Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
1) GM's corporate policy, historically, is not to 'innovate' with shareholder's money.
2) GM is in the business of making money.
3) One of GM's business operations has to do with manufacturing automobiles.
4) Historically, automobiles burn fossil-fuels.
5) Historically, GM's parent company was also in the fossil-fuel industry.
6) Aerodynamic efficiency threatens fossil-fuel profits.
7) GM has been concerned with 'look-alike' automobiles since 1926.
8) GM 'invented' style obsolescence in 1927 ( Law of the Paris Dressmaker ).
9) GM lets other automakers take risks.
10) If a competitor has a success with some innovation and some GM committee agrees that GM should 'compete' technologically, then one can expect to see an innovative feature appear on a GM product.
11) As of 1987, GM 'produced' a vehicle of Cd 0.089.
12) GM's Aerodynamics Laboratory 'Knows' about low aerodynamic drag.
13) GM's Pontiac Trans Sport van was Cd 0.30.
14) GM's 1992 HX-3 hybrid van was below Cd 0.29.
15) We are not constrained by committees who may value fossil-fuel profits to nameless shareholders ahead of aerodynamic efficiency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16) Since aerodynamic drag is governed by frontal area and shape, and frontal area isn't negotiable, on a practical modification basis, we're left with 'shape.'
17) If you were to mimic what NASA did to their Ford Econoline, it would not be unreasonable for you to experience their drag coefficient. I un-knowingly did what NASA did in 1980, and pushed my VW Transporter, from 27-mpg, to as high as 34-mpg. If I'd had access to a fifth gear, I might have seen better.
|
I see the same pattern at GM and most other manufacturers. They've have no reason to work on the Express van aero as they are making money as it is and it doesn't effect their corporate MPG. They may know aero, at least now, but that knowledge only seems to be used very recently. You look at the 1980's Firebird and Comaro, and Audi's boxy sedans had lower drag. Even the boxy flagship sedan from Chrysler had the same drag as the Firebird, IIRC.
With this van, I think there is easily alot of room for improvement. Starting with a VW, you were probably starting with a much more studied design. I recall seeing that they did quite a bit of aero work ( and crash testing) on the old VW vans from the 60's and 70's. The aero work on the Rabbit presented by Hucho fascinated me and really shows that so much more can be done that just looking aero. Flat faced vehicles can perform just as well as rounded if designed well.