what would you do?
 

what would you do to make this body drag less? or have the static body be the most efficient.

for
A. cheapest
B. best looking/not seen?

http://www.japanesesportcars.com/pho...nt-sc+_11_.jpg

http://www.cars-bikes.info/d/6350-2/...ent-sc-005.jpg

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j2...5/IMG_0750.jpg
http://estore.honda.com/assets//imag...ATE-SC_mid.jpg
these are generic pics but mine is the same. heres some background

its a 2010 honda element SC. im thinking a belly pan will help. the floor is flat and the fuel tank and exhaust is just under it. the side skirts and rear bumper extend atleast 8-10 inches below the floor so I would assume it is some extreme drag?

luckily being it is an SC it has some improvements over the base model.

A. the body kit and a slight lowering.
B. the roof cladding sits 1.25" lower then base.
C. rear spoiler? I can be wrong but it is a flat to roof extension.it is sealed to the roof so no under air flow.(im sure it can be improved)


the upper grille is useless. the radiator sits under it so it can be sealed.

mirrors need attention as they are billboards.

im also making polycarb fog light covers to make them flush with bumper.

would a custom made device like this aid a bit in the hood to windshield transition?
http://72.32.124.231/SuperContainer/...wl%20by%20Lund

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...ebottom3ux.jpg

I know this vehicle as a whole is a bad choice as an eco friendly car but due to my work it can carry what I need.

and the 19/24 estimate is not as bad as it could be. Im working on my driving habits. and have net 24.4 mpg as my best sofar. 14 as worst and my avg over the last 12k miles was 18mpg.

all in all its not that bad driving around town but on the highways it runs into an issue. I have no problem doing 70 ir 80+ but. after 60mph the aero kills mpg.

cruising @ 55mph @1850 rpm the scan gauge would net between 24 and 26mpg. @70mph @2500 rpm it would be getting 12-14mpg :/ and by 80 its down past 9mpg.

It's a box on wheels...
Trade it for something more aerodynamic?

Sorry, I know that's not what you were asking for. But I think with that basic shape, any mods/improvements won't get you much closer to the drag coefficient of even a basic modern sedan shape. And the basic modern sedan isn't the most aerodynamic shape on the road either.

He evidently hasn't done any research on the site as all that stuff has been discussed.

Again,
ditto what bruce said.
The name of the the game is reduced rpms at cruise.
Since you have made it clear that you have no interest in increasing the tire size by 5% (and your comment about lift kits reflects your lack of even reading posts on the topic) not sure why we should try to recommend things that will have little or no measureable effect.

Why don't you let us know where your at on the 65 item check list.
Let us know what you typical week drive is like.
How much time you spend REALLY driving 55.

......and +1 what frank lee said......:thumbup:

since it seems to be very important. going by the 65+ mod checklist that has some overlaps.

as of right now it has.
scan gauge
roof rack delete
mudflap delete
aero type antenna
synthetic oil
block heater
electric fan
has low cruising gear
synthetic trans and rear lube
tires aired to max
rear row seating removed


what I plan to do already.
full belly pan
light weight wheels
further lowering.
foglight covers to smooth bumper
upper grill block and partial lower
larger tire spats
smooth under bumper lip
P/S delete
electric water pump
underdriven alt
marine battery
6 spd manual swap


oh and just so ya know. when it comes to elements and what tires fit. or suspension mods work. I find all my info on the elementownersclub.com forum.
as the ONLY car they speak about is the 2003-2011 honda element.

do I know if 5% larger tires fit? no I dont...why? because people with SC elements lower the car more and sometimes go with smaller diameter tires.

will a 5% larger tire fit a base element? prob. and both SC and base have the same diameter tires. but the SC is lowered an inch and a half so unless I tried I dont know what will and wont fit. when I look at tire fitment (for performance) I look at width and wheel offset for a perfect fit. dont go up or down in diameter in most cases unless the rideheight is drastically lowered.

most base model elements that go with +5% tires they fit fine. some choose to go larger. 29.3 was the largest but it required a lift and killed economy.

