Any MPG Fans here??

[racprops]

"My truck gets that now. Honestly a rectangular shaped vehicle(a van) wouldn’t be my choice for increasing mpg. Seems like you’ve been at this for a looong time without much success. I suppose eventually the wheel can be reinvented - with enough money."

In my research I have found AREO does not really make much MPG.

I also found a simple cosmetic ground effects dress up kit on my 93 Star Craft G20 Chevy Van, makes a MAJOR difference in how she handles side winds and passing Big Rigs...:

I have read and hear that statement over and over about Vans and Trucks.

If that was true then it would be impossible for that tall non-Aerodynamic Heavier 2019 Express van powered by a Gasoline 4.3 V6 even with all the super tech and a 8 speed with its final gear ratio of .65 into 3.42 Would be running about 1400RPMs @ 55MPH and 1600 @ 65MPH.

So we have a heavier, less areo Express Van underpowered with a baby engine with nearly the gears and Low RPMs I am shooting for getting a EPA rating of 19MPG City and 29MPG Highway.

HOW did that happen??

As for my 93 G20:

About the not being blown off the roads, and of Aerodynamics:

I bought my 93 Star Craft Custom Van after having stock Chevy vans for decades (1978 till around 2005 when I bought the 93,) I was concerned that with the raised roof and side ground effects would make winds worst for driving.

I drove a 74 Chevy van full time during the 80s and crossed the US on many times, in the 90s and into the 2000s it was then a 78 van. Again we did a lot of road trips all over.

I was VERY used to fighting for control with cross winds and when passing or being passed by BIG RIGS. The bow wake of air would buffer and push my vans all over the road; I am sure near every Van owner knows what I am talking about.

My first road trip showed me that was NOT a problem. Cruising at 75 MPH I was over taking a Big Rig and I braced for the fight as I over took the cab…and..and WTF no fight, I breezed by this big truck….

Must have been a trick cross wind that stopped the bow wake of the big rig, BUT it happened again and again, almost no effects of passing trucks, and even when I was over took by even faster big rigs.

OMG The stream lining ground effects of the Star Craft panels which I loved for their LOOKS really works. I have had the van for 15 years now and LOVE this effect.

I believe these ground effects keep air from under the van and I believe this nearly stops the effects of bow wakes and losers the effects of cross wind on my G20 van.

But there seems to be a catch, as far as I have been able to learn this ONLY works with the old Star Craft costume vans, the newer look alike vans are not close enough to the ground for this to work.

Also I know big rigs do everything to help their MPG, and my van looks a lot like most newer rigs, and I see deflectors on the trailers that seem to cut air from under the trailers as well.

Check out how many Big Rigs are pulling trailers with an odd panel under the trailer…these are to help block air from getting under the box…I do not know it these help with MPG or just stabilize the box from winds.

They would not add anything that did not work.

As these only came on these old van and many people really are not interested in completely rebuilding an old van my best suggestion is to either lower the newer vans or add to the front air dam and side skirting to get this effect.

Rich

 

[Onizukachan]

I got a 75% increase in mpg by changing the original 1995 single wire 02 to a new one...

from 4mpg (with double OD) to 7mpg.

if I really wanted mpg I think I’d have to go 12v cummins, or at least update the engine to something that isn’t a 7.5:1 compression, maybe vortex 7.4 or 8.1.

I did the chase mpg thing with my diesel wagon, got 49.9 mpg driving conservatively at 65. then I said * this, lowered it, put 19s on it added a lip spoiler, etc… Still got better than 45 driving normally at 75-80. And 30+ in town.


I do oft wish I had it back.

 

[Caman96]

"My truck gets that now. Honestly a rectangular shaped vehicle(a van) wouldn’t be my choice for increasing mpg. Seems like you’ve been at this for a looong time without much success. I suppose eventually the wheel can be reinvented - with enough money."

In my research I have found AREO does not really make much MPG.

I also found a simple cosmetic ground effects dress up kit on my 93 Star Craft G20 Chevy Van, makes a MAJOR difference in how she handles side winds and passing Big Rigs...:

I have read and hear that statement over and over about Vans and Trucks.

