I just got a 91 HF with the OEM rear hatch louvers. I am currious to know if anyone tested MPG with and without the louvers? If so what were the results?

Are louvers an "in demand" item?

Thanks in advance,

Jack

 

Try it out and let us know

 

no idea about the mpg

New aftermarket louvers cost about 300. I wanted some earlier, maybe a year ago, maybe I'd still want them depending on the price

 

Im pretty sure they will hurt mpg. Sell them for some quick cash.

 

i'id buy them off you

 

lol @ mpg

there is no way to prove mpg gains

some factors that affect mpg include but are not limited to:
-air temp
-air density
-humidity
-throttle position
-engine load
-shift points
-average crusing rpm
-average cruising speed
-condition of engine and parts
-road conditions and materials
-tire pressure
-inclines and changes in road angle
-number of turns

you get the idea

if you are able to duplicate all of these conditions from one tank to another you might have a chance at proving a mpg gain or loss.

 

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

there is no way to prove mpg gains

some factors that affect mpg include but are not limited to:
-air temp
-air density
-humidity
-throttle position
-engine load
-shift points
-average crusing rpm
-average cruising speed
-condition of engine and parts
-road conditions and materials
-tire pressure
-inclines and changes in road angle
-number of turns

you get the idea

if you are able to duplicate all of these conditions from one tank to another you might have a chance at proving a mpg gain or loss.</TD></TR></TABLE> I don't know who you are, but you need to spend more time here

 

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

there is no way to prove mpg gains

some factors that affect mpg include but are not limited to:
-air temp
-air density
-humidity
-throttle position
-engine load
-shift points
-average crusing rpm
-average cruising speed
-condition of engine and parts
-road conditions and materials
-tire pressure
-inclines and changes in road angle
-number of turns

you get the idea

if you are able to duplicate all of these conditions from one tank to another you might have a chance at proving a mpg gain or loss.</TD></TR></TABLE>

coast down tests give pretty accurate aerodynamic data considering the investment. The mpg gains you'd see removing louvers are going to be purely in the aero department so the data would be valid. If you lower the coefficient of drag, you will get better gas mileage.

Also, being a big enough nerd that I have a spreadsheet of my gas mileage, I can tell you that I have documented proof of certain mods improving gas mileage. Now, the data is not that scientific considering I had no interest in proving it in a peer reviewed journal (I wasn't even planning on posting it here), but it's not that hard to judge gains when you use 3 tank averages or even replace the part (mpg with it on, mpg with it off, mpg with it on). I will tell you off the bat though that a healthy tailwind can throw off your data significantly.

Just by looking at the design of the louvers, I'll tell you off the bat that they will most likely decrease gas mileage, specifically at highway speeds.

 

road testing to find the answer may be near impossible, as others have stated.
The only slightly viable way to see is to measure the coefficient of drag in a controlled (test) area. I dont think anyone cares enough to put a 20 year old car on a rolling road in a tunnel to test such a minor application.
My understanding of aerodynamics and modifying cars for maximum MPG is that you would be better off without the louvers.

I will just say that keeping them on for "better gas mileage" is

 

So they reduce gas mileage and they're ugly...

I thought i was the only person who spreadsheet's their MPG.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ~sp33~ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">So they reduce gas mileage and they're ugly...

I thought i was the only person who spreadsheet's their MPG.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Hahaha, that's exactly what I though before too but now after having them on I dig them. You don't see many CRX's with them on so it's cool. Plus beauty is definately in the eye of the beholder.

Old school 80's look for sure!
Various angles:







And here is the view from the inside out:




Modified by 97SS at 12:46 AM 5/29/2008

 

One thing I know they do well is keep the hatch a little cooler in the summer. Its like a greenhouse back there.

 

Shouldn't apply towards aerodynamics in any way since each overlaps the next. If you were doing your tests in reverse it would suck, however I doubt they will make a difference.

 

In my oppinion, the louvers will do very little or nothing to hurt the gas milage.

 

Get another hatch visor instead.

The oem louvers look odd on the crx imo.

Get another hatch visor instead. Like this one

 

Ummm, and what is the purpose of that 'duck bill' thing on that? ^^^

That's clearly for cosmetics, plus it looks like you're trying to have a double spoiler.

I'd say lose the thingie up on top and keep that sexy EDM spoiler!!!

 

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HondaJack &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I just got a 91 HF with the OEM rear hatch louvers. I am currious to know if anyone tested MPG with and without the louvers? If so what were the results?

Are louvers an "in demand" item?

Thanks in advance,

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

I have seen you are selling the 91 CRX HF on craigslist now, will you part with the rear window louvers?

 

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

</TD></TR></TABLE>
Is that a rear diffuser, I'm having trouble working it out? ( under the bumper, behind the muffler)

 

There is a reason louvers look so odd on 2nd gen rexes.
The lowest slat is very high up, to clear the wiper. This forces all of the other slats to be very close together, making them look kind of like scales IMO. Plus, the 2g has lines that are sleek and modern-ish and don't fit as well with the early eighties thing.

EDIT: I decided to try my hand at seeing what a 2nd gen would look like with a decent set of louvers. Here is what I came up with:

1.

2.

3.


Also, I would just like to say that that cream colored crx is the sex.


Modified by imgoingforit at 11:58 PM 9/20/2008

 

This post still active? I was wondering if anyone knew a place to get the second set of louvers on the creamy Rex...

 

And those rims are super sexy too!

 

Well this being closed because someone is trying hard to turn this into a WTB thread and is just getting post count.