Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » Aerodynamics (An interesting subject for discussion)
Aerodynamics [message #249153] |
Tue, 06 May 2014 10:05 |
kerry pinkerton
Messages: 2565 Registered: July 2012 Location: Harvest, Al
Karma: 15
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I just returned from a 2000 mile road trip in a good friends SOB up to the frozen north. He is a VERY interesting fellow. He spent most his live in the racing business and was the car owner, builder, and crew chief for one of Dale Earnhart's first Winston cup rides.
He says that a couple dozen rules are now in the NASCAR rule book because of things he did. (If not specifically prohibited, it's legal)
Anyway, somewhere along this trip after we had solved all the worlds problems and started on the second round of lies...er...war stories, I asked about ways to improve fuel mileage on my motor home.
The short answer of the long discussion is "REDUCE DRAG". Without knowing or discussing how much of an impact these would have on fuel mileage, some of the things that he suggested are:
- Get the crap off the roof...AC, Pod, Roof rails, etc.
- Lower the front end as much as practical (yeah...yeah more later)
- Bring the front bumper back to the body and down to the lower edge of the body work.
- Put a soft spoiler on the bottom of the bumper to block airflow under the coach.
- Put an structure from the top of the grill opening to the top of the radiator to force air through it and over the engine.
- Streamline the mirrors and other protrusions
- Shorten the rear bumpers and bring the ends even with the body sides (they currently stick out and catch the wind just like cupping your hands and sticking them out the window.)
- Put fender skirts over the rear wheels (I was already going to do that just because I can... )
- Put an "awning" over the rear window to smooth airflow over the butt of the coach and down to the toad. (Next best would be a spoiler on the top and sides to create turbulence and break up the vacuum that naturally forms behind the coach.)
- Put a real spoiler on the toad.
There are probably a few more but I was drinking from the proverbial fire hose and can't remember more at the moment. I asked him how much difference each would make and he responded:
"How would I know? But improving aero is a collection of minor improvements that add up."
He has some manometers (air pressure gauge) he's going to let me borrow to play around with. I will be able to measure differential air pressure in various areas.
I don't know how much of this I will do but my brain never shuts off and it's something interesting to think about.
He has one of these air conditioners that impressed me. It is VERY quiet and he runs it instead of the roof air on his big square SOB (Winne Sightseer). I was looking at it and thinking that the internals could probably reconfigured to fit in some underutilized spaces like under the fridge or beds to get the AC unit off the roof. They come in various sizes, the 10000 btu model only pulls 9.1A and is 120V. (1100Watts). A couple of those units and a smaller generator.....hummmm
We drove home (1000 miles) in one 20 hour day and I'm still dragging a bit and just thinking out loud....
Kerry Pinkerton - North Alabama
Had 5 over the years. Currently have a '06 Fleetwood Discovery 39L
[Updated on: Tue, 06 May 2014 14:19] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: Aerodynamics [message #249164 is a reply to message #249163] |
Tue, 06 May 2014 14:28 |
kerry pinkerton
Messages: 2565 Registered: July 2012 Location: Harvest, Al
Karma: 15
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Harry wrote on Tue, 06 May 2014 14:10 | ...How about putting a spoiler in front of the roof air?
|
I was telling Will that I had been thinking about shaping a streamlined full length aluminum cover that covered the front vent, AC, and included a narrower 'pod' for storage. His response was that while that might make a difference, getting EVERYTHING off was by FAR the best. "You want to reduce the size of the hole you are making through the air..."
Realizing that you can write on the head of a pin what I know about aero and hydrodynamics, I THINK this is similar to why boats are long and thin. I seem to recall my Navy Captain cousin saying something about the length of the waterline having an effect on speed although this conversation was several decades ago and I've probably misremembered it. From a common sense standpoint a smaller cross section makes all the sense in the world to me as does applying methods like spoilers and such to smooth the flow of air over the body.
What I have absolutely no clue about is if these will return any advantage that is worth the cost and effort....probably not but, like I said...a subject for discussion.
Kerry Pinkerton - North Alabama
Had 5 over the years. Currently have a '06 Fleetwood Discovery 39L
|
|
|
|
Re: Aerodynamics [message #249168 is a reply to message #249164] |
Tue, 06 May 2014 15:40 |
Otterwan
Messages: 946 Registered: July 2013 Location: Lynnwood (north of Seattl...
