We recently roasted Jeremy Cato, The Globe and Mail's chief auto writer, for praising the 2010 Camaro's 0.37 coefficient of drag as "pretty slick" (see
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...-0-a-7741.html ).
In today's Report on Green Solutions for Earth Day, Cato attempts to parlay his "knowledge" of things aerodynamic into general article about how automakers are increasing efficiency in the wind tunnel.
How to stop being a drag
Auto designers are finding that sharp edges can be just as aerodynamic as smooth curves
Here's a doozy of a quote:
Quote:
|
Take the boxy Ford Flex. It may look like a brick, but Ford's designers found that the Flex's shape cut 0.02 off the Flex's coefficient of drag. The end result, says [Ford designer] Callum , is a shape that is sleeker than many competitors, one that helps the 262 horsepower Flex get better fuel economy than curvier competitors such as the all-new Chevrolet Traverse
|
What he fails to mention however are the actual figures:
Ford Flex:
0.355 (
source)
Chevy Traverse:
0.33 (
source)
If the Flex gets better fuel economy than the Traverse, superior aerodynamics apparently isn't the reason. (Note: I don't know the reference area for each vehicle, so it's possible the CdA of the Flex could be less - but that's not a wind tunnel achievement, which is what the article suggests.)
The entire article isn't horrible - in fact, I'm happy to see the importance of aero being discussed in the mainstream press - but Cato doesn't do his homework (inexcusable, as the chief auto writer for Canada's biggest newspaper). And it bugs me that as a result, there are undoubtedly people out there this morning saying, "my, my! I didn't realize the Ford Flex was so wonderfully aerodynamic!"
Which leaves me skeptical about this other potentially interesting tidbit he relays:
Quote:
|
...the Volt slated for sale in late 2010, will be as aerodynamically efficient as possible. It will, in fact, be more aerodynamic than the 2010 Toyota Prius, which has a very slippery drag coefficient of 0.25.
|