View Single Post
Old 01-27-2012, 03:53 PM   #21
DGthe3
Moderator.ca
 
DGthe3's Avatar
 
Drives: 05 Grand Am GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Niagara, Canada
Posts: 25,366
Send a message via MSN to DGthe3
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCaptain View Post
I know trucks are workhorses and everything, but isn't going more boxy less aerodynamic (read less fuel economy) then moving to a more aero advanced design?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brokinarrow View Post
Would have to ask some one familiar with fluid dynamics... but it would make sense to me that more boxy = more drag and less efficiency.
I'm not an aero expert either but I do know that there's far more at play than brick vs egg. There are a lot of things that may seem like they're important to the average person but in reality, they play a small role. Meanwhile, seemingly inconsequential items can be critical to the overall efficiency. I don't know what these things are, but I know that peculiarities like that exist.

You also have to factor in how the entire chain of 'flow events' (I just made that term up by the way) occurs. It might be beneficial to make a bit of a sacrifice in one spot so that you can reduce the airflow to another point of particularly high drag elsewhere. And of course, when someone buys a truck, they want it to look like a truck. An extra half an mpg on the highway is probably worth less to customers than looking like the truckiest truck that ever trucked.
__________________
Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them
__________________
Originally Posted by FbodFather
My sister's dentist's brother's cousin's housekeeper's dog-breeder's nephew sells coffee filters to the company that provides coffee to General Motors......
........and HE WOULD KNOW!!!!
__________________

Camaro Fest sub-forum
DGthe3 is offline   Reply With Quote