 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / May 2006Gas Saver Question.
Here goes, has anyone actually tried a Ramjet Gas Saver? They claim upto 35% in savings, hard to believe. But with the price of gas these days ($1.16 a ltr) I was thinking of looking into these things. I'm not writing this to be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. Thanks in advance. Here is a link for this thing. http://www.ramjet.ca/englishram.html > Here goes, has anyone actually tried a Ramjet Gas Saver? They claim upto > 35% in savings, hard to believe. But with the price of gas these days > ($1.16 a ltr) I was thinking of looking into these things. I'm not writing > this to be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. > > Thanks in advance. > Here is a link for this thing. > http://www.ramjet.ca/englishram.html I've always liked Dire Straits, but that won't get me to buy this thing. Just think, if you put this, the Splitfire plugs, the magnets on the fuel line, and all the other fuel-saving devices and additives, you could be a gasoline manufacturer, if you had somewhere to store all the gas coming out your filler tube. SC Tom I went to this website and found the Gov test case's on these. I would say read it. There your going to find it tells you there was no increase in mpg. > Here is a link for this thing. > http://www.ramjet.ca/englishram.html [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Thanks in advance. > Here goes, has anyone actually tried a Ramjet Gas Saver? They claim upto > 35% in savings, hard to believe. But with the price of gas these days > ($1.16 a ltr) I was thinking of looking into these things. I'm not writing > this to be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. If they worked, the manufacturer (Ford in this case) would already be installing them on their vehicles. The have a hard enough time meeting the EPA standards as it is. Even if Ramjet wouldn't sell the design to them, they'd purchase one, adapt it and patent it themselves. Don't you think Ford would like to be able to state their V10 gets upwards of 20mpg in a F350? Or 25mpg with the 5.4? >Don't you think Ford would like to be able to state their V10 gets upwards >of 20mpg in a F350? Or 25mpg with the 5.4? Screw Ford, *I* would like to see 20 MPG out of my V10.. :) you can just shut the engine off and coast *grin*  Signature-Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD > >Don't you think Ford would like to be able to state their V10 gets upwards > >of 20mpg in a F350? Or 25mpg with the 5.4? > > Screw Ford, *I* would like to see 20 MPG out of my V10.. :) It's just another of many gimmicks that do nothing but increase the pocket book of the company producing them. http://www.p2pays.org/ref/07/06082.htm > Here goes, has anyone actually tried a Ramjet Gas Saver? They claim upto > 35% in savings, hard to believe. But with the price of gas these days ($1.16 > a ltr) I was thinking of looking into these things. I'm not writing this to > be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. > > Thanks in advance. >It's just another of many gimmicks that do nothing but increase the >pocket book of the company producing them. Yes everyone is looking for that magic silver bullet. The cold hard fact are that there is about 50 HP in a gallong of gas in stored heat energy (and heat energy drives the motor) and in a best case senerio, you might get 30% of that at flywheel so you have to burn 2 gallons a hour to make about 30 HP a hour and 4 gallons a hour to make 60HP and this power has to overcome accessory needs, drive train losses, tire losses and aerodynamic drag and no magic add on is going to change that. To improve MPG a lot you need to reduce power needed to roll down the road, use a fuel with a higher energy content or run a much higher compression ratio (with proper fuel) that will increase overall engine efficeny and allow to extract more work for a gallon of fuel. ----------------- The SnoMan www.thesnoman.com > >It's just another of many gimmicks that do nothing but increase the > >pocket book of the company producing them. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The SnoMan > www.thesnoman.com so your saying what? drive a diesel? *grin* Signature-Chris 05 CTD 99 Durango 06 Liberty CRD >so your saying what? drive a diesel? *grin* No, I am saying for starter srap using 87 octane in modern high compression gas engine to reduce or eliminate ECM retarding of spark to control knock which hurts efficency, power and MPG. They have gotten so good with kbock sensors being able to here the knock before you do that you do not realize what is being lost. Also if the industry would scrap 87 completely or and go to 89 and 93 or 93 only they could build gas engines with higher CR ratios and improved thermodynamic efficency. 