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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-15-2021, 12:01 PM   #1 (permalink)
Eco Rodder
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 105
Thanks: 25
Thanked 52 Times in 34 Posts
Front air dam vs underbody belly pan

On an old car, in my case a 1966 Chevelle, with a horrendously shaped underbody, is it better to use an air dam to try to keep the air out or try to fab a belly pan?
I already have an air dam I’ve made for the front so would it be worth it to remove it and smooth the underbody?
The Chevelle is a full framed car with dual exhaust the full length, two relatively huge mufflers, I live rear axle. It’s a mess. It would require a LOT of framing to support it and I’d still have to leave the exhaust area open.
This is more for mpg than downforce.
Opinions?

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	6806CB53-2C2A-439A-97C2-D49371BE5532.jpg
Views:	74
Size:	47.3 KB
ID:	31146   Click image for larger version

Name:	CC069923-391A-426B-918D-EB6A633F7A41.jpg
Views:	59
Size:	64.7 KB
ID:	31147  
__________________
Worlds highest MPG LFX V6 powered 1966 Chevelle
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to 67-ls1 For This Useful Post:
aerohead (08-18-2021)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 08-15-2021, 12:53 PM   #2 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 27,561
Thanks: 7,736
Thanked 8,554 Times in 7,041 Posts
Most people seem to use the air dam because it's less fabricobbling.

If you do a belly pan start at the front instead of the back (or so I hear).
__________________
.
.
Without freedom of speech we wouldn't know who all the idiots are. -- anonymous poster

____________________
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to freebeard For This Useful Post:
IRONICK (08-16-2021)
Old 08-16-2021, 02:41 AM   #3 (permalink)
-----------------
 
IRONICK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Romania
Posts: 128
Thanks: 22
Thanked 57 Times in 44 Posts
'Front air dam' cannot even be compared to 'underbody belly pan'.
It is a percentage of what 'underbody belly pan' can do.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2021, 03:45 AM   #4 (permalink)
Eco Rodder
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 105
Thanks: 25
Thanked 52 Times in 34 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRONICK View Post
'Front air dam' cannot even be compared to 'underbody belly pan'.
It is a percentage of what 'underbody belly pan' can do.
So your vote is for a belly pan. Noted.
__________________
Worlds highest MPG LFX V6 powered 1966 Chevelle
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2021, 01:11 PM   #5 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 27,561
Thanks: 7,736
Thanked 8,554 Times in 7,041 Posts
ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/aerocivic-how-drop-your-cd-0-31-0-a-290.html

The Aerocivic has dual side skirts between the wheels.
__________________
.
.
Without freedom of speech we wouldn't know who all the idiots are. -- anonymous poster

____________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2021, 04:41 PM   #6 (permalink)
Master Novice
 
elhigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SE USA - East Tennessee
Posts: 2,314

Josie - '87 Toyota Pickup
90 day: 40.02 mpg (US)

Felicia - '09 Toyota Prius Base
90 day: 49.01 mpg (US)
Thanks: 427
Thanked 616 Times in 450 Posts
I think the general consensus, arrived at in other threads on this very topic, was that a good front air dam could deliver about 70-80% of the results of a comprehensive belly pan at 10% of the cost and effort. If you already have a dam built the obviously start there. Establish some baseline results without the dam for comparison, then run some tanks with to see how it fares.

Add the side skirts a la Aerocivic and it likely gets even better.
__________________




Lead or follow. Either is fine.
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to elhigh For This Useful Post:
67-ls1 (08-16-2021), freebeard (08-16-2021)
Old 08-17-2021, 09:55 AM   #7 (permalink)
Eco Rodder
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 105
Thanks: 25
Thanked 52 Times in 34 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by elhigh View Post
I think the general consensus, arrived at in other threads on this very topic, was that a good front air dam could deliver about 70-80% of the results of a comprehensive belly pan at 10% of the cost and effort. If you already have a dam built the obviously start there. Establish some baseline results without the dam for comparison, then run some tanks with to see how it fares.

Add the side skirts a la Aerocivic and it likely gets even better.
Very interesting. 70-80% of the results is a pretty good return considering how much easier it is.
__________________
Worlds highest MPG LFX V6 powered 1966 Chevelle
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2021, 02:06 PM   #8 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 27,561
Thanks: 7,736
Thanked 8,554 Times in 7,041 Posts
That's why they're more popular. Bang for the buck.
__________________
.
.
Without freedom of speech we wouldn't know who all the idiots are. -- anonymous poster

____________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2021, 11:20 AM   #9 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 15,861
Thanks: 23,922
Thanked 7,207 Times in 4,640 Posts
Chevelle

Quote:
Originally Posted by 67-ls1 View Post
On an old car, in my case a 1966 Chevelle, with a horrendously shaped underbody, is it better to use an air dam to try to keep the air out or try to fab a belly pan?
I already have an air dam I’ve made for the front so would it be worth it to remove it and smooth the underbody?
The Chevelle is a full framed car with dual exhaust the full length, two relatively huge mufflers, I live rear axle. It’s a mess. It would require a LOT of framing to support it and I’d still have to leave the exhaust area open.
This is more for mpg than downforce.
Opinions?
GM's two lowest drag cars had full belly pans and no front airdam. Cd 0.137 and Cd 0.14 ( if we ignore the Cd 0.089 Sunraycer ).
A 'guess' for the '66 would be around Cd 0.51.
Today's 'Chevelle' Malibu is around Cd 0.28.
A look under a modern Malibu would say a great deal about GM's strategy for drag reduction over the decades.
HOT ROD Magazine used a full aluminum belly pan on their Cd 0.20, 200-mph Project Red Hat Camaro ( originally around Cd 0.49 ).
There are no low-drag cars without full belly pans.
You're the only one who can make the call on, how much you're willing to invest, time and moneywise.
In one example of a early- 1980s Cd 0.30 car, a full pan with 'slow' diffuser netted a delta- Cd 0.070 drag reduction.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
67-ls1 (08-20-2021)
Old 08-20-2021, 08:42 PM   #10 (permalink)
Eco Rodder
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 105
Thanks: 25
Thanked 52 Times in 34 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
GM's two lowest drag cars had full belly pans and no front airdam. Cd 0.137 and Cd 0.14 ( if we ignore the Cd 0.089 Sunraycer ).
A 'guess' for the '66 would be around Cd 0.51.
Today's 'Chevelle' Malibu is around Cd 0.28.
A look under a modern Malibu would say a great deal about GM's strategy for drag reduction over the decades.
HOT ROD Magazine used a full aluminum belly pan on their Cd 0.20, 200-mph Project Red Hat Camaro ( originally around Cd 0.49 ).
There are no low-drag cars without full belly pans.
You're the only one who can make the call on, how much you're willing to invest, time and moneywise.
In one example of a early- 1980s Cd 0.30 car, a full pan with 'slow' diffuser netted a delta- Cd 0.070 drag reduction.
I agree with everything you say. But a belly pan on a old full frame car would be a huge undertaking. So I’ll have to live with the less efficient airdam for now.

__________________
Worlds highest MPG LFX V6 powered 1966 Chevelle
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to 67-ls1 For This Useful Post:
aerohead (08-25-2021)
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




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