Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
First half of the story validates 'faster backwards'. Then they brag about their rolling road but do a static test of the Airflow.
Result is 10% better, not the 40% Chrysler claimed. But you might notice a wiper delete. |
Wow!
They had every opportunity to give us a frontal area and coefficients, and let us do what we wanted with the raw data.
Alex Tremulis, I believe, reported that the 'backwards' DeSoto was around Cd 0.64 ( 'forwards' ).
He reported the Chrysler Airflow, at Cd 0.51.
Carl Breer's DeSoto Airflow aerodynamic test mule achieved as low as Cd 0.244 ( a 61.8% drag reduction from the 'backward's' car ), as finally reported in the SAE Paper, 4-months before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
And Walter Chrysler 'hated' the Airflow. It's the reason Stellantis-Chrysler won't do 'aerodynamics' even today.
Rick Anieros ( sp? ) of Chrysler has said something to the effect of:
' We're not about to make the most aerodynamic vehicle that nobody would buy.'