Quote:
Originally Posted by Cd
They brag as if .29 is something extraordinary. GM pulled a .29 ( point .299 to be exact ) from a 1989 Grand Prix.
The Lexus LS430 is a full size family car, yet gets a slick point twenty five drag coefficient.
Seems to me the guys at GM aren't trying very hard !
 |
Well, I thank that Frank said it best. "Wind tunnels, like chassis dynos, deliver different results in different hands," (i.e. particularly when marketing is involved - I'm giving GM a bit of credit for publishing a numer that I find credible. (BTW, I'm very well informed on chassis dynos.) Aren't any of you guys suspicious enough to recognize that a corporate marketing types just "might" set up some really good numbers for his car, that an independent organization could not duplicate?
Tell me just how you would know?
When I look at the Lexus you picture, I don't see .25, given Hucho, Phil, and the general tone of the discussion here. I don't doubt that Lexus quoted the number, but having done some tuft testing on the rear of my Gen1 Insight, I can feel pretty darn sure that the flow on that back window is DETACHED. I can't see the actual contours very well from this picture. It would be nice to have plann&profile views. Apparently some manufacturers gain a bit by tapering the rear plan view. Can't tell whether Lexus did that.
Anyway, I'm done with it. There is no genuine independent information available, that I am aware of, and relieance on manufacturer's claims is highly questionable.
This a circular, and largely useless, argument. Non of us have any factual independent information on what the real Cd would be on any of these cars. There are numerous opportunities to distort the data, in this day where simple single numbers prevail.
