Thread: Aerodynamics.............

And yet despite all this and the fact that they running a constant 4wd system they are still no worse, if not marginally better than most jap 4wds for fuel economy.
Says something for European diesel technology

I've got an app on my phone that I use to track fuel/servicing trends and costs. I have noticed that I get the best economy if I stay around 90kmh. I'll averidge 11.3 L/100 km. Bear in mind I have a bit of a weight problem as the cars 2.4 tonne. So all up pretty happy.
If I tow the camper though, I'm at the mercy of the gods! It shoots up to 13.9 L/100km

Cheers

Originally Posted by landy

I've got an app on my phone that I use to track fuel/servicing trends and costs. I have noticed that I get the best economy if I stay around 90kmh. I'll averidge 11.3 L/100 km. Bear in mind I have a bit of a weight problem as the cars 2.4 tonne. So all up pretty happy.
If I tow the camper though, I'm at the mercy of the gods! It shoots up to 13.9 L/100km

Cheers

What engine is it?

the towing kills me too. fuel consumption is much better than the jap varieties, but its not apples for apples when you compare it to the larger capacity toyota engines (i much rather prefer LR choice in diesel motors). That said, no where near as good as my mates amarok around town and on the tow.

That said, I noticed towing with the 110 post remap was better.

The aerodynamics is not great, but I think even worse with a 130 and canopy.......

The square rear of the wagon/hardtop is almost certainly a lot more aerodynamic
than you think, as the sharp corners allow the airflow to break cleanly from the
sides and roof. The front is more problematic, and drag would almost certainly
be improved by a row of vortex generators across the front edge of the bonnet
and mudguards - this would also help reduce the number of insects on the
windscreen.

These blokes are on the wrong track then.
Airtab: Aerodynamic fuel savers for truck, tractor, trailer, bus, RV
I have tried them on an RRC but didn't seem to make any difference + or-, but I was towing my camper trailer.

Regards Philip A

Originally Posted by PhilipA

These blokes are on the wrong track then.
Airtab: Aerodynamic fuel savers for truck, tractor, trailer, bus, RV
I have tried them on an RRC but didn't seem to make any difference + or-, but I was towing my camper trailer.

Regards Philip A

Yeah sharp corners only work on boats that plane on water. On vehicles they make for big suction behind the vehicle that makes the Cd worse.

If blunt rear ends were awesome then planes would have blunt rear ends. But they don't, they taper to minimum.

Originally Posted by Dougal

Yeah sharp corners only work on boats that plane on water. On vehicles they make for big suction behind the vehicle that makes the Cd worse.

If blunt rear ends were awesome then planes would have blunt rear ends. But they don't, they taper to minimum.

When I used to make R/C 3D Funfly aircraft I used to leave the trailing edges of control surfaces squared off , this in effect , aerodynamically speaking made the surfaces appear to have about 1/3 more chord , and made the model much more manoeuvrable , but at the expense of drag, and flutter at high speed, But 3D models are generally only flown at low speed.

Strangely my Iveco , which admittedly is more aerodynamic than a Defender but a lot higher, returns the same fuel consumption no matter if I going 85kmh or 110kmh ??

I don't know what this does for drag but it does seem to keep the rear window cleaner

Originally Posted by PhilipA

These blokes are on the wrong track then.
Airtab: Aerodynamic fuel savers for truck, tractor, trailer, bus, RV
I have tried them on an RRC but didn't seem to make any difference + or-, but I was towing my camper trailer.

Regards Philip A

No, they are on the right track - but the square corners are better than rounded corners typically seen on most cars. To give an example, the Citrroen DS, which has an exceptionally low drag coefficient, looks rounded at the back - but this is deceptive. The back ends aerodynamically in a sharp step that breaks airflow away, extending round the sides and top of the rear window, and a similar step across below the bumper, terminating underbody, which smooths airflow by having the underbody gap smallest between the front wheels and increasing smoothly back from there. Adding these vortex generators would improve airflow, but don't expect a big difference, as much of the drag is from turbulent airflow under the vehicle and from the sheer size of the frontal area.

John