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Kerry - I have three of those air conditioners, one of which is at least 4 years old. Not that specific one, but the same type. We use one in each of my son's rooms when it gets hot, and the 3rd in the apartment at my shop. They work very well. It would not be at all difficult to adapt the dryer style exhaust tubing to vent through a partially open window.
1977 Birchaven, Lynnwood WA - "We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us."
|
|
|
|
Re: Aerodynamics [message #249177 is a reply to message #249153] |
Thu, 08 May 2014 21:53 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260 Registered: January 2004 Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Kerry Pinkerton wrote on Tue, 06 May 2014 09:05I just returned from a 2000 mile road trip in a good friends SOB up to the frozen north. He is a VERY interesting fellow. He spent most his live in the racing business and was the car owner, builder, and crew chief for one of Dale Earnhart's first Winston cup rides.
He says that a couple dozen rules are now in the NASCAR rule book because of things he did. (If not specifically prohibited, it's legal)
Anyway, somewhere along this trip after we had solved all the worlds problems and started on the second round of lies...er...war stories, I asked about ways to improve fuel mileage on my motor home.
The short answer of the long discussion is "REDUCE DRAG". Without knowing or discussing how much of an impact these would have on fuel mileage, some of the things that he suggested are:
- Get the crap off the roof...AC, Pod, Roof rails, etc.
- Lower the front end as much as practical (yeah...yeah more later)
- Bring the front bumper back to the body and down to the lower edge of the body work.
- Put a soft spoiler on the bottom of the bumper to block airflow under the coach.
- Put an structure from the top of the grill opening to the top of the radiator to force air through it and over the engine.
- Streamline the mirrors and other protrusions
- Shorten the rear bumpers and bring the ends even with the body sides (they currently stick out and catch the wind just like cupping your hands and sticking them out the window.)
- Put fender skirts over the rear wheels (I was already going to do that just because I can... )
- Put an "awning" over the rear window to smooth airflow over the butt of the coach and down to the toad. (Next best would be a spoiler on the top and sides to create turbulence and break up the vacuum that naturally forms behind the coach.)
- Put a real spoiler on the toad.
There are probably a few more but I was drinking from the proverbial fire hose and can't remember more at the moment. I asked him how much difference each would make and he responded:
"How would I know? But improving aero is a collection of minor improvements that add up."
He has some manometers (air pressure gauge) he's going to let me borrow to play around with. I will be able to measure differential air pressure in various areas.
I don't know how much of this I will do but my brain never shuts off and it's something interesting to think about.
He has one of these air conditioners that impressed me. It is VERY quiet and he runs it instead of the roof air on his big square SOB (Winne Sightseer). I was looking at it and thinking that the internals could probably reconfigured to fit in some underutilized spaces like under the fridge or beds to get the AC unit off the roof. They come in various sizes, the 10000 btu model only pulls 9.1A and is 120V. (1100Watts). A couple of those units and a smaller generator.....hummmm
We drove home (1000 miles) in one 20 hour day and I'm still dragging a bit and just thinking out loud....
All of those aero things are good and correct but also standard things that will show up in any student handbook.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
Re: Aerodynamics [message #249179 is a reply to message #249164] |
Thu, 08 May 2014 21:56 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260 Registered: January 2004 Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Kerry Pinkerton wrote on Tue, 06 May 2014 13:28Harry wrote on Tue, 06 May 2014 14:10...How about putting a spoiler in front of the roof air?
I was telling Will that I had been thinking about shaping a streamlined full length aluminum cover that covered the front vent, AC, and included a narrower 'pod' for storage. His response was that while that might make a difference, getting EVERYTHING off was by FAR the best. "You want to reduce the size of the hole you are making through the air..."
Realizing that you can write on the head of a pin what I know about aero and hydrodynamics, I THINK this is similar to why boats are long and thin. I seem to recall my Navy Captain cousin saying something about the length of the waterline having an effect on speed although this conversation was several decades ago and I've probably misremembered it. From a common sense standpoint a smaller cross section makes all the sense in the world to me as does applying methods like spoilers and such to smooth the flow of air over the body.
