OK Bottom line, what real MPG can you get??

[racprops]

1) Consider that the billions Ford spent on EcoBoost adds 0.5-mpg on the highway.

From what I have read, it is a tiny engine running a turbo and had no guts as in torque.



2) The highest dividends you'll ever experience will come from load reduction, and aero is your major source of road load power requirement.
3) The experts will recommend that you cut drag, then re-gear to allow the engine operate within the same load 'island' of its BSFC map. Otherwise you can lose up to 70% of your streamlining potential.
4) Knowing the Cd and frontal area of the Ford and GM van is mandatory.


And yet Chevy has a bone stock Large Express Van that has a sticker that says 29MPG on it...kind blows the ITS A BOX cry out of the water, and their 3.8 Diesel model hauls cargo and also are claims or 28/32MPG.


5) The Beetle's a real dog. My Air Force roommate had a '68 and we never saw north of 28-mpg at 55-mph, whereas my 40-horse Karmann Ghia consistently returned 41-mpg at 70-mph.


The Karmann Ghia is a lower profile car, so IF areo really matters all that much that makes sense.


6) LRR tires ought to be on the mod list.


NEVER, I also drive in the real world, TRACTION is King, both in power take offs and even more important in STOPS.


I will give up a MPG or two to be able to panic stop at maximum than to skid into a accident.


Sadly wide traction tires are not all that great in bad weather like rain, ice and snow.

I do my best NOT to drive in such.


Rich

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by racprops

1) Consider that the billions Ford spent on EcoBoost adds 0.5-mpg on the highway.

From what I have read, it is a tiny engine running a turbo and had no guts as in torque.



2) The highest dividends you'll ever experience will come from load reduction, and aero is your major source of road load power requirement.
3) The experts will recommend that you cut drag, then re-gear to allow the engine operate within the same load 'island' of its BSFC map. Otherwise you can lose up to 70% of your streamlining potential.
4) Knowing the Cd and frontal area of the Ford and GM van is mandatory.


And yet Chevy has a bone stock Large Express Van that has a sticker that says 29MPG on it...kind blows the ITS A BOX cry out of the water, and their 3.8 Diesel model hauls cargo and also are claims or 28/32MPG.


5) The Beetle's a real dog. My Air Force roommate had a '68 and we never saw north of 28-mpg at 55-mph, whereas my 40-horse Karmann Ghia consistently returned 41-mpg at 70-mph.


The Karmann Ghia is a lower profile car, so IF areo really matters all that much that makes sense.


6) LRR tires ought to be on the mod list.


NEVER, I also drive in the real world, TRACTION is King, both in power take offs and even more important in STOPS.


I will give up a MPG or two to be able to panic stop at maximum than to skid into a accident.


Sadly wide traction tires are not all that great in bad weather like rain, ice and snow.

I do my best NOT to drive in such.


Rich

1) Aerostealth has a 2014 F-150 Crew Cab 4X4, 6.5-ft bed, and 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6, dual-turbo: 365-bhp, and 410-lb-ft of torque, actual 22-mpg at a constant 62-mph, level, calm, dry, West Texas. There are sport cars of the 1960s that it would embarrass. You'll thrill at your first test drive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) 29 mpg 'Would' be impressive if it actually performed to that number. Do we have real world values for the van? Gasoline?
3) Diesel fuel has about 17% more Btu/gallon than gasoline, and overall, with a higher thermal efficiency, offer about 30% better mpg than gasoline.
4) We need to know the frontal area and drag coefficient of that 'box' in order to accomplish anything.
5) Yes, the Karmann-Ghia has a smaller frontal area AND lower drag coefficient, for a lower drag index.
6) As to 'traction', there are LRR tires with traction-A ratings, wet and dry. Corvettes will handle nearly the same skid-pad speeds on 'donut' spare tires. I believe it has to do with the compounding of the rubber, not the dimensions.

[racprops]

1) Aerostealth has a 2014 F-150 Crew Cab 4X4, 6.5-ft bed, and 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6, dual-turbo: 365-bhp, and 410-lb-ft of torque, actual 22-mpg at a constant 62-mph, level, calm, dry, West Texas. There are sport cars of the 1960s that it would embarrass. You'll thrill at your first test drive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) 29 mpg 'Would' be impressive if it actually performed to that number. Do we have real world values for the van? Gasoline?

Forgot the window sticker for that van:


3) Diesel fuel has about 17% more Btu/gallon than gasoline, and overall, with a higher thermal efficiency, offer about 30% better mpg than gasoline.

