Guyana00;1072543 said:
ahh
well the only thing I can think of is. You do not have to much space for that below the car
Anyway, If you will do that, minus well do a remote oil filter solution and call it a day.
Finally lost my engine undercover...
- Thread starter pparrigo
- Start date
ahh
well the only thing I can think of is. You do not have to much space for that below the car
Anyway, If you will do that, minus well do a remote oil filter solution and call it a day.
^
Did that with mine,makes it sooo easy.
As far as the undercover,if yours is thrashed,just replace it with one from Champion!
Did that with mine,makes it sooo easy.
As far as the undercover,if yours is thrashed,just replace it with one from Champion!
I want to start off by saying something. I am not trying to be hostile to anyone. I respect everyone's opinion, except for all the repeat "Just buy the damn part" people \
Some of you will probably want to skip to the end, it's O.K. with me.
Figgie, it seems from your reply that you are on the consumer end of product development, we'll call it. I have been at the other end of that for the last... we'll call it 3 years. Yeah, I know it's not a long time, but whatever. Yes, throwing money at a problem is what you do. I completely understand this. But to say that talent does not go into it is borderline offensive. I apologize if I am taking your post and twisting it into something you don't mean, but that is how I read and understand it in context. From working where I work, I can tell that pretty much the only to objectives that went into designing the undercover were ensuring that air got back to the radiator and intercooler (and there are more effective designs for this) and moldability. I know this, because that is how I am asked to design parts all day, every day. And, in high-volume production, that is precisely how parts should be designed. More on that later. It provides an ADEQUATE part to the customer at a reasonable price point. As many of you have come to know through modifying your cars, the parts and pieces are just that- ADEQUATE. For as long as mass production has been in existence, the only cost-effective part for a manufacturer to produce in high volume is of an ADEQUATE design. It's very simple economics. I don't mean this to read that ADEQUATE is CRAP. This is not the case. ADEQUATE can be more than passable. Always keep in mind, however, how much better your car would work if bean counters never touched the design before it went out the door. Here is a personal story my father told me:
He is a retired mechanic. While working at a Chrysler dealer, a man would always bring his late-model New Yorker (Boatlike handling, not bad for a car of its type, but it could be better) in for servicing, and specifically request that my father work on it. He has a reputation of being a very good, thorough mechanic.
One day, my father had this New Yorker in the air. The man came out to watch a little bit. After a few moments, the man said, sort of to himself while looking at the rear suspension, "That's not how I designed it."
Intrigued by the customer's comment, my father asked, "You designed it?"
"Yes, I was the lead engineer for the rear suspension on the LHS platform."
\Some of you will probably want to skip to the end, it's O.K. with me.
Figgie, it seems from your reply that you are on the consumer end of product development, we'll call it. I have been at the other end of that for the last... we'll call it 3 years. Yeah, I know it's not a long time, but whatever. Yes, throwing money at a problem is what you do. I completely understand this. But to say that talent does not go into it is borderline offensive. I apologize if I am taking your post and twisting it into something you don't mean, but that is how I read and understand it in context. From working where I work, I can tell that pretty much the only to objectives that went into designing the undercover were ensuring that air got back to the radiator and intercooler (and there are more effective designs for this) and moldability. I know this, because that is how I am asked to design parts all day, every day. And, in high-volume production, that is precisely how parts should be designed. More on that later. It provides an ADEQUATE part to the customer at a reasonable price point. As many of you have come to know through modifying your cars, the parts and pieces are just that- ADEQUATE. For as long as mass production has been in existence, the only cost-effective part for a manufacturer to produce in high volume is of an ADEQUATE design. It's very simple economics. I don't mean this to read that ADEQUATE is CRAP. This is not the case. ADEQUATE can be more than passable. Always keep in mind, however, how much better your car would work if bean counters never touched the design before it went out the door. Here is a personal story my father told me:
He is a retired mechanic. While working at a Chrysler dealer, a man would always bring his late-model New Yorker (Boatlike handling, not bad for a car of its type, but it could be better) in for servicing, and specifically request that my father work on it. He has a reputation of being a very good, thorough mechanic.
One day, my father had this New Yorker in the air. The man came out to watch a little bit. After a few moments, the man said, sort of to himself while looking at the rear suspension, "That's not how I designed it."