If that was true then it would be impossible for that tall non-Aerodynamic Heavier 2019 Express van powered by a Gasoline 4.3 V6 even with all the super tech and a 8 speed with its final gear ratio of .65 into 3.42 Would be running about 1400RPMs @ 55MPH and 1600 @ 65MPH.

So we have a heavier, less areo Express Van underpowered with a baby engine with nearly the gears and Low RPMs I am shooting for getting a EPA rating of 19MPG City and 29MPG Highway.

HOW did that happen??

As for my 93 G20:

About the not being blown off the roads, and of Aerodynamics:

I bought my 93 Star Craft Custom Van after having stock Chevy vans for decades (1978 till around 2005 when I bought the 93,) I was concerned that with the raised roof and side ground effects would make winds worst for driving.

I drove a 74 Chevy van full time during the 80s and crossed the US on many times, in the 90s and into the 2000s it was then a 78 van. Again we did a lot of road trips all over.

I was VERY used to fighting for control with cross winds and when passing or being passed by BIG RIGS. The bow wake of air would buffer and push my vans all over the road; I am sure near every Van owner knows what I am talking about.

My first road trip showed me that was NOT a problem. Cruising at 75 MPH I was over taking a Big Rig and I braced for the fight as I over took the cab…and..and WTF no fight, I breezed by this big truck….

Must have been a trick cross wind that stopped the bow wake of the big rig, BUT it happened again and again, almost no effects of passing trucks, and even when I was over took by even faster big rigs.

OMG The stream lining ground effects of the Star Craft panels which I loved for their LOOKS really works. I have had the van for 15 years now and LOVE this effect.

I believe these ground effects keep air from under the van and I believe this nearly stops the effects of bow wakes and losers the effects of cross wind on my G20 van.

But there seems to be a catch, as far as I have been able to learn this ONLY works with the old Star Craft costume vans, the newer look alike vans are not close enough to the ground for this to work.

Also I know big rigs do everything to help their MPG, and my van looks a lot like most newer rigs, and I see deflectors on the trailers that seem to cut air from under the trailers as well.

Check out how many Big Rigs are pulling trailers with an odd panel under the trailer…these are to help block air from getting under the box…I do not know it these help with MPG or just stabilize the box from winds.

They would not add anything that did not work.

As these only came on these old van and many people really are not interested in completely rebuilding an old van my best suggestion is to either lower the newer vans or add to the front air dam and side skirting to get this effect.

Rich

So, I’m just trying to keep it simple. Since the 70’s till now, in all your research and testing, what actually worked with any significant effect?

 

[fancyTBI]

This guy was a fan of MPG: Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell.

 

[racprops]

"Since the 70’s till now, in all your research and testing, what actually worked with any significant effect?"

Other that getting a 2000 Mercury that got 30MPG at 65MPH at 1700RPMs going lean with it netted 35MPG at 65MPH at 1700RPMs.

Making a living up unit the past 5 years keep me from any major changes.

The second Overdrive is shown (many other testings) to give from 1 to 5 More MPG...

I believe and hope both can be used at the same time giving a fairly sure extra 10MPG with in my Van and Explorer could take a 15MPG to 25MPG which will be great.

Rich

 

[racprops]

"This guy was a fan of MPG: Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell."

NOPE I tested HHO and found it did not work.

Switching the whole world to water power cars would be a disaster, we barely have enough clean water for drinking and food, so to take the amount of water to run all the cars would be impossible, a major dumb ass idea.

Rich

 

[Moparmat2000]

The most effective way is to put a 2x4 under the gas pedal. Staying out of that gas pedal is the best way to improve mileage.

Set your alignment to 1/16" to 1/8" toe-in so that at speed the drag keeps your wheels aligned.

Keep your tires aired up to their max pressure. Keep in mind that every 10 degrees F in temperature will raise your tire pressure 1 psi. If you air your tires to 45 psi on a 30 degree morning, on a 100 degree day your tire pressure will be at 52 psi.

Get the narrowest tires that will run safely on your rims.

Lower your truck and run the factory under-bumper lip.

Run the sport mirrors instead of the elephant ears.

Either keep the tailgate up, or get a tonneau cover.

I don't have numbers because I'm not obsessive about it.

