Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 17:40:48 -0700
Reply-To: Scott Daniel - Shazam <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Scott Daniel - Shazam <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Subject: Re: Belly pans for speed /mpg
In-Reply-To: <006b01c8b903$51c16b50$1def5c4b@daryl01>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Well 30 miles per hour should not to be too hard to achieve in a vanagon.
Fuel mileage ought to be pretty good at that low a speed too.
Actually, best mileage probably occurs at a speed above 30.
( I know.........you meant 30 mpg ! )
And.......there is often a headwind, or tail,wind south of Portend, on i-5
,on the plain there going down to Eugene at the Willamette River, at the
southern end of the Willamet valley.
And also in i-5 Redding to Sacrament- often significant north-south winds
there.
I have not noticed any particular winds going from Seattle are to Portland,
and I've done that run a lot.
It will be interesting to see if there is a significant or measurable fuel
mileage diference between AWD and 2WD with his decoupler.
I can say for sure that vehicle stability is less in 2WD than in AWD on a
syncro vanagon.
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
aatransaxle
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 9:22 AM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: Belly pans for speed /mpg
I just put on a decoupler in a syncro the other day and here is his first
report..He is on the quest for 30 mph, so we will see...
I'm not so sure of his long term numbers,(or even the short term ones) but
he has been keeping consistent track of mileage...we will see...
I was just figuring the better mileage was that he was heading South from
here to Portland...thats down hill isn't it??
<<<From customers email message.....>>>
Hey Daryl,
Preliminary results:
Pre De-Coupler mileage (tested 3 times) = 16MPG
Post D/C install = 20 MPG - 65 MPH/I-5 South/130
miles/6.5 Gallons
Pleased with purchase.
Coasts like til Tuesday.
Cheers,
PM
Post that on the site if you like.
30MPG is possible despite science, math or traditional
thinking !
Subject: Belly pans for speed /mpg
> While the vanagon might just be the worst-shape possible for efficient
> aerodynamics, small improvements add up. Maybe the Sprinter vans are
> worse
> shapes..The Aztec has to be pretty close, and the Scion is no Ferrari,
> either.
>
> The "details" do make a difference, however. Small changes or
> improvements add up.
> Smoothing the underside of a Van would certainly show some measurable
> improvement in it's aerodynamic efficiency..thereby giving it more top
> speed
> and better gas mileage. For the amount of 'work' involved in fabricating
> something for the underside of a van, it might be worthwhile doing. With
> a
> vehicle lift and some basic tools it'd be pretty simple to fab up some
> kinda
> belly pans that would work well.
>
> It is pretty amazing how small aero details can make a difference. I
> used
> to laugh at the lengths my good friend and engine builder went to with his
> Porsche 928 for the Open Road events..But he's now a member of the "200mph
> Club". He would spend hours, after arriving at a race in Nv. taping up
> his
> car, removing mirrors, wipers, etc. Then when we, too, "moved up" to the
> Unlimited Class, I found he was right on by attending to those details
> before each speed run.
> Mirrors on?...Lose about 15mph. Windows down? at least 25mph. Nose of
> car set too low? 10mph.. One size wider tires? 10mph..It all matters.
> As
> you get into the highest speeds, it matter even more..(speed is also
> related
> to 'cubic dollars'.)
> So if one was to keep a van for another 20 years, after putting on some
> undertrays, you'd certainly save on the fuel, even if it was just 2/10s of
> a
> mile per gallon.. I bet filling that luggage space in a Westy top might
> help a bunch also. The front of any vehicle is the most important,
> because
> any vortex or turbulence created at the front end continues to create drag
> all the way back over the whole shape..
>
> Somewhat interesting is the fact that as racecar aerodynamics have
> improved, the 'wing' has been eliminated. The Wing, on racecars, was used
> to increase downforce..the car's ability to generate traction by using the
> air to 'push' it down onto the track. Now, the engineers have refined the
> underside shape of the racecars to generate the same downforce.
> essentially
> by shaping the car's underside like an upside down airplane wing..and
> creating 'negative lift' to pull the car down onto the track...
>
> Don Hanson
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.20/1452 - Release Date: 5/17/2008
6:26 PM
| 
