tuna55
UltraDork
3/16/12 8:34 a.m.
So, everyone. I hate aerodynamics. It's difficult to figure out. Did you know a 240Z is less aerodynamic (in terms of CD) than a Volvo 945? I understand why. The angle of the hatch on the 240Z is exactly wrong while the 940 wagon acts as a giant kammback, and a ton of aero comes from the rear of the car, but anyway...
So, that being said, in terms of CD only, what cars are any good that can be had for challenge cash as potential drivetrain recipients if necessary?
I am not looking to buy something tomorrow, but gas prices being what they are, and the numerous "xxmpg" threads we've seen got me thinking. Everyone knows which powerplants and drivetrains seem to produce the best mileage. Everyone knows lighter is generally better. What about aero? What say you?
tpwalsh
New Reader
3/16/12 8:46 a.m.
CRX is surprisingly slippery as well. Too bad you're stuck with FWD(or Mid engine if you're a glutton)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient
Have fun
Roll your own.
http://ecomodder.com/
JoeyM wrote:
foxtrapper wrote:
Roll your own.
http://ecomodder.com/
Neat link. I liked this:
I saw a guy on some hypermiler forum with a 2WD Duramax 2500HD and a cap like that - he lowered, put front and side skirts, skinny tires, took a bunch of weight out and was after something insane like 40mpg.
tuna55
UltraDork
3/16/12 9:55 a.m.
foxtrapper wrote:
Roll your own.
http://ecomodder.com/
This site has been very - noisy - for me. Just looking for knowledge on what stock or close vehicles have a good drag coefficient
In my experience it's a little difficult to find cars that are readily available that have a low Cd as well as a low frontal area (you really want both for drag reduction). The FC RX-7 is pretty good on all three of those criteria, if I remember correctly.
Funny thing is, if you're looking for the MPGs you'll need a different engine, those triangles are just too thirsty to be thrifty. I think that's one of the reasons they had such good aero for the time - needed to be a little more competitive with fuel economy.
Not sure where it was but when I had my MX6 I was reading up on CD numbers and a Ford Probe gen 2 had a better CD than a Viper.
tuna55
UltraDork
3/16/12 10:18 a.m.
m4ff3w wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient
Have fun
Nice.
According to that, some of the best at a cheap entry price are:
Mazda6 at 0.27
Saab 9-3 at 0.28
Diamente (has to be faked) at 0.28
Citroen XM at 0.28
Chrysler Concorde (really?) at 0.29
Volvo 850 T5-R Sedan at 0.29
Yaris at 0.29
SVX at 0.29
'84 trans am with some aero package at 0.29
RX7 FD at 0.29
Millenia at 0.29
Europa at 0.29
CRX HF at 0.29
Toyota Sienna (!!!) at 0.30
Honda Odyssey (!!!) at 0.30
Reg CRX at 0.30
Bubbly Taurus at 0.30
Audi 100 (!!!) at 0.30
Probe at 0.304
Supra at 0.31
Saturn SC1 at 0.31
Sonnet at 0.31
MX-6 at 0.31
Buncha Civics at 0.31
Interesting.......
Insight-.25. And it is insanely light. I have seen some needing batteries or engines come up for cheap. That plus a D16 should move you along nicely and get very good gas mileage.
Cuda
New Reader
3/16/12 10:23 a.m.
In reply to 93EXCivic:
Just don't forget to factor in frontal area. Cd isn't the only aspect of aero.
Cuda wrote:
In reply to 93EXCivic:
Just don't forget to factor in frontal area. Cd isn't the only aspect of aero.
I am fairly sure an Insight has a relatively low frontal area. It was designed specifically for getting good mileage.
I'm going with Insight too. They got insanely good mileage to start with and big part of the low drag and light weight design.
The K-sight supposedly still gets 48mpg while making 200hp.
Cuda wrote:
In reply to 93EXCivic:
Just don't forget to factor in frontal area. Cd isn't the only aspect of aero.
Yea, a brick at the front and fish at the back doesn't really help much.
There's also the Opel Omega at 0.28, also known as the Cadillac Catera, also known as the Cadillac that Sucks, er, Zigs! Tons of them available very cheap with everything broken.
tuna55
UltraDork
3/16/12 10:34 a.m.
dculberson wrote:
There's also the Opel Omega at 0.28, also known as the Cadillac Catera, also known as the Cadillac that Sucks, er, Zigs! Tons of them available very cheap with everything broken.
I did not realize they were the same - good info - those are ALWAYS cheap.
tuna55
UltraDork
3/16/12 10:34 a.m.
93EXCivic wrote:
Insight-.25. And it is insanely light. I have seen some needing batteries or engines come up for cheap. That plus a D16 should move you along nicely and get very good gas mileage.
Links?
I have not seen any cheap ones. If so, I have plans...
tuna55 wrote:
93EXCivic wrote:
Insight-.25. And it is insanely light. I have seen some needing batteries or engines come up for cheap. That plus a D16 should move you along nicely and get very good gas mileage.
Links?
I have not seen any cheap ones. If so, I have plans...
How cheap is cheap? http://hudsonvalley.craigslist.org/ctd/2897332382.html
tuna55
UltraDork
3/16/12 10:40 a.m.
MG Bryan wrote:
tuna55 wrote:
93EXCivic wrote:
Insight-.25. And it is insanely light. I have seen some needing batteries or engines come up for cheap. That plus a D16 should move you along nicely and get very good gas mileage.
Links?
I have not seen any cheap ones. If so, I have plans...
How cheap is cheap? http://hudsonvalley.craigslist.org/ctd/2897332382.html
Initial post says challenge cheap... That's close.
tuna55 wrote:
MG Bryan wrote:
tuna55 wrote:
93EXCivic wrote:
Insight-.25. And it is insanely light. I have seen some needing batteries or engines come up for cheap. That plus a D16 should move you along nicely and get very good gas mileage.
Links?
I have not seen any cheap ones. If so, I have plans...
How cheap is cheap? http://hudsonvalley.craigslist.org/ctd/2897332382.html
Initial post says challenge cheap... That's close.
Sorry, I missed that part. If you're willing to take one that doesn't run, I've seen them for challenge money. Three grand is about as cheap as I've seen for a drivable example though.
The MR2 has 5.8 ft frontal area. That's pretty small.
tuna55
UltraDork
3/16/12 10:58 a.m.
pinchvalve wrote:
The MR2 has 5.8 ft frontal area. That's pretty small.
Had to look it up - the insight is smaller, 5.1