You want better MPG?

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
... Im suprised the cruise on the prius isnt better.

JMH


Although one could question it's "priorities," I don't see it as poor performing at all. In fact, it's very, very good at maintaining a set speed, even in rolling hill terrain that drives many CCs nuts. The downside to that is that since it works so hard maintain speed as you head up hill, it quickly calls for more ICE then you'd want to use if applying good hypermiling technique. If you're not concerned about hypermiling, the Prius CC is darned near flawless.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: ehall
My '85 Cadillac gets 29 highway at 67 mph, and it's shaped like a shoebox


Just imagine what it would do if it weren't having to beat the air into submission...

 

[oilyriser]

http://www.design-classic-cars.de/jaray/kamm.html

but it didn't sell because people expect something that looks like a horse carriage

 

[Titan]

Cruise control on my Gramp Marquis does a good job. Going 66-69 this past week, with Cruise, my average mpg was 29.5, up from 26.9 when I set it at 71-74. There's only a couple of big hills that it downshifts. Usually, I anticipate on those hills beforehand, I give it just enough throttle to keep the Torque Converter from releasing (which is what happens if it coasts) and let her run on up to 85+, hold the accelerator pedal at that barely open setting, and by the time the speed drops to the set cruising speed, I've passed the point where it would otherwise downshift. Anticipating big hills like this seems like a good idea from an efficiency standpoint...even better would be to allow the car to drop to lower than the set cruise on the uphill side, but, 29.5 mpg is "good enough" for me in this 2-ton cruiser.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: oilyriser
http://www.design-classic-cars.de/jaray/kamm.html

but it didn't sell because people expect something that looks like a horse carriage


Originally Posted By: Google Translation
The new rear of the vehicle also called Fliesheck gives the car a Cw value of 0314. Fathers not in a point or edge expire, but rather truncated form Koenig rear compartment of field and comb.


I assume that means a drag coefficient of .314. Not bad for 1938.

 

[ALS]

Dodge should have just brought out the retro Charger. It would have had better aerodynamics than the new one.
The 1969 Dodge Daytona Charger. Cd .28

 

[artificialist]

Sure, but most people didn't like the look of that car.

That, and I also think of the ratio between drag and downforce.

 

[glennc]

I didn't believe it at first, but it looks like it's true:

http://www.allpar.com/model/superbird.html

 

[saaber1]

Originally Posted By: ALS

The 1969 Dodge Daytona Charger. Cd .28


How about the 1948 Tucker that had a cd of 0.27 :

"Perhaps most importantly of all, the Tucker 48 was beautiful. Tucker hired the legendary Alexander Sarantos Tremulis of Auburn-Cord-Duesenberg fame. Tremulis was given the lets just say far fetched task of completing the design in just six days (because of promises made to investors to reach timelines, everything at Tucker was done on a frenzied schedule). The results not only aesthetically speak for themselves, but were pretty aerodynamic, too. In fact, the 48 had a drag coefficient of just 0.27"

http://jalopnik.com/335574/tucker-48

 

[swalve]

Originally Posted By: ALS
Dodge should have just brought out the retro Charger. It would have had better aerodynamics than the new one.
The 1969 Dodge Daytona Charger. Cd .28


That's true, but there is some kind of front impact standard out now that requires flatter fronts. I'm not sure of what or why. Even with that, I'm sure there are ways they *could* use to make a flat front more invisible to air resistance.

 

[glennc]

There are actually quite a few modern cars that have Cds of 0.28 or so, some even lower. Obviously the Charger and its ilk are far more about show than about efficiency.