MORE HORSEPOWER, BETTER MILAGE, HIGHER TOP SPEED!! (well...sort of)

[Fiesta_Man69]

Hmm,
if the aerokit undertray did drop consumption by0.2L on it's own, surely the advertised consumption for a manual CL WS would read like this:

5.9L/100km*

instead of 6.1

with the * reading, in the finest of prints down the bottom - "when fitted with Ford optional aerokit."

Few people read the fine print.

5.9L vs 6.1L is a HUGE difference in the advertising world of light cars, especially with the impending carbon tax.....

Therefore, because Ford hasn't/didn't do this, one has to be very skeptical of the claim.

[Polyal]

So dont fit it, big deal, the theory is sound.

[crf529]

Originally Posted by Fiesta_Man69

Therefore, because Ford hasn't/didn't do this, one has to be very skeptical of the claim.

You can dispute their claim all you want, and quite possibly their claim is bogus. But to be short and without speculation, the benefits from this type of airflow modification, through theory and practical implementation, says efficiency will increase. That's a simple fact.

[Fiesta_Man69]

True, the theory is sound .........

-when combined with hundreds of dollars of other econetic aero body kit parts
-eco tyres
and those performance figures were measured on a turbo diesel which I believe may be slightly different to an N/A petrol.

But then going out spending $800 on a high flow cat, $1200 on custom made 4 into 1 extractors is also going to produce a few more kWs.....

Whether it is worth it is another thing......

The tray is off a completely different vehicle with a different engine and aero package and tyres. To claim that the same 0.2L will be made on petrol models with a different body and tyres is completely erroneous.

But if people want to blow $130 on a falsely advertised product that's entirely their choice and good luck to them.

[crf529]

Originally Posted by Fiesta_Man69

The tray is off a completely different vehicle with a different engine and aero package and tyres. To claim that the same 0.2L will be made on petrol models with a different body and tyres is completely erroneous.

From the lack of info you have on the tray and it's efficiency of operation when mounted to the car, I think that calling it 'completely erroneous' is somewhat naive. If you believe the theory is sound how can you, without real facts, state this is in-effective?

[Fiesta_Man69]

then crf529 - if it does work as well as advertised (on its own) why didn't Ford fit the tray to all cars as standard????

Fuel efficiency is everything in light car marketing. The fact that they didn't (it would've cost Ford a lot less than $130 too) speaks volumes.

Of course the theory is sound - look at F1 etc.... no one's arguing the science - but these aren't sports cars - they are (relatively) high riding city cars. The issue is the GAINS are going to be so minute it will all be psychological.....

I'm sorry to have joined the debate. Go and buy them - enjoy.

[Polyal]

Debate? I hardly call what you are doing debating.

No one is saying that its miraculously going to slash FC. What difference will it make, a little. But to say its not worth it is not correct. If you planning to off load the car in 1-2 years then fine it doesnt make much sense.

But like alot of mods we do them just because we can.

Naturally driving styles make the most difference, but if you look at the return on investment of a full exhaust system its hardly a much wiser proposition (regarding FC) even if the gains are greater.

[crf529]

Originally Posted by Fiesta_Man69

then crf529 - if it does work as well as advertised (on its own) why didn't Ford fit the tray to all cars as standard????

I never said it worked as well as advertised (show me where I did), just that there can't be a blanket 'ineffective' term thrown around as fact without any evidence. I have no evidence either way so I will refrain from making a claim on the magnitude of it's use, if I can't back-up my claim why would I waste my breath voicing it.

Fords motives for not including it are pure speculation: it doesn't work, to cut costs, enable the use of advertising other cars with 'green' features, to ensure the gap between the fuel efficient models is large enough. I don't know, I don't care. But Ford not including it cannot be used as part of your proof of it's ineffectiveness. Absence of proof is not a proof of absence.

[Fiesta_Man69]

The tray is from the econetic.
My info says this is a different car.
My info says this has different tyres.
My info says it has a different engine.
My info says it has a different aero package that consists of more than an undertray.
It's a pretty basic concept that to make comparisons and draw conclusions you would need to compare like to like.
A CL petrol an an econetic turbo diesel are very different.
Therefore to throw a blanket over both and announce such results then try to sell one part on to the public is a little deceptive.
But you go buy one - crf529.
I'm already ahead 5.8 running on 98, K&N, aligned, balanced and decent tyres. No need to rice my CL up.

