New member, old hand
 

Hi everyone! I host a video on demand show that details alternative energy as well as increasing gas mileage. I started a new episode tonight about aero mods and during one of my many searches found this site. Imagine my surprise. :eek: Part of the show is filmed at my cabin which is about 250 miles one way, so gas mileage is pretty important.

Anyways, I've started with a '99 Dodge Dakota with a 3.8 V6. I got that truck up to 22.9 on the highway or 5/8 of a tank each way.

Now I've got a 2k Dakota with a 4.7 V8. I now have this truck at the exact same mileage as the 3.8, 22.9 on the highway, 21.5 city.

My goal is 25 mpg on the highway which translates to 1/2 tank each way. That would be sweet now that gas is approaching 3.50 a gallon here in SE Michigan.

Tonight I added (in addition to a partially closed grill, front air dam and bed cover) side skirts with a flair at the rear wheels. Of course all my mods are home brew. My next project is moving the high pressure area that slams on the bed cover at the tailgate 2 feet back behind the tailgate. You should see the bed cover; it's ripped up at the tailgate.

If you guys are interested, I can post video/photos of the mods.

Max

be sure to add your truck to the garage and start a gas log. my friend has that same truck with some mods im trying to get him to hypermile but its only on occation that he does if and when you get that mileage (you can) it will be great to show him.

Oh and post the the video and or pics if you can

I don't have the episode about the mileage done; just started shooting tonight. Each episode takes about 3 weeks. Since my publisher doesn't demand a tight schedule, I can take my time on each show. That way it's especially stupid once I add the beer.

I'll see if I can grab some of video and post it. The side skirts don't look TOO bad. You can see the screw heads but I did them the same color as the truck (black).

I'll get right on a quickie video short. Might get it done tonight.

Max

Welcome to the sight! I dont' think you will have any troubles reaching your goals once you develop your driving style a little better, and perhaps some more aerodynamic modifications.

I would be guessing that the cause of the torn toneau cover is buffeting. Have you considered a full on bed cap? This would be a very big help to your vehicles aerodynamics.

No cap, too much weight. One problem that presents itself is that I move one of my battery banks back and forth to the cabin - that adds 190 pounds by itself. That's one of the primary reasons why I have a regular cab, short bed. We can move the buffet back with the addition a small spoiler to the rear edge of the cab. I did some studying of the problem. An addition of a 1/2 inch 90 degree flat edge above the flow above the rear radius of the cab should solve the problem. This particular truck has a radius at the rear of the cab that appears to cause the airflow to dip into the bed. I think that the 1/2 inch will not add enough areo resistance to offset changing the pressure gradient onto the cover. I'm adding the strings to the cover this weekend to study the problem further. My current plan is to add the edge and drive with the strings attached at highway speeds. Worth the gas for the results.

Max

The benefits of an aeroshell on the back will more than make up for the weight penalty, unless all your driving is stop & go, sub 25 mph. You've seen Phil Knox's truck, yes?

Welcome to the site!

5 days out of the week is city. See, I live 9 miles from work. I'll video tape it tomorrow morning. My max. speed on the weekdays is 45 mph.

Moving extra mass up to speed is too much of a weight penalty. Power:weight. There are times that I need to get to speed now. I don't need dead weight holding me back.

Don't forget Michigan is the land of orange barrels. Stop, go, watch the idiots fly by to the end of the lane. Move in front of them with the semi's to block them. They're learning. Slowly. Even the highway can be stop and go.

Now if we can get a shell that comes in under a 100 pounds, that might tickle my fancy.

End result is don't bother trying to sell me on a cap/shell. Less weight requires less power to move to speed and keep it there. Let's move the air around instead. The top of these trucks is darned good. All I need to do is move the pressure back 2 feet. We can do this without a cap.

Max

Al. It's 'spensive, but light. 100-200lbs in a ~4500lb truck will only decrease off the line acceleration by ~2-4%, and if it drops Cd enough, will improve acceleration by more than that at higher speeds.

edit- What about a wood frame with a button up tarp? That'd weight maybe 30lbs and be cheaper'n dirt.

What he said. ;)

Looking forward to photos and video. Welcome to the site.

The Truck already has a cover on it.Weighs about 20 pounds with the frame - a LeBra.

I'll get the video done tonight.

Max

Welcome max! I hear you :rolleyes: . Met some new orange barrels this morning on I94.

In order to really help aero, it has to connect to the top of the cab and slope down at a 15 degree maximum angle. Like this.

This place rocks. Finally somewhere to go to talk about the crap I hang off my truck. Got a good portion of video last night - should have it tonight. It's up to 10 minutes already.

