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

View Poll Results: Which vehicle would you rather have?
Vehicle A: 10.0 lower Cd than Vehicle B 4 44.44%
Vehicle B: 1000 lbs lighter than Vehicle A 5 55.56%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-27-2020, 12:18 AM   #11 (permalink)
Ecomodding amateur
 
M_a_t_t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Indiana
Posts: 660

The Van - '95 Chevy Astro Cl V8 Swapped
Team Chevy
90 day: 9.5 mpg (US)

The new bike - '17 Kawasaki Versys X 300 abs
Motorcycle
90 day: 65.19 mpg (US)

The Mercury - '95 Mercury Tracer Trio
Team Ford
90 day: 37.77 mpg (US)
Thanks: 121
Thanked 239 Times in 172 Posts
I wouldn't bother making the final decision based on those 2 facts. I want to know reliability of the drivetrain, etc. I'd consider the cd and weight to be byproducts of the vehicle. No reason to try to save gas if you're buying a different car early because of the drivetrain.

That being said, if they truly are the same but with those being the only 2 differences I'd probably go with the heavier, but aero one. Utility reasons mostly. Good technique can trump specs. Looks at funkhoss's caprice.

__________________
Věci získávají svou skutečnou krásu pouze ve vztahu k našemu životu
-Jiří Mucha (1915-1991), Publicist

1973 Fiat 124 Special
1975 Honda Civic CVCC 4spd
1981 Kawasaki KZ750E
1981 Kawasaki KZ650 CSR
1983 Kawasaki KZ1100-A3
1986 Nissan 300zx Turbo 5 spd
1995 Chevy Astro RWD (current project)
1995 Mercury Tracer
2004 Chevy Astro AWD
2017 Kawasaki VersysX 300

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6s...LulDUQ8HMj5VKA
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to M_a_t_t For This Useful Post:
Taylor95 (10-27-2020)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 10-27-2020, 01:02 AM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 406

Jeep - '97 Jeep Cherokee Sport
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)

Blueberry - '07 Toyota Camry SE
Thanks: 157
Thanked 89 Times in 70 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by M_a_t_t View Post
I wouldn't bother making the final decision based on those 2 facts. I want to know reliability of the drivetrain, etc. I'd consider the cd and weight to be byproducts of the vehicle. No reason to try to save gas if you're buying a different car early because of the drivetrain.

That being said, if they truly are the same but with those being the only 2 differences I'd probably go with the heavier, but aero one. Utility reasons mostly. Good technique can trump specs. Looks at funkhoss's caprice.
I've read his build thread. That car really is one of a kind.

There are two vehicles that fit the description of the OP, actually. The drivetrain is very similar between the two. I was just wondering if most people here would prefer aero over weight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2020, 04:14 AM   #13 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Stubby79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 1,746

Firefly EV - '98 Pontiac Firefly EV
90 day: 107.65 mpg (US)

Little Boy Blue - '05 Toyota Echo
90 day: 33.35 mpg (US)

BlueZ - '19 Nissan 370Z Sport
90 day: 17.19 mpg (US)
Thanks: 75
Thanked 570 Times in 425 Posts
I do 50/50 driving, by distance, every day. The 50 in town takes 5x as long as the 50 on the highway, and averages a dozen stop/starts. There is a long hill on the highway to boot. Lighter weight will win every time.

I'd assume the bigger car would need a bigger engine too, so it would have a hell of a time catching up to the lighter. Would need to be 1:2 ratio or higher to ever make it worth it. And, as point out, aero can be worked on...you'll never be able to take 1000lbs out of the bigger car, and it would be a pain to shrink the engine size.

All of this assuming a plain old gasser. Hybrid or diesel and things would narrow a fair bit. Also gotta assume the heavier car can carry more (people) and be more comfortable. I rather like a comfortable ride...it's worth a few bucks a week in extra fuel.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2020, 10:25 AM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
kach22i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Posts: 3,886
Thanks: 54
Thanked 2,592 Times in 1,817 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubby79 View Post
I do 50/50 driving, by distance, every day. The 50 in town takes 5x as long as the 50 on the highway, and averages a dozen stop/starts. There is a long hill on the highway to boot. Lighter weight will win every time..............
Similar to what I was about to post.

That city driving time is a real killer.

Will never make up for it on the highway.

I mean my S10 probably gets 10mpg in the city, and 20 mpg on the hwy.

No improvement in Cd is ever going to tilt the scales back.

In the real world changing out my spark plugs has had the greatest affect.

Therefore if given a third choice to vote on would say "engine efficiency" is most important.

Going further I's say drivetrain efficiency overall is most important because putting the S10 into 4WD is like throwing out a boat anchor with large chain attached.

In short, everything is important, and the ratios of this or that are moving targets at best.
__________________
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 10-27-2020, 01:30 PM   #15 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Ecky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,479

Gaptooth (retired) - '00 Honda Insight
Team Honda
Gen-1 Insights
90 day: 54.26 mpg (US)

Such Fit - '07 Honda Fit Sport
90 day: 41.27 mpg (US)

K-sight - '00 Honda K-sight
Team Honda
90 day: 41.97 mpg (US)

Aerocivic - '92 Honda Civic CX
90 day: 64.49 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,293
Thanked 2,064 Times in 1,285 Posts
My intuition says the lower Cd vehicle will be considerably more efficient from the factory, but I'd still rather own the lighter one.

