91' civic "project nose job"

[Quasimoto]

I'm back from vacation and the nose job is finally done. I used Blue Magic Pure Rubber Coating to cover it. After 1669 miles of testing the results are rather impressive. Now, this is a 1991 Honda Civic DX with an automatic transmission and no cruise control. My average MPG at 55MPH previous to the nose mod was 39.4MPG. After the mod the average is 45.215MPG. At 60MPH the average is 43.504MPG and at 65MPH it is 42.532MPG. These were all accomplished in real world driving, in all kinds of weather. Always filling at the same gas pump, the same way. The result speaks for itself.

[California98Civic]

Originally Posted by Quasimoto

I'm back from vacation and the nose job is finally done. I used Blue Magic Pure Rubber Coating to cover it. After 1669 miles of testing the results are rather impressive. Now, this is a 1991 Honda Civic DX with an automatic transmission and no cruise control. My average MPG at 55MPH previous to the nose mod was 39.4MPG. After the mod the average is 45.215MPG. At 60MPH the average is 43.504MPG and at 65MPH it is 42.532MPG. These were all accomplished in real world driving, in all kinds of weather. Always filling at the same gas pump, the same way. The result speaks for itself.

That is a one-of-a-kind funky mod. I love it. I would recommend experimenting with a lawn-edging airdam under the new lip, close to the wheels so you don't back every single parking lot ramp you cross. I installed one and it was associated with improvements (not rigorously investigated but I am confident real improvements). The reason I say this, is because your new bumper seems to maybe push a lot of air under the car. A dam that re-routed that air to the sides would likely save significant under-car drag. Unlike some others, I set my Civic airdam to end its curve about where front tire spats would be. I was guessing that would keep down the expansion of the effective frontal area by not jetting as much air as far to the sides of the car.

BTW, the wheel covers are beautiful. You bought moon covers or you made those? How did you get them? 13" wheels?

[Quasimoto]

You're right that the extension pushes a lot of air under the car. We must think alike, because I already bought the edging. Thanks for the installation advice. I got the 13" wheel covers online for about $100.00.

[omar]

nice job man,
try shave some off the corners it will make some diffrence and looks smother

[Quasimoto]

Thanks omar, maybe next time Ill try that.

[suspectnumber961]

Is the "theory" behind this mod similar to the bulbous noses on ships?

Of course the "theory" doesn't matter so much if you are seeing a 14% gain.

I'm just uncertain as to WHY you see a gain....I'm guessing that it reduces "eddys" and smooths the flow behind it.


http://www.answers.com/topic/bulbous-bow

"Large ships with bulbous bows generally have a 12 to 15 percent better fuel efficiency than similar vessels without them."

You are driving a large ship?

[Quasimoto]

Actually it nothing to do with a ships bulbous bow. The extension is actually an airfoil; a reverse wing. If you look at some of the earlier pics you can see the shape. I made it upside down because it fit the contour of the car better. The effect is the same either way. Airfoils and Airflow [Ch. 3 of See How It Flies]
Section 3.8 on inverted flight.

[pletby]

Aha! So that WAS your inspiration. Very cool.

[Quasimoto]

That's right pletby; of the 2000+ ecomodders who viewed this post; you are the first to even hint at the origin of the extended nose. good eye mite, as our aussie friends say

[suspectnumber961]

Originally Posted by Quasimoto

Actually it nothing to do with a ships bulbous bow. The extension is actually an airfoil; a reverse wing. If you look at some of the earlier pics you can see the shape. I made it upside down because it fit the contour of the car better. The effect is the same either way. Airfoils and Airflow [Ch. 3 of See How It Flies]
Section 3.8 on inverted flight.

I know you made it...but I think the resemblance to a wing has no more relevance to it's effect than it's resemblance to a bulbous ship's bow.

Because the bulbous ships bow and the front of a wing are almost identical in cross-section?

My under-educated guess is that the mpg gain effect comes from having a large and smoothly contoured shape in the most high pressured position on the vehicle so that this high pressured air (resistance) is dealt with more effectively....routed back over the car...as undisturbed as possible.

AND...it looks like better mpg gains than for a partial Kammback? And EVERYBODY says that what's at back matters most??????

Hope your before and after testing is valid.....

note: don't let this opinion bum you out...you made it...you should call it what you want!