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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-19-2008, 05:29 PM   #71 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Silly-Con Valley
Posts: 1,471
Thanks: 191
Thanked 257 Times in 194 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by basslover911 View Post
Whatever happened to the Mx3? ITS A GREAT PLATAFORM!

I know people take them down to around 2200 pounds, and they are VERY aerodynamic!
The CRX starts out with a great kammback type shape, and the 88-91 HF versions start at something like 1800 lbs before you start lightening them...

-soD

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 11-19-2008, 08:16 PM   #72 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 13,536
Thanks: 21,515
Thanked 6,506 Times in 4,068 Posts
us poor

Quote:
Originally Posted by metroschultz View Post
Hey Phil,
How about weighing in on one that perhaps us poor people could buy from a junkyard and play with.
I was thinking of the Ford Probe.
I have no numbers but, from what I remember they were designed with aero in mind from the factory.
Also their sister car the Mazda MX6.
Both are relatively inexpensive if you were to buy a rolling assembly from a bone yard and add your own drivetrain.

I'm thinking take my Metro/Swift engine /trans and put in a stripped out Probe rolling chassis.

I would play the devil getting the weight out (and for the suspension I would not be able to remove weight), but what about the possabilities for aero on something like that?
Schultz
Hey Schultz,just now catching up on posts.Yeah,the "poor people's",I'm definitely in that camp! You could probably do worse than the Probe,however it was never anything as slick as it's namesake.I think I have numbers for that car.Just shooting from the hip I'm thinking Cd 0.32 but I'll confirm that.--------------------

You'll want to check out engine swap vs state environmental regs if you live in a non-attainment area for air quality as I do.Texas will not allow mods as you are entertaining for any car under 24-yrs of age.If your cars have to be "smogged" or pass air quality tests during annual inspections you'll need to know this.--------------------

As far as powertrains,would a Ford Escort 4-banger and 5-spd overdrive slip in there? Those cars could hit in the 40-mpg range and with streamlined Probe coachwork could maybe really sing on the open road.----------------

I'll dig out those numbers for this Saturday.And I'll scratch my head in the meantime.--------------------------

As for those other cars like the MX-3 and say the Nissan 200-SX,and such,the bodies show promise but I've never understood why the powertrains were so inefficient.'suppose they were configured for "performance" not real economy.Too bad!
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 08:28 PM   #73 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 13,536
Thanks: 21,515
Thanked 6,506 Times in 4,068 Posts
photos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cd View Post
Aerohead : I believe you posted these pictures a while back. What car is this and what was it's Cd ?
While not a mass produced car, I still find it interesting. Also one more question for you : What was the Cd of the Oldsmobile Aerotech in both Longtail and shorttail versions ?

I think basjoos actually posted these.They are in Baron von Fachzenfeld's "Aerodynamiks des Kraftfarzeugs" published around 1952.I believe this car is a Maybach,but it seems that all German companies had purchased licenses from Paul Jaray's Streamline Car Company.Off the top of my head I don't have numbers for this car but I'll check.Perhaps basjoos has 'em.--------------- One thing to bear in mind is that a lot of these numbers are considered dubious by modern aerodynamicists.Hucho makes big mention of this in his book.For instance,Kamm's K-car which scored Cd 0.24 in model form and with coastdowns( I think on the BMW chassis) actually had Cd 0.37 when tested at Volkswagen's modern facility.-------------So these early numbers need to be viewed in this light.---------------- By the way,if your looking for a modern-day K-car,it would be the Toyota Highlander 2WD.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 08:43 PM   #74 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 13,536
Thanks: 21,515
Thanked 6,506 Times in 4,068 Posts
Silhouette

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryn View Post
yes i know the difference between cd and cda

so the van is a whopping 5'6" tall, 5'7" wide at its widest (not including mirrors,still counting airspace under car) actual frontal area is pretty close to 30sq ft.

depending on your needs, it is a good shape. do you want to bring 6 friends in your metro, depends on your friends i guess.
i can fit full sheets of plywood inside the van, compaired to a pickup, or stacking them on the roof of a car. aero is going to be much better.
These vans began life as the Pontiac Trans Sport and was a real aero coup when it hit the marketplace.Cd0.30 is what I have for that form.There's very little lateral curvature to the windshield but other than that,the constant-rake front end is still kinda the aero benchmark for minivans.Critics really hammered these vehicles on interior space utilization,with the enormous dashboard expanse.----------------- Klemperer got his "brick" down to Cd0.16.If the last 30% of the roofline and sides were boattailed ala Mair and NASA,one could probably push the Cd into sub-0.2 territory.She wouldn't carry as much,but she'd be tough on the gas station.----------- I see a few around.I like 'em!
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 09:42 PM   #75 (permalink)
Cd
Ultimate Fail
 
Cd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin,Texas
Posts: 3,345
Thanks: 2,696
Thanked 945 Times in 560 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by some_other_dave View Post
The CRX starts out with a great kammback type shape, and the 88-91 HF versions start at something like 1800 lbs before you start lightening them...

