View Single Post
Old 10-10-2020, 11:01 PM   #63 (permalink)
M_a_t_t
マット
 
M_a_t_t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Indiana
Posts: 718

The Van - '95 Chevy Astro Cl V8 Swapped
Team Chevy
90 day: 7.84 mpg (US)

The new bike - '17 Kawasaki Versys X 300 abs
Motorcycle
90 day: 71.94 mpg (US)

The Mercury - '95 Mercury Tracer Trio
Team Ford
90 day: 34.35 mpg (US)

Toyota - '22 Toyota Corolla Hatchback
90 day: 40.11 mpg (US)
Thanks: 131
Thanked 258 Times in 188 Posts
Rules of thumb are guidelines at best.

Sorry, just reminded me of this scene.

The only way to know for sure is testing.

That's my take.

I think there is merit to comparing fuel economy increase to cd reduction, but not a steadfast rule. There is just so much that could contribute on different levels, for example bsfc for a different load %.

Expanding on that, the gearing at your selected speed is fixed, but your load would change. Which means your engine efficiency is now changing at a non-linear rate. Typically when compared it is something like "10% cd reduction = 5% fuel economy increase". Which is a linear rate change.

For example: A BSFC chart for a 1L metro engine


If your speed puts you at 3000 rpm and you lower your load (or required torque output) by ~30%, from 60 to 40, you can see it might be linear(ish), which might fit one rule of thumb. Then you reduce it more and now that first rule of thumb is inaccurate because of a different bsfc island. So now you would have to use a different rule of thumb based on the average of the 2, etc.
__________________
1973 Fiat 124 Special
1975 Honda Civic CVCC 4spd
1981 Kawasaki KZ750E
1981 Kawasaki KZ650 CSR
1983 Kawasaki KZ1100-A3
1986 Nissan 300zx Turbo 5 spd
1995 Chevy Astro RWD (current project)
1995 Mercury Tracer
2017 Kawasaki VersysX 300
2022 Corolla Hatchback 6MT

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6s...LulDUQ8HMj5VKA

Last edited by M_a_t_t; 10-10-2020 at 11:19 PM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to M_a_t_t For This Useful Post:
CigaR007 (10-10-2020)