Sweet 96Z

I think something worth noting here, is that along with a higher top speed, good aerodynamics also means better fuel economy at high way speeds. And also remember that when you mention drag coefficients, that is independent of the frontal area of the car. Which is why a deville with close to the same drag coefficient of the vette still has much more drag due to it's larger frontal area.

Ken S

Anybody think GM will take the $ and effort to smooth out the undercarriage of the 5th gen?

Considering the cost, I'd be surprised if they did. Can always hope.

5thgen69camaro

I really dont understand what youre trying to say. IRS advantages are much easier and realistic to feel the advantages over IRS than top speed. What is cool is you can enjoy it at a much lower speed in the tight corners. I know there are a few on ramps Id like to do some reasearch on

The car looked pretty aero dynamic in the wind tunnel and its a fast back and has a rounded tail. Im always shocked when I see a funny car in competition with a plastic body of a 57 Chevy or so that looks like it has all the aero dynamics of a brick and they get it into the 300mph or so.

bossco

I just get a kick out of IRS guys, and the bold claims they make - the best one that I've heard tell was extensive driving in an SRA equipped vehicle will cause spinal damage or is so tiring that it effectively renders a car like the current mustang essentially useless for anything but short trips of a few hours at best, or that unless roads are glass smooth then any irregularity will completely upset an SRA equipped car, leading to some sort of white knuckle experience, or how even lowly passenger cars fitted with an IRS offers superior performance to an SRA equipped car like a mustang.

I'm saying yeah, I can agree that IRS is a better rig, but at the speeds most people fool around with and the distances they do it in, the increase in performance is marginal unless the road is really that crappy. like a bonzai run, its more or less a bench racing topic along with things like more cams and valves the better, or oversquare vs square vs undersquare or long rod vs short road, and so on.

RussStang

Well, I think I could get used to having an IRS equipped car. This is PA, and the roads around here are pretty horrible. There have been more times than I can recall where I have been flying down an bending onramp and hit a section of crappy road that came out of nowhere, and had the tail kick out on me pretty fiercely.

Perhaps the full benefits of IRS might not be realized off of the track, but around here it would be noticeable.

Big Als Z

I would assume that there will be some sort of heavy plastic shielding under the front end of the car....but, WHAT A PAIN to remove when doing an oil change.
Unless its gunna have a top speed of 180mph. I really dont want it!!!

Ken S

You can always just leave it off then.....

kastraelie

LS1_Disciple

Not that I disagree with you, but 150 mph is actually 1 mile every 24 seconds. You're point is still very much valid, though.

Ken S

Actually, I heard the original stealth bomber looks like that, with so many flat surfaces and such, was because the tools at the time didn't have the necessary complexity and power to calculate curved surfaces effectively.

If thats true or not, I don't know..

But IMO, believable, since they managed to make the F22 stealth without making it look extremely odd.

Big Als Z

Correct...they knew that a plane with angled sides could reflect radar signals outwards and away from the the source. It was designed in the mid to early 70's.
The B-2 was designed in the 80's with much more advanced computers, and actually has a lower radar signature then the smaller F-117A.
The F/A-22 was designed in the mid 90's with MUCH more advanced computers, and uses all sorts of technology to lower its RCS.