You want better MPG?

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is one direction that carmakers have been going wrong on for a while. The huge, in-your-face grilles (Uh Hem....Cadillac) can't be doing anything for aerodynamics. Anyone remember the early 80s when Ford had their aerodynamic revolution, starting with the Thunderbird? Every corner rounded...not a sharp edge in sight. We've slowly worked our way back to the way cars were pre-80's. Lots of sharp edges and flat, wind-dragging surfaces all in the name of style. Some of the new Cadillacs look about as aerodynamic as a brick. Freeway speeds have done nothing but increase since the 80s, yet the cars have become MORE wind resistant. Sure, the windshields have been laid back, but the noses are not exactly the picture of efficiency.

83Thunderbird.jpg


08CTS.jpg
 
One of my friends had a 1984 T-Bird Turbo with a manual transmission. He got 34-35 mpg on the highway.
 
I remember when car ads listed drag coefficients. I would like to see that return. I specifically remember a ford LTD II from that vintage claiming it could push through the air at 50 mph with only 7 hp. Wow!

That caddy might look razor edge but I bet it cuts the air halfway decently. If the grille doesn't "accept" air because something behind it blocks it, it forms an invisible "bubble" that air will just go around.

Same as a pickup bed with the tailgate up; the air inside stagnates and the air from the roof gently descends over the tailgate before becoming turbulent. Most of the time.
 
blackcherry06, While I can't speak for the new 2008 Cadillac CTS, a quick Internet search reveals that the similarly-shaped 2004 CTS with its flat face and big grille has a coefficient of drag of .31, the same as the aerodynamic-looking 2006 Honda Civic.

For comparison: The flat, ugly face of the 2007 Camry? I'd guess that has a poor c/d, but I'd be wrong, since it manages a respectable 0.27. Even more impressive, the big fat chin that was on the GM EV1 helped it return a 0.195 c/d.

On the other end of the scale, my brick-shaped 1999 Jeep Cherokee has a c/d of 0.51, which sounds poor, until you compare it to the shapely Dodge Viper, with it's c/d of 0.45.

It can be hard to tell what cars are aerodynamic just by looking at them. It's amazing what can be accomplished with modern computer aided design.
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
I remember when car ads listed drag coefficients. I would like to see that return. I specifically remember a ford LTD II from that vintage claiming it could push through the air at 50 mph with only 7 hp. Wow!

That says a lot about how much HP is really needed. LTD IIs were absolute monsters compared to today's cars, yet people insist on having family sedans that push 300 HP...then they complain about the cost of gas...
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
I remember when car ads listed drag coefficients. I would like to see that return. I specifically remember a ford LTD II from that vintage claiming it could push through the air at 50 mph with only 7 hp. Wow!


That's actually about average. For a long time, Car and Driver magazine listed road horsepower requirements at 30, 50 and 70mph for all cars tested. At 50mpg most cars of the era ('80's, maybe early '90's until they stopped doing it) required about 15hp to go down the road, about half of which was air drag and half rolling drag. At higher speeds air drag becomes the dominant factor, but not at fifty.

It is interesting that Ford was being a bit loose with the facts, implying that 7hp was all that was required at that speed, whereas a specific reading of the wording indicates the certain truth that the 7hp is what is required only to overcome air resistance. The total, as with other cars, was probably 14 or 15 or so.

Two decades ago, a .30 Cd was excellent, but many cars are in the high twenties these days. Definite progress. Of course, many more people now drive trucks, which are obviously way worse, so maybe no progress, really.

By the way road horsepower required at seventy is on the order of 35. Throw in a hill, though, and you might need 100hp or 150hp to maintain that speed. It is the need to climb hills at speed that really affects the amount of hp needed. Of course a lot of cars have way more than is needed these days no matter what conditions you consider.
 
No. It gets complicated. The force on the car from the air is the same as if you were driving 70mph, but power = force x distance / time, or force x speed, and your speed has not increased. So only one of the multipliers has increased. Also, rolling resistance is obviously not affected.
 
Originally Posted By: harry j
If you are doing an indicated 50 MPH and you have a 20 MPH headwind, is it the same thing as doing 70 MPH?


Ignoring engine efficiency factors and losses to accessories, and assuming the portion of power consumption due to rolling resistance increases linearly (it usually does, doesn't it?), I believe fuel economy should be the same for those two examples. Since the engine is likely more efficient at higher power outputs than 50 mph provides and the accessories would have to run for a shorter time when driving at a higher speed, I think that running at 70 mph with no headwind should yield slightly better fuel economy than 50 mph with a 20 mph headwind.
 
you want better MPG?

drive more sensibly, go the speed limit or maybe slightly above it, dont do jack rabbit starts etc...
 
