View Single Post
Old 12-07-2009, 10:29 PM   #139 (permalink)
Frank Lee
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
As I previously alluded to, I think the misinterpretation of this article is the root of all this nonsense:

Automotive Aerodynamics - Sport Compact Car Magazine

and this is probably the passage that traumatized poor Squirmie so:

Quote:
The result is lift, a curse to almost all production cars. For example, the 1995 BMW M3 has a lift coefficient (CL) of about .34, which means that a lifting force of approximately 500 pounds is generated by the body at 100 mph.
... which seems like an error of some sort to me because no other similar cars for which I've looked at the data are anywhere near close to that.

Were I to run the equation again with the BMW M3 l x w the lift numbers would be even smaller because the car is somewhat smaller.

I bet it was supposed to say 50 lbs.

__________________



Last edited by Frank Lee; 12-07-2009 at 10:47 PM..
  Reply With Quote