Journalist praises 2010 Camaro's "slick" drag coefficient of 0.37

[winkosmosis]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

I kinda thought of the Nissan GT-R - with a claimed Cd of 0.27.

But with a drag coefficient like that, it must be dangerously loose at high speeds, eh?.

It's not like drag and downforce are the same.

A lot of the elements of a car that create lift are also ones that create drag... like pushing more air under a rough underside. I don't see why you couldn't do both.

IIRC the Porsche GT3 has zero lift, and something like 0.29cD

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

It's not like drag and downforce are the same.

A lot of the elements of a car that create lift are also ones that create drag... like pushing more air under a rough underside. I don't see why you couldn't do both.

IIRC the Porsche GT3 has zero lift, and something like 0.29cD

Most production cars try to get zero lift or slightly negative.

The GTR doesn't give up speed for downforce even though the engine can handle the extra drag. Although I'd like to see the numbers on the aerodynamic forces . I wouldn't consider it a good car just because they went with a smoother V6. It ain't a V8 and it's still pushing HP, but still, it's not the best of combinations.

Race cars get those reported 1.0-1.1 drag coefficients because they're not aerodynamic, 800hp in some cases, and generate hundreds to thousands in downforce at speed. They often give up speed at a high cost for a little more downforce.

The Aerocivic is the best example I've seen of low drag and good downforce. How it runs at 90mph and higher is a testament to his safe design. Most people don't understand how much aerodynamics affect a vehicle even though it is a major factor as early as 35mph.

Honestly, it looks easier for them to add excess horsepower rather then design a vehicle that gets low drag. Good aerodynamics does wonders for a small 100hp car. But the Camaro is a full size sports car. It still pales in comparison to a Corvette but a Corvette isn't a 2+2 seater. 400hp probably pushes it into the same bracket as a muscle car.

The Camaro trans ams were some of the best aerodynamic sports cars still on the road. My grandma has a '92 Camaro and it comes from the more beautiful generation of Camaro cars. But her's is an autoslushbox, and sat so long the wheels started sinking into the ground. It's a clear picture of how poorly this design is appreciated IMHO.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

It's not like drag and downforce are the same.

A lot of the elements of a car that create lift are also ones that create drag

Agreed. (The winky-face in my comment denoted sarcasm.) Obviously the GT-R manages both drag and lift reduction, and arguably with a similar general styling language as the Camaro.

[Playslikepage71]

The GT-R is practically divine. I think it should be excluded from most discussion about automobiles. That Camaro doesn't need a good drag coefficient because it's a muscle car and not a sleek ultra-performance car. Calling it slick, however, is a major faux pas...

[theunchosen]

The reason that race cars have ridiculous drag coefficients is because on banked turns it buys them enormous turning ability. The downforce buys them Normal force and therefore traction without buying weight and intertia, which would lead them into plowing right off the track.

Its the only way to make it happen. They can always squeeze alittle more HP but its hard to create more traction without creating inertia and losing your maneuverability.

If you are going to bring Super cars in. . .The Zonda R or the Tramontana R edition

If I am going to drop 80K I'm buying an NSX 97 and supercharging its rear wheels and dropping a standard Civic R chassis supercharged into the front end and getting AWD and a ton of horses.

Without either being charged its dropping 475 little horses between the 3.2 in the trunk and the 1.7 up front for a total VC of 4.9(a liter point one more) but its NA. charged nominally without having to undergo serious engine revamps she could drop 712.5(at 8-9 PSI). Comparably the NSX curb weight is just under 3kips while the GTR is 3.8kips. Engine addition would add 6-7 hundred pounds. They would have the same weight but the NSX P-W would be 374 compared to 252 for the GTR.

Cd is .32 for the NSX

[Playslikepage71]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

If I am going to drop 80K I'm buying an NSX 97 and supercharging its rear wheels and dropping a standard Civic R chassis supercharged into the front end and getting AWD and a ton of horses.

Without either being charged its dropping 475 little horses between the 3.2 in the trunk and the 1.7 up front for a total VC of 4.9(a liter point one more) but its NA. charged nominally without having to undergo serious engine revamps she could drop 712.5(at 8-9 PSI). Comparably the NSX curb weight is just under 3kips while the GTR is 3.8kips. Engine addition would add 6-7 hundred pounds. They would have the same weight but the NSX P-W would be 374 compared to 252 for the GTR.

Cd is .32 for the NSX

See, my problem with that is how...ghetto that is. Sure it's a fun little project to do for yourself but if I want to spend 80k on a car, it's going to be on a GT-R. I love how it looks and I love how it has so much technology in it. I would dispute your numbers but...I really don't know where you got them? The NSX's power to weight ratio is at least 5 lbs/hp with your turbo twin engines. The GT-R's is something like 7 lbs/hp. That doesn't really matter though because your Hondastein would not have all of the differentials and software necessary to accurately deliver the power to the right wheels and the handling would therefore be compromised.

