Joe K. 96 Zeee!! 02-27-2003, 01:58 PM Was curious about how our cars compare....FYI
79 Mustang .49
94 Mustang .34
02 Mustang V6 .33
02 Mustang GT/Cobra .36
69 Camaro .40
88 Camaro IROC .34
93 Camaro .34
99 Camaro .34
92 Vette .33
97 Vette .29:eek:
Viper (pre-03) .35
NSX .32
F-bods ain't too shabby in this area. :cool:
guess who 02-27-2003, 02:02 PM Originally posted by Joe K. 96 Zeee!!
Was curious about how our cars compare....FYI
79 Mustang .49
94 Mustang .34
02 Mustang V6 .33
02 Mustang GT/Cobra .36
69 Camaro .40
88 Camaro IROC .34
93 Camaro .34
99 Camaro .34
92 Vette .33
97 Vette .29:eek:
Viper (pre-03) .35
NSX .32
F-bods ain't too shabby in this area. :cool:
Do you know how they get C/D......;)
guionM 02-27-2003, 02:05 PM What I find noteworthy is that even with that windshield, the 4th gen is no more slippery than the 3rd gen Camaro, or even the taller '94 Mustang with that relatively big grille and very unwedge-like front end !:eek:
Also, unless I'm mistaken, the 1983 Trans Am had it's drag below .27 cd, and is one of the most slippery cars ever made. Kind of makes the slick C5 seem brickish.
BTW, that .3 difference in the new V6 & GT Mustang & Cobra is from that relatively useless rear spoiler. Most all tacked on spoilers you see out there rob far more in aerodynamics than the downward force it would create at the speeds it's drivers will ever use.
formula79 02-27-2003, 02:12 PM The underside has alot to do with a car too. The C5 has an almost totally flat underside.
I have trouble beliveing the Mustangs numbers...maybe it's also in the underside.
They had to make the 4th Gen Camaro's slick...with the dog V8's they had they needed every bit of help they could cutting through the air;)
PacerX 02-27-2003, 02:17 PM While comparing these, please remember that you are only seeing half of the equation.
The other half is frontal area, and the F-car had it in spades over the Mustang in that department - specifically because of that steeply raked windshield and the lower seating position.
Corvettes kick ass in both departments - two thumbs up from the peanut gallery to the C5, the more I learn about the car, the more it amazes me.
guionM 02-27-2003, 02:18 PM Originally posted by formula79
The underside has alot to do with a car too. The C5 has an almost totally flat underside.
I have trouble beliveing the Mustangs numbers...maybe it's also in the underside.
They had to make the 4th Gen Camaro's slick...with the dog V8's they had they needed every bit of help they could cutting through the air;)
Correct on the C5. Aerodynamics was a top priority (check out how the wheelwell cutouts are smoother at the rear of the arch than the front.
But as far as the Camaro's wedge, that's my point. The wedge-like Camaro isn't any slicker than the old one. Or the SN95 (Mid 30s seem about right for the Stang, but surprising for the Camaro!).
Darth Xed 02-27-2003, 02:20 PM The C5's exceptional C/D was no accident either.
They made a lot of changes just to improve the C/D... if you look behind the rear wheels, there is a faint 'divit' or dip in the body... they found this made a significant difference in aerodynamics.
Also, the C5 was originally to have a character line on the decklid, where it would dip down and carry over the shape of the taillamps... but they found a flat deck lip performed better in the wind tunnell, so they went with the flat edge.
PacerX 02-27-2003, 02:26 PM I know it helped the Cd, but the one appearance complaint I have on the C5 is that godawful coach joint that closes out the ass end. No matter how well it is lined up, it always looks bad.
Joe K. 96 Zeee!! 02-27-2003, 02:42 PM Found some frontal areas in sq. ft. Not sure if these are completely accurate I'm getting a lot of it from smokemup.com. I saw another site that listed 99 stang at .38.
One thing is for sure. You can't assume C/D just by how a car looks. Heck new vettes look big compared to NSX's but there's a lot more too it. Reading ACOR and I'm seeing how "small" changes can make a difference.
94 Mustang .34 22.5
02 Mustang V6 .33
02 Mustang GT/Cobra .36 22.9
69 Camaro .40
88 Camaro IROC .34
93 Camaro .34 22.0
99 Camaro .34 21.6
92 Vette .33 19.00
97 Vette .29 19.30
Viper (pre-03) .35 20.5
NSX .32 19.2
PacerX 02-27-2003, 02:51 PM K, I redid the chart with the numbers multiplied to give you a real-world comparison on the cars (Cd x FA)
94 Mustang 7.65
02 Mustang GT/Cobra 8.24
93 Camaro 7.48
99 Camaro 7.344
92 Vette 6.27
97 Vette 5.597
Viper (pre-03) 7.175
NSX 6.144
Hats off to the Vette.
Joe K. 96 Zeee!! 02-27-2003, 02:56 PM Found the following from thise site... http://www.fbody.com/members/pmdbybrent/features/History.htm
"In 1982, the Trans Am was restyled. Sadly, the Pontiac V-8 was laid to rest so "more 4 cylinders could be built." At that point, Trans Ams came with the "corporate V-8," the Chevy small block V-8. At this point, the Camaro regained the market it had lost in the '70s. Many buyers saw the two cars to be the same. One highnote was the fact that the Trans Am was chosen to star in the tv series "Knight Rider." Another highnote was that in 1984, the Trans Am became the most aerodynamic GM production vehicle ever with a drag coefficient of 0.29."
That's .29 back in 84! Dang! :bow:
Darth Xed 02-27-2003, 02:56 PM Originally posted by PacerX
I know it helped the Cd, but the one appearance complaint I have on the C5 is that godawful coach joint that closes out the ass end. No matter how well it is lined up, it always looks bad.
Ya, I kind of liked the original character lines for the tailllamps myself...
I guess you need to go one way or the other...
Sometimes, I think that minor functionality / performance issues should be sacrificed for better styling... but it all depends... every case is different.
jg95z28 02-27-2003, 02:58 PM I'm curious to see how the 2nd gens stack up. Anyone have a clue?
|