i decided to take off the rear lip today and noticed a weird triangular piece of metal bolted to the spare tire well and only to the well. it protrudes about 4 inches down and i cant help but think that it is contributing mildly to some aerodynamic drag along with the rear lip. so, i took both off.

has anybody else ever noticed that bracket? or has anybody with a fit sport taken off the rear lip in hopes of better aerodynamics?

haha that was funny

oh thats what that is??? good thing i wont ever jack the car up from the front or back. im surprized its so big....

anyway, regarding the lip, i value function over fashion. is anybody else in the fit area of ht that believes that rear beauty is when form follows function?

There are a bunch of things you can do to help the aerodynamics of your car.

Making under carriage trays to make the underside of your car as smooth as possible will help. Also, attaching a tab to the under carriage tray in front of the tires to limit the amount of on coming air that hits the tire (most hybrids and newer sports cars have these already).

If you have a scan gauge or something else to monitor air temps, you can create grill blocks to help make the front of your can as smooth and aerodynamic as possible. Most people who have done this on their Fits block the upper grill completely and block portions of the lower grill (usually everything except in front of the radiator). The normal operating temperature of the Fit is around 170 degrees, and with these blocks people see temps between 175 and 210 degrees. The grill blocks help your car warm up faster, since the fuel economy of your engine cold is pretty bad.

i am looking to get a scan gauge and eventually install a belly pan, but really doubt my wife will let me put a grille block on her car. <TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by solbrothers &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> engrish? </TD></TR></TABLE>we are talking about the rear lip right? you got me though. i over edited that post. also i did search about the jack point but came up with nothing, so dont go search **** on me

i dont see any difference with the rear lip on or off in helping the aero. So put it back on and make that rear end look better

if you put an underpanel in the back that would be the best thing for you


beatrush makes a front one you can buy it from kamispeed

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by thisisntjared &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i decided to take off the rear lip today and noticed a weird triangular piece of metal bolted to the spare tire well and only to the well. it protrudes about 4 inches down and i cant help but think that it is contributing mildly to some aerodynamic drag along with the rear lip. so, i took both off.

has anybody else ever noticed that bracket? or has anybody with a fit sport taken off the rear lip in hopes of better aerodynamics?</TD></TR></TABLE>


A photo would be the best way to get across what you are trying to tell us about. I have had a base Fit and a Sport model and found no difference in the rear of the car with or without the valence.

And secondly, that rear lip is not adversely affecting aerodynamics. What makes you believe it is?

i am definitely not going to buy anything aftermarket for this car as it is the wife's and both she and i are against drawing any sort of attention to the car. i opted to remove the rear lip as it is part of a model option.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SuzukaBlueAP2 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">A photo would be the best way to get across what you are trying to tell us about. I have had a base Fit and a Sport model and found no difference in the rear of the car with or without the valence.

And secondly, that rear lip is not adversely affecting aerodynamics. What makes you believe it is?</TD></TR></TABLE>i think your right, i am going to have to take a picture.

with the lip on it catches an extra .5-1 inch of air lower than the rear bumper like a second parachute in addition to the rear bumper. also the lip provides for almost a 90 degree angle between the undercarriage and rear face, where without the lip, there is a smooth curve with a radius of about 3-4 inches(the height of the lip).

the underpanel is not even seen unless the car is jacked up.

to be honest i really dont see why your so concerned with 3-4in extension of the rear lip.

even without it your stock bumper still creates a air pocket or drag. the car itself gets good gas mileage with or without the lip.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by thisisntjared &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> has anybody with a fit sport taken off the rear lip in hopes of better aerodynamics?</TD></TR></TABLE>

I would think that this would be a better purchase, if aero is your goal.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TunerN00b &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I would think that this would be a better purchase, if aero is your goal.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TunerN00b &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I would think that this would be a better purchase, if aero is your goal.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

Where did you see this for sale? I looked all over cleanmpg.com and could not find it.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by EF_338 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the underpanel is not even seen unless the car is jacked up.

to be honest i really dont see why your so concerned with 3-4in extension of the rear lip.

even without it your stock bumper still creates a air pocket or drag. the car itself gets good gas mileage with or without the lip.

</TD></TR></TABLE>thats why i would consider it... because its not seen. when i cut off the bottom 4 inches on the rear bumper on my 94 hatch, i netted an extra 3mpg going 65mph. i also dont think less than 40mpg is good.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TunerN00b &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I would think that this would be a better purchase, if aero is your goal.



</TD></TR></TABLE>i agree that would be the purchase. but i still have not spent a dime. i bet that will be my next step but of course i will be making it out of chloroplast not buying something prefabricated.

wow! right click the image and go to properties and you get this!

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos...t.jpg

that actually is for a fit! i didn't think they'd make it for and a non-performance car. i thought i was for a corvette or something.

this is the first thing i ever wanted to make for my fit. so now i have some ideas i just might!

