Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-15-2014, 05:40 PM   #11 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
jedi_sol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tustin, CA
Posts: 929

2013 STi *SOLD* - '13 Subaru Impreza WRX STi
Subaru
Sports Cars
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 26.59 mpg (US)

1996 Geo Metro *RETIRED from Ecomodding* - '96 Geo Metro Base
90 day: 58.68 mpg (US)
Thanks: 368
Thanked 380 Times in 238 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axsle View Post
If the air dam is longer/lower at the sides so that the air is diverted around the tires, is that better? Could that help even with a belly pan?
Yes, if the airdam is longer and lower at the sides, it is better because it diverts air away from the tires AND it will not increase your frontal area.

The reason an air dam can help fuel efficiency is by preventing air from going underneath the car (which is the most un areodynamic part of the car). However, if the airdam is too low, it increases your frontal area, which can hurt fuel efficiency.

Airdams are typically considered the "easiest" way to prevent air from going under the car, therefore, car manufacturers typically skip out on doing a full underbelly tray.

Therefore, there is a fine line between too much air dam and not enough airdam.

__________________







See the rest of the Sti project log:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...log-26612.html
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 06-16-2014, 01:45 AM   #12 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 126

Champagne - '13 Chevy Cruze 1LT
90 day: 33.35 mpg (US)
Thanks: 16
Thanked 23 Times in 20 Posts
Typically how low do you think it would be safe to go without increasing the frontal area? Trial and error?
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 01:53 AM   #13 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
jedi_sol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tustin, CA
Posts: 929

2013 STi *SOLD* - '13 Subaru Impreza WRX STi
Subaru
Sports Cars
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 26.59 mpg (US)

1996 Geo Metro *RETIRED from Ecomodding* - '96 Geo Metro Base
90 day: 58.68 mpg (US)
Thanks: 368
Thanked 380 Times in 238 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandonMods View Post
Typically how low do you think it would be safe to go without increasing the frontal area? Trial and error?
Typically the front air dam should extend no lower than the lowest part of your under-body (example, exhause pipes or lower control arms). if you go any lower than the lowest part of your underbody, you are increasing frontal area.

If you want to build an airdam with an underbelly....then make your airdam as low as the lowest part of the underbody....then make your underbelly extend backwards from the bottom of your airdam.
__________________







See the rest of the Sti project log:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...log-26612.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 02:02 AM   #14 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 126

Champagne - '13 Chevy Cruze 1LT
90 day: 33.35 mpg (US)
Thanks: 16
Thanked 23 Times in 20 Posts
Thanks!
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2014, 05:49 PM   #15 (permalink)
Not banned yet
 
deejaaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Texas Coast, close to Houston
Posts: 907

Blue - '03 Chevy S-10, LS
Thanks: 423
Thanked 265 Times in 212 Posts
looks good.
i think i will drill/tap my aluminum rims, cut sheet aluminum/stainless, attach with 4 flat head screws, leaving access to valves.

__________________
2003 S-10, 2.2L, 5 speed, ext cab long bed.
So far: DRL delete, remove bed mount toolbox.
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com