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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-24-2021, 12:36 AM   #41 (permalink)
High Altitude Hybrid
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Gunnison, CO
Posts: 1,211

Avalon - '13 Toyota Avalon HV
90 day: 40.45 mpg (US)

Prius - '06 Toyota Prius
Thanks: 620
Thanked 357 Times in 270 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by racprops View Post
Can you translate that to Miles and MPH and MPG??


Please.

Rich
Energy per mile can be derived from
EPM= p x V x Cd x A

You don't have to do the math. Just plug in the numbers here: https://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aer...resistance.php

I couldn't find the Chevy Express's coefficient of drag nor it's frontal area. But the late model Chevy Astro, which is similar in shape, had a drag coefficient of .40 and a frontal area of 34.1 square ft. Of course the Express would have a bigger frontal area, but probably a better coefficient of drag, although probably not by much.

But just using those numbers and 6,000lbs weight and the other defaults (including a 22% efficient engine) and I got 20.3mpg at 60mph according to the calculation. Obviously you can mess with the numbers and get any result you want.

The point I was making is even if a Chevy Express gets 15mpg, there are vans that hold 15 passengers. That's 3 or nearly 4 Toyota Priuses (or Prii). So they'd need to get 45 or 60mpg to meet the same fuel mileage. But some are getting 30mpg in their (diesel) Chevy Express vans! You can get better in a Prius, but you can't haul as many people or as much stuff!

__________________
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Isaac Zachary For This Useful Post:
bwilson4web (12-24-2021), NeilBlanchard (12-26-2021)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 12-24-2021, 09:15 AM   #42 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
kach22i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Posts: 4,032
Thanks: 81
Thanked 2,701 Times in 1,894 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by racprops View Post
Can you translate that to Miles and MPH and MPG??
ALS posted a PDF (post #33), does this snapshot from it help?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	rock solid rule2.jpg
Views:	19
Size:	21.3 KB
ID:	31479  
__________________
George
Architect, Artist and Designer of Objects

1977 Porsche 911s Targa
1998 Chevy S-10 Pick-Up truck
1989 Scat II HP Hovercraft

Chin Spoiler:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-t...effective.html

Rear Spoiler Pick Up Truck
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-t...xperiment.html

Roof Wing
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...1-a-19525.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2021, 09:24 AM   #43 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
kach22i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Posts: 4,032
Thanks: 81
Thanked 2,701 Times in 1,894 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary View Post
The point I was making is even if a Chevy Express gets 15mpg, there are vans that hold 15 passengers. That's 3 or nearly 4 Toyota Priuses (or Prii).
This is a source of angst for me, looking at my beautiful 4-seat coupe the other day all I could think of was the waste.

I've only had a passenger in the car for maybe 5% of the miles I've put on it, and the rear seat may never see use.

This is the tragedy of most vehicles in the USA, at least as daily work commuters consisting only the driver.
__________________
George
Architect, Artist and Designer of Objects

1977 Porsche 911s Targa
1998 Chevy S-10 Pick-Up truck
1989 Scat II HP Hovercraft

Chin Spoiler:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-t...effective.html

Rear Spoiler Pick Up Truck
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-t...xperiment.html

Roof Wing
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...1-a-19525.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2021, 10:58 AM   #44 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Germany
Posts: 385

Aerospyder - '00 Toyota MR2 Spyder
Team Toyota
90 day: 41.27 mpg (US)

Simme - '83 IFA Simson Suhl S51
Motorcycle
90 day: 76.59 mpg (US)
Thanks: 25
Thanked 177 Times in 138 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by racprops View Post
Can you translate that to Miles and MPH and MPG??


Please.

Rich
160 km/h = 100 mph

6L/100 km = 39 mpg

7L/100 km = 34 mpg

18L/100 km = 13 mpg

Learn metric...
__________________
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Autobahnschleicher For This Useful Post:
MeteorGray (12-24-2021)
Old 12-24-2021, 12:22 PM   #45 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 359
Thanks: 272
Thanked 131 Times in 101 Posts
I'm an old man now, but I remember in high school in the 1950s the science teacher said that the US would need to adopt the metric system like the rest of the world had already done for very good reasons: it is so much easier to use and much more logical once you are taught the system.

It was up to the US Congress to do that for us.