What I have absolutely no clue about is if these will return any advantage that is worth the cost and effort....probably not but, like I said...a subject for discussion.
A longer vehicle will have less drag as will a reduced frontal cross section which you can't do anything about. i think weight reduction will blow away what you can do for aero.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
Re: Aerodynamics [message #249201 is a reply to message #249164] |
Fri, 09 May 2014 07:42 |
|
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547 Registered: March 2007 Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Kerry Pinkerton wrote on Tue, 06 May 2014 15:28Harry wrote on Tue, 06 May 2014 14:10...How about putting a spoiler in front of the roof air?
I was telling Will that I had been thinking about shaping a streamlined full length aluminum cover that covered the front vent, AC, and included a narrower 'pod' for storage. His response was that while that might make a difference, getting EVERYTHING off was by FAR the best. "You want to reduce the size of the hole you are making through the air..."
Realizing that you can write on the head of a pin what I know about aero and hydrodynamics, I THINK this is similar to why boats are long and thin. I seem to recall my Navy Captain cousin saying something about the length of the waterline having an effect on speed although this conversation was several decades ago and I've probably misremembered it. From a common sense standpoint a smaller cross section makes all the sense in the world to me as does applying methods like spoilers and such to smooth the flow of air over the body.
What I have absolutely no clue about is if these will return any advantage that is worth the cost and effort....probably not but, like I said...a subject for discussion. Kerry,
About Water Line Length, your memory is not all that bad, but this effect is only applicable to things operating by displacing water at the air/water boundary.
The narrow part is straight to the frontal area thing again.
Matt
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
Re: Aerodynamics [message #249328 is a reply to message #249153] |
Sat, 10 May 2014 13:52 |
kerry pinkerton
Messages: 2565 Registered: July 2012 Location: Harvest, Al
Karma: 15
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Reposting the original post because the email system was down at the time and they didn't get it:
_____________________________________________________________________________
I just returned from a 2000 mile road trip in a good friends SOB up to the frozen north. He is a VERY interesting fellow. He spent most his live in the racing business and was the car owner, builder, and crew chief for one of Dale Earnhart's first Winston cup rides.
He says that a couple dozen rules are now in the NASCAR rule book because of things he did. (If not specifically prohibited, it's legal...or at least it was back then)
Anyway, somewhere along this trip after we had solved all the worlds problems and started on the second round of lies...er...war stories, I asked about ways to improve fuel mileage on my motor home.
The short answer of the long discussion is "REDUCE DRAG". Without knowing or discussing how much of an impact these would have on fuel mileage, some of the things that he suggested are:
- Get the crap off the roof...AC, Pod, Roof rails, etc.
- Lower the front end as much as practical (yeah...yeah more later)
- Bring the front bumper back to the body and down to the lower edge of the body work.
- Put a soft spoiler on the bottom of the bumper to block airflow under the coach.
- Put an structure from the top of the grill opening to the top of the radiator to force air through it and over the engine.
- Streamline the mirrors and other protrusions
- Shorten the rear bumpers and bring the ends even with the body sides (they currently stick out and catch the wind just like cupping your hands and sticking them out the window.)
- Put fender skirts over the rear wheels (I was already going to do that just because I can...
- Put an "awning" over the rear window to smooth airflow over the butt of the coach and down to the toad. (Next best would be a spoiler on the top and sides to create turbulence and break up the vacuum that naturally forms behind the coach.)
- Put a real spoiler on the toad.
There are probably a few more but I was drinking from the proverbial fire hose and can't remember more at the moment. I asked him how much difference each would make and he responded:
"How would I know? But improving aero is a collection of minor improvements that add up."
He has some manometers (air pressure gauge) he's going to let me borrow to play around with. I will be able to measure differential air pressure in various areas.
I don't know how much of this I will do but my brain never shuts off and it's something interesting to think about.
He has one of these air conditioners that impressed me. It is VERY quiet and he runs it instead of the roof air on his big square SOB (Winne Sightseer). I was looking at it and thinking that the internals could probably reconfigured to fit in some underutilized spaces like under the fridge or beds to get the AC unit off the roof. They come in various sizes, the 10000 btu model only pulls 9.1A and is 120V. (1100Watts). A couple of those units and a smaller generator.....hummmm
We drove home (1000 miles) in one 20 hour day and I'm still dragging a bit and just thinking out loud....