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by NSfit &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
that actually is for a fit!</TD></TR></TABLE>

Thats why I posted it.

Its actually the first Google result for searching "Mugen Fit underbody"
http://www.google.com/search?q=mugen+fit+underbody

I don't know where one could purchase it however.

well, i just emailed kingmotorsports. if anyone knows they will!

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by NSfit &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">well, i just emailed kingmotorsports. if anyone knows they will!</TD></TR></TABLE>

Very cool, keep us posted.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by thisisntjared &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> i also dont think less than 40mpg is good. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Want more than 40mpg? Motorcycle. Want to spend less? Motorcycle. Honestly, if you are driving around not carrying passengers, grocery, or anything else but yourself...

If you enjoy riding...then motorcycles more than double the distance per tank compared to any fuel efficient cars. Even the super bikes gets twice the range. Otherwise...having another 25 miles per tank by trying to make the Fit more aerodynamic is futile. You already said no modifications...so no lightweight wheels, suspensions, or any other lighter aftermarket doohickeys.

You might as well block the grille, air dam, take off the windshield wipers, the side mirrors. ONLY kidding.

All I can say is go ahead do whatever makes you happy. The Fit is already an awesome car. If you can squeeze some more out of it...more power to you good sir. But there is only so much you can do.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by NSfit &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">well, i just emailed kingmotorsports. if anyone knows they will!</TD></TR></TABLE>i am very curious about how much they charge. i am going to guess over $300...<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Sturmmann &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Want more than 40mpg? Motorcycle. Want to spend less? Motorcycle. Honestly, if you are driving around not carrying passengers, grocery, or anything else but yourself...
</TD></TR></TABLE>this is my wife's car and she will be carrying passengers groceries and often more than just herself. the reason i am looking for better aerodynamics is for the 4-5 hour trips out to see her parents. it would be nice if the trip cost less than $35 each way in gas. for those who would tell me to slow down: i do not speed more than 5 over and refuse to go bellow the speed limit.

i specified no aftermarket parts, not modifications. although i have no idea how something lightweight automatically implies it is more aerodynamic. often times the lightweight part is not aerodynamic, especially wheels. i am still working on getting a firmer/lower set of springs with the argument of decreased tire frontal area and smaller wheel well space

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by thisisntjared &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the reason i am looking for better aerodynamics is for the 4-5 hour trips out to see her parents. it would be nice if the trip cost less than $35 each way in gas. for those who would tell me to slow down: i do not speed more than 5 over and refuse to go bellow the speed limit.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I can certainly understand wanting better mileage for visiting the folks. I drive for 3 hours to see mine, and get to choose between my GSR and my girl's A4, both of which require premium fuel and neither can manage over 32 mpg (though, sadly, the Audi averages better mileage).

However, I honestly don't know how much aero actually affects highway mileage. My "weekend" car (continual project car might be a better term) is a Triumph Spitfire, which is gawd awful in terms of aero (especially with the top down), yet the car still manages 55mpg without issue (best tank was 62mpg).

According to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...ients
0.42 Triumph Spitfire Mk IV 1971
0.39 Dodge Durango 2004

A 12mpg Dodge Durango has a better drag coefficient than my 55mpg car.

Sorry I was being a bit vague. Lightweight is not directly related to aerodynamics but instead it is easier to propel with continual force. TunerN00b's Spitfire is somewhere in the 1650-1850 lbs curb weight...depending on year. So he is able to muster up motorcycle gas range.

But you can only lighten up the Fit so much. At around 2400-2500 lbs curb weight it is doing pretty well for stock.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TunerN00b &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

According to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...ients
0.42 Triumph Spitfire Mk IV 1971
0.39 Dodge Durango 2004

A 12mpg Dodge Durango has a better drag coefficient than my 55mpg car.</TD></TR></TABLE>

To use coefficient of drag, I believe you multiply it times the frontal area. So the Durango still loses.

[<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by thisisntjared &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i am very curious about how much they charge. i am going to guess over $300..</TD></TR></TABLE>

Apparently it is not released in the USA yet, and it will not be for another 60-90 days. I called dynamic autosports which is a Mugen delaer through King.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dbrd &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

To use coefficient of drag, I believe you multiply it times the frontal area. So the Durango still loses.</TD></TR></TABLE>thats correct we care about cdA not just cd. the triumph's A is probably almost half of the fits.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by BudgetFitting &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Apparently it is not released in the USA yet, and it will not be for another 60-90 days. I called dynamic autosports which is a Mugen delaer through King. </TD></TR></TABLE>so in 90 days will we get a quote?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by thisisntjared &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
so in 90 days will we get a quote?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yeah, I will call back then. I will make a post here keeping people informed.