87 was designed for low compresion engine and millions of gallon of gas are wasted everyday as people hang on to this legacy fuel in there modern engines think they are saving money when they are really not most of the time. . ----------------- The SnoMan www.thesnoman.com > No, I am saying for starter srap using 87 octane in modern high > compression gas engine to reduce or eliminate ECM retarding of spark [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > this legacy fuel in there modern engines think they are saving money > when they are really not most of the time. . I'm not sure what this means. Are you advocating the use of higher octane in cars designed for 87? Do you mean manufacturers stop porducing engines that run on 87 in favour of higher CR engines? Is there a substantial difference in efficiency in vehicles that run 93? I think it has been shown that simply using higher octane fuel in a vehicle designed for 87 has no advantages. I must be misinterpreting you on that. Stephen N. >I'm not sure what this means. Are you advocating the use of higher >octane in cars designed for 87? I guess some are kinda slow here. They are not designed to do there best on 87. The ONLY reason they have a knock sensor on them is to limit consumer complaints and keep the illusion alive that 87 is a great fuel for them. Also think what would happen to sales if they printed manuals to state 89 or higher riquired??? Also like I have said before, Detriot uses 93 octane in all EPA mileage tests and emisson certifications, not 87 and if it did not make any difference, they would not use it. There is a persistant and false believe that the octane needs of a engine is constant when it is not and the warmer it get and the harder it works, the more octane it needs. Everytime you retard spark to control knock before you hear it, you lose power and MPG. You really do not know what you are missing untill you try it. 89 will work fine on cooler days with no power loss and 87 might work out in winter but on a hot summer day if you are not running 89 or better you are lossing power and MPG and especailly if you are heavyly loaded or towing too. ----------------- The SnoMan www.thesnoman.com > Also think what would happen to sales if they > printed manuals to state 89 or higher riquired??? My Hemi Durango's manual states to use 89. It has been shown time and again with the vast majority of vehicles mpg's will not go up by using higher octane. There are a few exceptions. My Durango is one of them. >> Also think what would happen to sales if they >> printed manuals to state 89 or higher riquired??? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mpg's will not go up by using higher octane. There are a few > exceptions. My Durango is one of them. Add later Subarus. I see about 2 MPG better and a whole lot smoother running on 89 or topping up with 92 at about 2/3's tank. Must be something about that 10.0/1 CR ;}. My old B II never seems to care about 87 or higher as lomg as it was decent gas. >>I'm not sure what this means. Are you advocating the use of higher >>octane in cars designed for 87? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > or better you are lossing power and MPG and especailly if you are > heavyly loaded or towing too. EPA required that manufacturers show that vehicles run on 91 RON fuel (equal to regular gasoline) show little or no affect on emissions or fuel economy. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/vpcd9701.pdf I have done tests on long trips using premium and regular. There was no substantial difference in power or fuel economy when using premium. It did cost a lot more though and I don't know where the economy is in that. This is very old news but I guess some people are kinda slow here. Stephen N. Am I going to see better than a 8% gas mileage increase going to 91 octane over 87 octane? I don't think I would, and 91 octane costs me 8% more per gallon here then 87 octane. If it doesn't save me any money, and the knock sensor prevents any engine damage, I don't see the advantage. -Darren > No, I am saying for starter srap using 87 octane in modern high > compression gas engine to reduce or eliminate ECM retarding of spark [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The SnoMan > www.thesnoman.com > >so your saying what? drive a diesel? *grin* > > No, I am saying for starter srap using 87 octane in modern high > compression gas engine to reduce or eliminate ECM retarding of spark > to control knock which hurts efficency, power and MPG. you realize the dodge 360/318 doesnt have a knock sensor and does not retard timing to eliminate/reduce detonation? They have > gotten so good with kbock sensors being able to here the knock before > you do that you do not realize what is being lost. Also if the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > this legacy fuel in there modern engines think they are saving money > when they are really not most of the time. . hmmm then its a conspiracy between dialmer crysler and shell oil (for example) to recomend in the owners manual that you use only recomended octane rating for your vehicle (most are 87) so that the oil company makes more money?? seems a bit of a stretch to me. and you also realize that you stated this in another post. " THe main reason that diesel get good MPG is because the fuel has a higher energy content (about 140,000 BTU/gal) and with the very high CR or 16 to 20 to 1 you get much higher thermodynamic efficency (convert more heat energy to work). " and now " To improve MPG a lot you need to reduce power needed to roll down the road, use a fuel with a higher energy content or run a much higher compression ratio (with proper fuel) that will increase overall engine efficeny and allow to extract more work for a gallon of fuel. " now i realize that the other post im referanceing is clipped there so ill post it again completely. and note that in your fuel examples the diesel fuel had the highest btu per gallon. here's what you posted in the "Exchange my V-10 for a diesel cost effective?" thread I have read about several of them and I have a 79 Jeep J20 that I want to restore someday and I am seriously