10% Gas saving with an undertray...anyone try this?

[sad-lumina-owner]

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...prius-587.html

From the Australian web magazine Autospeed -

Some of you may have seen these already...

Modifying Under-Car Airflow, Part 1

Modifying Under-Car Airflow, Part 2

Originally these articles used to be pay-access only, but they've opened them up for public access now.

The project documents the creation of a prototype front partial undertray for a 1st gen Prius, testing, and then fabrication of a permanent version.

Before:



Mockup:



Final version:



The writer reports a 10+% improvement in fuel economy at freeway speeds (100km/h) with the mod in place. I frankly find that a bit difficult to believe, though I don't doubt there was some improvement.

If you read the article you can find a few holes in his testing approach - even though he's fairly aware of things like experimenter bias, and aiming to perform tests on the same day (for consistent weather conditions).

The articles also give a good background on the subject of under car aerodynamics. Definitely worth a read if you haven't seen them yet:

So Im wondering if anyone has done any mods like this to the Lumina, and if so, what MPG savings did you achieve?

[jeffcoslacker]

Well the first thing that popped into my head was that the Lumina, like most cars nowadays, doesn't pull any radiator cooling air through the grille, it all comes mainly from the lower openings, there's an air dam that directs it upwards, and the flow continues out the bottom...so it might be a great way to block cooling airflow...

Then you have the issue of ground effect, which produces drag between the car and the road surface, pushing air down increases this.

and finally, I'd bust it on a parking block the first time I went to the store...

[4x4 blazerguy]

Yea, lots of people trying to sell gas saving devices of one kind or another. Are the manufactures so stupid that a $10 under car cover would save 10% on fuel & leave it off.

[sad-lumina-owner]

Originally Posted by 4x4 blazerguy

Yea, lots of people trying to sell gas saving devices of one kind or another. Are the manufactures so stupid that a $10 under car cover would save 10% on fuel & leave it off.

Sadly, a close inspection shows that car makers AREN'T interested in increasing mileage overmuch.

This has A LOT to do with the power of OIL companies. (the president is part of a giant oil combine, remember?)

They were starting to develop cars that got 40-50 MPG, and then they just canned all that research/competition and everybody adopted the "Rothschild" Catalytic Converter (that monopoly made a lot of money too).

Even car aerodynamics has concentrated less on MPG and more on coolant airflow issues, as a close examination shows.

THere is lots more that car makers could do to increase MPG into the 50 mpg range, but they refuse to do so, and have concentrated on increased profits, marketing, and pleasing other big international corporate concerns.

[jeffcoslacker]

Originally Posted by sad-lumina-owner

Even car aerodynamics has concentrated less on MPG and more on coolant airflow issues, as a close examination shows.

THere is lots more that car makers could do to increase MPG into the 50 mpg range, but they refuse to do so, and have concentrated on increased profits, marketing, and pleasing other big international corporate concerns.

Decreasing frontal area and streamlining to reduce drag and improve fuel mileage is what necessitated directed airflow under the front to begin with....sure, we could just make the entire front end closed up. Then it would get an extra 2 mpg, but you could only drive it 3 minutes at highway speed before overheat. Doesn't seem like a logical tradeoff....

No matter what you do, if you're going to use a liquid to air heat transfer system, you have the problem of having a large radiator that needs to be plowing air SOMEWHERE on the car....doesn't matter if you relocate it, break it into smaller units, use electric fans instead of vehicle movement, etc...all that comes with a penalty in additional weight and complexity, cost, power/economy loss from electrical generation, etc...and the net result is nothing is improved and you still have to have the same amount of air drawn from, and exiting into the slipstream...so the most efficient use for all concerns is to utilize some portion of the highest pressure available, and direct it to exit into low pressure areas, creating an enhanced airflow pattern that both does something useful (cooling) and improves undercar aeros...which is exactly what they've done...

You statements are so ridiculous I don't know where to start...cars have been exhaustively tested in wind tunnels, looking for every conceivable reduction in drag...you see it in everything from elimination of rain gutters/channels, flush mount weatherstripping, modular headlights, rearview mirror airflow modeling, wheel opening contouring, wiper design and position when stowed, door handle design, even antenna elimination or design improvements, all the way to airflow modeling that reduces drag inducing turbulence at the rear of the body ...the only reason you have to bleed the cooling system on most modern cars is because the radiator is positioned lower than the highest point in the engine cooling jacket, to accommodate tapering hoodlines and reduce frontal area/height...

all this comes with added benefits besides just fual economy...you also get a quieter car, better visibility (frontal anyway, rear deck/window opening lines are very high now) and the overall shape of the vehicle body enhances stability as speed increases, rather than trying to lift and float like older cars would..there is a slight tendancy towards downforce.

