Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 

With all the variations on factoring because of stick, auto, Gt versus SS would there be reason to give a Wt break to standard RWD cars versus FWD cars in same class, or should factors apply only to FWD if that is the fast car? Leaving the HP the same on RWD?
Seems a Camaro gt versus a SS chevelle are different should it apply to this difference also?

Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 

From all of the numbers I've seen, the 3rd gen Camaros/Firebirds are actually more aerodynamic than the 4th gens. The 3rd gen Firebirds are actually a little bit better than the 3rd gen Camaros as well.

Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 

I'm hoping it goes the other way for me, when and if I get this vette done. Adding 280 lbs and losing .35 on index. The Vette is lower, wider, with only slight engine set back as compared to my number 3 cylinder at spindle centerline on my FWD. On paper I'm calling a good exchange.

The only advantage I can see in a FWD car is the weight factor. Lighter is faster. There are a some aero bodies out there RWD also, so don't see much there.

Dick, what are going to build?

Ernie Neal
SS354

Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 

Slightly off topic,

the last fast bracket car I build was a 1990 Firebird. It was an excellent platform, easy to work on, very very consistent.

When I began the GT project I strongly considered using another 1990 Firebird and I think it would be a good package. Then became interested in the S-10 platform and went that direction.

I still have thoughts of another 3rd gen Firebird before I retire or die. In my experience with 100" wheel base, strut front and easy access to engine it is a valid choice for several combinations including GT. It would also be a good IHRA Crate Motor platform.

Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 

here is my 2 cents, if you own a rear wheel drive car, you can run normal SS, GT and the modified classes, if you own a FWD conversion car, you can only do GT and modified classes, so that's another pro and con of looking at both body styles.
Just my thoughts

Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 

Good Discussion. THanks. Have a friend who in a rwd car and feels there is a benefit to moving to FWD for Aero dynamics. Maybe but same wheel bases or longer when see beretta.103. Cavalier is same as Camaro at 101. I feel you chose what you feel is beneficial. When I built my Camaro I really loved Dave Colberts Monte carlo but knew it wasn't going to win on Aerodynamics and pure MASS so I chose CAMARO. Then built a cavalier and it is very competitive.... but cant measure the advantage.....

Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 

A Cobalt has a .34 Cd and there are RWD cars such a 3rd Gen Firebird which has a .31 Cd.
The aerodynamic effect will vary, no matter if it is a FWD or RWD, based on the amount of rake and the behavior of the car down the track. Also, too much rake, can create other issues such a ground effects since there will be an area of high pressure between the ground and the undercarriage of the car. That is the reason why many cars improve when the belly/undercarriage in enclosed or sealed.

Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 

If you do not think Areo makes any difference...........Try Dialing my O/SA
Dodge Pickup in changing wind conditions!:eek:

Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 

A little more difference there, than between a Camaro and a Cobalt. LOL

Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 

Yes, the Camaro is dirtier than the Firechiken! ;) A 3rd Gen Camaro is around .36 ~ .38 depending on the aero package.

A C5 Corvette is .29 and the usual pickup such as John's, .57 ~ .59 Cd.