https://www.motorpasion.com/clasicos...-c-111-parte-3a) I took the data for the 'mid-length' Cd 0.195 as-raced C-111 III and calculated its performance as the 'long-tail' Cd 0.178 ( fin-less ) version.
I allowed a mechanical efficiency of 94.1%.
At Af 16.1425-sq-ft I solved for the aero-hp @ 195-mph, at standard atmosphere.
94.1% efficiency gave me the available 'Road Load' horsepower available.
Subtracting the aero left the rolling resistance load, which allowed calculation of the rolling force coefficient ( Cfrr= 0.009465679873 ).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Cd 0.178 and the power-cubed relationship for 67- mph ( Lucid Air's test speed) aero-hp came in at 18.797-hp.
Using the linear( non-standing wave ) R-R relationship, the new, 67-mph rolling resistance road load becomes 19.6702-hp, for a Road Load Horsepower of 38.467- hp, compared to 216.474-hp @ 195-mph.
Which equates to 9.683 kWh/hr, or, 144.53-Wh/Mile
233.2-mpg-e
6.918-miles/ kWh
With the 100-kWh power density of the 2022 M-B EQXX, the C-111 III, as a long-tail BEV would have an approximate, 691.8-mile range, mostly a beneficiary of the small frontal area.
Losing the transonic pointed nose would reduce overall length without a drag sacrifice.
An extensible tail would offer additional reduced length.
A real high-performance car.
' Engines are for those who can't build aerodynamics.' Enzo Ferrari's evil twin