In the real world I picked "both" of course.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2020, 09:21 AM   #16 (permalink)
EcoModding Pro
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Abilene, Texas
Posts: 74
Thanks: 9
Thanked 41 Times in 27 Posts
Weight vs CD

I vote lighter weight. The CD value hurts economy as the car goes faster, while weight must always be moved by the power source. Around town weight is a bigger concern but CD has little effect at in-town speeds. YES, I understand CD is always a consideration, but slower driving is a large portion of daily use. On a long-haul vehicle CD is much more of a concern...but so is weight. Weight is always a concern on long-haul or in town. An old adage heard at Bonneville is, it takes twice as much power to go from 200 mph to 250 mph as it does to get to 200 mph. Drag becomes a major factor as speed increases. Most of us never go 200 mph. I once went 140 mph in a Ford powered Cobra, and I believe that is my fastest ride.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2020, 12:04 PM   #17 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 13,046
Thanks: 20,921
Thanked 6,378 Times in 3,961 Posts
decision

I'm already running around a 900-pound weight liability with the crude aero package on the Toyota pickup, however, the HWY mpg is so significantly improved, it has dragged the average mpg upwards in spite of the inertial penalty. So I voted for aero.
When I increased the weight of my Honda CRX to that of a Ford Taurus, and added a 3rd axle, I only lost 2-mpg on the open road ( 50-mpg vs 52 ).
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2020, 05:22 AM   #18 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
oldtamiyaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,510

UFI - '12 Fiat 500 Twinair
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 40.3 mpg (US)

Jeep - '05 Jeep Wrangler Renegade
90 day: 18.09 mpg (US)

R32 - '89 Nissan Skyline

STiG - '16 Renault Trafic 140dCi Energy
90 day: 30.12 mpg (US)

Prius - '05 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 50.25 mpg (US)

Premodded - '49 Ford Freighter
90 day: 13.48 mpg (US)

F-117 - '10 Proton Arena GLSi
Pickups
Mitsubishi
90 day: 37.82 mpg (US)

Ralica - '85 Toyota Celica ST
90 day: 25.23 mpg (US)

Sx4 - '07 Suzuki Sx4
90 day: 32.21 mpg (US)

F-117 (2) - '03 Citroen Xsara VTS
90 day: 30.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 325
Thanked 445 Times in 314 Posts
Take the CD, my 'full size' van weighs 2.2 tons, and gets over 30mpg in all city driving (20mph avg speed).

In previous testing (over two years), I've found the weight of a trailer makes no difference to city fuel economy, it can all be accounted for in the aero drag penalty.

Don't brake and weight won't hurt you, and a heavier vehicle that glides further is actually much nicer to hypermile.

In short you can drive a heavy vehicle appropriately, with a draggy vehicle your only choice is to drive slower.
__________________






  Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2020, 08:57 AM   #19 (permalink)
EcoModding Pro
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Abilene, Texas
Posts: 74
Thanks: 9
Thanked 41 Times in 27 Posts
CD v Weight

Drive ANY vehicle at 20 MPH average and your MPG will be great. In Texas 20 MPH speed signs are only seen in school zones. Also, a 2.2 ton vehicle is NOT a good comparison to a daily driver weighing 1500 pounds less. DRAG is not a force to be dealt with until the vehicle goes faster. In fact, the faster one goes the more CD impacts economy. You are correct about stopping and starting. As the science says, A MASS IN MOTION TENDS TO STAY IN MOTION, AND A MASS AT REST TENDS TO STAY AT REST. One must use energy to move a vehicle off a static position, and use more energy to stop it. Stop-and-go in town is probably the single biggest drain on MPG. Your 2.2 ton vehicle seems to be set up perfectly for the task at hand. Congratulations.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2020, 08:55 PM   #20 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
oldtamiyaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,510

UFI - '12 Fiat 500 Twinair
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 40.3 mpg (US)

Jeep - '05 Jeep Wrangler Renegade
90 day: 18.09 mpg (US)

R32 - '89 Nissan Skyline

STiG - '16 Renault Trafic 140dCi Energy
90 day: 30.12 mpg (US)

Prius - '05 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 50.25 mpg (US)

Premodded - '49 Ford Freighter
90 day: 13.48 mpg (US)

F-117 - '10 Proton Arena GLSi
Pickups
Mitsubishi
90 day: 37.82 mpg (US)

Ralica - '85 Toyota Celica ST
90 day: 25.23 mpg (US)

Sx4 - '07 Suzuki Sx4
90 day: 32.21 mpg (US)

F-117 (2) - '03 Citroen Xsara VTS
90 day: 30.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 325
Thanked 445 Times in 314 Posts
Why in the world would you assume that a 20 mph average means 20mph speed limits? 20mph average means lots of stop and go (average 1 traffic light per km). Weight should kill my mpg but it doesn't, I simply drive around the fact that I've got a 1.6l engine out of a hatchback pulling a train.

Drive any (ICE) vehicle at 20mph (3rd gear in my tall gearbox) and you get abysmal fuel economy. I see about 25mpg - same as I get at 70mph in 6th. At 40mph I get 60mpg.

At 40-45mph (the typical 'city' speed limit here) more than half your energy goes into over coming aerodrag, so that's why I'd take lower drag. In theory you could drive slower, but in reality that would mean using a lower gear killing the benefit of slowing down.

__________________







Last edited by oldtamiyaphile; 10-29-2020 at 10:40 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com