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 04-08-2011, 02:01 PM   #1 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: atl
Posts: 46
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
question about aero

does a car feel slower or faster with better aero, given the same speed?


(Support Ecomodder.com & get rid of these annoying ads!)      
 
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2011, 02:08 PM   #2 (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
Faster... why?
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2011, 02:13 PM   #3 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,382

Herbie - '86 Golf Diesel
90 day: 51.89 mpg (US)

Steve - '92 Festiva
Thanks: 955
Thanked 324 Times in 273 Posts
Perception can vary based on several factors, including how quickly the vehicle accelerated to the test speed.

If the individual were introduced to a vehicle which was already at speed, the perception shouldn't vary from test subject to test subject, regardless of aero.
__________________
"¿ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2011, 02:27 PM   #4 (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
It could seem faster if it is more responsive to acceleration as basjoos claims.
But then it could seem slower because I've noticed that the quieter a vehicle is, the slower it seems to be going, and bellypans and such can quiet a vehicle down.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2011, 02:31 PM   #5 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,382

Herbie - '86 Golf Diesel
90 day: 51.89 mpg (US)

Steve - '92 Festiva
Thanks: 955
Thanked 324 Times in 273 Posts
That's why I said that it could vary.

In a true test where one would hope to gather any useful information, most of the perceptive cues would have to be muted or averaged out over the sample because something as simple as a change in sound can change ones perception of speed, direction, proximity, etc.
__________________
"¿ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2011, 09:42 PM   #6 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Hubert Farnsworth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 66

Planet Express Ship - '94 Prizm LSI
90 day: 36.57 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Quick question, if the aerodynamic drag component is reduced how does this change the amount of power the engine is producing at a given vehicle speed? For example lets say the car has a cd of 0.33 and a gear ratio spread such that the car is turning at 3000 rpm at 68 mph an N/V ratio of 44.12 rpm/mph. The engine produced maybe 50 horse power at this point, if the aerodynamic loading used to require 40 hp at this point and the aerodynamics is improved such that it now takes less power how can this effect the engine speed at a certain vehicle speed? I can see it allowing for increased coasting, however the gear ratio is fixed and therefore for a fixed vehicle speed the engine produces a certain power output at a given throttle input, say around 50% load (ie its a 105 hp engine)
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2011, 09:54 PM   #7 (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
Come on Hubert, think about that one a little bit.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2011, 09:58 PM   #8 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 20

Max - '01 Maxima 20th Anniversary Ed.
90 day: 28.6 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hubert Farnsworth View Post
Quick question, if the aerodynamic drag component is reduced how does this change the amount of power the engine is producing at a given vehicle speed? For example lets say the car has a cd of 0.33 and a gear ratio spread such that the car is turning at 3000 rpm at 68 mph an N/V ratio of 44.12 rpm/mph. The engine produced maybe 50 horse power at this point, if the aerodynamic loading used to require 40 hp at this point and the aerodynamics is improved such that it now takes less power how can this effect the engine speed at a certain vehicle speed? I can see it allowing for increased coasting, however the gear ratio is fixed and therefore for a fixed vehicle speed the engine produces a certain power output at a given throttle input, say around 50% load (ie its a 105 hp engine)
Is this one of those "the answer is given in the question" type questions?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2011, 10:04 PM   #9 (permalink)
dcb
needs more cowbell
 
dcb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: ÿ
Posts: 5,032

pimp mobile - '81 gs 250 t
90 day: 96.29 mpg (US)

schnitzel - '01 Golf TDI
90 day: 53.56 mpg (US)
Thanks: 156
Thanked 259 Times in 203 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hubert Farnsworth View Post
...however the gear ratio is fixed..
Depending on the car, it may be somewhat trivial to change the gear ratio. It is about $20 and a trip to the u-pull-it for my saturn to get a taller 5th gear.
Saturn S-Series 5th Gear Swap

My rabbit was pretty easy too, but needed more careful adjustment than the saturn when reinstalling the 5th shift fork (still could do it in the car).

*maybe* you have a C transmission, and can get a .725 5th gear out of a corolla or a tercel or a yaris? It might take some research to be certain: Toyota C transmission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taller drive tires are another option, which may or may not affect drag, as well as swapping in a used tranny with better ratios (and a new clutch disk and throwout bearing while you are there)

There is no inherent scope to modding

P.S. if you need 50hp to cruise, you are driving a barn
__________________
WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!

Last edited by dcb; 04-08-2011 at 10:11 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2011, 10:46 PM   #10 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Hubert Farnsworth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 66

Planet Express Ship - '94 Prizm LSI
90 day: 36.57 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcb View Post
Depending on the car, it may be somewhat trivial to change the gear ratio. It is about $20 and a trip to the u-pull-it for my saturn to get a taller 5th gear.
Saturn S-Series 5th Gear Swap

My rabbit was pretty easy too, but needed more careful adjustment than the saturn when reinstalling the 5th shift fork (still could do it in the car).

*maybe* you have a C transmission, and can get a .725 5th gear out of a corolla or a tercel or a yaris? It might take some research to be certain: Toyota C transmission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taller drive tires are another option, which may or may not affect drag, as well as swapping in a used tranny with better ratios (and a new clutch disk and throwout bearing while you are there)

There is no inherent scope to modding

P.S. if you need 50hp to cruise, you are driving a barn
Ok the 50hp was pulled from thin air, even the Taurus I first learned to drive in only required 13-15 hp at around 50 mph or was it 60 I forget, but someplace I have the dyno slip that stated this. Also the 50 hp was derived from a 50% load based on the wot peak hp of 105 bhp and 100lb/ft or was that the other way around, I need to see which gear ratios/gearbox is in the car, I know its a 5 speed, but the overdrive isn't tall enough, I can engage 5th gear as low as 30 mph and then get it down to 25 around slowing down for corners, but it also turns 3000 somewhere near 70mph per the speedometer and the gps (closer to 68 at 3000 exactly by the tach). I'd like either a taller 6th gear on top of the five now as a way of reducing the revs further, but unless it can be done reasonably by some one with some mechanical inclination but no prior experience and for not too much money vs saving and replacing it when it did wear out.

I'm being serious, it doesn't seem logical that the engine would spin any slower even if the load is reduced due to the aerodynamics being improved, vehicle speed is a function of available tractive effort power - road load power- mass effective*acceleration (ie the inertial forces) reducing the aerodynamic component is incorporated inside the road load force, as an example I studied in a hybrid and electric vehicle course we took a theoretical extended range electric conversion of a Ford Fusion Hybrid and the peak power usage was 40kw or about 53hp for both the city and highway epa cycles, however with the net energy usage much more severe in the city cycle without regen, which was cut in half theoretically with regen, however due to the way the highway cycle works there is virtually no gain to regenerative breaking in the epa highway cycle test


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