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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-14-2014, 09:42 AM   #51 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 263

Winsight - '06 Honda Insight
Gen-1 Insights
90 day: 72.19 mpg (US)
Thanks: 244
Thanked 86 Times in 61 Posts
I really like my plexiglass ones made from some scrap material. They're stealthy.






Mine were worth around 5% for my low speed commute. I thank the faster warm up times, it's hard to have an efficient engine in the winter that doesn't get up to temp. Thanks to all the coasting, it wouldn't even reach 170* in mild NC winters.


I cut them to match the openings, drilled some holes and used zip ties to attach them.

  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to fusion210 For This Useful Post:
aerohead (03-15-2014), j12piprius (03-27-2014)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 03-14-2014, 10:09 AM   #52 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
sarguy01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 468

Mazda5 - '12 Mazda 5
90 day: 25.22 mpg (US)

Big D - '11 Dodge Durango Crew
90 day: 18.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 86
Thanked 87 Times in 54 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssnsvibe09 View Post
I had two upper grill blocks install and the lower one on for a few days but the temperature was hitting 200. so I took off the lower one, to lower the temperature down to around 185, but your recent posts had me thinking to swap things around.

This morning I reinstalled the lower one and removed the right hand side.
Is 200* too high for your tastes??

If I ever get the time to make the upper grill block, I will have to play around with opening sizes to ensure the temps stay reasonable.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2014, 10:11 AM   #53 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
sarguy01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 468

Mazda5 - '12 Mazda 5
90 day: 25.22 mpg (US)

Big D - '11 Dodge Durango Crew
90 day: 18.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 86
Thanked 87 Times in 54 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion210 View Post
I really like my plexiglass ones made from some scrap material. They're stealthy.

Mine were worth around 5% for my low speed commute. I thank the faster warm up times, it's hard to have an efficient engine in the winter that doesn't get up to temp. Thanks to all the coasting, it wouldn't even reach 170* in mild NC winters.

I cut them to match the openings, drilled some holes and used zip ties to attach them.
5% is pretty good considering it was free.

I don't EOC until the engine gets up to 180* or so. But, it only takes 5 minutes to hit that.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2014, 10:26 PM   #54 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
sarguy01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 468

Mazda5 - '12 Mazda 5
90 day: 25.22 mpg (US)

Big D - '11 Dodge Durango Crew
90 day: 18.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 86
Thanked 87 Times in 54 Posts
Got out into the garage tonight! I made the upper grill block. The paint is going to drive over night. I am only zip tying this one to the grill. Nothing fancy.

Note to self: Even though I KNEW that flashing would be sharp, it took me several cuts and some blood to remember to put gloves on. Next time, I am getting corrugated plastic like everyone else.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2014, 07:50 AM   #55 (permalink)
hypermiller somewhat.....
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: nova scotia
Posts: 70

Sierra - '13 GMC 1500 SLE
90 day: 12.24 mpg (US)

Cruze Eco - '15 chevrolet Cruze Eco
Team Chevy
90 day: 46.52 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
The changes allowed it to peak at 189 on hills here. However I am still sitting at 32 f for ambient temperature. I did notice that i lost about five degree of intake temperature difference. with the upper grill block i was enjoying over 7 degrees and it is only 3. I am slowly working on a plan to plumb in tubing from the exhaust manifold heatshield to my intake to improve those numbers.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ssnsvibe09 For This Useful Post:
aerohead (03-15-2014)
Old 03-15-2014, 02:26 PM   #56 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 15,922
Thanks: 24,011
Thanked 7,228 Times in 4,655 Posts
185-200

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssnsvibe09 View Post
I had two upper grill blocks install and the lower one on for a few days but the temperature was hitting 200. so I took off the lower one, to lower the temperature down to around 185, but your recent posts had me thinking to swap things around.

This morning I reinstalled the lower one and removed the right hand side.
Where is the temp. sensor monitoring location ? Some cooling systems run at up to a 'normal' 255-degrees F.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2014, 08:30 AM   #57 (permalink)
EcoModding Alien Observer
 
suspectnumber961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I flitter here and there
Posts: 547

highcountryexplorer - '86 Nissan 720 KC 4x4 ST with fiberglass cap
90 day: 21.78 mpg (US)

Elroy - '03 Ford Focus ZX3 w/Zetec DOHC engine
90 day: 32.89 mpg (US)
Thanks: 6
Thanked 78 Times in 65 Posts
With my 03 Focus I have an upper grill block and 3 removable clip-on blocks for the lower grill for use in winter....which vary the opening. I also use a plywood front "pan" to streamline and divert air under the engine.

I aim for over 200F coolant temp from the readout on a Scangauge...which I always monitor. I also installed an LED to indicate when the coolant fan runs. With the Focus...the coolant fan comes on at 233F and goes off at 222F. Temp very rarely gets above 233F...before going down.

Have run this way for maybe 2 yrs or so. Am somewhat concerned by the heat under the hood causing cooling hose failures...the newer hose materials will not show deterioration...the rubber and fabric will just get weak to the point of failure....heat is the enemy. The LED indicator will give me a chance at least to avert disaster.

IF a hose goes...you won't see steam...since it will blow back behind you. How do I know...had this happen with a couple of cars...head gasket time...at a minimum.

In summer...I sometimes have the fan come on in town in slow traffic. Will be removing a strip of foam tape under the front edge of the hood to enable a bit more fresh air intake this summer.
__________________
Carry on humans...we are extremely proud of you. ..................

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. GALLUP POLL
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to suspectnumber961 For This Useful Post:
aerohead (03-21-2014), sarguy01 (03-25-2014)
Old 03-19-2014, 11:29 AM   #58 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sidney NY USA
Posts: 64

Horse with no name - '00 Ford Mustang Base
Team Mustang
90 day: 20.53 mpg (US)

Orange peel - '00 Ford Focus SE
90 day: 26.83 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
A few notes from my testing.