Congress failed us.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2021, 01:23 PM   #46 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 23,305
Thanks: 6,569
Thanked 7,435 Times in 6,060 Posts
Have you not read John Mitchell?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michell_(writer)
Quote:
In 1970, Michell founded the Anti-Metrification Board to oppose the adoption of the metric system of measurement in the United Kingdom. Believing that the established imperial system of measurement had both ancient and sacred origins, through the Board he brought out a newsletter, Just Measure.[50] In 1972 he published the first of his "Radical Traditionalist Papers", A Defence of Sacred Measures, in which he laid out his opposition to the metric system.[50]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrica...ion_opposition
Quote:
1 Metrication
2 Technical arguments
2.1 Natural evolution and human scale
2.2 Divisibility
2.3 Duplication in naming and usage
2.4 Industry-specific product sizing
3 Political arguments
3.1 Tradition
3.2 Government compulsion
3.3 High modernism and legibility
3.4 Price inflation
4 See also
[not responsible for vBulletin disrespecting clarifying spaces]

Based by the French on a mistaken geodesy
__________________
.
.

Without freedom of speech we wouldn't know who all the idiots are. -- anonymous poster
____________________

Don't Worry Be Happy -- Bobby McFerrin
____________________

Last edited by freebeard; 12-24-2021 at 01:28 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2021, 02:06 PM   #47 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
skyking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tacoma WA
Posts: 1,389

Woody - '96 Dodge Ram 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 23.82 mpg (US)

Avion and Woody - '96 Dodge/Avion Ram 2500/5th wheel combo
90 day: 15.1 mpg (US)

TD eye eye eye - '03 Volkswagen Beetle GLS
90 day: 49.05 mpg (US)

Mule - '07 Dodge Ram 3500 ST
Thanks: 738
Thanked 511 Times in 335 Posts
Regarding the OP:
I lump it in there with other misguided generalizations. My favorite one is " my car gets better MPG @70 than at < some slower speed >.
Modern engines are not very sensitive to small changes in RPM. What happens is they get a good tank or two, maybe downwind and downhill
That becomes the new standard and they would rather drive faster than do some real sciencing :P
__________________




2007 Dodge Ram 3500 SRW 4x4 with 6MT
2003 TDI Beetle
2002 TDI Beetle

currently parked - 1996 Dodge 2500 Cummins Turbodiesel
Custom cab, auto, 3.55 gears
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2021, 02:20 PM   #48 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 23,305
Thanks: 6,569
Thanked 7,435 Times in 6,060 Posts
The premise does not accommodate head, tail and quartering winds.

What is the effect with a 60 MPH tail wind? Churning in the wheel wells?
__________________
.
.

Without freedom of speech we wouldn't know who all the idiots are. -- anonymous poster
____________________

Don't Worry Be Happy -- Bobby McFerrin
____________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2021, 02:43 PM   #49 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Germany
Posts: 385

Aerospyder - '00 Toyota MR2 Spyder
Team Toyota
90 day: 41.27 mpg (US)

Simme - '83 IFA Simson Suhl S51
Motorcycle
90 day: 76.59 mpg (US)
Thanks: 25
Thanked 177 Times in 138 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking View Post
Regarding the OP:
I lump it in there with other misguided generalizations. My favorite one is " my car gets better MPG @70 than at < some slower speed >.
Modern engines are not very sensitive to small changes in RPM. What happens is they get a good tank or two, maybe downwind and downhill
That becomes the new standard and they would rather drive faster than do some real sciencing :P
Surprisingly I tested a Mercedes Benz E220 D and it genuinly had its best fuel economy at 110 km/h (just under 70 mph).
That was 4,7L/100 km (50 mpg)
However it is a rather aerodynamic car with a 2,5L turbodiesel and very tall 6-speed manual.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2021, 02:48 PM   #50 (permalink)
ALS
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 113
Thanks: 0
Thanked 22 Times in 16 Posts
I did some testing a few years ago with my 97 Volvo and speed matters with fuel economy. It weighs in at 3450 lbs and has a Cd of.36
EPA has it rated at 25 mpg highway and Euro ratings are 11.7 liters per 100km.

50 mph 35.4 mpg
55 mph 33.9 mpg
60 mph 31.15 mpg
65 mph 28.5 mpg

At 70 mph it seems to run around 25.5 mpg.

BTW this was after some undercarriage mods. Before cleaning up the air flow under the car, it would get at most around 25.0-25.5 at 65 mph with E10. With straight gas the car gets between 29.25 and 29.75 mpg at 65 mph.


Last edited by ALS; 12-24-2021 at 03:19 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com