Chery .16 CD drag car
 

https://cnevpost.com/2023/11/02/cher...nd-resistance/

very interesting chinese concept design for low drag.

rear box cavity fins and '' shocker'' flat wheel covers

more info and photos - https://www.greencarreports.com/news...-efficiency-cd

The Corvette Mako Shark looks more like a shark than this looks like a Tuna Fish.

Beats out the Mercedes boxfish concept for Cd, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNAdXPpuiZk

heres another low drag chinese car. i like this shape more

' Cd 0.168 '
 

* Better than the Dodge-Ghia 'Dart' concept, Cd 0.17,1956.
* Matches the 2006, Daihatsu UFE-III concept.
* A little dirtier than the 2012 Illuminati Motor Works 'Seven-I ' @ Cd 0.165.
* And a little dirtier than GM's 1999 Precept, @ Cd 0.163.
* Trailing behind Li-ion Motors WAVE-II, 2012, Cd 0.16
* Edison-2 VLC, Cd 0.16
* Challenger-I, Mickey Thompson, 1959.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She might get a 'fail' on A-pillar rain-gutters, mirror size, and mirror rain-shedding, which might bring her down to the 2022 Think Flight Subaru Impreza, or Lightyear Zero.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glad they did it!

' GAC '
 

Have you seen the 2019, GAC ENO. 146, Cd 0.146 ?

Yes I like that one. It’s pretty low to the ground and there’s no wheel arch gap. So I’m curious to how stiff the suspension is and how that handles bumps and drops. Literally no room for the wheels to move. But cool design

I’m curious to why the chery has a lower CD than the second post I showed with the long boat tail tear drop car

Those active arch gap fillers make a big difference. Do they work in real life is a another question. Similar could be made pretty easily in own workshop.

' Cd 0.14 '
 

*I attempted an energy balance for the Turbina, and nothing I could do would reconcile the discrepancy between the reported values and physics.
*The car was tested only as a 1/5th-scale model in the wind tunnel.
* From Hucho's 2nd-edition, we find that the 1/5th-scale Schlorwagen model drag coefficient was 69% lower than it's actual 1:1-scale results ( Cd 0.11 vs Cd 0.186 ).
* Had the Turbina demonstrated a similar discrepancy, we might be looking at something in the neighborhood of Cd 0.2367, instead of 0.14.
* Even when discounted to the higher Cd, terminal velocity power absorption is only 135-horsepower at an assumed, drag-limited top-speed, compared to an available 288-hp at the traction interface.
* I located five cars with fineness-ratios similar to Turbina, which produced an aggregate average Cd 0.1661, at within 0.4% fineness-ratio agreement.
* We're cautioned to view 'early' wind tunnel quanta with a bit of skepticism. This certainly qualifies.

'why'
 

I'm going to wait and see if technical images ( blueprints ) of the cars show up online.
There are at least nine metrics I like to be in possession of, in order to facilitate an evaluation of any specific vehicle.
The GAC ENO.146 used the 1981 Volkswagen-Flow Body upper body contour, which appears to be remarkably more conservative than that of the newer GAC TIME.
This is the most important feature on an automobile, and determines whether there's a 'favorable', or 'adverse' pressure gradient.
It's easy to get this wrong, and end up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.:(