[crf529]

Originally Posted by Fiesta_Man69

The tray is from the econetic.
My info says this is a different car.
My info says this has different tyres.
My info says it has a different engine.
My info says it has a different aero package that consists of more than an undertray.
It's a pretty basic concept that to make comparisons and draw conclusions you would need to compare like to like.
A CL petrol an an econetic turbo diesel are very different.
Therefore to throw a blanket over both and announce such results then try to sell one part on to the public is a little deceptive.
But you go buy one - crf529.
I'm already ahead 5.8 running on 98, K&N, aligned, balanced and decent tyres. No need to rice my CL up.

I don't own a Fiesta, but I do hate poor hypotheses!

Everything you have said so far is an assumption (yet to see anything quantifiable) without even examining the items in your assumptions (the shape of the tray, shape of the engine compartment, stating aero as a 'package' and none of the elements that compose it etc..). I will keep my eyes to the world open and wait for actual fact or educated reasoning to sway my opinion on an issue .

[Fiesta_Man69]

People on here are talking about doing the mod to save fuel, not 'because we can.'

No doubt there's a few on here who will rush out and buy the tray and see a drop in fuel usage:

This is due to the fact that before people were driving their Fiestas normally. And getting a fuel use readout of X. Now they will fit the tray and drive, thinking in the back of their minds about fuel efficiency, therefore justifying their purchase. Therefore they will change up earlier, drive smoother etc. and jump back on here and proclaim it as a miracle.

Forgive me if I tried to prevent the unnecessary blowing of cash.

[Fiesta_Man69]

My apologies crf529, it was stupid of me to assume that the econetic and CL were different cars. Obviously they are the same and share the same engine, tyres, bodywork etc. You can throw a blanket over both - hey, there's a good idea we will just add 6.1 and 3.7 together (9.8) and divide by 2.
Bingo - on average, the entire Fiesta range has fuel consumption of 4.9L!!!! Wow, just wow.

I stand by my claim that if the product did work as advertised then Ford would have fitted it from factory to give it another edge over the 2, Swift etc. (which were hammering it in the sales department). And please don't tell me Ford couldn't absorb $50 extra cost......

Not fitted as standard (or even optional at time of sale)?
Does bugger all.

Then again that was said about the Brock polariser..... and look how far that's come. Oh, wait.

[crf529]

You can warn as many people as you like of fallible modifications, but doing so on an assumption is doing no-one any favours either way.

If someone fits the tray and says "after 2 months my avg. fuel consumption has not changed" then fine, but I haven't seen that yet. Of course the savings will be relatively small, but as alluded to above, a saving of 0.1-0.2L/100km could pay dividends. Based on what I've read so far, you have no valid proof that it will or won't do that.

It still may be a viable modification and your assumptions are counter intuitive to the resolution of any validation.

[Fiesta_Man69]

Also I suggest you read all the media releases on the Econetic. Not one publication, despite some best concerted efforts (i.e not thrashing the car but chasing fuel figures) got below 3.9L - most in the mid 4s. A far cry (a lot more than) the 'claimed' 3.7.

[Polyal]

You show little knowledge of how manufacturing works and how tight car development budgets are if you think $50 per car is nothing.

[Fiesta_Man69]

Ford spends billions on developing cars. If their R&D deemed the fitment of the tray non-viable to cars other than the econetic, then I'll go with their original call.

The fact that Ford didn't originally fit the kit is all the proof I need.

If others want to go and gamble $130, good luck to them.

I'm putting it towards my next pair of semi slicks tho.

[Fiesta_Man69]

Ford spends billions on advertising per year.

The dollar of value between 6.1 and 5.9 in the light car segment is immense, especially in a market where the Fiesta doesn't sell that well and has lead to dealers discounting cars by thousands to shift them.

Thousands is a little more than 50, I think.

