04-04-2009, 11:29 AM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Batman Junior
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,537
Thanks: 302
Thanked 1,020 Times in 568 Posts
|
Journalist praises 2010 Camaro's "slick" drag coefficient of 0.37
This is not a joke. (April 2 was too late to be April Fools...)
Jeremy Cato, the chief auto writer for Canada's biggest newspaper, says:
Quote:
|
The body is pretty slick, coming in at 0.37 for its drag coefficient.
|
Source: globeandmail.com: globeauto.com An asphalt-melting, tire-smoking blast of fun
Sad, sad, sad - on several levels.
|
|
|
|
|
Today
|
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2009, 11:33 AM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
Deadly Efficient
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 1,062
Thanks: 67
Thanked 63 Times in 33 Posts
|
Well, it LOOKS slick, so it must BE slick, right?  |
|
|
|
|
04-04-2009, 11:48 AM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
|
EcoModding Apprentice
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 216
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
Maybe because it actually looks worse than .37?
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2009, 12:08 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
Batman Junior
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,537
Thanks: 302
Thanked 1,020 Times in 568 Posts
|
If he hadn't linked "slick" to "0.37", I'd have no problem with it. Slick is subjective; 0.37 isn't.
Or if he'd qualified it as a relative statement by beginning with, "Compared to a Hummer (or a barn), the body is pretty slick, coming in at 0.37 for its drag coefficient."
GM engineers are so much better than this. They could have optimised details to end up with a less embarrassing Cd - without affecting the overall styling - if they'd wanted to. Maybe the bean counters held them back.
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2009, 12:43 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
|
EcoModding Apprentice
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 113
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
This is another (acceptable by me) example of form leading function. They aren't trying to make efficient cars. They are trying to get people to give them money and that classic hotrod styling will do that.
The writer of the article is a dolt though. That's like bragging about the RX8 being good on gas at 17mpg.
p.s. I <3 mazdas and the RX8.
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2009, 01:16 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 3,940
Thanks: 513
Thanked 501 Times in 306 Posts
|
Well, it is "slicker" than a Durango! (0.37 vs 0.39) |
|
|
|
|
04-04-2009, 01:51 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Maui, Hawaii
Posts: 813
Thanks: 5
Thanked 29 Times in 23 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG
GM engineers are so much better than this. They could have optimised details to end up with a less embarrassing Cd - without affecting the overall styling - if they'd wanted to. Maybe the bean counters held them back.
|
How do you figure? They wanted the square nose and notchback body. How would they reduce the drag of that?
My Miata has a shark nose and smooth lines, but the convertible/notchback causes the cD to be 0.38 |
|
|
|
|
04-04-2009, 01:51 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
|
Weight Reduction
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 113
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
The front end of the Camaro (grille & headlight area) is like a parachute.
Haha.
& more haha.
Pretty SLICK!
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2009, 02:45 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
|
EcoModding Lurker
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 74
Thanks: 0
Thanked 8 Times in 5 Posts
|
Probably a whole lot better than a 1967-1969 that came in closer to .45 or worse.
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2009, 02:47 PM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
|
Dartmouth 2010
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hanover, NH
Posts: 6,421
Thanks: 92
Thanked 81 Times in 67 Posts
|
What that the ugly car I followed at a stop light yesterday? I guess so.
|
|
|
|
|