considering making it a propane only vehical. The problem with some conversions is that they put propane in a stock engine (and it will burn fine with extremely low emissions too) but propane has about 25% les energy per gallon than gas so you need more of it in a stock engine but since propane has a LOT higher octane, you can raise CR to 12 to 1 no sweat and increase power and efficency and get MPG simular to gas on stock compression but with a lot cheap fuel. It also burn a bit slower so more spark advance is needed to which most dual fuel (gas/propane) engine do not properly do. The draw back is you have to install a somewhat heavy tank for fuel stored under pressure but since propane weighs 4 lbs a gallon vs 6.5lbs/gal for gas, the lighter fuel ofsets most or all of this weight. Pound for pound, propane has more energy than gas. By weight, 6.5 lbs of gas (one gallon) contain about 120,000BTU (plus or minus depending on blend) and 6.5 lbs of propane has approx 145,000 BTU's (this heat energy is what drives the engine) while the same amout of E85 has only about 60.000 BTU (and a gallon of E85 weighs almost 8 lbs too). THe main reason that diesel get good MPG is because the fuel has a higher energy content (about 140,000 BTU/gal) and with the very high CR or 16 to 20 to 1 you get much higher thermodynamic efficency (convert more heat energy to work). But, if you use a fuel like propane (or even high octane fuel) it is possible to raise CR ratio a good bit and improve efficency. Some mention running cars on natural gas or hydrogen but the problem there is it take a lot of pressue and technology to store them in a ligud state to get a lot of range where propane is a LOT easier to store and handle. ----------------- The SnoMan www.thesnoman.com > ----------------- > The SnoMan > www.thesnoman.com We've been thru this see http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars_trucks/1802932.html > Here goes, has anyone actually tried a Ramjet Gas Saver? They claim upto > 35% in savings, hard to believe. But with the price of gas these days ($1.16 > a ltr) I was thinking of looking into these things. I'm not writing this to > be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. > > Thanks in advance. > We've been thru this > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> Thanks in advance. >> From the conclusion in the PM article sited above (by JohanB) "There's no ignoring the laws of physics, people. Your vehicle already burns over 99 percent of the fuel you pay for. Less than 1 percent is squandered as partially burned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide before the exhaust hits the catalytic converter for the last laundering. Even if one of these miracle gadgets could make the combustion process 100 percent complete, the improvement in mileage resulting would be 1 percent. Any device that claims quantum-level increases needs to be examined with considerable skepticism." > > We've been thru this > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > percent. Any device that claims quantum-level increases needs to be > examined with considerable skepticism." Yabut isn't 1% included in that range "UPTO" 35%? <VBG> SignatureRobin Charleston, WV > > > We've been thru this > > > > > > see http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars_trucks/1802932.html > > > > > >> Here goes, has anyone actually tried a Ramjet Gas Saver? They claim upto > > >> 35% in savings, hard to believe. But with the price of gas these day ($1.16 a ltr) I was thinking of looking into these things. I'm not writing this to be flamed in any way but rather to get constructive inputs. > > >> Thanks in advance. > > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > Yabut isn't 1% included in that range "UPTO" 35%? <VBG> so is 0% Signature-Chris 05 CTD 99 Durango 06 Liberty CRD > > > > We've been thru this > > > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > so is 0% Ding...Ding...Ding...give that man a seegar...:-) SignatureRobin Charleston, WV > >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Yabut isn't 1% included in that range "UPTO" 35%? <VBG> > And, I believe going off a cliff with a 100 mph tail wind is required to get upto the 35% <vbg 2> You deserve every flame that comes your way on this. The question has come up numerous times and the answer is always the same. A tiny bit of research on your part would reveal how stupid your question really is. If someone here could ever find such a product, we would not hide it from the public. We would scream from the bell towers. You are exactly the type of person that these scammers depend on for profit. Next month they change the color or wording on the magic device and you will be back asking the same question. Some people can be told the fire on the stove is hot and understand while others need to touch it for themselves time after time. > You deserve every flame that comes your way on this. The question has > come up numerous times and the answer is always the same. You are right but I wouldn't be too hard on him. With the price of fuel rising, we all wish there were something that we could easily do to stretch out a tank. On the same topic, we've also gone through the debate of whether leaving your tailgate open will improve airflow and milage. It makes it worse by a little bit. There is a really great study on this with tailgate, tonneaus and canopies being tested but I can't rememeber where it is now. Also on topic are Teflon coatings etc such as Slick 50. There is a good page on these here: http://skepdic.com/slick50.html The only ways I know to save gas are: - don't drive - drive like a grandpa and go easy on the gas - plan trips when traffic is thinner - keep the truck tuned up and in order - don't use knobbier tires than you need and keep them at proper inflation. But I LIKE knobby tires... - ignore that moron in the Dodge beside you that wants to prove his truck is faster than yours. It's just going to cost you in gas. - if it is an option, pick the right gear ratio for the type of driving you do. That sort of thing. I do most of these and I still get pretty crappy milage. Stephen N. ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.autos.dodge.trucks.] > On the same topic, we've also gone through the debate of whether leaving > your tailgate open will improve airflow and milage. It makes it worse > by a little bit. There is a really great study on this with tailgate, > tonneaus and canopies being tested but I can't rememeber where it is now. It was done by the Mythbusters. Episode 43: ...Returning to shore, Adam and Jamie hit the road in a fuel efficiency special. They seek to answer the age-old question: Does driving with your pickup's tailgate down save gas and, hence, money? premiere: Nov. 16, 2005 Summary here: http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/11/episode_43_seasickness_cures_f.html the tailgate episode tested 2 identical ford trucks of the new vintage. I would like to see if the results hold true on Older body styles. on a side note I was reading some where that tire pressure had a big influence on MPG on late model trucks.. it seems that most dealers under inflate the tries)low side of recommended range) so as to improve the ride, where as most modern tires actually can run very high pressures I can tell you from first hand experience that tail-gate down on an 81 Chevy C10 deluxe longbed (20 gal tank) get's better mpg with it down vs. up. I used to drive to Penn State alot and my total round trip was 400.1 miles (door-to-door) - tail-gate up, i'd need to refuel at the KoP rest stop on the turnpike, tail gate down took me all the way home with enough gas to get to work the next day. This was originally a 6cyl. truck that I swapped a V8 350 motor into (out of an 89 IROC - roller cam motor, switched over to carbureted with an edelbrock intake and a 74 quadrobog off a big block). So it had the 6cyl. gearing but I had 31" tires on it (it pulled high 14's/low 15's in the 1/4 mile). Now why is it this thing would get better then 20mpg highway, when my modern fuel injected 02 dakota R/T is lucky to see 15-16 mpg highway (and with a 4 speed auto vs. a three speed auto to boot). I just don't get it. Hell my 1971 VW Fastback 1.6L with dual carbs got 30mpg, same as just about every new fuel injected car out there. Just goes to show that modern fuel injection is only there for emissions reasons and made no improvement on mpg. i hate to admit it. BUT! GM (and the jap/korean imports) seem to have a better handle on fuel management than ford or chrysler does. my step dad had a 88 c1500 (yes a c truck not k) with the 350 and got 22 highway. ive never owned a dodge (until now with the 05) that could reach those numbers. even still i like the dodges MUCH better than GM's crap. Signature-Chris 05 CTD 99 Durango 06 Liberty CRD > I can tell you from first hand experience that tail-gate down on an 81 > Chevy C10 deluxe longbed (20 gal tank) get's better mpg with it down [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > that modern fuel injection is only there for emissions reasons and made > no improvement on mpg. > I can tell you from first hand experience that tail-gate down on an 81 > Chevy C10 deluxe longbed (20 gal tank) get's better mpg with it down > vs. up. I doubt that. Every single wind tunnel test ever done on consumer pickups has shown an increase in drag when the tail gate is lowered. No reputable test has ever shown a lower drag coefficient which would be required to improve your mpg. Some other reason accounted for your gains but it was not the tail gate. >> I can tell you from first hand experience that tail-gate down on an 81 >> Chevy C10 deluxe longbed (20 gal tank) get's better mpg with it down [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >required to improve your mpg. Some other reason accounted for your >gains but it was not the tail gate. Well, I'll have to dissagree. On a longbed pickup, tailgate down or off DOES make a measurable difference. So does a tonneau cover. On some shortboxes the difference is less pronounced, but on my old Fargo (short box) it made almost 4mpg difference at highway speeds. I generally drove it with the tonneau on. > Well, I'll have to dissagree. On a longbed pickup, tailgate down or > off DOES make a measurable difference. So does a tonneau cover. > On some shortboxes the difference is less pronounced, but on my old > Fargo (short box) it made almost 4mpg difference at highway speeds. > I generally drove it with the tonneau on. And I'll have to disagree with ya! It's been done over and over with regards to wind tunnel testing. There is more drag with the tail gate down. It's been well proven time and again. Read up on the physics of why that is. http://www.hellerauto.com/faqs.htm http://horsepowersports.com/gas-mileage-and-pickup-tailgates/ http://www.looksmarttrucks.com/p/articles/mi_qa3828/is_200405/ai_n9439015 Got any wind tunnel tests proving otherwise? A tonneau cover can help mpg. This whole argument is meaningless and depending on given situations, either case can be true. