[JacobLeSann]

Zen. I mean, that a good thought. You could use tuft testing and pressure measurement (better yet, a wind tunnel) to determine the perfect shape for modification of your car, which would normally be invisible. “The shape that isn’t there”

freebeard, would the rear wheels have pontoon fenders with spats? I think a beetle would be the perfect car to try and replicate a 30’s-40’s aerodynamic car. I think a long-tailed Bugatti Aerolithe could be very cool, for example. Split window at the rear? Could be very sweet. The beetle’s front windshield is very nice stock, but I bet you’d improve frunk space for sure. Lots of bodywork, though.

Biggest question for me is still: “how do you work on the engine?”


I find my 2006 Civic (most angled front end of any Honda I’ve seen) makes it a pain to work under the hood. My 90’s cars are like a godsend in comparison. I guess that’s my preference.

Still, conjecture, and off topic.

————————————————————————

Somewhat more on topic:

I think the idea of “apply these mods and you will get __ increase in MPG!” is an idea which is very misleading. I find this worse than the template, although they tend to go hand-in-hand. I don’t think anything about this is set in stone, beyond the idea of slowing the vehicle down. For example, I read so much on this site about “high RPM wastes fuel” yet I have a 120 MPG vehicle that sees life at 7500-9000 RPM. Hell, even on a bicycle I increased efficiency and saved my aching knees by shortening my crank arms and dropping down a gear while cruising. Those are less aerodynamic examples though.

Long story short, different strokes for different folks….er…vehicles.