Saturn Sports Coupe Aerodynamics - Page 3 - Fuelly Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-23-2007, 09:06 AM   #21
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 104
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by omgwtfbyobbq View Post
Generally, BSFC drops.
BSFC increases as you throttle back an engine. Higher BSFC = more fuel used per hp generated. The lowest BSFC is WOT at the peak torque RPM.
I think you meant that effeciency drops?

The greater % you throttle back an engine the worse the increase in BSFC, which is why big engines are bad for economy. It's not the extra displacement per se, it is because you have to restrict the engine so much to only make a very low HP number that it is producing power pretty ineffeciently at that point because of all the throttling losses and the resulting low cylinder pressures. This is why GM and Chrysler are using cylinder deactivation - cut out half the cylinders and now you can open the throttle alot more and produce the required power more effeciently.

I have often wondered, if you have a car with a very low CD, would it be effecient to have two engines? Shut off the 500hp one on the highway and run a 35hp unit to cruise on. When the driver hits the gas, the big motor fires up and you go! Hybrids have really developed the technology to quickly and seamlessly start and stop an engine so this might be possible. A 35hp engine running at near WOT would be quite effecient...
__________________

__________________


GasSavers_BluEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 09:15 AM   #22
Registered Member
 
omgwtfbyobbq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,516
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluEyes View Post
I think you meant that effeciency drops?
Exactly what I meant.

Regarding a drop in drag coefficient, like anything else, there are plenty of reasons why manufacturers don't bother with it. There are probably more, but they include
-Aerodynamic instability at high speeds
-Building great EV gliders
-Small increase in efficiency
-Interbrand pressure
-Lower cost to maintain
-Etc...
To take advantage of the increase in glider efficiency for gasoline engines, they need to drop in a taller OD gear, or use a CVT. The problem with a taller OD gear in today's automatic cars is the balance between having the tranny kickdown, or stay in gear with more throttle for better efficiency. Toyota/Lexus went to an 8 speed automatic with some kind of intuitive learning so the car could get better mileage, but most Corollas aren't going to get an 8 sped auto tranny. Even the Prius' CVT doesn't spin at the optimal rpm for fuel efficiency at ~55mph, since it still has to rev up in order to have what most consider to be acceptable passing power.

BSFC maps are generally pretty simple. NA diesel have a pretty even distribution of ovals.

As do TDI's. with the large drop at the bottom being associated with the turbo dropping out of it's efficiency band (turboed gasoline engine probably has the same deal).

A DOHC NA gasser looks like this.

With the difference between the dotted and solid lines probably attributed to better control of ignition and possibly better fuel injection control. A VVT-whatever engine would have even larger BSFC ovals with the peak BSFC pushed a bit to the left... And an Atkinson cycle gas engine has near diesel BSFC ovals. I think a SOHC may have the peak higher, or at the same place depending on the cam (i.e. it may not let in as much air as early, pushing peak BSFC farther down), and carbed engines can probably have some odd maps, since they don't meter fuel linearly, or as precisely as a fuel injected car would, unless I'm at the right rpm.
__________________

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
omgwtfbyobbq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 10:25 AM   #23
Registered Member
 
Peakster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 467
Country: United States
2001 Saturn SC1 EPA ratings: 28mpg city / 40mpg highway / 33mpg combined
2001 Saturn SC2 EPA ratings: 27mpg city / 38mpg highway / 31mpg combined

However get a load of this:
Quote:
We've selected wide-ratio gear sets for high fuel economy on our single overhead-cam engine and close-ratio gear sets for added performance on the dual overhead-cam engine.
I wonder what fuel economy improvement someone would see if the SC2 transmission was swapped with a SC1 transmission? Perhaps the SC2 does have better aerodynamics and more efficient engine, but it's hampered with a shorter top gear, thus decreasing its FE? I'd like to find the actual final drive ratio differences between the SC2 and SC1.
Peakster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 11:01 AM   #24
Supporting Member
 
cfg83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,779
Country: United States
Peakster -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peakster View Post
2001 Saturn SC1 EPA ratings: 28mpg city / 40mpg highway / 33mpg combined (CarloSW2 : SOHC@100 HP)
2001 Saturn SC2 EPA ratings: 27mpg city / 38mpg highway / 31mpg combined (CarloSW2 : DOHC@124 HP)

However get a load of this:

We've selected wide-ratio gear sets for high fuel economy on our single overhead-cam engine and close-ratio gear sets for added performance on the dual overhead-cam engine.