The typical family sedan now carries a drag coefficient very close to that of a .50 cal bullet...one of the most areodynamically perfect forms ever engineered...

Put on your tin foil hat and take your meds, we'll have someone there shortly...

[sad-lumina-owner]

Originally Posted by jeffcoslacker

Decreasing frontal area and streamlining to reduce drag and improve fuel mileage is what necessitated directed airflow under the front to begin with....sure, we could just make the entire front end closed up. Then it would get an extra 2 mpg, but you could only drive it 3 minutes at highway speed before overheat. Doesn't seem like a logical tradeoff....

Your argument appears to be essentially that

(a) the only significant or practical aerodynamic improvements to the front end of the vehicle would be to 'close up the entire front end'.

and, any attempted aerodynamic improvements to the front end of a vehicle will:

(b) only gain 2 MPG.

(c) result in an overheating engine.

therefore, the tradeoff .."doesn't seem logical."

Your logic is empeccable. However, your facts are not facts at all, but simple nonsense. Its a combination of a straw-man argument, and a house of cards.

(1) No one suggests cutting off all airflow to the radiator.

(2) Damming up the front end of the car is NOT the only or even the most significant or practical way to improve the aerodynamics of most cars.

There are literally dozens of improvements, including design improvements that would improve aerodynamics and decrease fuel consumption.

(3) The highway gains possible are not a mere '2 mpg' but easily 10 to 20 mpg and even more for most cars, based on aerodynamics alone.

...[blah blah blah you have to cool radiators etc.]

...so the most efficient use for all concerns is to utilize some portion of the highest pressure available, and direct it to exit into low pressure areas, creating an enhanced airflow pattern that both does something useful (cooling) and improves undercar aeros...which is exactly what they've done...

You may think modern cars all effectively and efficiently direct radiator cooling airflow for maximum aerodynamic results already.

You may imagine that the maximization of aerodynamic results regarding radiator airflow has already achieved some "95% efficiency" and/or has hit some kind of effective ceiling, whereby no more significant results are to be had, beyond "2 mpg".

But there are many unavoidable flaws built into your claims:

(1) Your claim has hardly been demonstrated at all. Available scientific evidence suggests that there is much improvement possible regarding the effective cooling of ICE engines, and also many unexplored techniques and methods for doing so.

(2) Your claim that car makers have achieved the virtual limit regarding rad airflow and overall aerodynamics is also a bogus one.

(a) Just approximately what year did that happen?

(b) Which design(s) made the achievement (say, 90% of the achievable and practical limit)?

(c) How many cars (what percentage) now on the road are currently incorporating the latest most efficient aerodynamic designs? Or at least, how many cars have designs that are even 80 or 70% efficient in striking the practical achievable limit (both aerodynamically and economically)?


(3) In ANY CASE, even if automakers HAVE achieved the practical aerodynamic limit in their handling of cooling airflows for radiators, this has no relevance at all to the majority of aerodynamic gains possible AND PRACTICAL on most cars on the road today.

There are MANY aerodynamic improvements that can be made to MOST vehicles, and these improvements will gain FAR MORE than 2 MPG. In fact these gains taken together will dwarf the gains from "plugging up your grill" to insignificance.

You statements are so ridiculous I don't know where to start

No. YOUR statements are so ridiculous I don't know where to start. But I will start right here anyway for convenience:

...cars have been exhaustively tested in wind tunnels, looking for every conceivable reduction in drag...you see it in everything from elimination of rain gutters/channels, flush mount weatherstripping, modular headlights, rearview mirror airflow modeling, wheel opening contouring, wiper design and position when stowed, door handle design, even antenna elimination or design improvements, all the way to airflow modeling that reduces drag inducing turbulence at the rear of the body ...the only reason you have to bleed the cooling system on most modern cars is because the radiator is positioned lower than the highest point in the engine cooling jacket, to accommodate tapering hoodlines and reduce frontal area/height...

all this comes with added benefits besides just fual economy...you also get a quieter car, better visibility (frontal anyway, rear deck/window opening lines are very high now) and the overall shape of the vehicle body enhances stability as speed increases, rather than trying to lift and float like older cars would..there is a slight tendancy towards downforce.

