Fwd chassis versus RWD Et

[Kevin Panzino]

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]

Originally Posted by Kevin Panzino

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]

I am guessing less body rake and lower to the ground would be better?

[Andrew Hill]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

[mtkawboy]

Aero wise at Bonneville the 4th gen Camaro looks to be better but the 3rd gen is actually the better of the two

[Mark Markow]

Originally Posted by Michael Beard

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.

wow I always wondered how much I was giving up to one of the jelly bean modifieds, after lokking the info in this link my s10 is uses 39.2hp to just to overcome aero drag at only 60mph where the c-5 vette was listed as only using 18.6 hp for the same . not sure how much that changes at 150+ . I never really thought of the s-10 being that bad? I guess I need to re-think that.