I came here asking about economy. I wouldnt expect you guys to know what fits or doesnt on a car 99% of you guys would never want to eco mod in the first place.

and I dont have the option of selling it and getting a replacement. as I have specific tasks I require my car to perform and the element was the only one to come close to performing them all.



and... I have done research. Im sorry if I asked for opinions on my specific car. that there is not a single one modded here as of yet. if I was copying a geo metro or civic,saturn, pickup it would be easy.

if it was in my budget I would chop the top but its not and I just have to deal with over a foot of headroom.

I'm still not sure what you want us to tell you. No one on here had done anything to a Probe but I jumped in and made the mods. It was very simple. The 65+ are easily adaptable to nearly any car and your Element is no different. Just log off the internet and go do it!

I really hate to jump on you but this is EXACTLY our point........

you said......"do I know if 5% larger tires fit? no I dont...why? because people with SC elements lower the car more and sometimes go with smaller diameter tires.

will a 5% larger tire fit a base element? prob. and both SC and base have the same diameter tires. but the SC is lowered an inch and a half so unless I tried I dont know what will and wont fit. "

If you had read ANY posts on tire size you wojuld never had made that statement.
OR
If you got off your keyboard and LOOKED!!!!! at the clearance between the tire and the closest suspension part you'd (again) never have posted the above comment.

And to help you with this BASIC (elementary school level) understanding, here is a pic of the clearance on my car. (ie the limit of how tall a tire will fit)
NOTE: THIS IS IN THE THREADS YOU HAVE REFUSED TO READ!!!!!

http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/v...5clearance.jpg

A bit of excitement hey.
I'm with you Racerc2000,
Mine is a Nissan Patrol GU, basically the same box shape though.
Just remember any improvements you get as a percentage are going to mean a whole lot more in $ saved for the same improvement on a Honda Civic, so it's well worth doing it.
I'm new here, but my plan is to work from the front to the back & bottom to the top, seal the front and smooth out the underside a bit, do wheel covers, skirt the sides & cover the rear wheel arches, then look at what I can do with the roof & rear.
I know a lot of people are hooked up on RPM & wheel size, but it is not as simple as that, you can easily find that bigger tyres shift engine torque range and suddenly at cruise you actually have to use more fuel, and the argument does not wash for engine longevity either. When I changed to bigger tyres a while ago, once I had adjusted readings for the larger diameter tyres, fuel economy was still the same, and I had 4 years of records on the smaller tyres, and now I'm up to 6 on the larger tyres.
If you get airflow moving better, then you just won't need to push as hard on the "loud" pedal.
There is a lot of aero work going into semi trucks & trailers, their shape is far worse than ours, so if it's worth them doing it and it is worth doing it on matchbox cars, then surely it is worth doing it on ours which are between those two extremes.
Remember it's not a solar car challenge, it's you getting your own personal best.
Keep up the inspiration and get some things happening, as Arnie said "You Can Do It" (just use the right accent)

You said:......"all in all its not that bad driving around town but on the highways it runs into an issue. I have no problem doing 70 ir 80+ but. after 60mph the aero kills mpg. cruising @ 55mph @1850 rpm the scan gauge would net between 24 and 26mpg. @70mph @2500 rpm it would be getting 12-14mpg :/ and by 80 its down past 9mpg."

you 'claim to have done research'........
not here!
or you would have NEVER made the comment in red!
So here we go.......
It's the gearing, not the aero that kills the mpg after 60mph.
And reading ANY of the 70 posts on the topic would help you understand that.
Engines have a sweet spot.
Hell, my car is very aerodynamic and I've done all the right mods. But if I go above 70 the mpgs go down!!!!
It's because the engine is turning too many rpms and is past the sweet spot.

search ABA testing.
go find a stretch of freeway and run at 50, 60, 70 & 80. establish a base line for your stock vehicle. run a/c on and a/c off.
log it by resetting the sg each time.
If you run tires that are 6-7% taller (read my posts) then you can see that your speed will increase for the same rpm.
And again, IF YOU WOULD READ, you'd see that we arent talking about .