No one denies cars have been tested in windtunnels.
And and many aerodynamic improvements have been made.


But to pretend car makers have achieved anything like aerodynamic "perfection" is just a bad joke.

The typical family sedan now carries a drag coefficient very close to that of a .50 cal bullet...one of the most areodynamically perfect forms ever engineered...

Now you have strayed out of the realm of science and into your own imaginary world of magic cars and magic bullets.


The 'typical family sedan' can stand a wide range of aerodynamic improvements, many of which will actually REDUCE the cost of manufacture, although since manufacturing cost is a 'one-time' cost, even that argument is irrelevant compared to the REPEATING cost of fuel. Its well worthwhile to spend extra money ONCE in order to acquire LASTING savings over and over again at the pump.

Here are just a few of the hundreds of improvements your 'typical sedan' could use, and if even half of them were implemented, you'd gain alot more than "2 mpg".


Deletions:
-----------

- Roof racks (OEM as well as aftermarket)

- mud flaps

- raised wing type rear spoilers

- Side mirror delete (MetroMPG; Peakster's video test)
(with optional inside convex mirror replacement; or for less extreme, install mirror(s) you can fold back)

- Radio antenna

- shaved excrescences (badges, door handles, rain gutters)

- windshield wiper delete (front & rear)

Replacement parts:
---------------------

- smooth wheel covers

- narrower tires

- upgrade from "bucket" style to aero headlamp assemblies

- swap to a more aerodynamic bumper cover style (Metro)

Modifications/fabrication:
----------------------------

- fabricate lexan/plastic covers over "bucket" style headlight treatments (Coyote X's Metro)

- grill block (Metro, Dodge Caravan, CRX)

- tire spats, or fully contoured deflectors

- boat-tailing behind tires (Aerocivic)

- belly pan / under tray (1st gen Prius)

- rear wheel skirts (Metro, Civic)

- front wheel skirts (Daihatsu Mira)

- if no front wheel skirts: softened/radiused aft edge of front wheel arches (see: VW 1L car, Solectria Sunrise, Honda Insight, GM EV1)

- ... and/or gap fillers to minimize the space between the exposed tire & wheel arch (see Audi A2, Toyota Prius 2 for examples of cars with mimimal tire/arch gaps)

- reduced ride height - 3 inches is often quoted as optimal (CRX)

- taped/sealed panel gaps (or siliconed & razor cut)

- partial kammback (Metro), or,

- fulll boat tail addition (Aerocivic)

- pickup trucks: partial (rear) tonneau cover at a minimum, full tonneau, or complete aero shell (boattailed cap)

- radical frontal area reduction (e.g. tandem greenhouse)

- decreased (or is it "increased" - you know what I mean) windshield angle (e.g. addition of external clear "visor"), and/or increased hood angle

- increased radii at the front-to-hood & front-to-sides of the vehicle

- front air dam (as low as the lowest underbody components, possibly lower depending on the vehicle)

Here's another chunk of examples:

All current production cars,pickups,vans,and SUVs should be employing some if not many aero refinements empirically proven over the last hundred years.

Since carmaking is still ruled by the stylist it will be the last industry to evolve into the "form follows function" philosophy as in aircraft,ammunition,artillery,boats,canoe,kayak,pu mps,turbines,ordnance,ships,and submarines.The upshot is that ecomodders will have access to some of the existing fruit,which for their class of vehicle offers added mpg.

As always,we need to be careful and mindful of the other motorists we share the road with.

I would like to have presented the material in tabular form although its beyond the scope of what I can do right now.

(Nose-jobs):

In 1937 Carl Breer used a "raked" front end to help his ecomoddered Chrysler Airflow to achieve Cd0.244.

In 1938 the Jaray/Adler demonstrated a 15 % drag reduction with 100% grille-block.

In 1962 L.W.Farington utilizes the 1976 VW "ideal" nose to help his 1956 Ford Thunderbird achieve 228-mph.

In 1963 Walter Korff suggests that the optimal grille/radiator/nose/headlights/turn signals are good for a Cd0.07 improvement.