Originally Posted By: blackcherry06
This is one direction that carmakers have been going wrong on for a while. The huge, in-your-face grilles (Uh Hem....Cadillac) can't be doing anything for aerodynamics. Anyone remember the early 80s when Ford had their aerodynamic revolution, starting with the Thunderbird? Every corner rounded...not a sharp edge in sight. We've slowly worked our way back to the way cars were pre-80's. Lots of sharp edges and flat, wind-dragging surfaces all in the name of style. Some of the new Cadillacs look about as aerodynamic as a brick. Freeway speeds have done nothing but increase since the 80s, yet the cars have become MORE wind resistant. Sure, the windshields have been laid back, but the noses are not exactly the picture of efficiency.


Not all the changes are in the name of design. The new pedestrian impact standards are forcing the more upright grilles. Some (300C) predate the new standard...think it came about for 2008/2009.
 
Originally Posted By: 02zx9r
you want better MPG?

drive more sensibly, go the speed limit or maybe slightly above it, dont do jack rabbit starts etc...


Right, the way people drive wastes SO much gas, that they need to revisit driving technique and basic physics before anything else...

JMH
 
I'm lucky to get EPA highway, and I feel like I am trying. Mostly inter-town rural with few lights and a small bit of time in surburbland sprawl.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ALS
One of my friends had a 1984 T-Bird Turbo with a manual transmission. He got 34-35 mpg on the highway.


I got a new 1983 Turbo T-Bird when I got out of school. That aero look was pretty rad for the time, IIRC, only Audi had anything similar. It had a 2.3 litre four and a 5 speed, but I don't recall it getting 34 or 35 mpg.

It was one of the two or three best cars I ever owned.

Appearance notwithstanding, I think the aero's on the new cars are far better. The T Bird had a lot of parts that were not flush, and no under body aero at all.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: 02zx9r
you want better MPG?

drive more sensibly, go the speed limit or maybe slightly above it, dont do jack rabbit starts etc...


Right, the way people drive wastes SO much gas, that they need to revisit driving technique and basic physics before anything else...

JMH


You're so right. The last couple weeks or so, I've been even more carefully applying the techniques, and keeping my interstate speed down to 72 (vs my usual 80-ish). I'm 260 miles into the current tank, and was just able to nudge my average up to 52 mpg.

Oddly enough, one of the things that seems to be making a huge difference is a combo of LESS use of my cruise control, and more awareness and exploitation of grade. Going up even a slight grade, I'll let my speed decay by a few mphs instead of maintaining exact speed by burning more gas. Then I use descending grades to gradually build speed back. Using even slight variations in grade seems to make a major difference in results.
 
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Oddly enough, one of the things that seems to be making a huge difference is a combo of LESS use of my cruise control, and more awareness and exploitation of grade. Going up even a slight grade, I'll let my speed decay by a few mphs instead of maintaining exact speed by burning more gas. Then I use descending grades to gradually build speed back. Using even slight variations in grade seems to make a major difference in results.


Yes, shedding momemtum and then using declines to get a bit of free addon acceleration works VERY well.

One thing that Ive noted is that there is a LARGE variation in how well cruise control effects your operational economy. The cruise in our 94 toyota previa is very smart - very good logic. The cruise in other vehicles Ive driven seems to almost harm the fuel economy on anything but the most benign terrain. Im suprised the cruise on the prius isnt better.

JMH
 
My 1998 CRV cruise is horrible. It is working with an automatic and grade control. That is, it downshifts based (almost) all upon the grade. I hate the fact that autonatics downshift as easy as they do. What systems like Tiptronic missed is holding high gear for torque rather than downshifting. Nothing like a buzzy downshift to 500 rpm from redline.
 
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Oddly enough, one of the things that seems to be making a huge difference is a combo of LESS use of my cruise control, and more awareness and exploitation of grade.


I always found that with the work Priuses I use more on cruise control.

The cruise control and the engine controls don't have eyes, so it can't see what's ahead, and maybe pick up a little speed down a hill to use going up the next, not power up because toy are only a little way to the top etc etc.

Even in normal cars, I have alway's beat my partner's mileage by a solid 10%, even when I'm driving faster trip times.
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
My 1998 CRV cruise is horrible. It is working with an automatic and grade control. That is, it downshifts based (almost) all upon the grade. I hate the fact that autonatics downshift as easy as they do. What systems like Tiptronic missed is holding high gear for torque rather than downshifting. Nothing like a buzzy downshift to 500 rpm from redline.


I feel your pain, the cruise control on my Integra is worthless unless on a straight-away. The engine/transmission is very very similar (same B-Series) so I know /exactly/ what you're talking about.
LOL.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom