Improved aerodynamics of a car

Tips, advice and tips to lower your consumption, processes or inventions as unconventional engines: the Stirling engine, for example. Patents improving combustion: water injection plasma treatment, ionization of the fuel or oxidizer.
laurent_caen
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 113
Registration: 07/05/06, 12:41




by laurent_caen » 15/07/06, 01:11

what you say is quite true, the standards at the level of pollutants (CO, particulate matter for diesel, unburned hydrocarbons ...) imposes an overconsumption of fuel (and therefore an increase of emission of CO2)
for example, the euro4 standard which entered into force this year forced some engines to be modified, sometimes leading them to consume more
however, a modern engine will still be more efficient than an old engine 20ans, otherwise we would not get the same consumption as before with cars 2 times heavier
0 x
User avatar
I Citro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5129
Registration: 08/03/06, 13:26
Location: Bordeaux
x 11




by I Citro » 15/07/06, 18:00

Of course, the overall efficiency has been improved, but as you said the anti-pollution standards and the new standards of comfort and safety degrade.

So there is 20 in a fairly light and well designed car consumed less than a current car heavier because of theemements of comfort and safety but especially the standards of pollution as the catalyst that led to a rise in consumption! : Evil:
My father was able to get down to 8L hundred 90km / h with his Dsuper5 (a Citroën DS 21 5 carburetor box) It was surely possible to do better with DS "electronic injection" :D

In my case, I will try to replace my catalytic converter with a "pantone catalyst" there are chances that I depollue more by consuming less, right? : Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 17/07/06, 15:07

citro wrote:[..] This allowed the Citroën to claim consumptions cons (3.8L diesel 100Km) at the time. [...]
3,6 l!
She had broken the Fiesta record (3,8 l) which had dethroned the 205 (3,9l).
This had also given rise to a "battle" with poster campaigns ...

For laurent, have you read this subject: https://www.econologie.com/forums/et-l-aerod ... t1738.html

in which a forumIs it about the same questions as you?
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 17/07/06, 15:26

laurent_caen wrote:[..] now is it possible to graft any modern engine without touching the rest, I'm not sure but a priori ...
There are at least two problems to this: the non homologation of the vehicle and the technical difficulty, surpassable only, for an individual, by a very good handyman with "heavy" equipment (pit or bridge, mechanical workshop equipment like tower or milling machine, welding machine, etc ...)
Then comes also the increasing complexity and integration of the electronics of monitoring and control in vehicles during the 15 last years or so.

My first car (Kadett "B"), aged 18 years when I acquired it, could receive by means of some modifications (manufacture of adapted engine supports) a Corsa engine which was the descendant of his, but remained comparable (engine with fairly simple carbu).

I very much doubt the possibility of installing a small HDi 206 in an AX for example ...
0 x
Macpherson
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 11
Registration: 14/07/06, 20:50
Location: CALVADOS 14




by Macpherson » 17/07/06, 20:01

Hi everybody,

it seems to me interesting to defend the cause of a little more important consumption. I explain, driving quiet is good it's relaxing, it does not tire the car.
consume as little as possible scares me if you imagine that on a car every day. Under the engine is used with a mixture saturated with fuel (lacking air) resulting in incomplete combustion which leads to reject too much C0 and not enough co2, not counting the unburned hydrocarbon particles.
In short, I will not make you a spitch of 20 pages, I simply defend the fact of:
> run in the optimum speeds of your engine, you will do less harm to it, will not necessarily consume +, and pollute "better".
and ... use the bike! : Mrgreen:

I read the idea of ​​a member on improving the Cx of his sax, I love the idea!

yes I was a ptite question of what you think ... hdi tdi, yen til others who do not like the smell of these engines the ??

see you soon
(a new lil of 14)
0 x
laurent_caen
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 113
Registration: 07/05/06, 12:41




by laurent_caen » 19/07/06, 20:49

to tell the truth, I thought about the lighter petrol engine with direct injection of C1, 107 and aygo
4.6l in standardized consumption for these cars, so how much in a lighter and more aerodynamic Ax ?!
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 20/07/06, 11:08

laurent_caen wrote:to tell the truth, I thought about the lighter petrol engine with direct injection of C1, 107 and aygo
4.6l in standardized consumption for these cars, so how much in a lighter and more aerodynamic Ax ?!
There is no (yet?) Gasoline direct injection engine in the 3 binoculars and besides, I'm not sure that the AX is really more aerodynamic. For weight, there is no photo, that's for sure ... : Wink:

Otherwise, we would have to find the figures of the AX at the time, but I think that the versions "Ten" or those with the 1124 cm3 engines injection should be better placed in conso (but measurement methods have changed since) .
0 x
laurent_caen
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 113
Registration: 07/05/06, 12:41




by laurent_caen » 20/07/06, 16:17

if, the small 1l toyota origin gasoline is well away from the direct injection, I confirm it to you
in terms of aerodynamics:
Ax: Scx = 0.57
C1: Scx = 0.633
this is due to the much larger front surface of the C1
(width of 1.63m and height of 1.47m against respectively 1.56m and 1.35m for the Ax)
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 20/07/06, 17:21

laurent_caen wrote:if, the small 1l toyota origin gasoline is well away from the direct injection, I confirm it to you
Here ? I have not seen it mentioned anywhere whereas generally, the builders are rather inclined to put it forward.
Would you have a link?
It would be the smallest engine equipped with this technology.

laurent_caen wrote:in terms of aerodynamics:
Ax: Scx = 0.57
C1: Scx = 0.633
this is due to the much larger front surface of the C1
(width of 1.63m and height of 1.47m against respectively 1.56m and 1.35m for the Ax)
Actually, I thought you only spoke about Cx, which must be better or at least equivalent on new models.
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 20/07/06, 18:33

Woodcutter wrote:[...] Otherwise, it would be necessary to find the figures of the AX at that time, but I think that the "Ten" versions or those with the 1124 cm3 engines with injection had to be better placed in conso (but the methods of measurements have changed since then too).
I found consumption figures 1997 for AX 1,0i (954 cm3) and comparing (digits of the newspaper) we see that the consumption is better in 2005, even with the weight and more.
AX in 1997: 7,2 l / 100 (urban test)
2005 Aygo: 6,8 l / 100 (urban test)

Should be seen with conso routes or standardized ...
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Special motors, patents, fuel consumption reduction"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 269 guests