I re-did the rest of the front air dam this afternoon (took it off for the winter) which "pokes" out and covers the front tires. Also finished the side skirts up under the wheel well - goes all the way to the suspension. As soon as I'm done here (and grabbing a beer) I'm going to cut some plexi for the lower grill. I'm not holding my breath tho - the grill inserts added to the engine heat in stop and go traffic last summer and I had to run the electrics to keep it cool. But I'm hoping blocking the lower grill won't make too much difference.

My thought, looking at the cab is that at the rear of it there is a radius which probably pulls the airflow down. What I'm going to try is putting a 1/2 inch tall (about 1/4 inch exposed to the air stream) plexi piece across with a 6 inch gap in the center (where the cyclops is). Just got to move it up a teeny tiny bit.

Max

Here's a partial video. A finished product usually takes 3 weeks or so and would be about 20 minutes long. This one is quick and dirty (6 minutes, 73 megs) and isn't for public release but feel free to share it with your friends. Enjoy. I've been doing this aero crap for a few years now and with the pump prices going up, up, up I guess it's time to get this stuff into the public eye. The final version will be a full episode of This Old Shack on Associated Content where all the episodes appear.

I'm also thinking that I might want to collect photos of other vehicles and a short story about each one for the full episode, so if you have one PM me so we can get you your 15 minutes of fame.

This video shows the front air dam, side skirt construction, some details about the grill inserts and the new grill blockers. The full show will also have the cone air filter, lubrication choices, high pressure redirection and mileage details from stock to current (19.5 to start to 22.5 without these mods). I have to split my time between this and attempting to revive a AGM deep cycle for the battery bank for the next episode. Being a media mogul is hard work. :cool: AND I'm getting ready to shoot the upcoming solar panel episode.

Now I have to decide if I want to take the gasoline to drive on the highway to test this setup. I need more beer to make the decision.

Link:

This Old Shack: gas mileage edition

we need more videos. my friends truck has instintanious mileage do u have the same? i think from seeing that you have jumped into it that quickly that you should beable to hit your goal.

The overhead on the Dakota has the following:

Temp / compass
Total miles driven
avg. mileage
instant mileage
total engine run time since last reset
distance to empty

Have you ever noticed the conspiracy to make that makes every single traffic light red as you approach it?

Food for thought, kitcar. Similar truck.

https://f9g.yahoofs.com/groups/g_1577...Q0yTGBSxfWWWG8

Nice job and good find. What's that on the brake lights? Nice moon covers. Wonder if he attacked the bottom with an undertray. Is that pic linked to any website with more pics?

Have I mentioned how much I like this site? Finally people to talk to about this stuff.

Now THAT'S a big 10-4. I'd need a big 'ol sheet of Lexan for that tho. Could do it. I could put Christmas tree lights in it. Even better, :D a plasma with episodes of "This Old Shack" playing on it. Educate and confound, I always say.

I mounted the cab spoilers this afternoon while I was replacing the serpentine belt - I love serpentine belts. You young guys don't remember the days when you had 4 and 5 belts on a vehicle.

I'll have a little video of the spoilers shortly with instructions about how to form Lexan and plexiglas to the shape you want.

30 mpg, here I come!

Nice video! :thumbup: One word of caution, the more efficient you make your truck, the more inefficient you make the engine. Eventually, you'll hit a wall in terms of aero/rolling resistance modifications. However, because you've been making the truck so inefficient in terms of engine operation, once you hit that wall, you can generally pick up what you've already picked up w/ an appropriate OD gear. On the highway at least. For instance, lets say you make a canvas bed cover, get some LRR tires, etc... and get up 26mpg hwy from 20mpg hwy. With a gearing change, you should easily be able to get up to 30+mpg hwy, if not more depending on what level of acceleration compared to mileage you're willing to have. For a truck like that, I figure optimum is somewhere around 40+mpg cruising at 50-60mph, but you may not like being at half throttle on the highway at those speeds. My take is, everything my truck can do now, it could do w/ an extra OD gear, and I'll be able to get into the 40mpg highway range. If I want to accelerate, I'll drop it into fourth. But, you may not find this acceptable. YMMV.

Glad you liked the first gas mileage video. The second one is on the way. What I'm also going to do is driving techniques - with a manual transmission you really have a lot more options for saving gas; clutch in downhill, short shifting, skipping gears, etc.. Should be pretty entertaining. Might work in a burnout or two. :D

I try to do both hand-in-hand. Synthetic lube throughout the entire drive train, the cold air intake, IAT adjuster, colder/hotter plugs (depending on the season) and doing the aero mods. Remember, this particular engine (the 4.7) was designed with our German friends and is designed to be very efficient. With the manual and the 3.55 posi in it, I turn about 1,500 at 70. First gear is a creeper for towing. I generally go: 2nd, 3rd, 5th when shifting. Conversely, at 40 mph (which seems to be the "sweet spot") I'm getting anywhere from 32 to 36 mpg, steady state on a flat surface. It remains to be seen whether this changes with the newer aero additions.

