2017 Ford GT Aerodynamics
 

Hey guys. I’ve asked thousand of questions on here before, and I’ve seen a lot of talk about vents in car bodywork. “Flying buttresses”, “sail panels”; whatever you prefer. As per the older benchmark low-drag cars such as the Gen 1 Honda Insight or Toyota Prius, smooth bodywork with almost no fancy tricks except a good shape is what makes a low drag car. Yet I’ve noticed a paradigm shift in alot of automotive aerodynamic design, heading toward vents/ducts/tunnels in bodywork. The biggest contender is the 2017 Ford GT.

I find this car exceedingly interesting, especially from an aerodynamic perspective. The rear of the body tapers out into what is effectively a boat-tail with two side-pods, and employs some flying buttresses to reinforce the structure. Absurdly amazing, aesthetically.

What do you guys think? Low drag or no? I can’t find much info on this car.

https://ecomodder.com/forum/attachme...1&d=1684887673

https://ecomodder.com/forum/attachme...1&d=1684887673

There's a scale of [modification] effort:

• speed holes
• louvers
• NACA ducts
• external ducts

.
I'd say the example has four external ducts. Two at the flying buttress and two at the wing. At least. There's prolly air curtains at the front.

Modern race car design is basically a flat plate with five humps for the wheels and driver.

What has my attention today is the Myers Tow'd.

https://car-from-uk.com/ebay/carphot...3913593839.jpg
car-from-uk.com/ebay/carphotos/full/ebay141393913593839.jpg

The fenders are for wide tires, but otherwise it has small frontal area and clear saparation of the body and fenders. It needs a three-piece 'Shalako'-style windshield, an airdam/diverter, side plates and a boat tail coupe body.

My favorite is the VW GTI W-12 650:

https://ecomodder.com/forum/member-f...w12-650-16.jpg

The air from the front wheelwells is channeled into the engine air intake at the rocker panel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vVimm3y4Ig

https://performance.ford.com/content...Tech_Specs.pdf

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...-ioyXpqf9cisU6

The cD is much less impressive than I had hoped.
With all the flaps and vents optimized for low drag in 'V-Max ' mode, the car has a cD of .388.

I was Immediately reminded of an earlier design that had this kind of plan taper - the Chrysler Aviat.
https://ecomodder.com/forum/attachme...1&d=1684965392
https://ecomodder.com/forum/attachme...1&d=1684965519

https://ecomodder.com/forum/attachme...1&d=1684965430

' Gen-III FORD GT aero'
 

Ford's website gave the GT, Cd 0.376, Cd 0.388 ( as Cd posted ).
The following are a collection of vehicles sharing drag coefficients equal to, or in the neighborhood of the 'lower' drag rating of the latest GT"
1937 Jean Andreau Peugeot 402 concept, Cd 0.37
1937 Jaray Adler, with front wheel skirts, Cd 0.37
1939 FKFS K-5 'Langenburg Castle' Kamm car, Cd 0.37
1960 Porsche Abarth, Cd 0.37
1961 Ferrari GT 250, Cd 0.37
1961 Ferrari GTE, Cd 0.37
1962 GM Chevrolet Corvair Greenbrier van, Cd 0.37
1964 Ford GT40, Cd 0.39
1968 Ford GT40, Cd 0.43
1969 SAAB 99, Cd 0.37
1969 Chrysler-Dodge Charger, without rear spoiler, Cd 0.378
1970 Citroen GS, Cd 0.37
1976 Lotus ESPRIT - I, Cd 0.376
1977 Ford-Mercury Capri-II R/S, Cd 0.374
1977 GM-Pontiac Fiero, with 13-inch wheels, Cd 0.377
1978 Mazda RX-7, Cd 0.37
1978 GM-Chevrolet Corvette ( daytime ), Cd 0.371
1978 Porsche 935, Cd 0.37
1978 GM-Chevrolet Camaro Z28, Cd 0.375
1980 VW Jetta, Cd 0.37
1980 NASA 18-wheel Semi, with cab fairings, gap-filler, and skirts, Cd 0.376
1980 Ford Escort Mk-III ( Euro-spec ), Cd 0.37
1981 Ford-Mercury LN7, Cd 0.37
1982 Fruehauf FEV 2000 18-wheel Semi concept, Cd 0.376
1982 Porsche 924 ( Euro-spec ), Cd 0.37
1982 Renault Fuego ( Euro-spec ), Cd 0.37
1982 Ford Tempo sedan, Cd 0.37
1982 Ford-Mercury Topaz sedan, Cd 0.37
1983 GM-Pontiac Fiero, Cd 0.377
1984 HONDA Civic-III, 1.2, Cd 0.37
1984 GM-Chevrolet C-4 Corvette,( with passengers ), Cd 0.371
1985 Ford Escort XR3i, Cd 0.375
1985 Mazda 626 GLX 2.0, Cd 0.37
1985 Toyota Camry GLi, Cd 0.37
1985 Chrysler-Dodge Lancer, Cd 0.37
1986 FIAT Ritmo/Strada, Cd 0.37
1986 VW Passat GL, Cd 0.37
1986 Mitsubishi Starion Turbo, Cd 0.37
1986 Ford Aerostar minivan, Cd 0.37
1986-1/2 GM Chevrolet Monte Carlo notchback, Cd 0.375
1991 GM-Buick Special, Cd 0.374
1994 Ford SVT Mustang, Cd 0.37
1995 Ferrari F355 Berlinetta, Cd 0.372
1995 Ferrari F50, Cd 0.372
1996 Chrysler-Dodge-Plymouth Voyager/ Caravan minivan, Cd 0.37
2005 GM-Buick Terraza CXL, Cd 0.37
2005 Pagani Zonda, Cd 0.37
2005 Ford GT-II, Cd 0.43
2005 Land Rover Range Rover Sport Supercharged, Cd 0.37
2006 GM-Chevrolet Malibu MAXX SS, Cd 0.377
2010 JEEP Grand Cherokee Laredo 4X4, Cd 0.37
2010 Rolls-Royce Phantom Drophead Coupe, Cd 0.37
2011 Toyota Highlander, Cd 0.375
2011 GM-Chevrolet Tahoe, Cd 0.379
2012 Land Rover Range Rover, Cd 0.377
2012 VW New Beetle, with wing, Cd 0.38
2013 Toyota Tundra pickup, Cd 0.37
2014 GM-Chevrolet Corvette Stingray ( @ A2 Wind Tunnel ), Cd 0.37
2014 Porsche Macan, Cd 0.37
2017 Ford GT -III, Cd 0.376, Cd 0.388

List needs to be sorted by [front/rear] downforce.

How in the world can a Land Rover and a new Ford GT have the same Cd??? Something about that list has to be off. A Land Rover is a box. A GT is designed to be aero. The Porsche Macan and 90s Ferraris have the same Cd as 80s Camrys? That can’t be correct. And the Aerostar minivan?? C’mon.

Highly optimized vehicles will have a belly button/jelly bean similarity of shape.

0.38 is suboptimal (the VW Beetle is 0.41). Logically, looser requirements mean broader variety.

A GT is designed to be aero for downforce and massive cooling.

Ok, but an Aerostar having the same Cd as a Porsche Macan? Can’t be.

The Aerostar was obviously designed with low drag as a goal. Porsche could've done better.