Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum!
If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page.
Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.
From a Blazer Xtreme, attached using 3M dual lock tape. Can take them off and put the back in less then 5 minutes. Tested them out at 75 mph on the freeway and they stayed attached, hope they help with the MPG too
From a Blazer Xtreme, attached using 3M dual lock tape. Can take them off and put the back in less then 5 minutes. Tested them out at 75 mph on the freeway and they stayed attached, hope they help with the MPG too
I built a Triumph Spitfire. Took it from a not quite 1.3L 4 popper to a 2.5L heavily modified 6 banger. As part of the "make it go faster" project, a front air dam was incorporated which transitioned into a set of IMSA fender flares. The entire underside of the car was sheeted in aluminium which removed all of the little bumps and air flow disruptions.
The end effect was that not only did it go faster, the fuel economy improved. The under carriage sheet idea was reproduced on a friends Spitfire and we saw a very similar improvement in the mileage.
This led the two of us to lower the cars to as close to the ground as was legal (OK, I actually was issued a "fix it ticket" for being too low, California has rules...) which improved the mileage even more.
So I am not at all surprised that after redirecting the air away from the under carriage, the mileage improved. Leastways, I am expecting it to improve based upon history.
How much faster? I was issued a Court Summons for doing 157 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. Nearly was hauled off to jail. IMO, it was only the fact that I was in uniform (USAF) at the time that the Cops let me off.
How much faster? I was issued a Court Summons for doing 157 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. Nearly was hauled off to jail. IMO, it was only the fact that I was in uniform (USAF) at the time that the Cops let me off.
Nor did I keep my "fix it ticket" for being too low to the ground. Another California (circa '73, can't speak for now...) law that stated, in essence, if all 4 tires go flat, the rims had to hit the ground before the frame.
My Triumph failed the test. So, I had to re-install the stock suspension for the compliance inspection and then, promptly, pull it out again.
The car was built to the British-Leyland Group 44 LeMans specification in terms of the suspension. Stuffing in the bigger engine was my idea. Adding in the Laycock de-Normanville overdive was easy as it was a factory option at the time.
Missing the point here.
I expect that rav will see a mileage increase. If this is a Street Jeep only, I would be inclined to go bolder on the front dam. The more air you can keep out from under a vehicle, the less turbulence is set up and so, the less resistance. Again, if it were a Street Jeep, I would also consider "pizza cutter" tires.
What rav has accomplished, so far, is clean and tidy. He deserves credit for that.
No, no shots of that one. I do have a photo of the little Ford I built floating around here somewhere. I know I have slides of that one.
Unless the Old Lady got to them.
The Ford was built as a whim. Took a 302 and turned it into a 347 then stuffed it and a Borg Warner Super T-10 into a '71 Pinto. Whereas it did not corner worth a hoot, it sure did accelerate. It had about the same power to weight ratio of the Triumph. The Ford weighed in at about 2,000 lbs and the 347 produced int he neighborhood of 400 Hp. Not as good as the Triumph but a near miss.
Any vehicle that has a power to weight ratio of 5:1 or better will have no other choice but to go.
From a Blazer Xtreme, attached using 3M dual lock tape. Can take them off and put the back in less then 5 minutes. Tested them out at 75 mph on the freeway and they stayed attached, hope they help with the MPG too
