View Single Post
Old 11-06-2010, 06:05 PM   #21 (permalink)
Otto
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 568
Thanks: 1
Thanked 73 Times in 58 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cd View Post
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ting-8922.html

If you look at the data from the testing, you will see that using headlight covers actually matched the Cd of the car with the longer G-Nose. ( .467 ... eek ! ) Front end lift was minimized, but less air made its way under the hood of the car.

I'm not sure if this is too accurate, since they used several cars, and some had flares and such.

While looking at the cars involved in the test, it appears as if the car that had the G-nose, as well as the car tested right afterwards with the headlight covers both lacked flares - so the test should be relatively similar ..... except that looking at on test # 19, a stock 240Z has a better Cd that either ( .454) and of all things, when test with wheel flares the Cd went down ???

Hmmm. I wish they had stuck with just one car.

BTW
I had one of these cars. It was like driving a parachute. Let off the gas and it was like having an air-brake activated.

I had a '73. Took the smog pump off, Hooker Headers instead, less restrictive exhaust system, and cruising all day at 80, got about 25 mpg. Added cowcatcher/bulldozer blade fiberglass air dam in front, which helped nose lift a speed a LOT, and fuel economy somewhat. Later added headlight covers as were reportedly standard in places like Japan, but don't know how much that helped, as I sold the car about then.

Best bang for the buck would probably have been headlight covers, vertical, curved air dam instead of cowcatcher/bulldozer blade one to shed the bow wave instead of riding up on top of it, and at least partial belly pan. 5 speed retrofit would have been nice, too.

  Reply With Quote