CLASS RACER FORUM
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

CLASS RACER FORUM (https://classracer.com/classforum/index.php)
-   Stock and Super Stock (https://classracer.com/classforum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Fwd chassis versus RWD Et (https://classracer.com/classforum/showthread.php?t=56217)

Ed Wright 12-30-2014 11:36 AM
Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 
I've never looked at spark plugs vs spindle, but the 4th gen ('93/'02) Camaro/Firebird appears to have the engine set back further than a 3rd gen ('82/'92), certainly looks easier to work on. They share the same 101" wheel base. Most of the fwd conversions have the engine located much further forward compared to a 4th gen.
I know that goofy ricer-looking wing on the back of my Trans Am isn't helping anything. I was talking to a guy that replaced his rear hatch with one from a base Firebird, told me he picked up almost 1/2 a MPH. No ET. I'm not going to spend that money for maybe 1/2 a MPH. It was on the car when I was driving it to work. I would not have picked that car to start with to build a SS car. It just kinda grew into what it is.

Dick Butler 12-30-2014 12:37 PM
Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 
I always thought the Al Hood 82 Firebird looked like a very slick car.

Kevin Panzino 12-30-2014 12:46 PM
Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 
Cd is only half the equation. Frontal area is the other half.
And I'm sure the cobalts and other jelly beans have way less frontal area than the camaros and firebirds.

And if boburka and cour are saying its seven or so, that's what I'd believe, not a computer program estimate. ;)

SSDiv6 12-30-2014 12:53 PM
Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Wright (Post 456870)
I've never looked at spark plugs vs spindle, but the 4th gen ('93/'02) Camaro/Firebird appears to have the engine set back further than a 3rd gen ('82/'92), certainly looks easier to work on. They share the same 101" wheel base. Most of the fwd conversions have the engine located much further forward compared to a 4th gen.
I know that goofy ricer-looking wing on the back of my Trans Am isn't helping anything. I was talking to a guy that replaced his rear hatch with one from a base Firebird, told me he picked up almost 1/2 a MPH. No ET. I'm not going to spend that money for maybe 1/2 a MPH. It was on the car when I was driving it to work. I would not have picked that car to start with to build a SS car. It just kinda grew into what it is.
Removing the rear spoiler on both the Firechicken and the SN95 Mustang (1994-1998), helps in the MPH until the car starts to exceed 150's MPH.
After 150 MPH the spoiler helps.

SSDiv6 12-30-2014 01:04 PM
Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Panzino (Post 456878)
Cd is only half the equation. Frontal area is the other half.
And I'm sure the cobalts and other jelly beans have way less frontal area than the camaros and firebirds.

And if boburka and cour are saying its seven or so, that's what I'd believe, not a computer program estimate. ;)
A bit confused because the frontal area is what is used to calculate the Cd.
There are a lot of other physical variables that can have an effect such as body rake, wheel base and CG, including sealing the belly/undercarriage of the car.

Many NASCAR, F1 and drag racing teams have been using my employer's wind tunnels for years and probably tested every contraption or device they could imagine.

Mike Pearson 12-30-2014 01:29 PM
Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 
I am guessing less body rake and lower to the ground would be better?

Andrew Hill 12-30-2014 01:35 PM
Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 
Here's a post I made a while ago regarding drag coefficients and frontal area of different vehicles used in stock/super stock. These values may not be 100% accurate but they're what I found online. You have to multiply Cd by frontal area to use this in the drag equation, Fd = .5(rho)(Cd)(A)(v^2)

Also, these numbers are all with stock wheels and ride height, a race setup would change them some.

Quote:
Drag coefficient isn't the whole story, a fourth gen camaro has a drag coefficient of .34 and a new massive Dodge Durango is .33. You have to multiply drag coefficient by the frontal area to get the real numbers. Here are some numbers I found searching online (may not be 100% accurate, couldn't find a database with all of them).

1988 Camaro IROC Z-> Cd = 0.34, A = 21.00 ft^2, CdA = 7.14 ft^2
1988 Firebird Trans Am-> Cd = 0.31, A = 20.75, CdA = 6.43
1993-2002 Camaro-> Cd = 0.34, A = 22.00, CdA = 7.48
1993-2002 Firebird-> Cd = 0.34, A = 22.00, CdA = 7.48
1995-2005 Cavalier-> Cd = 0.38, A = 20.2, CdA = 7.24
1997 Sunfire-> Cd = 0.38, A = 22.2, CdA = 7.68
2005 Cobalt-> Cd = 0.324, A = 23.1, CdA = 6.90
2005 Stratus-> Cd = 0.33, A = 23.1, CdA = 7.03
C6 Corvette -> Cd = 0.286, A = 22.3, Cd = 6.38
C5 Corvette-> Cd = 0.29, A = 21.3, CdA = 6.18
2008-11 Challenger-> Cd = 0.35, A =25.3, CdA = 8.86

Ed Wright 12-30-2014 02:35 PM
Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 
Might need to send a Corvette to Vic Custer to put my drive train in. 'Course, somebody would have to help me get in and out. LOL

Randall Klein 12-30-2014 02:56 PM
Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 
I sure don't know, but I do remember Warren Johnson (when he ran the silver Cutlass), that aero didn't amount to much (in the distances we run)

Always wondered if that was a concession to what he was obligated to run, a subterfuge or the truth

Michael Beard 12-30-2014 03:28 PM
Re: Fwd chassis versus RWD Et
 
http://www.icarinfo.net/ has some good info, including drag coefficient, frontal area, and aerodynamic resistance. According to their numbers, a Dodge Stratus would be worth 15+ HP over my Volare at just 100 mph.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:20 AM.
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.