Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (August 2005, week 3)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:59:44 -0500
Reply-To:     Joel Walker <jwalker17@EARTHLINK.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Joel Walker <jwalker17@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject:      Re: How much fuel efficiency gained by shedding 300 lbs?
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
              reply-type=response

> (According to some tech geeks, the measured coefficient of drag for > the > Vanagon body is 0.75, and the rolling coefficient is 0.014. See > http://www.goshen.edu/physics/horsepower/1998_LabReport-87Vanagon.gif )

0.75??! i kinda don't think so. perhaps for the entire bus ... but that calculator > http://www.bgsoflex.com/aero.html only wants the FRONTAL drag coefficient. which vw was giving out to the magazines as 0.44 when the vanagon first appeared in 1979. and that was touted as being lower than a 1979 corvette. trick is ... the bus has a frontal AREA of probably two or three times that of the corvette. :) and to get the drag, you have to multiply the coefficient by the frontal area.

so what's the frontal area of a vanagon? excluding the rearview mirrors, it's 1845mm wide (widest at the bottom) and 1950mm tall. but we have to subtract the ground clearance of 190mm, so we get 1845x1760mm. or 72.6 inches wide by 69.3 inches tall (for purposes of calculating drag). or 6.1 ft wide by 5.8 feet tall = 35.1sq ft. by contrast, a 1979 corvette would be about 5 ft wide by 3 feet tall (including windshield) or about 15 square feet. probably less.

figure the rearview mirrors, especially the powered ones, would add an additional 0.9 sq ft, so we get a nice round 36 square feet to use in the calculator. :)

so watch what happens according to that calculator page .. using 0.44 coeff of drag, 36 sq ft frontal area, 70F temp 30in Hg barometric pressure 3600 lbs 40 psi tire pressure and 0.075 frontal lift (no idea if this is even close for a vanagon)

we get the following table ... mph(input) aero hp (out) rolling hp (out) frontal lift (out) 40 7 hp 4 hp 11 lbs 50 13 hp 5 hp 17 lbs 55 18 hp 6 hp 21 lbs 60 23 hp 7 hp 25 lbs 65 29 hp 7 hp 29 lbs 70 36 hp 8 hp 34 lbs 75 45 hp 10 hp 39 lbs 80 54 hp 11 hp 44 lbs 90 77 hp 14 hp 56 lbs 100 106 hp 17 hp 69 lbs

now, the way i read that is that it takes just about all of your engine's hp to overcome aero drag at 90 mph :) but at 60-65 or even up to 75, you're ok. more or less. less than half anyway. then take a look at a table i came up with for my 86 4-speed bus (which did weigh 3600 lbs) for fuel consumption. i used a zemco zt-4 trip computer that would display the instantaneous mpg, so by using a stop watch on some flat interstate, i came up with gallons per hour and so forth. but i did it by rpm, not mph.

rpm calc mph gal/hour mpg max range 3200 52.3 2.3 23.1 368 miles 3400 55.6 2.4 23.5 375 miles 3600 58.9 2.7 21.8 347 miles 3800 62.1 3.2 19.2 306 miles 4000 65.4 3.4 19.2 306 miles 4200 68.7 3.7 18.8 302 miles 4400 71.9 4.3 16.8 267 miles

one thing to remember is the Max Torque RPM for the 86 2.1 liter engine was around 3400 rpm. so running along at 3200 rpm is actually worse, cause you aren't developing all the torque you can (to get up even small hills). notice also how the mpg starts to drop off rather sharply above 4000 rpm. didn't get any readings higher than 4400, cause there was too much traffic that i caught up with at that speed. ;)

anyway, the tables seem to agree with each other. but one thing to remember ... buses do NOT have smooth bottoms. like beetles and porsches. and smooth underbellys DO make for less drag. buses do not have such things cause they are TRUCKS, and not really designed to roam up and down the highways at high speeds. :) i THINK the Eurovan DOES have a smooth bottom, or at least, a lot smoother than a vanagon or breadloaf. always wondered what it would do to the mpg and to the handling if i put flat sheets of aluminum to cover the bottom. :) and then there's the drag along the sides of the bus. and turbulent drag at the rear.

just for funsies one night, when i was REALLY bored and it was too dark to go outside and put more reflective tape on my bus, i sat down and calculated the complete surface area of a vanagon, and figured that if it were raining, and there was water alllll over the bus to a depth of only 1mm, it would add 80 lbs to the weight of the bus. :) more drag!! ;)

but always remember two things: 1. there are three kinds of Lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. <Mark Twain> 2. 52.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot. :) 3. "Statistician" is an anagram for "Satanic its it"!!! and we all know what that means!!

unca joel


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.