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > Well, I'll have to dissagree. On a longbed pickup, tailgate down or [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > A tonneau cover can help mpg. > This whole argument is meaningless and depending on given situations, either > case can be true. Not usually. In almost all cases dropping the tailgate will increase drag. However, most tests done indicate the difference is not enough to see a change in mpg. >> This whole argument is meaningless and depending on given situations, >> either [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > drag. However, most tests done indicate the difference is not enough to > see a change in mpg. Miles has been on the money about this imo. I've not heard of any wind tunnel test that suggest a lessening of drag with the tail gate down or removed. Roy The thing Roy is that most people don't drive in wind tunnels and from what I see, seldom in completely stock trucks either. I agree that in base stock form, it is unusual for the truck to do better with the tailgate down as this was done by design. But if you change the angle of the truck, put something in the bed, add a bug deflector or perhaps an external sun visor, now you are changing the aerodynamics of the vehicle and the airflow into the bed can be significantly changed. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > >> This whole argument is meaningless and depending on given situations, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Roy > The thing Roy is that most people don't drive in wind tunnels and from > what [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > now you are changing the aerodynamics of the vehicle and the airflow into > the bed can be significantly changed. I guess Hendrick will be calling you at any time for you expertise in air flow.<G> Roy >> >> This whole argument is meaningless and depending on given situations, >> >> either [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> Roy > > The thing Roy is that most people don't drive in wind tunnels and from > > what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I guess Hendrick will be calling you at any time for you expertise in air > flow.<G> LOL, I am far from an expert in airflow but with the infinite possibilities that the customer can come up with to alter the airflow from that of when the truck was built, it is silly to make a statement that the tailgate up will ALWAYS do better. > Roy > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >> > >> Roy >> > The thing Roy is that most people don't drive in wind tunnels and from >> > what [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the truck was built, it is silly to make a statement that the tailgate up > will ALWAYS do better. Show me a test that shows a truck will do better with it down. Roy >> Roy >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >> >> >> Roy > >> > The thing Roy is that most people don't drive in wind tunnels and from > >> > what [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Show me a test that shows a truck will do better with it down. Nope, don't have to. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> >> > The thing Roy is that most people don't drive in wind tunnels and > from [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Nope, don't have to. I guess if that is your answer..... > Show me a test that shows a truck will do better with it down. > > Roy IIRC, there was one done with a 94-02 Ram that showed it did better with the gate up. SignatureMax "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> > The thing Roy is that most people don't drive in wind tunnels and from >>> > what [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >>> >> >>> >> Roy What aftermarket items and modifications were done to the trucks? I already said that in most if not all cases, that a bone stock truck will do better with the tailgate up but not all trucks remain this way. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > Show me a test that shows a truck will do better with it down. > > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > >>> >> > >>> >> Roy Wind tunnel tests do not always give the complete picture. Unless these tests are done with all of the modifications people tend to do to their trucks such as adding bug deflectors, bed mounted spare tires, leveling kits, roll bars, ect, all these wind tunnel test can show is what a basic stock truck can will do in perfect conditions. I am sure that by design and in stock form, empty, and under somewhat perfect conditions the truck will always do better with the tailgate up but that is not real world. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > This whole argument is meaningless and depending on given situations, either > > case can be true. > > Not usually. In almost all cases dropping the tailgate will increase > drag. However, most tests done indicate the difference is not enough to > see a change in mpg. > Wind tunnel tests do not always give the complete picture. Unless these > tests are done with all of the modifications people tend to do to their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in stock form, empty, and under somewhat perfect conditions the truck will > always do better with the tailgate up but that is not real world. Such modifications may reduce drag over all but the tail gate down will still increase drag rather than decrease it. > > Wind tunnel tests do not always give the complete picture. Unless these > > tests are done with all of the modifications people tend to do to their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Such modifications may reduce drag over all but the tail gate down will > still increase drag rather than decrease it. LOL, and your proof of this is where??? