View Single Post
Old 05-31-2014, 07:52 AM   #27 (permalink)
oldtamiyaphile
Master EcoModder
 
oldtamiyaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,510

UFI - '12 Fiat 500 Twinair
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 40.3 mpg (US)

Jeep - '05 Jeep Wrangler Renegade
90 day: 18.09 mpg (US)

R32 - '89 Nissan Skyline

STiG - '16 Renault Trafic 140dCi Energy
90 day: 30.12 mpg (US)

Prius - '05 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 50.25 mpg (US)

Premodded - '49 Ford Freighter
90 day: 13.48 mpg (US)

F-117 - '10 Proton Arena GLSi
Pickups
Mitsubishi
90 day: 37.82 mpg (US)

Ralica - '85 Toyota Celica ST
90 day: 25.23 mpg (US)

Sx4 - '07 Suzuki Sx4
90 day: 32.21 mpg (US)

F-117 (2) - '03 Citroen Xsara VTS
90 day: 30.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 325
Thanked 452 Times in 319 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
One SAE Paper from General Motors in the 1960s reported that the difference in Cd between spinning and stationary wheels was of such a low statistical significance that it didn't warrant the time and expense to test; and spinning tire effects could be easily simulated with trip strips in the tire/wheel area.
Exposed-wheel race cars MUST be tested with spinning wheels.
Nissan would beg to differ. They test with wheels spining and the engine running to maximise under hood airflow management too.

What was considered adequate by GM in the 60's isn't nessesarily best practise today. It's unlikely we'd have fairly conventional looking 0.22CD sedans with that attitude.
__________________






  Reply With Quote