I wonder what fuel economy improvement someone would see if the SC2 transmission was swapped with a SC1 transmission? Perhaps the SC2 does have better aerodynamics and more efficient engine, but it's hampered with a shorter top gear, thus decreasing its FE? I'd like to find the actual final drive ratio differences between the SC2 and SC1.
Yes, the S?2 drivetrains have what is called an "MP3" transmission, while the S?1 drivetrains have an MP2 transmission.

I think the only question is whether or not the ECU/PCM would get upset. Otherwise they should just swap right in.

This is a saturnfans.com quesiton. It must have been asked before. Maybe I will ask it again.

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 03-24-2007, 12:01 AM   #25
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 104
Country: United States
Are you talking about a manual or automatic transmission? If it's a manual, I can't see any reason that the ECU would know the difference as long as you have the right signal for the speedometer.

For an automatic, it would depend on how much GM integrated the powertrain and engine controll modules. If the trans controller is seperate from the engine controller, that would likely need to be swapped along with the trans to get the right shift points and then communication issues might come up.
__________________


GasSavers_BluEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2007, 08:51 AM   #26
Supporting Member
 
lovemysan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 595
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluEyes View Post
Are you talking about a manual or automatic transmission? If it's a manual, I can't see any reason that the ECU would know the difference as long as you have the right signal for the speedometer.

For an automatic, it would depend on how much GM integrated the powertrain and engine controll modules. If the trans controller is seperate from the engine controller, that would likely need to be swapped along with the trans to get the right shift points and then communication issues might come up.


He is talking about the manual trans. In saturn s-series cars you often have to swap trans and the matched pcm together. I'm not sure on the particulars I ran into similar issues while looking into cruise control. Apparently the pcm monitors VSS and engine RPMS to make sure there's no funny business.
__________________
02 Saturn SL
5 speed
for pics click the link below

http://s75.photobucket.com/albums/i3...emysan/saturn/

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"for best mileage swap in a d15z1"
lovemysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2007, 10:13 AM   #27
Supporting Member
 
cfg83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,779
Country: United States
Peakster -

I found my 1997 Saturn brochure (another victory for packrats!). Here is the Cd info :

Attachment 342

I am going to post all the vitals in a later post.

CarloSW2
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1997_saturn_Cd.jpg
Views:	266
Size:	50.2 KB
ID:	297  
__________________
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 04-08-2007, 12:00 PM   #28
Registered Member
 
Peakster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 467
Country: United States
Interesting. Yet another source that says that the SC1 has higher drag than the SC2.
Peakster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2007, 01:20 PM   #29
Registered Member
 
Peakster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 467
Country: United States
Lightbulb Eureka! The SC2 has a more aggressive spoiler

I think I found the main difference between the SC1 and SC2:

SC1:
Attachment 378

SC2:
Attachment 376

My question is why is it that the SC2's spoiler (which appears to separate the rear air flow higher than the SC1) is more beneficial for Cd?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IM0013141.JPG
Views:	234
Size:	49.3 KB
ID:	329   Click image for larger version

Name:	IM0013151.JPG
Views:	144
Size:	44.7 KB
ID:	330   Click image for larger version

Name:	IM0013181.JPG
Views:	244
Size:	46.0 KB
ID:	331   Click image for larger version

Name:	IM0013191.JPG
Views:	144
Size:	39.4 KB
ID:	332  
Peakster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2007, 03:48 PM   #30
Registered Member
 
Snax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 758
Country: United States
One reason I suspect is that the 'kick' in the SC2 spoiler does a better job at eliminating/reducing vortecies at the rear departure by allowing more side air to tumble underneath.
__________________

__________________
LiberalImage.com

I think, therefore I doubt.
Snax 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
fuel economy question Creamycaesar General Fuel Topics 19 02-08-2010 08:37 AM
Belated Intro GasSavers_brick Introduce Yourself - New member Welcome 4 12-22-2006 07:48 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:07 AM.


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