Looks can be deceiving - Page 2 - Fuelly Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 12-11-2006, 06:49 AM   #11
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
.36 seems more realistic.
__________________

MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 06:53 AM   #12
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 541
Country: United States
yeah , .36 is still amazingly good for that era..

The model 87 was suposedly a little worse than the 77a , but ime wondering if the wiki figure was in error.
Has anyone found a reliable figure for the 77 apart from wiki ??
__________________

onegammyleg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 07:01 AM   #13
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 541
Country: United States
This model vw keeps coming into my mind for potential FE mod car....



..but with a modern efi engine.
Best part is that it allows almost any body (aero) modification legally.
onegammyleg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 07:14 AM   #14
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
Unfortunately, that VW type 3 looks to have about the worst possible rear rake. According to Barnard, the highest drag is associated with rake angles around 30 degrees (from horizontal).
MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 07:30 AM   #15
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 541
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG
Unfortunately, that VW type 3 looks to have about the worst possible rear rake.
Thats Ok , cut and paste.

with larger front window layed back and modified roof section

with 2 inch sectioning and lowering.

Almost looks like a sports car now.
onegammyleg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 02:41 PM   #16
Registered Member
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
If the wacky Cd figure came from wikipedia, I wouldn't be surprised.

I corrected a wrong entry there for the Cd of the Audi A2, which someone had listed as .24. (Its lowest model was .25 - info I got from Audi's corporate site. Same Cd as the Insight).
MetroMPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 05:43 PM   #17
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 409
Country: United States
I still like the idea of turning a Plymouth Breeze, Dodge Stratus, Chysler Cirrus, into a more economical car. They start off with real good c/d .31. I'm thinking a little work woudl drop the cd nicely

.01 Lowered 1-2 inches
.005 Front Dam smoothened and smaller grilll opening
.01 Smooth Underbody
.005 Partailly covered rear wheels and smooth hubcaps
.01 Mirror removal

Capow! if you could get these good of numbers, It'd drop to around .27! Now you just have to deal with the poopy motor.


My parents own one of these cars which i "MIGHT" get for graduation, otherwise they're very cheap, cuz well they're really nothing special.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	stock.jpg
Views:	83
Size:	16.0 KB
ID:	63   Click image for larger version

Name:	modded.jpg
Views:	78
Size:	14.6 KB
ID:	64  
__________________
red91sit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2006, 10:09 PM   #18
Registered Member
 
Peakster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 467
Country: United States
Thumbs up

Check out this vehicle:
Attachment 76

Attachment 77

It's a Renault Vesta 2 research vehicle and it has a Cd of only 0.186! Note how the back end is totally sliced off. Sources say that it used 1.94 litres/100km (121 US miles per gallon) for 500km trip with an average speed of 100km/h!
Attached Images
   
Peakster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2006, 12:51 AM   #19
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 541
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by theclencher
Am I going to have to go verify the Cd on this???
I found this on a french page..
?A prototype named Renault Vesta II is with 3.5 l/100 km expenditure-comes.?

from what I read that 1 point whatever per hundred was a one off freak figure., and 3.5 was its long term figure. -- which is nothing truly amazing.
onegammyleg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2006, 01:30 AM   #20
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 541
Country: United States
3.5 = 67mpg , so 1.9 = 110mpg (roughly)
__________________

onegammyleg 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


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:12 PM.


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