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by Playslikepage71

See, my problem with that is how...ghetto that is. Sure it's a fun little project to do for yourself but if I want to spend 80k on a car, it's going to be on a GT-R. I love how it looks and I love how it has so much technology in it. I would dispute your numbers but...I really don't know where you got them? The NSX's power to weight ratio is at least 5 lbs/hp with your turbo twin engines. The GT-R's is something like 7 lbs/hp. That doesn't really matter though because your Hondastein would not have all of the differentials and software necessary to accurately deliver the power to the right wheels and the handling would therefore be compromised.

I know someone who has done this with a del sol. It would crush your GTR.

The engine in the trunk is the NSX 3.2 the engine up front is a revamped stock engine. Both are supercharged.

The NA output of the SI-R engine from a 97 "red-top" block (H22a(I think its an 8)) is 200 horses, the NA output from the 3.2 NSX Accord V6 is 290. NA engine output would be 490. No complex differentials required because the shafts aren't connected. All you have to do is have the same gearing on both ends and its entirely fine(via running the Sol on a Dyno both engines produced the exact same number of RPMs without even having the linkage of the road between them.) So instead of having extremely complicated systems that transmit power from one end to the other to ensure even take off or to avoid burning one set of wheels while the other pulls, the road and the transmission take care of it for you.

Under nominal boost you'd pull 40-50 horses out of each engine(I rated low for the nsx and equally high for the red-top) for an extra 100 horses. I rated in HP/ton because thats what supercars are rated as usually. And the GTR would definitely have a ratio in your units of 8#/hp(7.9458 is much closer to 8 than 7). If we assume the NSX weighed the same as the GTR(It would weigh less from every other twin engine build excluding the original Twin engine olds) its going to have 6.4#/hp. The Redtops can take alot more than nominal boost.

Also you can dig up a fully functional 97 NSX under 100K miles for under 40, Prelude SH 97 for 5, superchargers for 15. And I get a targa top ^_^. If you want you can get a 97 for about 20K but its got paint issues so for 1-1 comparison 20K less cash, 100 more horses, less weight, about a thousand times more unique, and convertible. Not to mention the fact if one of the engines goes you still have another to get home as fast as a stock NSX. . .or if any one component along the drivetrain. If your single engine goes dead, pops a valve or does any number of things that may happen to a heavily boosted engine you have to wait for a mechanic.

Not to mention the only thing about it that would be Frankenstein is where the front engine mounts sit on reinforced NSX supports and the axle is replaced for the one out of the prelude.

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by Playslikepage71

See, my problem with that is how...ghetto that is. Sure it's a fun little project to do for yourself but if I want to spend 80k on a car, it's going to be on a GT-R. I love how it looks and I love how it has so much technology in it. I would dispute your numbers but...I really don't know where you got them? The NSX's power to weight ratio is at least 5 lbs/hp with your turbo twin engines. The GT-R's is something like 7 lbs/hp. That doesn't really matter though because your Hondastein would not have all of the differentials and software necessary to accurately deliver the power to the right wheels and the handling would therefore be compromised.

Actually as I went about my day the absurdity of paying this much for a production car hit me.
This NSX for 18K(link 1)
This prelude for 2 (link 2)
OTC superchargers(I already have 2 of these) junked kit parts from salvage(10K)(I also already have one full set of piping, gates, cooler but I'll call it 10 anyway)

5.7 KW worth of solar panels(15K)
2 industrial battery banks(5K)
large inverter(5K)
2001 Honda Insight(6K)(link 3)
16 deep cells(2K)

I'd convert my home to solar, I'd slap .7 kw worth of panels on the insight, I'd combo the front of the prelude with the NSX, I'd install the superchargers(that I already own), I'd file the solar array as a commercial tax credit(sell electricity back to the grid) and save 30% on all the batteries and panels. I'd take whats left initially and after tax credits and convert the insight to EV with solar.

No way you can tell me a GTR is better than that.



Cars For Sale: Car Details - AutoTrader.com


Cars For Sale: Car Details - AutoTrader.com

Cars For Sale: Car Details - AutoTrader.com

[aerohead]

The director of "who killed the electric car" will be in Denton tomorrow at UNT for a panel discussion.I've been digging through more of my rat's nest ferreting out additional stuff on the EV-1 'cause I have some question for him and want to get my ducks in a row.----------- Anyway,I ran across an article about the retro Mustang that's been driving around for a few years now.The Ford stylists produced 3-versions of a "new" car and did consumer clinics for feedback.One version was very"futuristic",one was the version we now see,and one was even more primitive(no images are shown in the article).The styling chief said that consumers thought the "futuristic version" was very fine and well,but it was NOT a Mustang.He defends the choice they made as being "consumer-driven".--------------------- I think GM has taken the same path with the Camaro,eager to provide many styling cues connecting it with the past.No risk taking!

[Playslikepage71]

Have you seen the cut-away GT-R? It's a thing of engineering beauty. It's all good science in one beautiful package.