New Myth Busters: Dirty Cars and Duel Efficiency

Mark77 said:
I would be very surprised if they notice any difference at all, f normally dirty..
Click to expand...



I agree. Click and Clack were asked this question on their show and they said it would have to be a abnormally large bird taking a mutant sized dump on your car before you noticed even the slightest difference.
 
unleashedfury said:
Some lucky guy





Either way I find the myth to be fact. Dirty car creates wind resistance



Ever notice that car designers are making their cars sleeker than their primitive counterparts



Hell I grew up in the late 80's early 90's when we had the old box cars..



When the new models taurus,escorts,cavaliers and such came out I thought they looked like space ships.



But if you put a bunch of resistance on that sleek design. Whether it be dirt Grime, Grease, Mud, it creates resistance to flow. requiring more effort to your vehicle to reach desired speeds. Might not be overly noticeable unless your driving through mudpuddles and covering it. But it should show a difference
Click to expand...

there is a huge difference from changing the vehicle's aerodynamics by body design and adding a little bit of dirt on the outside.



There will be no difference at all. At least nothing measurable. All consumer cars have less than ideal aero packages for one reason or another: price/looks/ground clearence/laws/etc. The drag induced by the air under, lets say an F150, is so terrible bouncing around the exaust, suspension, and axles that a little dirt on the top isn't going to make one bit of difference.



For race cars, lets even say an aero perfect model, they have other issues. Sure smooth paint will lessen the drag on the vehicle, but has anyone ever seen a race vehicle up close after the race? There is SO much garbage collected over the entire vechile that no matter what treatment you gave it prior to race time it was negated after the first lap. And I doubt any LSP is going to stop 250 degree rubber from sticking to the paint @ 200mph, so protection doesn't really matter either.
 
Does anyone really believe the results the "Mythbusters" obtain?

Its just a tv show and their results are what they want them to be.
 
Gears said:
Does anyone really believe the results the "Mythbusters" obtain?

Its just a tv show and their results are what they want them to be.
Click to expand...



I think they try hard to have accurate results. If they were bias, and people realized it, they would quit watching and the show would get canceled, they don't want that. Also, sometimes they'll bust a myth and get a bunch of hatemail and complaints and retest the myth to try to satisfy their fans. I also noticed they will call a lot of myths plausible because they don't trust the test or results enough to call it confirmed.



I would think that the fuel efficiency difference of a clean car vs. a dirty car is so small that other factors would throw the results off. I suppose if the car is completely covered in mud, then it would make a noticeable difference.



It makes me remember the first time I cleaned my 1988 4WD Toyota Pickup after I bought it. I swept up 15lbs of dry dirt off the driveway after I sprayed all the mud off of it. I've seen these Toyota Pickups get much muddier then mine so you could have like 50+ lbs of mud on your vehicle which could affect gas mileage.



Here's another thing to consider, if the air filter is dirty (like the rest of the vehicle) then that would certainly increase fuel consumption.
 
TS_Detailing said:
A dirty car had no effect on fuel efficiency. I watched it last night out of curiosity.
Click to expand...



Nothing actually measurable. The difference will be so small it would be so hard to obtain any actual results.



Either way, Whether its fuel efficent or not. I just like riding in a clean car.
 
Not sure you guys actually watched it? The dirty car got 24mpg and the clean car got 26.4mpg. Interestingly, the golf ball car got 29mpg, time to see weird looking golf ball body panels!
 
TS_Detailing said:
A dirty car had no effect on fuel efficiency. I watched it last night out of curiosity.
Click to expand...



Did you watch the real one or some youtube version?



It was the complete opposite of your statement. See the post above mine for accurate results they found.
 
JuneBug said:
BTW - who knocked up the hot redhead?
Click to expand...



Wait, what?



darth_vader_nooo1.jpg
 
Guess I misunderstood what they were saying. I flipped it on right as they were saying something about not much difference. Sorry guys.
 
So for those that watched the whole show - that drinking myth was great, wish I had known that back in the day! The dimpled car - would it be safe? and would it cost out the ying-yang to build? And who would buy it??
 
you know, im sure that some manufacturer may try to create something like this, it wouldnt cost too much to do this either, think saturn, they had plastic panels on the car, all plastic... all you need is a mold with dimples etc, easy.





but this is good news for everyone here!!!!! just put a link to the myth on your website, and prove it to everyone that a clean car gets better MPG, so a car with absolutely awesome slickness and protection is gonna get them better fuel economy, so come and get the detailing!
 
JuneBug said:
The dimpled car - would it be safe? and would it cost out the ying-yang to build? And who would buy it??
Click to expand...

I could completely see a dimpled roof on a Prius in the near future if it actually made a difference. I doubt that would stop people from buying it.



As far as the dirty car argument goes, all I know is that in older versions of Gran Turismo, washing your car was meant to lessen the wind resistance of your car. So, it has to be true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top