Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-08-2012, 01:53 AM   #31 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: MI, USA
Posts: 571

92 Camry - '92 Toyota Camry LE
Team Toyota
90 day: 26.81 mpg (US)

97 Corolla - '97 Toyota Corolla DX
Team Toyota
90 day: 30.1 mpg (US)

Red F250 - '95 Ford F250 XLT
90 day: 20.34 mpg (US)

Matrix - '04 Toyota Matrix XR
90 day: 31.86 mpg (US)

White Prius - '06 Toyota Prius Base
90 day: 48.54 mpg (US)
Thanks: 8
Thanked 73 Times in 50 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtbo View Post
I wonder how Suzuki Alto would be for aerodynamic mods?

They still make it in India Maruti800: one of the most successful cars in India and we have them here in few numbers at silly low prices.

Engine is 800cc motorbike engine from my memory, and thing does not weight nothing compared to other small cars.

It has also narrow tires so with some aerodynamic mods I would imagine it might go really well, convert to injection slap megasquirt into it and it might even take some lean burning too?

Frontal area is also among the smallest.

cdA is at 0.73 - 0.75 range, cd being 0.46 - 0.47 and frontal area of 1.59m^2

Here you can find some aerodynamic data from different vehicles to estimate which is better in stock form:
The Mayfield Company Homepage - Coefficient of Drag Tables and Curves

I would think that with aeromods one could lower cd to 0.35 range at least, if not even lower, depending from legistlation of area and what mods it does allow, maybe even less than that is possible and fuel economy would be great on city and highway too.

However I doubt that it would be possible increase length of that car by 1 meter in here, which it probably would need, or then chopping rear roof.
Thanks for the link! According to that page, my corolla isn't "that" much better than a camry which is interesting unless i'm reading it wrong (cd and frontal area mainly looking at).

@bheadrick

Is this fill up directly after the few short runs you did a while back that calced to around 60mpg? If so, I would suspect the numbers this time are a bit low for the actual due to not counted gas in the last few. Almost 50mpg isn't bad, but you can do better I'm sure .

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
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