[crf529]

Originally Posted by Fiesta_Man69

Ford spends billions on advertising per year.

The dollar of value between 6.1 and 5.9 in the light car segment is immense, especially in a market where the Fiesta doesn't sell that well and has lead to dealers discounting cars by thousands to shift them.

Thousands is a little more than 50, I think.

That's provided they even want to market a lower 5.9 vs. 6.1 if they already have the competition bested, or maintain a large differential to the Econetic. Either way, your absence of proof is still not a proof of absence (starting to become tiring).

[Fiesta_Man69]

So Ford doesn't want to lower their fuel consumption into the 5s when the Mazda is in the 6s and was (March last year before heavy discounting started) outselling the Fiesta 2 units to 1? Makes sense. If you believe that Ford wants maintain high fuel figures (when a direct injection unit is coming that will be in the high 4s btw) then there's little use in arguing.

[crf529]

I'm attempting to discuss the matter with facts and figures pertaining to the effectiveness of the under tray on reducing fuel consumption. But seeing as I am only given assumption after assumption as proof, I will concede that it is much like trying to smash a brick wall using only a calculator... Who needs science anyway, what good did it ever bring us?

[Fiesta_Man69]

The science is sound yes. But the gains are obviously so minimal that the part wasn't oem for anything but the econetic. Since I am not on the ford design team anything i say is discounted by urself. Since u obviously are more knowledgable than fords design, marketing and sales teams, I guess I should just encourage ppl to go and blow $130 like u urself are doing.

[Polyal]

No one has a gun to your head, let people make the choice for themselves.

Stupid Ford, F1's use Carbon Fibre, why cant the Fiesta LX have a CF bonnet...god dont they know lower mass means less fuel consumption! Do you get the point?

[Fiesta_Man69]

No one but a member from fords design team can give you exact facts and figures: and you know this - to use this your defence is poor. I can only base my opinions of undetrtrays on my motor racing experience: something - based on your blind faith - you are yet to experience.

[Fiesta_Man69]

A cf bonnet would be a far better mod - although illegal (mite want to check that for the undertray too) - than an undertray anyday on a fiesta. I'm sure members of skylines aus would be wetting themselves at this thread

[Polyal]

Well then perhaps you should take your semi-slicked Fiesta and have a giggle with them.

Undertray illegal, your right, get those Ecotechnics thingos off the road ASAP! Actually the majority of cars these days have them.

I was being sarcastic and it was an analogy reflecting the point of the under tray. You didnt get it, so I give up.

[Fiesta_Man69]

Poor attempt at sarcasm. I would like to know how an insurance company would respond to an engine fire/burnt vehicle that was fitted with an aftermarket non original equipment to the car claim....
At least skylines aus seem to understand basic concepts behind undertrays too....

[Polyal]

If you cant pick up that a reference to F1, Fiesta and CF isnt sarcasm then no wonder you cant understand the tray....Im done.

If the under side of a Eco is the same as the LX/Zetec etc then it would be very hard to argue that a tray can give any possible negative side effects. Yes the engines are different but they all have proven cooling systems and if the Eco doesnt instantaneously combust then nor will the others.

Over and out.

[Fiesta_Man69]

So, the wash up appears to be that if you are a rational person who is able to reason for themselves, understands and has competed in motor sport and actually believe the multi billion dollar century old ford company might know what it's doing (not selling the tray on cls Lxs originally) then you will spend your money wisely elsewhere, be it on filters, semi slicks etc and just laugh at the aftersales claim.

Or, if you believe your fiesta is indeed a high performance, lowered, carbon fibred supercar that will gain from spending $130 on rice you will rush out and buy the tray...

Either way I'm ahead: sensible mods and a return of less than 6L means I'm laughing. The saying is a sucker is born every minute; just trying to warn that's all...

[Fiesta_Man69]

And as anyone knows, sarcasm is all in the delivery....

[Fiesta_Man69]

Polyal: you've never had to make a claim regarding a modified car, have you? Arguing that your car is no different doesn't change the fact that it's an aftermarket mod: be declared and placed on your premium. Arguing the point after the car has burnt to the ground won't do a thing.