Intrigued by the customer's comment, my father asked, "You designed it?"
"Yes, I was the lead engineer for the rear suspension on the LHS platform."
Obviously, other divisions within Chrysler had gotten the design and changed it. Take the story for what it's worth, as it is anecdotal evidence. I think it's appropriate nonetheless. In case some of you think it's a domestic company problem, I will take Mercedes to be my case in point. Mercedes, these days, are not exactly known for stellar build quality or design. This is because in the last decade or so, the higher-ups at MB have finally put a solid cap on how much engineering work (grossly represented as a monetary value) can go into a MB automobile design. Before this, they essentially gave their engineers a blank check. During this time period, Mercedes produced some of the most beautifully engineered and reliable vehicles in the world. Look at any reputable customer satisfaction survey these days and you will find that it is sadly no longer the case. This is why there are aftermarket parts.
Aftermarket parts come in two varieties- replacement parts that are cheaper than OEM (O.E. Form, Fit, and Function) and better than OEM. I am not necessarily saying that this category is more expensive that O.E.M. Granted, some of the time, it is not (Advances in materials and manufacturing in the 22 years since the beloved MK3 came out, etc.). The price point of everything comes from two areas- Engineering work and production costs. The customer is always right, usually, but production considerations will often be taken into account just as heavily in a final product. A company has to watch it's own wallet, after all. Ease of production means products can be made more cheaply and more quickly. The more product you can move, the more money, usually, you receive. Automotive companies are absolutely no different from where I work, and this is a big driver for what I do. The engineering work covers both customer needs and moldability/machinability. At least 8 times out of 10, engineering is directed to focus on ease of production as hard or slightly harder than customer requirements. Those are slightly more flexible, and lead to a loss of function even though it may be slight or negligible. This brings us around to the question of the undercover. As I had said before, i firmly believe the undercover was designed first for moldability, and then for function. This prioritizing creates what you see under your car. It is a functional part. For people that understand the cynicism of an engineer, FUNCTIONAL translates to "It about does the job it's supposed to." ADEQUATE. Obviously, it was designed to spit some are back at the radiator and intercooler. Given that some people (like me) only run a little bit hotter without the cover in place, I would say it does its job... ADEQUATELY. It directs some air where its supposed to, but not in the most efficient way possible. True, I do not have a wind tunnel and a CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) setup to prove this. But, from a basic Fluid Dynamics standpoint, I would contest that there are better ways. I've gone on too long to get into them, but some directional vanes would be included to make the airflow less of a clusterfuck than it's current design seems to lend itself to. Don't get me started on the aerodynamics on the bottom of the cover. They are, in a word, CRAP. In this case, I do of course mean ADEQUATE, as this was not, in all likelihood, a goal of the under cover design. All of those curves and bumps? Yeah, that makes for an airflow with a reynolds number (Re) over 2500. Turbulent. Bar none, and not taking a need for front downforce into consideration, the fastest flow of air is over a flat surface. This isn't even engineering knowledge, it's basic common sense. But, for production purposes, it was easier to mold the part over a vacuum table (I would guess that, for production purposes, this is how they did it) than it would have been to pay for several identical molds that created a flat surface on the bottom with the features they wanted in the top. F1 cars and most race cars, have a flat bottom for a reason. It ain't for shits and giggles. This would have been a better design, from an aerodynamics standpoint.