Kerry Pinkerton - North Alabama
Had 5 over the years. Currently have a '06 Fleetwood Discovery 39L
|
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Aerodynamics [message #249346 is a reply to message #249328] |
Sat, 10 May 2014 19:33 |
|
USAussie
Messages: 15912 Registered: July 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Kerry,
Below you will find a chat I had with Bill Bryant about this subject. Bill's comments are in CAPS in the first email below for
clarity. I waited to publish it until I received his permission to quote him on the GMCnet.
Regards,
Rob M.
************************************************************************************************************************************
***********
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Mueller [mailto:robmueller@iinet.net.au]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 2:01 PM
To: Bill Bryant (bryant374@earthlink.net)
Subject: RE: [GMCnet] Aerodynamics
Bill,
There is a discussion about the GMC's aerodynamics on the GMCnet at the moment so I did a bit of homework and noted that you've
posted this photo on the photo site: http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/the-bill-bryant-collection/p1621.html
Under the photo is this statement:
"This is a 1/16 accurate model of the GMC Coach. The original model like this was used in the wind tunnel to determine the aero.
This one was given to John Locklin, the body engineer who defined the body materials, structure, etc for our GMC MH. I believe 4 - 6
models were given to GMC executives when they retired."
I WOULD NOW GUESS THAT THE NUMBER SHOULD BE 6 TO 8 MODELS.
In the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMC_motorhome (which I believe you wrote) the following is noted:
"GMC Motorhomes tested via a wind tunnel were reported to have a drag coefficient of 0.31, which is typical of modern sedans
(although offset by the large frontal area)."
Comment: I'm confused! It is not clear if the drag coefficient of 0.31 was determined using the model or a full size GMC?
IT WAS USING THE MODEL THAT WAS INSTRUMENTED USING MANY PORTS (HOLLOW TUBES FLUSH WITH THE SURFACE) TO SENSE PRESSURE IN THE
GUGENHEIM WIND TUNNEL IN CALIFORNIA. THE TEST MODEL HAD NONE OF THE USUAL (REAL LIFE) EXTERNAL ITEMS (MIRRORS, A/C, ETC) SO IT WAS
ALL ABOUT GETTING A NUMBER TO BRAG ABOUT IN MY ESTIMATION.
Quite frankly I am of the opinion that even if we were able to get the drag coefficient down to 0.31 it wouldn't make much
difference in the mileage.
AGREE!
If you were able to get it down that low I wonder if the cost to make all the mods necessary to reach 0.31 would provide a payback
in mileage over a reasonable period.
AGREE! LIKE GENE SAYS, (8 TO 10 NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO). WITH PRESENT FUELS I WOULD SAY 6 TO 8 MPG NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO :^(
Regards,
Rob M.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Mueller"
To:
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 11:03 AM
Subject: RE: [GMCnet] Aerodynamics
Bill,
Thanks for your response.
I wonder what the "real" drag coefficient of a "real" GMC is?
What I am about to state may be 100% pure BS or a defective grey cells but I vaguely remember reading or hearing that you could
bring a vehicle up to a set speed and then put it in neutral and check time it took to slow down to a second speed to and use that
time to calculate the drag,
There was also some way to calculate the rolling resistance using a similar method at low speeds.
Am I nuts or what?
Regards,
Rob M.
-----Original Message-----
From: bryant374@earthlink.net [mailto:bryant374@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 2:22 AM
To: Robert Mueller
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Aerodynamics
Rob,
There might be a way but I would guess it would end up as a rough approximation with many other factors affecting it.
Enjoy,
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org [mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Kerry Pinkerton
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2014 4:52 AM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Aerodynamics
Reposting the original post because the email system was down at the time and they didn't get it:
_____________________________________________________________________________
I just returned from a 2000 mile road trip in a good friends SOB up to the frozen north. He is a VERY interesting fellow. He spent
most his live in the racing business and was the car owner, builder, and crew chief for one of Dale Earnhart's first Winston cup
rides.
