My Death Trap

[SentraSE-R]

If that weight he took off was his aeromods, we all know it wouldn't help.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

We can reasonably say that all things being equal, less weight is better, but in terms of auto design we usually aren't looking at an all things being equal situation. Look at basjoos. He might have added an extra ~100lbs of stuff to make his civic an aerocivic, but it was certainly worthwhile, probably in the city too although the effects aren't as drastic as on the highway.

Can you prove that aero design has a beneficial effect for FE in city traffic?

The slower the vehicle is moving, the less effect aero design will have.

[MetroMPG]

People ofte underestimate the impact of aero drag on city fuel economy. Play around with the aero + rolling resistance calculator to see this.

EG. at just 25 mph, ~40% of my car's fuel consumption (in stock form) goes to overcoming aero losses.

Quote from a GM engineer regarding the Volt: "Aerodynamics can give a much larger boost to the range of an EV than decreasing the weight of the vehicle. These results were fascinating and hold true in both city and highway driving conditions." - source

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Were vehicles allowed to be lighter they could achieve hybrid fe w/o the cost, weight, and complexity.

That's like the old "diesels can get better mpg than hybrids" argument, because you can also make your hybrid lighter, or put a diesel engine it it, so that it now gets even better mpg.

Compare for instance the Honda CRX to the (original) Insight. About same weight, similar body plan & performance, yet I got about 40-45 mpg in my CRX, but over 70 in my Insight.

[wdb]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I just don't like that, as I alluded to before, GM or Suzuki couldn't throw the dies back in the presses and crank out new Metros even if they wanted to, as they'd have to add a bunch of junk that has been mandated since the '90s, and that stuff I don't want on my car, like tire pressure monitors, side air bags, etc.. I think the late '90s Metros, for example, are wholly adequate in every way the way they were, and now they or their equivalent are not made. That's my deal. See it?

I really like 1967 MGB's. They just kept making them worse after that, due to stiffer smog and safety laws. Your ideal Tempo has a whole slew of mandated stuff on it that my ideal MGB did not have.

I'm not sure there's a point in any of that beyond personal preference and opinion.

[SentraSE-R]

Why do I feel another "Lucas, Prince of Darkness" joke coming on?

[user removed]

They ran the original 1984 CRX HF at a steady 55 MPH and got 73 MPG. Don't remember which car mag it was but the car was new, so it had to be sometime in 83-84. Not hypermiling at 20 MPH averages, a steady 55 MPH. They started in California and drove it 735 miles on a 10 gallon tank without running out of fuel.

I bought a new 1984 CRX 1.5 because the HF's acceleration was about 13.5 seconds to 60 MPH while the 1.5 was right at 10 seconds. I averaged 44 in my 1.5 without even trying, but the speed limits back then were 55, so I stayed around 62-65.

That was for 50 k miles and I bought the car brand new. It was serial number 1018 made in July of 83.

regards
Mech