Our Assessment of the "Active Shutter System"

[LostinTransit]

I was made aware of this system while installing new parking lights on our 2020 Transit Connect. I had removed the entire headlight assembly when I noticed these slats moving closed or opening after driving and all this was when the van was off.

If one is unfamiliar with this shutter system, Automakers starting installing these shutters on cars and trucks ca. 2015. So your car or truck may not have these shutters. It is their claim that when at highway speeds these shutters open and close in order to allow for better fuel economy. However Our experience with a 2020 Connect (facelift) is like driving a brick.

We've noticed that the van's fuel economy was getting worse. We've added a few new parts and even changed up fuels and stations.. nothing was helping. Until I thought about the shutter system. I thought "What If" I was able to remove the system and If I did would we see better fuel economy.

However, if one removes the entire shutter system (like the Focus guys do so that can install new intercoolers) They simply leave the system disconnected, but could end up getting a check engine light. I was not willing to remove the entire from bumper cover, grill etc just to access and remove the slats. Instead, using a flat head screw driver I popped/pried one slat at a time from the outer edge of the rails and while holding the slat I was able to pry off the 2 peg end form the motorized setup all while doing this through the front grill.

The idea was to remove 10 of the 14 slats from the system just so the system could continue to be active and move open or close. leaving just the top and bottom rows. We've driving the van for 3 days (today makes the 4th day) and have seen new numbers.. In the past and for the last 3 years the city MPG's has never gotten over 23.. yesterday afternoon we seen new numbers and for the first time the van MPG's were 23.8 and it's still increasing.

In other words, I have a feeling we're about ready to debunk this "active Shutter system" is used for saving fuel or getting better fuel economy. Our van has never seen any of these types of numbers. Even the window sticker says 24 city 28 highway.. We've never come close to any of those types of numbers. But may be this will change.

Although we're still in the testing stage, I can tell a difference in the performance aspect of the van and all of this is because we removed 10 slat as to allow for more air flow when typically the system remains shut 80% of the time.

With a 300+ mile road trip coming up.. We can't wait to see more data/stats from this simple modification. Now will this work for your vehicle? hard to see.. but it's clear that our van is running better and we're getting better fuel economy at least for the time being. Some would say it the price of fuel or that we've checked out tire PSI.. Fuel today in the Baltimore area is running 4.48 gal and my tires PSI has never changed 44psi. Plus we've never run the van in ecomode. As I said the only thing that's changed was the removal of 10 slats form this shutter system.

Our Road trip is coming up this weekend as we're looking forward to seeing these and better stats. Stay tuned..

[aerohead]

You've probably shot yourself in the foot. The active shutters are a known quantity. And their effect varies from vehicle to vehicle.
The Chevy Malibu realizes only a 7-count drag reduction, and an owner's ability to experience a difference in mpg would be statistically impossible.
The Lightyear Zero experiences a 6.6% drag reduction, which 'WOULD' show at the charger.
You've helped ruin the ability of the engine to come up to operating temperature in cold weather, a great reason to have the shutters. And your urban driving is 'TOO SLOW' to discern any change, aerodynamically.
Whether they open on the highway or not will depend on ambient outdoor temperature and engine load.
If you live in Furnace Creek, Death Valley, they'll be open a lot more than if you lived in Minot, N. Dakota.

[LostinTransit]

We've driven the van for 3 years and not seen any reliable fuel saving. yet removing a few of these slats.. we're finally seeing the numbers improve. It may mean having to warm the van up a bit longer in the morning though it is being parked in a garage over night. Plus I've not thrown away the slats just in case.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by LostinTransit

We've driven the van for 3 years and not seen any reliable fuel saving. yet removing a few of these slats.. we're finally seeing the numbers improve. It may mean having to warm the van up a bit longer in the morning though it is being parked in a garage over night. Plus I've not thrown away the slats just in case.

It's scientifically impossible to increase the 'porosity' of the cooling system while simultaneously reducing the overall drag, if 'aerodynamics' is being cited as the explanation for the difference in mpg.

[redpoint5]

I appreciate the experiment, but simply noting changes in MPG is about the least credible way to prove causation.

I'm very suspicious of the conclusion because increasing drag doesn't have any explanation for how that improves MPG.

What speed do you drive on the freeway? Do you do a lot of stop and go driving?

