09-10-2012, 10:32 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Ultimate Fail
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin,Texas
Posts: 3,585
Thanks: 2,872
Thanked 1,121 Times in 679 Posts
|
A 20% reduction in drag = a 10% increase in fuel economy ?
So I seem to remember it being said that a 20% reduction in drag = a 10% increase in fuel economy above 55 mph .
Is this correct ?
|
|
|
|
 Today
|
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
|
|
09-10-2012, 10:35 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Warren, MI
Posts: 2,456
Thanks: 782
Thanked 669 Times in 411 Posts
|
Yes
__________________
He gave me a dollar. A blood-soaked dollar.
I cannot get the spot out but it's okay; It still works in the store
|
|
|
|
|
09-10-2012, 10:44 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
|
EcoModding Apprentice
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cold Lake, AB
Posts: 100
Alexa - '07 Honda Civic LX 90 day: 38.32 mpg (US) FX - '06 Infiniti FX35 90 day: 17.98 mpg (US) Priya - '03 Saturn Ion 3 90 day: 27.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
|
intredesting... 
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
09-10-2012, 10:45 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
Ultimate Fail
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin,Texas
Posts: 3,585
Thanks: 2,872
Thanked 1,121 Times in 679 Posts
|
So if I take my 1993 Civic hunchback with a stock Cd of .31 and drop the Cd by 60% down to .124 , then my fuel economy will rise by 30% ?
42 MPG highway + 30% = 54.6 MPG ?
( yes - I completely FAIL at math )
|
|
|
|
|
09-10-2012, 10:58 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
|
EcoModding Smurfer
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: LaX
Posts: 293
Thanks: 52
Thanked 35 Times in 29 Posts
|
If you can take your Cd down to 0.124, then you should be getting a LOT more than 54MPG.
0.124 is ... ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
09-10-2012, 11:10 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
|
Ultimate Fail
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin,Texas
Posts: 3,585
Thanks: 2,872
Thanked 1,121 Times in 679 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurf
If you can take your Cd down to 0.124, then you should be getting a LOT more than 54MPG.
0.124 is ... ridiculous.
|
Right. I'm doing the math wrong . |
|
|
|
|
09-10-2012, 11:36 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Warren, MI
Posts: 2,456
Thanks: 782
Thanked 669 Times in 411 Posts
|
Aero Civic is ~0.17
95mpg at 65mph
__________________
He gave me a dollar. A blood-soaked dollar.
I cannot get the spot out but it's okay; It still works in the store
|
|
|
|
|
09-10-2012, 11:46 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
|
Ultimate Fail
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin,Texas
Posts: 3,585
Thanks: 2,872
Thanked 1,121 Times in 679 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sven7
Aero Civic is ~0.17
95mpg at 65mph
|
That's what I'm not understanding .
How much of that number is due to aerodynamic modifications, versus coasting along in neutral with the engine off ? |
|
|
|
|
09-11-2012, 12:10 AM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4,683
Thanks: 178
Thanked 652 Times in 516 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cd
That's what I'm not understanding .
How much of that number is due to aerodynamic modifications, versus coasting along in neutral with the engine off ?
|
Basjoos has his fuel /speed number on the forum somewhere - I think in his aerocivic thread about dropping its cd to around 0.17 .
His figures were with steady state driving IIRC - using lean burn though.
__________________
Strayed to the Dark Diesel Side
|
|
|
|
|
09-11-2012, 05:13 AM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
|
Ultimate Fail
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin,Texas
Posts: 3,585
Thanks: 2,872
Thanked 1,121 Times in 679 Posts
|
I'm miserably bad at math, so please check my numbers .
.31 Cd minus 45% equals .1705
45 MPG plus 110 % equals 94.5 MPG
So a reduction of 45% in drag equals a 110% increase in fuel economy ?
|
|
|
|
|
