View Single Post
Old 07-09-2012, 06:48 PM   #16 (permalink)
Frank Lee
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

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

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

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

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

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by agent00kevin View Post
I understand your point and only partially disagreed. I did say the improvement would be minimal, and that it takes many of those things to add up.

The way you say things makes you appear to be the type that rarely has anything good to say, and instead browses forums in the hopes of issuing some not so constructive criticism. Ive seen these types everywhere and Im positive that several exist here after reading a lot of other threads. This isnt my first day online.

The Cd for my truck is .44. Ive done my research long before signing up here. I dont expect it to wonderously reduce to .17 by installing composite headlights. If it goes to .43 thats just fine with me. Maybe foaming up all the extra gaps will get me to .42. Then the next mod I do will put me at .40. You get the idea.

Pointing out that a single 'light' aero mod (pun intended) is barely effective is both unneccesary and tedious. Im not sure if Im supposed to thank you, or call you a troll.
You're long reply is what's tedious.

My pointing out- here and I think I said it on the 65 mods plus I'm sure I've discussed it in threads regarding headlight buckets- that buckets are for all practical purposes no less aero than "aero" styled lights is the opposite of unnecessary and tedious. It is good information that appears to be counter-intuitive to most, that can spare people from obsessing over/investing in mods that won't bear any fruit if that is what they choose to do with the information.
__________________


  Reply With Quote