I found with my car that the lower intake was doing all the cooling work and that the upper actually let air back out at high speed. I blocked the upper and my cooling improved. I believe the top grill is for idling with the A/C on which I never do. YMMV

If you want maximum cooling then you target temp should be a degree or 2 above your thermostat temp. The thermostat opens and closes to maintain proper engine temp.

If you want to control your engine temps with air only and no thermostat ( this will increase engine warm up time) remember that you need to keep the same restriction that an open thermostat creates in the water flow. Cutting out the working parts and leaving the frame is one way to do this. No restriction will result in less cooling as the water flows though the radiator too quickly.
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pjbgravely For This Useful Post:
aerohead (03-21-2014), sarguy01 (03-25-2014)
Old 03-23-2014, 08:55 PM   #59 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
xecute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Dunedin, 9010 NEW ZEALAND
Posts: 21

ITZOLD - '81 Ford Mustang L
90 day: 15.44 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Scan Gauge Rulze!
I'm looking at a 70% drag reduction, so seeing what you've done is a lot of fun.

I'd agree that at least a 10% reduction in drag has happened, probably 12% as one post stated earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
If you were seeing 2.25 at 55 mph,then you'd be looking at about a 4.5% drag reduction to explain it.Since it's doing it at 50-mph,then the reduction is even greater,so,shooting from the hip,and considering a generic 12% drag cooling system, it looks like you've cut the cooling drag maybe by half.
On an "apples for apples" basis where there was no frontal area change, the 79 Mustang Daytona and 80 Mustang IMSA show cars used a full polycarbonate front cover, one smoked, the other a clear and painted item. In the old quad headlamped cars, such a thing would slam the total drag by about what I've estimated to be 15% (from about 0.45 to way under 0.39). Back in pre 1984 dark ages (before the Lincoln LSC got the fed tick for flush lights and the old World War Two sealed beam rules were enforced), it was easy to drop 15% off the nose just with those two light and grille blocker mods.





For emperical info from Audi, On a 40% cd reduction (approx 0.44 to 0.32 or 0.30 depending on trim), for example, in instances where an engines automatic transmission spec and gearing wasn't changed, a same spec 135 hp engine package, such as in European version of the slick 0.32 Audi 5000, it saved 11 % fuel on the highway cycle, 2.1 US mpg at 56 mph, and 2.6 mpg at 75 mph, and it got an extra 5 mph top speed over the 0.44 predecessor.

So 40% reduction was a nominal 11% fuel saving in that 56 to 75 mph instance.
20% would have been 5.5%
10% would be around 2.25%.

In my opinion, the stock aero drag would be going down 0.03 cd numbers, or a 10% drop in cdA to get a 2.25% fuel economy reduction at 56 to 75 mph, based on empirical data.

You can do coast-downs to quantify the effect, but a fuel economy saving like that is at the very least a solid gold 10% reduction in road load at 50 mph.

Well done!

Last edited by xecute; 03-23-2014 at 09:15 PM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to xecute For This Useful Post:
MetroMPG (03-25-2014), sarguy01 (03-25-2014)
Old 03-25-2014, 08:13 AM   #60 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
sarguy01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 468

Mazda5 - '12 Mazda 5
90 day: 25.22 mpg (US)

Big D - '11 Dodge Durango Crew
90 day: 18.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 86
Thanked 87 Times in 54 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by xecute View Post
Scan Gauge Rulze!
I'm looking at a 70% drag reduction, so seeing what you've done is a lot of fun.

I'd agree that at least a 10% reduction in drag has happened, probably 12% as one post stated earlier.



On an "apples for apples" basis where there was no frontal area change, the 79 Mustang Daytona and 80 Mustang IMSA show cars used a full polycarbonate front cover, one smoked, the other a clear and painted item. In the old quad headlamped cars, such a thing would slam the total drag by about what I've estimated to be 15% (from about 0.45 to way under 0.39). Back in pre 1984 dark ages (before the Lincoln LSC got the fed tick for flush lights and the old World War Two sealed beam rules were enforced), it was easy to drop 15% off the nose just with those two light and grille blocker mods.

For emperical info from Audi, On a 40% cd reduction (approx 0.44 to 0.32 or 0.30 depending on trim), for example, in instances where an engines automatic transmission spec and gearing wasn't changed, a same spec 135 hp engine package, such as in European version of the slick 0.32 Audi 5000, it saved 11 % fuel on the highway cycle, 2.1 US mpg at 56 mph, and 2.6 mpg at 75 mph, and it got an extra 5 mph top speed over the 0.44 predecessor.

So 40% reduction was a nominal 11% fuel saving in that 56 to 75 mph instance.
20% would have been 5.5%
10% would be around 2.25%.

In my opinion, the stock aero drag would be going down 0.03 cd numbers, or a 10% drop in cdA to get a 2.25% fuel economy reduction at 56 to 75 mph, based on empirical data.

You can do coast-downs to quantify the effect, but a fuel economy saving like that is at the very least a solid gold 10% reduction in road load at 50 mph.

Well done!
Thanks! Also, I appreciate the examples. Very good info. At 65 mph, watching the Torque app seems to yield slightly higher mileage than before the mods. This isn'f proof, but backs up the ABA testing I did.

Also, after filling the tank last night, seeing the mileage is probably more proof that the grill bocks are working. The tank was 40.6 mpg, without EOCing. I EOC'd the last two tanks and got around the same mileage.

Next mod, warm air intake, with ABA testing of course...

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sarguy01 For This Useful Post:
aerohead (03-25-2014)
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