-soD

The CRX is nice, but I like the smooth lines of the MX-3.
Just my opinion, but the CRX looks boxy, and a full boat-tail would look more tacked on and out of place on it versus the MX-3.
Even the interior on an MX-3 looks more modern. ( And the MX-3 had an airbag )

I just wish the MX-3 had a decent engine like the CRX HF.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 10:05 PM   #76 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
The MX-3's engine can easily be replaced with the Ford model 1.3 engine... or the considerably higher output 1.6 HSC engine.

IF weight were not a consideration for the MX-3 (with lots of work and money, its not) it would be a prime candidate for what we want here. Since the chassis itself is hardly ever sold cheaply (that I"ve seen) and it would require extensive modification versus other chassis' on the market today, it's not considered a prime candidate for said intentions.

I, however, am a firm believer in doing as one pleases... and that said, if you can get an MX-3, and wish to perform the work, by all means, I'm sure we'll all help out as much as humanly possible in each of our own cases.
__________________
"¿ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 11:50 PM   #77 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
metroschultz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norfolk, Va. USA
Posts: 869

CPT SLO - '93 GEO Metro plainjane
90 day: 53.91 mpg (US)

SilverHairBeauty - '01 Toyota Avalon XL
90 day: 24.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 14
Thanked 33 Times in 28 Posts
Send a message via AIM to metroschultz
That was my intent.
Not necessarily using the geo parts in the probe. (although...hmmm)
But to start out wiht something slipperry and then find the most efficient driveline to put in it.
If I had the body fab skills of Darin I would already have a teardropped Metro. (still working on that anyway)
But I can take a MX3 and put the 1.3 from an old Mazda Protege mated to a low gear MX6 (Probe?) tranny and make it work.
S.
__________________


When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.
Albert Einstein
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 12:02 AM   #78 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
You can, and it would work. But keep in mind, you're taking that small displacement engine from a low-weight vehicle, and putting it in a much heavier vehicle... it will be considerably less efficient... You might want to consider exactly what it takes to move 2200 lbs.

Weight reduction will be key in determining whether you can use the MX-3 effectively or not.

Keep in mind that reducing gearing is not always the answer either. I can personally vouch for this.

---

NOTE from Darin: discussion of the potential for taller gearing to reduce fuel efficiency moved to this new thread: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...nomy-6122.html
__________________
"¿ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 08:30 AM   #79 (permalink)
Cd
Ultimate Fail
 
Cd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin,Texas
Posts: 3,345
Thanks: 2,696
Thanked 945 Times in 560 Posts






I'm trying to imagine how the back end of the car could be designed.
Since an MX-3 already has that teardrop shape from the start, you wouldn't have to extend the tail out so far.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2008, 12:18 PM   #80 (permalink)
Batman Junior
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,316

Blackfly - '98 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Last 3: 70.09 mpg (US)

MPGiata - '90 Mazda Miata
90 day: 52.07 mpg (US)

Winter beater Metro - '00 Chevrolet Metro
90 day: 61.98 mpg (US)

Fancy Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 58.72 mpg (US)

Even Fancier Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 70.75 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,848
Thanked 6,723 Times in 3,486 Posts
PS - Cd, your artistic & photoshopping skills are impressive! Nice work.

__________________
Project MPGiata! Mods for getting 50+ MPG from a 1990 Miata
Honda mods: Ecomodding my $800 Honda Fit 5-speed beater
Mitsu mods: 70 MPG in my ecomodded, dirt cheap, 3-cylinder Mirage.
Ecodriving test: Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown



EcoModder
has launched a forum for the efficient new Mitsubishi Mirage
www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners
www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MetroMPG For This Useful Post:
Cd (05-21-2021)
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Video: clever, simple demo of teardrop shape -pointy end first vs. blunt end first MetroMPG Aerodynamics 12 11-21-2015 05:04 PM
Electric car conversion: Project ForkenSwift MetroMPG Fossil Fuel Free 1041 07-28-2014 10:19 AM
Can I use a GENERATOR to power an Electric car directly? Nerys Fossil Fuel Free 128 10-01-2012 02:24 AM
Win $100.00 in Free Gas! Design Contest: Ecomod my Ride XFi EcoModding Central 127 02-17-2011 01:07 AM
My First Electric car Experience WaxyChicken The Lounge 8 09-05-2008 09:46 PM



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