I will add to that quote. Rear end gearing, a 5 speed stick, and use the cruise control. My last trip from Abilene to Dallas and back to Summit Racing to pick up a main floor pan for a project car, I averaged 24 mpg. This was a 300 mile round trip. Truck has a 350, 5 speed manual with O/D, and 3.55s rear tires are 275 60 15s truck has a 2-4 drop, 454 SS mirrors, the front lower air dam. I set the cruise at 72 mph. I was quite shocked. I did the math twice. I figured it was going to get maybe 20-21 mpg. I even ran 87 in it. My new daily driver 2022 Ford maverick 2.0 turbo AWD will knock down 30 -31 mpg on the same trip. So my 29 year old silverado still does very well in the MPG department for what it is, and it's got 165K on it. My neighbor has a toyota tundra with toyotas 5.7L V8. He's lucky to get 18mpg. LOL. Like the old Freightliner trucks adverts, I refer to my 94 as "the efficient machine"

 

[L31MaxExpress]

I will add to that quote. Rear end gearing, a 5 speed stick, and use the cruise control. My last trip from Abilene to Dallas and back to Summit Racing to pick up a main floor pan for a project car, I averaged 24 mpg. This was a 300 mile round trip. Truck has a 350, 5 speed manual with O/D, and 3.55s rear tires are 275 60 15s truck has a 2-4 drop, 454 SS mirrors, the front lower air dam. I set the cruise at 72 mph. I was quite shocked. I did the math twice. I figured it was going to get maybe 20-21 mpg. I even ran 87 in it. My new daily driver 2022 Ford maverick 2.0 turbo AWD will knock down 30 -31 mpg on the same trip. So my 29 year old silverado still does very well in the MPG department for what it is, and it's got 165K on it. My neighbor has a toyota tundra with toyotas 5.7L V8. He's lucky to get 18mpg. LOL. Like the old Freightliner trucks adverts, I refer to my 94 as "the efficient machine"

My 99 Tahoe would regularly get 22-23 mpg on P305/50R20s with 3.42s and a 4L60E on flat land. Drive up 287 toward Wichita Falls from Fort Worth and I would end up pulling the shifter down to 3rd it shifted around so much.

My mom has a 2019 5.6L crew cab Titan. It has seen 24 mpg on a long all highway trip at 70-75 mpg. The 5.6L/7spd/2.94 rear gear is a nice setup in that truck. Plenty of get up and go too even with that 2.94 rear gear because 1st gear is 4.78:1. My 2011 M56S had basically the same driveline with a 2.62 gear and it would often get 26-28 mpg if I could keep that car under 90 mph.

 

[618 Syndicate]

In my research I have found AREO does not really make much MPG.

Of all the things you've said, this statement is the most telling.
A person with even a very basic understanding of physics realizes that a vehicle shape which causes less resistance requires less energy to move it.
No wonder you have been unsuccessful at this for 20 years, you have no idea what you're doing.

 

[L31MaxExpress]

Of all the things you've said, this statement is the most telling.
A person with even a very basic understanding of physics realizes that a vehicle shape which causes less resistance requires less energy to move it.
No wonder you have been unsuccessful at this for 20 years, you have no idea what you're doing.

Agree, even a basic understanding of physics would also allow him to calculate the necessary power to move a given frontal area into the wind at a specified velocity. That can then be used to properly adjust the overall gearing to provide the necessary power. As I have pointed out in other posts a few hundred rpm makes or breaks the efficiency of a vehicle and lower rpm is not better for pushing a box down the road. His 30 mpg 4.3L/8spd Express van example is a fantasy. My buddy has one, a standard low-top extended length 2500 work van that is always loaded down with 1,500+ lbs of tools and equipment.. It gets worse mileage than his prior L96/6L90E work van and has ZERO power. Prior to the L96 van he had a 6.6L Duramax van. The Duramax van got 2x the mileage in the real world of the gas van.

If he was really concerned with mileage he would find a good small diesel like a 4BT and swap it in. I have seen one of those that was turned up a little (turbo upgrade with an intercooler added, marine injectors, and a couple other tweaks)get mid 20s in fuel mileage in a square body 4x4 suburban on 35s. That suburban had a 47RH which was basically a 727 with a gear vendors style OD behind it (Dodge used that trans behind some of the early Cummins and V10 2nd gen Rams) and factory 3.42 gears.