Hmmm... Ime, I figure that 1500rpm for a 3L engine seems to be the sweet spot for a normal car, or even an efficient Phil Knox kinda truck. For an engine that big, at ~50-60mph peak efficiency could be had at ~1000rpm, if not lower depending on what the mods do. Provided of course it's a dohc gasser with a relatively flat torque curve. I'm guessing that right now, BSFC is in the 400-500g/kwh range, while ideally, it could be around the 300g/kwh. When you're cruising at 55mph in OD, assuming flat ground and no wind, about how much throttle (%) would you say you're at?

Darned if I know. I go so light on the gas pedal I'm surprised. I'm going to test the cab spoilers Sunday morning (5-20-07) so I'll pay close attention to that. I'll make sure I remember to shoot video of it. I can tell you this; gas mileage at 50-60 sucks. I get great at 40-45 and then it picks up again at 65 to 70 or so. 55 is (or has been) a joke. I was getting 24-25 at 65 mph and 20-21 at 55. Go figure. Depending on the wind (hopefully a dead issue with the side skirts) I get the same mileage at 70 as I do at 65. But I can get in the wake of a semi at 65 and stay there for a long time, so I drive 65. The secret is to find the spot where the buffeting is the greatest from the semi (usually about 10 car lengths back) and stay there.

I'm going to start another thread with the cab spoiler video.

If you really are that light at a 55mph flat cruise, engine eff is probably about half of what it could be. Have you checked the mileage at different speeds by using bi-directional runs within minutes of each other at whatever average speed in the same gear? I haven't seen an engine that will decrease in efficiency compared to speed faster than power levels climb compared to speed, so I'm thinking there may be some confounding factors influencing your speed versus mpg results.

As a matter of fact, I have. I'm suspecting a torque curve issue. These engines respond readily to changes in the front as well as the back end. It has to do with the fuzzy logic the Dodge ECU uses and its' learning curve as well as the physical limitations of the stock components. I "probably" could do a temporary fix by resetting the computer to a learning cycle but hesitate to do that until I'm sure what the aero changes are doing. With the cold air intake (and) without decreasing the exhaust back pressure...well there you go. I doubt if it's a physical efficiency issue in the engine itself, rather a ancillary one related to intake/exhaust flow. I've seen that before on this family of engine. Until now, I haven't had the gumption to do anything about exhaust flow but it might be time to think about a more free flowing exhaust system. Once you free up the intake system (and these engines are pretty darn good flowing in the hydrodynamics department right out of the box) you need to pay attention to removing the combusted gasses - which I've neglected thus far. Headers wouldn't help much - Dodge has always had excellent stock manifolds. The intake is formed plastic, the TB design is top notch - darned thing is fly-by-wire. The exhaust however can be improved on a lot just by ditching the stock muffler and putting in a free flowing box. Some Dakota guys also delete the second cat which I hesitate to do. Which would bring us to the state of the cats themselves - 56k miles on them. Now you've got me thinking about the actual engine efficiency. Another point is this; my last Dakota had the 3.9 V6 Magnum, same transmission, same body style, 500 lbs less curb weight, same wheels, same tires right down to the brand. In fact, I used the same air filter from that truck on this one, even the same intake hose system I made - I took it off when I sold it. I got the EXACT same mileage (up to now) 22.5 on the highway with it as I do with the 4.7. That's one of the reasons I'm so secure in my empirical evidence - I have a fairly large body of experience to draw from with this vehicle. That's why I'm doubtful that the 40 mpg as a top isn't possible. I'd be surprised by 30 to 35 mpg. But what I've gotten so far has surprised me so anything is possible.

Well, I see everyone has that glazed look in their eyes so it's time for another beer. Beer is the perfect food. It's a fluid, has carbs, fiber, relaxes you and tastes good as well is an excellent substitute for common sense in many cases.

I started a new thread with my videos.