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > LOL, and your proof of this is where??? Geez. You made the statement that various addons to a truck would change the aerodynamics and possibly make the tailgate down reduce drage. Where is your proof on that? Fact is TBone, you completely took a wild guess with no basis. Wind tunnel tests have been done on far more than just stock trucks. Tests have been done for effects of tonneau covers, campers, camper shells, and more. It's not proof you want. It's your defense to making statements that are just guesses. > > LOL, and your proof of this is where??? > > Geez. You made the statement that various addons to a truck would > change the aerodynamics and possibly make the tailgate down reduce > drage. Where is your proof on that? Fact is TBone, you completely took > a wild guess with no basis. Yep, that is exactly what it is and backed up be the numerous claims by many that dropping their tailgates improved mileage, despite your wind tunnel tests. Saying that simple wind tunnel tests of basically stock vehicles are the absolute answer is in a word, idiotic. > Wind tunnel tests have been done on far more than just stock trucks. > Tests have been done for effects of tonneau covers, campers, camper > shells, and more. It's not proof you want. It's your defense to making > statements that are just guesses. No matter how you spin it, wind tunnel tests are not real world and what happens in the perfect conditions of a wind tunnel are not what always happens in the real world and I doubt that they test these vehicles with non factory add-on like bug deflectors and rear mounted spare tires. But if you know that they do, please provide some links to these tests as I am curious as to the results and what exactly was tested. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Yep, that is exactly what it is and backed up be the numerous claims by many > that dropping their tailgates improved mileage, despite your wind tunnel > tests. Saying that simple wind tunnel tests of basically stock vehicles are > the absolute answer is in a word, idiotic. People have claimed adding a tornado, magnets and other gizmos have increased their mpg as well. Think they really did? Doubtful. People will find what they are looking for. > No matter how you spin it, wind tunnel tests are not real world BULL. Are you aware that new airplane designs are completely tested on computer models and partial structural wind tunnel testing? If they don't represent the real world then how the heck do they test new airplanes such as the new A380 that flew its first flight without trouble....after scores of wind tunnel testing to prove its airworthiness. Wind tunnels tests certainly can and do prove a vehicles drag coefficient. >BULL. Are you aware that new airplane designs are completely tested on >computer models and partial structural wind tunnel testing? If they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >airworthiness. Wind tunnels tests certainly can and do prove a vehicles >drag coefficient. While a wind tunnel can be used to calculate some drag, it cann work as accurately as it does for a aircraft because aircfat only suffers from aerodynamic drag anf lift losses while a car has more varible in the overall formula. Also a aircrafts motion is always into the wind as to relative motion once it is airborne (if in a cross wind it will drift with it and adjust course for it) while a vehicle can experiaince wind drag for all angles and some of which may produce increased drag vs pure frontal air flow. ----------------- The SnoMan www.thesnoman.com > While a wind tunnel can be used to calculate some drag, it cann work > as accurately as it does for a aircraft because aircfat only suffers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > experiaince wind drag for all angles and some of which may produce > increased drag vs pure frontal air flow. Who says wind tunnel testing on cars is only done from pure frontal air flow? > > Yep, that is exactly what it is and backed up be the numerous claims by many > > that dropping their tailgates improved mileage, despite your wind tunnel [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > increased their mpg as well. Think they really did? Doubtful. People > will find what they are looking for. I am sure than in some of these cases, these things did work. The tornado has a valid design and if an intake system is not well designed, the vortex it creates could improve intake efficiency and cause an increase in HP and mileage. Will it happen in every vehicle, of course not but to say it will never happen is just being ignorant. Many of these gizmos will work in very specific situations and the builders of them try and make it look like it will work for all situations which is of course complete BS. > > No matter how you spin it, wind tunnel tests are not real world > > BULL. Are you aware that new airplane designs are completely tested on > computer models and partial structural wind tunnel testing? So what? Are you really comparing an