:15 PM   #10 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JasonG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charlotte NC / SC
Posts: 658

1 Ton - '94 C3500
90 day: 19.7 mpg (US)

Big White Brick - '03 Express Van
90 day: 15.19 mpg (US)
Thanks: 70
Thanked 42 Times in 39 Posts
The way I'm seing it is this,
The coupe/sedan rear shape creates more eddies creating a negative pressure area on the rear window and trunk.
With the wagon, the airflow seperates more cleanly. This leaves a neutral pressure zone without the reverse holding currrent.


As a Saturn nut, the sc1/sc2 are the same body, the engine is the difference. Single vs dual cams. Same goes for the sw (wagon) and the sl (sedan, sl was the manual everything stripped model, 40 mpg hwy in a 1995).
Sorry to drift OT.


(Support Ecomodder.com & get rid of these annoying ads!)      
 
__________________
Support Bennelson !

I can't understand why my MPG's are so low..........
16000lb, 41' Toy Haulers are rough on FE!

Last edited by JasonG; 02-10-2011 at 10:05 PM.. Reason: Spelling
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread

Thread Tools





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com