1930's car - Page 3 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-04-2006, 06:51 PM   #21
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
For those who were interested in this thread, I've updated metrompg.com with a more detailed article about the aero-modded Model T.

http://www.metrompg.com/posts/model-t-stevinson.htm
__________________

MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 12:06 AM   #22
Supporting Member
 
cfg83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,779
Country: United States
Hello -

I like the frontal view because you can see that the design parameter for the car width was the width of the Model T's engine. Maybe cramped for the passengers, but for the right reason. Cool.

CarloSW2
__________________

__________________
Old School SW2 EPA ... New School Civic EPA :

What's your EPA MPG? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp
cfg83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 05:42 AM   #23
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
It does seem pretty narrow, doesn't it? There's supposed to be room for 2 to sit side by side up in the front, but they would have been touching shoulders.
MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 07:58 AM   #24
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,978
Country: United States
Thanks for resurrecting the thread

Thanks for resurrecting this thread CFG! I missed out on it back in July and it slipped into the archives.

How inspiring for someone of the time to do such a thing, and not for racing purposes. People really knew how to pose for pictures back then (great photography of the day too)! We need more "Orville and Wilburs" like this gentleman, today.

Toecutter has an excellent point -- what in blue-blazes happened to aerodynamics in the 60's to Mid-80's (especially the boxes of the 70's)??? It's like they took a brick of clay in the design process and stuck parts on it.


"The Goldsmobile"

RH77's First Car: 1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Brougham 4-door 350. Brown plaid, pillow-top interior and all the options that 1977 could muster.

Of course everyone loves their first car when they get it. Since it was as old as I was at the time it wasn't terribly reliable, but it coasted like a dream, aged very well, and got 18 mpg avg. Aside from the soft top, the rear "fastback" sweep probably improved its drag, but the flat front is classic 70's. It could have easily been imroved with a sloped grille/front clip (trust me, even with the 350 V-8, there was plenty of room in there for a slope)!

At any rate, facinating story Metro -- this gentleman should be a GasSavers member emeritus -- way ahead of his time.

RH77
__________________
rh77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 08:12 AM   #25
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
He truly was a pioneer. He was building his car ahead of 2 of the 3 more famous early aerodynamic cars
MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 08:16 AM   #26
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Timion
MetroMPG, do you know what the inventor's motivation was for this build? Was it for faster speeds, or did he actually have efficiency in mind as well?
I didn't mention this in the story, but did ask his son this question.
MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 07:37 PM   #27
Driving on E
 
Matt Timion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,110
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG
I didn't mention this in the story, but did ask his son this question.

He was as much interested in efficiency as speed.

In one of his later cars (we're talking 50's or 60's) he installed an early "fuel consumption display" - in the form of a sealed graduated cylinder that held fuel. So he could watch the rate of consumption while he drove.
Is there any chance the son knew what type of gas mileage his father achieved with this aero mods?
Matt Timion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 07:54 PM   #28
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
Yup...
Quote:
Compared to the Model T's top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h), the streamlined & modified car would go 70 (113 km/h). Its fuel economy was also improved: 45 imperial mpg (38 mpg US) compared to the Model T's 30-36 imperial mpg (25-30 mpg US) - though obviously not at 70 mph!
MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 08:28 PM   #29
Driving on E
 
Matt Timion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,110
Country: United States
awesome... THe wheels in my head are turning... I smell an article on the way.
Matt Timion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 09:29 PM   #30
Registered Member
 
The Toecutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 612
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to The Toecutter
25-30 mpg to 38 mpg though extensive aeromods and no other modifications sounds about right. And given the exposed wheels and axles, these aeromods really weren't that extensive.

Aerodynamics is the key to efficiency. Drop the Cd of today's cars to about .18 from today's .32, and 45 mpg midsize cars with 180 horsepower V6 engines that weigh 3,000 pounds, or to 35 mpg V8 musclecars of the same weight and 350+ horsepower become possible. Throw an L4 diesel of about 150 HP in such an aerodynamic car, and you'd easily have an 80 mpg midsize car that did 0-60 mph in 10 seconds. Reduce weight by about 600 pounds through cutting all useless fluff from the interior, acceleration would dramatically improve and city fuel economy would improve a bit as well.

With proper aerodynamics, it would actually be feasible to build a 150-200 mile range all-electric midsize sedan that used cheap flooded lead acid batteries, albeit it might weigh in the neighborhood of 4,000 pounds.

A Toyota Prius getting the fuel economy it does isn't rocket science; most of its gain isn't attributable to the hybrid drive so much as it is attributable to cleaner aerodynamics, a CVT, LRR tires, and a weight reduction of a few hundred pounds. That winning formula requires no fancy new technology, just a good design. But the auto industry would sooner drop dead than to actually deliver the best product it can, as it prefers to ration out advancements as slowly as possible to maximize profits on each one. As a result, advancements made in the 1930s have yet to see widespread use in today's cars(eg. aerodynamics). There is an exception to this rule: if it costs a lot of money and can fatten profit margins(usually to the expense of the buyer), the auto industry will adopt it immediately, as we have seen with today's integrated designs wherein one computer fails, you have to replace all parts associated with it(eg. 2001 and later Chevy Impalas).

Imagine how much less oil we would be consuming if 180 horsepower midsize cars got 45 mpg, instead of 27 mpg.
__________________

The Toecutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fuelly badge not updating for about 2 - 3 weeks Need Fuelly Web Support and Community News 18 07-01-2012 03:01 PM
VW Jetta fast riser coolbreeze General Fuel Topics 5 07-22-2009 12:25 AM
Mph Caps billynjoanna General Fuel Topics 2 06-10-2007 12:38 PM
DIY: Wire Tuck!!! SVOboy Experiments, Modifications and DIY 11 09-21-2006 05:17 AM
Condensator orevgym General Fuel Topics 0 07-23-2006 11:25 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.