It's just the nature of most gasoline and older diesel engines ime. Unless it's a newer diesel, or an Atkinson cycle gasser, BSFC will always be poor at lower loads. Peak efficiency is around 250g/kwh, but if what you're saying is true about throttle position, then you're in the 400-500g/kwh range. It's just something I've noticed that's pretty consistent across the years. Be it older diesels, or newer gassers, anything below ~half throttle will be less than ideal, and at a quarter or less throttle, horrible. The intake and exhaust will move these ovals around slightly, but it's just a matter of low load pumping losses in general. Ideally, we want a little more or less than half throttle and whatever our desired cruising speed. Any more, and we only gain a little bit of efficiency while losing a big chunk of available power. Any less, and efficiency goes in the ****ter at an increasing rate. Even economy cars these days are sometimes geared way high. For example, the Honda Accord and Element both have the same engine, and for the conditions on the EPA highway test, need nearly the same amount of power, with a little more required for the Element. But because the Element is geared so high in terms of OD, probably due to the market it's being sold to, it looses nearly 10mpg on the highway compared to the Accord. Naturally the downside to taller gearing is less available power, but I'd give up being able to go 75-85mph in OD for an extra ~7-15mpg.

I'm playing devils advocate here with this response, so bear with me. I'm trying to simplify this as much as possible - I'm going to use it in my next full episode of "This Old Shack". Doing my reporter BS, I am.

But if that's the case why would I be seeing 35-36 mpg at 25-35 mph where my throttle is so much lighter? Even at 40 mph, I'm seeing mpg in the 30s. I understand the aero drag causes big losses in mpg but even in a tail wind I only see another 1-2 mpg at highway speeds.

If we take the inefficiencies of the engine to be a truism I wouldn't be seeing the mileage rate that I do at lower speeds but would see less. Now, with the drive train taken into account (I'm in 5th gear as low as 25 mph), I'm just loping along at 900 or 1,100 rpms at low speeds and I see higher mpg. That just seems to scream higher efficiency at lower speeds. If the efficiency is lower at lower throttle levels, one would expect to see lower mpg.

At a gut level here's what I'm saying: at low speeds, I get higher gas mileage. At higher speeds, it's lower. Logic dictates no matter what the efficiency of the engine, if I get higher mileage at "X" speed, then the drive train is more efficient at that particular speed, which is in the 25-35 mph range.

----

At the one end, without the aero drag at low speeds, we see high mpg (even though the efficiency of the engine might be at its lowest), at the other end we see lower mpg with higher aero drag even though the engine might be operating at its peak efficiency. As we decrease the aero drag, mileage increases until we reach a break even point in engine efficiency at "X" rpms. The key point is to get your rpms, engine efficiency and aero drag to be as co-equal as possible at the highest speed possible given all of the parameters.

---

As I said, I'm trying to simplify this for the average viewer so I can communicate it to others.

I think the most important think to note for the average person is that engine efficiency and fuel economy do not correlate exactly, :p

Earlier tonight I was enjoying a double Boca Burger (honest, I've got $1.00 off coupons) and thinking the exact same thing to myself. At this point in the gasoline pricing cycle it's going to be even more important to educate the uneducated. They've got to understand that you have to slow down and if you're not going to get a subcompact at least consider hanging some crap off the thing to streamline it, even a little bit would help.

The important point that I make to myself as I've learned after jumping with both feet into the aero deal after pissing around with it for a year is that getting the two as close as possible is the key.

The hard part for me is to actually get in front of the camera and explain this for the layperson. I keep asking myself if I should dumb it down or gradually ramp the theory up until the viewer understands the concept. I prefer the latter. But that's the hard part because I like to screw around. :sigh:

I need some PMs to discuss this. Once I get the theory together I'm going to need some people to check my point of view.

Yup. There's *two major things. Vehicle/glider efficiency compared to speed, and engine efficiency compared to speed. Since, in just about every instance I've seen, the power required to move a vehicle in OD drops faster than engine efficiency drops in OD, going slower will almost always result in better mileage, at least at speeds above ~30-40mph. While going slower and getting better mileage means that overall vehicle efficiency is increasing, it doesn't mean that drive train efficiency is increasing. It's actually decreasing. Just not as fast as the vehicle efficiency is increasing. So, you see a net gain in mileage.

For instance, assuming your truck has a Crr=.015, Cd=.45, A=4m^2, and W=20000N, at ~25mph you'll need ~6hp, and at ~100mph needs ~168hp. So, you need 28 times the energy to go 4 times farther in an hour, which means your truck needs 7 times more energy per mile to go 100mph compared to 25mph. Otoh, I doubt by going from 100mph to 25mph you'll see a seven fold increase in fuel efficiency because at 100mph your engine is operating at peak efficiency, while at 25mph it's operating at much less than this, but the differences are still likely a factor of 3-4 compared to a factor of 7 for power.

*Well, actually there's transmission, driveshaft, etc.. But they aren't as big.