Quote:
Originally Posted by woodstock74
I don't know man, I really don't think they're doing all that much tunnel testing/CFD. At least not for the lower tier "econo boxes". If they were we'd struggle to find gains. In my career we'd spend hours in the wind tunnel and be happy to walk out with 1% reduction in drag. But this was on a highly refined race car. People on these forums are finding chunks without resorting to drastic changes (and they're finding huge chunks when they do). This speaks to a fundamental lack of development and refinement. We have to face it, cars are designed these days by accountants and focus groups. Yes, there are the exceptions: where it's profitable and can be used as a selling point.
|
A point made by styling chiefs decades ago,was that if $billions were required to push up mpg with a new engine,a few $million could do the same with streamlining.
Since CAFE is measured on a sales-weighted basis for the automakers 'fleet',if these econoboxes ARE optimized for mpg,without affecting styling,then the better mpg here,allows more sales of highly profitable lower mpg designs.
So actually,the bean-counters drive the streamlining based on profit motive,share value to the stockholder,corporate image,marketing advantage,and compliance with EPA regulations.
Sure it's been a slow incremental process but when you consider that the cheapest car sold today could embarrass a Corvette of my college days,there has been advances.
Hucho put an airdam kinda like yours on a VW 1600 and it raised the Cd by 0.04.
There is no a priori knowledge about how any production car might react to any particular modification.We mod at our own peril.
Given market competition I would be very reluctant to presume that any of today's automakers are attaching anything to their cars arbitrarily.It would be antithetical to capitalism.