View Single Post
Old 03-18-2009, 09:50 PM   #15 (permalink)
Frank Lee
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Dave View Post

If you insist on short (wheelbase and overall length) cars for ease of city operation, you inevitably wind up with a clown car or an X-box. Aero=brick. Or something vaguely hedgehog-shaped. To get better aero (hence better highway MPG) you have to have length. Greater length exacts a price in vehicle weight, but pays you back in capacity and lower (potential) coefficient of drag. For ultimate economy a long tandem vehicle could give you the balance of aero and weight.
Erm... there are examples of sawn-off runt cars that have Cds in the .20s. They make me wonder about this fineness ratio thing.
  Reply With Quote