[JeepNmpg2]

Ok, so this was my methodology for these tests so I can control everything as much as possible:

1. accelerate to 50 mph holding the throttle at 16% open the whole time
2. use gps/scangauge to keep speed as even as possible (49-51) and keep foot even and steady (TPS on scangauge and listening to the engine).
3. 4 mile course, no traffic, no wind, two turns but nothing to slow down for, very little elevation change
4. prewarmed/driven vehicle

The course is 4 miles out, check fuel, turn around, reset, 4 miles back.... rinse repeat

So here's my results for this 50 mph test (in gallons of fuel used per run):

First A Sets (Kamm attached):

.17
.15
.16
.15
.16
.14
.16
.14

Average: .15375 gallons for 4 miles or 26.02 MPG

B Sets (no Kamm):

.17
.16
.17
.16
.17
.15
.17
.16

Average .1625 gallons for 4 miles or 24.62 MPG

Second A Set (Kamm back on):

.16
.15
.16
.15
.16
.14
.16
.15

Average: .15375 gallons for 4 miles or 26.02 MPG... again

In conclusion, there is a difference, but I doubt it would normally be this great at 50 MPH. I need to find a longer test track where I could maybe go ten miles and get more accurate fuel usage/run data. This data shows a 5.6% increase in FE with Kamm on versus Kamm off. When compared to what the EPA average is for this vehicle of 15MPG, 1.4 MPG extra is 9.3%. Also, I know this aeromod should perform better when comparing it at 60-65 MPH, where aero is more of a factor.

Bottom line: there are improvements to be made to my design, especially in the neighborhood of transitions. I'm thinking for starts - a second layor of 6 mil plastic, attached with black tape and heat shrunk to fit right might improve a lot of places.

I'm worn out, and going to bed. I probably didn't explain myself clearly enough on everything tonight, so post a question and I'll get back to you tomorrow.

BTW: I'm still rocking that ratchet strap to hold on the top of the kamm. I managed to hide the bulk of the mechanism a lot better from the wind this time though.