https://youtu.be/ZGiviT-C_oY
This will get you to 0L fuel consumption in no time...
Mirage Hyper-Miler
Space can you do offsets for all of OzVolvo?
FZJ80 is averaging 16L/100
HJ45 about 12
Commodore about 15
Paint is going to come up ok. Note white vinyl over the roof rack holes.
ChrisSounds doable I'd have thought, and you seem to have lots of good ideas.
You may be better off not looking for aero mods, the 'aesthetically challenged' ones may actually harm the CD, and if you fluked a kit that worked to increase downforce that would actually increase consumption too.
The other stuff you mentioned like a belly pan could help but would be a PITA to do I imagine. Still, I admire your spirit and look forward to the results!
The aero stuff that I am planning is well proven.
Stuff like taping the gaps makes only a tiny difference but is also easy and non-intrusive. On the other hand, a flat under-floor will give much better gains, but for a lot more work.
I was getting near 5 on my commute in when I was driving a mirage so you should easily go sub 5 I reckon
Leave it outside during a Canberra storm and you'll have that fresh golf-ball aero profile in no time.
Seriously, get more air to the back. Diffuse it from underneath, bring it in from the sides, whatever.
I can see a big fan being purchased for an impromptu wind tunnel and smoke tracers.....
Youd be better off focusing on weight reduction. Poly windows. Remove sound deadening. Lithium battery. Remove air-con. Strip interior. Drive with no more than the fuel you need for the trip.
eggYoud be better off focusing on weight reduction. Poly windows. Remove sound deadening. Lithium battery. Remove air-con. Strip interior. Drive with no more than the fuel you need for the trip.
Nah, weight reduction works for stop-and-go but does hardly anything at constant speed.
Averaged out, I stop 2~3 times on my way to work, and 5~6 times on the way home (more traffic and more right turns onto/across busy roads on the way home).
This is in 55km each way, so it is a pretty clear run.
RoinikLeave it outside during a Canberra storm and you'll have that fresh golf-ball aero profile in no time.
Seriously, get more air to the back. Diffuse it from underneath, bring it in from the sides, whatever.
I have been trying to figure out if I can justify calling it a Kamm back or not... leaning towards “not”, mostly due to the rounded edges on the back corner.
The Lancer coupe looks like a better shape to my untrained eye - tapered turret, longer boot with square edges.
But I really don’t know, and couldn’t find a viable coupe to start with - seems like Mirages were sold new to mums and P-platers in about equal numbers, but the coupes went exclusively to P-platers and were variously flogged to death, attacked by ricer mods and/or badly neglected.
@Ex850R, there’s a definite chance of some wool-tuft testing.
The vehicle mass directly related to engine load. More load more fuel. You should also lower, and stiffen the drive train and suspension. Loss of inertia
Going by aircraft dynamics and engine performance,they fly higher in thinner air and use less fuel and can go faster so you should get a lift kit really..............
eggThe vehicle mass directly related to engine load. More load more fuel. You should also lower, and stiffen the drive train and suspension. Loss of inertia
The load is only particularly relevant when accelerating the mass.
There’s plenty of talk about this on ecomodders.
The lowering is a given. It reduces the frontal cross sectional area of the car by the amount that the tyres are “hidden”, and (more importantly) it reduces the air that can get under the car.
Mythbusters proved that turning it into a golf ball will significantly improve the areo
An engine is continually under load. Just varying amounts. I'd also look at thin, hard tyres. If your purely concerned with your fuel consumption the use 98 with octane booster.
And unfortunately due to earths gravity your always accelerating
https://www.wired.com/2012/08/fuel-economy-vs-mass/
egghttps://www.wired.com/2012/08/fuel-economy-vs-mass/
Yeah, so reducing the mass of the Mirage won’t change its engine or its aerodynamics.
I will absolutely experiment with fuels, but past experience strongly suggests that 98 octane fuel won’t improve the fuel economy of a SOHC 4G15.
It is a common myth that more octane magically makes more power and/or improves economy. Octane ratings are ONLY about detonation resistance - if it doesn’t want to detonate on 91, then giving it more octane does nothing for you.
The whole topic is confused by ECUs being programmed to use knock sensing to alter fuel and ignition timing, but the fundamental point remains: more octane only helps if the motor can use it. As I said, I will definitely experiment, but I seriously doubt that a 1990s Mitsubishi commuter car will benefit from more than 91 octane dishwater.
This statement regularly outrages people on various forums and FB pages, but has never been refuted:
Use the lowest octane fuel that reliably avoids detonation.
Egg, mass is only a fraction of the story when you're moving. It is important if you have a lot of hills to climb though. So, mass relating to friction/rolling resistance is linear. Mass related to hill climbing is linear, however the energy related to the rate of ascent is squared.
Aerodynamic loss related to the front of the car (aka wind resistance) is related to the (area x velocity)cubed.
The long and short of it is to lower aero drag wherever you can, maintaining the radiator cooling inlet at the static point, venting that air behind the car to minimise the disturbed low pressure created by the sharp trailing bluff tail (aka aero drag) and to drag as much air in behind the car to lower the drag further. That is why the most aero shape is a tear-drop.
@Spac check out the Milan SL velomobile for some ideas.