Quote:
Originally Posted by slipknotsv
really serious aerocivic 0,17 CD ? have confirmation ? about that....evidence 
<snip> |
I feel somehow offended by your post so I will react even if I am not basjoos.
1) the fuel log indicates very good fuel economy for that type of the car and is - although quite outdated - fairly consistent. If you input vehicle weight, frontal area and rest of parameters (you can google them) into the mpg calculator here on ecomodder, i think you will get close to the proposed Cd
2) Nobody is trying to fool you. The thread says about 0.17 Cd, but it is the title. It is supposed to be short.
On the aerocivic.com webpage is clearly stated that the Cd is
tested out to be 0.17. That means - at least as my undoubtly poor english indicates - that the author believes it is 0.17 with some error given the test methodology (and the method is also described quite clearly). In the end - at least for me - it is not important if it is 0.17 or 0.19 or 0.21. The point is that it is achievable to get to these low numbers.
3) If you are really interested, I am almost sure that you wil find coast down test results somewhere here or on aerocivic.com. Or were you only trying to troll the thread?
rs