The Scrapcento

[maczo]

Mods:
- Kammback
- Kamm 2.0
- Tire spats
- Full wheel covers

=====

Hi all,

I'd like to introduce my primary transportation, namely the scrapcento. It was a happy little 900ccm (39hp) Fiat Seicento which I decided to swap for a mighty 1.2 litre (I can see some laughs coming here ) from mk1 Punto (75hp stock). During the swapping I used to be a regular visitor at local scrap heaps, hence the nickname

The car is obviously not tuned for FE, it had the cam timing adjusted 1 or 2 deg. for better top-end HP (supposedly; hasn't seen a dyno yet) and a somewhat rough idle (100% confirmed) The gearbox is a short one from the so-called "sporting" version. It's supposed to be my Auto-X toy and the daily driver at the same time (I commute by public transport though, so not a lot to do for the 'cento).

As for FE abilities and equipment - it came stock with a partial grille block (pic). Also the car has been lowered approx. 3cm (1.2" ?) and has a bit stiffer, but still not truly "sport", shock absorbers. It's missing the partial belly-pan (or rather engine cover) that I believe was stock - IIRC the oil pan sticks out more to the bottom in the 1.2 and the cover could not be fitted. Not that I cared at the time anyway.

Cx is somewhere around 0.33 IIRC and I haven't found any data for frontal area. Still, you can imagine it's not that big

Since I regularly drive it only twice a week for a total of ~60km (<40mi?) with some small trips (up to 150km) now and then, I'm not planning any costly mods as they would never pay for themselves (see next post - coming up).

[maczo]

The first two mods might turn out to be both the most efficient and the cheapest. To no surprise they are (roll drums):

1. Adjusted nut behind the wheel
2. Pumped up tires

The third one is the Carefully Crafted 'Cento Cardboard Kamm-back with added Magical-Anti-Coanda-Strips, aka CCCCK+MACS. I've just finished it a few hours ago

All the pieces of carboard were carefully waterproofed* with power tape so that they would survive unfavourable conditions.

The Kamm-back's angle vs the roof is exactly umpteen degrees, providing optimal attached flow (note to self: compare it to the template some time!).

The MACS look to be angled quite a bit towards the center of the car and I'm almost sure no attached flow will be present there. Oh well.

Tuft testing was planned for today, but the weather turned bad and due to constant rain I'm not sticking my nose out of home.

The fourth "mod" was repairing a piece of plastic wheel-well cover that somehow broke and twisted, sticking out right into the air flow. In the finest thereifixedit.com fashion, this was alleviated with quite a lot of duct tape

* - the waterproofing might have turned out to be less careful than I'd like to think, as after the rain the Kamm-back is somewhat soft/mushy. I may need to reinforce it with something truly waterproof... or scrap it (pun intended).

[Daox]

Welcome to the site. It'll be interesting to see what kind of mileage that car can get.

[mcrews]

welcome!!!
Well you started right!!

'T&N' (Tires and Nut!)
THe cheapest and most productive mods.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by maczo

It was a happy little 900ccm (39hp) Fiat Seicento which I decided to swap for a mighty 1.2 litre (I can see some laughs coming here )

33% increase in engine displacement is no laughing matter

Welcome to ecomodder.

[maczo]

Originally Posted by Daox

Welcome to the site. It'll be interesting to see what kind of mileage that car can get.

Yeah, about that... currently I'm struggling to get the consumption down from 7.7 - 8 L/hkm (29.5-30.5 US mpg) that was normal for me when not smashing the loud pedal a lot. When having fun and/or Auto-X'ing this could go up to 10 L/hkm (23.5 mpg).

