Is there any point in trying to improve the aerodynamics of the Econolines?

Is this for looks or would it actually help?

 

BB these things we drive are basically bricks with wheels being pushed against the wind, not that that's a bad thing mind you!

IMHO a front air damn alone won't do much for MPG's and has the potential to actually add a bit aero drag. This one looks great and adds driving lights down low but without a lot of other more costly additions you're still fighting science.

 

I don't know, J W. In 2008 when the new 6.4L Powerstroke engine came out there were lots of people who were seriously unhappy with their fuel economy. Of course this was mainly due to reduced engine efficiency with the new emissions equipment, but Ford did respond and make a change.

The 2008 Job 2 trucks got a larger front air dam that extended 4-5" below that which the Job 1 trucks had. This was to improve aerodynamics and therefore increase fuel economy. Of course an E-van is much different than an F-350, but I think that doesn't rule out the idea of better aerodynamics by directing wind around instead of through the undercarriage.

 

Anytime you can keep air from going under a vehicle and push it around the better for the aerodynamics. This works on any vehicle and is now in use by the big rigs with the wings under the trailers. Even the Hybrid GM SUV's use a lower air dam.

If you are doing a lot of highway driving I would put one on. But if, like me, you have a lot of fuzzy critters that wander across the road once in a while and tested the hardness of your undrcarage then not a good idea. I hit a big *** coon the other night.

 

I'm not familiar with those trucks Tom and I do agree it wouldn't necessarily rule out a realized advantage. I'd want to also consider a few other things though............

Would that particular air dam potentially affect air flow around the front brake rotors? If so to what effect under severe braking conditions such as repeated lower speed braking as when on a challenging, twisty road and perhaps towing or near the max GVW?

Would it really be low enough to the roadway to truly channel what's known as the "bow wave" of areo drag around the vehicle enough to counteract the increased frontal area surface?

In BB's photo it seems the lower edge of that spoiler isn't lower than the frame rails or rear axle so it doesn't seem it'd be that effective or advantageous for the MPG bump. Its too bad we couldn't ask the owner of the van BB picutured if he noticed any MPG increases?

PST makes a good point too---I'm thinking about a 65 MPH road kill scoop!!

Just curious Tom were the Job 2 F's having engine cooling issues at the same time? Any ideas what kind of MPG improvements were noticed?

All right I simply MUST get my trashy Granatelli COPS outta my older van---can't sell with those POS's bolloxing up on me!

 

IMHO the science behind the aerodynamics of front air dams was proven many years ago. The jury is in, front air dams "actually help" improve aerodynamics by deflecting some air flow around, instead of under chassis. They reduce turbulance caused by irregular shaped components underneath. However the air dam in pic isn't particularly low & Econolines have considerable ground clearance, so I'd expect its benefit to MPG to be small.

Keep in mind front air dam's most significant aerodynamic benefits are realized in high speed handling.

Pic does raise another Q, about the effects of nonstock camber? Got to wonder if that radical angle "Is this for looks or would it actually help?" in any area. Sure does look like it would dramatically accelerate tire's inner tread wear!

 

Not sure, but I doubt there would be any significant negative effect. There would still be lots of air moving through there, take a look at GM's newer trucks and SUVs. I remember when the GMT900 trucks came out in 2007 and I couldn't believe the air dam was so close to the ground.

Not real sure, but I think that any and all wind that can be deflected from the undercarriage is a good thing. Do you think a flat air dam has more resistance than the contorted aerodynamic mess that is the undercarriage?

I don't think anyone really thought there was much of a difference. Some Job 1 guys bought the updated air dam and installed it to try and increase their fuel efficiency. None reported any significant gains and most were disappointed. I think that there was a small gain there, but nowhere near enough make up for the fuel pig that is the 6.4L PowerStroke? Note that gains were seen in following years when the available rear end ratios got smaller; the 3.73s that my truck had were only available in duallies after 2008. Those with 3.31s seem to be able to do 1-2 MPGs better.

 

I guess our POV's about this vary a bit Tom----its good to see things from alternative aspects I guess!

I still say the best thing about BB's front dam is it looks cool and adds driving lights----no down sides there!

BTW Tom we need to get you hanging around one of us E-Series owners, have you help changing a few spark plugs or COP's---next up would be injectors!

Peace, Out!

 

I'd love to. In fact I'll be in Ohio for a few days in two weeks...

 

Be careful what you agree to----might haunt you in the near future!

If you're near my area breakfast or lunch on me----either in appreciation for superb Moderator duties or as a member of our military---family included--pick your poison as they say!

 

I'll certainly be in the area, but not sure exactly when yet. If you get the time you should come up to our MEET in Millersburg. I think we have 9 or 10 of us coming, it'll be a great time!

I'll let you know when I figure out my schedule...

 

I'm still giving that meet serious consideration. Its just a bit further than I thought but certainly not too far, especially to gaze upon a few great trucks.

Share your schedule when its finalized!

 

Although it's a CMU block, I say try it.

My biggest obstacle is how to measure it. How do you really measure "my MPG went from 13.2 to 13.4"?

 

It gets even worse when you are talking about different fuel blends throughout the year, different fuel quality, air temps, altitude, humidity, the list goes on.

On a van, two-tenths MPG of a change in fuel economy is hard to measure.

 

These were my thoughts too along with if its added primarily to improve MPG's what's the ROI time or mileage?

It still looks cool on a conversion van, not so sure on my wannabe tough guy work truck!