1997 S10: Project 35mpg

[agent00kevin]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Headlight "buckets" increasing drag is a common misconception. As a member here, I know that. Actually I knew that before I was a member here.

65+ Vehicle modifications for better fuel economy - EcoModder.com

Maybe you should spread the word to site admins instead of me.

[Neen]

I think what Frank is saying is that the improvement is soooo miniscule that it is practically non-existent. I'm sure that with the most advanced wind tunnel testing facility you could see some possible reduction in Cd but that doesn't mean to the lay man that it should be done to all bucket style headlights.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by agent00kevin

65+ Vehicle modifications for better fuel economy - EcoModder.com

Maybe you should spread the word to site admins instead of me.

I have and yet there it still is.

Short explanation is, it's much like the windshield wiper zone on a three-box vehicle; the air piles up in front of the bucket and makes it's own domed front. Sure, leakage through gaps around the sealed beam = flow = drag but then there are probably comparable gaps and flows around most non-bucket versions (although I see Metros have vent slots in their buckets, which could be taped off if someone was on a gap-sealing mission).

[agent00kevin]

I understand your point and only partially disagreed. I did say the improvement would be minimal, and that it takes many of those things to add up.

The way you say things makes you appear to be the type that rarely has anything good to say, and instead browses forums in the hopes of issuing some not so constructive criticism. Ive seen these types everywhere and Im positive that several exist here after reading a lot of other threads. This isnt my first day online.

The Cd for my truck is .44. Ive done my research long before signing up here. I dont expect it to wonderously reduce to .17 by installing composite headlights. If it goes to .43 thats just fine with me. Maybe foaming up all the extra gaps will get me to .42. Then the next mod I do will put me at .40. You get the idea.

Pointing out that a single 'light' aero mod (pun intended) is barely effective is both unneccesary and tedious. Im not sure if Im supposed to thank you, or call you a troll.

[pete c]

I'm one of those troublemakers like Frank so.....

What Frank was saying is that you did A LOT of work for a practicly unmeasurable gain. He even 'splained why it is the case. That being so, I will admitt that flush headlights certainly do look more aero.

Now moving on to your engine breathing work. What you say makes complete sense....downwind of the spark plugs. Upwind.....not so much. Infact the work you did likely resulted in at least cancelling the miniscule headlight gains.

I realize that all this sounds counterintuitive. I mean, better breathing engines are more efficient, right?

All you have to do is examine how a gasoline ICE works. It's got this pesky device in there called a throttle. Guess what that throttle does when you go through the trouble of making it breath better?

Yup, it closes a bit. Just to be an a-hole.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by agent00kevin

I understand your point and only partially disagreed. I did say the improvement would be minimal, and that it takes many of those things to add up.

The way you say things makes you appear to be the type that rarely has anything good to say, and instead browses forums in the hopes of issuing some not so constructive criticism. Ive seen these types everywhere and Im positive that several exist here after reading a lot of other threads. This isnt my first day online.

The Cd for my truck is .44. Ive done my research long before signing up here. I dont expect it to wonderously reduce to .17 by installing composite headlights. If it goes to .43 thats just fine with me. Maybe foaming up all the extra gaps will get me to .42. Then the next mod I do will put me at .40. You get the idea.

Pointing out that a single 'light' aero mod (pun intended) is barely effective is both unneccesary and tedious. Im not sure if Im supposed to thank you, or call you a troll.

You're long reply is what's tedious.

My pointing out- here and I think I said it on the 65 mods plus I'm sure I've discussed it in threads regarding headlight buckets- that buckets are for all practical purposes no less aero than "aero" styled lights is the opposite of unnecessary and tedious. It is good information that appears to be counter-intuitive to most, that can spare people from obsessing over/investing in mods that won't bear any fruit if that is what they choose to do with the information.

[Mustang Dave]

agent00kevin, please start and maintain a fuel log so the rest of us can watch your progress.

[JRMichler]

Does anybody know how the CdA and empty weight of the S10 compares to the Colorado / Canyon?

I sorta have the idea that the S10 has less frontal area and is lighter, but don't know that for a fact.

[pete c]

the colorado looks to be a bit bigger and to my eye, doesn't look any more aero, so, I suspect that it has a little more total drag.

But, it does have flush headlights.

[pete c]

On the topic of lowering....

Given that you mentioned the need to drive into places that need every bit of the stock ground clearance, I think you should leave it be. Infact, it might even make sense to hike it up a smidge and put your efforts into smoothing out the air that does find it's way under there.

The one thing that will get you a big pay back is one of those fastback caps you see advertised right on this site. I suspect they are available for S-10s.