He says that a couple dozen rules are now in the NASCAR rule book because of things he did. (If not specifically prohibited, it's
legal...or at least it was back then)
Anyway, somewhere along this trip after we had solved all the worlds problems and started on the second round of lies...er...war
stories, I asked about ways to improve fuel mileage on my motor home.
The short answer of the long discussion is "REDUCE DRAG". Without knowing or discussing how much of an impact these would have on
fuel mileage, some of the things that he suggested are:
- Get the crap off the roof...AC, Pod, Roof rails, etc.
- Lower the front end as much as practical (yeah...yeah more later)
- Bring the front bumper back to the body and down to the lower edge of the body work.
- Put a soft spoiler on the bottom of the bumper to block airflow under the coach.
- Put an structure from the top of the grill opening to the top of the radiator to force air through it and over the engine.
- Streamline the mirrors and other protrusions
- Shorten the rear bumpers and bring the ends even with the body sides (they currently stick out and catch the wind just like
cupping your hands and
sticking them out the window.)
- Put fender skirts over the rear wheels (I was already going to do that just because I can... 8o :lol:
- Put an "awning" over the rear window to smooth airflow over the butt of the coach and down to the toad. (Next best would be a
spoiler on the top and
sides to create turbulence and break up the vacuum that naturally forms behind the coach.)
- Put a real spoiler on the toad.
There are probably a few more but I was drinking from the proverbial fire hose and can't remember more at the moment. I asked him
how much difference each would make and he responded:
"How would I know? But improving aero is a collection of minor improvements that add up."
He has some manometers (air pressure gauge) he's going to let me borrow to play around with. I will be able to measure differential
air pressure in various areas.
I don't know how much of this I will do but my brain never shuts off and it's something interesting to think about.
He has one of these air conditioners that impressed me. It is VERY quiet and he runs it instead of the roof air on his big square
SOB (Winne Sightseer). I was looking at it and thinking that the internals could probably reconfigured to fit in some underutilized
spaces like under the fridge or beds to get the AC unit off the roof. They come in various sizes, the 10000 btu model only pulls
9.1A and is 120V. (1100Watts). A couple of those units and a smaller generator.....hummmm
We drove home (1000 miles) in one 20 hour day and I'm still dragging a bit and just thinking out loud....
--
Kerry
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Aerodynamics [message #249366 is a reply to message #249346] |
Sat, 10 May 2014 22:40 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260 Registered: January 2004 Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
""I wonder what the "real" drag coefficient of a "real" GMC is?
What I am about to state may be 100% pure BS or a defective grey cells but I vaguely remember reading or hearing that you could
bring a vehicle up to a set speed and then put it in neutral and check time it took to slow down to a second speed to and use that
time to calculate the drag,
There was also some way to calculate the rolling resistance using a similar method at low speeds.
Am I nuts or what?
Regards,
Rob M.""
Drag co-efficients using models is a valid way to do it and quite accurate. However, full size production units have wipers, mirrors, antennas, and moldings that aren't flush, so you will loose some efficiency. What you describe is the coast down method that is still used today and is the foundation for all fuel economy testing and simulation--this is where a lot of cheating takes place using low friction drive axles, bearings, best tires, and moldings that fit petfectly. I don't think any of this stuff is meaningful for Joe motorhomer since the results will be minimal. Most of us blow the aero efficincy away with pods, large antennas, roof racks, a/c units and so on.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Aerodynamics [message #249377 is a reply to message #249366] |
Sun, 11 May 2014 02:46 |
|
USAussie
Messages: 15912 Registered: July 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob,
Thanks!
I found this: http://www.instructables.com/id/Measure-the-drag-coefficient-of-your-car/?ALLSTEPS
If I have time while I'm back in the USA I'll get John Sharpe to help me run some tests on Double Trouble.
Double Trouble has:
1) Dometic Brisk A/C units (2ea)
2) Large Pod between them.
3) A Maxx Air fan in front of the forward A/C
4) Winegard crank up batwing antennae
5) Awnings on both sides
6) Ladder and luggage rack
7) A large vent for the fridge
8) A large vent for the cooktop hood
9) Ramco mirrors - hooray!
