Article on the History of automobile aerodynamics (through 1989)_

[basjoos]

Came across this fairly comprehensive article on the web.

http://www.americanheritage.com/arti...989_2_34.shtml

[Lazarus]

Originally Posted by basjoos

Came across this fairly comprehensive article on the web.

http://www.americanheritage.com/arti...989_2_34.shtml

Great find! To bad they did not include pictures of some of the cars though.

[MetroMPG]

Good read.

[bestmapman]

Nice article. Thanks for posting it.

[Big Dave]

Good find, basjoos.

We see so far because we stand on the shoulders of giants as the old saw goes and with aerodynamics this is as true as in any other field of endeavor.

The thing that has to drive the aerodynamicist crazy is the requirement that a car comfortably carry people and their stuff around. People are not over aerodynamic and this is especially true in cars.

One reason people (especially old geezers like me) like pickups and SUVs is their bolt-upright seating position. I can get in my truck, pull the seat belts tight and drive until my bladder gives out. Unfortunately you can’t say that for many cars. I used to have a Camaro which featured a “La-Z-Boy” reclined seating position and I was so glad when it ran out of gas (200 miles) because my (then twentysomething) back had given out.

Automakers have found this truth out over a century of trial and error.

[Big Dave]

Close But No Cigar

Basjoos’ article reminds me of some cars that at least look fairly clean aerodynamically but were betrayed by gas-guzzling drivetrains.

Airplane guys have a saying: “If it looks right, it probably is.” Flight is ruthlessly Darwinian and over time everyone knows what a winner looks like.

One car I always thought “looked right” was the 90s Buick Riviera. Yeah, it could have benefited from an air dam, side skirts, and fender skirts, but it definitely had a very smooth, almost sensual, curve into a very minimal wake area. Too bad it was cursed with a gas engine and an automatic transmission.

Camaros and Firebirds were surprisingly low-drag. Their secret was low roofline height which minimized frontal area for a fairly wide car. For a car with a stock engine to be capable of 135 MPH it had to have something on the aerodynamic ball. The price was paid by the driver, forced to drive peering through his moustache and knowing his back would be shot in a couple hours. These cars were betrayed by being wildly overgeared, and saddled with gas engines and all too often automatic transmissions.

There was a late-70s Cadillac that had a hatchback that came all the way down to the bumper. I forget the model. Again, a gas engine, automatic transmission and 3.73:1 gears condemned it to 14 MPG-land.

[aerohead]

Just now finding your article.I've printed a hard copy and will read it at home.It appears to be one of the most comprehensive single articles I've seen on aero.Big thanks for posting it.There are so many pages now at ecomodder,its hard for me to stay abreast.