Notices
Evo General Discuss any generalized technical Evo related topics that may not fit into the other forums. Please do not post tech and rumor threads here.
Sponsored by: RavSpec - JDM Wheels Central

Wingless = Better MPG?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 28, 2007 | 11:15 AM
  #1  
FiftyFive's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (13)
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 1
From: Norwalk, CT
Wingless = Better MPG?

Well since i went wingless about a week or so ago, I've noticed that I'm getting at least 20 more miles on this tank. Anyone else have any experience like this? I was averaging a horrible 160-165, this tank i got at least 180 in. I have been driving the same, same gas and same weather.

Anyone else?
Old Feb 28, 2007 | 11:17 AM
  #2  
KartaRailed's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
From: Jacksonville/Boca Raton
You wernt driving as aggressivly I think, but it could have something to do with it, less downforce at speed, less strain on the drivetrain, less resistance for the motor, equals better gas mileage?
Old Feb 28, 2007 | 11:22 AM
  #3  
Danny23's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 0
From: orange county NY
if i drive cool i get 90 miles out of a qrt. tank.
Old Feb 28, 2007 | 11:22 AM
  #4  
FiftyFive's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (13)
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 1
From: Norwalk, CT
Originally Posted by KartaRailed
You wernt driving as aggressivly I think, but it could have something to do with it, less downforce at speed, less strain on the drivetrain, less resistance for the motor, equals better gas mileage?
Thats what im thinking. My driving habits were the same. Shifting at or under 3500. Only really hit boost 2 or 3 times. But i seem to be getting more mileage out of the car without a wing. About 50% of the driving is on the highway.
Old Feb 28, 2007 | 11:29 AM
  #5  
RoBear's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
hmm..this is very interesting. It makes sense, but I didn't think the wing would make that much of a difference.
Old Feb 28, 2007 | 11:34 AM
  #6  
aklucsarits's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
From: Philly, PA
It is reasonable to assume that the small reduction in aerodynamic drag from removing the wing would have a slight effect on fuel economy. But I would expect the improvement in fuel economy to be approaching statistically insignificant levels, not the 10% improvement that you report seeing...

There must be other factors involved for you to see that kind of fuel economy improvement.
Old Feb 28, 2007 | 11:38 AM
  #7  
BBS's Avatar
BBS
Evolved Member
iTrader: (18)
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,337
Likes: 0
From: Philadelphia, PA
Originally Posted by aklucsarits
It is reasonable to assume that the small reduction in aerodynamic drag from removing the wing would have a slight effect on fuel economy. But I would expect the improvement in fuel economy to be approaching statistically insignificant levels, not the 10% improvement that you report seeing...

There must be other factors involved for you to see that kind of fuel economy improvement.
I'm going to guess that vehicle speed also plays a part. If you average a higher speed than others, your drag will cause a more drastic affect on your mpg. But my lord, you only get 160 with shifts at 3.5k? I drive pretty much identically to your style and get 220-230 with the winter blend.
Old Feb 28, 2007 | 11:47 AM
  #8  
FiftyFive's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (13)
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 1
From: Norwalk, CT
Originally Posted by BBS
I'm going to guess that vehicle speed also plays a part. If you average a higher speed than others, your drag will cause a more drastic affect on your mpg. But my lord, you only get 160 with shifts at 3.5k? I drive pretty much identically to your style and get 220-230 with the winter blend.
Yea I don't know whats wrong with my car, gas mileage has been sucky lately, ever since it started getting real cold.

I also find it hard to believe that taking a wing off would cause that much of a jump in mpg.
Old Feb 28, 2007 | 11:48 AM
  #9  
civicevo380's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
From: NJ, south jersey, U.S
^that's what I get all the time, and I run 93, still have my wing on.
Old Feb 28, 2007 | 11:49 AM
  #10  
TeStUdO's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,986
Likes: 41
From: Secret Tweaker Pad
Originally Posted by 3volut1on
Well since i went wingless about a week or so ago, I've noticed that I'm getting at least 20 more miles on this tank. Anyone else have any experience like this? I was averaging a horrible 160-165, this tank i got at least 180 in. I have been driving the same, same gas and same weather.

Anyone else?
See if it continues on your next few tanks. I am pretty sure you probably had more highway miles than usual.
Old Feb 28, 2007 | 11:49 AM
  #11  
joeMama's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
From: SHadey Brook NY
180 mi doesnt seem that great either?? I think I average about 200 or better to a tank
Old Feb 28, 2007 | 11:50 AM
  #12  
Turbo Kyle's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
From: St. Louis
+1
Old Feb 28, 2007 | 11:52 AM
  #13  
FiftyFive's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (13)
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 1
From: Norwalk, CT
Originally Posted by civicevo380
^that's what I get all the time, and I run 93, still have my wing on.
You also get only about 160-180 on a tank?
Might also be a front o2 sensor.
Old Feb 28, 2007 | 12:06 PM
  #14  
cs82685's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
From: Phillipsburg, NJ
Originally Posted by joeMama
180 mi doesnt seem that great either?? I think I average about 200 or better to a tank
Seriously, my worst has been 180 and I only got <12 gallons when filling up after that 180 miles.

Usually I go 240-250 with normal driving
Old Feb 28, 2007 | 12:07 PM
  #15  
MitsuJoe's Avatar
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (133)
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,123
Likes: 0
From: Anywhere
When I purchased the EVO I had now it had the OZ wing and I did notice better MPG. Somewhere in the range of 15-20 more miles per tank. Damn it costs a lot to have that EVO look.


Quick Reply: Wingless = Better MPG?



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:38 AM.