[LostinTransit]

I'll not going to debate this. It is what it is and we're very happy with the results we've been getting so far. it worked because something simple was changed or this is a fluke. Seemingly after 3 years of driving a brick and while the slats did not open as much as I would have hoped, the engine was showing signs over heating.. Plus the transmission cooler (which is located above the radiator) wasn't seeing any air flow... After making this small adjustment, I can say the engine is running smoother, more robust and we're seeing an increase in the fuel economy. Plus we should see even more once on the open highway for a longer period of time. One more thing.. It also obvious that when the Focus ST and RS guys remove their slats to install inter coolers, they end up tuning their cars to get better fuel economy. We having tuned anything everything is still stock. This will be the last time I'll say anything about this. Debate amongst yourselves.

[freebeard]

This will be the last time I'll say anything about this.

Fair enough. But from my perspective, you got two posts from the resident curmudgeon and one request for extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary[?] claim.

We can't wait to see more data/stats from this simple modification. Now will this work for your vehicle? hard to see..

I hope you continue to post. What instrumentation does the Transit have? Anything like Scangauge/MPGuino?

[Ecky]

How effectively the system works will depend entirely on how it is programmed.

-Broadly speaking, cold engines burn more fuel and wear faster. Closed shutters significantly improve warmup time.

-Directing airflow around the engine bay reduces aerodynamic drag, but in an amount that is likely to disappear into background noise.

-Data from here from the last several decades suggests that static grille blocks help universally.

-An engine whose intake air temperature and/or coolant temperature rise above a certain point may slightly pull ignition timing. This is in part because a warm intake charge needs less ignition timing, but may also be to keep knock under control. Knock happens more easily at higher temperatures.

-It's very common for people to make a change, to see a single data point, and to say "X change made Y difference". Double blind studies are done because simply telling someone you've made a change can unconsciously change their behaviors and impact the outcome - driving habits have a much bigger impact on economy than any mod.

That's not too say you need to do rigorous studies to validate whether something helps. It just helps to convince others, when the change you've made is something known to do the opposite.

If you have any interest in following up, some things you might do are:

-Log and compare coolant temperature, intake air temperature, and ignition timing, with the grille shutters locked open, vs being allowed to open and close based on their programming.

-Do some ABA testing, and/or track your fuel usage over a period of tanks, to get an average. Then switch back and track over a period of tanks. Then switch back again and track.


Most on here would kill for a good aftermarket active grille block. They're one of the more documented and reliably effecting ways to help economy - assuming they've been programmed properly. Even static grille blocks are almost universally a good idea.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Fair enough. But from my perspective, you got two posts from the resident curmudgeon and one request for extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary[?] claim.

I represent both those descriptions.

I feel that I showed restraint in my annoyance at a "test" that controlled for zero variables.

I'm stopping short of claiming the results are wrong, but nobody should have confidence in the results of an uncontrolled experiment.

We're to believe Ford spent money testing it, then went through the expense of installing it, for something consumers aren't even going to notice (as evidenced by the OP admitting their initial ignorance), just to ruin fuel economy? Possible, but highly unlikely.

[LostinTransit]

Here's some more results. After driving more than 700+ miles in a 4 day time frame.. our MPG's never went over 24.0 But didn't drop either.. One difference we've noticed is that while and shutters were on the van and the system closed at higher speeds.. the van struggled to reach 80 in a 75 MPH zone.. But with the shutter slats removed..(10 of 14) the van was able to reach a top speed of 110 MPH. So within the 3 years of ownership, the van has never seen 24.0 MPG nor has it ever seen 110 MPH till now.

More information and clarification:

We've been running 89oct, No performance air filter but added NGK spark plugs and have had the rear of the van lowered to less than 40mm. The issue here is that before lowering the van had a very pronounced forward rake. meaning the front of the van was approx 40mm +/- and the rear of the van was 101mm +/- now that we've lowered the rear to les than 40mm, the rear is lower than the front and the van's front end is not very aerodynamic. In fact it's nose up and I was hoping to lower the front end to balance or level the van out.

However after our trip, the tires have been scrubbing the fender wells. So this means we're not going to lower the front any more as it's nose up.. I'm thinking of adding a forward splitter to offset this nose up. So in this same breath, would these wind defuses things added to the rear of the roof offer any defusing of wind to make any difference. yet, we're not able to add these low profile shark fins to the rear of the van until we have the roof wrapped.