In 1968 R.G.S.White allows an ideal nose to produce a 28% drag reduction.

In 1974 CAR and DRIVER get 0.9mpg from airdam and 0.4 mpg from grille-block,1.4 mpg for combined,with "Crisis-Fighter-Pinto".

In 1974 C and D get 1.2 mpg with 260ZG nose,and 0.2 mpg with plex headlight covers with "Crisis-Fighter-Z-Car.

!975 VW Rabbit cuts Cd by 14% with Hucho's "ideal" nose.

1978 Ford Capri gets a 6% drag reduction with wrap-around bumper with integral airdam and airfoil grille.

1981 Pontiac Grand Prix flush headlights=1.5%,downward-sloping hood/fenders=1%,and softened hood leading edge = 1.5%.

1982 Peugeot VERA cuts Cd by 0.015 with integral front airdam.

1991 aero nose with headlight covers and lowered airdam add 1.526 mph to Phil Knox's CRX.

1986 SAE Paper 860212: 100% grille-block cuts Cd by 0.003,airdam hurts bellypan car,airdam helps dirty-bottomed car.

1986 SAE Paper 860211: 4.25-inch minimum radius needed for attached flow at leading edges,vertical or laid-back nose lowers Cd by 0.01.

1986 SAE Paper 860216 (Subaru XT): front airdam cuts drag 6.9%,lowering nose by 10mm drops drag 1.7%.

1997 Ford NASCAR with 1/4-inch lower front airdam beats Dale Earnhardt's Chevy.

There are some other articles involving front mods however they are lumped into "kits" done for specific vehicles and no single-item breakdowns are given.I'll include this info in a future( Kits ) installment.Again,most of this info or similar will be found in Hucho's book.One member got it with inter-library loan for cost of postage.It's the Mother-lode!

Put on your tin foil hat and take your meds, we'll have someone there shortly...

No tin foil hats are necessary, until we adopt your ridiculous stand that no practical aerodynamic improvements are possible on modern cars, or that individual owners can't improve their mileage significantly by some simple and inexpensive mods.

[jeffcoslacker]

I didn't say or infer that all design mods have been exhausted...like everything else on cars, it's an evolution, there has to be a point where form, function, practicality and serviceability combine...and also people just expect a car to look a certain way as well...a roadblock they always struggle with.

I read all of your suggestions, and it seems they all either come from existing cars (so where's your argument?) or they are not prctical in real world use, like the boattail design...I almost made that point ahead of you, but wanted to see if you'd step in that mess yourself.

Remember how people reacted to cars like the CRX that sustained $3500 (in 1988 dollars) damage over a 5 mph rear impact? Put a tapered, non structural attenuator on the rear of a car, and see what happens in that same crash....and ignore that one of the key reasons cars are shaped that way (mostly falt) in the rear is SAFETY...studies have shown that the majority of rear-end collisons are slightly off center...if you have a tapered front hitting a tapered rear, the potential for side deflection is enormous, which then increases the potential for secondary contact with another vehicle, fixed objects on the side of the road, pedestrians, etc...not to mention that the restraint system in cars does a pretty good job of moderation full front-to-rear injury, or broadside, but can't do much about a twisting deflected sideways impact..

Put something lower than the undercarriage, and people will tear it off the car...that's a no-brainer...I admitted to as much in my first post on this topic...

Badging...if you look, most cars now sport "jellybean" emblems that are very low profile and rounded like a tick, air gets very little purchese on them...


I can also show you wind tunnel drag coefficients for various auto, aircraft and projectile designs...they run very close these days.

Most of your arguments seem to run towards what can be done with an experimental, real-world unfriendly design...that's where we seem to bump heads a lot...I'm not talking about what CAN be done...I'm talking about what can be done within the realm of manufacturing cost, reliability and real-world abuse handling capability, as well as asthetics, functionality, safety and other things the average owner INSISTS on if they buy a car..

BTW, I'm not trying to put you down,. I actually like kicking it around a bit. But I'm just not buying what you're selling...and neither will American car buyers, unfortunately...

Hey, have you seen the Loremo? Set to go on sale in Europe next year...four seater, composite tub construction, two cylinder turbo diesel that gets 100 mpg or better, and a three cylinder that gets in the 80's with 0-60 accel close to that of a standard V6 minivan...not too shabby...