airplane to a truck. That is one hell of a reach and completely incorrect. An airplane is always in the direct flow of air or it would fall out of the sky and most people who are still alive don't add things to the aircraft that will significantly change the aerodynamics of the aircraft. BTW, the computer models do most of that testing. > If they don't represent the real world then how the heck do they test new > airplanes such as the new A380 that flew its first flight without > trouble....after scores of wind tunnel testing to prove its > airworthiness. LOL, more like scores of computer model testing and again, an aircraft deals with airflow in a MUCH different mannor than a ground based vehicle. Ground based vehicles can drive through jet wash, shear winds, and turbulance with little more effect than being shaken a little. Can the same be said for your aircraft? > Wind tunnels tests certainly can and do prove a vehicles > drag coefficient. Sure it can and I never said anything different but then again, that is in line with the airflow, not counting turbulence, crosswinds, or changes to the airflow over the vehicle due to customer add-ons. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > I am sure than in some of these cases, these things did work. The tornado > has a valid design and if an intake system is not well designed, the vortex > it creates could improve intake efficiency and cause an increase in HP and > mileage. Will it happen in every vehicle, of course not but to say it will > never happen is just being ignorant. Hmm...how many cars has the tornado been proved effective at increasing mpg? I know of only ones that it has been proved ineffective. Know any examples with credible testing? > Sure it can and I never said anything different but then again, that is in > line with the airflow, not counting turbulence, crosswinds, or changes to > the airflow over the vehicle due to customer add-ons. Those customer add-ons have been tested for their effects in wind tunnel testing. > > I am sure than in some of these cases, these things did work. The tornado > > has a valid design and if an intake system is not well designed, the vortex [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > mpg? I know of only ones that it has been proved ineffective. Know any > examples with credible testing? Nope, but then again, I have no desire to purchase one so why would I bother? > > Sure it can and I never said anything different but then again, that is in > > line with the airflow, not counting turbulence, crosswinds, or changes to > > the airflow over the vehicle due to customer add-ons. > > Those customer add-ons have been tested for their effects in wind tunnel > testing. And you can prove this how and what exactly were they tested for? A bug for deflector for example is tested to make sure is creates enough airflow to keep the bugs off of the window and they could care less about if it would effect mileage with regards to the position of the tailgate. The same can probably be said for anything. The wind tunnel tests done on them, if any, are done to make sure that they will hold up and not cause the vehicle to become uncontrollable, not mileage with regards to the tailgate position. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > The wind tunnel tests done on them, if any, > are done to make sure that they will hold up and not cause the vehicle to > become uncontrollable, not mileage with regards to the tailgate position. What complete bull. Wind Tunnels tests are routinely done on vehicles to measure drag coefficients along with a host of other issues. It depends on the market the manufacture is aiming for as to which issue is of more importance than another for a particular vehicle. > > The wind tunnel tests done on them, if any, > > are done to make sure that they will hold up and not cause the vehicle to > > become uncontrollable, not mileage with regards to the tailgate position. > > What complete bull. Wind Tunnels tests are routinely done on vehicles > to measure drag coefficients along with a host of other issues. Yes, they are as they come from the factory, not with every consu,er add-on available and if you think they do, show me some. > It depends on the market the manufacture is aiming for as to which issue is > of more importance than another for a particular vehicle. On this we agree and the manufacturer of a bug deflector has a primary concern of keeping bugs off of the window, not mileage with regards to the tailgate and I doubt any wind tunnel tests are done at all for a rear mounted spare tire carrier or a roll bar. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving Thanks Bundy, I see your a person who types before he thinks. You make a judgement without knowing me, I just asked a question hoping to get, which I got from most, an intelligent answer. I could jump on your bandwagon with insults but it would only bring me to your level. For all the others, thanks for your replies. I've always been very sceptical of these types of claims, however, after reading on this forum for a while I figured this would be a good place to ask. Marc > You deserve every flame that comes your way on this. The question has > come up numerous times and the answer is always the same. A tiny bit of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the fire on the stove is hot and understand while others need to touch > it for themselves time after time. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.