View Single Post
Old 11-07-2014, 08:36 AM   #23 (permalink)
aardvarcus
Master EcoModder
 
aardvarcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Evensville, TN
Posts: 676

Deep Blue - '94 GMC Suburban K2500 SLE
90 day: 23.75 mpg (US)

Griffin (T4R) - '99 Toyota 4Runner SR5
90 day: 25.43 mpg (US)
Thanks: 237
Thanked 580 Times in 322 Posts
Well, I only got part of my V1.2 list done, so I am labeling this as V1.1 for now. I was able to reshape the outer radii into a tighter arc, and trimmed about one inch off of each end. This should keep the air from drastically overshooting the tire, but I don’t know for sure that I didn’t overcorrect and bend it too far.

Looking again at how close my tow hook is to my aluminum air dam frame, I was unable to increase the slope in the two flatter parts of the middle towards the side, so that idea was a no go for now. Further examining Hucho’s book and the many charts it contains, I decided to cut out the center middle of the air dam, 1” tall by 28”sloping to 34” wide.

Inspecting other charts in the book that had heights of air dams and placements front to back, my far back placement of the air dam appears to have some but not overwhelming impact on the available reduction in drag coefficient, but clearly had implications on available reductions in front lift coefficients. Honestly it’s already better than stock, so I think I can live with that for now.

Examining the charts in the book further, a front lip on the air dam was shown in the book with positive results, so I began testing attaching some pieces of rubber fuel hose to a scrap of conveyor belt to act as a lip when I ran out of time to work. I quickly re-bolted the air dam on, a let than five minute job.

Anyway, here are some pictures of V1.1 as I reinstalled last night. Based on some “coast down hill” type tests this morning, V1.1 appears to have slightly lower drag than V1.0, but there are way too many variables to know for sure right now.









Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	101_9207.JPG
Views:	822
Size:	65.5 KB
ID:	16316   Click image for larger version

Name:	101_9208.JPG
Views:	782
Size:	69.5 KB
ID:	16317   Click image for larger version

Name:	101_9209.JPG
Views:	790
Size:	74.5 KB
ID:	16318   Click image for larger version

Name:	101_9211.JPG
Views:	793
Size:	64.6 KB
ID:	16319   Click image for larger version

Name:	101_9212.JPG
Views:	779
Size:	64.0 KB
ID:	16320  

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to aardvarcus For This Useful Post:
aerohead (11-07-2014)