The last two tanks, while trying (learning) to hypermile I've been able to get an average of 7.4 L/hkm (31.8 mpg) and the current tank looks promising (refill coming soon), but not really ground-breaking. I have to note that the mileage figures are from fill-ups vs mileage only. The car has no instrumentation whatsoever. I just have the speedo and the odo (without secondary/trip odo! Have to write down the total mileage at fill-ups ). No rev-meter either, so I don't really regret not knowing the BSFC curves

There's no EPA rating or in fact any data on fuel consumption for my specs, as this engine was never present (stock) in the 'cento. I've come across, however, figures in the region of 8 to 10 L/hkm from users' own experience. That's quite a lot for the engine size and car weight, isn't it? Of course probably anyone who puts an oversized engine in a car does so to have fun and bash the hell out of it , but still...

[Piwoslaw]

Originally Posted by maczo

The Kamm-back's angle vs the roof is exactly umpteen degrees, providing optimal attached flow (note to self: compare it to the template some time!).

Not ideal, since the pic isn't from the best angle:

(Seifrob's online template tool)

I see lots of Cinquecentos and Seicentos in Warsaw and have always wondered about how to go about aeromodding one, but always gave up with a "Nah!". Good for you for actually doing it!

Do you still use the 'cento for fun? Any plans for more mods, like warm air intake, engine kill switch, etc.?

[maczo]

Originally Posted by Piwoslaw

Not ideal, since the pic isn't from the best angle:

I see lots of Cinquecentos and Seicentos in Warsaw and have always wondered about how to go about aeromodding one, but always gave up with a "Nah!". Good for you for actually doing it!

Do you still use the 'cento for fun? Any plans for more mods, like warm air intake, engine kill switch, etc.?

Thanks for the overlay. As expected, it's not very close to the template, but I will try this on a different photo that I have on my computer. Still, hope to get the tuft testing done and confirm that the CCCCK is worthless at its current angles. Good thing is that I can adjust the shape when I decide to reinforce it, as now it's so soft.

I intend to continue using the car for fun, but don't have that much spare time go to events every other week.

As for additional mods, those would have to be:
a) cheap (and I mean REALLY cheap. The ones I've done were 200% the planned budget, because I had to buy a second roll of duct tape )
b) not detrimental to performance

So WAI is a no-no for both reasons, the kill switch is too hardcore for me at the moment (and my tinkering craftsmanship is a bit on the crude side if you haven't noticed , so I'd have to pay someone to do it for me). I'm thinking air dam, tire spats and/or partial pans some time in the future. Maybe mooncaps, but where do I get those perfectly-sized pizza pans..?

One mod that is definitely going to happen is the rev-meter, as I have one sitting on a shelf. This will not count towards the FE budget as I bought it for Auto-X'ing for optimal gear changes. Is that creative accounting yet?

[MetroMPG]

Thread moved at maczo's request (from Success to EcoModding Central).

Welcome to the forum, by the way!

[maczo]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Thread moved at maczo's request (from Success to EcoModding Central).

Thanks!

Ironically, after today's refill I can say that it's now officially a success story The refill of 24.02 litres after 366 kms means that the avg. fuel consumption was equal to 6.56 L/100km (35.8mpgUS) Versus the previous numbers of around 7.7 (30.5 mpgUS) that's roughly a 15% improvement. I don't want to know what the avg. speed was compared to my driving-before-hypermiling though . The GF used to complain about me driving too fast... not going to happen any time soon, I guess

I tried to do tuft testing of the aero mods, but didn't have the proper material - the string that I had was too stiff and it would show attached flow when the car was stationary I found a better one but had to leave by then, and so the testing is delayed once more.

I did have time to compare the Kamm'ed 'cento to The Template. I'm not sure the photo is good enough for template matching, but I decided to apply the template to the nearer edge of the car (as it stands in the picture, this would be the left edge). Actually the shape of the 'cento was pretty good to start with, my Kamm is a bit too steep though. So I attempted to measure what the angle between the Kamm and the roof is. The measurement isn't very accurate, but it is around 10 deg. I have to note that somehow the pictures don't do the Kamm justice, it always looks like it's steeper than in reality.

Sooo... is around 10 deg deviation from the roofline an acceptable amount? I recall a paper on pick-up bed caps that suggested optimum angles around 12 degrees. Am I totally in the dark or might the Kamm actually be of some potential value here?