Quote:
|
Frank is a royal pain in the ass and is sometimes pretty harsh or blunt (borderline rude and trollish)
|
I apologize for only being borderline rude and trollish! I would do a better more thorough job but the mods won't let me. : pouting :
Spoilers are glommed on to "sports" versions of cars more as a visual aid that says "Hey! I'm the sports version!" than for any real performance aspect. The truth is most of those spoilers degrade performance but hey they look cool. Don't look to tarted-up performance versions for any aero holy grail.
Some of the
brand new stuff, though, is getting more believeable i.e. more likely to have real functional improvements to go along with the looks.
Quote:
|
Pressure varies with the car's speed squared, so downforce increases quickly as the speed increases. Generally, the effects are felt at speeds over 75mph.
|
This is from Modified Mags article that Michael linked... did you get that far into it Mikey?
With an autotragic transmission-equipped Tempo the first place to look for better econo is via lower speeds, NOT just cuz of aero concerns but because the stupid things lack both overdrive ratios AND locking converters. Anything over 60 mph puts the 2.3 Tempo engine outside of it's best operating speed at least as far as optimal piston speeds go. BSFC curve? Anyone? I can almost watch the fuel gauge drop at speeds above 60. So if efficiency is any factor at all in this pursuit of lunacy you can forget about going 80 mph.
NOW what is still needed to put this **** to bed is some actual values for lift i.e. how many pounds at what speed on what or both ends of the car; and then of course some sort of judgement as to the effects of that. I'm not home with my Tempo data or my Hucho book so online it is, and there is nothing online specific to Tempo so then what? And even so, my accumilated Tempo data includes Cd, Cda, Cg, etc., etc., but I'm sure I never found Cl anyway.
So here's what: All values were recorded at 200 kmh (124 mph)
BMW 335i: 42kg of lift at the front / 28kg of lift at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .28
Rating - 7/10
SLK55 AMG: 23kg of lift at the front / 31kg of lift at the rear -
Rating - 7/10
SL65 AMG: 29kg of lift at the front/ 33kg of lift at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .31
Rating - 7/10
CLK DTM: 37kg of lift at the front / 12kg of downforce at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .34
Rating - 8/10
997 GT3: Even Balance at the front -0- / Even balance at the rear -0-
Drag Coefficient: .29
Rating - 10/10
997 Carrera S: 20kg of lift at the front / 7kg of lift at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .27
Rating - 9/10
M6: 15kg of lift at the front / 26kg of lift at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .31
Rating - 8/10
Z4 3.0CSi: 28kg of lift at the front / 43kg of lift at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .33
Rating - 5/10
Roadster S: 2kg of downforce at the front / 40kg of lift at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .36
Rating - 7/10
Corvette C6: 54kg of lift at the front / 28kg of life at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .29
Rating - 6/10
B7 RS4: 34kg of lift at the front / 15kg of lift at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .31
Rating - 7/10
GranSport: 50kg of lift at the front / 29kg of lift at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .34
Rating - 6/10
V8 Vantage: 48kg of lift at the front / 13kg of lift at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .33
Rating - 7/10
V8 Topster: 65kg of lift at the front / 30kg of lift at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .40
Rating - 5/10
Zonda F: 1kg of downforce at the front / 25kg of downforce at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .36
Rating - 10/10
CCR: 13kg of downforce at the front / 11kg of lift at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .35
Rating - 9/10
GT: 44kg of downforce at the front / 2kg of lift at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .35
Rating - 9/10
C55 AMG: 2kg of downforce at the front / 33kg of lift at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .29
Rating - 8/10
E46 M3: 5kg of lift at the front / 18kg of lift at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .32
Rating - 8/10
E60 M5: 13kg of lift at the front / 19kg of lift at the front
Drag Coefficient: .30
Rating - 8/10
360CS: 10kg of downforce at the front / 21kg of lift at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .31
Rating - 9/10
Viper SRT-10: 15kg of downforce at the front / 18kg of lift at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .38
Rating - 8/10
SLR McLaren: 19kg of downforce at the front / 35kg of downforce at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .37
Rating: 10/10
Carrera GT: 49kg of downforce at the front / 40kg of downforce at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .37
Rating - 10/10
Zonda S: 8kg of downforce at the front / 53kg of downforce at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .40
Rating: 10/10
Murcielago 6.2: 34kg of downforce at the front / 1kg of downforce at the rear
Drag Coefficient: .33
Rating: 10/10
Does any of that stuff have a 3-box shape like a Tempo? Well.... several of the BMWs and MBs are the closest of the lot and they show anywhere from downforce, to the worst of the lot at 42 kg (92 lbs) front/28 kg (62 lbs) rear lift. Hmm. 92 + 62 = 154 total lbs of lift. At 124 mph. For the worst car in this sample. Hmm. Assume the Tempo is the aero equal to this worst car, Cl wise. 2000 lbs on the front end... no, wait, don't be a dumb jackass!!!
-make that 1750 lbs on the front end minus 92 = only 1658 lbs left to keep that sow on the ground!
Put another way, effective front end weight decreased about 5%!
Do I need to go further?