The methods of egress/exit are probably what will turn more people off than anything else...the front end, along with the dash and windshield tip foreward, for front passengers, and the rear opens like a hatchback, no true doors...kinda like getting in and out of a bathtub, but interesting...

Sounds like exactly the kind of thing you are looking for in a car...check it out if you haven't...

[jeffcoslacker]

http://evolution.loremo.com/index.php?lang=en

here's the Loremo...it's actually 150+mpg for the two cyl model...been a while since I looked...forgot the specs...

[jeffcoslacker]

A little more, just to illustrate my point. That being that for some reason, you only seem to see the efficiency aspect at the expense of all else.

A while back (maybe 4-6 months ago) I saw an article written by a very well-informed, but tragically naive "industry expert" who was talking about fuel savings on tractor trailers...and one of the many misguided points he made was that by simply improving the aeros of the trailer's tandems, the truck could see as much as .5 mpg increase, which is very significant when they only get 4-6 mpg to begin with...and he was correct, the trailer tandems are the largest single aero drag on the truck...

He was suggesting closing them up with skirts and/or 3/4 fenders...and couldn't understand how such a simple modification hadn't been made years ago...and how many millions of gallons per year and cost to companies that would be saved by this simple mod...

And I nearly popped a lung laughing so hard st his idea...

I drove semis for years. If nothing else I can tell you one thing...truck drivers HIT STUFF WITH TRAILER TANDEMS...sometimes out of negligence, but a lot of time simply because they are just too large and incapable of the movements required to get into the places they are required to be...

If I'd had that on my truck, I would have wreck probably one set every couple of weeks easy, and I'm a pretty good driver...

Another issue. When big truck tires fail, they do so with the force of a typical hand grenade...105+psi, tens of thousands of pounds of load on them, when they go, they go bigtime...it's already an issue that when it happens, it can seriously damage another vehicle, or injure/kill it's occupant...

Do we really want to add a fragmentary shell for extra shrapnel to the mix? I can see the lawsuits now...

I know what you are thinking..."let's make it like the containment systems on jet engines to control penetration during an uncontained rotating assembly failure, then it would be safer and aero slick..."

Right, we'll get right on that...it'll only cost about 4 times what the whole trailer does...I'm sure companies will go for that...and where was it we were saving money on fuel again?

Etc...

[sad-lumina-owner]

Your Loremo link I expected some ugly 'fishback' monster from the 1960s bicycle-plane era.

I was pleasantly surprised.

I'd buy one in a second, if I was buying. But as my posts have indicated all along, my "new car" budget is zero dollars.

If you want to give me one of your broken cars, I might try to fix it with wrecker parts.

But lets get back to the point:

The point of this thread was to see if anyone else had tried any of many inexpensive home mods to their LUMINA to improve mileage. And based on their reports I wanted to try some too, that is the cheapest mods for the most return in MPG terms.

You don't seem to have the spirit of this, and aren't interested in modifying your vehicle at all, because "its too risky/expensive/low return".

That seems a shame, because we are on the same page as to inefficient, dangerous, or costly mods.

To make an underplate looked to me like a "less than $100" mod, which might return that in gas savings over 2 years. Since I intend (due to economics) in keeping the car another 5 years or so, mods like this look practical to me.

I'm sure many others are in the same boat. They can't afford a new car, or have invested too much in their Lumina already to trade it at a loss. So they too should be looking for good ideas RE: saving GASOLINE.

Regardless of the 'state of the art' for new cars, or "most cars on the road now", what really counts is this:

What can I do to improve the MPG for my LUMINA?

Who cares if a FORD or a HONDA are aerodynamically efficient? Who cares if MOST cars are aerodynamically efficient? Who cares if a brand new Lumina has been 'wind tested' and improved? I'm not buying one!

[sad-lumina-owner]

In any case, modern (new) cars and trucks AREN'T aerodynamically efficient, or fuel efficient either.

Here is a great list of mods CAR MAKERS could do to improve their products AND please the "American" (or any mass market) buyers:

I want to try to list steps that car makers could/should take to improve the fuel efficiency. The most obvious would be to mold the plastic on the front of the vehicle to be smooth and round, with grill openings that are sized (and placed) only as required to cool the engine. Similar to the original VW Passat.

...or the original Ford Taurus

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 1024x768 and weights 217KB.
...or the original Ford Taurus:
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 800x533 and weights 65KB.
Sealing all the seams and joints (with gaskets or backing flanges) in the high pressure areas of the vehicle.

