Most aerodynamic Muscle Cars?
Moderator: Team
Re: Most aerodynamic Muscle Cars?
I imagine smooth hubcaps would help, too.
I sometimes put some 1965 Galaxie hubcaps on my 1967 Cougar. It has Weld Rodlites underneath. This was the only pic I could find of my Cougar with the hubcaps on, LOL!
I sometimes put some 1965 Galaxie hubcaps on my 1967 Cougar. It has Weld Rodlites underneath. This was the only pic I could find of my Cougar with the hubcaps on, LOL!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Most aerodynamic Muscle Cars?
If the muscle car has a grille and radiator behind it, its Cd is poor at best.
The '79 T/A didn't have a direct radiator airflow through a grille and touted some really low Cd values with the whole spoiler package.
If you have a car performance simulator, you can backwards calculate the Cd (substitute until top mph is matched) if you can accurately estimate the frontal area.
On the other end of the car, if it had a kammback without a rear spoiler, it is also big source of drag due to the high pressure gradient between the airflow over the body and the area aft of the body.
Overall, cars succumb to velocity cubed as the power needed to overcome aero drag. And as usual, its always easier to make more powah than it is to minimize drag.
The '79 T/A didn't have a direct radiator airflow through a grille and touted some really low Cd values with the whole spoiler package.
If you have a car performance simulator, you can backwards calculate the Cd (substitute until top mph is matched) if you can accurately estimate the frontal area.
On the other end of the car, if it had a kammback without a rear spoiler, it is also big source of drag due to the high pressure gradient between the airflow over the body and the area aft of the body.
Overall, cars succumb to velocity cubed as the power needed to overcome aero drag. And as usual, its always easier to make more powah than it is to minimize drag.
Re: Most aerodynamic Muscle Cars?
It was not what most would consider a muscle car, but it was by any measure of performance. Passing cars was a pure joy.
So much to do, so little time...
Re: Most aerodynamic Muscle Cars?
Flat and concave and big! The '71 Mustang front end, that is.
That's one reason why I wondering if the '67-'68 Camaro was fairly aerodynamic. While the front end/grill is flat, it is somewhat small in area and looks pretty flush. The Camaro looks pretty "clean" overall.
Paul
-
- HotPass
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:16 pm
- Location: Boise
Re: Most aerodynamic Muscle Cars?
-
- Guru
- Posts: 9633
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
Re: Most aerodynamic Muscle Cars?
Aerodynamic resistance is a function of CdA; drag (Cd) times Frontal Area (sq ft).
Following is a chart of required road horsepower to run at 120 mph, at standaard air density.
Cd........15......18.......21......24sqft
0.27......44.8....53.8....62.8....71.7
0.30......49.8....59.8....69.7....79.7
0.33......54.8....65.8....76.7....87.7
0.36......59.8....71.7....83.7....95.6
Just like the girl friend keeps telling me: size really does matter.
Following is a chart of required road horsepower to run at 120 mph, at standaard air density.
Cd........15......18.......21......24sqft
0.27......44.8....53.8....62.8....71.7
0.30......49.8....59.8....69.7....79.7
0.33......54.8....65.8....76.7....87.7
0.36......59.8....71.7....83.7....95.6
Just like the girl friend keeps telling me: size really does matter.
-
- Expert
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:37 pm
- Location:
Re: Most aerodynamic Muscle Cars?
my buddyhas a superbird its ok.i had a 1970 challenger that would get light at 100,lost my license slod it to a guy i went to tech school with.he wrecked it at 100 or so racing a GTO i still have the pictures of it with its tail sticking out of a barn.it was plum crazy purple paid 1500 for it when i was 18.
Re: Most aerodynamic Muscle Cars?
I remember seeing a picture of a mid 60s GTO going through the traps with air under the front tires and the hood bulged from the air under the front end trying to find an escape route. Just because you have big power it doesn't mean its safe to use it.
So much to do, so little time...
-
- Member
- Posts: 177
- Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 10:24 am
- Location: Huntsville, AL
- Contact:
Re: Most aerodynamic Muscle Cars?
CD isn't nearly as important as lift and all of those cars would try to fly at higher speeds. Add to that the awful underbody shapes with the body on frames. There was so much junk hanging out there to create drag underneath. Poor engine bay air management, hence why they all tended to over heat on a regular basis. Nose high attitude also hurt them at higher speeds, the exposed rain gutters and trim on the glass all stuck out and created turbulence. They looked good to people, but not to the air.
-
- Member
- Posts: 177
- Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 10:24 am
- Location: Huntsville, AL
- Contact:
Re: Most aerodynamic Muscle Cars?
That car is listed as having a .40CD and that had a decent shape on the back of it. Most modern shitboxes are sub .30cd. My 91 CRX was in the .30 for the SI and the econobox was .29.plovett wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 9:56 amI don't know how correct this. Just throwing it out there.
http://www.v8monza.com/drawing.htm
Here is another list of useful cars.
https://ecomodder.com/wiki/Vehicle_Coef ... _Drag_List
https://www.oebv.at/system/files/celum/ ... icient.pdf
Re: Most aerodynamic Muscle Cars?
Thanks for the lists. Pretty interesting.Fusion Works wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 5:24 pmThat car is listed as having a .40CD and that had a decent shape on the back of it. Most modern shitboxes are sub .30cd. My 91 CRX was in the .30 for the SI and the econobox was .29.plovett wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 9:56 amI don't know how correct this. Just throwing it out there.
http://www.v8monza.com/drawing.htm
Here is another list of useful cars.
https://ecomodder.com/wiki/Vehicle_Coef ... _Drag_List
https://www.oebv.at/system/files/celum/ ... icient.pdf
Paul