Aftermarket parts come in two varieties- replacement parts that are cheaper than OEM (O.E. Form, Fit, and Function) and better than OEM. I am not necessarily saying that this category is more expensive that O.E.M. Granted, some of the time, it is not (Advances in materials and manufacturing in the 22 years since the beloved MK3 came out, etc.). The price point of everything comes from two areas- Engineering work and production costs. The customer is always right, usually, but production considerations will often be taken into account just as heavily in a final product. A company has to watch it's own wallet, after all. Ease of production means products can be made more cheaply and more quickly. The more product you can move, the more money, usually, you receive. Automotive companies are absolutely no different from where I work, and this is a big driver for what I do. The engineering work covers both customer needs and moldability/machinability. At least 8 times out of 10, engineering is directed to focus on ease of production as hard or slightly harder than customer requirements. Those are slightly more flexible, and lead to a loss of function even though it may be slight or negligible. This brings us around to the question of the undercover. As I had said before, i firmly believe the undercover was designed first for moldability, and then for function. This prioritizing creates what you see under your car. It is a functional part. For people that understand the cynicism of an engineer, FUNCTIONAL translates to "It about does the job it's supposed to." ADEQUATE. Obviously, it was designed to spit some are back at the radiator and intercooler. Given that some people (like me) only run a little bit hotter without the cover in place, I would say it does its job... ADEQUATELY. It directs some air where its supposed to, but not in the most efficient way possible. True, I do not have a wind tunnel and a CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) setup to prove this. But, from a basic Fluid Dynamics standpoint, I would contest that there are better ways. I've gone on too long to get into them, but some directional vanes would be included to make the airflow less of a clusterfuck than it's current design seems to lend itself to. Don't get me started on the aerodynamics on the bottom of the cover. They are, in a word, CRAP. In this case, I do of course mean ADEQUATE, as this was not, in all likelihood, a goal of the under cover design. All of those curves and bumps? Yeah, that makes for an airflow with a reynolds number (Re) over 2500. Turbulent. Bar none, and not taking a need for front downforce into consideration, the fastest flow of air is over a flat surface. This isn't even engineering knowledge, it's basic common sense. But, for production purposes, it was easier to mold the part over a vacuum table (I would guess that, for production purposes, this is how they did it) than it would have been to pay for several identical molds that created a flat surface on the bottom with the features they wanted in the top. F1 cars and most race cars, have a flat bottom for a reason. It ain't for shits and giggles. This would have been a better design, from an aerodynamics standpoint.
I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that, as a fundamental piece of mass produced equipment, the OEM cover is flawed (I know I said it wasn't before, but writing this changed my mind), but ADEQUATE.
This is about the time one of those Toyota engineers comes in and makes me look like the world's biggest dick.
No, I do not pretend to know better than Toyota's engineers. But, I can also reasonably surmise that the cover is not exactly as the engineer designed it. I would put a small sum of money on the bet that wind tunnel data or other test data they may have obtained, if they obtained it, was pushed to the wayside when the cover went through it's final revisions. I know for a fact similar things have happened to very bright engineers and designers at my company.
With the project to "engineer" and create a custom cover (read ONE-OFF or EXTREMELY LOW VOLUME) for our cars, or my car, I do not believe we are out to change the MK3 world. Hell, we probably won't even notice the difference. That being said, I am confident that a solution can be found in this "frivolous" exercise for a custom cover with the cooling properties of the original and improved aerodynamics in general.
Ok, for everyone that skipped, welcome back.
I apologize for threadjacking my own thread. I think I need to learn to keep my mouth shut in this community a little more. Hell, I only have 30 some posts and I'm only 20 (21).
I am still going to do it. I am going to start a new thread soon for a new undercover design, and anyone will be welcome to join in with CONSTRUCTIVE ideas. I don't want any of this happening again. It was not the original intent of the thread.
Oh, and for the last time,
CHAMPION TOYOTAWORLD IS A FABULOUS BARGAIN. BUY YOUR PARTS THERE.
And, for the third time, yes, I AM going to buy an OEM cover. stop shitting yourselves
This is about the time one of those Toyota engineers comes in and makes me look like the world's biggest dick.
No, I do not pretend to know better than Toyota's engineers. But, I can also reasonably surmise that the cover is not exactly as the engineer designed it. I would put a small sum of money on the bet that wind tunnel data or other test data they may have obtained, if they obtained it, was pushed to the wayside when the cover went through it's final revisions. I know for a fact similar things have happened to very bright engineers and designers at my company.
With the project to "engineer" and create a custom cover (read ONE-OFF or EXTREMELY LOW VOLUME) for our cars, or my car, I do not believe we are out to change the MK3 world. Hell, we probably won't even notice the difference. That being said, I am confident that a solution can be found in this "frivolous" exercise for a custom cover with the cooling properties of the original and improved aerodynamics in general.
Ok, for everyone that skipped, welcome back.
I apologize for threadjacking my own thread. I think I need to learn to keep my mouth shut in this community a little more. Hell, I only have 30 some posts and I'm only 20 (21).
I am still going to do it. I am going to start a new thread soon for a new undercover design, and anyone will be welcome to join in with CONSTRUCTIVE ideas. I don't want any of this happening again. It was not the original intent of the thread.
