I remember 3rd gen f-bodies being in the .29-.3x range depending on trim.
I remember 3rd gen f-bodies being in the .29-.3x range depending on trim.
If you're wondering an E30 comes in at a brick-shaped 0.38 cd
Hm. I wonder what the worst is? The Caterham comes in at 0.7, supposedly. :)
EDT said:The W124 Mercedes was down to 0.28.
Mercedes sedans from the '80s were pretty impressive. The W201 (190E) and W124 (300e) had lower drag than many modern cars.
Especially impressive when you consider these models trace their origins to '79 or so. The raised rear decklids, multi-link rear suspensions, etc. were in a whole different league compared to other cars of the '80s.
Daeldalus said:If you're wondering an E30 comes in at a brick-shaped 0.38 cd
Case in point!
Daeldalus said:If you're wondering an E30 comes in at a brick-shaped 0.38 cd
1996 E36 comes in at .32.. does not seem to matter if standard, M3, or Ti. I would like to know if the M3 aero bits on regular E36s made a difference or not
Doesn’t the new Ram 1500 have a cd of 0.32 or something?
Saab 9-5 sedan 1999-2006 is .29.
Everything I own has a cd of 0.32. Except the motorcycle but that’s probably somewhere near the parachute end of the spectrum.
How does one go about lowering this number?
Maybe I should start a new thread for this.
0.29 for the 2001-2005 lexus IS300
mad_machine said:Daeldalus said:If you're wondering an E30 comes in at a brick-shaped 0.38 cd
1996 E36 comes in at .32.. does not seem to matter if standard, M3, or Ti. I would like to know if the M3 aero bits on regular E36s made a difference or not
Not sure on the e36, but on the e30 the M3 drops the cd down to 0.33
Lotus Seven was around 0.5. I win.
Can't forget about drag area either- a Honda CRX has a drag coefficient of 0.3, but some of the smallest drag area at around 5.7 sq/feet per wikipedia- explains why some teams use them at bonneville for land speed records.
I think my excursions is under .5 
Interesting that everyone assumes low Cd = good aero. What about downforce & lift?
This ginormous e55 sits at .28...
I was thinking about this thread today when I was running the 924S up about 50-60 miles to Frederick. It was pretty breezy today with a good amount of crosswind on the highways up that way, but the car is literally unaffected in any way by wind. A far cry from what the WRX or e30 feel like on similar breezy days....
In reply to Aspen :
Such under rated cars. I'll add low cd to the list of reasons I love em.
Honda Civics are regular cars. Does a little add-on DIY still count?
https://newatlas.com/diy-honda-civic-as-aerodynamic-as-an-aptera-gets-95-mpg/10869/
"It might look ugly but this 1992 Honda Civic has double the fuel mileage of a standard Civic simply by lowering the coefficient of drag (Cd) from 0.34 to 0.17 ..."
So that's why my bean shaped 95 Maxima would get 30 mpg at 75 mph quietly. .29-.30 IIRC.
Here's a big list:
http://tech-racingcars.wikidot.com/aerodynamics
The AE92 coupe is 0.29 IIRC, the 0.35 listed there must be for the hatchback...the Aptera 2e would've been 0.15!
ProDarwin said:Interesting that everyone assumes low Cd = good aero. What about downforce & lift?
Because the original post specifically quoted low drag as the target.
The wing on my Miata adds drag, but also makes it more grounded to the ground so it doesn't spin out, yo. So it's good aero.
I remember reading about the Audi 100 in the early 80's having a spectacular Cd of 0.30 - the best (regular) production car at the time IIRC. I find it amazing that pretty much anything can beat that now.
The cheapest street-legal cars with good downforce from the factory are far from "regular" anyway, they're made by Lotus and Nobel.
(Not counting kit cars since a crate of parts is what leaves the factory, and it has awful aero 
).
I'm not sure what kind of drag reduction the clear headlight covers were worth on the (.35 cd) '84 T-bird, but they resulted in a 4 MPG efficiency increase.
Cd by itself does not equal low drag....
You'll need to log in to post.