I vote for smooth underbelly trays.
With access panels for maintenance.

How about not selling econocars that cruise at 3500rpm on the highway? I could happily double the 5th gear ratio in my protege5.

I agree with the aerodynamics. The under belly tray is also a good idea. Fender skirts for the win!

All new cars should have instant built in MPG units (like higher line models do now) and like Ford did it years ago on a truck, they should have an optional vacuum gauge with a red/green zone.

Tire pressure monitors really suck, but they do let a driver know of an inflation problem. This is already required by law for new cars anyway, but a monitor that tells you the air pressure in each tire would be great!

Forget the honkin' 16"-22" rims and wide tires! Lets bring back the skinny tire! I'm not talking about Metro wheels on an SUV, but a tire and rim size proportioned to the vehicle.

Optional switches or programmable system that allow the driver to turn the A/C compressor on or off and other accessories like Daytime Running Lights, autolocks, entry illumination, "sealt belt minder", etc as desired. Cars being sold to the general public cannot have a "kill switch", "Alternator cutout", etc because the general public are stupid.

I would also love to see the return of the diesel here in America.

...
- transmission gear ratios
- aerodynamic front molding/design
- underbelly smoothing
- on-board FE feedback system

I think some car makers are doing these, but not for every car. I believe it was Mercedes who modded their C-class down to a 0.25 Cd:

second this, some vehicles need a 7th gear. my dads mini cooper s runs so high cruising on the highway.

Some more items:

Tire pressure monitor.

Average & "instant" MPG displays, that are on all the time. (The xD uses the same display for the odometer, the two trip odometers, average MPG, instant MPG -- way too many things on one display! You have to toggle through them with a button that could not be a bigger pain to press...)

Fully ducted cooling system, with the intake down low on the front, and the exhaust in a low pressure zone; minimizing the size of the radiator and the reducing the drag as much as possible.

Throttle control that maintains even throttle in a user-set speed range, with minimal throttle increases to maintain the speed in that range.

Higher gearing with 6-7 speeds (smaller engines need more gears to work efficiently); or CVT transmissions.

Video cameras and screens in place of side mirrors.

Efficient and effective fresh air flow through the vehicle, with intakes on a high pressure area, and exhaust vent(s) out the back of the vehicle into the low pressure wake zone, to reduce drag as much as possible.

Automatic engine shut off and start up; at least with CVT (or automatic) transmissions -- and possibly with standard shifts, based on having both the clutch and the brake applied?

Lean burn in low vacuum conditions.

Store hot coolant in a vacuum insulated tank, to speed up warm-up time; a la what the Prius does.

Coat all the window glass to exclude as much heat as possible.

Make A/C on the defrost setting optional.

Tighten up wheel openings, and always use aerodynamically designed wheels/covers, with rear wheel skirts (at least optional).

Make roof racks removable. Years ago, I saw a "papoose" add-on storage system that locked onto the back of the car, with a single caster wheel to support the weight -- it tucked completely into the air flow behind the car; and it would be a great way to add storage space when needed; that did not affect how you drove very much.

For new 4-cylinder engine designs, the crankshaft could be split with a hydraulic coupling that can automatically disengage two cylinders completely; saving all the pumping and friction losses, for situations when 2 cylinders are enough to provide the required torque to move the vehicle.

Or, make every vehicle with a plug-in electric w/ serial hybrid ICE drive train.

i want:

plug in hybrid with regen braking
engine waste heat recycling -what ever technology is best.
instant mpg and trip mpg computer
engine block heater
boat tail

totally love cars from the 80's, it seemed aerodynamics where put high on the agenda back than, and designers finally decided to do away with obsolete grills on favor of flat aerodynamics nose panels... wheel arches where shaped for tire clearance and ninimal aerodynamic intrusion

ford sierra 1982 Cd 0.34 (later the car got a more conventional grill, but the big headlights still dominated the front...)


citroen ax 1986 Cd 0.31 (this one will appeal to metro fans!)


opel omega 1986 Cd 0.28
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 640x212 and weights 30KB.

opel calibra 1989 Cd 0.26
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 640x328 and weights 46KB.

i think this proves it's more than possible to build practical cars, that don't even have to all that funny looking.

...and all these people are American car buyers who would pay for mods like these in a second.