Aerocivic's mods combine great aerodynamic and a, um, stunning look in 95 mpg Civic
Hear ye, hear ye! All hail basjoos and his highly-modified "Aerocivic" for proving that it is totally possible to make a 1992 Honda Civic CX get 95 (or more) miles per gallon. How much did our trusty eco-knight toil and spend to achieve this miracle? How 'bout around 250 hours and $400. No one will mistake this for a professional job - or a normal Civic - but did you hear what I said about 95 mpg?
95 mpg is what basjoos gets at speeds between 30 and 65 mph; his efficiency drops when he goes any faster (85 mpg at 70 mph, 65 mpg at 80 mph, 50 mpg at 90 mph, according to his report over at the Ecomodder forums. So, why did basjoos create this, um, highly noticeable vehicle? He's his reasoning:
I started this project after the Katrina-insired gas price runup since I have a long commute. I first learned to drive during the 1970's oil embargo and have been perfecting my hypermiling tenchniques ever since. [...] The end result is a car with such low drag that the results of coastdown testing is linear out to 90mph (it coasts almost as well at 80mph as it does at 50mph). I have to get it over 90mph before I start to feel the wind load from high-speed driving. OEM max speed was 95mph. I have had it up to 100mph with plenty of power remaining at that speed (estimated top speed of about 140mph).
No corner was spared in this aero-upgrade. As you can see in the pictures posted to Ecomodder, everything from the wheel wells to the wiper blades has been spruced up, and more changes are planned. Right now, basjoos estimates, his drag coefficient has dropped from the original 0.34 to 0.17 (besting the super slippery EV1's 0.19, as our tipster Darin pointed out). As another Ecomodder forum user tells basjoos, " I have to give credit to you. Areo moding a civic to the max is not an easy undertaking." No kidding. The results aren't going to win any beauty competitions, but a Civic that approaches 100 mpg is nothing to sneeze at.
[Source: Ecomodder forum, h/t to Darin]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Jeremiah Grim 5:20PM (2/08/2008)
Fuel mileage is just about weight, drag and engine efficiency. A carbon fiber shell running on bike tires and never exceeding 30mph could get over 200 MPG with a small diesel. but this car is drivable if a little funny looking. If someone took a mold of the EV1, put a turbo diesel from a VW polo in it and made the body out of fiberglass of carbon. 120+ MPG would be reasonable and even drivable. WTF do aesthetics matter anyways. Lets mandate cars to be butt ugly so that people don't want to be seen in them, then maybe they will walk or ride their bike.
Now if you want to talk about "safty" that is what is making cars heavy. Fear.
Reply
Razor 9:07PM (4/05/2008)
95 MPG?? While aerodynamics can play a big part in fuel economy, I doubt he gets that much. I could believe 50-55, but unless I see it in person, I just can't believe that.
I looked at the pictures, and there are several places (especially in the front) that need to be smoothed out, as the edges would cause some aero-drag.
I also wonder how it handles once he approaches highway speeds? With the rear end being shaped like it is, that's gotta take away from his downforce which *should* make the car behave somewhat "skittish", especially if he were to drive it on some crappy highways like here in Missouri.
If his 'style' really does help fuel economy, then why don't we see anything shaped like this in NASCAR? They spend millions (between all the teams) in wind tunnels every year and have aerodynamic specialists. I'm just sayin'...
I applaud his efforts on this extremely unique undertaking, I just think that the report is a bit exaggerated. I could be wrong, but that's why they call this the "Show Me" state. LOL
Reply
Rob 12:57PM (4/22/2008)
The reason you don't see anything like that in 'nascar' is because well... first off, nascar is retarded, but more importantly, nascar is about high performance cars, not high mileage cars. They spend time in the wind tunnel to find a shape that is decently slippery, but provides a LOT of downforce. This guy doesn't care about downforce, in fact, he'd probably like to reduce it a bit to get load of the tires.
