04-04-2009, 12:29 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Batman Junior
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,534
Thanks: 4,082
Thanked 6,979 Times in 3,614 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, 12:33 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
|
|
Deadly Efficient
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Goshen, Indiana
Posts: 1,234
Thanks: 134
Thanked 176 Times in 91 Posts
|
Well, it LOOKS slick, so it must BE slick, right? 
__________________
-Terry
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2009, 12:48 PM
|
#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, 01:08 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
|
Batman Junior
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,534
Thanks: 4,082
Thanked 6,979 Times in 3,614 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, 01:43 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, 02:16 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,908
Thanks: 3,475
Thanked 2,952 Times in 1,845 Posts
|
Well, it is "slicker" than a Durango! (0.37 vs 0.39) |
|
|
|
|
04-04-2009, 02:51 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Maui, Hawaii
Posts: 813
Thanks: 5
Thanked 34 Times in 26 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, 02:51 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
|
|
Weight Reduction
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 113
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
The front end of the Camaro (grille & headlight area) is like a parachute.
Haha.
& more haha.
Pretty SLICK!
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2009, 03:45 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
|
|
EcoModding Apprentice
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 120
Thanks: 2
Thanked 27 Times in 19 Posts
|
Probably a whole lot better than a 1967-1969 that came in closer to .45 or worse.
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2009, 03:47 PM
|
#10 (permalink)
|
|
Dartmouth 2010
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hanover, NH
Posts: 6,447
Thanks: 92
Thanked 124 Times in 91 Posts
|
What that the ugly car I followed at a stop light yesterday? I guess so.
|
|
|
|
|