And yet all I have ever seen is 5 to 10 MPG more with all the SO MUCH higher maintenance and repair costs.

4) We need to know the frontal area and drag coefficient of that 'box' in order to accomplish anything.

Standard Express Van.

5) Yes, the Karmann-Ghia has a smaller frontal area AND lower drag coefficient, for a lower drag index.

I figure that FLAT front windshield costs a lot, the Super Bettle had a nice curver windsheild, bet it could be better.


6) As to 'traction', there are LRR tires with traction-A ratings, wet and dry. Corvettes will handle nearly the same skid-pad speeds on 'donut' spare tires. I believe it has to do with the compounding of the rubber, not the dimensions.


From what I have read lower rolling resistance means harder and less sticky rubber which means less traction and much more slipping.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by racprops

1) Aerostealth has a 2014 F-150 Crew Cab 4X4, 6.5-ft bed, and 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6, dual-turbo: 365-bhp, and 410-lb-ft of torque, actual 22-mpg at a constant 62-mph, level, calm, dry, West Texas. There are sport cars of the 1960s that it would embarrass. You'll thrill at your first test drive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) 29 mpg 'Would' be impressive if it actually performed to that number. Do we have real world values for the van? Gasoline?

Forgot the window sticker for that van:


3) Diesel fuel has about 17% more Btu/gallon than gasoline, and overall, with a higher thermal efficiency, offer about 30% better mpg than gasoline.

And yet all I have ever seen is 5 to 10 MPG more with all the SO MUCH higher maintenance and repair costs.

4) We need to know the frontal area and drag coefficient of that 'box' in order to accomplish anything.

Standard Express Van.

5) Yes, the Karmann-Ghia has a smaller frontal area AND lower drag coefficient, for a lower drag index.

I figure that FLAT front windshield costs a lot, the Super Bettle had a nice curver windsheild, bet it could be better.


6) As to 'traction', there are LRR tires with traction-A ratings, wet and dry. Corvettes will handle nearly the same skid-pad speeds on 'donut' spare tires. I believe it has to do with the compounding of the rubber, not the dimensions.


From what I have read lower rolling resistance means harder and less sticky rubber which means less traction and much more slipping.

1) At present, I have no data on the van.
2) Yeah, the initial price premium, cost of Diesel ,DEF, etc., weighed against higher mpg needs to pencil out to the owner benefit.
3) There are smoke-flow wind tunnel images of the standard Beetle in the Volkswagen wind tunnel. The wind shield area appears free of separation.
High ( Cd 0.495 ) drag would be attributed the the aft-body's severe, steep curvature. A look at Volkswagen's Cd 0.186 XL1 provides the solution.
4) Tesla's uses LRR touring tires to help extend their battery range. The Model S will keep up with a Ferrari La Ferrari on the race track, if I remember correctly.

[freebeard]

Lastly I will be restoring a 68 VW Bug, mainly for its total lack of everything and it main long life and ease of repair and nearly lack of the need of any repairs.

I do not think these do all that well MPG I have only seen 25 to 30MPG on record.

It is a 1600Dual Port with a good Weber progressive two barrel feeding it and running a Super Bettle Trans-axle for its taller gear rear end.

Has anyone done any MPG work on one of these??

Yes.

Here is the original Hot VWs series of articles on their Mileage Motor: https://www.cbperformance.com/Featur...cles-s/142.htm

Here is the aircooled.net Mileage Master long block: https://vwparts.aircooled.net/Aircoo...long-block.htm

My personal bests: Type II panel van with fresh dual port 16000 with 40mm Kadrons -- 30 MPG over the Coast Range at speed (the last time it went 55 MPH).

Stock 1971 Superbeetle through Eastern Oregon at 45 MPH overnight on the way to Bonneville Flat Flats (to see aerohead) -- 34 MPG



The 25hp, 1100cc Beetle was capable of 40 MPG but a citation is needed.

Originally Posted by aeorhead

3) There are smoke-flow wind tunnel images of the standard Beetle in the Volkswagen wind tunnel. The wind shield area appears free of separation.
High ( Cd 0.495 ) drag would be attributed the the aft-bodies severe, steep curvature.

The Beetle has more width through the B-pillar than the A-pillar. The windshield is in a favorable pressure gradient. The lack of fineness ratio is exploited for engine cooling air.

That said a 36 HP engine in a late Superbeetle body has been done.


https://saltflats.com/36_HP.html