Reply
MetroMPG.com 6:53PM (1/27/2009)
FYI, Mike (basjoos) now has a web site about this car:
http://www.aerocivic.com
Reply
Tim 6:21PM (1/29/2009)
Dude you are coooool. You should win an award for creativity. Maybe you can take over one of the car companies and put some life and ingenuity into them Best to you man!
Reply
Dad 4:46PM (12/27/2007)
"Right now, basjoos estimates, his drag coefficient has dropped from the original 0.34 to 0.17 (besting the super slippery EV1's 0.19, as our tipster Darin pointed out)"
Nope, it is not slippery as the EV1, as I "estimated" the EV1 to have been 0.16.
Reply
Benjamin Jones 5:30PM (12/27/2007)
'"GM May 1990 Issue Update video about the phenomenal Impact (EV1) prototype development program, testing, and future possibilities for ... all electric vehicles. The Impact prototype and EV1s had the lowest Coefficient of Drag (Cd = 0.19) of any production vehicle."'
- http://www.seattleeva.org/wiki/GM_EV1
Reply
Dad 6:16PM (12/27/2007)
"Nope, it is not slippery as the EV1, as I "estimated" the EV1 to have been 0.16."
I did say it was my "estimate" so I don't have to have pesky little facts get in the way ;-) I can speculate just like basjoos when he "estimated" his coefficient of drag of 0.17.
Reply
Benjamin Jones 6:33PM (12/27/2007)
If you're at all interested in his methods, you can look here: http://www.instructables.com/id/Measure-the-drag-coefficient-of-your-car/
Reply
Kardax 7:34PM (12/27/2007)
With that kind of MPG, who cares what the drag is?
Someday, all cars will look like this. Well, maybe not _exactly_ like this, but similar :)
Reply
tre 10:00PM (12/27/2007)
Dad, basjoos may have fallen on his sword with his estimates. But, at the very least, he didn't miss the point.
Basjoos has a set of data to support his estimation - it's not just looking at it and saying "ya, {number from my butt}." Even with his set of data, he was so kind as to call it an estimation - and not automatically take data and call rename them as fact ;)
Reply
TIMMAH! 2:45AM (12/28/2007)
Still a ricer...
Reply
calebe 8:54AM (12/28/2007)
you say ricer like its a bad thing. LOL
L
Reply
GoodCheer 9:33AM (12/28/2007)
This is a remarkable accomplishment for someone who presumably did not have the benefit of a supercomputer running computational fluid dynamics, or a wind tunnel.
I wonder where he would now be if he had started with the VX version that is got about 20% better EPA rating from the factory...
Reply
grant.robertson 10:59AM (12/28/2007)
I'd really hate to try and parallel park that thing. Where are the taillights?
Reply
MetroMPG.com 12:41PM (12/28/2007)
@ Grant: the tail lights are in the tip of the boattail. You can only see the side marker light in the above pic, but there are many more detailed photos available if you click through to the site.
--
The thing I like about the Aerocivic isn't the car itself, but the way it illustrates - in, um, dramatic fashion - the huge impact of aero on highway speed efficiency.
Yes it looks weird. But that's subjective.
What's weirder to me is how we're content to buy & drive giant boxes on wheels @ 80 mph down our freeways while simultaneously complaining about the price of gas.
Reply
SPG 5:57PM (12/28/2007)
Time to re-evaluate those aero-bubble prototypes from the late 80's and early 90's.
Damn it would be great to get even half of that milege.
Reply
Chris M 7:02PM (12/28/2007)
Gives me some idea of what the four wheel Aptera will look like. (yes, Aptera is planning a future 4 wheel version)
This could use some fitting and finish work, but the basic design layout is sound.
Reply
saysee 5:07PM (12/29/2007)
Nobody actually believes this do they? If you do, please take a course in fluid dynamics, or put down your bongs.
Reply
Alex Everett 8:14PM (1/04/2008)
There is only so much that aerodynamics can do. I do not believe it could do THAT much.. I---LOL
Reply