John Sharpe's GMC has:
1) Carrier A/C units (2ea)
2) No pod
3) Two Fantastic Fans
4) Winegard crank up batwing antennae
5) No awnings
6) No ladder or luggage rack
7) No large vent for the fridge
8) No large vent for the cooktop hood
9) Ramco Mirrors
The dramatic difference in claptrap hung on Double Trouble vs John's slick coach may provide some factual insight to this the drag
coefficient of the GMC!
Regards,
Rob M.
Sydney, Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob de Kruyff
Drag co-efficients using models is a valid way to do it and quite accurate. However, full size production units have wipers,
mirrors, antennas, and moldings that aren't flush, so you will loose some efficiency. What you describe is the coast down method
that is still used today and is the foundation for all fuel economy testing and simulation--this is where a lot of cheating takes
place using low friction drive axles, bearings, best tires, and moldings that fit perfectly. I don't think any of this stuff is
meaningful for Joe motorhomer since the results will be minimal. Most of us blow the aero efficiency away with pods, large antennas,
roof racks, a/c units and so on.
--
Bob
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
Re: Aerodynamics [message #249390 is a reply to message #249153] |
Sun, 11 May 2014 08:25 |
jhbridges
Messages: 8412 Registered: May 2011 Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I think there's a difference in marginal gains in a class racer where a couple of h.p. or a couple of hundredths in drag relative to everyone else can add up to winning vs running second; and an admittedly aerodynamic brick hustling down the freeway. Notwithstanding, I await Kerry's rersults. There may be something worthwhile here.
However, when I compare the values of the airconditioner and storage pod to a 5% mileage increase, I'll go for convenience.
--johnny
Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
|
|
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Aerodynamics [message #249398 is a reply to message #249377] |
Sun, 11 May 2014 09:54 |
Bob de Kruyff
Messages: 4260 Registered: January 2004 Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don't forget the maechanical parts of the drag or coast down numbers. Tire pressures, brake drag, driveline angles, etc. can easily match what you can get with major aero modifications.
Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
|
|
|
Re: Aerodynamics [message #249427 is a reply to message #249153] |
Sun, 11 May 2014 13:34 |
Craig Lechowicz
Messages: 541 Registered: October 2006 Location: Waterford, MI
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob, as someone who kept the corporate average fuel economy numbers for GM for 2 years, I'll bet we could trade some very amusing stories. I don't know all the gory details, but I did hear a few. This was back in the mid 80's when, among other things, it was quite a struggle to get Corvette's over the 22.5 mpg gas guzzler threshold. Had a few beers with one of the engineers involved one night. He said, 1st you start with 100 Corvettes, then you pick the most promising 6, and then you put 3,000 miles on them, and then . . . after about 8 or so more and then's, he said. I can't tell you anymore and keep my job. But to make a long story short, there was, I think an epa rule, that they had to test the coastdown to be no more than 108% of the manufacturer reported road load horsepower. One of the things that allowed the Corvette's to pass was at least during the years I was involved, no Corvette owner was ever willing to rent their Corvette with miles on it to the EPA for in-use compliance testing.
Craig Lechowicz
'77 Kingsley, Waterford, MI
|
|
|
Re: Aerodynamics [message #249464 is a reply to message #249153] |
Sun, 11 May 2014 23:44 |
Chris Tyler
Messages: 458 Registered: September 2013 Location: Odessa FL
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Compared to most SOB, esp those of ~40 yrs ago, the GMC is light years ahead of other makes in terms of aerodynamics. The stated CD of .031 is not at all bad, howver the other factor is frotal area...which is rather large.
Lots of other class A owners would have killed for the 8-10 mpg we get, especially the old mopars.
Another factor is that drag goes up as a funtion of speed. In a NASCAR racer hitting 200mph, its a huge factor. If you are cruising at 50-60, I think you would be hard pressed to see any measurable milage gain.
But a good running GMC CAN bury the speedometer, as I found out when I was young and foolish.
76 Glenbrook
|
|
|
|
Re: Aerodynamics [message #249473 is a reply to message #249153] |
Mon, 12 May 2014 07:12 |
jhbridges
Messages: 8412 Registered: May 2011 Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
|
Senior Member |
|
|
My SOB (78 Itasca Class C on a P 30 chassis) did 7 on a real good day. The GMC does a lot better.
--johnny
Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Nov 14 01:02:09 CST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02657 seconds
|