Granted, I haven't seen these LSR cars ('86 'Bird and '80 Camaro) but
sometimes cars aren't as aero as they look. An example would be an '82 Vette
(curvy, recessed door handles) and an '82 T-Bird (boxy as hell). The T-Bird
has a lower Cd than the 'Vette. Attention to details like rearview mirrors .
. oops, preaching to the chior here. Anyhow, that 'Vette has a .Cd of
something like .41 to the T-Bird's .40 (or something like that, I remember
being shocked the 'Bird was better by .01). The early Datsun 240Z (swoopy
looking) has a Cd of about .465. It wasn't until the mid '80's that most
regualar production cars were under a Cd of .40.
As near as I can tell, you can get pretty close on calcualting frontal area
by a simple WxHx..81 (Mayfild will know better).
Dave Lum
'70 Datsun 1200 Coupe - Cd. .48(??) - 17.5 sq ft
www.datsuns.com
----- Original Message -----
From: John Beckett <landspeedracer@email.msn.com>
To: Lawrence E. & Cathy R. Mayfield <lemay@hiwaay.net>;
<land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 1999 7:57 Datsun
Subject: Re: Drag Coefficients and Frontal Area
> Have heard that the '82 to '92 Firebirds have a Cd of .33...the Grand Am
> that Tom mentioned I think was .29...someone on the list had the Cd for
the
> new Corvette.
>
> My guesses:
> Al Teague's 'Liner - .20 & 10 sq. ft.
> Keith's '80 Camero - .35 & 22.5 sq ft.
> Earl Wooden's '48 Crosley - .30 & 13.5 sq. ft.
> Joe Law's Lakester - .42 & 10.5 sq.ft.
> Larry Brookshire's '86 Firebird - .34 & 21.3 sq. ft.
>
> John "Cd" Beckett
|