View Single Post
Old 04-25-2015, 12:16 AM   #63 (permalink)
mikeyjd
Master EcoModder
 
mikeyjd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 838

Matchbox - '93 Ford Festiva L
Team Ford
Last 3: 70.16 mpg (US)

Salamander - '99 Chrysler Concorde LXI
Team Dodge
90 day: 30.3 mpg (US)

Urquhart - '97 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 V6 3.4L DLX
Pickups
90 day: 25.81 mpg (US)

Smudge - '98 Toyota Tacoma
90 day: 40.65 mpg (US)

Calebro - '15 Renault Trafic 1.25 dci
90 day: 39.39 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,380
Thanked 209 Times in 155 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
Conditions were great late today, so I got out to the test route again.

Short story: 3% improvement @ 90 km/h / 56 mph

(Doing AAA-BBB-AAA where each A or B is a 2-way averaged run. So 18 individual runs. A = Kamm+Tail; B = naked rear end)

Compare that to the 2% change I saw last time.

So the revised tail appears to work better, but overall it's still not a very big difference vs. no rear end work. Don't get me wrong, though -- I'll happily take a 3% boost! I'm just surprised it wasn't more.

I'll post the final details & graphs & standard deviations sometime this weekend.
Thanks for retesting. It makes sense that you'd get less benefit than say a lean burn capable Insight, but I would have guessed more than what you got. I wonder if it has something to do with where you're at on the bsfc map when aero is improved. Maybe your engine isn't getting the benefit we'd expect to see, because Honda has gone to great lengths to tune the car based on the known aerodynamic characteristics of the vehicle? A bit of a head scratcher...
  Reply With Quote