View Single Post
Old 05-19-2010, 01:51 AM   #12 (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
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackMcCornack View Post
Plus so they could claim the lowest Cd of any passenger car of the era. Let us not forget, the easiest way to improve a vehicle's Cd is to make it bigger. "the .186 figure" for a 6'11" wide car would translate to a .257 figure for a 5' wide car with the same total drag. I suspect (cynic that I am) that modern car companies tout their low Cds (or is that "low Cs of d"?) because it looks better than quoting the CdA when promoting a big car. For example, the Cadillac Escalade boasts a "segment-best aerodynamic drag coefficient of 0.36 " which looks pretty cool compared with (for another example) a Mazda Miata at Cd 0.38


Cd is non dimensional right?

__________________


  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
aerohead (05-19-2010), NeilBlanchard (05-19-2010)