Oh, and for the last time,
CHAMPION TOYOTAWORLD IS A FABULOUS BARGAIN. BUY YOUR PARTS THERE.
And, for the third time, yes, I AM going to buy an OEM cover. stop shitting yourselves
JustAnotherVictim
Supramania Contributor
pparrigo;1072925 said:
Well NO you're NOT going to start another thread on this subject...
You posted in a public forum learn to deal with it.
Try actually making the under cover post some pics and a writeup about how you did it and why you made any changes and what the benefits were, until then you're just some mouthy newb with verbal diahorrea.
JustAnotherVictim;1072980 said:
LOL, I said /did the same thing, just skipped over the 3 or so............Was there any good info in there, or just more garbage
Cliff notes: Engineers design parts to work the best way they possibly can. The company they are made for usually changes the design to be more costs effective and still get by with it's main function, however flawed it may now be with it's new design.
The OP is going to buy a new OEM undercover for now, but still plans to design one that will allow air to flow better over it as it has much to be improved upon in design due to the molded shape of the undercover (doesn't flow for shit compared to a flat one, I agree with him on this).
The OP is going to buy a new OEM undercover for now, but still plans to design one that will allow air to flow better over it as it has much to be improved upon in design due to the molded shape of the undercover (doesn't flow for shit compared to a flat one, I agree with him on this).
pparrigo;1072921 said:
Oh boy did you just open a shit storm son. :icon_evil
First off. I don't "THROW" money at a problem. I INVEST money at acquiring the CORRECT people with the know how to either improve on the problem if there is a problem to begin with (ATI has engineers on staff that I consulted with about the dampner, Canton Mecca has enginners on staff for oil pan and oil circuit designs) or them telling me there is no improvement gains to be had.
I do not know it all but I do know when I am lacking the knowledge, there are experts in the fields that are a phone call away in just about every single industry you can imagine.
You chose extremly poor wording as I am not one to throw money at the problem. But you did not mention anything new to any of us with an automotive industry background.
That was not my intent. I don't use "throwing money at a problem" to imply that its not wise investment. It's simply what gets done. Yes, in retrospect, my word choice was lacking, but I stand by my meaning. It was a neutral statement of fact, but I can see where it could imply what you just said. I humbly apologize. I also reread my unnecessarily long reply (Starscream's comment earlier was all I had to do) and noticed I did not mention something crucial. I don't disagree with you. It, coupled with "OEM or don't bother," caught me the wrong way at an inopportune time. Call it posting under the influence of endorphins. I'm not retracting anything I said, because as you correctly pointed out, there's nothing new to retract.
To get back on topic-
I do not have a cover suitable for measurement at this point, until my new one comes in. Does anybody have a reasonable estimate as to the exterior dimensions (basic length/width) of the cover?
To get back on topic-
I do not have a cover suitable for measurement at this point, until my new one comes in. Does anybody have a reasonable estimate as to the exterior dimensions (basic length/width) of the cover?
I have been looking into making a fiberglass one for myself, and I think the basic square that I'm going to start shaping from is going to be roughly 30" wide (tire to tire) and 25" long. I do not have a stock undercover to look at, but just taking some rough measurements under the car, that seemed like the rough area that I needed to cover.
granted, some will have to be trimmed, but i have found in the past that its much better to start a few inches big and trim slowly rather than start small and then start over.
granted, some will have to be trimmed, but i have found in the past that its much better to start a few inches big and trim slowly rather than start small and then start over.
Supraboy89;1071891 said:
It's supposed to go from the front grill to the radiator. The point is to direct all the air that enters the front of the car through the intercooler, ac-condensor (if you have one), and the radiator.
I'll post pics of my newest one when I get my car back. It is the 5th custom undercover I've made.
The most important section to get right is the seal to the bottom of the Radiator support panel, my car runs +5c if the 3 bolts there aren't installed and +8>10c if the cover is off.
(this is at 100>110 Kmh highway cruise)
(this is at 100>110 Kmh highway cruise)
JustAnotherVictim;1072980 said:
I did read your entire post, and I think you need to listen to yourself, because you hit it on the head despite yourself:
pparrigo;1072925 said:
See what I mean.